[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070, H.R. 2621, AND H.R. 3155
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, November 3, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-119 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, November 3, 2011....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Prepared statement of....... 110
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Oral statement on H.R. 1980 and
H.R. 2070.................................................. 24
Oral statement on H.R. 3155.............................. 47
Joint prepared statement with U.S. Department of
Agriculture on H.R. 3155............................... 49
Bennet, Hon. Michael, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado................................................... 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 2621.......................... 9
Flake, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona, Oral statement on H.R. 3155.................... 13
Fowler, George ``Poppy'', WW II Veteran...................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 2070.......................... 32
Franks, Hon. Trent, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 12
Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah..... 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 36
Letter to The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Interior, submitted for the record... 34
Johnson, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 2070.......................... 23
FDR Prayer submitted for the record...................... 19
Johnson, Buster, Supervisor, Mohave County, Arizona.......... 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 53
Lightfoot, Ricky R., Trustee and Former President and CEO,
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado........ 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 2621.......................... 39
McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.. 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 7
Myers, Richard J., Vice President, Policy Development,
Planning, and Supplier Programs, Nuclear Energy Institute.. 93
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 95
Roberts, Harold R., Executive Vice President, Denison Mines
(USA) Corp................................................. 89
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 91
Runyan, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 1980.......................... 16
Tipton, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 2621.......................... 18
?
Trautwein, Mark, Former Staff Consultant on Environment,
Energy and Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives..................... 66
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 68
Verkamp, Stephen, President, Verkamp's Inc................... 100
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 102
Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, United
States Department of Agriculture........................... 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 2621.......................... 28
Joint prepared statement with U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 3155.................................. 49
Wenrich, Karen, Ph.D., Research Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey, Retired............................................ 58
Prepared statement on H.R. 3155.......................... 60
Young, Judith C., Chair, Gold Star Mothers National Monument
Foundation................................................. 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 1980.......................... 31
Additional materials supplied:
The American Legion, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
2070....................................................... 21
FDR Prayer submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill
Johnson.................................................... 19
Lower Colorado River Water Quality Partnership, Letter to the
Bureau of Land Management submitted for the record......... 81
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 1980............ 25
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 2070............ 26
Ohio Christian Alliance, Letter to The Honorable Doc Hastings
on H.R. 2070............................................... 22
Western Business Roundtable, Letter to The Honorable Trent
Franks on H.R. 3155........................................ 111
The Wilderness Society, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 3155.................................................. 112
(IV)
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1980, TO AUTHORIZE THE GOLD STAR MOTHERS
NATIONAL MONUMENT FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ``GOLD STAR MOTHERS NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT OF
2011;'' H.R. 2070, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO INSTALL
IN THE AREA OF THE WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A
SUITABLE PLAQUE OR AN INSCRIPTION WITH THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT PRAYED WITH THE NATION ON JUNE 6, 1944, THE
MORNING OF D-DAY, ``WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL PRAYER ACT OF 2011;'' H.R.
2621, TO ESTABLISH THE CHIMNEY ROCK NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE STATE OF
COLORADO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``CHIMNEY ROCK NATIONAL MONUMENT
ESTABLISHMENT ACT;'' AND H.R. 3155, TO PRESERVE THE MULTIPLE USE LAND
MANAGEMENT POLICY IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``NORTHERN ARIZONA MINING CONTINUITY ACT OF 2011.''
----------
Thursday, November 3, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Tipton, Johnson
of Ohio, Grijalva, Kildee, and Garamendi.
Also Present: Representative Gosar.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all the guests who have joined us
here. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is
meeting today to hear testimony on four bills that fall within
our jurisdiction: H.R. 1980, the Gold Star Mothers National
Monument; H.R. 2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act; H.R.
2621, the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act; and
H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act.
Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
to include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business
today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
We are pleased to have the sponsors of all the bills here
with us today. The first three that we will hear testimony on
are the Gold Star Mothers Act, the World War II Memorial Act,
and the Chimney Rock National Monument Act. To those sponsors
and those who are testifying on them, I am glad you do these
bills. It is about time. We are happy to start the process on
all of those.
We also have witnesses here for the Northern Arizona Mining
Continuity Act. We are pleased to have you here. I understand
we are happy to welcome Senator McCain and Senator Bennet, and
I understand that Senator Hatch is talking on the Floor now,
but he intends to join us momentarily also to talk about these
bills.
We have a long list of witnesses. I want to say something
just very briefly about all the bills.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I have already stated something about the three
that I think are great. The fourth one I also think is great.
It deals with Arizona. We will hear some unique testimony.
Unfortunately I have already heard testimony on this bill
in this Committee before and in other committees before. So the
testimony and the expertise have run the gamut from experts
from the State of Arizona who have told us about the bill to
Louise Slaughter talking about the bill in the Rules Committee
meeting.
So I have heard all of this several times before. I think
you are going to hear some unique spins. I think you are going
to hear the Administration come forward, auditioning for the
roles of Petruchio and Katherine in Taming of the Shrew because
they will tell us the sun is the moon, the day is night, that
green is red and black is white. And it is a unique concept,
but they will do it.
We are talking about the Arizona Strip, an area the size
roughly of the State of New Jersey. So I am glad you are here
to represent that. In the infinite opinion of the lands artists
that we do have, they want to control a million acres of
potential energy development along this strip, which is
something akin to saying that if there was a terrorist threat
to the Statue of Liberty, they would close down the boardwalk
at Atlantic City.
The 1 million acres is the size roughly of the State of
Delaware. I mean, this is excessive. The Secretary at one time
told us that he had withdrawn this because the Congress would
make even more Draconian limitations if he had not stepped in.
So, to our good friends from the Senate, shame on you for even
thinking of that.
The way we will approach this is in the--oh, I am sorry. I
will yield first of all to the Ranking Member for comments that
I am sure he has for these bills.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to our
colleagues, welcome, and to the Members of the Subcommittee and
to all the witnesses that have agreed to testify today.
I am going to utilize this opening statement time to talk
about the real focus of this morning's hearing, and that is the
Grand Canyon. Other than the international mining industry,
their lobbyists, I am puzzled as to whose benefit H.R. 3155,
the so-called Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act, is really
being put forward for.
It can't be for the millions of annual visitors who come to
the Grand Canyon for its pristine beauty, its unique natural
qualities, as President Teddy Roosevelt had the foresight to
protect this special place for future generations. Speaking
before a group of Arizonans that assembled on that day, on this
now visited site, celebrated as the crown jewel of our national
parks, he told them, ``It is your own interest and the interest
of all the country to keep this great wonder of nature as it is
now.'' So obviously this legislation is not for that legacy.
It can't be for the California-Nevada water utilities, both
of which have supported a cautious approach toward mining in
the Colorado River Basin, weighed favorably toward protection
and not risky exploitation of resources relied on by millions
of Americans for their drinking water. We are putting at risk
water use for agriculture that provides foods for hundreds of
millions of people across this country. So obviously it is not
for them.
It can't be for the thousands of people dependent on
tourism in northern Arizona to feed their families. The Grand
Canyon and the Colorado River are the lifeblood of northern
Arizona's tourism industry. The Grand Canyon is a year-round
source of employment and revenue for that region. So it is not
for the Grand Canyon, and it can't be for the people that
depend on that. And the people that do come to visit are not
there to tour uranium mines.
It can't be for the region's Native Americans, many of whom
still live with the ravages of past uranium mining in the
region. On October 30, The New York Times article reported on
cleanup efforts at a site that is finally nearing completion
after decades of indifference and neglect. This is one site,
but there are hundreds of former sites yet to be addressed,
leaving that cleanup cost to the American taxpayer.
So it can't be for the Obama Administration that has
painstakingly studied the impacts, the potential for harm and
have chosen to recommend 1 million acres of Federal forest land
be removed from hard rock mining for 20 years as allowed under
Federal Land Use Management Regulations. It can't be for the
millions of Arizonans and Americans not included 30 years ago
in the agreement that led to the Arizona Wilderness Act of
1984, who will be told that this legislation limits the
protections around the canyon for the benefit of the
international uranium mining industry and foreign competitors
even though high-level staff involved in this agreement have
confirmed and will again today that it was never the intent of
the legislation to make the land around the Grand Canyon
permanently available for uranium mining. The words mine,
mining or uranium were never mentioned in the 1984 bill.
So I am stumped as to why the Republican Majority would
stand silently with foreign mining corporations pushing for
blindly risking the crown jewel of our national park system in
the Colorado River, lifeblood to hundreds of millions of
people, usurping a national public process which obtained close
to 300,000 comments overwhelmingly in favor of the withdrawal.
This legislation is an attempt to intimidate the
Administration, short-circuiting a national scientific and
public review process all because they didn't get their way in
terms of this withdrawal. This is nothing more than an attempt
by the Majority to risk millions of tourism jobs for maybe a
few hundred projected short-term jobs.
This legislation is an insult to Arizonans and the American
taxpayers, an assault on the tourism industry in northern
Arizona and a snapshot of what is wrong with our political
system. When money dictates public policy, the interests of the
American people are tossed on the way seats of hard rock
mining.
The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are far too
important to allow the short-term gains from mining to leave
permanent scars on the crown jewel of our national parks. So,
with that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome again and thank the
witnesses and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I want
to thank all of the witnesses that have agreed to testify before us
today.
H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070 and H.R. 2621 are all pieces of legislation
that I firmly support, so I want to spend my five minutes on the real
focus of this morning's hearing: The Grand Canyon.
Other than the international uranium mining industry and their
lobbyists, I am puzzled as to whose benefit H.R. 3155--the so-called
Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act--is being put forward.
It can't be for the millions of annual visitors who come to the
Grand Canyon for its pristine beauty and unique natural qualities.
President Teddy Roosevelt had the foresight to protect this special
place for future generations. Speaking before a group of Arizonans
assembled at what is now is the most visited site in a celebrated
collection of National Parks, he told them that--and I quote: ``It is
in your own interest and the interest of all the country to keep this
great wonder of nature as it is now. It can't be for Teddy.''
It can't be for the California and Nevada water utilities, both of
which have supported a cautious approach toward mining in the Colorado
River Basin and weighed favorably toward protection, not risky
exploitation of a resource relied on by millions of Americans for their
drinking water. We are putting at risk water used for agriculture that
provides food for hundreds of millions of people across the country. It
can't be for them.
It can't be for thousands of people who depend on tourism in
Northern Arizona to feed their families. The Grand Canyon and Colorado
River rafting are the lifeblood of the Northern Arizona tourism
industry. The Grand Canyon railroad out of Williams, Az takes tourists
year round to the Grand Canyon, not uranium mines. It can't be for
them.
It can't be for the region's Native Americans, many of whom still
live with the ravages of past uranium mining in the region. An Oct 30th
New York Times article reported on clean-up efforts at a site that is
finally nearing completion after decades of indifference and neglect.
That is one site, but there are hundreds of former sites yet to be
addressed, leaving the clean-up to the American taxpayer.
It can't be for the Obama administration that has painstakingly
studied the impacts, potential for harm, and have chosen to recommend
that 1,000,000 acres of federal forest land be removed from hard rock
mining for 20 yrs, as allowed under federal land use management
regulations.
It can't be for the millions of Arizonans and Americans not
included in the agreement of 30 yrs ago that led to the Arizona
Wilderness Act of 1984. We are being told that this legislation limits
the protections around the canyon for the benefit of international
uranium mining industry and foreign competitors, even though high level
staff involved in the agreement have confirmed--and will again today--
that it was never the intent of the legislation to make the land around
the Grand Canyon permanently available for uranium mining. The words
``mine'', ``mining'', or ``uranium'' are never mentioned in the 1984
bill.
So I am stumped as to why the Republican majority would stand
solidly with foreign mining corporations, pushing for blindly risking
the crown jewel of our national parks system and the Colorado River,
lifeblood to hundreds of millions of people, usurping a national public
process, which obtained close to 300 thousand comments overwhelmingly
in favor of the full withdraw.
This legislation is an attempt at intimidating the administration,
short circuiting a national scientific and public review process all
because they did not get their way.
This is nothing more than an apparent attempt by the Republican
delegation to risk millions of tourism jobs for maybe a few hundred
projected, short term jobs.
This legislation is an insult to all Arizonans and the American
taxpayers, an assault on the tourism industry in northern Arizona, and
a snapshot of what is wrong with our political system. When money
dictates public policy, the interests of the American people are tossed
on the waste heaps of hard rock mining.
The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are far too important to
allow the short term gains from mining to leave permanent scars on the
crown jewel of our National Parks. Water relied on by 25 million
Americans is much more important than the profits of foreign mining
giants.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right. To the witnesses, this is
how we will try to run this, and I am going to give a couple of
you some options. Senator McCain, as the senior Member on the
Senate on this side, we are going to ask you to go first.
Senator Bennet, I am going to go through Senator McCain and
Senator Hatch if he shows up on this particular bill. They are
going to talk about the Arizona bill. Representative Tipton is
going to talk about the issue in Colorado. I will give you your
option because I realize I don't know what your schedule is. I
know how busy the Senate is. Excuse me. I have something caught
in my cheek right there. Just a minute.
So I will give you the option. If you would like to go
after Senator McCain and Senator Hatch and then leave us, feel
free to do it. If you would like to wait until the other
representatives who are not on the Committee have talked about
the Arizona bill and then speak at the same time Tipton does on
Colorado, I will give you that choice as well. So it will be up
to you.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for one other
option, which is if we run out of time, if you wouldn't mind my
submitting the statement for the record, I would do that as
well.
Mr. Bishop. That is fine. That will be fine too.
Senator Bennet. Thank you. And I just wanted to say how
glad I am to see Congressman Lamborn and Congressman Tipton
this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. We will be happy to do that.
Senator Bennet. Great.
Mr. Bishop. But we would rather hear your voice.
Senator Bennet. Oh, that is fine.
Mr. Bishop. With that, Senator McCain, if you are prepared,
we would love to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And given the
large number of witnesses and panels that you have, I will try
to be uncharacteristically brief. And may I say that it is a
pleasure to be back here, a committee on which I had the honor
of serving for four years and enormous responsibilities that
this Committee has to the present and future of this nation and
the protection of our most treasured assets.
I have a prepared statement I would like to have submitted
for the record, Mr. Chairman, if you would. This is all about
an issue that took place when I was a Member of this Committee.
I worked closely with Congressman Udall. You will hear people
who were not here that have a very different interpretation of
the facts and events of the two-year period that we went
through in putting together a landmark Arizona wilderness bill,
which I was very happy to be part of.
And by the way, you will hear from a member of the staff, a
former staff member at the time who will disagree with my
assessment of what took place. The fact is that staff member
was not there at every meeting. There were Member-level
meetings and discussions on this issue.
Former Congressman Bob Stump, who as you know is a former
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a
distinguished Member, was insistent, insistent that these lands
that are now being proposed to be put under permanent
wilderness status would be open to exploration, mining,
multiple-use lands. That was the price of the agreement by
Congressman Stump. And anybody who wants to characterize the
legislation in a different way should look at the record at the
time the Wilderness bill was passed and the statements that
were made.
Anyone, anyone who says that Bob Stump's insistence that
this be multiple-use land as a price for his support for this
wilderness bill is mischaracterizing the facts, and shame on
them for doing so.
So all I can tell you is that we came to an agreement after
two years of negotiations and agreements for a landmark bill
that preserved 3 million acres of our most beautiful State in
permanent pristine status. The price for that was that the
Arizona Strip be open for multiple use, all of it, all of it.
And anyone who characterizes it as different were not there or
are not telling the truth.
The people of Arizona and the people of this country
deserve to have this part of our State be exploited for mining.
America needs it. America needs the kinds of materials. We need
the jobs. Even though we have Members of Congress who want our
State boycotted and cost us jobs, we want jobs in Arizona. We
want people to come to Arizona and hire people. And we believe
that this is important for our national security interests and
for the financial interests and the job opportunities for many
of my fellow citizens. And we encourage them to come to our
State and establish their businesses and their work there.
So again, this is an example, frankly, Mr. Chairman, of
elections have consequences. I can guarantee you if the 2008
elections had turned out differently we wouldn't be discussing
this issue. We would be adhering to the provisions that were
agreed to by the Arizona delegation at that time. I thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John McCain, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Arizona, on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for the opportunity to testify about
the importance of safeguarding multiple use management policy in
northern Arizona. The legislation introduced by myself and Congressman
Trent Franks, along with a majority of the Arizona Congressional
delegation, would prevent the Secretary of the Interior from
implementing his proposed 1 million acre mining withdrawal in northern
Arizona. I hold Secretary Salazar in high esteem but this withdrawal is
fueled by an emotional public relations campaign designed by some of
the same environmental groups whose longtime mission has been to kill
mining and grazing jobs on the Arizona Strip as well as tourism jobs at
the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch and I have served our respective states
for many years and the aspiration by the environmental community to
halt mining in the Grand Canyon region is old news to us. It existed
during the last uranium rebound in the late 1970s and early 1980s with
thousands of mining claims staked in the same areas of the ``northern
parcel'' of the proposed withdrawal area. The difference is that back
then, the environmental community put their aspirations aside to
constructively work with stakeholders to reach a historic agreement on
wilderness designation in the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-
406). While credit is due to my good friend, the late-Congressman Mo
Udall, for shepherding the Act through Congress, Title III of the bill
(also known as ``the Arizona Strip Wilderness Act'') was developed
through negotiations led by the late-Congressman Bob Stump. The Act
ultimately designated over 250,000 acres of wilderness on the Arizona
Strip and released about 600,000 acres of federal land for multiple-use
development.
During negotiations on the 1984 Act, Congress struggled with how to
legislatively ``release'' non-Wilderness lands from being locked-up as
administrative or ``de facto'' Wilderness, but also allow for some
flexibility in preserving these lands through responsible land
management. Some argued for enacting so-called ``hard release
language'' which proscriptively enforced a multiple-use mandate on non-
Wilderness lands. Others wanted ``soft release language'' which
continued restrictions on non-Wilderness lands so as to preserve their
wilderness characteristics. What made the Arizona Wilderness Act the
gold standard of stakeholder collaboration and bipartisan compromise is
that it utilized so-called ``compromise release language'' and
intentionally authorized the presence of ``non-wilderness uses as
determined appropriate thought the [BLM] land management planning
process.'' (House Report 98-643, Part 1, pages 34-35).
Until now, that compromise allowed for uranium mining to coexist
with the some of our most treasured natural resources. Unfortunately,
several of the same environmental groups who once supported the
compromise and singed-off on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon have
come back to ask this Administration to toss out the existing land use
plans and implement a massive and arbitrary withdrawal knowing full
well that uranium mining is a principal activity and job creator on the
Arizona Strip. There is no scientific evidence that modern-day uranium
mining in the withdrawal area has violated drinking water quality
standards in the Colorado River. The true goal of this withdrawal is to
permanently restrict access to a nationally significant uranium
resource, which is precisely what we sought to prevent under the 1984
Wilderness Act. What the Secretary proposes is nothing other than de
facto Wilderness.
Mr. Chairman, if the decision is made to move forward with the
proposed withdrawal, the Department of the Interior will be casting
aside that historic compromise and ignoring the land management
planning process that has resulted in the bulk of the withdrawal area
being open to uranium mining. Future wilderness proposals will be
deserving of even greater scrutiny once it becomes clear that
negotiated agreements like those contained in the Arizona Wilderness
Act are neither genuine nor enduring.
I fully agree that the Grand Canyon deserves to be protected for
the enjoyment of future generations. However, it is totally
irresponsible to move forward with the proposed withdrawal as it lacks
sufficient scientific justification and flies in the face of the
legislative history behind the Arizona Wilderness Act. I urge the
Committee to pass this bill.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Senator. Once again,
Senator, if you would like to stay with us, you are welcome to.
If you have other obligations, we understand that as well.
Appreciate it.
Senator Bennet, this is your time to make a decision. Do
you want to go now, or do you want to wait?
Senator Bennet. I would be happy to go now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Feel free, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and to the
Ranking Member. I want to thank all of you for the opportunity
to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock National
Monument Establishment Act. I have been pleased to work on
similar legislation in the Senate over the last two Congresses,
and I have enjoyed working with Congressman Tipton on this
bipartisan effort.
I also want to recognize Ricky Lightfoot, seated behind me,
a distinguished archeologist who has worked extensively at
Chimney Rock. Ricky is joining us today from beautiful Mancos,
Colorado. And I am here to testify in support of H.R. 2621.
Chimney Rock is located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa
Springs in the southwest part of Colorado. This 40,700-acre
site is located on San Juan National Forest land, recognized as
perhaps the most significant historical site managed by the
entire Forest Service throughout the country. The twin spires
of Chimney Rock depicted in the photo on the screens above
attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians to this
area nearly 1,000 years ago.
This unique culture had their main settlement in Chaco
Canyon, New Mexico, and had a settlement at what is now Mesa
Verde National Park near Cortez. I might say that all of these
sites are in Congressman Tipton's district.
The Chaco people established a remote outpost at the base
of Chimney Rock called the Great House Pueblo. The Great House
is situated just south of the twin spires and is now displayed
on the screens above. Chimney Rock has incredible historical
and cultural significance, yet the site lacks a designation
equal to that stature. This discrepancy is why countless
preservation groups have become involved with Chimney Rock.
They came together in 2009 and asked me to carry legislation to
designate Chimney Rock a national monument in the Senate, and I
have now been pleased to work with Congressman Tipton on his
companion bill in the House.
Put simply, a national monument designation is warranted
for Chimney Rock, and that new designation will drive economic
development and job creation throughout the region. The measure
was drafted with the help of the Forest Service, historical
preservation organizations, Native American tribes and dozens
of other local stakeholders.
I would draw the Committee's attention to a number of the
letters I brought with me today from several of the
organizations involved in that robust stakeholder process. We
have letters of support from a bipartisan group of Archuleta
County commissioners who have extended their unanimous support
for the bill; the Republican mayor of Pagosa Springs, Colorado,
the town nearest to Chimney Rock; the Pagosa Springs Area
Chamber of Commerce; and the Pagosa Springs Community
Development Corporation.
I would like to submit these letters sent to Congressman
Tipton and me into the record to illustrate the broad level of
local support for this popular legislation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[NOTE: The letters submitted for the record on H.R. 2621
have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Senator Bennet. My Chimney Rock Bill in the Senate, nearly
identical to Congressman Tipton's legislation, was reported out
of the Senate Energy Committee in a bipartisan voice vote. I am
hopeful that the House Natural Resources Committee will see fit
to lend similar support to Congressman Tipton's efforts as we
move toward enacting this popular legislation into law.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member
for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on this
important topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennet follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael F. Bennet, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Colorado, on H.R. 2621: Chimney Rock National Monument
Establishment Act
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva (Gra-HALL-va), I thank you
for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock
National Monument Establishment Act.
I've been proud to work on similar legislation in the Senate over
the last two Congresses. And I've enjoyed working with Congressman
Tipton on this bipartisan effort.
I also want to recognize Ricky Lightfoot--seated behind me--a
distinguished archeologist who has worked extensively at Chimney Rock.
Ricky is joining us today from beautiful Mancos, CO.
I am here to testify in support of H.R. 2621, The Chimney Rock
National Monument Establishment Act.
Chimney Rock is located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa Springs--in
the southwest part of Colorado.
This 4,700 acre site is located on San Juan National Forest land
and is recognized as perhaps the most significant historical site
managed by the entire Forest Service.
The twin spires of Chimney Rock--depicted in the photo on the
screens above--attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians to
this area nearly a thousand years ago.
This unique culture had their main settlement in Chaco Canyon, New
Mexico, and had a settlement at what is now Mesa Verde National Park
near Cortez.
The Chaco People established a remote outpost at the base of
Chimney Rock called The Great House Pueblo. The Great House is situated
just south of the twin spires and is now displayed on the screens
above.
The House was built from six million stones, 5,000 logs and 25,000
tons of earth and clay. All of these materials were arduously hauled
1,000 feet up from the valley floor.
We think they established this outpost to observe a rare lunar
event. The so-called ``major lunar standstill,'' occurs once every 18.6
years when the moon appears to rise in the exact same spot three nights
in a row.
The Chaco People built the Great House Pueblo to observe this
spectacular celestial event. There are only two other places in the
world where ancient people used stone structures to mark a lunar
standstill. Stonehenge is one of them.
Chimney Rock has incredible historical and cultural significance.
Yet the site lacks a designation equal to that stature. This
discrepancy is why countless preservation groups got involved with
Chimney Rock.
This constituency, coupled with a bipartisan group of local
officials, Colorado counties, municipalities and tribes have joined in
an effort to give Chimney Rock the proper designation.
They came together in 2009 and asked me to carry legislation to
designate Chimney Rock a National Monument in the Senate. And I've now
been pleased to work with Congressman Tipton on this companion bill in
the House.
This legislation will provide much-needed protection, and much-
deserved recognition, for the site.
Passage of this bill will also provide increased tourism and
economic development in southwest Colorado.
Put simply, a National Monument designation is warranted for
Chimney Rock and that new designation will drive economic development
and job creation throughout the region.
The measure was drafted with the help of the Forest Service,
historical preservation organizations, Native American tribes and
dozens of other local stakeholders.
I would draw the Committee's attention to a number of letters I
brought with me today from several of the organizations involved in
that robust stakeholder process.
Here I have letters of support from:
A bipartisan group of Archuleta County Commissioners,
who have extended their unanimous support for this bill.
The Republican Mayor of Pagosa Springs, Colorado--the
town nearest to Chimney Rock.
The Pagosa Springs Area Chamber of Commerce.
And the Pagosa Springs Community Development
Corporation.
I'd like to submit these letters, sent to Congressman Tipton and
me, into the record to illustrate the broad level of local support for
this popular legislation.
My Chimney Rock bill in the Senate--nearly identical to Congressman
Tipton's legislation--was reported out of the Senate Energy Committee
in a bipartisan voice vote last Congress.
I'm hopeful the House Natural Resources Committee will see fit to
lend similar support to Congressman Tipton's measure as we move towards
enacting this popular legislation into law.
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for allowing
me the opportunity to testify today on this important topic.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. And as always, if you would
like to stay over here on the true side of Capitol Hill, you
are welcome to. If you have other obligations and need to go,
we understand.
Senator Bennet. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. With that, let me turn next to the sponsor of
35, whatever the number is, Representative Franks from Arizona,
and then we will hear from one of our former colleagues on this
Committee, Representative Flake from Arizona. Representative
Franks.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Franks. Thank you. You just promoted me, Mr. Chairman,
and I appreciate it. You called me Senator Franks.
Mr. Bishop. I sincerely apologize. I will never do that to
you again.
Mr. Franks. I appreciate that.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. I profusely apologize for doing
that.
Mr. Franks. I didn't come here to be insulted, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Congressman Franks, please.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you
for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify on H.R.
3155 this morning, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act
of 2011. And if I could ask you, sir, I would like to see an
ASU study here, the Western Business Roundtable letter and a
report from Tetra Tech prepared for the American Clean Energy
Resources Trust placed into the record----
Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
Mr. Franks.--because I will be referencing those in my
testimony here.
Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
[NOTE: The letter and report submitted by Mr. Franks have
been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will stop the
United States Department of the Interior from banning mining in
a vast area of Arizona that represents the Nation's second
largest domestic source of uranium ore. The Department of the
Interior intends to withdraw as early as this month, as you
stated earlier, 1 million acres of Arizona land with the goal
of preventing uranium mining on that land for the next 20
years.
Studies by Dr. Charles Sanchez and Dr. John Chesley of the
University of Arizona have shown no threat to the Colorado
River by mining this uranium. According to the results, uranium
mining ``in the main channel of the Colorado River are
generally consistent with the normal weathering of uranium-
containing geomedia within the watershed and rule against major
contamination from uranium mines.''
Regarding agricultural soils in the lower Colorado River
region, the study concludes, ``No increase in the bio-available
uranium after 35 years of irrigation and fertilization.''
Regarding uranium exposure to food crops, the study concludes,
``Potential uranium exposure to vegetable and food crops
produced in the lower Colorado River region are negligible
relative to health risks.''
Mr. Chairman, with all of this data and the total lack of
any evidence from the Bureau of Land Management indicating the
unsafe operation of uranium mines, the Obama Administration is
still willing to make up to approximately 326 million pounds of
the best uranium ore in the country off limits. And that is
actually uranium, Mr. Chairman. The ore would be much more than
that of course.
This nonsensical effort by the Obama Administration is a
step in precisely the wrong direction for the American economy,
making the U.S. even more dependent on foreign powers and
potentially creating a serious national security threat going
forward.
Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, a county in my district that
will be directly impacted by Secretary Salazar's needless
withdrawal of prime mining lands on the Arizona Strip, already
has an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent. The rate is even
higher in specific areas of the county: Butler, area of
Kingman, 16.2 percent; the Golden Valley area, 21.3 percent;
and Dolan Springs, 23.7 percent unemployment.
The locking up of a million acres of mining in northern
Arizona ignores the economic realities of the state and will do
fiscal harm to the local area. An economic analysis performed
by Tetra Tech detailing the benefits of the uranium mining
industry in the northern Arizona uranium district concluded
that there will be $29.4 billion in output over the 42-year
lifespan of the project, including $2 billion in Federal and
State corporate taxes and $40 million annually in payroll.
Mr. Chairman, uranium mining would create more than 1,000
jobs directly related to mining operations and many more jobs
would be created as a result of the economic activity
associated with the mining. Additionally, of America's existing
104 operating nuclear reactors, 90 percent of them now import
the uranium that they use from foreign countries, including
Russia and Kazakhstan, as opposed in the 1970s when America was
100 percent self-sufficient. This potentially creates a serious
national security threat going forward.
Mr. Chairman, in 1984, Congress passed the Arizona
Wilderness Act to specifically recognize the uranium potential
of 490,000 acres of BLM and 500,000 acres of Forest Service
lands by releasing them from the wilderness study
classification so they could be mined. The bill was a
collaborative effort that included the mining and livestock
industries, the National Parks Conservation Association and the
Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club.
Mr. Chairman, according to the United States Geological
Survey, northern Arizona uranium reserves total about 326
million pounds of uranium or enough to power the entire State
of Arizona for 80 years. By prohibiting the exploitation of
northern Arizona uranium reserves, the Obama Administration
will potentially weaken America's long-term national security,
our economic security and our ability to be energy self-
sufficient.
This legislation would stop the Obama Administration from
eliminating our country's most significant source of uranium.
And I want to thank you again, sir, for holding this hearing.
It is my hope that the Members of the Subcommittee will
appreciate the importance of moving this legislation forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franks follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining
Continuity Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and
allowing me to testify on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining
Continuity Act of 2011.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation will stop the U.S. Department of the
Interior from banning mining in a vast area of Arizona that represents
the nation's second largest domestic source of uranium ore.
The Department of the Interior intends to withdraw, as early as
this month, 1 MILLION acres of Arizona land with the goal of preventing
uranium mining on that land for the next 20 years. Studies by Dr.
Charles Sanchez and Dr. John Chesley of the University of Arizona have
shown no threat to the Colorado River by mining this uranium. According
to the results, uranium ``in the main channel of the Colorado River are
generally consistent with the normal weathering of uranium containing
geomedia within the watershed and rule against major contamination from
uranium mines''. Regarding agriculture soils in the Lower Colorado
River Region, the study concludes ``no increase in bioavailable uranium
after 35 years of irrigation and fertilization.'' Regarding uranium
exposure to food crops, the study concludes ``potential uranium
exposure to vegetable and food crops produced in the Lower Colorado
River Region are negligible relative to health risks''.
Mr. Chairman, with all of this data and the total lack of any
evidence from the Bureau of Land Management indicating the unsafe
operation of the uranium mines, the Obama Administration is still
willing to make up to approximately 326 million pounds of the best
uranium in the country off-limits. This shameful effort by the Obama
Administration is a step in precisely the wrong direction for the
American economy, making the U.S. even more dependent on foreign powers
and potentially creating a serious national security threat going
forward.
Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, a county in my District that will be
directly impacted by Secretary Salazar's needless withdrawal of prime
mining lands on the Arizona Strip, already has an unemployment rate of
10.6%. The rate is even higher in specific areas of the county; Butler
area of Kingman (16.2%), Golden Valley (21.3%), and Dolan Springs
(23.7%). The locking up of a million acres of mining lands in Northern
Arizona ignores the economic realities of the State and will do fiscal
harm to the local area.
An economic analysis performed by Tetra Tech detailing the benefits
of the uranium mining industry in the North Arizona Uranium District
concluded that there will be $29.4 billion in output over the 42-year
lifespan of the project, including $2 billion in federal and state
corporate taxes and $40 million annually in payroll.
Mr. Chairman, uranium mining would create more than a thousand jobs
directly related to mining operations, and many more jobs would be
created as a result of the economic activity associated with the
mining.
As indicated by the Governor of Arizona, ``if instituted, this
uranium mining ban would deal a blow to future economic growth near the
Grand Canyon.''
Additionally, of America's existing 104 operating nuclear reactors,
90% now import the uranium they use from foreign countries, including
Russia and Kazakhstan, as opposed to the 1970's, when America was 100%
selfsufficient. This potentially creates a serious national security
threat going forward.
Mr. Chairman, in 1984, Congress passed the Arizona Wilderness Act
that specifically recognized the uranium potential of 490,000 acres of
BLM land and 500,000 acres of Forest Service lands by releasing them
from wilderness study classification so that they could be mined. The
bill was a collaborative effort that included the mining and livestock
industries, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Wilderness
Society, and the Sierra Club.
To this day, uranium mining activities on these lands have a record
of productive operation and successful reclamation without impacting
the environment or our awe-inspiring National Parks. The nearest mine
would be about 6 miles from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary and
10 miles from the Canyon itself. Mr. Chairman, that is from where we
are sitting now to Falls Church, Virginia.
According to United States Geological Survey, northern Arizona
uranium reserves total about 326 million pounds--or enough energy to
power the entire state for Arizona for 80 years. By prohibiting
exploitation of the northern Arizona uranium reserves, the Obama
Administration will potentially weaken America's long-term national
security, our economic security, and our ability to be energy
selfsufficient. This legislation would stop the Obama Administration
from eliminating our country's most significant source of uranium.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing today. It is
my hope that the members of this subcommittee will appreciate the
importance of moving this legislation forward. Thank you.
NOTE: An attachment entitled ``Economic Impact of Uranium Mining on
Coconino & Mohave Counties, Arizona'' dated September 2009 has been
retained in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that. I
would like to welcome back Congressman Flake. And I am not
going to say anything about titles with you.
Mr. Flake. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Bishop. But you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Wait, let me say, Congressman Franks, if you
would like to stay with us, if you would like to join us on the
dais, we can ask unanimous consent for that. We would be happy
to do that. If you need to leave for other business, we
understand that as well.
Mr. Franks. I am grateful, Mr. Chairman. I have a markup in
Judiciary that I will have to leave it in your capable hands.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. No one wants to stay here with me. I am getting
a complex about this. Thank you. Now, Representative Flake,
please.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be back
here. I have enjoyed my stint for 10 years on the Resources
Committee.
I come in support of H.R. 3155. A lot has been said about
this already, so I will just summarize. The Administration
claims that it is undergoing a deliberative process, but it is
crystal-clear that they plan to move as early as the end of the
month with this unnecessary long-term withdrawal of lands in
the Arizona Strip to new mining claims, with a decision
anticipated at the end of the month.
This regulatory overreach is based on specious
environmental concerns, as was outlined by Congressman Franks.
It violates a longstanding, negotiated legislative agreement,
as was outlined by Senator McCain, who was here and
participated in those negotiations. It conflicts with our
energy security goals. That was also outlined by Congressman
Franks. And it endangers desperately needed economic activity
in the region.
You will hear more from public officials who are affected
and whose constituents and others are affected. Congressman
Franks mentioned the high unemployment rate in some of these
small towns, and that is an acute problem there that can be
solved with this economic activity that has so many ancillary
benefits.
As many of you know, Chairman Simpson in the Appropriations
Committee included a provision that would put a hold on the
withdrawal of this million acres. Unfortunately that
Appropriations bill is foundering. The end game for the
appropriations process this year is a mystery, and so I am
heartened by the action of this Committee to bring this bill or
to move this bill forward. That is why we need freestanding
legislation to do this because the appropriations process has
simply broken down.
I come from northern Arizona. My great, great grandfather
settled in northern Arizona, so I have been there for five
generations. Believe me, those of us who were raised in
northern Arizona are sensitive to environmental concerns. If I
did anything that would endanger the pristine wonder that is
the Grand Canyon, I would be ridden out of town and out of the
state on a rail by my own family and by others in northern
Arizona.
But the arguments that are going to be put forward by some
that there are environmental dangers, and part of the problem
stems from this area is called the Arizona Strip. It has been
forever, the area between the Colorado River and the Utah line.
And some people assume, well, that means strip mining or
something like that. And you have some Members of Congress
talking about some glow that will come from the Grand Canyon
might be uranium glow, not the sunset and just outlandish,
outlandish claims about what this really does.
This type of mining is so-called breccia pipe mining. It is
low impact. After a few years and after reclamation of a few
years, the locals won't even know where the mine was. The
impact on water use in the environment are minimal, and it does
not affect--it is well beyond, outside the boundaries of the
Grand Canyon National Park. And that is why this settlement was
negotiated in the eighties to allow multiple use in these areas
and still does protect and set aside more lands at that time to
protect this pristine wonder that we have that is the Grand
Canyon.
So I thank the Chairman for bringing this bill forward, and
I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Flake. And once again,
if you wish to stay and join us, feel free to. If you have
other obligations--yes, I got the drift, yes.
Mr. Flake. I have other obligations, sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Representative Runyan, we are happy
to have you here as a Member of our full Committee but not
necessarily this Subcommittee, and we appreciate your bill. If
you would like to address the Gold Star Mothers--what is the
official--you know the official title. If you would like to
address that bill, you are so recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON RUNYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much, Chairman and Ranking
Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing and allowing me to
testify and also for inviting Judith Young to testify. I would
personally like to thank Judith for her service as chairwoman
of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Fund and for
traveling from my district from Morristown, New Jersey, to
testify today on the important work she does on behalf of the
Gold Star Mothers and as a Gold Star Mother.
H.R. 1980, the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of
2011, authorizes the Gold Star Mothers Monument Foundation to
build a Gold Star Mothers monument on Federal lands within the
District of Columbia as a unit of the national park system.
This legislation only authorizes the use of Federal lands in
Washington, D.C., and does not authorize Federal funding. All
funds for construction are to be raised by the Gold Star
Mothers National Monument Foundation. Let me be clear. All
funds must be raised by the Gold Star's National Monument
Foundation. This will not cost the taxpayers a dime.
During World War I, mothers of sons and daughters who
served in the Armed Forces displayed flags bearing blue stars
representing pride in their sons and daughters and their hope
that they would return home safely. For more than 650,000 of
these brave mothers, their hopes were shattered when their
children never returned home.
Afterwards, many of them began displaying flags bearing
gold stars that represented the sacrifice that their sons and
daughters made in the historic service to our country. Over the
years, the gold star has come to represent a child who has been
killed by serving in the Armed Services during either war or
peace.
In 1929, Congress passed a law authorizing the Federal
Government to disperse funds for Gold Star Mothers and widows
of those who were killed while serving in the Armed Services
during World War I. The funds authorized travel to battlefields
of Europe to visit the burial sites of their loved ones. On
June 23, 1936, Congress passed a Senate resolution which
established the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mothers
Day.
Mr. Chairman, our Gold Star Mothers have sacrificed so much
for their country, and it is time we give them something back.
This legislation deserves full consideration by this Committee
and Congress, and I thank you for allowing me to testify and
probably having the least controversial bill here in your
hearing today. I yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Runyan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jon Runyan, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 1980, ``The Gold Star Mothers
National Monument Act of 2011''
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding
this hearing today, for allowing me to testify, and for inviting Judith
Young to testify. I would also like to personally thank Ms. Judith
Young, the Chairwoman of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Fund,
for traveling from Moorestown, New Jersey to testify today and for the
important work she does on behalf of the Gold Star Mothers.
H.R. 1980, The Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011,
authorizes the Gold Star National Mothers Monument Foundation to build
a Gold Star Mothers National Monument on federal lands within the
District of Columbia as a unit of the National Parks System. This
legislation only authorizes the use of federal lands in Washington,
D.C., it does not authorize federal funding. All funds for construction
are to be raised by the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation.
Let me be clear, all funds must be raised by the Gold Star Mothers
National Monument Foundation; this will not cost the taxpayer a single
dime.
During World War I, mothers of sons and daughters who served in the
Armed Forces displayed flags bearing a blue star to represent pride in
their sons or daughters and their hope that they would return home
safely.
For more than 650,000 of these brave mothers, that hope was
shattered, and their children never returned home. Afterwards many of
them began displaying flags bearing gold stars to represent the
sacrifice that their sons and daughters made in heroic service to our
country. Over the years the gold star has come to represent a child who
was killed while serving in the Armed Forces, during either war or
peacetime.
In 1929 Congress passed a law authorizing the Federal Government to
disburse funds for Gold Star Mothers and widows of those who were
killed while serving in the Armed Forces during World War I. The funds
authorized travel to the battlefields of Europe to visit the burial
sites of their loved ones.
On June 23, 1936, Congress passed a Senate resolution which
established the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mother's Day.
Mr. Chairman, our Gold Star Mothers have sacrificed so much for
their country, it is time that we give them something back. This
legislation deserves full consideration by this Committee and Congress.
______
Mr. Bishop. Well, maybe not. We will see about that one.
But once again, thank you for being here. If you would like to
stay and join us on the dais, feel free to do so. Once again,
if you have other obligations, I understand that as well.
Mr. Runyan. I got a little banged up in the congressional
football game last night, so I am going to go see the
orthopedic surgeon.
Mr. Bishop. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
All right. Whatever.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We have two bills whose sponsors are
part of our Committee, Representative Tipton--I am sorry. I let
the Senator from Colorado go first on this. I apologize to you
for that, but you have to stay here anyway. So would you like
to talk about the Chimney Rock bill this time?
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Tipton. I would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I thank
the Ranking Member as well for convening today's hearing,
including my bill, H.R. 2621, to designate the Chimney Rock in
southwestern Colorado as a national monument. I would like to
thank Senator Bennet for taking the time to be here in support
of the bill, and his contribution on the legislation in the
Senate has been instrumental in getting the bill where it is
today. I am proud to work with him on this bipartisan effort.
I would also like to thank Ricky Lightfoot from my hometown
in Cortez, Colorado for being here today to share his expertise
on this treasured area, and I look forward to hearing his
testimony.
Chimney Rock is considered by the historic preservation
community and the archeological community to be one of the most
significant archeological sites in the Western United States.
However, many Coloradans may never have heard of this historic
treasure right in our own backyard. Once held sacred by the
ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians who made the journey to
this northernmost outpost of the Chacoan civilization, Chimney
Rock is one of only three such known sites to exist.
The area is known primarily as a gathering place by these
early Native Americans to observe the rare and dramatic lunar
standstill. Centuries ago, hundreds of early Native Americans
called the area home, and archeologists have uncovered ancient
farming areas, homes and other structures indicating that this
was a major cultural center for early Americans.
Despite the unique nature of this area, the Chimney Rock
site of the San Juan National Forest is lacking a designation
worthy of its historical and cultural significance. The area is
currently under the management of the United States Forest
Service, and it is covered under the USFS Organic Act, which
has no provision to address the preservation and management of
such a historic and culturally significant site as Chimney
Rock.
As a national monument, Chimney Rock will carefully be
preserved and restored so that future generations will have the
opportunity to be able to visit the awe-inspiring site,
interpret its meaning and study the people that built these
structures so long ago.
This designation would increase attention and interest and
generate new tourism opportunities for the Four Corners area,
potentially generating badly needed revenue and expand
potential new jobs for the Southwestern Colorado region that
has been ravaged by double digit unemployment. Chimney Rock
would remain open to many of the traditional uses for this
area. This would ensure that local ranchers will be able to
keep utilizing the land they depend on for grazing. Outdoorsmen
will continue to be able to take advantage of the game
opportunities in the area and will allow for the continued use
of Chimney Rock by members of the Indian tribes for their
traditional ceremonies.
The national monument designation requires no additional
Federal funds and therefore no increase in Federal spending.
However, it does allow for private supporters to be able to
work with the Forest Service to improve and maintain this
valued area. This allows for the preservation of the Chimney
Rock in a way that is fiscally responsible. This legislation is
a great example of a community-based effort to establish one of
its most valued areas as a national monument, taking into
account all of the various interests affected by that
designation and doing so in a way that does not increase costs
to American taxpayers.
I am proud to have the support of the Archuleta County
commissioners and the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, among
others, in making Chimney Rock a national monument. This would
create a win/win situation for this remarkable historic
cultural area, the State of Colorado and the communities,
Native American tribes and future generations of visitors.
Mr. Chairman, than you for allowing me to comment on this
bill, and I would like to be able to submit for the record
letters of support from the Chamber of Commerce and the other
county commissioners out of Archuleta County.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton on H.R. 2621
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott Tipton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah, on H.R. 2621, ``Chimney Rock National Monument
Establishment Act of 2011''
Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today's hearing and including
my bill, H.R. 2621, to designate Chimney Rock in Southwestern Colorado
as a National Monument. I want to thank Senator Bennet for being here
today in support of the bill. His contribution on this legislation in
the Senate has been instrumental in getting the bill where it is today
and I'm proud to work with him on this bipartisan effort. I also want
to thank Ricky Lightfoot from my hometown of Cortez, Colorado for being
here to share his expertise on this treasured area and I look forward
to hearing his testimony.
Chimney Rock is considered by the historic preservation community
and the archeological community to be one of the most significant
archeological sites in the Western United States, however, many
Coloradans may have never heard of the historic treasure right in our
own backyard. Once held sacred by the ancestors of modern Pueblo
Indians who made the journey to this northernmost outpost of the
Chacoan Civilization, Chimney Rock is one of only three such sites
known to exist.
The area is known primarily as a gathering place by these early
Native Americans to observe the rare and dramatic lunar standstill.
Centuries ago, hundreds of early Native Americans called the area home
and archeologists have uncovered ancient farming areas, homes and other
structures indicating that this was a major cultural center for early
Americans.
Despite the unique nature of this area, the Chimney Rock site of
the San Juan National Forest is lacking a designation worthy of its
historical and cultural significance. The area is currently under the
management of the U.S. Forest Service, and is covered under the USFS
Organic Act, which has no provision to address the preservation and
management of such a historic and cultural significant site as Chimney
Rock. As a National Monument, Chimney Rock will be carefully preserved
and restored so that future generations will have the opportunity to
visit the awe-inspiring site, interpret its meaning, and study the
people that built these structures so long ago.
This designation would increase attention and interest and generate
new tourism opportunities for the Four Corners area, potentially
generating badly needed revenue and expand potential for new jobs in
the Southwest Colorado region ravaged by double-digit unemployment.
Chimney Rock would remain open to many of the traditional uses for this
area. This would ensure that local ranchers will be able to keep
utilizing the lands they depend on for grazing, outdoorsman will be
able to continue to take advantage of the game opportunities in the
area, and would allow for the continued use of Chimney Rock by members
of the Indian tribes for traditional ceremonies.
The national monument designation requires no additional federal
funds, and therefore no increase in spending. However, it does allow
for private supporters to work with the Forest Service to improve and
maintain this valued area. This allows for the preservation of Chimney
Rock in a way that is fiscally responsible.
This legislation is a great example of a community based effort to
establish one of its most valued areas as a national monument taking
into account all of the various interests affected by that designation
and doing so in a way that does not increase costs to American
taxpayers.
I'm proud to have the support of the Archuleta County
Commissioners, and the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, among
others. Making Chimney Rock a national monument would create a win-win
situation for this remarkable historic, cultural area, the state of
Colorado, the local communities, Native Indian tribes and future
generations of visitors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And now last but certainly not
least, Representative Johnson, Member of our Committee. And you
also have the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. You are
recognized to introduce that if you would.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing today and for
considering this legislation that I sponsored, H.R. 2070, the
World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.
You know, on June 6, 1944, America embarked upon a great
campaign, a campaign to fight and resist tyranny and a campaign
designed to protect the very survivability of our Nation and
advance the cause of freedom and liberty for the rest of the
world.
On that day, President Roosevelt offered a prayer to our
Nation and to the many men who were going to go into harm's way
in what was going to be a very, very dangerous mission. This
legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to place
a plaque at the World War II memorial or to inscribe onto the
World War II memorial this prayer, which has been entitled
``Let our Hearts be Stout.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the prayer
for the record if there is no objection.
[The prayer submitted for the record follows:]
My Fellow Americans:
Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at
that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were
crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to
pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon
a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion,
and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness
to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For
the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come
with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know
that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will
triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until
the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's
souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight
not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to
liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill
among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their
return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them,
Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and
brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever
with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed
faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of
special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I
ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we
rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of
prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the
contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our
armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear
sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever
they may be.
And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our
sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the
keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary
events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter
us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our
enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances.
Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into
a world unity that will spell a sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the
schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in
freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt--June 6, 1944
______
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I believe that there are several areas
within the memorial that would be suitable for the prayer's
placement, but the Department of the Interior would have the
discretion on final placement. Furthermore, my intention is
that the cost for the plaque or the inscription would be paid
for not by taxpayer dollars but by private donations from
individuals at no cost to the American taxpayers.
The Administration's witness, who is on the second panel,
will testify against this legislation today by saying that it
violates the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center Act of 2003, and I
wanted to take this opportunity to preempt their testimony. The
legislation passed in 2003 stated that the reserve, commonly
referred to as the National Mall, is a completed body of civic
art and therefore should not be altered and therefore prohibits
new commemorative displays on the National Mall.
However, in the legislation passed in 2003, Congress
allowed for a commemorative work to go forward by allowing a
plaque to be placed on the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther
King, Jr. gave his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. And I am
glad they did that.
Furthermore, in 2009, Congress passed a provision in the
2010 Interior spending bill that directed the Secretary of the
Interior to place a plaque on the World War II Memorial
honoring Senator Bob Dole for his work in getting the memorial
built. And I am glad that they did that.
I worked closely with the Congressional Research Service
and legislative counsel while writing this legislation to make
sure that the language in H.R. 2070 that is before us today is
as close as possible to the 2009 provision that authorized the
plaque to be placed honoring Senator Dole.
I think it is disingenuous for the Administration to say
that this legislation should not go forward, and if Congress
and the American people decide that this plaque or inscription
is as important as I think it is, then it should be placed on
the memorial. More importantly, the question of whether the
prayer is added to the memorial should be left up to the men
and women to whom the memorial is dedicated to.
The memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served
in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II
and the more than 400,000 who died during the war, and it seems
to me that if the few remaining World War II veterans are
supportive of the prayer being added, we as a country, as a
Nation, should honor that request.
The American Legion is supportive of the legislation, and I
also have a letter of support from the Ohio Christian Alliance,
and, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to have
those included in the record.
[The letters in support of H.R. 2070 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Lucky for us, today this Committee
will hear the testimony of Poppy Fowler on today's second
panel. Poppy is 87 years young and bravely served our Nation
during the Second World War in the Pacific Theater. He served
as a rear gunner on an SB2C hell diver in the Naval Air Group
15 and completed 35 missions during his three-plus years in the
Navy.
I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy a few weekends ago on
an honor flight to Washington, D.C., to see the memorial for
the first time, and I believe that he is a true American hero,
and I look forward to his testimony today.
During the honor flight, I also had the opportunity to
speak to a number of World War II veterans about this
legislation, and all were supportive of including the
President's prayer on the memorial. I believe the President's
prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our Nation. But
more important, it gave comfort to the brave warriors who put
their lives on the line as we fought against tyranny and
oppression.
Those words should be included among the tributes to the
greatest generation, memorialized on the national mall, and I
will continue to work with the Committee to see that the
President's words are appropriately added to the memorial. And
I am happy to answer any questions that other Committee Members
may have. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bill Johnson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding this
hearing today and for considering legislation that I sponsored, H.R.
2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.
This legislation would direct the Secretary of Interior to place a
plaque at the World War II Memorial or to inscribe onto the World War
II Memorial this prayer, which has been entitled ``Let Our Hearts Be
Stout.''
I would like to submit a copy of the prayer for the record if there
is no objection from any of the Members of the Committee.
I believe that there are several areas within the Memorial that
would be suitable for the prayer's placement, but the Department of the
Interior would have the discretion on final placement.
Furthermore, my intention is that the cost for the plaque or
inscription would be paid for by private donations from individuals, at
no cost to the American taxpayers.
The Administration's witness who is on the second panel will
testify against this legislation by saying that it violates the Vietnam
Memorial Visitor Center Act of 2003 and I wanted to take this
opportunity to pre-empt their testimony.
The legislation passed in 2003 stated that the Reserve, commonly
referred to the National Mall, is a completed body of civic art and
therefore should not be altered and therefore prohibits new
commemorative displays on the National Mall.
However, in the legislation passed in 2003, Congress allowed for a
commemorative work to go forward by allowing a plaque to be placed on
the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther King, Junior gave his famous
`I have a dream speech.'
Furthermore, in 2009 Congress passed a provision in the 2010
Interior spending bill that directed the Secretary of Interior to place
a plaque on the World War II Memorial honoring Senator Bob Dole for his
work in getting the Memorial built.
I worked closely with the Congressional Research Service and
Legislative Counsel while writing this legislation to make sure that
the language in H.R. 2070 is as close as possible to the 2009 provision
that authorized the plaque to be placed honoring Senator Dole.
I think it is disingenuous for the Administration to say that this
legislation shouldn't go forward and if Congress and the American
people decide that this plaque is as important as I think it is then it
should be placed on the Memorial.
More importantly the question of whether the prayer is added to the
Memorial should be left up to the men and women who the Memorial is
dedicated to.
The Memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served in the
armed forces of the U.S. during World War II and the more than 400,000
who died during the war, and it seems to me that if the few remaining
veterans are supportive of the prayer being added, we as a country
should honor that request.
The American Legion is supportive of the legislation and I would
ask that their letter of support be included in the record.
The Ohio Christian Alliance also has sent a letter of support that
I also ask be submitted for the record (pause for Chairman Bishop to
enter it in the record)
Lucky for us, this Committee will hear the testimony of George
`Poppy' Fowler on today's second panel. Poppy is 87 years young and
bravely served our nation during the Second World War in the Pacific
Theater. Poppy also was a charter member of the WWII Memorial Fund to
help raise money for the construction of the Memorial.
He served as a rear gunner on a SB2C Helldiver in the Naval Air
Group 15 and completed 35 missions during his three plus years in the
Navy.
I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy a few weekends ago on an
Honor Flight to Washington, D.C. to see the Memorial and I believe that
he is a true American hero and I look forward to his testimony.
During the honor flight trip I also had the opportunity to speak to
a number of World War II veterans about this legislation and all were
supportive of including FDR's prayer on the Memorial.
I believe that President Roosevelt's prayer gave solace, comfort
and strength to our nation as we fought against tyranny and oppression.
Those words should be included among the tributes to the Greatest
Generation memorialized on the National Mall and I will continue to
work with the Committee to see that this plaque is added to Memorial.
I am happy to answer any questions Committee Members may have and
with that I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of those from the
House and the Senate who have testified on these four bills. I
am now going to call up the second panel. I would ask that
Robert Abbey, who is the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management; Mary Wagner, who is the Associate Chief of the U.S.
Forest Service; Mr. George ``Poppy'' Fowler, World War II
veteran; Ms. Judith Young, who is the Chair of the Gold Star
Mothers National Memorial Foundation; and Mr. Ricky Lightfoot,
who is the former President of the Crow Canyon Archeological
Center, to join us at the table if they would.
For those of you who may not have joined us before, some of
you are old hats at this. Some of you are not. Your written
statement will obviously be included in the record. At the same
time, we are happy to hear your oral statement at this time. We
ask you to maintain to five minutes. You will see the clock
that is in front of you. When the light is green, it means the
clock is running down. When the light goes yellow, you have one
minute in which I hope you will sum up. And then when it comes
on red, that is it. Yes, if you would do that, please.
We will start first with Director Abbey and then go to
Associate Chief Wagner. I will tell you both at this time this
panel is talking only about the three bills, Chimney Rock, Gold
Star Mothers and the World War II plaque. I will give you your
option since I already kind of expanded the field in the first
panel with the Members of Congress who were here. If you would
like to give your entire testimony now on the fourth bill, the
Arizona Strip one, as well, please feel free to do that, but
the next panel will be talking specifically about that, and I
would hope you would be able to stay for that. If you only want
to talk about these three now, however you want to structure
your testimony is fine with me. So, Director Abbey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
restrict my testimony at this point in time to the three bills
that are on the agenda.
Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to
present the Department of the Interior's views on the two
National Park Service bills on today's agenda. Peter Maye,
Associate Regional Director for Lands, Resources and Planning
for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service,
is accompanying me and will be happy I am sure to answer any
questions regarding these two bills.
I would like to submit the Department's full statement on
these two bills for the record and briefly summarize them. H.R.
1980 would authorize the Gold Star Mothers National Monument
Foundation to establish a monument in the District of Columbia.
The Department cannot support H.R. 1980 because it does not
conform to the Commemorative Works Act. This position is
consistent with the findings of the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Commission.
H.R. 1980 is in conflict with the Commemorative Works Act
in two key areas. First, the Act states that a military
commemorative work may be authorized only to commemorate a war
such as the Korean War or a branch of the Armed Forces, such as
the Navy Memorial. Second, the Act permits consideration of
memorials only if the last surviving member of that group being
commemorated has been dead for 25 years.
While the proposed commemoration is outside the scope of
the Commemorative Works Act, other suitable options to honor
the Gold Star Mothers could be explored. Should the Committee
choose to advance this legislation, the Department would
encourage consideration of language to provide direction
regarding the disposition of unspent funds, and we would be
happy to provide suggested language.
H.R. 2070 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
install in the area of the World War II Memorial a suitable
plaque or an inscription of the words that President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the
morning of D-Day. The Department cannot support H.R. 2070,
which essentially proposes adding another new commemorative
work as an addition to the existing World War II Memorial and
as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act.
We support the continued application of this law, which by
prohibiting encroachment by new commemoration on an existing
one respects the design of the completed work of civic art
without alteration or addition of new elements. The
Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new
commemorative work shall be located so that it does not
encroach upon an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the
merit of this new commemoration. It is simply that altering the
memorial in a way proposed by H.R. 2070 will dilute the elegant
memorial's central message.
The Department strongly believes that the World War II
Memorial as designed accomplishes its legislative purpose to
honor the members of the Armed Forces who served in World War
II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in
that conflict.
Statement submitted for the record by the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Concerning H.R. 1980, a Bill to Authorize
the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation to Establish a
National Monument in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 1980, a bill that would authorize the Gold Star Mothers National
Monument Foundation to establish a national monument in the District of
Columbia.
The Department cannot support H.R. 1980 because it does not conform
to the Commemorative Works Act. This position is consistent with the
finding of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which
reported its views to the House Committee on Natural Resources on
August 17, 2011.
This bill proposes to both establish a national monument to mothers
of members of the Armed Forces who have died in the service to our
country, and to designate the monument as a unit of the National Park
System. H.R. 1980 also directs that the monument be established
according to the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act of 1986.
The Department appreciated the opportunity to discuss the proposal
with the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation when it met
with National Park Service staff and the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Commission. Of course we believe that recognition of the role
of mothers of members of the Armed Forces is important. We also believe
that commemoration should be accomplished in a manner consistent with
the Commemorative Works Act as enacted by Congress. We also note that
the Gold Star program itself is a commemorative program. It is to
recognize and honor those who have sacrificed their lives in service to
our Country, as well as their mothers. Memorials are not always bricks
and mortar. The Gold Star program is an excellent example, and it is a
commemoration that has endured in various ways for almost a century.
H.R. 1980 is in conflict with the Commemorative Works Act in two
key areas. First, the Act states that a military commemorative work may
be authorized only to commemorate a war or similar major military
conflict, such as the Korean War, or a branch of the armed forces, such
as the Navy Memorial. Secondly, the Act permits consideration of
memorials only if the last surviving member of the group being
commemorated has been dead for 25 years.
While the proposed commemoration is outside the scope of the
Commemorative Works Act, other suitable options to honor the Gold Star
Mothers could be explored.
The Department also notes that the legislation directs that the
memorial be established as a unit of the National Park System.
Ordinarily, the National Park Service does not recommend such
designation without first conducting a Congressionally-authorized
Special Resource Study to determine if the resource warrants
designation as a national park.
We further note that H.R. 1980 does not contain language providing
for the disposition of unspent funds that may be privately raised for a
memorial. The Department recommends legislative sponsors include such
provisions in proposals to establish memorials regardless of the
proposed location. Should the committee choose to advance this
legislation in some form, the Department would encourage consideration
of language to provide direction regarding unspent funds and we can
assist the committee with suggested language.
That concludes our prepared testimony on H.R. 1980, and we would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2070, a Bill to Direct the
Secretary of the Interior to Install in the Area of the World War II
Memorial in the District of Columbia a Suitable Plaque or Inscription
with the Words That President Franklin D. Roosevelt Prayed with the
Nation on June 6, 1944, the Morning of D-Day.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 2070, a bill which directs the Secretary of the Interior to
install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of
Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6,
1944, the morning of D-Day.
The Department cannot support H.R. 2070, which essentially proposes
adding another commemorative work to the existing World War II Memorial
and as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act. We support the
continued application of this law which, by prohibiting encroachment by
a new commemoration on an existing one, respects the design of this
completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new
elements.
The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public
Law 103-32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area
containing the National Mall in Public Law 103-422. Its location at the
site of the Rainbow Pool was approved in 1995 by the National Park
Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the
Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior
approvals of the Rainbow Pool site in recognition of the significance
of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century
for Americans and the world. Even so, there were challenges to the
establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was
painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and
spirited public debate.
The Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new
commemorative work shall be located so that it does not encroach upon
an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new
commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as
proposed in H.R. 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's
central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move,
educate, and inspire its many visitors. The Department strongly
believes that the World War II Memorial, as designed, accomplishes its
legislated purpose to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served
in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United
States in that conflict. It should not be altered in the manner
suggested by H.R. 2070.
The views of the Department are consistent with those of the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which reviewed this
proposal at its meeting on September 14, 2011, and with the views of
the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) which was also
represented at that same meeting. The ABMC, charged by the Congress in
Public Law 103-32 to design and build the World War II Memorial,
concurred that no additional elements should be inserted into this
carefully designed Memorial.
That concludes our prepared testimony on H.R. 2070, and we would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Wagner?
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. There we go. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to be
here today to offer the Administration's remarks on H.R. 2621,
the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act.
Chimney Rock was designated as an archeological area and a
national historic landmark in 1970. It lies within the San Juan
National Forest and is surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation. The site remains archeologically and culturally
significant to many descendant tribes. The purpose of the
monument would be to preserve, protect and restore the
nationally significant resources of Chimney Rock and adjacent
land and provide for public interpretation and recreation
consistent with the protection of the resources.
Mr. Tipton and Mr. Bennet did a wonderful job describing
those significant national resources. Those resources in
addition to the strong bipartisan effort and strong community
support for the monument establishment supports the merits of
designating this area as a national monument, and the
Department supports H.R. 2621.
I would like to offer several just minor modifications that
are detailed in my written testimony that would improve our
ability to manage resources in the area. And in conclusion, the
Forest Service looks forward to working with the Subcommittee
to meet the intent of the bill. I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Concerning, H.R. 2621, Chimney Rock National
Monument Establishment Act
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on
H.R. 2621, the ``Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act''.
While the Department supports H.R. 2621, I would like to offer
modifications that would address some technical concerns with the bill
and which would improve our ability to manage resources in the area.
Designated as an Archaeological Area and National Historic Landmark
in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4,100 acres of San Juan National Forest
land surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Between A.D.
900 and 1150, the ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians occupied the lands
surrounding Chimney Rock, and the site remains archaeologically and
culturally significant to many descendant tribes. At 7,600 feet,
Chimney Rock is also the most northeasterly and highest Chacoan site
known. Chacoan culture refers to the way of life of ancient ancestors
of modern Pueblo Indians and continues to be important to the native
people in the region.
The Forest Service values archaeological and cultural resources and
considers it part of the agency's mission to preserve and interpret
them for the public. We believe the rich history, spectacular
archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource
values, as well as community support, merits the designation of the
area as a National Monument.
Section 3 of H.R. 2621 would establish the Chimney Rock National
Monument in the State of Colorado by designating 4,726 acres
surrounding the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area within the San Juan
National Forest as a National Monument as depicted on the map titled
``Boundary Map, Chimney Rock National Monument'' dated January 5, 2010.
The purpose of the monument would be to preserve, protect, and restore
the nationally significant archaeological, cultural, historic,
geologic, hydrologic, natural, educational and scenic resources of
Chimney Rock and adjacent land; and to provide for public
interpretation and recreation consistent with the protection of the
resources.
Section 4 of the bill addresses the administration of the proposed
National Monument. It provides for continued use of the Monument by
members of Indian tribes for traditional and cultural uses. The
Secretary of Agriculture would also be authorized to allow uses of the
Monument consistent with the purposes of its establishment. These uses
include: vegetative management treatments including timber harvest and
the use of prescribed fire only if the Secretary deems it necessary to
address the risk of wildfire, insects, or diseases; scientific
research; the use of mountain bikes and motorized vehicles;
installation, construction and maintenance of a public utility right of
way under certain circumstances; and grazing in existence on the date
of enactment of the bill. We feel that the continued use of this area
for hunting and other recreational use compatible with the designation
should also be explicitly addressed in this section.
Section 4(j) references the Department of Interior when designating
a manager; this needs to be corrected to read ``Department of
Agriculture''. Additionally, 4(i) would provide that signs, fixtures,
alterations, or additions needed in connection with the designation or
advertisement of the Monument may be paid for only with non-federal
funds or amounts made available of such purposes in the previous
appropriation acts. While we appreciate the concern with limiting the
costs associated with designation of the Monument, this provision may
undercut the ability of the Forest Service to meet the objectives of
the bill.
Section 5 would require the Forest Service to develop a management
plan not later than 3 years after the date of enactment and in
consultation with Indian Tribes with cultural or historic connections
to the Monument. The management plan must identify the authorized uses
for the Monument. In developing the management plan, the Secretary
would provide an opportunity for comment to the public and such
entities as State, Tribal government, local, and national organizations
with an interest in the management and use of the Monument. The San
Juan National Forest land management plan would have to be amended to
incorporate the management plan for the Monument.
Section 6 allows the Secretary to acquire land and any interest in
land within or adjacent to the boundary of the National Monument by (1)
purchase from willing sellers with donated or appropriated funds; (2)
donation; or (3) exchange.
Section 7 of the bill would withdraw all Federal land within the
national monument, subject to valid and existing rights, from entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public laws; location, entry, and
patent under the mining laws; and from operation of the mineral
leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws except for
issuance of gas pipeline rights-of-way within existing easements.
Section 8 of the bill would stipulate that nothing in this Act affects
anything related to reserved water rights, tribal rights, fish and
wildlife jurisdiction, and adjacent uses.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service looks forward to
working with you and the Subcommittee to carry out the intent of the
bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will turn now to Ms. Young. The
first bill that the Director talked about was the one of which
you are concerned, the Gold Star Mothers act, so we will talk
about that one. Then we will actually turn to Mr. Fowler, give
you a chance to talk about the plaque. And then finally, Mr.
Lightfoot, if you would talk about what the Associate Chief of
the Forest Service just mentioned, I would appreciate that.
So five minutes each. Ms. Young, you are on.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH C. YOUNG, CHAIR,
GOLD STAR MOTHERS NATIONAL MONUMENT FOUNDATION
Ms. Young. All right. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee----
Mr. Bishop. I don't think your microphone is on.
Ms. Young. All right, OK.
Mr. Bishop. Perfect.
Ms. Young. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, good morning. I am Judith Young, Chairman of the
National Monument Foundation, and I want to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. I also want to thank the
Committee for your work over the years to enhance the American
experience through the national park system, our parks, our
public lands and specifically our natural monuments.
Through your Committee's legislative initiatives and
dedicated work, you have permitted the American people, both
young and old, to reflect, to remember and to honor the
sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and their families
through the magnificent memorials and monuments that are on the
National Mall and the other locations throughout the great
country of ours.
Today I am privileged to speak to you in support of H.R.
1980, the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011. I
want to personally thank Representative Jon Runyan for
introducing this important legislation and the bill's 63
cosponsors, including seven Members of the House Committee on
Natural Resources.
Throughout our history the fighting spirit of the American
warrior has never been questioned. The men and women of our
Armed Forces continue to display their valor in the finest
traditions of the generations who have served since the
Continental Army. We, the American people, continue to be
blessed by their acts of bravery and selfless service.
At the same time, the families of our military members also
serve and sacrifice in their own personal way. The Gold Star
tradition has been around for nearly a century as a reminder of
their sacrifice. During World War I, flags were displayed in
homes, businesses, schools and churches bearing the blue star,
which represented each member who was serving. If the service
member gave their life, then a gold star was replaced over the
blue one.
For this simple but powerful expression of love and
devotion came the distinction of being a Gold Star Mother.
These are the mothers who rocked the cradle of our military men
and women. Being a Gold Star Mother is not a status that one
pursues. Rather, it is a state of being that descends upon us
as a result of having raised our children with the spirit and
sense of duty for service to our country.
With that knock on the door, that fateful day our lives are
changed forever. But as unwelcome as the distinction of being a
Gold Star Mother might be, we have chosen to transform our loss
and our grief into service to others. We believe that we can
honor the legacy of our sons and daughters by serving others.
This brings me to the current legislation and our efforts
to establish a national monument here in the National Capital
region. The region is replete with monuments and memorials to
the warrior and rightly so. But the sacrifices of families go
largely unrecognized except perhaps a comment during a speech.
The purpose of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument is
to honor those mothers who know the grief of losing a son or
daughter in the service of our country. It will also promote a
bond of kinship and engage support for our veterans who have
stepped forward and answered the call to duty and defense of
our country. In large measure, by honoring the mothers, it will
recognize and honor the sacrifices of each of the families.
Over the years, Gold Star Mothers have collectively
invested millions of volunteer hours in support of our warriors
and their families and personal service at our Nation's
veterans hospitals, to individual veterans in our local
communities. In serving this way, the mothers have turned their
loss into a positive force for others. Our executive director
and sculptor of the monument, which is Andrew Chernak, is a
Vietnam veteran, and he also is a Purple Heart recipient, he
has said it perhaps the best. If you want to know quiet
greatness, spend a little time in the presence of a Gold Star
Mother.
As I am sure the Members of this Committee fully understand
and appreciate, the significance of a monument or a memorial is
not only in the structure itself but also in its placement. To
provide the greatest honor, monuments need to be placed where
they can be easily accessed and seen by the greatest number of
people. To do this otherwise would convey the impression,
rightly or wrongly, that the purpose of this monument has less
significance and standing.
Although there are many locations, Arlington is the
national resting place of warriors and a symbol of the national
hometown cemeteries across the country where our sons and
daughters have eternal rest. It is our hope and desire to see a
place near the visitor's center at Arlington National Cemetery.
Everyone laid to rest in Arlington had a mother who nurtured
them.
And I just want to say the mothers are not military. Their
sons and daughters were, but the mothers themselves are not
military. So the other gentleman that said that we should not
be reserve because of the military, that doesn't hold true to
us. And we are not asking to be on the Mall.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Young follows:]
Statement of Judith C. Young, Chair,
Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation, on H.R. 1980
Mister Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. I am
Judith Young, the Chair of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument
Foundation, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I also want to thank the Committee for your work over the years to
enhance the ``American Experience'' through the National Park System,
our forests and public lands, and specifically through our national
monuments.
Through your Committee's legislative initiatives and dedicated work
you permit the American people (both old and young, alike) to reflect,
to remember, and to honor the sacrifices of our men and women in
uniform and their families through some of the magnificent memorials
and monuments here on the National Mall, and many other locations
throughout this great country of ours.
Today I am privileged to be able to speak with you in support of
H.R. 1980, The Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011. I want
to personally thank Representative Jon Runyon for introducing this
important legislation and the bill's 63 Co-Sponsors, including 7
members of the House Committee on Natural Resources (Bordallo, Denham,
Flores, Garamendi, Johnson, Lamborn, Pallone).
Throughout our history, the fighting spirit of the American Warrior
has never been questioned. The men and women of our Armed Forces
continue to display their valor in the finest traditions of the
generations who have served since the Continental Army. We, the
American people, continue to be blessed by their acts of bravery and
selfless service.
At the same time, the families of our military members also serve
and sacrifice in their own personal way.
The Gold Star tradition has been around for nearly a century as a
reminder of their sacrifices. During World War I, flags were displayed
in homes, businesses, schools and churches bearing a blue star
representing each member of the family who was serving in harm's way.
If the service members gave their life, a gold star was stitched over
the blue one. From this simple, but powerful, expression of love and
devotion came the distinction of being a Gold Star Mother.
Being a Gold Star Mother is not a status that one pursues. Rather,
it is a state of being that descends upon us as a result of having
raised our children with the spirit and sense of duty for ``service to
country.'' With the knock on the door on that fateful day, our lives
are forever changed. But as unwelcome as the distinction of being Gold
Star Mother might be, we have chosen to transform our loss and grief
into service to others. We believe that we can honor the legacy of our
sons and daughters by serving others.
That brings me to the current legislation and our efforts to
establish a national monument here in the National Capitol Region. The
region is replete with monuments and memorials to the Warrior (and
rightly so), but the sacrifices of the families go largely
unrecognized--except perhaps with a comment during a speech.
The purpose of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument is to honor
the Mothers who know the grief of losing a son or daughter in the
service of our country. It will also promote a bond of kinship and
engage support for our Veterans who have stepped forward and answered
the call to duty in defense of our nation. In large measure, by
honoring the mothers it will recognize and honor the sacrifices of each
family.
Over the years Gold Star Mothers have collectively invested
millions of volunteer hours in support of our Warriors and their
families, in personal service at our nation's Veterans hospitals, and
to individual Veterans in their local communities. In serving this way,
the Mothers have turned their loss into a positive force for others.
Our Executive Director and the Sculptor of the monument, Andrew
Chernack, has perhaps said it best: If you want to know quiet
greatness, spend a little time in the presence of a Gold Star Mother.
We believe it only fitting and proper that through H.R. 1980 a
national monument be established and authorized for placement here in
the National Capitol Region. Our hope and desire is to see it placed
near the Visitor's Center at Arlington National Cemetery. Although
there may be other locations, Arlington is the national resting place
of warriors and is emblematic of other national and hometown cemeteries
across the country where our sons and daughters have eternal rest.
Everyone laid to rest in Arlington had a mother who nurtured them,
worried about them and prayed for them. We therefore believe it fitting
that a monument to Gold Star Mothers should be placed nearby.
As I am sure the members of this Committee fully understand and
appreciate, the significance of a monument or memorial is not only in
the structure itself, but also in its placement. To provide the
greatest honor, monuments need to be placed where they can be easily
accessed and seen by the greatest number of people. To do otherwise
will convey the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the purpose of the
monument has less significance and standing than it otherwise would
have if properly located.
I want to reinforce the provision of H.R. 1980 regarding expenses.
All costs associated with the Gold Star Mothers National Monument will
be borne through private funds raised through work of the Gold Star
Mothers National Monument Foundation. No Federal funds are being
requested or expected. Our fund raising efforts are already underway.
America's Gold Star Mothers proudly honor those who fought, those
who died, and those who did not return from all prior wars and
conflicts. It is only proper that we honor them with the Gold Star
Mothers National Monument. I therefore urge your favorable
consideration of H.R. 1980.
Again, I thank you for privilege of being able to speak with you
today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony.
We will now turn to Mr. Fowler for your comments. First of all,
we thank you sincerely for your service to this country. We are
honored to have you here. We would like to hear from you for up
to five minutes about the plaque issue, sir.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ``POPPY'' FOWLER,
WORLD WAR II VETERAN
Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is relatively new
to me. Gentlemen, in relation to H.R. 2070, my name is George
A. Fowler of Coolville, Ohio. I have been asked to give
testimony to a cause that recently came to my attention.
On June 6, 1944, prior to D-Day, our President, Franklin
Roosevelt, desired to have a national day of prayer for the
upcoming undertaking. I feel with no doubt that it would be
appropriate that this prayer be inscribed in some manner at the
World War II Memorial.
Those reading this prayer would be able to recall
sacrifices made by our military, also those on the home front.
This prayer came at a perilous time, yet it was answered in
victory at a dear cost of lives. Today this prayer can pertain
to any military action. Under present circumstances, it is also
appropriate. I feel this prayer also pertained to other
military operations at this time.
On June 6, 1944, the Marianas campaign was underway. I had
the privilege to participate as a radio gunner on the dive
bomber from the carrier Essex in Air Group 15. It was only by
the grace of God that I returned to my family. Also, those
reading this prayer may look at our great Nation and ask what
may I do to keep this freedom alive and also remembering the
loved ones that were lost.
May God bless all in making this decision. Thank you for
your time. And, sir, I remain your servant.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fowler follows:]
Statement of George `Poppy' Fowler, Veteran of World War II, on H.R.
2070
Gentlemen and women in relation to H.R. 2070.
My name is George A. Fowler of Coolville, Ohio. I have been asked
to give testimony to a cause that recently came to my attention.
On June 6th, 1944, prior to D-Day, our President Franklin Roosevelt
desired to have a national day of ` for the upcoming undertaking.
I feel, with no doubt, that it would be appropriate that this
prayer be inscribed in some manner at the World War II Memorial.
Those reading this prayer will be able to recall the sacrifices
made by our military, also those on the home front. This prayer came at
a perilous time, yet it was answered in victory at a dear cost of
lives.
Today, this prayer can pertain to any military action. Under
present circumstances, it is also appropriate.
I feel this prayer also pertained to other military operations at
that time.
On June 6, 1944, the marvelous campaign was underway. I had the
privilege to participate as a radio-gunner on the dive bomber from the
carrier Essex - air group 15.It was only by the Grace of God that I
returned to my family.
Also, those reading this prayer may look at our great nation and
ask what I may do to keep this freedom alive and also remembering loved
ones.
May God bless all in making this decision. Thank you for your time.
I remain your servant.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your time and effort and
testimony. Mr. Lightfoot, can I interrupt here for just a
second? I apologize for this. But in our first panel, Senator
Hatch, as I said, was supposed to be part of our first panel,
and he was held up by speaking on the Senate Floor. And he has
now arrived and joined us on the dais. With all due respect, if
I could insert Senator Hatch here, and then we will hear your
testimony, which is about the one bill that relates to the
Forest Service in particular.
Senator Hatch, we are happy to have you here, and we would
recognize you now at this time for any comments you wish to
make.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking
Member Grijalva, and Members of this important Committee. And I
want to thank the panel for their courtesy.
I thank you for the opportunity to share a few remarks on
H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011,
introduced by Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona. I have
cosponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1690, with
Senator John McCain of Arizona, and I would like to recognize
Supervisor Buster Johnson of Mohave County, Arizona, who will
testify here today.
Supervisor Johnson represents the unanimous views of the
county commissioners from southern Utah who also strongly
support this legislation. H.R. 3155 would have an impact on the
Arizona Strip region, which sits directly south of the Utah-
Arizona border and which is very important socially and
economically to the communities and businesses in southern
Utah.
In short, economic activity in the Arizona Strip usually
means jobs for southern Utahans. Mr. Chairman, the Northern
Arizona Mining Continuity Act is simply an effort to restore an
agreement that was forged leading up to the passage of the
Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. There will be some who may
attempt a logical dance to show that the Act did not in fact
guarantee the right for future uranium mining in this area, and
I can agree that no one involved in those negotiations believed
any guarantees were established. But those of us who were
negotiating the terms of the Arizona Wilderness Act have a
clear understanding of the process that allowed it to become
law.
I submit for the record a letter sent by me and Senator
Dennis DeConcini dated June 5, 2009, to Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar.
[The letter to the Secretary of the Interior follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Hatch. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator DeConcini
was the Democratic Senator from Arizona at the time that the
Arizona Wilderness Act was negotiated. Let me just read a
portion of that letter signed by Senator DeConcini: ``This
carefully crafted compromise provided new wilderness
designations to ensure that the Grand Canyon watershed will be
fully protected and allowed mining and grazing to continue in
the remaining areas of the region. The agreement led to the
passing of the Arizona Wilderness Act by large majorities in
both the House and the Senate.''
And the letter further states, ``We believe strongly that
the recent calls for withdrawal of the area in last year's
questionable House Natural Resources Committee emergency
resolution violate the spirit of that 1983-84 agreement.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of this letter be made
part of the record along with my statement, my full statement.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that no party to those
negotiations believed that the agreement trumped environmental
laws or protections for the Grand Canyon. But Secretary
Salazar's proposed withdrawal of these uranium resources is not
about threats to the environment or to the Grand Canyon.
Careful environmental studies by the Bureau of Land Management
and by the Arizona Geological Survey make it clear that uranium
mining in this area pose no real threat to the environment, to
water quality or to the Grand Canyon. In fact, the August 2010
mineral report by the BLM recognized that withdrawing these
resources would have far-reaching economic implications for the
region.
Now I have heard some complain that different proponents of
this legislation claim different numbers of job losses related
to the Secretary's withdrawal. That is the result of different
assumptions of how much mining activity would take place.
However, there is no question that this withdrawal will lead to
a loss of future jobs and economic activity in this depressed
region of the country. The Secretary is withdrawing these lands
because he believes that mining activity would be pursued on
them.
The proposed withdrawal of this area from mining would be
the Interior Department's latest move to stifle jobs in rural
America. It is an unfortunate and dangerous trend that the
Obama Administration continues to aggressively shut down
domestic energy production. I cannot remember a time that our
Nation had a greater need than right now for the high-paying
jobs, the hefty oil and mineral royalties that would be
generated for the Federal treasury or the enhanced energy
security that would come from greater domestic energy
production.
President Obama has too often steered our Nation in the
wrong direction with regard to domestic energy jobs and energy
security. This legislation will help to correct that course in
relation to domestic uranium reserves. And as you know, Mr.
Chairman, the United States is more than 80 percent dependent
on foreign nations for our uranium needs.
The legislation before this Committee would increase jobs,
boost Federal royalties and increase our domestic energy
security. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and all
of the Members here, especially Ranking Member Grijalva, for
holding this hearing today. And I hope this Committee will give
favorable consideration to H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona
Mining Continuity Act. And I apologize for interrupting the
testimony here today, and I appreciate your great kindness in
allowing me to go forward.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Utah, on H.R. 3155, Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011
Chairman Bishop, ranking member Grijalva, and members of this
important committee, I thank you for the opportunity to share a few
remarks on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011, introduced by Congressman Trent Franks, of Arizona. I have
cosponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1690, with Senator John
McCain of Arizona.
I would like to recognize Supervisor Buster Johnson of Mohave
County, Arizona, who will testify here today. Supervisor Johnson
represents the unanimous views of the county commissioners from
southern Utah who also strongly support this legislation.
H.R. 3155 would have an impact on the Arizona Strip region, which
sits directly south of the Utah/Arizona border, and which is very
important socially and economically to the communities and businesses
in southern Utah. In short, economic activity in the Arizona Strip
usually mean jobs for southern Utahns.
Mr. Chairman, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act is simply
an effort to restore an agreement that was forged leading up to the
passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. There will be some who
may attempt a logical dance to show that the Act did not, in fact,
guarantee the right for future uranium mining in this area. And I can
agree that no one involved in those negotiations believed any
guarantees were established.
But those of us who were negotiating the terms of the Arizona
Wilderness Act have a clear understanding of the process that allowed
it to become law. I submit for the record a letter sent by me and
former Senator Dennis DeConcini dated June 5, 2009, to Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator DeConcini was
the Democratic Senator from Arizona at the time that the Arizona
Wilderness Act was negotiated.
Let me read a portion of that letter signed by Senator DeConcini:
``This carefully crafted compromise provided new Wilderness
designations to ensure that the Grand Canyon watershed was
fully protected and allowed mining and grazing to continue in
the remaining areas of the region. The agreement led to the
passing of the Arizona Wilderness Act by large majorities in
both the House and Senate.''
And the letter further states:
``We believe strongly that the recent calls for a withdrawal of
the area and last year's questionable House Natural Resources
Committee Emergency Resolution violate the spirit of that 1983/
84 agreement.''
Mr. Chairman, it is true that no party to those negotiations
believed that the agreement trumped environmental laws or protections
for the Grand Canyon, but Secretary Salazar's proposed withdrawal of
these uranium resources is not about threats to the environment or to
the Grand Canyon. Careful environmental studies by the Bureau of Land
Management and by the Arizona Geological Survey make it clear that
uranium mining in this area pose no real threat to the environment, to
water quality, or to the Grand Canyon. In fact, the August 2010 Mineral
Report by the BLM recognized that withdrawing these resources would
have far reaching economic implications for the region.
I've heard some complain that different proponents of this
legislation claim different numbers of job losses related to the
Secretary's withdrawal. That is the result of different assumptions of
how much mining activity would take place. However, there is no
question that this withdrawal will lead to a loss of future jobs and
economic activity in this depressed region of the country. The
Secretary is withdrawing these lands, because he believes that mining
activity would be pursued on them.
The proposed withdrawal of this area from mining would be the
Interior Department's latest move to stifle jobs in rural America. It
is an unfortunate and dangerous trend that the Obama Administration
continues to aggressively shut down domestic energy production.
I cannot remember a time that our nation had a greater need than
right now for the high paying jobs, the hefty oil and mineral royalties
that would be generated for the federal treasury, or the enhanced
energy security that would come from greater domestic energy
production.
President Obama has too often steered our nation in the wrong
direction with regard to domestic energy jobs and energy security. This
legislation will help to correct that course in relation to domestic
uranium reserves. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the United States is more
than 80 percent dependent on foreign nations for our uranium needs. The
legislation before this committee would increase jobs, boost federal
royalties, and increase our domestic energy security.
Once, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing,
today, and I hope this committee will give favorable consideration to
H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act. Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your
testimony. Once again, I will make you the same offer I made
your colleagues, that you can stay here if you would like and
participate with the rest of it. No one else took me up on that
offer, and I am feeling really personal about this. But if you
would like to go and have other appointments, I understand that
as well.
Senator Hatch. Well, we have so many problems over there, I
think I had better get back.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Amen. All right. With that, Mr. Lightfoot, I
apologize once again for interrupting you. I appreciate your
patience with that. We will now ask for your testimony on the
Chimney Rock piece of legislation.
STATEMENT OF RICKY LIGHTFOOT, TRUSTEE AND FORMER PRESIDENT AND
CEO, CROW CANYON ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTER
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 2621,
the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act. I am here
as a resident of southwestern Colorado, a representative of the
professional archeological community and a trustee and former
president and CEO of the Crow Canyon Archeological Center in
Cortez, Colorado.
Crow Canyon is a private, not-for-profit organization that
employs 50 people and conducts archeological research and
public education programs in the American Southwest in
collaboration with American Indians. Chimney Rock is a visually
striking land form in southwestern Colorado that rises 1,000
feet above the surrounding flood plain to an elevation of 7,600
feet.
The Chimney Rock is nationally important because of a
unique complex of archeological sites that display the
architectural design and exquisite stone masonry styles of the
Chacoan culture. The Chacoan culture flourished for over 300
years between 850 and 1150 A.D. It was a complex of the
ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and
Arizona. The Chacoan culture represents the highest achievement
of Pueblo culture in both architecture, political achievements,
economy, widespread trade as far as the Valley of Mexico, the
development of an elite leadership organization. It is a
massive complex which is best represented and preserved today
at the Chaco Canyon National Historical Park in northern New
Mexico.
Chaco Canyon was designated in 1987 as a UNESCO World
Heritage Site, and the Chimney Rock site is a part of that
cultural complex and deserves the same kind of recognition for
its position as a part of the Chacoan culture. The Chimney
Rock, as was previously stated, was recognized in 1970 when it
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The archeological sites at Chimney Rock are dominated by a
Chacoan style great house that was built in the eleventh
century to command a huge view of the surrounding landscape and
to allow observations of rare astronomical phenomena. Every
18.6 years, the moon, as seen from the Chacoan Great House,
rises between two stone spires or chimneys during an event
known as the Northern Lunar Standstill.
Two major episodes of construction at the site have been
tree-ring dated to A.D. 1076 and 1094, both of which were years
in which this phenomenon occurred. The monument also includes
many other small sites that are the residences of the local
community that lived at Chimney Rock before and during the use
of the Great House. Also, as previously stated, the present-day
American Indian groups, many Indian groups in the American
Southwest, look to Chimney Rock as an important part of their
history and cultural heritage.
Chimney Rock is already under Forest Service management,
and under H.R. 2621, this would not change. No additional
Federal appropriations would be required because of a well-
established and successful public-private partnership between
the Forest Service and a local nonprofit organization, the
Chimney Rock Interpretive Association. This nonprofit has 100
volunteers and five staff members who each year guide tours of
approximately 11,000 visitors each year to visit the site as
well as greeting and providing interpretive services to another
4,000 visitors at a small visitor center located at the site.
The Chimney Rock Interpretive Association charges a fee for
the tours, and those fees go toward maintaining the site. The
monument designation would not require additional funding, in
part because the visitor's center is already in place and the
interpretive association would continue to provide tours and
interpretive services in collaboration with the Forest Service.
Chimney Rock is a hidden jewel tucked away in the San Juan
National Forest. Providing monument status is important for two
reasons. First, the monument designation would give Chimney
Rock the recognition it clearly deserves and ensure its
protection in perpetuity. Second, establishing Chimney Rock as
a monument would enhance economic development in southwestern
Colorado. It has widespread local support. As Congressman
Tipton stated, the Archuleta County Commission, the town of
Pagosa Springs, the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, the
Chimney Rock Interpretive Association and many other regional
businesses, including Crow Canyon, are in support of the
monument because we believe it would increase tourism and have
a positive economic impact in the Four Corners region.
H.R. 2621 also lists archeological research as one of the
activities permitted in the new monument, and it is important
that this provision stay a part of the bill so that research
and interpretation of the archeological sites would continue
for the benefit of the public. The archeological research is an
important source of new information about the monument and
supports the interpretive and educational programs.
We also support the bill because it protects existing uses
of the area that do not conflict with preservation of the
sites, including grazing and access by American Indians for
religious purposes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightfoot follows:]
Statement of Ricky R. Lightfoot, Trustee and Former President and CEO,
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado, in Support of H.R.
2621
I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 2621, the Chimney Rock
National Monument Establishment Act, which would designate Chimney Rock
in southwestern Colorado as a national monument. I am a resident of the
region, a representative of the professional archaeological community,
and a trustee of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in Cortez,
Colorado. Crow Canyon is a private, not-for-profit organization that
employs 50 people and conducts archaeological research and public
education programs in the American Southwest in collaboration with
American Indians.
Chimney Rock is a visually striking landform in the southern
Colorado Rockies that rises 1,000 feet above the surrounding floodplain
to an elevation of 7,600 feet. Chimney Rock is nationally important
because of a unique archaeological site complex that exhibits the
architectural design and exquisite stone masonry styles that are
characteristic of the Chaco culture, an ancient society whose members
were ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona.
Chaco culture flourished for three centuries, between A.D. 850 and
1150, with its political and religious center located in north central
New Mexico, a place preserved today as Chaco Canyon National Historical
Park. The significance of these spectacular ruins at Chaco Canyon was
recognized in 1987 when the park was designated a UNESCO World Heritage
Site. Chimney Rock is located approximately 90 miles northeast of Chaco
Canyon, and it served as an outpost in the Chaco regional settlement
system. The national importance of Chimney Rock as a cultural site was
recognized in 1970 when it was listed on the National Register of
Historical Places.
The archaeological sites at Chimney Rock are dominated by a Chaco-
style ``great house'' built in the late eleventh century to command a
huge view of the surrounding landscape, and specifically to allow
observations of rare astronomical phenomena. The great house at Chimney
Rock is at the highest elevation of any Chacoan great house, and it is
positioned precisely to serve as a lunar observatory. Every 18.6 years,
the moon, as seen from the Chacoan great house, rises between two stone
spires, or chimneys, during an event known as the Northern Lunar
Standstill. Two major episodes of construction at the site have been
tree-ring dated to AD 1076 and 1094, both of which are years in which
the Northern Lunar Standstill would have occurred. The Monument would
also include a large number of smaller sites that are the residences of
the local community that lived at Chimney Rock before and during the
use of the great house. Present-day American Indian groups in the
Southwest consider Chimney Rock to be an important part of their
history and cultural heritage and especially many Pueblo Indian groups
who trace their descent from the people who lived in the Four Corners
area centuries ago.
The importance of the Chimney Rock archaeological complex was
recognized as early as the 1920s by the Colorado Historical Society,
which carried out the first excavations there from 1920 to 1928. The
University of Colorado collaborated with the Forest Service in the
early 1970s to develop the site for visitor access. University of
Colorado researchers have worked at Chimney Rock several times since
then, including as recently as 2009.
Chimney Rock is already under Forest Service management, and under
the H.R. 2621 this would not change. No additional appropriations would
be required because of a well-established and successful public-private
partnership between the Forest Service and a local not-for-profit
organization, the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association (CRIA). The
Chimney Rock great house site has been open for public visitation since
the 1970s, and since 1988 the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association has
provided site tours and interpretive information at the site. Currently
about 100 CRIA volunteers and 5 staff members lead two-hour walking
tours for about 11,000 visitors a year and give interpretive
information to another 4,000 people at a small visitors' center. The
Chimney Rock Interpretive Association charges a fee for the tours, and
those fees go into maintaining the site. Monument designation would not
require any additional federal funding because visitor facilities are
already in place, and the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association would
continue to give tours and prepare educational materials for visitors
in collaboration with the Forest Service.
Chimney Rock is a hidden jewel tucked away in the San Juan National
Forest National Forest. Providing national monument status is
imperative at this time for two reasons. First, monument designation
would give Chimney Rock the recognition it clearly deserves and ensure
its protection in perpetuity. Second, establishing Chimney Rock as a
monument would enhance economic development in southwestern Colorado.
Monument designation has strong local support from the Archuleta County
Commission, the Town of Pagosa Springs, the Pagosa Springs Chamber of
Commerce, the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association, and countless
other regional businesses and organizations such as Crow Canyon that
would benefit from the increased tourism afforded by national monument
status. Chimney Rock is related to other major archaeological
attractions in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico,
including Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, Aztec Ruins National
Monument, and Mesa Verde National Park. These sites attract visitors
from all over the nation and the world. With the added visibility that
national monument status would bring, Chimney Rock would increase
heritage tourism in Archuleta County and in the Four Corners region.
That will translate into additional jobs in the private sector
businesses in the region.
H.R. 2621 lists archaeological research as one of the activities
permitted in the new Monument, and it is important that this provision
stay in the bill so that research and interpretation of the
archaeological resources would continue for the benefit of the public.
The bill does not request or require any additional federal funding for
research, but states that well-designed research will be permitted.
Archaeological research has been and will continue to be one of the
sources of new information about the Monument that supports
interpretive and educational programs.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We appreciate the panel. We ask you
to stay there for questions potentially from those up here on
the dais. I will go last obviously. Mr. Lamborn, I will
recognize you for questions if you have any.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here. And I want to thank the sponsors of these bills. I
think these are all excellent pieces of legislation. And I
particularly want to single out my friend and colleague from
Colorado, Representative Tipton, for this Chimney Rock bill.
And maybe I have a little bit of a vested interest. I represent
another part of Colorado, and if people are coming to see some
of the natural beauty of Colorado in another part of the state,
which this will increase, then they are also going to come
through my part of the state, Colorado Springs, and spend their
tourism dollars there as well perhaps.
But beyond that, this is just a good thing to do because
Colorado has such amazing natural beauty, and this highlights a
certain portion, and it will bring it to people's attention so
they can enjoy the lovely creation that we have all been
blessed with in this world, especially in our corner of the
world in Colorado.
So I want to thank the representative for bringing this
legislation. And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
further questions. I would like to yield to my colleague from
Colorado if he wants to use the extra time. Otherwise, I will
just yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tipton. Well, thank you, Congressman Lamborn. I
appreciate that, and I think you speak to something that no
matter where we come from, we recognize particularly in this
economic climate we are all in this together, and we
particularly have a great resource in the State of Colorado.
And I would like to thank the panel for being here as well and
would like to recognize my friend and a colleague from the
standpoint that I had the privilege of being able to serve on
the board for Crow Canyon Archeological Center, and in my
mind's eye, I think it is probably the most advanced
archeological research center in the United States. Ricky was
CEO and president of that and I think elevated that to a very
high level, and so your opinion particularly on this is
important.
Ricky, can you maybe--I don't particularly recall, but
would it be reasonably accurate to say down at Mesa Verde
National Park that we get three-quarters of a million visitors
a year coming into that park?
Mr. Lightfoot. That is right, about three-quarters of a
million a year. I think the economic impact of the monument is
in part because of the additional attention that it gets as a
monument rather than a Forest Service archeological area, and
also many of those dollars are through private organizations
that are promoting tourism throughout the entire region. The
grand circle concept of getting people to drive around and
visit these national parks, national monuments and
archeological treasures are really part of how the private
industry takes advantage of these kinds of congressional
actions.
Mr. Tipton. Yes. Has it been your experience working in the
archeological field, because I know through Crow Canyon you
have day digs, a lot of school programs, that as we create an
awareness that we actually enhance our ability to be able to
preserve and to be able to grow the knowledge for the rest of
the country, for our citizenry?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, certainly working with educating
children in the local area, it improves the protection for
those sites because the archeological treasures of the
Southwest have always been vulnerable to vandalism. And one of
the best ways to counteract that is not through law enforcement
because there are just too many acres of land out there that
can't be policed but through public education and getting
people to appreciate the value of what they have by not
destroying sites rather than seeing people take something away
from the American public by looting sites.
Mr. Tipton. You know, and if I missed it, I do apologize,
but I thought it was pretty remarkable. Chimney Rock, one of
three locations in the world that are used to be able to follow
this lunar event that happens every 18.6 years as the moon
traverses from its southernmost rising point to the
northernmost rising point, what are those other locations? Is
it Stonehenge, and is there one in Scotland? Is that accurate?
Mr. Lightfoot. I am not sure what those other locations
are, but I know that it is characteristic of the Chacoan
culture to really position sites carefully with respect to
solar and lunar observatories or to position sites or to create
these kinds of observatories where rare lunar phenomena as well
as the solstices and equinoxes are just a part of integration
of how they chose to build their sites, the locations and the
orientations and so forth. So it is very much a part of that
culture that is often unrecognized or underappreciated to the
extent to which they understood the movement of the
astronomical bodies.
Mr. Tipton. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
quick clarification questions and a request. And I too want to
say that the Chimney Rock designation from the comments that I
have heard today is something that is very important and
needed. I would just like to tell my colleagues because it is
such a special place, as the gentleman just talked about, let
us hope nobody stumbles onto some uranium in the process
because it could jeopardize the whole thing.
Ms. Young, if I may, and if you would provide us the
courtesy if you feel like it, if you could provide us the name
and the service branch for your family member so that that can
be part of the record as well.
Ms. Young. My son was a Marine. He was in reconnaissance.
And his name was Sergeant Jeffrey Young. He was 22 years old.
He was killed in the Marine barracks bombing on October 23,
1983.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Ms. Wagner, two quick questions. H.R. 2621, the bill
appears to include a mistaken reference to an employee of the
Department of the Interior as manager of the monument. That
needs to be a Forest Service designation, correct?
Ms. Wagner. Right. That is one of the little technical
modifications in the written testimony we are suggesting.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And I am assuming the next technical
point would be can you explain how the prohibition of Federal
funds for signs, fixtures, alterations, additions that contain
within the bill, is that going to impact the ability to manage
that designation properly?
Ms. Wagner. Yes. We think the flexibility to use the great
partnerships, the public-private partnership that has been
cultivated, is really going to be beneficial to the long-term
management of the site. So we would favor the ability to use
private resources, volunteers, as well as Federal resources to
continue the stewardship of the monument.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Appreciate it. Yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Grijalva.
Representative Tipton, do you have five minutes of
questions for your own?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't use all of
that. Ranking Member, I thank you for those questions and
certainly appreciate your answers. You know, we do have a
couple of tweaks that we will certainly be able to make as this
bill advances, and I do appreciate that. And I guess I would
just like to close again with a comment following up on Mr.
Lightfoot's comments in regards to the uniqueness of this.
Here in the United States we have a location that is
probably only replicated, but in a different form across the
oceans that was established by the Chacoan culture, a unique
American treasure that is here that is well worthy of
preservation.
I know from my heart growing up down there as well, the
love that we see locally and the commitment to be able to
participate and to volunteer to be able to make this treasure
protected and accessible and viewable is incredibly important.
And a good piece of legislation, appreciate the comments from
the committee and the support on that as well. So, with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We are happy to have Representative
Kildee here. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I have no
questions at this time and would yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That is fine. Representative
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director
Abbey, a lot of my questions are going to be directed to you
obviously on my legislation. They are going to be quick because
I have quite a few of them, and I want to make sure I get a
chance to ask Mr. Fowler some questions as well.
Are you aware that there are two examples of Congress
overriding the 2003 law to allow for plaques to be placed on
the National Mall on existing memorials?
Mr. Abbey. I am not. And in Congressman----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. You are not aware.
Mr. Abbey. I am not. But if I could, Mr. Chairman, as
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I am not an expert
on the Commemorative Works Act.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK.
Mr. Abbey. But we do have an individual here that I would
like to switch seats with so he could answer your questions,
Peter Maye with the National Parks Service.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. That is fine.
Mr. Abbey. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, I still have some questions for
you, Mr. Abbey, so don't run off too far.
Mr. Abbey. I will be back. I will be back.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So are you aware of the two instances?
Mr. Maye. Yes, I am.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. You are aware. What are the first
three words of the preamble to the Constitution of the United
States?
Mr. Maye. We the people.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. We the people. So the Congress
represents the voice of the American people, correct?
Mr. Maye. That is right.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So, if the Congress decides again
to override that 2003 law to place a plaque at the World War II
Memorial commemorating the President's D-Day prayer, do you
think this Administration should oppose and prevent that
commemorative from being added?
Mr. Maye. We have not in the past. I don't see why we ever
would.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So you would support that if
Congress passes it?
Mr. Maye. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. We will press on.
Mr. Maye. Right.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Do you think that the veterans'
opinion on the memorial that was built to honor the 400,000-
plus men who gave the ultimate sacrifice and the 14 million who
served during the war be given priority in this issue?
Mr. Maye. In our actions, we respond to what the Congress
tells us to do in terms of commemoration.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Well, that is very good. Mr.
Abbey, do you know--I am relating back to your testimony. Do
you know, what is the official motto of the United States?
Either of you. Do either of you know what the official motto--
Mr. Abbey, I would like to hear from you first.
Mr. Abbey. In God We Trust.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. Then you might be aware
that the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed a resolution just
this past Tuesday that reaffirmed the belief that In God We
Trust is our national motto. In your testimony, you said that
adding the President's D-Day prayer, a prayer to the God in
whom our Nation has acknowledged that we trust and whom the
President acknowledged in whom we trusted, that gave solace and
comfort to a Nation and to the men and women that were going to
fight that critical battle on that day, you said that that
would dilute the central message of the memorial. How so?
Mr. Maye. The memorial was very carefully planned and
required an extensive process.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I am aware of that. How will placing
the President's prayer dilute the--what is the central message
of the----
Mr. Maye. It is to commemorate the servicemen who served in
the war.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. That is right. That is right. And
what better way to commemorate that than to recognize what the
commander-in-chief said on that day? Do you have a personal
opinion on that?
Mr. Maye. I do not have a personal opinion on it. I know
that the memorial is a response to the specific direction of
the Congress and was developed very carefully, both
programmatically and design-wise.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That has been waived twice, right?
Mr. Maye. Yes, it has.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So why wouldn't the Department's
response simply be that? If the Congress says do it, we have no
problem with it. Why is there an opposition and these words of
diluting the central message? How can putting the President of
the United States' message to the American people and the world
on D-Day dilute the message of the World War II memorial? I
don't understand.
Mr. Maye. The----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I got it. Thank you. I appreciate
that. OK. No response. You know, and let me say, gentlemen, I
understand that you are simply testifying on behalf of the
Department, that you do not oversee the National Mall for the
Bureau of Land Management. I know that. I do, however, hope
that I can work with the Secretary to continue this work
because I think it is so very, very important and meaningful to
the people who served.
I hope to get some additional time, and with that, I will
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. We will welcome Mr. Gosar. I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to sit on the dais and participate
in our meetings today. Do you have questions on these
particular bills?
Dr. Gosar. I would like to yield my time to my colleague,
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Fowler, is it OK if I call you Poppy?
Mr. Fowler. Call me anything. I have been called many
names.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Can you expand a little bit on your
experiences during World War II and how your faith helped you
get through the war?
Mr. Fowler. Well, I had a chance one time to go to become a
minister, but I turned it down to go to war. Also, at that
particular time, my minister gave me a testament. I wish I had
brought it. It is together with duct tape. Within it is many
things. We all had God within us when we were aboard ship,
regardless of where it was. Before we took off on flights every
morning, we either had mass or had a Protestant minister to
give us a prayer.
God took us through. God will take this Nation through. It
said Israel went against God so many times, but he come and he
said, if you will be my people, I will be your God. It still
stands today. Without that, this Nation could fail. It is
prayer today, people, that is keeping this Nation where it is
supposed to be. If we would all pray for peace, I think it
would come.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you.
Mr. Fowler. Not only that, but God played a most important
part not only in my life but even those who even didn't know
God.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I have heard it said that there are no
atheists in foxholes.
Mr. Fowler. No. And God said also, remember this, greater
love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends. We
left many, many people--we lost over 50 percent of our
squadron, original squadron, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean
or on those islands. Many have not been found or returned even
yet.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Poppy. Are you worried that
future generations might see the World War II memorial and
think that the faith of the men and women who served there
might not have been important to them?
Mr. Fowler. Well, Congressman Johnson, I saw when I was
just recently over to the World War II Memorial, when we came
back to Columbus, there were over 400 people there. Out of that
400, I would say 100 of them were small children. Would they
not know why we were there?
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Yes.
Mr. Fowler. And so therefore, even at the memorial visit,
there were many, many small children asking questions and
different things and even congratulating what I had done. But I
did not do it. We left the heroes at the bottom of that ocean.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So you are saying it would be
important if I may interpret----
Mr. Fowler. It was very important because it causes them to
ask questions.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. It would be important for our young
people to see the President's prayer to know the role that
faith played in his decisions and those of the men that served.
Mr. Fowler. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Well, that is why I think the same
way, and that is why I think this legislation is so important
to honor the faith of the men, not only the men who fought but
our President, who offered that prayer. I thank you for your
heroic service. I am enjoying getting to know you more. I
enjoyed our trip to the memorial a couple of weeks ago as part
of the honor flight. I thank you for your testimony today. And,
Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and Ranking Member Grijalva, for
holding this important hearing on this legislation. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it. Do Members of the
Committee have other questions? If not, I just have one for Mr.
Lightfoot. I did not want to run you off of the panel there,
but very quickly, if no single visitor ever came to see this,
is there still value in preserving this area?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I would hope that it will increase
visitation. But, yes, I believe the site deserves protection
just because of the important information that it contains.
Mr. Bishop. Good. I appreciate that very much. I do want
just for the record to note that there was uranium there. They
mined it. That is why they left. It is gone.
With that, I want to thank the panel for actually being
here. I appreciate your testimony. Your written testimony is
part of the record. Thank you for your time and your attendance
here.
We would like to call up the next panel. Mr. Abbey and Ms.
Wagner, if you would like to stay, that would be kind of you as
we deal with the next bill. We would also like to call up--who
am I calling up here? I am slow. Mr. Abbey, Ms. Wagner. Oh, Mr.
Buster Johnson, who is the Supervisor for Mohave County in
Arizona; Dr. Karen Wenrich, the research geologist from the
U.S. Geological Survey, who is retired from that; Mr. Mark
Trautwein, who is the former staff consultant for the
Environment, Energy, and Public Lands Committee with the U.S.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
If you would join us at the podium, I would be grateful.
Our purpose in this panel is to discuss H.R. 3155. Once again,
we are happy to have you here. As I explained to the second
panel--I am sure you understand the drill. Your written
testimony is part of the record. Right now, if there is
anything else you want to add in addition to that written, that
is fine as well. We would like to have your oral testimony
here. Green light means the time is counting down. You have
five minutes. Yellow light means you have one minute to
conclude. Red light means we would like you to end at that
time.
So once again, thank you for being here as part of this
testimony. Director Abbey, I appreciate the fact that you did
not speak toward this bill in the prior panel, and so we would
recognize first you and then Ms. Wagner to talk about this
particular bill. And notice that when you go by my rules you
actually get more time to speak to us. Thank you.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. So, Director Abbey, if you would go first.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present the
Administration's views on H.R. 3155. This bill would prohibit
the Secretary of the Interior from exercising his authority
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to withdraw
lands in the Grand Canyon watershed from location and entry
under the 1872 Mining Law.
The Administration opposes H.R. 3155. We urge the Committee
to allow the comprehensive environmental review process, which
was begun more than two years ago, to continue to a final
decision. This process includes broad participation by 11
Federal, State, tribal and county cooperators. Interested
stakeholders in the public have sent in nearly 380,000 comment
letters.
We want to emphasize that a final decision on the proposed
withdrawal has not yet been made and will not be made until
sometime after the 30-day waiting period. I am accompanied by
Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, who
can answer questions on management of Forest Service lands.
The Grand Canyon has long been recognized as one of the
Nation's most treasured landscapes. It has been a national park
since 1919, and its cultural significance goes back thousands
of years. It is a sacred place of origin to many Native
Americans.
Likewise, the Grand Canyon is a cornerstone of the region's
economy. Over 5 million people a year visit the lands in and
around Grand Canyon. Hunting, fishing, tourism and other
outdoor recreation generate billions of dollars in economic
activity. Millions of people living in seven States in the
United States and in Mexico depend upon the Colorado River for
water for drinking, irrigation and industrial use as well as
for hydropower. And of course mineral resources, particularly
high-grade uranium, are found in this area.
There are few places in the country where the resource
management challenges are more difficult or the stakes greater
than the area surrounding the Grand Canyon. Underground
aquifers and watersheds extend far beyond the boundaries of the
national park. Land and water use management decisions affect
the entire area.
Science, caution and an eye to future generations must
guide the management of the Grand Canyon and surrounding lands.
This is why in July 2009 Secretary Salazar announced a proposed
withdrawal of these lands from new mining claims for 20 years.
All other existing uses of these lands continue unaffected. The
Secretary's action prompted the Bureau of Land Management,
along with the Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Parks Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
11 other State, tribal and Federal cooperating agencies to
start a comprehensive effort to analyze the potential impacts
of the proposed withdrawal.
We included a 2010 USGS report in this comprehensive
effort. The report acknowledged uncertainty as data is sparse
but concluded that more thorough investigation is required to
better understand groundwater flow paths, travel times and
contribution from mining. A draft of this comprehensive
environmental analysis was released in February 2011 for public
review and comments.
Based on scientific analysis done thus far, the public
comments received and the incomplete or unavailable information
about impacts of chemical and radiation hazards on fish and
wildlife, springs and waterways, the Secretary selected the
full 1 million-acre mining withdrawal as the preferred
alternative. A final decision on a course of action will not be
made until the Secretary signs a record of decision.
The Administration opposes H.R. 3155 because it cuts short
the thorough and deliberative process in which the public and a
wide variety of stakeholders have engaged since the Secretary's
July 2009 announcement. As part of a comprehensive and
responsible energy policy, we will continue to authorize
development of uranium in northern Arizona, Wyoming and other
places across this country. Even with a full withdrawal, we
estimate the development of up to 11 mines in the area over the
next 20 years, including the four mines that are currently
authorized.
The Grand Canyon took thousands of years to create, and the
process of making important decisions about its future should
not be cut short.
Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Abbey and Ms. Wagner
on H.R. 3155 follows:]
Joint Testimony of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, and Mary Wagner, Associate
Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3155,
Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011
Good morning. Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior
and the Department of Agriculture to testify on H.R. 3155, the Northern
Arizona Mining Continuity Act, which would prohibit the Secretary of
the Interior from exercising his authority under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to withdraw lands in the Grand Canyon
watershed from location and entry under the 1872 Mining Law. The
Administration opposes H.R. 3155 and urges the Committee to allow the
comprehensive environmental review process defined in law, begun more
than 2 years ago, to continue to a final decision. This is a process
that has not been undertaken by Federal agencies alone, but rather has
involved the commitment and work of numerous federal, state, tribal,
and county cooperators, the time of interested stakeholders who
attended numerous tribal and public meetings, and the care and effort
of the public, who have sent nearly 380,000 comment letters during this
review. We want to emphasize that a final decision on the proposed
withdrawal has not yet been made, but will be sometime after the
current 30-day waiting period.
Background
Crafted by the immense power of the Colorado River, the Grand
Canyon and the greater ecosystem that surrounds it have long been
recognized as one of the Nation's most treasured landscapes. It is an
iconic symbol of our country's majesty. While the Grand Canyon has been
a National Park since 1919, its cultural significance goes back
thousands of years. The Grand Canyon and its environs are known as home
or a sacred place of origin to many Native Americans, including the
Havasupai, Hualapai, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Southern Paiute, and others.
Likewise, the Grand Canyon is a cornerstone of the region's
economy. Hunting, fishing, tourism, and other outdoor recreation
generate billions of dollars in economic activity in the Grand Canyon
area. Far beyond the majestic views of the canyon, millions of people
living in seven states in the U.S. and in Mexico depend upon the
Colorado River for water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial use,
as well as for hydropower. Multiple dams provide for a significant
portion of the electrical power needs of much of the rural Rocky
Mountain and Desert Southwest. And, of course, mineral resources,
particularly high-grade uranium, are found in this area. The National
Forest System lands in the area are located in the Kaibab National
Forest, including lands on the Tusayan Ranger District and on the North
Kaibab Ranger District. These lands are set aside for public recreation
and a habitat for birds and animals. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service take very seriously their
responsibility to manage these public lands and its unique resources.
There are few places in the country where the resource management
challenges are more difficult or the stakes greater than in the area
surrounding the Grand Canyon. For example, underground aquifers and
watersheds extend far beyond the boundaries of the park, and as a
result of this interconnection, land and water use management decisions
being made throughout this desert region affect the overall ecosystem.
Lands in this area are managed by many different entities, including
the National Park Service, the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, the Kaibab
Band of Paiute Indians, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the
Navajo Nation, the State of Arizona, and numerous private landowners.
Analyzing Potential Impacts
Science, caution, and an eye to future generations must guide the
management of the Grand Canyon and surrounding lands. It is for these
reasons that in July 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
announced a proposed withdrawal of these lands from location and entry
under the 1872 Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, for 20
years. During the segregation period, all other existing uses of the
lands in question are permissible--with the exception of the location
of new mining claims. Since the announcement, the BLM along with the
Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 11 other cooperating agencies have
undertaken a comprehensive effort to analyze the potential impacts of
the proposed withdrawal and a number of alternatives in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. As noted above, this process has
involved a tremendous amount of public engagement, including the
commitment and effort of the cooperating agencies, which included state
agencies, counties, and tribes. Nearly 380,000 public comment letters
have been received and 41 meetings with seven tribes and six public
meetings have been held. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
was released on February 18, 2011, followed by a public comment period
that was extended until May 4, 2011. Four alternatives were analyzed
that included:
No withdrawal (which would allow new mining claims to
be filed).
Withdrawal of approximately 300,000 acres for 20
years.
Withdrawal of 650,000 acres for 20 years.
Withdrawal of approximately 1 million acres for 20
years.
The USGS is playing a substantial role in the NEPA process, and its
2010 report was included in the Draft EIS. As part of its evaluation,
the USGS analyzed soil and sediment samples at six sites that
experienced various levels of uranium mining in the Kanab Creek area
north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed
sites, approved mined sites where operations have been temporarily
suspended, and exploratory drill sites that were drilled but not mined.
Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the
areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
Samples from 15 springs and five wells in the region contained
dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency maximum allowed contaminant for drinking water. The
springs and wells sampled are close by or in direct contact with
mineralized orebodies, and the concentrations detected are related to
natural processes, mining, or both. The USGS also looked at surface
water in the region. The report found that floods, flash floods, and
debris flows caused by winter storms and intense summer thunderstorms
occur in the region and can transport substantial volumes of trace
elements and radionuclides. The USGS report notes that fractures,
faults, sinkholes, and breccia pipes occur throughout the area and are
potential pathways for downward migration of surface water and ground
water.
The USGS report acknowledges uncertainty as data is sparse in this
region and often limited. The timing and location of water quality
information in the area is important because the potential effects of
breccia-pipe uranium mining may be localized and appear rapidly or may
be more dispersed during longer time scales. The data evaluated for
1,014 water samples from 428 sites indicate that about 70 sites have
exceeded the primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels for
certain major ions and trace elements, such as arsenic, iron, lead,
manganese, radium, sulfate, and uranium. The USGS concluded that a more
thorough investigation is required to better understand groundwater
flow paths, travel times, and contributions from mining.
Based on the analysis that has been done, the public comments
received, and the incomplete or unavailable information about impacts
of chemical and radiation hazards on fish and wildlife, springs and
waterways, the Secretary selected the full one million-acre mining
withdrawal as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. This was done
in consultation with the BLM, the National Park Service, the USGS, and
the U.S. Forest Service.
On October 27, 2011 the BLM published the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. A final decision on a course of action will not be
made until the Secretary signs a Record of Decision.
H.R. 3155
H.R. 3155 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from
extending, renewing, or issuing a notice of segregation or withdrawal
of the public lands and Forest Service lands described in Public Land
Order (PLO) 7773 without the express authorization of Congress. In PLO
7773 the Secretary exercised the emergency withdrawal authority to
withdraw the subject lands until January 2012 to allow sufficient time
for a final decision to be made on the proposed withdrawal. H.R. 3155
would also void any such notice of segregation or withdrawal of the
described lands. The Administration does not support H.R. 3155 because
it cuts short the thorough and deliberative process in which the public
and a wide variety of stakeholders have engaged.
H.R. 3155 is also built on an inaccurate characterization of the
environmental analysis conducted for the proposed withdrawal. For
example, the bill states that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) ``determined that no conclusive evidence from well and spring
sampling data that modern-day breccia-pipe uranium operations in the
northern portion of the Grand Canyon region has impacted the chemical
quality of groundwater in the regional-aquifer.'' In fact, the DEIS
instead states that ``incomplete and unavailable information adds to
uncertainty of analysis'' and cites the potential risks listed above.
Moving Forward
Uranium, like oil and gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and other
energy sources, remains a vital component of a responsible and
comprehensive energy strategy. We will continue to authorize
development of uranium in northern Arizona, Wyoming, and other places
across the country. In addition, even if the Secretary ultimately
selects the preferred alternative as the final decision on the proposed
withdrawal, new operations can be authorized on valid existing mining
claims in the proposed withdrawal area. The analysis in the DEIS shows
that, even with a full withdrawal, development of up to 11 mines in the
area over the next 20 years, including the four mines currently
authorized, is reasonably foreseeable.
Finally, it should be noted that a withdrawal, if determined to be
appropriate, would not be permanent and would not stop uranium
development or roads, or other activities typically prohibited in
wilderness areas. Again, as stated above, all other existing uses of
the lands in question are permissible--with the exception of the
location of new mining claims
Conclusion
The Grand Canyon is a unique treasure that draws tourists from all
over the world. It is a powerful and inspiring landscape, that
overwhelms our senses through its immense size--277 river miles long,
up to 18 miles wide, and a mile deep. It took many millennia to create,
and the process of making important decisions about its future should
not be cut short. The Administration takes very seriously its
stewardship of this iconic landscape, the quality of the region's water
and the myriad of resources on behalf of the American public.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3155. We
would be glad to answer your questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Wagner, do you have additional
testimony for this particular bill?
Ms. Wagner. I will just offer that the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service collaborated on offering
joint testimony, which has just been delivered by Director
Abbey. Director Abbey's remarks reflect the Administration
position on the bill, and I am here to answer any questions
specific to the Forest Service.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We would like to recognize
Supervisor Johnson from Mohave County, Arizona, for your
testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF BUSTER JOHNSON, SUPERVISOR,
MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Committee Members. My name is Buster Johnson. I am
the Chair of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors in Arizona.
I am here representing the Board of Supervisors and the
200,000-plus people in our county.
I also co-chair the Arizona-Utah Economic Coalition
comprised of Mohave County, Arizona; Washington, Kane, San
Juan, Garfield Counties in Utah; along with the town of
Fredonia, which is in Yavapai County, Arizona, and am
representing their interests as well. Our unemployment rate is
currently 11 percent. My brothers in the Navajo Nation are at a
staggering 52 percent.
I have six resolutions from five Navajo Nation chapters and
one Navajo township. The resolutions ask for consultation with
the Federal Government regarding jobs for their people. Mohave
County has a history of diverse economic opportunities ranging
from livestock, grazing, to tourism and significantly mining.
We respect and take a responsibility for protecting the Grand
Canyon National Park.
This mining will not take place in the park or anywhere
close to the Grand Canyon. As you can see from the attached
slide, the park currently generates over 4 million visitors and
range from 2 million in 1970 to a high of over 4-1/2 million in
1993. Tourism generates some $650 million annually in economic
activity. Most of that activity is on the south rim. And as the
slide shows, with activity in Mohave County growing
tremendously in the last 10 years, most of the accompanying
jobs are low-wage and seasonal jobs, which is consistent with
the tourist industry.
So, Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, while it benefits somewhat
from this activity, would starve if it were dependent upon the
tourism as a primary source of income. Our county is made up of
hardworking, middle class Americans who rely on mining and
service industries connected with the State, Federal and
private lands on which we live.
Since 1980, we have had over 260 percent growth rate.
Fifty-five percent of our population over 25 have a high school
education or less. Of our 19 industry sectors, mining is the
third highest in average wage of $51,485 annually. Now compare
that with tourism, which has the second lowest wage for all
industries, and you get an average difference of nearly
$36,000, right at a 70 percent loss of income.
Our medium household income is a little less than $40,000
and about twice the average income of a tourism job. You can
raise a family, buy a house and pay taxes in the mining
industry. In the tourism industry, you can rent an apartment,
get a second job and look to the government for assistance.
As the Federal Government controls 91.7 percent of land in
the area, with only 5 percent in private hands, without your
cooperation, there is no economy and no future. I believe we
have a slide to show that.
As you can see from the next slide, tourism and visitation
to the park, the arguments that tourism and mining are mutually
exclusive activities are simply not substantiated by the facts.
In 1987, at the time of the Grand Canyon National Park's most
dramatic visitation growth, the highest level of breccia pipe
mining also occurred.
Rather than seeing a drop in visitation, tourism growth
actually tracked mining and actually increased based on the
actual facts. Saying that the Grand Canyon will suffer because
of mines is a bogus straw man. Tourism growth has not suffered
because of mining and actually does better when mining is in
full swing.
The mining that is going to be brought into Mohave County
and southern Utah means over 1,000 jobs and $29 billion to our
economy. As a county supervisor for the past 15 years, my goal
has always been to create a vibrant economy so that our
children will be able to stay in Mohave County and raise their
families. What this impending withdrawal will do is rip apart
one of our economic opportunities to the detriment of the
people I represent.
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. I would like the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee to explain to us why he believes we
cannot protect the Grand Canyon and allow mining to occur at
the same time. My declaration that these activities are
compatible is not just wishful thinking. It is historically
factual.
The opponents of mining have chosen to ignore the fact that
mining with environmentally sound reclamation was conducted
from the early 1980s and that the price of uranium collapsed in
1993. No mining at all occurred from 1993 to 2010, and the
Denison Mine, which is now operating, is following and often
exceeding all environmental and safety laws and has received
awards for their safety from our Federal Government.
At the same time, President Obama's Interior Department is
hellbent on closing off opportunities for some of these safe
and sound mining activities across northern Arizona. It makes
utterly no sense, and the Ranking Member and the Secretary of
the Interior both know it. The fact is that as soon as
Secretary Salazar ordered these lands to be segregated in July
2009, corporate investment and exploration flows, and the
result was immediate.
The withdrawal is a reckless policy, and responsibility for
it rests with Ranking Member Grijalva and his co-conspirators,
the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the fact that
those who are actually elected to represent the people who live
in this part of Arizona and Utah are willing to stand in
support of their people, their families, their jobs. I am
referring to Representative Franks and Gosar, Flake, along with
our Senators Kyl and McCain. And I would be happy to answer any
questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Buster Johnson, Commissioner, Mohave County, Arizona,
on H.R. 3155: Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011
The Secretary of Interior, Kenneth Salazar plans to deprive the
people of this nation of 42 percent of all domestic source of uranium
critical to the national defense.
He plans to do this by withdrawing from multiple use the over 1
MILLION ACRES in the Arizona Strip and Kaibab National Forest in
northern Arizona from multiple use, so that he can end uranium mining
in the area.
In laying forth this plan, he is acting as a rogue representative
of bureaucratic government--operating against the will of Congress,
directions from the President, and in violation of federal law.
His actions are those of an appointed official who believes that he
is free of the law's restraints; he believes, obviously, that he is
above the law that governs the rest of our American society.
The members of the Arizona Utah Local Economic Coalition call upon
the Congress to put a stop to the outlaw proposal by the Secretary. The
members formed the Coalition when it became clear that the Secretary
felt himself free to disregard the law.
His renegade, unilateral plan to withdraw from uranium mining over
1 MILLION ACRES in the Arizona Strip District of the Bureau of Land
Management is:
(1) harmful to the United States;
(2) contrary to Congress' exercise of its Constitutional
authority to manage public lands;
(3) in violation of Presidential Executive Orders,
(4) contradictory to an energy plan led by a fellow cabinet
member;
(5) in violation of federal statutes and regulations;
(6) economically and socially destructive to the citizens of
northern Arizona and southern Utah;
(7) totally deceitful to citizens of the United States; and
contradicted by sound science and economic and social evidence.
His plan defies the will of Congress. In the 1984 Arizona and Utah
Wilderness Acts, Congress designated the land as multiple use so that
Uranium mining could continue.
Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, provides that: ``The Congress
shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States''
When Congress acted to designate the Arizona Strip as multiple use
so that mining could continue, it adopted into law an agreement made
between ranchers, the uranium industry and environmentalist
organizations. In exchange for designation of wilderness areas in Utah
and Arizona, the environmentalists and the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture, through President Reagan's Secretary of Interior William
Clark, Secretary of Agriculture John Block and Chief of the Forest
Service Max Peterson, agreed to leave the Arizona Strip open for
uranium mining. The Sierra Club, which now actively urges shut down of
uranium mining, agreed to the land use settlement by Congress.
Now, 27 years later, the Sierra Club, the ranking member of this
Committee and Secretary Salazar have set out to unravel the agreement
that has allowed uranium mining to continue while land managers and
federal and state environmental quality agencies have assured that no
environmental harm has been done.
This Congress has urged local governments and citizens to
compromise, to collaborate in order to resolve land use issues.
Congress passed the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act of 2009 which
embodied a historic agreement by ranchers and environmentalists that
resolved decades of bitter contention over use of the public lands.
If the Secretary is allowed to flaunt the will of Congress, as he
now proposes to do, every local government, every land owner--rancher,
farmer, miner--will avoid collaborative efforts with organizations that
lie in wait to undo agreements.
His plan defies the orders of his superior, President Obama. In two
Executive Orders issued this calendar year of 2011 the President
ordered the Secretary and other cabinet members to avoid adverse
impacts on jobs and economic stability.
In Executive Order 13563, the President in January, 2011, directed
that the Secretary and all other Department heads assure that the
regulatory system was ``promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness and job creation.'' The Secretary's maverick proposal
to withdraw the land from uranium mining terminates any possibility for
economic growth in all of northern Arizona and southern Utah. Evidence
received by the Coalition during a public hearing on September 7, 2011,
proved that over 1,000 new jobs will be eliminated, over $40 MILLION in
annual payroll will be lost, $2 BILLION in federal and state corporate
income taxes will never be paid, and over $175 MILLION in taxes and
fees will be lost to local governments.
The result of the Secretary's proposal will be the exact opposite
of what the President ordered.
In Executive Order 13575, the President in June, 2011, directed
that Secretary Salazar and all cabinet members ``coordinate and
increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural
stakeholders including. . .local governments...regarding the needs of
rural America.'' Every member of the Coalition knows that the Secretary
did not coordinate his proposal with them as the elected governing
bodies of the local governments affected by the proposal. Evidence
produced at the September 7, 2011 hearing made it clear that the
Secretary's proposal is contrary to the economic and social needs of
rural northern Arizona and southern Utah.
The arrogance of Secretary Salazar may be unparalleled in modern
history; it is hard to believe that a member of the President's own
cabinet would set out to deliberately violate the orders of the
President. But, believe it or not, the Secretary acts in defiance of
the President, the Congress and the people--in order to serve anti-
mining environmental interests.
His plan defies the energy policy of the nation, declared by his
superior, President Obama, and led by his fellow Cabinet member
Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The energy goal is to develop
clean energy, including nuclear energy. The land Secretary Salazar has
chosen to withdraw from uranium mining supplied 42 percent of our
nation's domestic uranium.
Congress has set an energy policy that calls for expanding nuclear
generation of electricity. The Secretary's proposal is counter-
productive to that policy. As an executive appointee he is creating a
severe road block to implementation of Congressional policy set by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In line with its pursuit of vigorous development of nuclear energy,
Congress directed a study by the Congressional Budget Office as to the
future needs for nuclear generation.
In its study ``Nuclear Power Roles in Generating Electricity'', May
2008, the CBO said that the Act ``provides incentives for building
additional capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil
fuel technologies and an advanced generation of nuclear reactor designs
that intended to decrease costs and improve safety.''
The CBO study points out that by the end of ``the next decade
[2020] demand for electricity in the United States is expected to
increase by about 20 percent, according to the Energy Information
Administration. That projected increase--coupled with concerns about
the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment--has
encouraged policymakers to reassess the role that nuclear power might
play both in expanding the capacity to generate electricity and in
limiting the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of
fossil fuels.''
The study concludes that ``prospects that new nuclear power plants
will be planned and financed in the next decade are greater than at any
time since the 1970s...''
In March of this year, Secretary Chu testified to the House
Subcommittee on Appropriations on Energy and Water Development that the
nation ``must rely on a diverse set of energy sources including
renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear
power. We look forward to a continued dialogue with Congress on moving
that agenda forward.''
So, while Secretary Chu wants to work with Congress to further
nuclear power, Secretary Salazar defies Congress by proposing to over-
ride the designation of land for uranium mining that will make it far
more expensive and difficult to develop nuclear energy.
His plan defies sound public policy. At a time when the President
urges freedom from reliance on foreign sources of fuel, the Secretary
increases the reliance on foreign nations, including Russia, for
uranium critical to the already existent reactors in this country.
In his state of the Union address, President Obama urged the need
to become more independent of foreign nations for supply of energy.
Secretary Salazar's proposal increases our dependence on foreign
uranium--with Russia being one of the major nations on which we would
be dependent.
Congress too has expressed the danger of relying on foreign nations
for production of minerals critical to our energy, defense and
production interests. Just five months ago, twenty two bipartisan
members of the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R.
2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011
which the House press release said ``as part of the American Energy
Initiative. . .will help strengthen and improve our national mineral
policy by requiring a government wide survey of American mineral
resources, demands and factors impacting mineral development. . .''
Warning of the danger resulting from the fact that the nation
imports a majority of minerals needed for renewable energy projects,
the House announcement pointed out that H.R. 2011 ``directs the
Secretary of the Interior to coordinate a government wide assessment of
the Nation's mineral resources and availability to meet current and
future strategic and critical mineral needs.''
Yet, at a time when this House has pending a Bill directing him to
address the dangers of the imbalance of import-export of necessary
minerals, Secretary Salazar proposes to drastically increase our
reliance on foreign uranium.
Section 4 of the Bill requires the Secretary to submit a report
within six months of passage that includes an assessment ``of the non-
fossil-fuel mineral potential of lands under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service and an identification
of all such lands that have been withdrawn, segregated and otherwise
restricted from mineral exploration and development.''
Representative Gosar of Arizona and Representative Bishop of Utah
who have spoken in support of retaining the Arizona Strip in multiple
use, are co-sponsors of H.R. 2011.
Just one week ago today, Representative Harris of Maryland told a
joint hearing by the House subcommittees on Energy and Environment and
Investigations and Oversight that ``nuclear energy is an integral
component of America's energy portfolio. One hundred and four currently
operating commercial nuclear reactors deliver a clean, affordable and
reliable energy source that supplies 20 percent of America's
electricity.''
How in good conscience, and in the name of sound public policy, can
a member of the cabinet propose to eliminate mining of uranium in an
area rich with deposits of high quality, inexpensive, usable uranium
that makes up 42 percent of our domestic supply?
The members of the Coalition are counting on the Congress to
prevent implementation of the Secretary's rogue actions that are
contrary to the will of Congress, the directions from the President,
and inconsistent with national policy.
His plan ignores the facts and endangers the economic stability and
social cohesiveness of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
The Secretary claims that his proposal will not eliminate domestic
jobs and will not harm the local economy for the citizens within the
territory governed by members of the Coalition.
The Secretary claims that tourism jobs are the backbone of the
economy of northern Arizona and southern Utah. He is dead wrong, and he
knows it.
The Secretary knows the facts. No one in his position could be so
naive as to believe what he says. The data is clear and is evident for
anyone to see. His agent, the Arizona Strip District Manager sat during
the September 7, 2011 hearing and heard evidence that belies the
Secretary's statements. We know the Manager well; he is a professional
and a man of his word. He said that he would make sure that the
decision makers heard what he heard at the hearing. We take him at his
word.
We know that the Secretary was furnished all the information that
was produced as testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing.
The economic evidence came from economic development managers of
each of the members of the Coalition. To a person they testified that
tourism jobs are among the lowest paid jobs in the states of Arizona
and Utah. The Coalition heard evidence that mining jobs are at worst,
the second highest salaries in the states, and that they are the best
jobs available for high school graduates who make up the majority of
workers in the area impacted.
The Coalition heard evidence of the economic blight that has
occurred since mining jobs dried up when prices went down several years
ago, and evidence that tourism did not replace, did not even begin to
replace, the mining incomes as a resource upon which the communities
could rely. One witness testified that the type of visa issued to and
for tourism, or hospitality, workers caused a drain on the economy
rather than a boost. The reason is that the tourism workers do not buy
and own property that is the source of property taxes, and they do not
spend their money in the local area.
The Coalition heard evidence that as families move away when mining
jobs dry up, the social cohesiveness of the communities dissolves. The
communities rely on family members to serve as volunteer emergency
services technicians, teachers aides, coaches, firefighters, search and
rescue workers, parent-teacher workers, service club members, and other
public outreach positions that local governments in the area cannot
afford to hire.
The Secretary knows that the economy and the social cohesiveness of
the area will be harmed virtually beyond repair if mining is
foreclosed.
The only reasonable hope for any economic and social resurgence in
the areas that once were plush with mining incomes is that mining be
available when the prices prompt vigorous operations. But, with the
specter of withdrawal hanging over the land, there will be no such
operations of even existing mines.
The Secretary and his employees urge that the withdrawal will not
affect existing mining or present mining claims. But that is
disingenuous as this Committee knows. No company will risk exploration
and implementation costs when there is the specter hanging in the air
that all mining may be shut down once the withdrawal has taken place.
We know, as you do, that once the bureaucracy shuts down or locks
down public land, there never is a relaxation of those regulations and
restrictions. Rather, the restrictions expand beyond what the
government committed at the time of lock-down. We know, as you do, that
our experience with the Grand Escalante Monument in our area
demonstrates that fact. When the Monument was designated, the
government committed that there would be no change in livestock
grazing, hunting and recreation use. Quite the contrary, grazing has
been drastically reduced, hunting has been severely reduced to the
point of virtual elimination, and motorized recreation is non-existent.
The Coalition heard the following testimony as to the economic harm
that will result, in spite of what the Secretary says:
1. Justin Fischer is in a good position to observe the changes
and adverse impacts that occur with the restriction of land use
on federal lands by the government. He pointed out first that
Garfield County is not one time mentioned in the DEIS analysis.
He has studied the transition of communities from the natural
resource production economy of the 70s to the current day.
Wages in Garfield County have gone down to the point at which
they are either the lowest or next to lowest, average wise, in
the State of Utah. It has the highest unemployment, its school
populations have nose-dived, and all of these conditions have
resulted from federal land use changes through wilderness and
monument lock-downs. He pointed out further that the only
reason that employment is as high as it is rests with the use
of H2B Visas used by foreign nationals coming in to the County
to hold tourism jobs. Most of the money earned by such workers
is not spent in the County. H1B Visas that allow technical
workers to come into the Country are rare. The NEPA study does
not even consider this aspect of the job market in Garfield
County. He testified that the EIS focuses on the bottleneck of
having only one mill operating in Blanding; it did not even
consider, perhaps the writers did not even know of, the
potential for output by the mill in Kickapoo in Garfield
County. The Coalition finds that the EIS analysis is completely
flawed and deficient when it ignores an entire County that is
impacted heavily by the withdrawal, and ignores a mill that
exists in the County, contending that production is
bottlenecked because there is only one mill available.
2. Bremner also pointed out that there is no consideration in
the DEIS analysis given to the fact that mining jobs are the
highest paying jobs that high school graduates can get in the
area, and that most of the available workers are high school
graduates. The town of Escalante is surrounded by monuments and
wilderness, and it should be the most plush community in the
land if there were truth to the myth that tourism dollars do
effectively fill the economic void resulting from natural
resource production termination. But, instead school
populations are down because families have departed because
there are no jobs. The socio-economic study in the DEIS does
not even refer to the bonding of citizens in rural communities
like Garfield County and its towns, or to the social structure
that is decimated by the removal of families from that bonding
cohesiveness.
3. Commissioner Leland Pollock of Garfield County testified as
to the importance of mining and mining jobs to local
communities and their citizens. When coal mining was allowed,
Garfield County's economy boomed. When the Federal Government
took away the coal industry, local officials were told that
tourism would replace the economic support previously given by
the coal industry. That did not obviously happen. 300 million
tons of some of the cleanest coal available anywhere in the
world are locked down by Federal Regulations in the County, and
the County has an unemployment rate of 17 percent. The evidence
as to the coal mining impact on the economy is relevant to the
issue now before the Coalition because it shows the pattern of
federal control being expanded over all economic resources
throughout the area covered by the members of the Coalition.
Commissioner Pollock pointed out that next, the timber industry
was taken from Garfield County. The reasons given of course
were that the loggers were ruining the forests, but without
logging the forests are sick, infested by Bark Beetles and
subject to devastating forest fires that have destroyed many
elements of the natural environment including wildlife and
natural scenery. So, the policy of shutting down logging
backfired on the natural environment in Garfield County,
leaving the forests in deplorable condition. All the adverse
impacts from coal and timber shut downs are coming again
through the withdrawal of mining which will impact jobs now and
in the future.
His plan violates the Federal Land Policy Management Act, NEPA, and
federal regulations issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the
Council on Environmental Quality
1. FLPMA requires in 43 U.S.C. 1712 that the Secretary
coordinate all federal plans, policies and management decisions
with local government. The withdrawal provisions of FLPMA, 43
U.S.C. 1714 do not exempt the withdrawal decisions from the
coordination mandate, and the provisions of 1714 make it clear
that coordination is required prior to the act of withdrawal.
For example, Section 1714 requires that after making a
withdrawal, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress that
contains all of the following regarding local governments:
``. . .the Secretary shall furnish to the committees
[of Congress]:
``(2) an inventory and evaluation of the current
natural resource uses and values of the site and
adjacent public and nonpublic land and how it appears
they will be affected by the proposed use, including
particularly aspects of use that might cause
degradation of the environment, and also the economic
impact of the change in use on individuals, local
communities, and the Nation;
. . .
(7) a statement of the consultation which has been or
will be had with other Federal departments and
agencies, with regional, State, and local government
bodies, and with other appropriate individuals and
groups;
. . .
(8) a statement indicating the effect of the proposed
uses, if any, on State and local government interests
and the regional economy;
2. The Secretary did not consult with or coordinate with the
local governments that are members of the Coalition as to
issuance of the Order of Segregation or the proposed
withdrawal. In fact, when given an invitation to meet with the
members of the Coalition prior to the first meeting of the
Coalition, he sent the District Manager but neither came
himself nor sent the Arizona State Director.
3. The Secretary failed to provide early notice to the members
of the Coalition or, to the knowledge of Coalition members, any
other local government in southern Utah or Northern Arizona.
The members of the Coalition were afforded no opportunity
whatsoever to participate with ``meaningful'' involvement in
the ``development'' of the decisions to Segregate or to notify
the proposal to withdraw.
4. In simple terms the Secretary violated the terms of FLPMA.
His plan is deceitful in that claims that it is based upon concerns for
environmental harm that might occur as a result of uranium mining.
For the reasons set forth in the Findings and Conclusions issued by
the Coalition at the conclusion of its public hearing, it is clear that
the Secretary is deceiving or attempting to deceive the public by
claiming there is concern about environmental harm that might be done
by uranium mining. Even his own land managers in the District admit
that there is no environmental harm being caused by mining.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Dr. Wenrich, a retired member of the
USGS, we appreciate you being here. We also appreciate the
honor you helped with this country in being part of the group
that won the Nobel Prize. So thank you for being here. We are
ready to have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KAREN WENRICH, RESEARCH GEOLOGIST, U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY, RETIRED
Dr. Wenrich. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you to pull that closer to you?
Dr. Wenrich. OK. My testimony is based on data from many of
the 160 publications which I authored and co-authored as an
employee of the U.S. Geological Survey and the International
Atomic Energy Agency. I will also talk about a vital geological
component of the district that has not been addressed in the
withdrawal. That is value added by rare earth elements and
other strategic metals that are in the deposits.
First, it is imperative to address the staggering
geological importance of northern Arizona uranium. According to
USGS studies, the proposed withdrawal area contains an
estimated uranium endowment in excess of 326 million pounds,
which is 40 percent of the U.S. uranium resources. Despite such
conclusive government-authored statements, both the draft
environmental impact statement and the recently released final
EIS have failed to recognize the significance of this enormous
uranium district of polymetallic deposits.
Through bureaucratic sleight of hand, these two documents
have erroneously and dramatically minimized the significance of
the resource, both the size of the endowment and its impact on
domestic energy production. Additionally, the EIS totally fails
to address the vast resource of an additional 40 energy
strategic metals that are rich in this vast valuable mineral
deposit.
All of the northern Arizona withdrawal parcel lies within a
corridor 45 miles wide and 110 miles long that essentially
contains all of the known uranium deposits. It is almost as
though the government located the area with the most mining
claims and divined it to be worthy of withdrawal. As a former
U.S. Geological Survey employee, it is my recollection that the
objective of the withdrawals was to select an area to preserve
that minimized the loss of mineral wealth to our Nation, not to
maximize it.
This corridor to be withdrawn is in the heart of
essentially the total resource of the northern Arizona breccia
pipe uranium district, and therefore any withdrawal
alternatives B, C, or D would destroy future development of
this world class resource and the United States' major uranium
reserves, with the byproduct rare earth elements and base
metals that could fulfill our goal of uranium independence as a
major step in our road to energy independence.
The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order
because we need to evaluate the impacts of a handful of
additional mines that are currently exempt from the withdrawal.
However, we just finalized an EIS that evaluated eight mines
that were mined in the 1980s, and wasn't that enough of a
handful already? Why is it necessary? Is it because the
Secretary didn't find the results he wanted because there was
no contamination deemed to have been caused by these mines?
First of all, the Secretary's EIS shows no environmental
impacts that cannot be readily mitigated. Second, the
Department of the Interior's EIS fails to honestly recognize
the many environmental attributes of breccia pipe mining. This
is the kind of clean mining any serious pro-environmental
advocate should be promoting that can be held up to countries
throughout the world as a model to emulate in the goal to
clean, safe and environmentally friendly mining.
Third, the Secretary chooses to ignore the research work
that has already been done both inside the Department of the
Interior, USGS results, and the preliminary findings of the
University of Arizona that much of the uranium in the Colorado
River is naturally occurring, a key indication that the
industrial activity does not harm the water quality for
drinking water and agricultural activities that depend on the
river for water.
The fact that environmental groups engaged in fearmongering
with downstream water users in Las Vegas and southern
California does not make the case for prohibiting breccia pipe
uranium mining. That such fears are scientifically ungrounded
is demonstrated by research by the Arizona Geological Survey in
their calculations of the non-effect of a hypothetical truck
spill on the drinking water quality of the Colorado River.
Four, knowing that no breccia pipe uranium tailings are
produced or left onsite in northern Arizona and deliberately
trying to confuse the Moab tailings issue next to the Colorado
River with breccia pipe mining is grossly misleading. There is
no relationship between the Moab tailings and breccia pipe
mining and no tailings will be left onsite in the breccia
pipes.
Similar to the way the BLM has downplayed the significance
of uranium resources, it has vastly overstated the
environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium
development. A case in point is the danger to the region's
watershed, particularly the Colorado River, caused by rare and
inconsequential oil spills.
In response to concerns about the contamination of the vast
and enormously valuable water resource, John Spencer of the
Arizona Geological Survey and I calculated just how much damage
could be done by such a hypothetical oil spill, calculations
that a high school student could do and certainly the BLM and
other Department of the Interior agencies should have done.
These calculations are presented as a published report by
the Arizona Geological Survey and conclude that although the
Colorado River water and the Grand Canyon contains 4 ppb,
approximately 60 metric tons of dissolved uranium derived by
natural weathering of rock over the Colorado River drainage
basin are carried annually by the Colorado River through the
Grand Canyon.
We considered a hypothetical worst-case accident which a
truck hauling 30 metric tons of 1 percent uranium was
overturned by a flash flood in Kanab Creek and its entire load
is washed 60 kilometers down Kanab Creek into the Colorado
River, where it is pulverized and dissolved over one year to
become part of the dissolved uranium content of the river.
This addition of 660 pounds of uranium over one year would
increase uranium in the Colorado River water from 4 ppb to 4.02
ppb. Given that the EPA maximum level for uranium in drinking
water is 30 ppb, this increase would not only be trivial but
undetectable against much larger natural radiation and river
water content.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Wenrich, can I ask you to quickly sum up
there.
Dr. Wenrich. Sure. I just want to conclude that when
calculations are done, if six mines are produced as according
to the EIS, there would be a value added of $17 million to the
$475 million from the uranium mining, and that 17 million would
be from rare earth element mining and another 10 million from
additional metals, strategic base metals. And this is a
savings, an economic savings of our foreign debt. Retaining our
own sources of energy and strategic metals is critical to our
economic and security survival.
And by the wave of the executive wand, these huge metal
resources will be stricken from the United States' strategic
metals stockpile just when our jobless rate is huge and China's
strong arm is reaching globally to control the world's
strategic metals.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wenrich follows:]
Statement of Karen Wenrich, PhD, CPG, Concerning H.R. 3155,
Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to voice my support of H.R. 3155, the Northern
Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011. The northern Arizona proposed
withdrawal is a subject of great importance to me, as well as to the
uranium mining industry, the nuclear energy industry, the residents of
Arizona and southern Utah who are eager to work, and to all who operate
on our nation's public lands. I will focus my comments today primarily
on the geologic and economic significance of northern Arizona uranium
ore deposits and the previous successes of the regulatory system in
monitoring and protecting the environment from any harm by mining. I
will refer to some of the numerous studies which I authored and co-
authored as an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and as a certified professional
consulting geologist. Additionally, I will be referring to reports
produced by experts in the uranium industry who have spent most of
their careers in the northern Arizona uranium district with years of
hands on experience mining and protecting the environment. I will also
present a new vital geological component of the district that has not
been publically disclosed to-date.
Significance of Northern Arizona Uranium
First, it is imperative to address the staggering geological
importance of northern Arizona uranium. According to two USGS studies
(Otton, et.al. 2010 and Finch, Wenrich, et.al. 1987--Attachment D), the
proposed withdrawal area contains an estimated uranium endowment in
excess of 326 million lbs, and has ``the potential of becoming the
second most important uranium-producing region in the United States''.
Despite such conclusive government-authored statements, both the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and the recently released Final EIS have
failed to recognize the significance of this enormous district of
uranium and polymetallic ore deposits. Through bureaucratic slight of
hand, these two documents have erroneously and dramatically minimized
the significance of the resource--both the size of the endowment and
its impact on domestic energy production. But numbers don't lie.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 326 million lbs of
uranium present in this district is the equivalent to enough electric
power for the 8 million people of New York City for 57 years.
Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) totally fails to
address the vast resource of an additional 40 energy strategic metals
that are rich in this vast valuable mineral district. As Gene Spiering,
V.P. of Exploration, Quaterra Resources, explains the reason for the
EIS's gross understatement of the uranium resource:
The major error. . .is the assumption that mineralized uranium
breccia pipes are uniformly distributed throughout the region
and that the potential loss of uranium is directly proportional
to the number of acres withdrawn, not which lands are
withdrawn. Exploration has demonstrated that nearly all the
known mineralized pipes and all of the economically viable
uranium deposits in northern Arizona have been found in a N-S
trending mineralized ``corridor'' that is approximately 45
miles wide by 110 miles long. (Spiering, et.al. 2010,
Exploration and discovery of blind breccias pipes: the
potential significance to the uranium endowment of the Arizona
Strip District, Northern Arizona--Presentation to SME Annual
Meeting-Phoenix, AZ.) (Attachment B)
The 800 to 1,000 breccia pipes drilled outside of this corridor
have been barren of ore. All of the northern Arizona withdrawal parcel
lies within this uranium-rich corridor because the government simply
located the area with the most mining claims and divined it to be
worthy of withdrawal. As a former U.S. Geological Survey employee it is
my recollection that the objective of wilderness and other land
withdrawals was to select an area to preserve as wilderness that
minimized the loss of mineral wealth to our nation, not to maximize it.
The corridor to be withdrawn is the heart and essentially the total
resource of the northern Arizona breccia pipe uranium district, and
therefore, any withdrawal (Alternatives ``B'', ``C'' or ``D'') would
restrict indefinitely future development of this world-class resource
and the United States' major uranium reserves that could significantly
fulfill our domestic uranium needs as a major step in our road to
energy independence.
Why are northern Arizona breccia pipe uranium mines so desirable?
The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order because we
need to evaluate the impacts of the handful of additional mines that
are currently exempt from the withdrawal. Yet the Secretary has not
laid out a process in his EIS that would give hope to the nation's
electricity consumers that this fuel for electricity would ever be
available in the future. It is the Secretary's clear intention with
this EIS not to impose just a ``temporary'' 20-year ban, but, in fact,
to forever close off access to this fuel supply. (1) First of all, the
Secretary's EIS shows no environmental impacts that cannot be readily
mitigated. (2) Secondly, the Department of the Interior's EIS fails to
honestly recognize the many environmental attributes of breccia pipe
uranium mining. This is the kind of clean mining any serious pro-
environmental advocates should be promoting that can be displayed to
countries through the world as a model to emulate in the goal to clean,
safe, and environmentally friendly mining. (3) Thirdly, the secretary
chooses to ignore the research work that has already been done, both
inside the Department of the Interior's USGS results and the
preliminary findings by the University of Arizona in its ongoing study
which according to the Environmental Working Group shows ``. . .that
much of the uranium in the (Colorado)River is naturally occurring, a
key indication that the industrial activity does not harm the water
quality for drinking water and agricultural activity that depends on
the River for water.'' (February 23, 2009, Environmental Working Group,
``Study May Hamper Fears over Uranium Mines Effects on Colorado
River'') (attachment C) The fact that environmental groups engaged in
fear mongering with downstream water users in Las Vegas and southern
California does not make the case for prohibiting breccia pipe uranium
mining. That such fears are scientifically ungrounded is demonstrated
by research by the Arizona Geological Survey in their calculations of
the non-effect of a hypothetical ore-truck spill on the drinking water
quality of the Colorado River (attachment A). (4) Fourthly, knowing
that no breccia pipe uranium tailings are produced or left on site in
northern Arizona and deliberately trying to confuse the Moab, Utah mill
tailings issue next to the Colorado River with breccia pipe mining is
grossly misleading. There is no relationship between the Moab mill
tailings and breccia pipe uranium mining. (5) Finally, recognizing the
weakness of his environmental arguments, in football terms, the
Secretary called an ``audible'' between the Draft EIS and Final EIS and
switched the ``emergency'' away from the environment (the original
justification for the withdrawal) to ostensible social and cultural
reasons in a crass attempt to use Native Americans and the injustices
the Federal government committed against them in the 1950s under a
totally different set of circumstances. At that time the issue was
national defense and the Soviet threat. Today's environmental laws
imposed upon industry safeguard the public against any such social,
cultural or environmental impacts. It's a shame those same laws were
not in effect in the 1950s to protect the public against its own
government. Of the three legs the Secretary chose to build his stools
foundation, none of them stand as a reason to deny this source of fuel
to the nation's electricity consumers.
The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order because we
need to evaluate the impacts of the handful of additional mines that
are currently exempt from the withdrawal. Yet the Secretary has not
laid out a process in his EIS that would give hope to the nation's
electricity consumers that this fuel for electricity would ever be
available in the future. It is the Secretary's clear intention with
this EIS not to impose just a ``temporary'' 20-year ban, but, in fact,
to forever close off access to this important energy supply. Our
economy needs the jobs and energy self-sufficiency today, not 20 years
down the road.
Inciting Fear through Emotional Hysteria
Similar to the way the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
downplayed the significance of the uranium resources, it has vastly
overstated the environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium
development. A case in point is the ``danger'' to the region's
watershed--particularly the Colorado River--caused by rare and
inconsequential ore spills. In response to concerns about contamination
of the vast and enormously valuable water resource, Jon Spencer of the
Arizona Geological Survey and I calculated just how much damage could
be done by such a hypothetical ore spill--calculations that a high
school student could do and certainly the BLM and other Department of
Interior agencies should have done. These calculations are presented as
a published report by the Arizona Geological Survey (attachment A) and
conclude the following:
``Colorado River water in the Grand Canyon region contains about 4
mg/l (micrograms per liter) of uranium (equivalent to 4 parts per
billion by mass), with approximately 15 cubic km annual discharge.
Thus, approximately 60 metric tons of dissolved uranium, derived by
natural weathering of rock over the Colorado River drainage basin, are
carried annually by the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. We
considered a hypothetical, worst-case accident in which a truck hauling
thirty metric tons (66,000 lbs) of 1%-uranium ore is overturned by a
flash flood in Kanab Creek and its entire load is washed 60 km down
Kanab Creek into the Colorado River where it is pulverized and
dissolved over one-year to become part of the dissolved uranium content
of the river (such a scenario is extremely unlikely, if not
impossible). This addition of 300 kilograms (660 lbs) of uranium over
one year would increase uranium in Colorado River water from 4.00 ppb
to 4.02 ppb. Given that the EPA maximum contaminant level for uranium
in drinking water is 30 ppb, this increase would be trivial.
Furthermore, it would be undetectable against much larger natural
variation in river-water uranium content.'' (cited from Spencer &
Wenrich, 2011), Breccia Pipe uranium Mining in the Grand Canyon Region
and Implications for Uranium levels in Colorado River Water, Arizona
Geological Survey Open-File Report OFR-11-04, Version 1.0, 13 p.--
Attachment A.)
Anyone in a decision-making role over the withdrawal of the
northern Arizona lands should review the new PBS documentary that was
just televised called ``Radioactive Wolves of Chernobyl''. Chernobyl
was unquestionably the world's worst nuclear disaster with radioactive
emissions equivalent to 400 Hiroshima bombs and understandably created
worldwide emotional concern. Yet, even here perhaps things are not
quite as bad as expected. Because there are no people within 1100
square miles around the reactor, a lush wilderness has been
regenerated. The wolves, beavers, eagles, falcon, bison, and moose are
thriving. Radiation levels in the animals are high, but still after 25
years there are no signs of mutations in any of the creatures with the
possible exception of door mice living right at the site of the nuclear
accident. The abundant eagles are a sign that the eco-system is in
robust health. This is a good example of how the emotional hype has
portrayed this disaster as a barren wasteland that could never recover.
Northern Arizona contains natural uranium that cannot even remotely be
compared to Chernobyl--yet, one would think from the emotional hysteria
that people expect Chernobyl-style contamination. The worst that can
happen is what is happening naturally in the Grand Canyon today--
millions of tons of high-grade uranium are eroding naturally into the
Colorado River and it's tributaries. If anything, mining will help
remove this natural river water ``contaminant''.
An Attempt to Dismiss Scientific Facts by Invoking a Smoke Screen
Accusations of conflict of interest have been asserted for my
ownership and sales agreement of 61 mining claims that I have held on
the Arizona Strip since 2009. The research on which this report is
based was begun in 1978 and 95% of it was completed by 2002. I
challenge anyone to find errors in this testimony, specifically any
that could even remotely be impacted from my claim ownership during the
past two years. For Mr. Grijalva to attempt to dismiss 30 years of
solid scientific data from a renowned, certified researcher in this
urnaium district for a recent agreement that is 6 months old is nothing
more than smoke and mirrors and is not in the very spirit from which he
insists this withdrawal is based--to save a natural resource for the
American people by presenting all available data. Minerals are also a
natural resource and just as the American tourist should have the
opportunity to view the beauties of northern Arizona so should the
American consumer have the opportunity to benefit their lifestyle from
mining of the minerals from northern Arizona. Previous mining of this
wealth from 1980-1990 has proven that the two goals are not mutually
exclusive and can successfully coexist.
Furthermore if there is any conflict of interest, it is with
ranking member Representative Grijalva who sits on the board of
directors for the Center for Biodiversity, one of the organizations
that has been the driving force for this land withdrawal. Because of
this conflict of interest Mr. Grijalva should be excusing himself from
any committee deliberations on this withdrawal or any lobbying of the
executive branch of government to complete this withdrawal.
Value Added to the Breccia Pipe Ore with the Recovery of Energy
Strategic Rare Earth Metals
This unique Arizona polymetallic-rich uranium, breccia-pipe
district is known for its large reserves of high-grade uranium that
have been estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to comprise over 40%
of the U.S. domestic uranium resources, and the highest-grade in the
U.S. Up until the past 5 years the price of most metals had been
sufficiently depressed so that little was done to explore or study the
presence of the polymetallic ores, rich in the district's uranium
deposits. In just 3 years since 2008, the price of most rare earth
elements (REE) has increased over 10-fold. This is true of all Energy
Critical Elements, including Co and Cu, also heavily enriched in the
breccia pipe ore. These important metals commonly comprise over 1% of
the ore.
Rare earth elements (REE) are significantly enriched in the breccia
pipe ores. However, last month REE research completed in Nancy, France
by Wenrich, Lach and Cuney by Laser Mass Spectroscopy and the Electron
Microprobe proved that within the breccia pipes these energy strategic
and critical metals are enriched in the actual uraninite crystal, the
ore mineral found in the breccia pipes. This is significant because it
facilitates the economic removal of these strategic energy metals. The
current supply of REE will not be able to keep up with the new and ever
growing global demand. This potential shortage could seriously impact
U.S. renewable energy sources, communications, and defense industries,
leaving the US, currently with no operating REE mines, and very
vulnerable to control by REE-rich China. These strategic, multi-use
elements are known to occur only in very few economic deposits around
the world. With over 97% of the world's supply presently produced by
China, and with the Chinese demand soon matching, if not eclipsing, its
own internal supply, the U.S. could soon be left in the cold. Currently
China has export taxes on REE of 15-20% and has put restrictions on the
amount exported. We are already feeling the pinch in the skyrocketing
price of terbium (a heavy REE)-needy compact fluorescent bulbs, bulbs
that new government restrictions are requiring the average American to
replace their incandescent bulbs with. Forecasts now predict a critical
shortage of REE for the rest of the world outside of China by as early
as 2012. In 2008 China produced 97% of the worlds REE, India 2.2%,
Brazil 0.5% and Malaysia 0.3%.
REE are indispensable in a wide variety of clean energy
technologies. They are used in the advanced nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
batteries, which are found in most modern hybrid cars. Powerful
neodymium (Nd, a light REE) magnets enable the new generation of wind
turbines, electric and hybrid electric cars (Prius), and generators.
REE phosphors illuminate compact fluorescent light bulbs (Tb), and
elements such as cerium (Ce) and neodymium (Nd) have been used for
decades as coloring agents in synthetic gemstones and glass, and Ce has
been used as a polishing compound for over a half century. In the
defense sector REE are required for military electronics,
communications and surveillance equipment, and missile guidance
systems. Tomahawk cruise missiles use REE magnets in tail control fins;
and samarium (Sm)-cobalt(Co) magnets are used for flight control
surfaces on missiles, Sidewinders, Phoenix, etc. Cerium has been used
to treat water, particularly arsenic-rich waters. In essence, it can be
safely said that with the past decade of advanced technology U.S.
energy and national security are heavily dependant on REE.
The U.S. has these REE at their fingertips in the Arizona breccia
pipe province. To recover the REE from the breccia pipes would not
require new techniques to be developed. Removal of the REE from the
uraninite has previous precedence. REE were extracted as a by-product
of uranium mining in Canada during 1966-1970 and 1973-1977. ``For a
short period of time heavy REE were extracted from the rafinate fluids
that emanated from the chemical processing of uraninite at Blind River,
Ontario'' (Mariano and others, 2010). ``At Elliot Lake an yttrium
concentrate [including REE] was obtained from the residual ion-exchange
solutions after leaching uranium ores with sulfuric acid. . .The
filtered and dried product graded 60-70% REO including 30-35%
Y2O3.'' (Lucas and Ritcey, 1975, cited in
Henderson, 1984, p.441).
The analyses of the REE in the breccia pipe uraninites have shown
that they are rich in some of the rarer and more expensive of the REE,
such as dysprosium, europium, neodymium and terbium. For example, below
is a graph of neodymium, essential to the super strong magnets needed
in wind turbines, versus uranium for over 60 bulk rock breccia pipe
analyses. The actual Nd in the uraninite lattice is significantly
higher than that shown in the graph. The correlation between neodymium
and uranium is evident from the trend of this graph, which follows from
the concentration of neodymium, as well as all of the REE. in the
uraninite crystal structure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary
The northern Arizona EIS assumes that 6 mines producing 1800-2400
tons of uranium ore/day could be operating. Assuming an average grade
of 0.65% U3O8 this district would produce
approximately 9.5 million lbs of U3O8 per year.
Uraninite studied by Wenrich, Lach, and Cuney in France showed the
total REE content of the uraninite to be 0.43%. Therefore, 40,850 lbs
of REE could be produced from the 9.5 million pounds of
U3O8.. Yttrium, commonly considered to be a REE
since it is associated with them, makes up another 0.25% bringing the
total REE to 0.68%. The REE by-products would have a value added of $15
million dollars based on today's REE prices and the individual element
concentrations in the uraninite. Another $1.8 million from yttrium
brings the total to $16.8 million annually. Finding domestic sources of
REE would be an enormous boost to our economy--this is $16.8 million
that will remain in our country rather than increasing our foreign
debt. Additionally, the amount of copper, cobalt, nickel, silver, lead
and zinc that constitute over 1% of the ore can, and will, also be
mined as by-product metals at today's prices. They will add another
approximate $10 million dollars to the economic savings of our foreign
debt. Retaining American jobs to mine and process domestic sources of
energy strategic metals is critical to our economic and security
survival.
By the wave of the executive wand these huge metal resources will
be stricken from the United States strategic metal stock pile just when
our jobless rate is huge and China's strong arm is reaching globally to
control the world's strategic metals. We won't have to worry about
invaders marching into our country with guns, they won't need to, we
will be conquered by loss of our economic strength and our inability to
produce our domestic mineral wealth. How can we turn our back on
domestic uranium to fuel our 20% energy source in nuclear power? At the
same time we will be denying the American consumer rare-earth elements
needed for wind turbines, solar panels and our new energy efficient
compact fluorescent light bulbs, batteries and critical military
components.
This submitted testimony presents to the Committee sound historical
and scientific data that underscores the importance of energy resources
in these Arizona breccia pipe deposits that contain natural, metal-
bearing ore deposits that have a safe record of production to meet
domestic energy needs. These ore deposits are now also recognized to
contain an important and essential source of energy critical elements
(REE, copper and cobalt) for the continued progression of American
diversification of industry, employment opportunities, national
security, and elevated living standard for its citizens today and its
children tomorrow. These deposits should be available to be developed
to the fullest and safe extent for the American consumer.
______
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate
your testimony. Mr. Trautwein.
STATEMENT OF MARK TRAUTWEIN, FORMER STAFF CONSULTANT,
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND PUBLIC LANDS, U.S. COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
Mr. Trautwein. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to be back where I was privileged to work for more than 15
years as the full Interior Committee's staff consultant on
Environment, Energy, and Public Lands for Chairman Mo Udall and
Chairman George Miller. It is in that capacity that I appear
today, representing only myself and no organization. And, Mr.
Chairman, I note with pleasure that while a lot of things have
changed around here since I left that the House's attitude
about the Senate remains the same, and that is a good thing to
note.
I am here to address assertions that Secretary Salazar's
withdrawal order on the Arizona Strip is incompatible with the
Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. I am intimately familiar with
that law because Chairman Udall designated me as the lead
staffer responsible for all aspects of that legislation. Mr.
Chairman, there is no basis for the claim that the Arizona
Wilderness Act contains a promise that uranium mining would
proceed unfettered indefinitely on lands not designated
wilderness and that the Secretary's order breaks that promise.
The Arizona Wilderness Act was essentially a statewide
Forest Service wilderness bill. However, on the strip, BLM was
years from completing its wilderness review, and extensive
wilderness study areas with inter-wilderness protections of
indefinite duration were an obstacle to a company anxious to
develop certain valuable mineral deposits.
Title 3 of the Act short-circuited the BLM process and
settled this issue. Those lands not designated in wilderness
were simply relieved of their interim wilderness protection,
restoring them to general multiple use management. Both the
statute and the committee report make clear that on BLM lands,
that is all the so-called release provision does, remove
interim protections that preserve the land's suitability for
wilderness designation. The Secretary has acted well within
this realm.
A few salient facts to highlight. The lands covered in the
Secretary's withdrawal order are mostly not the same lands that
are released in 1984. Many of them were incorporated into the
two national monuments established a decade later and
permanently withdrawn from new mineral entry, the same thing
the Secretary has done, only temporarily. Other released lands
are not covered by the Secretary's order. Those that are
constitute a decided minority of the lands released in 1984,
and Congress never reviewed for anything the majority of lands
covered in the order.
For those lands, the Secretary's withdrawal order does not
amount to a de facto wilderness declaration. Wilderness is
permanent. The Secretary's order is temporary. Wilderness
affects many potential activities. The Secretary's order covers
only one thing, new mining claims under the 1872 Mining Law,
and leaves intact existing mining claims, and there are
thousands, so that claimants can develop their rights.
There is no rational basis for saying that the Secretary's
order stops mining or for calling it de facto wilderness. In
the case of the strip lands, the 1984 wilderness review never
assessed the impact of uranium mining on the hydrology of the
Grand Canyon ecosystem. This was completely beyond the scope of
wilderness review. To argue now that a 27-year-old wilderness
statute precludes the Secretary from assessing that impact and
taking even limited action on non-wilderness lands by
mislabeling it as de facto wilderness is perverse.
Even if the Secretary were proposing wilderness, it
wouldn't be contrary to the Arizona Wilderness Act because by
design, it fully contemplates that lands on the strip and
elsewhere will be subject to periodic wilderness review. On
Forest Service lands, this is explicit. The agency would
conduct new wilderness reviews with every forest plan revision.
The Committee report discusses this in excruciating detail.
On BLM lands, the expectation is implicit in the
affirmation of the land management process. In any case, the
Act and Committee report are clear that the only thing Title 3
ended was the immediate wilderness issue before Congress in
1984, namely the conflict between interim wilderness
protections of indefinite duration and two contemporary uranium
mining concerns.
Release and its meaning were debated in great detail
throughout the 1980s, and Chairman Udall was adamant in
opposing successfully the many versions of no-more amendments,
that this was it for wilderness, that lands released must be
developed and so on. It is frustrating to hear this argument
disinterred when it was decisively defeated long ago.
Even if we focus strictly on lands the statute and the
Committee said in effect would now be managed for multiple use,
the Secretary has acted fully within the meaning of that term.
Multiple use doesn't mean singular use or any use or every use.
It means the managing agency considers many competing uses and
attempts to balance its often conflicting mandates. It can't
permit all uses everywhere all the time. It has to make choices
in a dynamic way on the basis of new facts and goals over time.
So when the committee report says lands are released to the
land management process, it expects the Secretary to use its
discretion to make these choices and seek this balance. That is
very much what the Secretary has done here. And while it is
perfectly legitimate to argue the merits of his action, in no
way has he violated either the Arizona Wilderness Act or
congressional intent expressed in the Committee report.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think it is not only wrong
to read the Act as a limitation on the Secretary's power to
manage new lands in new ways based on new evidence to meet new
challenges decades after its passage, it is dangerous. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trautwein follows:]
Statement of Mark Trautwein, Former Staff Consultant on Environment,
Energy and Public Lands, U.S. House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, on H.R. 3155, The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011
Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be back where I was
privileged to work for more than 15 years. From 1979 until 1991, I had
the honor of serving Mo Udall and, from 1991 to 1995, George Miller, as
the full committee's staffer responsible for its jurisdiction over
public lands, wilderness and national parks.
I am here today, representing myself only, to address certain
assertions made in an October 12 letter signed by 12 Members of the
House and Senate in which they argue that Secretary Salazar's mineral
withdrawal order on the Arizona Strip breaks a promise made in Arizona
Wilderness Act of 1984. The legislative history, it is argued,
establishes that the Act was a final disposition of all land status on
the Strip and that uranium mining issues would proceed forever without
restriction outside designated wilderness. I am intimately familiar
with that Act because Chairman Udall made me responsible for managing
it, including gathering information, negotiating with all interested
parties, and drafting bill and committee report language. I strongly
disagree with the October 12 letter's broken promise theory and know of
nothing implicit or explicit in the Arizona Wilderness Act, Mr. Udall's
sponsorship of it, or the events leading to its passage, to support it.
I have no useful expertise on any threat posed by uranium mining to the
Grand Canyon ecosystem and offer no opinion on it. However, I am
confident that the actions of Secretary Salazar are entirely consistent
with both the letter of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 and
Congressional intent behind it.
Mr. Chairman, the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act was essentially a
Forest Service RARE II wilderness bill. On the other hand, BLM was
still in the middle of its wilderness review process. It had created
WSA's on the Strip and elsewhere in Arizona that had interim
protections of indefinite duration and was years away from
recommendations on which lands to designate as wilderness and which to
release from those protections. This was a problem for a particular
mining company--Energy Fuels Nuclear--that believed it had discovered
valuable uranium deposits called Brescia pipes inside some of those
WSAs and was anxious to develop them. So the company initiated
negotiations with environmental and other interest groups for an
agreement to short-circuit the BLM process and go directly to Congress
with a stakeholder settlement. Eventually, that agreement became Title
III of the Arizona Wilderness Act.
Neither the history nor the provisions of Arizona Wilderness Act
support the idea that these events settled issues addressed by
Secretary Salazar's order. On the contrary, the two are entirely
different in scope and purpose. The Arizona Wilderness Act is a
wilderness act. It considered whether certain lands met the conditions
set forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act for inclusion in the wilderness
system. The withdrawal order addresses the hydrology of the Grand
Canyon ecosystem and the impact of one particular activity, uranium
mining, on water quality. Watershed issues were never considered or
addressed anywhere in the process leading to passage of the Arizona
Wilderness Act and are beyond the scope of wilderness review.
In addition, the 1984 law and the withdrawal order do not even
cover the same inventory of lands. The Arizona Wilderness Act
considered only those lands in BLM and Forest Service wilderness study
areas. It never examined at all vast tracts affected by the order
because those lands did not meet the criteria required to receive
interim protection while they were studied for their wilderness
suitability. And the plain facts are that land status on the Arizona
Strip already has changed, and profoundly so, since passage of the
Arizona Wilderness Act and in ways that affect mining. ACEC's have been
designated and two large national monuments proclaimed, and implicitly
if not explicitly ratified by Congress, all without any objections that
Congressional intent of 1984 had been abused.
In fact, many of the lands released in 1984 were incorporated into
the Vermillion Cliffs and Grand Canyon-Parashant monuments in 2000 and
2001 and consequently withdrawn from new mineral entry. Other released
lands are not covered by the Salazar order. While it is true that some
released lands are included, the majority are not. Most of the lands
that are covered in the order were never reviewed at all by Congress
for anything, not even for wilderness, in 1984.
Even if Secretary Salazar were proposing to designate more
wilderness, which he is not, his order would not violate the alleged
promise of the Arizona Wilderness Act. That act, by its own language,
is not the final disposition even of the wilderness question on the
Strip, much less land use questions of entirely different scope and
impact. The statute's release language clearly requires the Forest
Service to reconsider in subsequent planning cycles, supposedly every
ten years, the wilderness suitability of all lands not already
designated. This is no accident. Release language was an extremely
contentious issue throughout the wilderness debates of the 1980s.
Opponents argued persistently that lands not designated wilderness
should be barred from future wilderness consideration. Some went even
further with proposals that amounted to a Congressional directive that
multiple use lands are free of any conservation protections or that no
more wilderness ever be designated. Mr. Udall was the prime opponent of
this argument and he defeated every `no more'-type amendment he ever
confronted. The bill as enacted adopted his position--that released
lands should be eligible for reconsideration as wilderness--as did all
other RARE II wilderness bills.
BLM lands are not subject to the same statutory cyclical planning
process as Forest Service lands. Therefore, they did not require any
comparable release language. Had it been necessary, however, Mr. Udall
obviously would have taken the same position, that future reviews of
land status are necessary and proper and that no Act of Congress,
either implicitly or explicitly, ought to foreclose the possibility
that future citizens, future agencies and future Congresses might
propose additional protections on these lands. To see the defeated
argument of so many years ago returning as if it had won is
discouraging to say the least, especially when it has been stretched to
argue against an action that is not wilderness, that addresses lands
not even considered in the formulation of the Arizona Wilderness Act
and protects those lands to an entirely different object and in an
entirely different way.
It is true, of course, that lands released from wilderness study
areas by the Act lost their interim protections, to be managed for
multiple use under applicable law. It is also true that the committee
report accompanying the Arizona Wilderness Act contains language
generally laying out the desires of the interested parties and
specifically describing how uranium mining might proceed with respect
to lands outside BLM's Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness and the Forest
Service's Kanab Creek Wilderness. But the language makes it clear that
even on those two sites and certainly elsewhere on all released lands,
potential development was subject to the agency's full complement of
land management tools and requirements. Those tools would include the
ones Secretary Salazar has deployed. The report language cited by the
October 12 letter provides no evidence at all that a promise has been
made and broken.
To release lands back to multiple use, as the Arizona Wilderness
Act did, only meant that exploration and development could take place
as determined by the relevant agencies acting in accordance with
applicable law, not that it must. The Secretary's order is entirely
consistent with that position as his authority to withdraw lands
temporarily from new mineral entry is a recognized part of his land
management options. Even if Secretary Salazar were proposing wilderness
on lands already considered by the Arizona Wilderness Act, he would not
be violating either its language or its spirit. He is not, and both the
Act and its legislative history belie the notion that it was intended
to be some kind of barrier against potential new protections, freezing
lands use decisions made in 1984 for all time, despite new facts and
new evidence or new values.
I am utterly confident that this is exactly what Mr. Udall would
have hoped would happen, that the Arizona Wilderness Act would be the
catalyst for continuing concern and attention to protection of the
Grand Canyon ecosystem, not less.
If there is a promise implicit in the Arizona Wilderness Act that
Mr. Udall's work would be the final word on the Arizona Strip not to be
rewritten by those who came after him, I am quite certain Mr. Udall did
not share it. In fact, I can think of no idea more contrary to Mo's
most fundamental beliefs about the work he cared about so deeply.
Mo was proud of his legacy as the greatest conservation legislator
in American history. Thanks to his leadership, the national park
system, the national wildlife refuge system, and the national
wilderness preservation system were all more than doubled in size. The
Alaska Lands Act was the single greatest stroke of conservation in the
history of man. At every step of assembling that legacy, Mo's work was
informed by what he often referred to as his `love of the land'. He
believed it was the duty of every generation to exercise its own love
of the land to meet future challenges he could never anticipate. The
suggestion that he would have thought that any citizen or group of
citizens, the Secretary of the Interior or the Congress of the United
States was precluded by some deal or some judgment he had made a
generation earlier from taking new action to express that love, on the
basis of new information and new evidence in an entirely different
context, is just utterly antithetical to everything he believed.
Mo was Jeffersonian in his belief that every generation has the
right and the duty to create its own world. He saw conservation as a
dynamic process across time, an ongoing story to be written and
rewritten every generation. He often talked about how as a younger man
the mountains that ring Tucson were distant things, and that the city
limits didn't even reach a ring of parks and wilderness areas that
nearly surround it. But in his lifetime, Tucson had grown up to and
beyond those mountains. The natural areas that used to be so distant
are now islands in an urban sea. For him, it was evidence that you
could never be visionary enough when it came to the land and you could
never deny any generation its opportunity and its responsibility to
take care of it.
I don't know what Mo would have thought about the impact of uranium
mining on the hydrology of the Grand Canyon ecosystem nor do I have a
worthwhile opinion on that question. But I do know the charge Mo would
have given me. He would have wanted to know two things--is there
credible evidence of a problem that requires action, and is the
solution proposed reasonable and effective. In the matter before you
today those are the questions members of this subcommittee and this
Congress, in the House and the Senate, should address.
Mo's legacy is and always will be an enduring one. But Mo did not
legislate on stone tablets. And he did not protect lands to prevent
others from loving the land but to inspire them to carry on the great
work. In the end, that is his true legacy, and if his work is to be
invoked, let that be the cause it serves.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify on this
important matter.
______
Mr. Bishop. Now beginning our questioning process for this
panel. I know there is going to be multiple requests for
rounds, so Mr. Grijalva, go ahead. Have at it. We will come
back to you a couple of times I believe.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me thank the
witnesses for being here today. In a partial I think for the
record response, earlier we heard the issue of national
security and to be able to produce our own uranium so that we
don't import as much as we are importing now and that would
enhance our national security.
It should be noted, a Russian company within that 1 million
acres that is being talked about controls 642 claims. And
Members of the House, including Representative Bachus, Peter
King, Mr. McKeon, Ros-Lehtinen, all wrote to the Obama
Administration concerned about that, and to quote them, ``We
remain concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies
through direct or secondary proliferation.'' The House Members
wrote in opposition to those claims, about the claims from a
Russian company that bought out an American company. National
security.
The issue of who is representing who in the area, you know,
Coconino Board of Supervisors is on record supporting the
withdrawal, the City of Flagstaff. The Navajo Nation in 2005
not only banned uranium mining on their land but banned all
processing on their land, on Navajo Nation land.
So, in this debate about what to do with this withdrawal,
the opposition is not isolated to one or two people I would
add, and those 300,000-plus comments in the withdrawal, the
vast majority of them favorable. While it is not a popularity
contest, one should not claim purity of opinion because they
represent an area that happens to support opening those areas
up.
Central Arizona project is opposed to it. Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Southern Nevada Water
Authority. And so let us not narrow the scope of the
opposition. It is wide and it is deep.
Mr. Abbey, is it correct that even with the full million
acre withdrawal, uranium mining on existing valid claims will
still be permitted?
Mr. Abbey. That is true.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And even with the withdrawal, mining will
be permitted on over 1.2 million acres of the Arizona Strip, is
that correct?
Mr. Abbey. Those acres would still be available for mining,
yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And the U.S. Geological Survey said this
withdrawal, the million acres, would affect approximately 12
percent of available uranium in Arizona. That is correct as
well?
Mr. Abbey. I don't know that, Congressman.
Mr. Grijalva. And, Mr. Trautwein, thank you for your
testimony again reemphasizing the point, but was the Arizona
Wilderness Act of 1984 a wilderness act or a mining act?
Mr. Trautwein. It was a wilderness act. It obviously
considered some concerns of interest to the mining industry.
But the purpose of the act was to designate wilderness and
resolve issues regarding interim wilderness protections.
Mr. Grijalva. And the 1984 Wilderness Act doesn't contain
any language that discusses mining at all with regard to the
Arizona Strip.
Mr. Trautwein. The Act itself does not discuss mining per
se, no.
Mr. Grijalva. And so is it your understanding that when
enacted, the 1984 Act, that was going to be the final word on
future mining in the Arizona Strip?
Mr. Trautwein. Not at all. As I said in my testimony, we
were resolving a particular issue unique to that time of an
immature BLM wilderness review process on the strip that was an
obstacle to uranium mining by one particular company I might
add at that time. It was fully expected that the Act itself and
the Committee report make clear that these lands that were not
designated as wilderness--and again, this is a minority of the
lands that are being withdrawn by the Secretary, and a majority
of the lands that were released have since been withdrawn for
mineral entry.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Johnson, do you have questions?
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Last week the Secretary announced that
you will now be the head of a merged BLM and OSM. I have a few
questions around that merger. First, can you tell me when and
how you first learned of the Secretary's plans to merge the two
agencies?
Mr. Abbey. Well, first, Congressman Johnson, I am not the
head of the OSM or the Bureau of Land Management merger.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Are you going to be the head of the
resulting agency?
Mr. Abbey. Not necessarily.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But you are aware of it.
Mr. Abbey. I am aware of the proposal to consolidate the
Office of Surface Mining with the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Are you aware, have any
assessments or analysis been conducted in the past that
evaluated the impacts of merging all or part of OSM statutory
responsibilities with BLM or what is now ONRR?
Mr. Abbey. We have underway right now steps to do just
that, to assess the consequences of moving forward in a
consolidated fashion so that we can share some of our
similarities between the Office of Surface Mining and the
Bureau of Land Management as well as the respect--the SMCRA,
the authorities of SMCRA, which requires----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So are you saying that the
announcement was to consider merging? Because what I have heard
is that an announcement has been made that the two agencies
will be merged. What you are testifying to now sounds more like
you are evaluating the implications of that and how it complies
with existing law. Which is it?
Mr. Abbey. The secretarial order announced a consolidation
of the Office of Surface Management with the Bureau of Land
Management.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. How can we merge or how
can the Secretary merge the regulatory functions of OSM with
the coal-leasing functions of BLM into a single agency when
SMCRA, as you just mentioned it, specifically prohibits this?
Mr. Abbey. Well, the consolidation is part of the
Department's ongoing efforts to make government work better by
increasing efficiencies and all that.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. I understand that.
Mr. Abbey. You understand that.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But to do that requires congressional
approval because there are existing laws on the books, right?
Mr. Abbey. The proposed consolidation will honor the intent
and requirements of SMCRA.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. No. You told me it wasn't a proposed
merger. You told me that the Secretary had announced the merger
of the two departments. So is it proposed or is it announced?
Mr. Abbey. It is an announced consolidation of the two
bureaus.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So it is not a proposal. The
Secretary has decided to merge these two agencies, correct?
Mr. Abbey. That is true.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. Well, so then it is a
violation of SMCRA, would you not agree?
Mr. Abbey. I do not.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You do not?
Mr. Abbey. I do not.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You pick and choose which laws we
comply with and which ones we don't? You want me to read it to
you?
Mr. Abbey. The consolidation has not occurred yet,
Congressman Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But you said it is going to.
Mr. Abbey. At the conclusion of assessment and reviews and
consultation.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Has the Solicitor issued an opinion or
anything in writing in support of the Secretary's order?
Mr. Abbey. The Office of the Solicitor has been involved in
these discussions.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Has he issued a report?
Mr. Abbey. They have not issued a formal opinion.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. You know, to be
brutally honest, Mr. Abbey, I am confused because not more than
just a few minutes ago you testified on behalf of the Secretary
that you would deny placing a commemorative on the World War II
memorial because there is existing law that prohibits that. Yet
we have on the books an existing law that says that these two
agencies, that the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation
cannot assume the responsibilities of another agency that has
authority over coal mining and minerals and such.
I am confused. The Department is citing a 1950s era law to
justify the action and ignoring the 1970s law that I believe
prohibits the merging. How do you justify that?
Mr. Abbey. My testimony previously was based upon our
feeling that your bill was inconsistent with the Commemorative
Works Act.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That is not my question. How do you
justify violating the 1970s law that superseded the 1950s law
that said that these two agencies can't be merged? How do you
justify that?
Mr. Abbey. Our actions will not violate that law. The
actions that we take----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. If you merge the two agencies, it will
without congressional relief from that law.
Mr. Abbey. Under the consolidation, the Office of Surface
Mining will continue to have a--it will be a separate entity
within the Bureau of Land Management responsible for
implementing SMCRA.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, that is not what the law says.
That is not what the law says. You know, if you are a simple,
two-wheel wagon rut mule farm boy like me, I can tell you I am
confused, and I guarantee you the American people are confused
as well.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but if we have a chance
for a second round, I have some additional.
Mr. Bishop. There will be a chance for a second round. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. The proposed action of withdrawal is not yet
complete. The decision, the final decisions, have not been
made. Yet this legislation would terminate the process and keep
these areas open, presumably for some national security
reasons, that is, we need the uranium. Is that why? The
advocate, the author of the bill is not here, but I presume
that must be why he wants to do it. Or maybe it is for the jobs
that could occur if there were unlimited opportunities for
exploration.
I understand that there are 11 claims that exist that are
not yet in production. Is that correct, Mr. Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. We project that even with a full withdrawal if
that is the Secretary's decision that there would likely be up
to 11 mines developed.
Mr. Garamendi. And those must be based upon some existing
claims.
Mr. Abbey. They would be based upon valid, existing rights
of the existing claims.
Mr. Garamendi. So presumably there is some significant
opportunity since there are only four mines in existence now to
more than double the number of mines that are in the area,
almost triple them. Also, it is not testimony that has been
received, but I will assert, having studied this matter for
some time, that there is ample uranium fuel available today to
really power the entire world for about 1,000 years if we were
to utilize the full recycling of existing uranium stocks.
The uranium that would be mined here would be used in low
light-water reactors that consume about 3 percent of the power,
the energy in uranium. With the AREVA or the reprocessing
system, you can consume another 3 percent, leaving something
like 94 percent of the power of the energy in uranium behind to
be disposed of in places like Yucca Mountain, which are
controversial.
The U.S. Government between 1960 and 1994 developed a
recycling mechanism that would consume 90 percent of that
energy. It was set aside even though it had proved itself to be
viable with some 30 years of operation in what is known as an
integral fast reactor and a pyroprocessing system. If the
United States were to pursue what it has spent some 12 to $15
billion perfecting, we could consume the existing used nuclear
material, which is now called waste, and not need to mine
another ounce of uranium.
We have chosen not to do that for reasons that are obscure
and incorrect, but if we would do it, we would not need to
mine. So this is not a national security issue at all. This is
an issue of choices that have been made. Now, if you want to
promote some mining opportunities and some jobs, then go ahead
and do this and see what the result would be. Additional
contamination, additional problems that have already existed.
There is a reason why the Navajo Nation has decided not to
allow any more exploration in mining on the Navajo Reservation,
because they have found it to create health hazards as well as
contamination problems.
So I would suggest that the argument that is being made
that the Nation needs this material for the nuclear energy
industry is incorrect. In fact, we have more than enough if we
chose to recycle what we already have. And I would suggest we
ought to do that and not do more mining in these particular
areas that are potentially withdrawn when the Secretary comes
to make his final decision.
I have a question for the witness that was previously with
the USGS. Are you now employed, or are you just retired? This
would be Professor--rather Dr. Karen Wenrich.
Dr. Wenrich. I am a private consultant. I did work after
the USGS for the International Atomic Energy Agency for three
years as their senior uranium geologist, but I am a private
consultant right now.
Mr. Garamendi. And who employs you now?
Dr. Wenrich. I was doing some consulting work for some of
the people putting together the EIS because they were basing it
on a lot of my publications.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. So you are employed by those who are
advocating this piece of legislation.
Dr. Wenrich. Not just them. I also have been employed by
the BLM actually. I was hired to teach a class.
Mr. Garamendi. But you are employed by those who are
advocating the legislation?
Dr. Wenrich. I work for whoever would like to pay me to do
some uranium research and answer their questions.
Mr. Garamendi. I am afraid I am out of time, but thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Representative Gosar, do you have questions?
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Director Abbey, I know my colleague
preceded me kind of going about this same discussion. In
Secretary Salazar's October 19 letter to me, the Secretary
states that even with a full withdrawal, development of up to
11 mines in the area over the next 20 years is reasonably
foreseeable, including the four mines that are currently under
approved operating plans. A Bureau of Land Management press
release announces the release of the final draft environmental
statement, the FEIS, a similar claim that has as many as 11
uranium mines that could be operational over the next 20 years
under the preferred alternative, including the four mines
currently approved.
I would like to expand on this. The Secretary's preferred
decision withdraws over a million acres subject to valid
existing rights. Can you define how the agency defines valid
existing rights? Because a lot of different language has been
used over the past two years on what specifically is not
subject to withdrawal, and I know that all of us are concerned
about the ever-changing landscape by the Federal Government.
Can you give me a definition?
Mr. Abbey. Well, valid existing rights is based upon rights
that are possessed under the 1872 Mining Law that exists for a
subject mining claim. What this means is if there is a
discovery, a verification of discovery at the time of the
withdrawal and the existence of a valuable mineral deposit,
then that right will be honored.
Dr. Gosar. So at what timeframe does something have to be
defined as a valid existing right?
Mr. Abbey. It would have to be a discovery, and that
discovery would have to have the existence of a valuable
mineral deposit at the time of the withdrawal. Now a validity
exam would not be performed until we received a mining plan of
operation from a proponent. At that point in time, we would
move forward with the validity examination.
Dr. Gosar. So that would be at the final decision?
Mr. Abbey. It would result in a final decision, whether or
not there was valid existing rights.
Dr. Gosar. But that could be determined at that final
decision.
Mr. Abbey. Once a determination was made, that would be a
final decision.
Dr. Gosar. But are we talking--at the release of the final
environmental impact study--two years ago, when the temporary
withdrawal was first announced--so all of these would follow
through?
Mr. Abbey. The existing mines? We have over 3,000 mining
claims.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I understand. I am more worried about----
Mr. Abbey. About a million acres.
Dr. Gosar. I am worried about this aspect because it seems
like we are forever changing the mantra of how we define that.
So it is not subject to the final discussion or the final
claim. It is just about the discovery of that mining ore, that
ore, and coming to a final decision.
Mr. Abbey. At the point in time that we conducted a
validity exam, we would look at those two criteria: was there a
discovery at the time of the withdrawal and whether or not it
was an economic recovery or discovery.
Dr. Gosar. So out of these 11 sites the Department claims
could come to fruition are deemed valid existing rights by the
Department today? Would all 11 be deemed that?
Mr. Abbey. No. No. This is just a projection.
Dr. Gosar. Just a projection. Where does the Department get
this 11 number?
Mr. Abbey. It would be based upon historic mining, it would
be based upon our knowledge of various claims. It would be
based upon information that has been shared with us by the
companies themselves. But we have not conducted a formal
validity exam of any proposal that are likely to come forth.
Dr. Gosar. Are you aware of the FEIS proposal that there
were 30 proposed mine sites?
Mr. Abbey. We are aware in the EIS that if there is not a
full withdrawal that we project up to 30 mines would be
developed.
Dr. Gosar. So now we are moving this number again. The BLM
has regulations addressing when to require a valid existing
rights determination for lands that have been segregated or
withdrawn on, 43 C.F.R. 3809-100, right?
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Specifically, the law states that th BLM can
allow exploratory operations in order to collect information
from a mineral exploration point if such a report was not
completed before the withdrawal goes into effect, but a claim
was put in. Why wouldn't all 30 of these potential mines be
subject to the special provisions under Federal code?
Mr. Abbey. Because we have not conducted a valid existing
right determination of any of those claims. What we have
projected in the final EIS or even in the draft EIS is that if
there is no withdrawal that there would likely be up to 30
mines to be developed in this area. That is not based upon a
recognition of valid, existing rights. That is based upon what
we project to occur in the next 20 years. They could be based
upon new mining claims being filed out there.
Dr. Gosar. But isn't it existing based upon what we defined
in the determination that these are existing mining claims? The
30, not 11, the 30.
Mr. Abbey. Well, what we do know, Congressman, is that
there are over 3,000 mining claims today in this area.
Dr. Gosar. But in this area that we are talking about and
which this bill is talking about, there are 30 claims, not 11.
Mr. Abbey. In this area that the bill is talking about,
there are over 3,000 mining claims.
Dr. Gosar. What we are talking about in regards to this
determination is 30, not 11, in this withdrawal.
Mr. Abbey. What we are talking about in our analysis is
that we project based upon valid existing rights that there
would likely be 11 mines developed even with a full withdrawal.
Dr. Gosar. Thirty potential though.
Mr. Abbey. The 30 represents the likelihood of 30 mines
being developed if the withdrawal was not in effect.
Mr. Bishop. All right. There will be time for additional
questions here from everybody. Let me take my chance to do a
few here. Supervisor Johnson, if I could deign to ask questions
from somebody else here, what have the local BLM officials said
about this proposed withdrawal?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, we were told at one of our
meetings of the Arizona-Utah Coalition by Scott Florence--he is
the Arizona Strip district manager--that the regular resource
planning process basically wasn't followed. What that means is
at the lower level, when they see a problem or they have a
concern, they work it from the bottom up.
This came from Secretary Salazar from the top down. So I am
not aware that Secretary Salazar has ever set foot on our land,
so it must have come as a vision.
Mr. Bishop. OK. So there was some disconnect between what
those on the ground are saying with what those here in
Washington are saying in this, right?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Your slides were very interesting. What is the
conclusion that you made from the slides about tourism in the
Grand Canyon when mining was its peak in the eighties?
Mr. Johnson. That they both grew at the same time. When
mining was at its peak, the tourism was at its peak. They go
hand in hand.
Mr. Bishop. So these horrible mines are not driving people
away out of fear of glowing in the dark from the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Johnson. No, not at all. And I think they actually
enhance it because we have more people there who actually can
go to the Grand Canyon and enjoy it.
Mr. Bishop. They are apparently not driving away your
constituency either at the same time?
Mr. Johnson. No, no. The only thing driving away our
constituency is lack of jobs, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Wenrich, you did a couple of hypothetical
surveys, i.e., as to a truck accident. And I appreciate your
comments that this stuff is not going to be kept onsite, so
obviously some of the considerations that were being made in
the EIS are making assumptions that are not practical in
reality. But you said that when you found there would be no
significant increase in uranium in the Colorado River if a
couple of truckloads were to actually be dumped in the river,
how many truckloads of ore would it take to see an elevation in
contamination that goes above EPA's safe standards?
Dr. Wenrich. Well, the EPA safe standard is 30 parts per
billion. To get the level up to 32 parts per billion, it would
take 8,000 trucks each hauling 66,000 pounds of ore.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I am sure we can find that many drunk truck
drivers to actually accomplish that for you. Director Abbey in
his statement said that the EPA standards found levels of
uranium in 15 springs and five wells in his EIS that are higher
than the EPA standard. First of all, is that a logical
justification, and is that a justification for closing uranium
mining?
Dr. Wenrich. Well, first of all, he said that they were
from natural sources or from mines, and I don't know of any
more than one that could even possibly be related to mines.
Most of them are from the natural uranium erosion in the Grand
Canyon. And I am actually quite terrified that we would mix
mining with natural erosion. I am not sure I understand why we
would penalize the mining industry because of natural erosion.
In fact, you could even make the statement that the mining
industry would remove some of the uranium that is getting into
the system naturally.
Mr. Bishop. The uranium mines could be presented. Is there
enough rainfall that takes place on the strip to assume that it
could actually erode down to that area and run it into the
Colorado River or the Grand Canyon?
Dr. Wenrich. Well, if a mining company was sloppy with
their ore piles, it could be a problem, but they haven't been.
There was one very, very minor mishap, but the ore didn't go
anywhere, and it was all picked back up within a few feet. That
was a flash flood. For the most part, the groundwater table is
down 2,000 feet, and the ore is well above that. And there has
been really no evidence of any contamination into the water
system. There have been all kinds of studies done subsequent to
the mining, and the mines that were done in the 1980s and early
1990s, you can't even find where the mines used to be.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That seems consistent with the
testimony we have had at other hearings on this particular
issue at the same time.
Mr. Trautwein, I am troubled by your testimony. While it is
technically correct, it is technically correct in a way that
gives me some kind of concern or heartburn at the same time.
For example, when in your written testimony you say that the
designation of the two large national monuments proclaimed and
implicitly if not explicitly ratified by Congress, all without
any objection, that the congressional intent of 1984 had been
abused. That is technically correct.
It is also an inaccurate statement at the same time because
that is not necessarily what people were saying about it at the
time. It is true that the Act itself did not have some of the
prohibitions you mentioned or talk about them. But the report
did and the agreement did. I find it troubling when Senator
McCain, former Senator DeConcini, Senator Hatch all come here
and have a different opinion of what was happening at the time
than you have given and so does the BLM district director who
was there at the time.
In his statements, after some 27 years, it seems that those
negotiations and agreements have been forgotten. A withdrawal
from the mining entry is in direct conflict with the good-faith
efforts put forth by the stakeholders and a mockery of the
stakeholders' negotiation process.
Now what you said is technically accurate, but this is the
spirit of what happened at that particular time. Now, Mr.
Abbey, this is one of the things for which we have difficulty.
If you recall in the 30 seconds that I am going to lose because
I can't say this and then ask you a question, so I am going to
quit and come back to you in the next round. Be ready for me.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have other questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trautwein, in the proposed withdrawal that the
Administration put forth designating the area as wilderness, is
there a difference between wilderness and a simple withdrawal
from mining? Because I think we are getting----
Mr. Trautwein. Well, they are totally not the same thing.
As I said, wilderness covers many, many activities. The
withdrawal order covers this single activity. To call this a
wilderness, a de facto wilderness, is tantamount to saying that
anytime the Secretary or the agency chose to close a road for
public safety reasons or declined to open a road, anytime it
declined to issue an oil and gas or coal lease, anytime it
refused to site a solar power plant or a wind farm on multiple
use lands that he was turning those lands into de facto
wilderness when they are not comparable at all.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Director Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. My understanding, 300,000-plus public
comments were submitted to the draft environmental impact
statement that your agency prepared. Are you able to tell the
Committee what percent of the comments were in favor of the
full million acre, or are we at that point yet?
Mr. Abbey. Yes. Well over 90 percent of the comments we
received were favorable of the entire withdrawal.
Mr. Grijalva. And in terms of the amount of public
comments, how would you categorize them compared to other
processes that----
Mr. Abbey. A little higher than most, even though many of
our issues today are becoming more and more controversial. The
fact is that we received close to 380,000 submissions during
scoping as well as the public review process. It is not just
the numbers that we received. It was the substance of the
responses that we received and the data and the information
that they provided and the passion that they had relative to
protecting these areas.
Mr. Grijalva. And if you could briefly describe the nature
of the comments that you received from tribal governments,
native peoples during your consultations.
Mr. Abbey. Well, the tribes who did comment, and there were
many, were unwavering in their support for the full withdrawal
right from the beginning. When the issue was first surfaced
during scoping, the tribes that participated, and we had
actually two tribes serve as cooperating agencies as part of
the planning process, but all of the tribes were very
supportive of a full withdrawal to protect their heritage and
to protect the areas that they most value.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me thank you and your agency for the
government-to-government consultations you have had with the
various tribal governments. It is a practice that I would hope
more agencies undertook here. But I appreciate that. I know the
tribal government does as well.
Ms. Wenrich, let me ask you a couple questions. Do you
stand to benefit personally if the Department's proposed
withdrawal is terminated? In other words, would you benefit
financially if the bill you are testifying on were enacted and
became law?
Dr. Wenrich. Just like everybody in northern Arizona, I
stand to benefit from having a job. But if you are thinking
that that is going to affect my testimony, I might point out to
you that I am a research scientist with a Ph.D. I have done
almost all of this research prior to this.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. But I am asking if--well, Mr. Chairman,
let me just submit for the record copies of a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing by American Energy Fields,
Incorporated that states that the witness will receive at least
$225,000 for selling 61 uranium claims that she currently owns
in northern Arizona once, once the withdrawal is terminated. Is
that SEC filing correct, Ms. Wenrich?
Dr. Wenrich. I think you need to give me the courtesy of
explaining the fact----
Mr. Grijalva. The courtesy is all yours.
Dr. Wenrich.--that everything that I have done in this
research was prior to me owning those claims that I started two
years ago. All research is based on previous work that was done
long prior to this when I was a government scientist and when I
worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a
scientist, I believe in giving all the facts, and I challenge
you to find where my facts are erroneous. So I think whatever
my career opportunities are, it is irrelevant to what I am
presenting here.
Mr. Grijalva. The question, is the filing correct or not?
Dr. Wenrich. I just said it was correct.
Mr. Grijalva. It was?
Dr. Wenrich. Yes, it is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Out of time, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I would like to officially--I know
that before I got here, we had a statement presented by Mr.
Grijalva that is incorrect. I want to submit for the record a
letter from the CAP Board dated May 3, 2011. It officially
talks about the CAP water has not officially taken any stance
on regards to Mr. Franks' bill. But in their letter they submit
that clearly states that they are not opposed but just
encourage compliance with environmental law.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I will allow for the separate filing.
[The letter from the CAP Board follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Abbey, let us go back here to our previous
discussion.
Mr. Abbey. Please. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK? If the withdrawal is finalized to date,
right now----
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Dr. Gosar.--how many claims are defined as to have valid
existing rights?
Mr. Abbey. I could not give you that answer because we have
not conducted validity exams.
Dr. Gosar. So then, you know, in regards to if this
withdrawal is necessary, wouldn't all of this analysis be done,
all compliance with Federal land development be done with or
without the withdrawal?
Mr. Abbey. The number of mines that would exist under a
withdrawal versus without a withdrawal would be different.
Dr. Gosar. But according to this, as of today, it should be
30 based upon what is defined in this law, what we have cited
earlier on 3809-100. There should be 30. If I am reading this
right, it should be 30 as defined.
Mr. Abbey. No. Congressman, again, we are not in the
position of telling you exactly how many valid existing rights
exist within the 3,300 mining claims that are out there today.
Dr. Gosar. So let me ask you this. At what point can the
agency deem these invalid in your administration or any other
administration in the future? Are we talking about 20 years
from now? Can they no longer utilize the special provisions to
this?
Mr. Abbey. No. What we would normally do is wait until we
receive a specific proposal before conducting a validity exam.
Now this is the Bureau of Land Management. We would wait for a
mining plan of operation to come forward, and at that point in
time, if the area was withdrawn, we would conduct a validity
exam.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Ms. Wagner, isn't most of the problems with
the Native Americans actually indicated by the government's
role in uranium mining?
Ms. Wagner. To me or to Ms. Wenrich?
Dr. Gosar. Wait a minute. I am sorry. Isn't the Native
Americans' problem with uranium mining predominantly based upon
what has happened--I mean Karen, I am sorry--problems with
government mining of uranium?
Dr. Wenrich. Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately we are
mixing apples and oranges. The modern mining is so different
from what was done in the 1950s, and they are basing all of
their emotion on what was left over in the 1950s when nobody
thought to clean up piles of tailings and waste rock. Nobody
ventilated the mines and nobody worried about miners who smoked
being irradiated 10 times more than somebody who didn't smoke.
So, yes, that is correct. All of this is based on old mining.
Dr. Gosar. And I know a lot of this. I mean, I am citing
October 20, 2011, Thursday, The Daily Sun out of Flagstaff
talks about EPA wraps up uranium mine cleanup on the Navajo
Nation. And that is not really true, is it? We got lots more
problems because of government mines, don't we?
Dr. Wenrich. There are still some, but they have done a
pretty good job of cleaning most of it up. But there are still
some.
Dr. Gosar. Well, what about the Tuba City Mine, the dump
site?
Dr. Wenrich. I think most of that has been pretty well
cleaned up because as I drove by about a year ago, it was very
different than it had been 10 years ago.
Dr. Gosar. Well, not really.
Dr. Wenrich. Oh, OK.
Dr. Gosar. We have a problem, OK? This is overseen by the
Department of the Interior, and we have a huge plume that is
moving into water supplies all the way around that dump,
implicating not only Tuba City but the Hopi Tribe as well. But
once again, this was under the government, and so there is a
very different type of a rules scenario and process than was
before.
Dr. Wenrich. I might point one thing out though. In that
area, the uranium is right at the surface in a chimney
formation, and it is very difficult to determine what is
naturally occurring and getting into the water system from what
is left over from the old mining. Granted, there is enormous
contamination from the old 1950s mining and mill site.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chair, just for the record, a petition where
187 Navajos are opposed to withdrawal for economic benefits for
the record as well.
[The petition submitted by Dr. Gosar has been retained in
the Committee's official files:]
Dr. Gosar. You know, and that is our biggest problem is we
are finding a source of problems is the Federal Government
itself, and there is no bigger critic than my family of uranium
mining in the past from western Wyoming. But what we have to
deal is facts, not hearsay, not scare tactics but the facts.
And I am seeing it very clouded and misrepresented. So my time
is up, and I thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. I think the gentleman should add to it that
these were private mines that were operated during that period
of time in the fifties and that the operators abandoned the
mines and the Federal Government was left to clean it up. And
whether the cleanup is complete or not or whether it was done
as well as it should have been done is a question, but again,
it was private mines. My understanding is there are some 3,000
claims, mining claims, in the area that is going to be
withdrawn. Is that correct?
Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. And the analysis made by the Bureau of
Land Management is that of those 3,000 there is a probability
that some 11 would, could prove to be actual mines, is that
correct?
Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. Now the process of proving up a claim is
quite different than filing a claim, is that correct?
Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
Mr. Garamendi. So what we are talking about here is the
3,000 claims have been filed. It is up to the claimant to then
prove that an actual mine can exist, and that does require that
there be a mining plan and the various environmental things go
forward. And based upon the analysis done by the Department, by
the Bureau, is that of the 3,000, perhaps 11 would prove to be
actual mines. Is that correct?
Mr. Abbey. That is the projection that we made based upon
an assessment.
Mr. Garamendi. But the other 2,989 could also prove to be
mines, is that correct?
Mr. Abbey. We would conduct a validity exam to determine
whether or not they had valid existing rights.
Mr. Garamendi. But it is up to the claimant to pursue it,
correct?
Mr. Abbey. It would be up to the claimant to pursue it.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. So there is some potential for an
enormous number of mines here, but the odds are there is likely
to be only 11. That is two and a half times more than exists
today I think by rough mathematics. So we are talking about
here an area that is to be withdrawn that nonetheless has some
3,000 existing claims on it, unproven but existing claims. So
what is the problem here? What is the problem? I think the
problem is one of politics and perception rather than reality.
The reality is that a good deal of mining could take place
in these areas that are going to be withdrawn, and therefore,
we are down to a perception problem. Let us beat up the Bureau
of Land Management and the Secretary because that seems to be a
pretty good sport now here in this capital when in reality
there is the potential already existing in this area of a whole
lot of mining to go on.
Whether it should or should not we can debate. But the fact
is that the withdrawal does not change the reality on the
ground that there are 3,000 existing claims that the claimant
could if they chose to prove up and get a mine underway. Now
there are environmental issues and there are mining laws and
all the rest that need to be done.
And by the way, what does the Federal Government get out of
this? Is there a royalty? No, there is not a royalty. It is
our, our, the American public's, uranium. And the American
public, operating through the Secretary, has decided no more
claims. There are already 3,000, no more needed. Thank you.
Enough already. And by the way, the U.S. taxpayer has been left
to clean up the old mines in this area. We don't need anymore.
The withdrawal is appropriate. The Secretary will make a final
decision when the time comes. This bill is totally
inappropriate. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me engage I guess in politics
for a second here. The 3,000 mine claims that are still out
there, Dr. Wenrich, what would have to be the condition before
any of those could actually be identified or move forward?
Dr. Wenrich. Thank you for the opportunity. I think there
is a lot of misunderstanding here over the mining law and the
process. First of all, as Mr. Abbey has said, each holder of
the claims has to prove that they have valid uranium on those
claims. It is impossible for 95 percent of those claims to
prove that because they have been denied the opportunity to
drill on those claims and make a discovery. Without a
discovery, they cannot fulfill the Bureau of Land Management's
validation of these claims. And so it is very misleading to say
that.
So basically every one of the claim holders out there is
going to lose its money. Also to say that the Federal
Government gets nothing is erroneous. Just ask me every time I
have to write a check for those claims I have been accused of
having to the Bureau of Land Management. It is significant. We
pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance fees.
Mr. Bishop. Let me see if I can restate that in words that
I understand by myself.
Dr. Wenrich. I am sorry. OK.
Mr. Bishop. It simply means that those 3,000 claims could
have been done were they allowed to drill in there, produce the
ore, make the statement, all of which have been precluded by
the Secretary's withdrawal.
Dr. Wenrich. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. So, if they had done that before 2009, it would
be possible to do that. That is why we are going to end up with
around 11 mines----
Dr. Wenrich. Exactly.
Mr. Bishop.--because those are the only ones that have
actually done that before 2009 when Secretary Salazar made his
very precipitous action. Ms. Wenrich, I have one last question
to you, and I think it is only fair to ask you this. Do you
stand by the data you have submitted to this group?
Dr. Wenrich. I absolutely do. And whether I hold any mining
claims that I have had since only two years has absolutely no
bearing on all the research and everything I have stated in
here. I would like to think that I have the utmost of
scientific integrity.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, did the EIS reveal
damage, direct damage, substantiated damage to the Grand Canyon
watershed as a result from uranium mining?
Mr. Abbey. The draft EIS stated that there was incomplete
and unavailable information that added uncertainty to the
analysis and cited potential risk of mining.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I appreciate that. That is one
of the things that worries us on why we are proceeding to make
some final statements with, you know, incomplete data at that
particular point. I do have some concern though. You know, if
the Department is willing to allow 11 mines to go forward with
the great risk that this would bring to the Grand Canyon and to
all the people in Los Angeles and Las Vegas who would be
drinking the water, where is the humanity if you actually are
going to allow 11 mines to go forward?
Mr. Abbey. It is based upon the rights that were conveyed
to miners by the 1872 Mining Law.
Mr. Bishop. But those 11 mines won't destroy people and
destroy all the visitors that are going to come to the Grand
Canyon?
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, the question that is before the
Secretary at this point in time is not whether to stop cautious
and moderate uranium development but whether to allow
unprecedented levels of uranium mining in this area without
knowing the full consequences of that action.
Mr. Bishop. And your data so far is not close to that. But
I have to say this. And you notice I was maybe saying something
with sarcasm, which I am not known to do. But if you are
willing to go forward with 11 mines, that says something about
the overall concept that is going along here and some of the
rhetoric that is taking place in this entire debate, in the
entire debate.
Now does anyone happen to know how much uranium we import
into this country? If you don't, that is not unacceptable. I
think the next panel will go into that in some detail. Does
anyone happen to know that?
Mr. Johnson. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we import 90 percent
of it.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And yet somebody testified that 40 percent
of all our resources are actually here in this particular area
in the United States.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. And also, because of the high grade,
it will make other uranium sites around the United States
useful again as far as mining.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I appreciate all of you, and I am
ready to move on. But, Mr. Abbey, I have to ask you three last
questions.
Mr. Abbey. Please.
Mr. Bishop. And I know you are going to be ready for these.
Is the BLM doing any work on potential Antiquities Act
designations?
Mr. Abbey. No.
Mr. Bishop. Has the Secretary or anyone in the Department
asked BLM for input on any potential designations?
Mr. Abbey. Under the Antiquities Act?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Abbey. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, could I make one statement though?
Mr. Bishop. I have 37 seconds. Go for it.
Mr. Abbey. In response to an allegation that was raised.
The integrity of the BLM's planning process and NEPA analysis
has not been jeopardized. I think where the local field
manager, in this case a district manager, made a statement is
that the decision whether or not to withdraw this area is a
decision of the Secretary of the Interior. It is not his
decision to make.
When the Secretary selected the preferred alternative as
the full withdrawal, it was based upon a recommendation that
came from me, from the Director of the National Parks Service,
from the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and the Director of
the U.S. Geological Survey. That is normal when it is a
secretarial decision and not a decision to be made by the
district manager.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Abbey, I will conclude here. And I don't
have any--do you have any other questions before I ramble on
here, if we are ready--do you have any for these witnesses
before--let me just close this panel out then and make this
last rambling comment.
It is frustrating to me that the preferred alternative from
the Interior Department matches the original withdrawal
concept, especially based on the data that has been presented
by Interior versus the data that has been presented by other
groups so far.
Mr. Abbey, there was a time when you and the Secretary,
Representative Hastings, Representative Simpson and I had some
private conversations. And I said that there were some
frustrations we felt in moving forward with wildlands, which
was the topic at that point, because we did not trust what
would happen in the future. You made accommodations with that
and I want to publicly acknowledge that, and I appreciate those
accommodations. Even though you didn't withdraw the order, I
still trust your accommodations on that.
This is the same kind of situation in which a prior
Congress, the Members sat down and they made accommodations.
Maybe not technically within the bill, but the accommodations
were clearly there. And all those who were involved in it
understood it. And now once again we are going back on those
accommodations, which means looking forward to the future, I
hope you can understand why some of us want to always insist
there is hard-release language everywhere because we don't have
a whole lot of faith in what can happen in the future. And this
is a classic example of that.
Anyway, I appreciate it. Now, Mr. Abbey, Ms. Wagner, if you
would like to stay for the other panel, you are welcome to. If
you don't want to, you are welcome to do whatever you want to
do at this stage. I would even invite you up on the dais
because no one else has accepted that offer from me so far. We
will see what happens. But I appreciate that.
With that, this panel is excused with expression of
gratitude for your willingness to come here and speak to us. I
would like to now invite another panel. And once again,
Director Abbey and Ms. Wagner, if you would like to stay, you
are welcome to. If you don't, that is your choice.
I would like to invite Mr. Harold Roberts, who is the
Executive Vice President of Denison Mines; Mr. Richard Myers,
who is Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute; and Mr.
Stephen Verkamp, who is the President of Verkamp's,
Incorporated. If they would come and join us.
Gentlemen, we appreciate you being here. I think you heard
the drill on every other panel before. You still know the bit.
Your written record is already--oh, good grief. Your written
statement is already in the record. And this is the oral
portion to it, five minutes before you, green go, yellow get
ready to stop, please stop at red if possible. And with that,
we would like to turn first to Mr. Roberts from the Denison
Mines for your comments to the Committee if you would, please.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD ROBERTS,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DENISON MINES
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to the Committee today. Again, my name is
Harold R. Roberts. I am Executive Vice President, U.S.
Operations, for Denison Mines USA Corp.
Denison is a publicly traded company with uranium recovery
operations in the Western U.S. as well as properties in Canada,
Mongolia and Zambia. Our holdings in the U.S. include three
operating uranium mines in Utah, two operating mines in
northern Arizona and the only operating uranium mill in the
U.S., located in southeastern Utah. We currently directly
employ over 350 people in our U.S. mining and milling
operations.
I am here today to voice our support for H.R. 3155, the
Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, and to express
our concerns about the negative impact from the Department of
the Interior's plan to withdraw from mineral entry over 1
million acres in northern Arizona. This action will have long-
lasting, negative effects on our company, other exploration and
mining companies and most importantly will negatively impact
the long-time residents and citizens of the Arizona Strip.
On the Arizona Strip, Denison currently employs 60 people
earning from $35,000 to $115,000 per year plus benefits. The
company also hires an additional 15 subcontractors. In addition
to our two operating mines on the Arizona Strip, the company
has plans to open mines on three additional ore deposits in the
next two years. While the withdrawal will not affect the
currently operating mines, it will potentially jeopardize the
plans for the three additional ore deposits controlled by
Denison and possibly takes those property from us and
eliminates the future jobs.
The two current mines in the Arizona Strip will be mined
out in one to three years, and the new mines are critical to
maintaining and growing the current workforce. The uranium
deposits in northern Arizona called breccia pipes are unique in
that the ore grades are some of the highest in the U.S. The
surface disturbance for a fully developed mine is relatively
small, less than 20 acres or about the size of a WalMart
parking lot. The mines are generally dry, and the timespan from
development through full reclamation is less than six to eight
years.
Once fully mined out, the reclaimed sites exhibit no
evidence of past activity and are returned to the original land
use. The Bureau of Land Management's own draft environmental
impact statement on the withdrawal stated that there is no
contamination of the Colorado River watershed, and that quote
is in my testimony. I won't repeat it here. It has been talked
about enough today already. Denison acquired the Arizona mines
from my former employer, Energy Fields Nuclear, who discovered,
permitted, operated and successfully reclaimed five breccia
pipe mines in northern Arizona in the 1980s and early nineties.
The reclaimed sites demonstrate that these deposits can be
developed with little or no impact to the environment while
still providing high-paying jobs to local and state economies
in Arizona and Utah. The current perception that uranium mining
is detrimental to the environment of northern Arizona is not
supported by the history of similar operations. In the 1980s,
at the time Energy Fields was operating on the Arizona Strip,
similar cries for protection of the area were heard.
Working with environmental groups and Federal and State
legislators, a landmark compromise between the environmental
and mining communities resulted in the Arizona Wilderness Act
of 1984. This also added more than a million acres of land to
the national wilderness preservation system and provided that
mining and grazing be allowed in those areas released for
multiple use and not designated as wilderness if conducted in a
responsible and sustainable manner.
The Act specifically directed that nearly half a million
acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 50,000 acres of
Forest Service lands be released from wilderness study area
status with the understanding and intention that uranium mining
would be allowed on the Arizona Strip and in the Kaibab
National Forest.
Since the passage of the Act, uranium mining activities in
northern Arizona have a proven track record of production and
reclamation that has not impacted the Grand Canyon. Rather than
respect a longstanding and carefully crafted compromise agreed
to by all parties, the current Administration would rather
march forward with their goal of locking up even more Federal
lands to responsible authorized multiple use in the West.
The Administration is effectively eliminating high-paying
local jobs instead of stimulating job growth in the local
depressed economy of northern Arizona and southern Utah. The
proponents of the Arizona Strip withdrawal talk of stopping
uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. This is a convenient, self-
serving distortion of the truth. There currently is no mining
in the Grand Canyon, nor are there plans for future mining in
the Grand Canyon National Park.
The ore from Denison's Arizona Strip mines is shipped for
processing to the White Mesa Mill located near Blanding, Utah.
The mill currently employs 150 people, approximately 60 percent
of whom are Native American. Ore from the Arizona Strip mines
currently supplies approximately 25 percent of the conventional
ore feed to the mill and because of the high grade provides
approximately 45 percent of the uranium production. Loss of
this production will have a significant impact on the White
Mesa Mill operations. In the long-term, Denison is counting on
our Arizona Strip production as well as other companies' future
mines on the Strip to continue to provide a significant volume
of feed to the White Mesa Mill.
The proponents of the withdrawal promote the erroneous
theory that the withdrawal will not impact the long-term
exploration potential of the area. This could not be further
from the truth. The withdrawal area was carefully chosen by the
Department of the Interior and environmental groups to
encompass all of the proven breccia pipe uranium deposits and
to cover all of the area of the highest known occurrences of
mineralized braccia pipes. The withdrawal area covers the
largest percentage of mining claims in the region, which is not
surprising in that the mining companies only stake claims in
areas of highest potential.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you to quickly summarize?
Mr. Roberts. As a reasonable person, I find it incredible
that the Secretary of the Interior would announce earlier this
year that the final environmental impact statement would have
the full withdrawal area as the preferred alternative before
the final document was published and without regard to any of
the no-impact findings on the historical mining activities.
The Secretary has essentially made his decision on the
withdrawal that day. As an individual taxpayer and businessman,
I also find it incredible that the Secretary and this
Administration would spend possibly millions of dollars on an
environmental impact statement and then totally ignore its
findings and the hard work put forth by the employees of the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey. This
action results in a total waste of taxpayer dollars and is an
outright slap in the face to those hardworking employees.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Statement of Harold R. Roberts, Executive Vice President, Denison Mines
(USA) Corp., Concerning H.R. 3155, Northern Arizona Mining Continuity
Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to the Committee today. My name is Harold R.
Roberts. I am Executive Vice President, U.S. Operations for Denison
Mines (USA) Corp. Denison is a publicly traded company with uranium
recovery operations in the western U.S., as well as properties in
Canada, Mongolia, and Zambia. Our holdings in the U.S. include three
operating uranium mines in Utah, two operating mines in northern
Arizona, and the only operating uranium mill in the U.S., located in
southeastern Utah. We currently directly employ over 350 people in our
U.S. mining and milling operations. I am here today to voice our
support for H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011 and to express our concerns about the negative impact from the
Department of Interior's plan to withdraw from mineral entry over one
million acres in northern Arizona. This action will have long lasting
negative effects on our company, other exploration and mining
companies, and most importantly will negatively impact the long time
residents and citizens of the Arizona Strip.
On the Arizona Strip, Denison currently employs 60 people, earning
from $35,000 to $115,000 per year, plus benefits. The Company also
hires an additional 15 subcontractors. In addition to our two operating
mines, the company has plans to open mines on three additional ore
deposits in the next two years. While the withdrawal will not affect
the currently operating mines, it potentially jeopardizes plans for the
three additional ore deposits controlled by Denison, and possibly takes
those properties from us and eliminates future jobs. The two current
mines will be mined out in one to three years, and the new mines are
critical to maintaining and growing the current work force.
The uranium deposits in northern Arizona, called breccia pipes, are
unique in that the ore grades are some of the highest in the U.S., the
surface disturbance for a fully developed mine is relatively small,
less than 20 acres, the mines are generally dry, and the time span from
development through full reclamation is less than six to eight years.
Once fully mined out, the reclaimed sites exhibit no evidence of past
activity and are returned to the original land use. In fact, the Bureau
of Land Management's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
withdrawal stated that there is no contamination of the Colorado River
watershed from uranium mining, stating:
``It is also important to recognize that,. . .. there is currently
no conclusive evidence from well and spring sampling data that (modern)
breccia pipe uranium operations in the north Parcel have impacted the
chemical quality of groundwater in the regional R-aquifer.''
Denison acquired the Arizona mines from my former employer, Energy
Fuels Nuclear, who discovered, permitted, operated, and successfully
reclaimed five breccia pipe mines in northern Arizona in the 1980s and
early 1990s. The reclaimed mine sites demonstrate that these deposits
can be developed with little or no impact to the environment, while
still providing high paying jobs to the local and state economies in
Arizona and Utah. The current perception that uranium mining cannot be
conducted with little or no impact to the environment of northern
Arizona is not supported by the history of similar operations. In the
1980s, at the time Energy Fuels was operating on the Arizona Strip,
similar cries for protection of the area were heard. Working with
environmental groups and federal and state legislators, a landmark
compromise between the environmental and mining communities resulted in
legislation designating nearly 300,000 acres of Bureau of Land
Management lands and more than 800,000 acres of National Forest lands
as wilderness. The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-406) also
added more than a million acres of land to the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and provided that mining and grazing be allowed in
those areas released for multiple use and not designated as wilderness,
if conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner. The Act
specifically directed that nearly half a million acres of Bureau of
Land Management Lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands be
released from wilderness study area status with the understanding and
intention that uranium mining would be allowed on the Arizona Strip and
in the Kaibab National Forest.
Since the passage of the Act, uranium mining activities in Northern
Arizona have a proven track record of production and reclamation that
has not impacted the Grand Canyon. Rather than respect a longstanding
and carefully crafted compromise agreed to by all parties, the current
Administration would rather march forward with their goal of locking up
even more federal lands to responsible, authorized multiple use in the
West. The Administration is effectively eliminating high paying local
jobs instead of stimulating job growth and the local depressed economy
of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
The proponents of the Arizona Strip withdrawal talk of stopping
uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. This is a convenient, self serving
distortion of the truth. There currently is no mining in the Grand
Canyon, nor are there plans for future mining in the Grand Canyon
National Park.
The ore from Denison's Arizona Strip mines is shipped for
processing to the White Mesa Mill located near Blanding, Utah. The Mill
currently employees 150 people, approximately 60% of who are Native
American. Ore from the Arizona Strip mines currently supplies
approximately 25% of the conventional ore feed to the Mill, and because
of the high grade, provides approximately 45% of the uranium
production. Loss of this ore production will have a significant impact
on the White Mesa Mill operations. In the long term Denison is counting
on our Arizona Strip production, as well as other companies' future
mines on the Arizona Strip to continue to provide a significant volume
of the feed to the White Mesa Mill.
The proponents of the withdrawal promote the erroneous theory that
the withdrawal will not impact the long term exploration potential of
the area. This could not be further from the truth. The withdrawal area
was carefully chosen by the Department of Interior, and environmental
groups, to encompass all of the proven breccia pipe uranium deposits,
and to cover all of the area of the highest known occurrences of
mineralized breccia pipes. The withdrawal area covers the largest
percentage of mining claims in the region, which is not surprising in
that the mining companies only staked claims in the areas of highest
potential.
As a reasonable person, I find it incredible that the Secretary of
Interior would announce earlier this year that the Final Environmental
Impact Statement would have the full withdrawal area as the preferred
alternative, before the final document was published and without regard
to any of the no impact findings on the historical mining activities by
the Departments experts. This is clearly in conflict with the intent of
the National Environmental Policy Act, and in conflict with the
Department's procedures. I also find it curious that the Secretary
would choose to ignore the wishes of his own BLM Resource Advisory
Council whose members voted in August to overwhelmingly oppose the
withdrawal. The withdrawal decision should be based on sound science
and factual findings, not on the baseless claims of environmental
groups, special interests and their vote-seeking elected officials.
As a taxpayer and businessman, I also find it incredible that the
Secretary and this Administration would spend possibly millions of
dollars on an Environmental Impact Statement, and then totally ignore
its findings and the hard work put forth by the employees of the Bureau
of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey. This action results
in a total waste of taxpayer dollars and is an outright slap in the
face to those hard working employees.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the
Committee.
______
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate it. Mr. Myers.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MYERS, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, AND SUPPLIER PROGRAMS, NUCLEAR ENERGY
INSTITUTE
Mr. Myers. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
join you today. My name is Richard Myers. I am Vice President
for Policy Development with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
NEI is the U.S. nuclear energy industry's Washington-based
policy organization. Just by way of context, America's 104
nuclear power plants represent approximately 10 percent of our
generating capacity. However, because they operate at such high
levels of reliability and efficiency and safety, they produce
20 percent of this country's electricity supply, and they
represent nearly three-quarters of our emission-free, carbon-
free generation.
Worldwide, more than 150 new nuclear projects are in the
licensing and advanced planning stage, with 65 reactors
currently under construction. In the United States, the U.S.
Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will
rise by 24 percent by 2035, which means our Nation will need
hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity to meet
rising demand and replace aging infrastructure.
Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can
provide emission-free, affordable baseload electricity. As a
result, our industry will see sustained growth in demand for
materials, components, services and fuel. The forecasts
generally agree that world uranium production by 2030 must rise
by at least two-thirds from the current level and possibly
double.
NEI's primary goal is to ensure a diverse, competitive and
reliable supply of uranium to bolster America's energy
security. Given that uranium supply is a strategic priority, we
fully support H.R. 3155 and the companion legislation in the
Senate.
U.S. nuclear plants consume approximately 50 million pounds
of uranium a year. More than 90 percent of that comes from
foreign sources. In 2010, nearly one-quarter of U.S. uranium
requirements were met by down blended Russian high enriched
uranium extracted from nuclear weapons. This weapons-grade
material is converted into low-end rich uranium fuel. This
arrangement expires in 2013, however, and will leave a gap in
U.S. demand that must be filled from other supply sources.
Additional U.S. uranium supply like the breccia pipe
uranium deposits in northern Arizona are strategically
important. The draft environmental impact statement on the
northern Arizona land withdrawal generally found either no
impact or minor temporary impacts that could be readily
mitigated. This conclusion was validated by the Arizona States
agencies responsible for environmental protection and
management of State lands. Let me quote from the comments filed
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: ``The
environmental risks posed by mining in Arizona have been
successfully managed by both State and Federal environmental
requirements. Modern technologies and permits ensure that new
and reactivated mining claims can be safely worked with minimal
environmental impact. A broad withdrawal of Federal lands is
unwarranted. Rather than a blanket prohibition, proposed new
mining facilities should continue to be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.''
In our preliminary analysis of the Interior Department's
final EIS, NEI has found nothing that would appear to justify
an extreme action like the proposed withdrawal of one million
acres. In both the draft EIS and the final EIS, we believe both
documents are extremely well done and in fact make a compelling
case for the so-called no-action alternative under which mine
development would be allowed subject to the extensive Federal
and State regulatory requirements that exist.
A recent analysis by Tetra Tech, an environmental
consulting firm, found that development of northern Arizona's
uranium would have a major economic benefit, direct and
indirect economic benefit of 29.4 billion during the period in
which the mines would be in operation. Tax revenues from the
mining companies could reach $2 billion in Federal and State
corporate income taxes and $168 million in severance taxes to
the State.
The proposed land withdrawal is designed to protect against
situations, circumstances and practices of the 1950s and 1960s
when uranium was mined at the Federal Government's behest and
on the Federal Government's account, principally for nuclear
weapons purposes.
Mr. Chairman, we could spend all afternoon sitting here
listing practices and actions that were taken in the 1950s and
1960s that were inappropriate and would never be taken in
today's environment. Those situations in the uranium area,
those situations and practices simply no longer exist.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Richard J. Myers, Vice President,
Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs, Nuclear Energy
Institute
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Richard Myers. I am Vice
President for Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs for
the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI is responsible for establishing
nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy
industry, including regulatory, financial, technical and legislative
issues. NEI's 375 members include all companies licensed to operate
commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant
designers, major architect/engineering firms, suppliers of fuel,
materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved
in the nuclear energy industry.
America's 104 nuclear power plants represent approximately 10
percent of our electricity generating capacity. However, because they
operate at such high levels of reliability, safety and efficiency--they
provide 20 percent of this country's electricity supply and nearly
three-quarters of our emission-free generation. When ranked by
performance over the last three years, the U.S. has the top three best-
performing nuclear reactors in the world, seven of the top 10 and 16 of
the top 20.
Nuclear power plants operate in 31 states and produce substantial
economic value in revenues from electricity sales--$40 billion to $50
billion each year--and employ over 100,000 workers. Nuclear energy
companies buy over $14 billion each year in materials, fuel and
services from domestic suppliers in all 50 states.
Worldwide, more than 150 new nuclear plant projects are in the
licensing and advanced planning stage, with 65 reactors currently under
construction. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that
U.S. electricity demand will rise 24 percent by 2035, about one percent
each year. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants
to provide electricity to meet rising demand and replace aging
infrastructure. Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can
provide emission-free, affordable baseload electricity.
As a result, our industry will see sustained growth in demand for
materials, components, services and fuel. The World Nuclear
Association's 2011 Market Report \1\ shows that world uranium
production in the reference scenario must rise by at least two-thirds
by 2030 from the current level and, under some circumstances, uranium
supply must double. Bringing new uranium mines into production requires
careful, time-consuming planning and permitting well in advance of
exploration and production of uranium, and we cannot afford to remove
high-quality reserves from consideration without good cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Global Nuclear Fuel Market: Supply and Demand 2011-2030,
World Nuclear Association, September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEI's primary goal is to ensure a diverse, competitive and reliable
supply of uranium to bolster America's energy security. Given that
uranium supply is a strategic priority, NEI fully supports H.R. 3155,
The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, and S. 1690, the
companion legislation in the Senate. The Administration has proposed
that approximately one million acres of federal land in the Arizona
Strip be withdrawn and unavailable for uranium mining for 20 years, and
this legislation would block that withdrawal.
My testimony today will cover two major areas:
NEI's perspective on world uranium supply and demand,
and the importance of U.S. uranium supply, including potential
future supply from northern Arizona.
NEI's preliminary assessment of the final
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the northern Arizona
land withdrawal, which was published last week by the Interior
Department's Bureau of Land Management. We are unable to find
any impacts identified in the final EIS that would justify the
proposed withdrawal.
Uranium Supply and Demand
The uranium resources in the Arizona Strip represent some of the
highest-grade ores located in the United States. In fact, according to
the Interior Department's final EIS, these uranium resources are higher
grade than 85 percent of the world's uranium resources. These resources
could represent as much as 375 million pounds of uranium, approximately
40 percent of U.S. reserves, twice current world demand and more than
seven times current U.S. annual demand.
A recent analysis by Tetra Tech, Inc., an environmental consulting
firm, found that development of northern Arizona's uranium resources
would have a significant economic benefit. Tetra Tech's analysis showed
a direct and indirect economic benefit of $29.4 billion \2\, or an
average annual impact of $700 million during the period in which mines
would be in operation. Federal, state and local governments would
receive tax revenues from the mining companies, including $2 billion in
federal and state corporate income taxes, and $168 million in severance
taxes to the state. Since the ore from northern Arizona mines would
likely be taken to the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, for
processing, trucking companies could expect revenues of approximately
$1.6 billion during operation of the mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Economic Impact of Uranium Mining on Cocino and Mohave
Counties, Arizona, Tetra Tech Inc., September 2009. The $29.4 billion
economic impact consists of $18.9 billion in direct sales and $10.5
billion in indirect impact. The analysis assumed a conservative uranium
price of $50 per pound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The uranium market is an international market, and will continue to
be so, with commercial uranium mining on six continents. History and
recent events make it clear, however, that maintaining U.S. capability
in uranium production must be a strategic part of our domestic energy
supply strategy.
The world's nuclear power plants currently consume more uranium
than is produced. Current worldwide uranium demand is approximately 180
million pounds per year. Worldwide production is approximately 140
million pounds per year, with the balance coming from secondary sources
of supply, including inventories held by the U.S. and Russian
governments. U.S. uranium production in 2010 was approximately four
million pounds.
U.S. nuclear power plants consume approximately 50 million pounds
of uranium per year. More than 90 percent of that comes from foreign
sources. In 2010 nearly a quarter of U.S. uranium requirements were met
by downblended Russian high-enriched uranium extracted from nuclear
weapons. This weapons-grade material is converted into low-enriched
uranium fuel in what is popularly called the ``megatons to megawatts''
program. This arrangement expires in 2013, however, and will leave a
gap in U.S. demand that must be filled from other supply sources. In
that context, even relatively small additions to U.S. uranium supply--
such as might be achieved by producing the breccia pipe uranium
deposits in northern Arizona--are strategically important.
In addition, approximately 55 percent of world uranium supply comes
from the 10 largest mines: Four in Kazakhstan, two in Africa, two in
Australia, and one each in Russia and Canada. This heavy dependence on
uranium production from a relatively small number of large mines
represents a supply vulnerability: Any interruptions in production can
cause disruption in the market. These interruptions do occur: From
fires (at Olympic Dam in Australia in 2001); from mine flooding (as at
the Rabbit Lake, Cigar Lake and McArthur River mines in Canada in the
2003-2008 period); from floods caused by cyclones (as at the Ranger
open pit mine in Australia in 2006, 2007 and 2011); from in situ
leaching supply shortages (as at the Beverley mine in Australia in
2010); and from leaching acid supply shortages (as in Kazakhstan in
2007).
U.S. nuclear energy companies manage this potential vulnerability
by diversifying their sources of supply. Additional U.S. uranium
supply, including future supply from the high-grade deposits in
northern Arizona, is an important part of a diversified supply
portfolio.
The Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal
There is no current or proposed uranium mining inside the Grand
Canyon National Park, which encompasses 1.2 million acres and includes
a buffer zone to protect the Grand Canyon. The one million acres
proposed for withdrawal lie outside the park boundaries.
Withdrawing one million acres from future mining would upset a
longstanding and carefully crafted compromise developed in 1984 between
the mining industry and the environmental community, and supported by
the Arizona congressional delegation led by former House Interior
Committee Chairman Mo Udall, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and then-Congressman
John McCain. In the early 1980s, legislation was crafted that
designated approximately 300,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management
land and approximately 100,000 acres of National Forest Service lands
as wilderness. The Act added over one million acres of land to the
National Wilderness Preservation System, and provided that mining and
grazing be allowed in those areas not designated as wilderness, if
conducted in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. The
Act also specifically directed nearly half-a-million acres of Bureau of
Land Management lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands be
released from wilderness study with the understanding and intention
that this would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strip and Kaibab
National Forest. Since the passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act of
1984 (P.L. 98-406), there is no evidence that uranium mining and
reclamation have impacted the Grand Canyon.
During the 1980s, seven mines in the Arizona Strip produced
approximately 19 million pounds of uranium, with a temporary surface
disturbance of approximately 20 acres per mine--about the size of a
Wal-Mart parking lot. A statement by the Arizona State Legislature
notes that ``in the 1980s, uranium mining operations existed that have
now been so well reclaimed that it is difficult to discern where these
mines existed.''
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft EIS (DEIS) on
the northern Arizona land withdrawal was published for public comment
in February. The DEIS considered potential impacts on air emissions,
water resources, soil resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife,
wilderness resources, and recreation and tourism. In general, the DEIS
found either no impact or minor, temporary impacts that could be
readily mitigated. This conclusion was validated by the Arizona state
agencies responsible for environmental protection and management of
state lands.
The high-grade uranium resources in northern Arizona are found in
``breccia pipe'' formations. These are compact formations that can be
developed with minimal environmental impact. In its comments on the
Interior Department's draft EIS, the Arizona Land Department said:
``[T]he DEIS reveals nothing in the recent history of mining the
breccia pipes in northern Arizona. . .that would appear to justify any
withdrawal. Going back to the start of the Hack Mine complex in 1981,
there has been no incident or event during this 30-year period that
would. . .warrant a withdrawal.''
In its comments \3\ on the draft EIS, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) noted that the draft EIS ignored state and
federal programs designed to protect the environment, and saw no basis
for a blanket withdrawal. ``As the lead regulatory agency responsible
for the protection of Arizona's environment, ADEQ closely regulates
uranium mining activities in northern Arizona. The environmental risks
posed by mining in Arizona have been successfully managed by both state
and federal environmental requirements currently in place. The State of
Arizona has adopted the Aquifer Protection Permit program specifically
designed to protect its precious groundwater resources. This State
program provides added protection to the federal environmental laws. It
is important that the BLM consider not only the federal programs, but
also Arizona's unique environmental requirements when making its
decision.'' (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, comment letter to
BLM, May 4, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ continued: ``The DEIS does not give full consideration to
modern uranium mining technology or ADEQ-issued permits that require
environmental controls, financial assurance, and reclamation. These
modern technologies and permits ensure that new and reactivated mining
claims can be safely worked with minimal environmental impact. A broad
withdrawal of federal lands in response to concerns that new mining
operations will pose unacceptable environmental risk is unwarranted.
Rather than a blanket prohibition of new claims, proposed new mining
facilities should continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
under existing federal and state environmental permitting programs.''
(Emphasis added.)
The Arizona Geological Survey conducted an analysis of possible
contamination of water resources as a result of uranium mining and
found no cause for concern. In an April 28, 2011, letter to Governor
Janice Brewer, the state geological survey stated: ``We conclude that
even the most implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium
in the Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over amounts of
uranium that are normally carried by the river from erosion of geologic
deposits. Even if the entire annual uranium production from an
operating mine were somehow implausibly dumped into the river, the
resulting increase in uranium concentration in river water would
increase from 4.0 to 12.8 parts per billion (ppb) for one year, which
is still far below the 30 ppb EPA Maximum Contaminant Level.''
The Arizona Geological Survey told the governor that ``we believe
the fears of uranium contamination of the Colorado River from mining
accidents are minor and transitory compared to the amounts of uranium
that are naturally and continually eroded into the river. . .. Uranium
has been eroding out of these deposits into the Colorado River and
other streams and creeks for millions of years and will continue to do
so for millions more.''
The Final Environmental Impact Statement. In its preliminary
analysis of the Interior Department's final EIS, published on October
26, NEI has found nothing that would appear to justify an extreme
action like the proposed withdrawal of one million acres.
The EIS identifies four alternative courses of action, but only two
alternatives are of significant interest. Alternative A is the so-
called ``no action'' alternative, under which continued uranium mining
would be allowed, subject to the safeguards and requirements of federal
and state laws and regulations. Alternative B is the proposed one-
million-acre land withdrawal. It is commonly assumed that there would
be no mining under Alternative B, but that is not the case. Uranium
mining would occur under both alternatives, because a number of mines
are already operating or permitted as valid existing claims in the
proposed withdrawal area and would, therefore, not be subject to the
land withdrawal proposed.
Under Alternative B (the withdrawal scenario) the final EIS
estimates 11 uranium mines would operate in the withdrawal area over
the 20-year period. Under Alternative A, the number of mines increases
to 30, an increase of 19 mining projects above Alternative B. The true
measure of environmental impact, therefore, is the difference between
11 and 30 mining projects.
It is instructive to compare the differences between Alternative A
and Alternative B from various perspectives. For example, under
Alternative A, the total acres disturbed for exploration and
development over 20 years would be 1,364 acres; under Alternative B,
164 acres--a difference of 1,200 acres over 20 years or 60 acres per
year.\4\ Sixty acres per year in a one-million-acre tract of land is a
relatively trivial difference--certainly not large enough to justify a
draconian step like a 20-year, one-million-acre land withdrawal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
October 2011, 2:35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of water usage, according to the final EIS, Alternative A
would consume 316 million gallons; Alternative B, 116 million gallons.
The difference is 200 million gallons over 20 years or 10 million
gallons per year. This seems relatively insignificant in a nation where
residential water consumption is 26 billion gallons per day, and water
for consumed for irrigation was 134 billion gallons per day.
Land Disturbance. The Administration proposes to withdraw 1,006,545
acres, divided among three parcels: the North Parcel with 549,995 acres
(the area likely to see the highest level of development); the South
Parcel (134,454 acres) and the East Parcel (322,096 acres).
Because breccia pipe deposits of uranium are so compact, the amount
of land disturbed temporarily by mining is relatively small--less than
0.2 percent of the one million acres proposed to be withdrawn.\5\ The
final EIS states: ``Even if the entire anticipated disturbance occurred
in one sub-basin or area, which is not likely based on locations of
past uranium mines, the impact to overall soil productivity and
watershed function would be small because the level of disturbance
represents a very small fraction of the respective parcel areas. In
addition, the magnitude of the direct impact would be somewhat less
than the total anticipated disturbed area because not all the
disturbance would occur at once: some areas would be reclaimed prior to
disturbance related to other sites. Thus, disturbance impacts would be
minor because of the small amount of relative disturbance and would
generally be of short duration, about 5 years, which is the average
lifespan of a mine from development through reclamation activities.''
\6\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ About 945 acres out of about 550,000 acres for the North
Parcel, 107 acres out of about 134,000 acres for the East Parcel, and
312 acres out of about 322,000 acres for the South Parcel
\6\ Ibid, 4:111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Resources. The final EIS provides an exhaustive body of data
on potential impacts on water resources. None of it seems to justify
the proposed land withdrawal.
On the impact on Colorado River water quantity and quality, the
final EIS asserts that ``water quantity impacts could vary between 0%
and 0.002% of the average minimum flow in the Colorado River. . ..
Water quality impacts could vary from no mine to at least one mine
which might contribute impacted water to the R-aquifer. If any impact
would occur, the resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic would
not be expected to exceed estimated ambient levels.'' \7\ (Emphasis
added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
October 2011, 2-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the water quality in deep aquifer springs, the FEIS finds
nothing that would threaten drinking water standards:
``North Parcel: From no to 11 mines might contribute impacted
water to the R-aquifer. If any impact would occur, the
resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic might exceed
ambient levels (4.9 mg/L uranium and 2 mg/L arsenic), but not
drinking water standards (30 mg/L uranium or 10 mg/L arsenic)
at the Kanab and Showerbath spring complex. If as many as 11
mines contribute impacted water to the R-aquifer, the projected
maximum resultant concentration is 14 mg/L for uranium and 4
mg/L for arsenic.
``East Parcel: From no to 1 mine might contribute impacted
water to the R-aquifer. If any impact would occur, the
resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic might exceed
ambient levels (1.7 mg/L uranium and 10 mg/L arsenic), but not
drinking water standards (30 mg/L uranium or 10 mg/L arsenic)
at the Fence Fault spring complex. If as many as 1 mine
contributes impacted water to the R-aquifer, the projected
maximum resultant uranium concentration is 1.8 mg/L; resultant
maximum arsenic concentration would not be expected to exceed
ambient levels.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid, 2:37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part, the lack of impact on water resources reflects the local
geology. As the final EIS notes,\9\ the ``modern (post-1980) breccia
pipe uranium mine sites in the study area are. . .characterized by
well-cemented, very low permeability breccias and adjacent formation
rocks. . .. In each case, these ore deposits are on the order of 1,000
feet or more above the R-aquifer system and are underlain by the poorly
permeable breccias and siltstones/mudstones of the Hermit Formation and
Supai Group. Therefore, conditions are not favorable for downward
migration of leached minerals and constituents (such as uranium and
arsenic) from the ore deposits to the R-aquifer.'' (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid, 3:62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Impacts. The final EIS finds \10\ that ``[n]one of the
proposed mines would have potential emissions in quantities large
enough to trigger a PSD [prevention of significant deterioration]
review....Therefore, each mine would be considered a minor source
relative to the PSD permitting process and would only require a State
of Arizona Class II Non-Title V air quality permit. Compliance with the
permit and the applicable state regulations would minimize the air
quality impacts of mine operation. . ..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid, 4:17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Mining operations related to all of the alternatives would be
expected to result in increases in ambient air pollutant
concentrations. Use of the unpaved and paved roads by the ore haul
trucks would result in potential increases in fugitive dust and vehicle
exhaust emissions. However, these impacts would be localized and
temporary when they did occur and would be minimized by speed limit
restrictions on unpaved roads. However, exceptional wind events have
the potential for fugitive dust to be transported beyond several
kilometers. The extent of the impact is dependent on the proximity of
the mining activity to the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. Areas
of the Park that are closer to mining operations could be impacted
greater than areas that are farther away.'' (Emphasis added.)
When considering the relative impacts of various industrial
activities, it is instructive to compare emissions. For example, the
Salt River Project's Navajo Generating Station in Page, AZ, produces
these pollutants (in tons per year):\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
October 2011, 3:23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO -- 2,010
NOx -- 33,221
PM10 -- 3,943
PM2.5 -- 2,817
SO2 -- 3,944
CO2 -- 20.1 million
By comparison, Denison Mines' Arizona 1 Mine in the North Parcel
has the potential to emit these pollutants (in tons per year):\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ibid, 3:29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO -- 0.28
NOx -- 1.3
PM10 -- 324
PM2.5 -- 5.7
SO2 -- 0.08
Even multiplying the emissions from operation of the Arizona 1 Mine
by 30 times (the number of potential mines in the withdrawal area),
total emissions from uranium mining in northern Arizona are trivial and
incidental compared to emissions--which are judged acceptable under air
quality control regulations--from a large coal-fired power plant in the
same region. (The sole exception would be PM10, and only if
all 30 mines were operating at the same time and that, of course, would
not occur.)
The Uranium Legacy. NEI concludes that the proposed land withdrawal
is not justified by any information in the Interior Department's
environmental assessment. The proposed land withdrawal is designed to
protect against situations and circumstances that no longer exist--
specifically, the uranium mining practices of the 1950s and 1960s, when
uranium was mined at the federal government's behest and on the federal
government's account, principally for nuclear weapons purposes. Uranium
mining in those days was conducted in ways that would not be acceptable
today--without National Environmental Policy Act reviews, without air
quality and water quality permits, absent any requirement for
reclamation and financial bonds to ensure that reclamation occurs, with
none of the multiple protections required today to protect public and
worker health and safety and the environment.
It is a grievous mistake to judge today's uranium mining activities
by practices and standards from 50 to 60 years ago. Yet that,
apparently, is what the Interior Department has done in its final EIS.
The final EIS' preoccupation with the past appears early in the
document \13\: ``There is a history of hardrock mining activities in
the Grand Canyon watershed dating back to the 1860s. In some cases,
these mining activities have left lasting impacts within the watershed,
primarily associated with older copper and uranium mines. . .. These
historical impacts and the recent increase in the number and extent of
mining claims located in the area have raised concerns that future
hardrock mining activities in the Grand Canyon watershed, particularly
for uranium, could result in adverse effects on resources. . .''
(Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid, 1:5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Could result in adverse impacts'' is a long distance--and many
decades--from ``will result in adverse impacts.''
Arizona Gov. Brewer raised this issue in an October 30, 2009,
letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in which she objected to the
proposed land withdrawal. ``Most environmental concerns raised by the
legacy of uranium mining in Arizona and the southwest United States are
the result of activities that occurred prior to the existence of modern
environmental laws and generally resulted from detonation, disposal,
ore-processing (milling) and weapons manufacturing sites--activities
not associated with modern uranium extraction,'' she said. ``In the
Colorado Plateau region of northern Arizona that includes the proposed
withdrawal area, ore extraction and production at existing uranium
mines has minimal environmental impact on the surrounding land, water,
and wildlife because of modern environmental laws.''
______
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Thank you. First of all, Mr.
Verkamp, thank you for being here. We may disagree on a variety
of issues, but to see a constituent travel all the way to D.C.
is certainly a pleasure, and I hope that you reward us with
good weather forward. So you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN VERKAMP,
PRESIDENT, VERKAMP'S INC.
Mr. Verkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to thank
the Committee and the Chairman, Acting Chairman. I am here to
speak in support of H.R. 855, the Grand Canyon Watersheds
Protection Act sponsored by Congressman Grijalva, and in
opposition to H.R. 3155.
My name is Stephen Verkamp, and I spent my entire childhood
living within 50 yards of the edge of the South Rim of the
Grand Canyon. My grandfather, John G. Verkamp, built a souvenir
and handicrafts store in 1906, 13 years prior to the area
becoming a national park. Until closing the store in 2008, we
were the longest, continuous family owned business in the
entire national parks system of the United States.
When we speak of the Grand Canyon, it must be understood
that the canyon does not start at the edge of the rim, nor is
it an arbitrary line on a map but rather is the sum total of
the entire area surrounding those edges. Wildlife is not
concerned with man's arbitrary map-making. The public lands
surrounding the national park are likewise critical to the
integrity of the wild nature of the environment. They must be
protected.
As a kid living on the rim of the canyon, I recall playing
on a dirt football field where the underlay for the field was
constructed from orphan mine, the uranium mine, tailings. I can
further recall chunks of uranium ore falling off the truck on
the road below our residence. Naturally, being kids, we would
pick up these pieces of ore with our hands and examine them.
These mining practices were life-threatening and a total
outrage. Later in my adult life, I was privileged to be the
first full-time Federal judge with jurisdiction over Grand
Canyon National Park and the national forests that surround the
canyon and are the subject matter of H.R. 855. These
experiences strongly deepen my understanding of this area.
I mention these personal experiences to express my grave
concern about what could be the outcome if Congressman Franks'
bill is passed and new uranium claims are developed around the
Grand Canyon. A major impact on the areas in question will be
the dust pollution that will certainly create an enormous
problem. The actual and potential mines in the South Rim are
bounded on the east by state highway 89 and on the west by
highway 64.
These two highways are both single-lane and heavily
burdened with tourist vehicle traffic to the Grand Canyon. The
area we are talking about is all within what can best be
described as a dust bowl due to the extremely dry conditions of
northern Arizona. The ore trucks would have to use dirt roads
to reach these highways, in this case, apparently Blanding,
Utah.
There is simply no way that a relentless parade of ore
trucks could do anything except seriously create safety and air
quality issues. It is my personal experience, any single
vehicle in this area, whether it is hunter, casual user or
other people just visiting the area, create an enormous cloud
of dust that can literally be seen for miles and which hovers
in the area for an unbelievably long time.
I can only imagine what huge ore trucks will create. There
are no other ways to transport ore to its destination other
than by use of the two highways I mentioned. This is all on the
South Rim where a large majority of the claims have been
located.
The prevailing southwest to northeast winds in that area
will carry the truck dust directly into the national park and
surrounding area. The impacts I have described do not begin to
touch on the economic costs of allowing new uranium mining. It
is estimated that the regional economy centered on the Grand
Canyon exceeds $700 million each year.
According to the 2010 National Park statistics, more than
1.4 million vehicles entered one or the other of the two roads
I have mentioned. At a conservative two persons per vehicle,
nearly 3 million tourists visited the park by vehicle alone in
2010.
The cost to taxpayers of restoring mined-out areas amount
to millions of dollars paid by taxpayers, like the case of the
orphan mine. These companies frequently walk away or file
bankruptcy after they have taken the ore. In my personal
experience, the effect of major and minor changes in the park
and surrounding forests affect tourist visitation and small
businesses in very real ways.
For example, several years ago there was not enough
entrance stations into the Grand Canyon park. This fact spread
on the internet like wildfire. Sales in our store were greatly
reduced by this seemingly small issue. The New York Times and
other media ran these stories because everyone in the country
has a special love for this incredible place. The tourists went
other places, such as Las Vegas, rather than wait the long
entrance lines.
Another example involved the closing of the national park
in the mid-nineties when Congress shut down the government. The
economic impact on our family business was so great that my
father actually wrote a check to the Grand Canyon Park Service
to try to help keep the park open. Once again an outside event
created an economically devastating impact on businesses within
the park and surrounding areas, such as Tusayan, Williams,
Flagstaff, Belmont and other areas in the area.
In closing, I would like to submit a letter signed by me
and the many Arizona business owners and others who support
Secretary Salazar's ban on new uranium claims surrounding the
Grand Canyon. I want to thank you, the Committee, the
Subcommittee and the Chairman for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verkamp follows:]
Statement of Stephen Verkamp, President, Verkamp's Inc.,
Flagstaff, Arizona
Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
members of this subcommittee. I am here to speak in support of H.R.
855, the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act, sponsored by
Congressman Grijalva, and in opposition to H.R. 3155.
My name is Stephen Verkamp and I spent my entire childhood living
within 50 yards of the edge of the south rim of the Grand Canyon.
My grandfather John G. Verkamp built a souvenir and handicraft
store in 1906, 13 years prior to the area becoming a national park.
Until closing the store in 2008 we were the longest, continuous family-
owned business in the entire national park system in the United States.
When we speak of ``The Grand Canyon'' it must be understood that
the Canyon does not start at the edge of the precipice. Nor is it an
arbitrary line on a map, but rather it is the sum-total of the entire
area surrounding those edges. Wildlife is not concerned with mans
arbitrary map making.
The public lands surrounding the national park are likewise
critical to the integrity of the ``wild' nature of the environment and
must be protected!
As a kid living on the rim of the Canyon, I recall playing on a
dirt football field where the under-lay was constructed from Orphan
uranium mine tailings.
I can recall chunks of uranium ore falling off the truck on the
road below our residence. Naturally, being kids we would pick up these
pieces of ore with our hands and examine them. These mining practices
were life threatening and a total outrage.
Later in my adult life, I was privileged to be the first full time
federal judge with jurisdiction over Grand Canyon National Park and the
National Forests that surround the Canyon and are the subject matter of
H.R. 855 These experiences, I believe, strongly deepens my
understanding of this area.
I mention these personal experiences to express my grave concern
about what could be the outcome if Congressman Franks' bill is passed
and new uranium claims are developed around the Grand Canyon.
A major impact on the areas in question will be the dust pollution
that will inevitably create an enormous problem.
The actual and potential mines on the South Rim are bounded on the
east by Highway 89 and on the west by Highway 64. These two highways
are all single-lane and heavily burdened with tourist vehicle traffic
to the Grand Canyon. The area we are talking about is all within what
can best be described as a ``dust bowl'' due to the extremely dry
conditions of northern Arizona. The ore trucks would have to use dirt
roads to reach these highways.
There is simply no way that a relentless parade of ore trucks could
do anything except create serious safety and air quality issues.
It's my personal experience any vehicle creates an enormous cloud
of dust that can be seen for miles. I can only imagine what huge ore
trucks will create. There are no other ways to transport ore to its
destination other than by use of the highways I mentioned. The
prevailing southwest to northeast winds will carry the truck dust
directly into the national park and surrounding area.
The impacts I have described do not begin to touch on the economic
costs of allowing new uranium mining.
It is estimated that the regional economy centered on Grand Canyon
exceeds $700,000,000.00 each year. According to the 2010 national park
statistics more than 1,440,234 vehicles entered one or the other of the
roads in the park we have discussed. At a conservative 2 persons per
vehicle nearly three million tourists visited the park by vehicle
alone.
The costs to taxpayers of restoring mined out areas amount to
millions of dollars paid by taxpayers like the case of the Orphan Mine.
In my personal experience the effect of major and minor changes in
the park and surrounding forests affect tourist visitation and small
businesses in very real ways.
For example, several years ago there were not enough entrance
stations into the park. This fact spread on the Internet like wildfire.
Sales in our store were greatly reduced by this seemingly small issue.
The New York Times and other media ran these stories because everyone
in the country has a special love for this incredible place. The
tourists went other places such as Las Vegas rather than wait the long
entrance lines.
Another example involved the closing of the National Park in the
mid 90's when congress shut down the government. The economic impact on
our family business was so great that my father wrote a check to the
Grand Canyon Park Service to try to help keep the park open. Once
again, an outside event created an economically devastating impact on
businesses within the park.
In closing, I would like to submit a letter signed by me and the
many Arizona business owners who support Secretary Salazar's ban.
I want to thank the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for
allowing me to testify at today's hearing.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Verkamp. In keeping with
tradition, I am going to allow the first questions to Mr.
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Verkamp, thank you for being
here. The Department of the Interior conducted dozens of public
and tribal meetings, has reviewed over 380,000 comments during
the withdrawal process. And let me ask you, do you believe that
the agency is moving forward and is being responsive to the
concerns of the local communities around the Grand Canyon
National Park as you have seen this process unfold?
Mr. Verkamp. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that the
people that I know--and I know a good majority of the people
both in Grand Canyon, Flagstaff and the surrounding areas. I
have many, many friends on the reservation. I have seen the
mile pilings that are supposedly cleaned up out there, which is
certainly not true. And I would say the vast majority of people
that I know are totally opposed to this for the reasons I have
stated, the impact on their livelihood.
So I would say, Congressman, yes. I have studied this issue
a lot, and a lot of the people have already kind of made their
positions known on it. And so definitely I am very interested
in the numbers that have shown the degree of support or
nonsupport for increasing this big footprint of industrial
activity that will take place.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And if I may again, sir, it has been
asserted here many times by the Majority that uranium mining
will occur miles away from the Grand Canyon and as a result
won't pose a threat to the park itself. There is a picture of
the Kanab North Uranium Mine, which is located, oh, about 10
miles from the boundary. You can see the park, the main canyon
in the distance. You can see the creek that takes water down
into the Colorado. Do you think that the mine might present a
risk to the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River just from the
photograph?
Mr. Verkamp. Well, it looks to me like the drainage
eventually obviously goes into the Colorado River. And if
anyone has been up to see the Atlas Mine situation, which the
taxpayers had to totally fund to get cleaned up, it is mostly
cleared up, but it cost billions of dollars. And this was one
of those companies supposedly that was going to show us some of
this environmentally sensitive way they have of cleaning up
situations. So I have no doubt that eventually water runs
downhill, and that water and that drainage--I don't recognize
it--will get to the Colorado River without a doubt.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions for the other
witnesses. Just as a reasonable person, I think we as
reasonable people lose perspective on this debate and this
discussion and this legislation, and as we go forward, the
debate will intensify and more and more of the American people
are going to become aware of the implications of this
legislation, because it is not simply about a mining company
and their profit line. It is not simply about trying to thwart
the ability to create jobs in a region. It is an issue about
something that is the connection to the heritage of this
country. It is about a value and a spirit of the American
people, and it is a national symbol that we are talking about.
I think Carville once said it when he was talking about the
economy, that it is the Grand Canyon, stupid, and it is. That
is what is at stake here. And I think that to minimize the
potential of intended and unintended consequences on a national
symbol, the connection to our past, to our heritage, and
something that not only is the crown jewel of our national park
system but is considered one of the wonders of the world.
And so for people like myself from Arizona, I am not here
because I don't want uranium mining and I am opposing Mr.
Franks' legislation. That is not why. I am here as a person
from Arizona and as a citizen of this Nation to say we are
potentially risking the very symbol that has sustained what
this country was in the past and generation after generation
have enjoyed and wondered and thought about what that meant.
And so it is not about anti-mining. It is about pro-Grand
Canyon. And so the debate will come down to that. And we are
not destroying mining by saying for the sake of the Grand
Canyon, the crown jewel, 12 percent of the available land for
uranium mining will be withdrawn for 20 years so that we may
provide a buffer and some level of security for the generations
to follow that their national symbol will be there and that the
ability to not only visit but enjoy and contemplate what that
means will be available to the American people.
That is why I stand in opposition, because I am for the
Grand Canyon, and I believe as this legislation goes forward,
the debate will intensify and the American people will come to
the realization that what is really at stake and what is really
at risk here.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very, very much. At this time, I will
also acknowledge Mr. Garamendi for his five minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much. This question goes to
Mr. Myers. The Chairman has asked how much uranium we import.
Is it true that some of that uranium actually is part of a
national security strategy in an agreement with Russia, the
former Soviet Union, to deal with their highly enriched
uranium?
Mr. Myers. Yes, sir, that is correct. As I said in my
statement, about one-quarter of our uranium and about one-half
of our fuel comes from down-blended Russian high-enriched
material.
Mr. Garamendi. And the United States also has a significant
stockpile of the same material, is that correct?
Mr. Myers. Yes. The United States has a stockpile of the
same material.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Now earlier on I opined that we have
several thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel, used nuclear
fuel, is that correct?
Mr. Myers. Yes.
Mr. Garamendi. And we at this time have no permanent
repository for that, is that correct?
Mr. Myers. We have a repository identified and fully
characterized and judged to be suitable that the Obama
Administration has decided to terminate the program.
Mr. Garamendi. So the answer is I am correct with the
statement I made, correct?
Mr. Myers. We currently do not have a repository.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Now do we have the ability from
past research to recycle that material in an integral fast
reactor with pyroprocessing that can consume 90 percent of the
total energy and reduce the longevity of the waste to some 2-
to 300 years?
Mr. Myers. Mr. Garamendi, I really appreciated your
comments earlier and your enthusiasm for this concept, and we
completely share it. Yes, it is on paper.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Now, if that is the case----
Mr. Myers. Can I finish, sir?
Mr. Garamendi. Please.
Mr. Myers. And on paper, it is a very appealing concept
because it does eliminate and uses fuel material that would
otherwise be discarded as a waste product and eliminates both
the toxicity and the volume of material that has to go to a
permanent repository. But, and like many things in life, there
is always a but, these technologies are not yet ready for
deployment at commercial scale and they are not at the moment
even remotely economic. So we still have if you talk to the
experts a significant amount of technology research and
development to do and a significant amount of funding that has
to come from somewhere to support that before we can truly talk
about reprocessing and full recycle of spent nuclear fuel. But
I am absolutely convinced, as I sense you are, that that is the
future and we need to move in that direction with all possible
speed.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, and I agree with all
possible speed. And in fact, your industry has about $20
billion set aside in some coffer here at the Federal Government
for the----
Mr. Myers. Well, it is an accounting entry unfortunately,
Mr. Garamendi. It has been spent by the government on other
things.
Mr. Garamendi. And there are lawsuits about that. But the
fact of the matter is that we do have a solution to the spent
nuclear fuel problem that would really put aside this issue
totally, that we really do not need to mine additional uranium.
We could use the spent nuclear fuel and that technology, the
integral fast reactor pyroprocessing, also could use the
material that does not make it into the existing fuel cycle,
that is, set aside at various waste piles.
My point here is that it is perfectly correct for the
Secretary to withdraw this area from mining for the next 20
years, at which time, if we had any sense at all here in this
Nation and around the world, we would move expeditiously to a
full closing of the nuclear fuel cycle, solving multiple
problems along the way, including this potential environmental
problem.
The argument that I am making is set this land aside, don't
do more mining in this area, withdraw it from the mining, get
on with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, which actually
is an extraordinarily valuable asset, containing some 97
percent of the energy, and if you use the PUREX recycling
process, 94 percent of the energy. That is what we ought to do
in our wisdom. We ought not to spoil additional land near and
adjacent to the Grand Canyon, which the Ranking Member has
correctly described as an extraordinary, extraordinary part of
this world. So there is a solution and we ought to move on it.
Mr. Myers, final comment?
Mr. Myers. Mr. Garamendi, I completely agree with you about
the long-term promise of recycling and reprocessing and closing
the nuclear fuel cycle. I would just mention, though, that we
do believe that this is a decade or more away.
Mr. Garamendi. Here I will reclaim my time. It is not a
decade away. The reactor operated safely for 30 years. The
pyroprocessing system continues to exist in a laboratory in
Idaho. What we need is to spend about $10 billion over the next
10 years to create the demonstration plant. And your industry
should be fully in support of that. We do not need an
additional 30 or 40 years of research. What we really need is
to move on.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. Thank you
very much.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Roberts, in his testimony, Mr.
Verkamp asserts the cost to taxpayers of restoring mined-out
areas amount to millions of dollars paid by taxpayers like the
case of the orphan mine. As a representative of a company that
currently does business on the Strip, I would like to get some
clarification on that statement. Under existing Federal law,
the statement is not correct, right?
Mr. Roberts. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are required to submit
surety evidence or surety bonds for the reclamation of our
mines, all of our mines, and also including our milling
facility in Utah. So we have somewhere around a half a million
dollars of surety bond against just the Arizona one mine, and
actually we are double bonded I call it. We have a bond to the
BLM. We also have a similar bond to the State of Arizona
because there is no crossover in their jurisdictions.
So the money is set aside to reclaim the property if for
some reason we should be able to do that or shouldn't be able
to do that in the future. So it is a little bit of an evolution
of the process. I respect what has happened in the past with a
lot of the legacy sites and the history of mining. A lot of
that was done under U.S. Government jurisdiction, under U.S.
Government uranium purchase programs. The government really
basically did not allow for costs to be included in the
payments to the miners or to producers for the cost of
reclamation. So basically the government was stuck with that.
In the case of the orphan mine, you know, it was mined
early on as a copper mine starting back in the early 1900s.
There was no regulations for permitting and bonding at that
time. Subsequently it was mined for uranium. Interestingly
enough, actually my former employer, Energy Fields Nuclear,
made a proposal to the Park Service to reclaim the orphan mine
at our expense, and this was done in 1986. And I know this
because I made the proposal. I investigated the site. I put the
proposal together. We were told by the Park Service that they
were not allowed to do that because these type of actions had
to go to competitive bid, and that was the end of it.
Dr. Gosar. So let me get this straight. So your company
offered to clean up the orphan mine at your expense and you
were refused, right?
Mr. Roberts. That is correct.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. Another good purchase of the Federal
Government. I want to point out this poster board that we have
up here. This actually shows a site that had been mined and the
reclamation after it, so it is very, very different. I am
actually one who actually goes, touches and does. So I have
been at the mine and I have seen all the protocol. And being
out there, the site that we looked at, you could not find the
mine site except for what was required by the Federal
Government to keep in operation a spring, a pumping station.
So just for an FYI, and I am very well aware that a lot of
the environmental groups sure like the way the roads are
uptaked and your maintenance of them. So Mr. Roberts again. Mr.
Verkamp states, as he recalls as a child--and I think a lot of
us understand this because, you know, our past, which again I
would like to point out that the Federal Government conducted
uranium mining activities, not private industry.
He states that uranium ore was falling off trucks and kids
were playing with it. Is this even plausible today with current
State and Federal laws and regulations?
Mr. Roberts. Well, it is clearly not plausible today. I
mean, I understand his comment. And when I look back knowing
the history of the government-subsidized program, the
government-mandated mining programs--an example is on the
Navajo reservations--I can understand what he describes might
have happened. That clearly isn't what happens today with
modern mining techniques, modern mining regulation and the way
we do business today.
You know, all U.S. industry has a history of not
understanding the risks and hazards of their industry, and it
was a lack of knowledge. The mining business is no different.
So, you know, I always tell people judge us by the way we do
things today, not the way the Federal Government did things
back in the 1950s. You know, our ore haulage program today is
very sophisticated, very robust. All of our trucks are secured
to make sure the ore is safe. The trucks are tarped. You know,
we have no desire to spread uranium ore down the highway any
more than the local citizens do. It is of great value to us. We
spend a lot of money finding the ore. We spend a lot of money
mining the ore, and we want it to get to the mill. We certainly
don't want it spread down the highway.
So we go to great lengths to make sure that we are not
going to be spilling any uranium ore on the highways or
anywhere else where a member of the public may come in contact
with it.
Dr. Gosar. And I was very impressed when I came out there.
That was one of my questions, and I was very rewarded with
seeing how the trucks and the technology actually looks like a
Saran wrap where actually we see pneumatics actually put a tarp
down and seal the tarp. So I am very impressed.
Mr. Verkamp, I would like to get back to you and make sure
when you talk that your mike is on because I couldn't hear you
last time.
Mr. Verkamp. OK. I am sorry.
Dr. Gosar. I would like to get some clarification on your
testimony. You opened your testimony by stating you are here to
support H.R. 855 and against H.R. 3155. You don't mention the
Secretary's proposed actions. Do you support the Secretary of
the Interior's proposed action, the withdrawal of 1 million
acres subject to existing right?
Mr. Verkamp. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Then I am slightly confused about your
testimony. You state that the development of projects will
create an enormous dust pollution problem, serious safety and
air quality issues and major visibility issues at the park.
That is not supported by chapter 4 of the final EIS. Your
testimony implies you are completely opposed to uranium mining
in the Strip. But according to the Bureau of Land Management's
press release announcing the release of the final draft
environmental statement claims, that as many as 11 uranium
mines could be operational over the next 20 years under the
preferred alternative, including the four mines currently
approved.
If you are supporting the Secretary's proposed action, is
your support based on the assumption that none of the sites the
Secretary claims could be operational over the next 20 years
will ever come to fruition?
Mr. Verkamp. I don't have any specific technical--can you
hear me all right--information about, you know, the
governmental action. I am from Grand Canyon and I know the
area. I know it hands on. And anyone who tells me that a dust
situation there is not going to be critical I don't think
understands the place. It is going to take them, if they are
going to go out to Blanding, they are going to be on dirt roads
for 40 miles probably, and as I said, that dust just goes
everywhere. And if anybody wants to say that that doesn't
impact air traffic as well as just people going into the Grand
Canyon, I don't agree with that.
And the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the
safety factor. I don't care how sure they are now about how
they can contain it on a truck because the traffic out there is
going to require, if they pull into the main road, either the
one on 64 or 89, they are going to have to have street lights
out there, and people go through that area at 65, 70 miles an
hour.
So I am not convinced that that is not a problem as much as
they are suggesting. I have some question, and I am dubious
about the new techniques that are being used by mining
companies when I see down in the southeastern part of the
country that they are blowing the tops out of mountains to get
coal. So I am dubious about the environmentally sensitive
nature of some of this hauling.
Dr. Gosar. So let me rephrase this. So you are in support
of the 11 mines that would be allowed to go forward or not?
Mr. Verkamp. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any mines
within that area, period.
Dr. Gosar. OK, OK. My last statement that I would like to
make is I agree with Congressman Grijalva. I love the Grand
Canyon. You know, I am newer than you are. You know, I have
been there 27 years. I love it. I love its beauty. I also love
the business of it. But I disagree with Mr. Grijalva in the
fact that they are not mutually exclusive. There is a place for
both. And I think that is what the agreement was all about was
working.
And when I look and I actually touch and see, what the
American people want us to do is have common sense, is provide
energy, provide the technology, institute the technology and
work with industry and people. I am well aware of the value of
what the Grand Canyon proposes in economics, but I also
challenge you, what is that wage per person. Is it 20,000? Is
it 30,000? Is it part-time? Is it full-time?
We have to have a mitigation problem in regards to our
economy, and everything should be on the table. And this is all
about common sense. It should be about a government working
with people, not dictating and saying no because as this issue
will show you, the Federal Government is the biggest problem
and has been.
So, with that being said, with no further comment, I agree
with this legislation, and I am opposed to the way the
Secretary has done their dictation. If there is no further
business, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
And I want to thank all the witnesses who came forward today.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Theodore Roosevelt, the President who used the Antiquities Act to
first protect the Grand Canyon from development said the following:
``We regard temples and Roman triumphal arches and Gothic cathedrals as
a priceless value. . .but we are, as a whole, still in that low state
of civilization where we do not understand that it is vandalism to
destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature.''
Today, we are considering yet another Republican attempt to
establish a permanent uranium mining zone next door to one of the
planet's most iconic landmarks, Grand Canyon National Park. While we
have made important strides over the last century, H.R. 3155 threatens
to return this nation to the low state of civilization President
Roosevelt found us in a century ago.
As we consider this legislation, we should remember a few important
facts.
[Slide One--Horn Creek warning sign]
First, uranium mining has already harmed the Grand Canyon and the
people who call the area home.
Just a single uranium mine caused permanent radioactive
contamination of an entire creek within the Park. The water in Horn
Creek is so radioactive that the Park Service warns hikers not to drink
it, unless DEATH BY THIRST is the only other option.
Native People who live in and around the Canyon still suffer higher
rates of illness and death as the terrible legacy of the last uranium
boom in the area.
But rather than learning a lesson from this unfortunate tragedy,
the Republican Majority has again offered legislation that could lead
to unchecked uranium mining around Grand Canyon National Park.
[Poster Two--Map of the withdrawal]
Next, it is important to make absolutely clear that the Department
of the Interior's proposed mining withdrawal will not stop current
mining operations. The proposed withdrawal ONLY prevents new uranium
mining around the Grand Canyon.
According to the Department's own analysis, there could still be
eleven operational uranium mines near the Grand Canyon over the next 20
years, even if the withdrawal occurs. That number is too high, but
given the complete inadequacy of the Mining Law of 1872, that is the
reality.
But apparently that is not good enough for the Majority. It appears
that for Republicans, the only appropriate amount of uranium mining is
UNLIMITED uranium mining.
H.R. 3155 will PERMANENTLY strip the Interior Department of the
power to protect lands around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.
Even if widespread environmental contamination occurred--even if a
huge waste spill took place that poisoned the drinking water of
millions of Americans in Los Angeles and Las Vegas--even if the rate of
severe illness spiked among families living near the Canyon--the
Department of Interior would be powerless to stop any new mining.
Congress has NEVER taken such a rash step before.
[Poster Three--Map]
If H.R. 3155 were enacted, there would be nothing to stop
development of a uranium mine on every square mile of land around the
Grand Canyon with at least one mining claim; that is the Republican
vision for this beloved, international landmark.
Each year, Grand Canyon National Park generates $700 million
dollars in local revenue and supports more than 12,000 jobs. These
jobs--not to mention the entire economies of several major cities--
depend on clean water and clean air. We should not put all of this at
risk to increase the quarterly profits of a few foreign-owned mining
conglomerates.
The simple truth, Mr. Chairman, is that water flows downhill. When
we are talking about Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River,
do we really want that water to contain uranium? Do we really want to
return to a state of such low civilization that we allow something so
beautiful to be so vandalized?
The American people say no and we should say no as well. I yield
back.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by the Western Business
Roundtable on H.R. 3155 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A statement submitted for the record by The Wilderness
Society on H.R. 3155 follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Wilderness Society on H.R.
3155, The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide a statement on behalf of The Wilderness Society
regarding H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
2011. The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its 500,000 members and
supporters to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our
wild places and our public lands and forests.
On behalf of our 500,000 members and supporters nationwide, we
oppose H.R. 3155 because it will place one of America's most important
natural icons--the Grand Canyon--at risk from increased uranium
pollution.
The Grand Canyon has a rich history of conservation dating back
over 100 years. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt gave a seminal
speech on the rim of the Grand Canyon, in which he urged Americans to
preserve this historic natural landmark:
In the Grand Canyon, Arizona has a natural wonder which, so far
as I know, is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the
rest of the world. I want to ask you to do one thing in
connection with it in your own interest and in the interest of
the country--to keep this great wonder of nature as it now is.
. .
Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been
at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is to
keep it for your children, your children's children, and for
all who come after you, as one of the great sights which every
American if he can travel at all should see.
Five years later, in 1908, using the powers vested in him by
Congress through the Antiquities Act, President Roosevelt designated
the Grand Canyon as a national monument.
For 100 years, this stunning landmark has endured. And yet now it
is imperiled by uranium pollution that threatens the sublime beauty
that President Roosevelt urged us to preserve.
Some have asserted that the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-
406) is evidence that Congress intended uranium development to take
place in perpetuity along the Arizona Strip and that the proposed
mining withdrawal somehow violates this intent. Neither the language of
the Arizona Wilderness Act nor the act's legislative history supports
this assertion, and The Wilderness Society wishes to clarify the record
on this issue.
A review of the legislative language and history of the Arizona
Wilderness Act finds that nothing in the legislative record supports or
suggests that the legislation was meant to be the final disposition on
the status of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Arizona
Strip. Perhaps the strongest support for the interpretation that the
Arizona Wilderness Act was not meant to be a final disposition of
wilderness lands in Arizona comes from Congress itself. Since the
passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act, Arizona's congressional
delegation has sponsored and passed multiple pieces of legislation
creating new wilderness areas across the state.
Then there is the language of the law itself. In addition to
designating wilderness areas in the Arizona Strip, the Arizona
Wilderness Act released non-designated lands in the Strip from section
603 of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA). In
particular, the legislation stated that released lands need not be
managed to maintain their suitability for wilderness designation.
However, the legislation contains no language preventing future
consideration of Arizona Strip lands for wilderness. Instead, non-
designated lands are managed under section 202 of FLPMA, which
requires, among other things, consideration of wilderness values and,
where appropriate, protection of lands with wilderness character. This
means that the BLM must consider and, as appropriate, protect lands
with wilderness character through the local land management process.
In regards to National Forest lands, Congress clearly intended
that, after a pause, the Forest Service should review the wilderness
values of released lands and make wilderness recommendations. This
language was a carefully crafted compromise which appeared in dozens of
statewide forest wilderness bills in the 1980s. Section 103(a)(2) of PL
98-406 states:
With respect to the national forest system lands in the State
of Arizona which were reviewed by the Department of Agriculture
in the second roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) and
those lands referred to in subsection (d), except those lands
designated for wilderness study upon enactment of this Act,
that review and evaluation or reference shall be deemed for the
purposes of the initial land management plans required for such
lands by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act
of 1976, to be an adequate consideration of the suitability of
such lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System and the Department of Agriculture shall not
be required to review the wilderness option prior to the
revisions of the plans, but shall review the wilderness option
when the plans are revised. (emphasis added)
The intention to continue wilderness reviews after a pause was
discussed in the Senate Report 98-463 accompanying the Arizona
Wilderness Act, which states:
In short, the wilderness option must be considered in each
future planning generation if the particular land in question
still possess wilderness attributes. . .[T]he language also
provides that lands recommended for wilderness in future
generations of plans shall be managed for the purpose of
protecting their suitability for wilderness designation as may
be required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976, and other applicable law, upon
implementation of such plans. (emphasis added)
It is simply false to suggest, as some have done, that the Arizona
Wilderness Act required that non-wilderness lands would be open to
uranium mining in perpetuity, and such a reading does not comport to
the legislative history of the legislation. While non-wilderness lands
are made available to non-wilderness uses, such uses are not required--
they are merely one option to be considered in the land management
planning process. The House Report accompanying the legislation, H.
Rep. 98-463, makes this clear, stating that the legislation ``releases
certain other lands for such non-wilderness uses as are determined
appropriate through the land management planning process.'' (emphasis
added)
Congress has adopted this approach because it affords land managers
the ability to make decisions based on sound science, updated
information, and current societal values. Despite numerous efforts to
enact such a provision, since passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964,
Congress has rejected every effort to enact legislation to permanently
release lands from consideration for wilderness.
It is exactly the approach anticipated by the Arizona Wilderness
Act that the Department of the Interior (Department) is now undertaking
in the lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. Through the land management
planning process, and after careful review of public comment, and
recent scientific information, the Department is now considering which
non-wilderness uses are appropriate on these lands.
As opposed to new wilderness, which limits a suite of activities
beyond new mining claims, the Department is considering a limited
mineral withdrawal that is necessary to preserve the fragile ecology
and scenery of the Grand Canyon. This should not be confused with
designating wilderness, which is, of course, a prerogative Congress has
reserved for itself.
Arizona has doubled its population since the last wilderness
legislation passed in 1990. Land management must keep pace with the
growing demand for environmental conservation and high quality outdoor
recreation. Wilderness areas are more important than ever in balancing
our growth and providing our communities with natural amenities and
sustainable local economies.
For the benefit of present and future Americans, we urge the
Committee to heed the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, honor the
language of the Arizona Wilderness Act, and preserve the majesty of the
Grand Canyon by rejecting H.R. 3155.