[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                   H.R. 1884, ``SAVE OAK FLAT ACT''
                   
                   -------------------------------------

                           LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                              before the

       SUBCOMMITTEE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE UNITED STATES

                                of the

                    COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                   ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                        Tuesday, April 13, 2021


                          Serial No. 117-2


       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.govinfo.gov


                                  or


         Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
         
         
         
         
         
                          ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
44-244PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022  



                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
    CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Garret Graves, LA
Joe Neguse, CO                       Jody B. Hice, GA
Mike Levin, CA                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Katie Porter, CA                     Daniel Webster, FL
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Russ Fulcher, ID
Diana DeGette, CO                    Pete Stauber, MN
Julia Brownley, CA                   Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Darren Soto, FL                      Blake D. Moore, UT
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Yvette Herrell, NM
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Lauren Boebert, CO
Ed Case, HI                          Jay Obernolte, CA
Betty McCollum, MN                   Cliff Bentz, OR
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Doris O. Matsui, CA
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                        Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE UNITED STATES

                   TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Chair
                     DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Member

Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Jay Obernolte, CA
Darren Soto, FL                      Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Betty McCollum, MN                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Ed Case, HI                          Lauren Boebert, CO
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Cliff Bentz, OR
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, April 13, 2021..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Alaska..................................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:

    Besich, Mila, Mayor, Town of Superior, Arizona...............    38
        Prepared statement of....................................    40
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    42
    Lewis, Hon. Shan, President, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 
      Phoenix, Arizona...........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Sharp, Hon. Fawn, President, National Congress of American 
      Indians, Washington, DC....................................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    18
    Wells, James, PhD, Chief Operating Officer, L. Everett & 
      Associates, Santa Barbara, California......................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    33

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    List of documents submitted for the record retained in the 
      Committee's official files.................................   115

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez

        Advisory Council on Historic Preservation--Testimony on 
          H.R. 1884..............................................    55
        Chairman Rambler, San Carlos Tribe--Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    62
        Navajo Nation--Letter to Rep. Leger Fernandez dated April 
          12, 2021...............................................    69

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Arizona Governor Ducey--Letter to Secretary Vilsack dated 
          March 16, 2021.........................................    75
        Arizona State Building & Construction Trades Council--
          Letter to Sen. Kelly dated March 31, 2021..............    76
        Arizona State Building & Construction Trades Council--
          Letter to Secretary Vilsack dated April 2, 2021........    77
        Arizona Mayors and County Supervisors of Gila and Pinal 
          Counties--Letter to the President dated March 17, 2021.    78
        Arizona State Senator Shope--Letter to Advisory Council 
          on Historic Preservation dated February 25, 2021.......    79
        Arizona Leadership Groups--Letter to Secretary Vilsack 
          dated March 23, 2021...................................    80
        Boilermakers Local 627--Press Release Regarding 
          Resolution Copper Mining Project.......................    81
        City of Apache Junction--Letter to Advisory Council on 
          Historic Preservation dated February 22, 2021..........    82
        Cody Elgo, San Carlos Apache Tribal Member--Letter to 
          Resolution Copper EIS Comments dated July 18, 2016.....    83

        Community Working Group--Letter to Advisory Council on 
          Historic Preservation dated February 23, 2021..........    84
        Copper Corridor Economic Development Coalition--Letter to 
          Advisory Council on Historic Preservation dated 
          February 25, 2021......................................    87
        Eastern Arizona Counties Organization--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation dated February 22, 
          2021...................................................    88
        Gila County, Supervisor of District I--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation dated February 22, 
          2021...................................................    89
        Gila County, Supervisor of District II--Letter to 
          Advisory Council on Historic Preservation dated 
          February 23, 2021......................................    90
        Gila County, Supervisor of District III--Letter to 
          Advisory Council on Historic Preservation dated 
          February 22, 2021......................................    91
        Gila County, County Manager--Letter to Advisory Council 
          on Historic Preservation dated February 24, 2021.......    92
        Greater Phoenix Leadership--Letter to Secretary Vilsack 
          dated April 7, 2021....................................    93
        Laura E. Skaer, Natural Resources Policy Advisor--Letter 
          to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...........    94
        Mila Besich, Mayor of Superior--Statement for the Record.    95
        Oddonetto Construction--Statement for the Record.........    97
        Pamela Dalton-Rabago, Resident--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation dated February 22, 
          2021...................................................    97
        Pinal County Board of Supervisors--Letter to President 
          Biden dated March 24, 2021.............................    98
        Pinal County, Supervisor, District 2--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation.......................    99
        Pinal County Supervisor, District 5--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation dated February 19, 
          2021...................................................   100
        Queen Creek Coalition--Testimony on H.R. 1884............   101
        Resolution Copper--Appendix S. Consultation History......   101
        Resolution Copper--Final EIS Programmatic Agreement 
          Summary--Process & Commitments.........................   102
        Southern Arizona Business Coalition--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation.......................   104
        Sue Anderson, Local Business Owner--Letter to Advisory 
          Council on Historic Preservation dated February 24, 
          2021...................................................   105
        Town of Superior--Letter to Advisory Council on Historic 
          Preservation dated February 23, 2021...................   106
        U.A. Local Union 469--Letter to Rep. Gallego dated April 
          9, 2021................................................   107
        United Steelworkers--Letter to Reps. Leger Fernandez and 
          Young dated April 13, 2021.............................   108
        White Mountain Apache Tribe--Letter to United States 
          Forest Service dated November 6, 2019..................   109
        Women's Mining Coalition--Testimony on H.R. 1884.........   110
        Yavapai-Apache Nation--Letter to Tonto National Forest 
          dated November 7, 2019.................................   112
        Yavapai-Apache Nation--Letter to Tonto National Forest 
          dated September 17, 2020...............................   112
        Yavapai-Apache Nation--Letter to Tonto National Forest 
          dated December 13, 2019................................   113





 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1884, TO REPEAL SECTION 3003 OF THE CARL 
LEVIN AND HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 
  FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SAVE OAK FLAT ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, April 13, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

        Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:01 p.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez [Chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Leger Fernandez, Gallego, Soto, 
McCollum, Lowenthal, Garcia, Grijalva (ex officio); Young, 
Obernolte, Rosendale, Bentz, and Westerman (ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Stauber.

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee for 
Indigenous Peoples of the United States will now come to order.
    Before we begin, I do want to express my profound 
condolences to the family and co-workers of Alexander Lofgren. 
I know it must be heartbreaking to have that loss, and so for 
the Chairman and those staff who have worked with him, my 
blessings go out to you.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The Subcommittee is meeting today to 
hear testimony on H.R. 1884, the ``Save Oak Flat Act,'' 
introduced by Representative Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona. Under 
Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings 
are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member. This 
will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help 
Members keep to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today or the close of the 
hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    As described in the hearing notice, statements, documents, 
or motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected].
    Additionally, please note that as with in-person meetings, 
Members are responsible for their own microphones. As within 
our in-person meetings, Members can be muted by staff only to 
avoid inadvertent background noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Stauber 
from Minnesota be allowed to join us on the virtual dais today.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I will begin by recognizing myself for my opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I want to welcome our witnesses to our 
virtual hearing today. This legislative hearing will be on H.R. 
1884, the ``Save Oak Flat Act,'' a bill that will prohibit the 
Oak Flat Federal Parcel transfer to foreign mining 
corporations. The 2,422-acre parcel includes the Chi'Chil 
Bildagoteel Historic District, known as Oak Flat, located in 
the Tonto National Forest.
    This area is considered sacred by many Tribal Nations, 
including the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, 
the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai Apache Nation, the 
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, 
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Hopi Tribe, 
and the Pueblo of Zuni, many of whom continue to conduct 
ceremonies and gather traditional medicines and food in the 
area.
    The National Park Service has recognized this land's sacred 
status by listing Oak Flat on the National Register of Historic 
Places in 2016.
    You might be wondering why land listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places is ripe for mining. In 2014, a 
rider on the National Defense Authorization Act authorized a 
land exchange giving Oak Flat to a multi-national mining 
conglomerate called Resolution Copper, owned by Rio Tinto and 
BHP.
    The NDAA language required the Forest Service to produce an 
EIS to evaluate the mining plan's effects before this exchange 
occurred. The NDAA language also stipulated the land should be 
removed from the Forest Service's jurisdiction and placed into 
the hands of Resolution Copper within 60 days after completing 
the EIS, regardless of the findings.
    A little over a year ago, in the 116th Congress, this 
Subcommittee held an oversight hearing examining the draft EIS 
published by the Trump administration. The draft EIS identified 
the tribal, soil, water, wildlife, recreation, public health, 
and livestock impacts mining would have on this area.
    Analyses show that ancestral burial grounds for the Native 
communities in the region will also inevitably be disturbed and 
destroyed. The crater expected to be created is projected to 
start to appear in Year 6 of active mining and will ultimately 
be between 800 and 1,115 feet deep, and roughly 1.8 miles 
across. The Emory oak groves, which have been visited and 
utilized by tribal members for millennial, will be adversely 
affected, and one or more of those groves will likely be lost 
altogether. Wellfield pumping will also incrementally 
contribute to the lowering of groundwater levels and 
cumulatively reduce overall groundwater availability in the 
local area.
    Although the draft EIS process to the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement usually takes time, on January 15, the 
previous administration released a final FEIS, which was 
released without proper consultation with tribes and did not 
address the myriad concerns identified in the draft EIS.
    In March 2021, the Biden administration withdrew the FEIS 
to further consult with tribes and thoroughly conduct an 
environmental impact statement that fully implies with the law.
    Since 2015, Chair Grijalva has introduced the Save Oak Flat 
Act to protect the Chi'Chil Bildagoteel Historic District from 
detrimental mining. This bill will repeal Section 3003 of the 
NDAA and protect the sacred site for future generations.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Representative 
                in Congress from the State of New Mexico
    Good afternoon. I want to welcome our witnesses to our virtual 
hearing today. This legislative hearing will be on H.R. 1884--the Save 
Oak Flat Act, a bill that will prohibit the Oak Flat Federal Parcel 
transfer to foreign mining corporations.
    The 2,422-acre parcel includes the Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic 
District, known as Oak Flat, located in the Tonto National Forest.
    This area is considered sacred by many tribal nations, including 
the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian 
Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Indian Community, the Hopi Tribe, and the Pueblo of Zuni. Many of whom 
continue to conduct ceremonies and gather traditional medicines and 
food.
    The National Park Service has recognized this land's sacred status 
by listing Oak Flat on the National Register of Historic Places in 
2016.
    You may be wondering why land listed on the National Register of 
Historic places is ripe for mining. In 2014, a rider on the National 
Defense Authorization Act authorized a land exchange giving Oak Flat to 
a multinational mining conglomerate called Resolution Copper, owned by 
Rio Tinto and BHP.
    The NDAA language required the Forest Service to produce an 
Environmental Impact Statement--or ``EIS''--to evaluate the mining 
plan's effects before the exchange occurred.
    The NDAA language also stipulated the land should be removed from 
the Forest Service's jurisdiction and placed into the hands of 
Resolution Copper within 60 days after completing the EIS, regardless 
of the findings.
    A little over a year ago, in the 116th Congress, this Subcommittee 
held an oversight hearing examining the draft EIS, published by the 
Trump administration. The draft EIS identified the tribal, soil, water, 
wildlife, recreation, public health, and livestock impacts mining would 
have on this area.
    Ancestral burial grounds for the Native communities in the region 
will also inevitably be disturbed and destroyed. The crater is 
projected to start to appear in year 6 of active mining and will 
ultimately be between 800 and 1,115 feet deep and roughly 1.8 miles 
across. The Emory oak groves, which have been visited and utilized by 
tribal members for millennia, will be adversely affected and one or 
more of these groves will likely be lost altogether. Wellfield pumping 
will incrementally contribute to the lowering of groundwater levels and 
cumulatively reduce overall groundwater availability in the local area.
    Although the draft EIS process to the final Environmental Impact 
Statement or ``FEIS'' usually takes time--on January 15, the previous 
administration released a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 
The FEIS was released without proper consultation with tribes and did 
not address the myriad of concerns identified in the draft EIS.
    In March 2021, the Biden administration withdrew the FEIS to 
further consult with tribes and thoroughly conduct an environmental 
impact statement that fully complies with the law.
    Since 2015, Chair Grijalva has introduced the Save Oak Flat Act to 
protect the Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic District detrimental mining. 
This bill will repeal section 3003 of the NDAA and protect this sacred 
site for future generations.
    Thank you again for being here virtually. I look forward to hearing 
our witness testimony today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I want to thank our witnesses for 
being here today virtually and I look forward to hearing your 
testimony. I would like to now recognize the esteemed Ranking 
Member, Mr. Young, for any opening remarks.
    Congressman Young? Is Congressman Young on?
    Congressman Young is having technical issues.
    Is Mr. Westerman with us today?
    When Congressman Young is able to participate, I will make 
sure I go back to him. In the meantime, I would like to give 
any sponsoring Members of Congress the opportunity to speak on 
behalf of the legislation.
    The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Full Committee, 
Chair Grijalva, for a statement on his legislation.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I 
appreciate you having this hearing on the legislation, H.R. 
1884. I think your summation in your opening statement 
basically deals with the issue, and rather than being 
repetitive, let me point out a couple other issues.
    I think it is important to note that, yes, it passed on a 
must-pass piece of legislation, the Section 3003 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. It was a must-pass 
piece of legislation, and as such, passed the House, passed the 
Senate, and was signed into law.
    It should be noted that since 2005, this particular Section 
3003 and other iterations as stand-alone legislation repeatedly 
failed to receive support in the House of Representatives and 
in the U.S. Senate as a stand-alone piece of legislation. And 
since 2015, I have been introducing the Save Oak Flat Act to 
uphold what I believe is essential, the Indigenous peoples' 
rights to protect the lands and these lands that many tribes in 
Arizona and outside of Arizona consider sacred.
    As the Chair indicated, the historic site, known as Oak 
Flat, has deep significance. It was placed in the National 
Register in 2016 with extensive consultation with the San 
Carlos Apache Tribe. This area has been utilized and occupied 
for the past 1,500 years from the Pre-Classic Hohokam to the 
present.
    Resolution Copper is owned by a multi-national corporation, 
Rio Tinto and BHP, and plans on developing and extracting this 
sacred ecosystem for profits that will only last a lifetime, 
destroying what we already know is a profoundly religious and 
sacred site for generations and generations.
    Unfortunately, the track record of Rio Tinto--and some of 
the witnesses will deal with that--in unearthing sacred sites 
is not new. Just last year, the foreign mining giant blew up a 
46,000-year-old Aboriginal cave in Australia, and the 
difference between the two is that members of this Subcommittee 
have the opportunity to right that wrong and not allow that to 
happen.
    We have a chance to protect the site that many tribes use 
for spiritual and traditional purposes. The environmental 
damage Resolution Copper can have on the area impacts tribes in 
Arizona and the water resources of local communities.
    Let me just say, there are two issues also as well, the 
issue of water. The drought in Arizona and in other parts of 
the Southwest is ongoing and is not abating. The depletion of 
the Colorado River, the 40 percent reduction in Lake Mead and 
Lake Powell in terms of the reservoirs that the Grand Canyon 
provides for Arizona and other states and over 40 million 
Americans in those areas is an emergency setting, and emergency 
water reduction in allocations are imminent if we don't take 
better care, usage, and protection of that water resource.
    The other issue is the royalty issue. Mining extraction 
provides no royalties for the extraction of private land. And 
this trade, this land exchange, under normal circumstances 
would have required a process, not only NEPA, but full 
environmental impact consultation, as required by law, 
government-to-government consultations with affected tribes, 
and none of that has occurred to the degree where the tribes 
and others who want this area protected feel that this process 
has been fair, upfront, transparent, and accountable.
    This is a sweetheart deal, and it has been a sweetheart 
deal since it was first introduced as legislation in 2005, and 
it continues to be a sweetheart deal for the company as of 2015 
when it passed as part of the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
    I look forward to the witnesses, Madam Chair. Thank you 
very much for holding the hearing. And as this legislation 
moves along, I want to invite you and other Members to have 
input into the legislation as to both content and any 
recommendations that you might have.
    With that, let me yield back and thank you once again, 
Madam Chair, for your courtesy. And let me say, the loss of our 
esteemed colleague here, Alex Lofgren, thank you for mentioning 
that. It is a tragedy and a very sad experience for all of us 
that knew the young man, and those people that did not know 
him, a loss for them as well. So, thank you for mentioning 
that. That was very kind of you, and I appreciate the courtesy.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on 
                           Natural Resources
    Good afternoon. I want to thank the Subcommittee Chair for having 
this important hearing on my bill--H.R. 1884--the Save Oak Flat Act.
    This bill was created in response to Section 3003 of the NDAA that 
passed for FY 2015. It is important to know that since 2005 section 
3003 was a bill that repeatedly failed to receive support from both 
chambers.
    Since this occurred, I have introduced the Save Oak Flat Act in the 
following Congress to uphold Indigenous peoples' rights and protect the 
lands many tribes in Arizona consider sacred.
    The Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic District has a rich cultural 
significance and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 
2016 with extensive consultations with the San Carlos Apache Tribe. 
This area was utilized and occupied for the past 1,500 years from the 
pre-Classic Hohokam to the present.
    Resolution Copper, a company owned by Rio Tinto and BHP, plans on 
developing and extracting this sacred ecosystem for profits that will 
only last a lifetime--destroying a profoundly religious and sacred site 
for generations and generations.
    I only wish that these companies would have considered the 
detrimental impacts of their actions before sponsoring a provision that 
was clearly an industry favor.
    Unfortunately, the track record for Rio Tinto and unearthing sacred 
sites is not new. Just last year, the foreign mining giant blew up a 
46,000-year-old Aboriginal cave in Australia. Similar to what we are 
witnessing today with Oak Flat.
    The difference between the two is that--members of this 
Subcommittee have the opportunity to right a wrong.
    We have the chance to protect this sacred land that many tribes use 
for spiritual and traditional purposes. The environmental damage 
Resolution Cooper can have on this area impacts tribes in Arizona and 
the water sources of the local community.
    Lastly, one should not underestimate the precedent this type of 
land exchange will have on Indigenous sacred sites' protections in the 
future. We have witnessed this foreign mining company destroy an 
Indigenous sacred site in Australia.
    H.R. 1884--Save Oak Flat Act is proof that the destruction of 
foreign mining companies on religious and sacred sites does not stop at 
our country's borders.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And, once again, our 
condolences, blessings, and prayers for Mr. Lofgren and his 
family.
    Now, I would like to recognize our Ranking Member, 
Congressman Young. I understand he is available. Congressman 
Young.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

    Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to the Chairman of the Full Committee for the 
comments, and I agree with what he said about his staffer. It 
is unfortunate. When you adventure, sometimes accidents happen, 
and it is sad when it does occur.
    I have been involved in this legislation for a long time. I 
know there has been some progress made. I will not repeat 
everything that you have said, or the Chairman have said. I 
would suggest that we listen to the witnesses and we look and 
see, is there a way to make this possible, as it should be 
done, as the, I call, the rules.
    I am anxious to listen to the witnesses, find out what they 
have to say. And I will say that I am a little frustrated when 
everybody says no to everything, but there is some legitimacy 
in the complaints, as the Chairman said, about this being a 
sacred area. So, let's listen to the witnesses. Let's go 
through, as the legislation goes by, let's see if there isn't a 
way we can arrive at a solution to a very serious problem, 
because there is a law in place.
    We did pass that law. It wasn't done by due order, but it 
was also done, and when you repeal a law, we have to look at 
the process in which we do it. And I know there will be some 
legal cases if we don't, so let's do the job right, Madam 
Chair. I am sure we will.
    And when you get time, I need to talk to you personally on 
another bill, which I hope I have your support of introducing. 
With that, I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Congressman Young, and I 
always look forward to speaking with you.
    Congressman Westerman, would you like to speak to the 
Committee today?
    I am not hearing from Congressman Westerman. I understood 
he was on, but we will now move to the witnesses.
    Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5 
minutes, but you may submit a longer statement for the record 
if you choose. When you begin, the on-screen timer will begin 
counting down and will turn orange when you have 1 minute 
remaining.
    I recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely 
lock the timer on their screen. When you go over the allotted 
time, I will ask you to please wrap up your statement. After 
your testimony is complete, please remember to mute yourself to 
avoid any inadvertent background noise. I will allow the entire 
panel to testify before we question the witnesses.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Shan Lewis, 
President of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHAN LEWIS, PRESIDENT, INTER TRIBAL 
              COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

    Mr. Lewis. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva, Chairperson 
Fernandez, Ranking Member Young, Vice Ranking Member Obernolte, 
Representative Gallego, and members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Shan Lewis. I am the Vice Chairman of the Fort 
Mojave Indian Tribe and President of the Inter Tribal 
Association of Arizona. On behalf of our 21 Member Tribes, we 
appreciate this opportunity to speak today in support of the 
Save Oak Flat Act.
    The survival of Oak Flat is at a critical moment. Passage 
of the Save Oak Flat bill would respect the religious and 
cultural practices and values of our Member Tribes and protect 
the water resources of Arizona. We urge that you act now and 
Save Oak Flat for all of us and for future generations.
    Oak Flat is located in the Tonto National Forest. It is a 
place of profound religious, cultural, and historic 
significance to Western Apache and Yavapai people, as well as 
many other tribes in the region. It is a place for prayer and 
for ceremonies, like the Sunrise Ceremony, a coming-of-age 
ceremony for young women, and for gathering water, medicinal 
plants, and important foods like acorns that are abundant in 
this area due to the ancient oak trees that shelter Oak Flat.
    Oak Flat has been a sacred place since time immemorial. It 
is culturally significant to many tribes. The recent work of 
anthropologist T.J. Ferguson, done in cooperation with the 
Forest Service, also confirms Oak Flat's importance to at least 
nine Arizona tribes. It is our understanding that Dr. Ferguson 
has submitted testimony for today's hearing, and we urge you to 
review it.
    In recognition of Oak Flat's importance, Oak Flat is listed 
on the National Register of Historic Places. Yet, if Congress 
doesn't act, over 2,400 acres of tribal ancestral lands at Oak 
Flat will be traded away for one of the most destructive mines 
we have ever seen, destroying in turn the religious freedoms 
and cultural practices of many of our Member Tribes. It is for 
this reason, the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona has 
opposed this land exchange and mine from the beginning.
    If developed, the Forest Service's own documents say the 
mine will cause a massive crater at the heart of Oak Flat, 
which will be almost 2 miles wide and at least 1,000 feet deep, 
as deep as the Empire State Building is tall. The ancient oak 
trees that have provided subsistence to tribal people for 
generations will be destroyed by this mine, along with the 
surrounding medicinal plants that have provided the health of 
Indigenous people for centuries. These oak trees and these 
plants cannot be replaced, and there is no mitigation that will 
reduce the harm caused by the destruction of Oak Flat.
    Arizona tribes remain in control of approximately 28 
percent of the state, and while we have endured many challenges 
in maintaining control over our land, our sacred sites, and our 
status as sovereign nations, we know water is the most 
important life-giving resource of all.
    Forest Service documents say the mine will use billions of 
gallons of water, both from the mine site at Oak Flat and from 
Wellfield just outside of Phoenix. If allowed to move forward, 
the mine at Oak Flat will destroy countless springs and water 
resources. Once gone, there will be no mitigation for this 
loss.
    Almost every part of Arizona is under extreme or 
extraordinary drought, and we are hearing news of impending 
shortages on the Colorado River. At the same time, people are 
moving here in record numbers. Yet, this single-mine project 
would deplete massive amounts of water for Arizona's water 
supply. How can all of this fit in Arizona's long-term water 
future? The answer is, it can't.
    Perhaps the mine could bring a handful of short-term jobs 
to the area, but at what cost? As tribal leaders, we must think 
about future generations and the negative impact the mine would 
have over the long term. The United States also should not 
violate its trust responsibility and constitutional obligations 
by trading away Oak Flat and the religious freedoms of 
Indigenous people.
    Without action, Oak Flat will be traded away and destroyed 
after the Forest Service re-issues the final EIS, which we 
expect sometime this year. As elected leaders of our Tribal 
Nations, it is our responsibility to protect sacred sites, and 
so, respectfully, we urge Congress to pass the Save Oak Flat 
Act.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony. 
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank 
you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Mr. Shan Lewis, President, Inter Tribal 
   Association of Arizona and Vice-Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
    Chairman Grijalva, Chairperson Fernandez, Representative Gallego, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is Shan Lewis, Vice Chairman of the Fort Mojave 
Indian Tribe, and President of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona 
(``Inter Tribal Association'' or ``ITAA''). My Tribe is a member of the 
Inter Tribal Association of Arizona.
    On behalf of our 21 Member Tribes, we appreciate the opportunity to 
speak today in support of the Save Oak Flat Act (H.R. 1884). The future 
existence of Oak Flat is at a critical moment. This important bill 
would repeal the land exchange legislation and save Oak Flat from being 
lost forever. This bill would permanently protect Oak Flat, located in 
the Tonto National Forest in eastern Arizona, from destruction by 
mining. Oak Flat, also known traditionally as Chi'chil Bildagoteel, is 
a place of profound religious, cultural, and historic significance to 
certain Western Apache and Yavapai people, as well as other Tribal 
cultures across the region. Given its profound importance to Tribal 
people, Oak Flat is listed as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) on 
the National Register of Historic Places.
    For the Western Apache including the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Oak 
Flat is a place for prayer, for coming-of-age (Sunrise) and other 
ceremonies, for collecting water and gathering medicinal plants for 
ceremonies, for gathering acorns and other foods, and honoring the 
departed who are buried there. The Yavapai also have a long history and 
traditional historical relationship with Oak Flat, and have used its 
free-flowing waters, plants and materials grown there for food as well 
as for ceremonial and cultural purposes. Indeed, in work supervised by 
the Tonto National Forest, anthropologists Maren P. Hopkins and T.J. 
Ferguson conducted extensive fieldwork and ethnographic interviews with 
elders from multiple tribes regarding their relationship with Oak Flat 
to develop a report in 2015 entitled ``Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric 
Study of the Superior Area, Arizona''. This exhaustive report noted 
that Oak Flat is an important cultural site for nine tribes in Arizona. 
It is our understanding that Dr. Ferguson has submitted prepared 
testimony for today's subcommittee hearing. While different Tribal 
peoples may regard and use Oak Flat in different ways, the underlying 
traditional and historical relationships of the many various Tribal 
cultures to the ancestral lands here has existed since time immemorial. 
This absolutely must be respected.

    If the land exchange legislation is not repealed, approximately 
2,400 acres of public land, including the Oak Flat, will be transferred 
into private ownership and control of two foreign mining companies, Rio 
Tinto and BHP Billiton, that operate in Arizona under the name 
Resolution Copper. Once transferred, Resolution Copper will have the 
authority to forever prevent current and future generations of Tribal 
people and other users from entering Oak Flat to perform prayers, 
engage in ceremony, and to gather acorns and other important plants 
that have sustained Tribal people for countless generations. And, of 
course, the goal of the transfer is to facilitate the development of a 
massive copper mine that will destroy Oak Flat, leaving a crater almost 
2 miles wide, and a thousand feet deep at its heart. The mine will also 
deplete billions of gallons of water, destroy sacred springs, and leave 
the natural world irreparably harmed, along with the religious freedoms 
and practices of those Tribal people who have relied upon the existence 
and health of Oak Flat for generations upon generations.
    These actions would violate the religious freedoms of current and 
future generations of Tribal people and directly contradict the 
protections provided by the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1996), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2000bb-2000bb-4), among other laws.
    Tribal religious and cultural practices must be respected and 
treated by the United States Government on par with the religious 
freedoms of other citizens of this country. Doing anything less 
undermines the very foundation of who we all are as Americans.
    For these reasons, ITAA strongly supports the Save Oak Flat Act 
(H.R. 1884). This is the only way to achieve the long-term, permanent 
protection of Oak Flat. ITAA does not oppose all mines, however, some 
places just should not be mined. Oak Flat is one of these areas.
         background on the inter tribal association of arizona
    The Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. is a non-profit, 
inter tribal consortium of 21 federally recognized Indian Tribes, 
nations, and communities with lands located across the State of 
Arizona, as well as in New Mexico, California, and Nevada.\1\ ITAA's 
Member Tribes have worked together since 1952 to provide a united voice 
for Tribal governments located in the State of Arizona on matters of 
common interest and concern. The representatives of ITAA are the 
highest elected Tribal officials from each Tribe, including 
chairpersons, presidents, and governors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The ITAA's Member Tribes are the Ak-Chin Indian Community, 
Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell 
Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, 
Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, 
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Quechan Tribe, Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain 
Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai Prescott Indian 
Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 itaa's 21 member tribes are unified in opposition to the transfer of 
                  oak flat to foreign mining interests
    Since the current mining proposals at Oak Flat arose nearly two 
decades ago, ITAA and our sister organization, the Inter Tribal Council 
of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA), as well as numerous individual Member Tribes 
have passed multiple resolutions, written countless letters, submitted 
statements, and testified before Congress (including before this 
subcommittee) on multiple occasions, adamantly opposing the transfer of 
their ancestral lands at Oak Flat to foreign mining interests and 
raising specific, detailed concerns about the many likely and 
inevitable impacts of this mine.
    The 21 Member Tribes of ITAA/ITCA, as well as many of our 
individual Member Tribes, have passed resolutions opposing the 
destruction of Oak Flat and/or supporting the legislation to repeal the 
exchange legislation. The Navajo Nation, Arizona's 22nd federally 
recognized tribe, has also passed a resolution in opposition to the 
Resolution Copper Mine and Land Exchange.
    In 2008, I traveled to Washington to testify on behalf of our 21 
Member Tribes before Congress on this issue. Again in 2009, President 
Norman Cooeyate of the Zuni Tribe traveled to Washington to testify for 
us. Throughout subsequent sessions of Congress, we have consistently 
and adamantly expressed unified Tribal opposition to the Resolution 
Copper Mine and Land Exchange on behalf of our 21 Member Tribes. Over 
the years, our tribal leaders including former San Carlos Apache Tribal 
Chairman Wendsler Nosie Sr. and current Chairman Terry Rambler, and 
leaders from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Zuni Tribe, and the 
Hualapai Tribe, have testified before Congress or submitted testimony 
for the record in firm opposition to the Resolution Copper Mine and 
Land Exchange. In addition, countless letters have been sent to 
Congress opposing this mine and land exchange from ITAA, and from our 
individual Member Tribes.
    ITAA and its Member Tribes have been joined in this opposition by 
many other tribes and inter tribal organizations across the United 
States including by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 
who is testifying here today. NCAI has also voted on and passed 
resolutions opposing this mine and land exchange. Even indigenous 
organizations from as far away as Australia have expressed their 
concerns with the Rio Tinto's plans to develop a mine at Oak Flat 
following Rio Tinto's tragic destruction of the culturally and 
historically significant Juukan Gorge cave rockshelters in the Pilbara 
Region of Australia as part of a mining project in May 2020. Indigenous 
people warned of Rio Tinto's destructive plans and urged Rio Tinto not 
to destroy the rockshelters, but Rio Tinto blasted these structures 
anyway, destroying them forever. Despite Rio Tinto's promises made in 
the aftermath of this blatant destruction to never let this happen 
again, in fact, Rio Tinto plans to do the very same thing at Oak Flat. 
But, in this case, Congress can take action and pass the Save Oak Flat 
Act and protect this sacred place and well-documented religious and 
culturally important landscape before it can be demolished to benefit 
the commercial interests of Rio Tinto.

    The ITAA stands firmly with all of our Member Tribes who have 
fought for many years to protect the historic properties, religious 
places, and sacred sites found within the Oak Flat area including 
Chi'chil Bildagoteel from being exchanged to and ultimately destroyed 
by foreign mining interests. The Tribal Leaders of ITAA will always 
stand shoulder-to-shoulder when it comes to protecting our ancestral 
lands, and the integrity of historic properties, religious places, and 
sacred sites located within those lands.
       irreparable impacts of the proposed resolution copper mine
    Last year on March 12, 2020, this subcommittee held a hearing to 
discuss the numerous impacts of the proposed Resolution Copper mine 
(titled The Irreparable Environmental and Cultural Impacts of the 
Proposed Resolution Copper Mining Operation). Our prior prepared 
statement submitted for that hearing record detailing these numerous 
harms is incorporated here by reference.

    If the Save Oak Flat Act is not passed, upon the completion of a 
legally compliant and final environmental impact analysis, 
approximately 2,400 acres of Tribal ancestral land will be exchanged, 
so that Resolution Copper can construct and operate a block-cave mining 
operation to blast and remove 1.4 billion tons of rock from beneath Oak 
Flat. This would leave a subsidence crater at almost 2 miles wide and 
over 1,000 feet deep, collapsing the Oak Flat area including the NRHP-
listed Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) Historic District and the 
archaeological, cultural, historic, and sacred sites within the area 
including burial sites and petroglyphs. Among the impacts are:

     The Forest Service estimates that over the life of the 
            mine, this mine will deplete at least 87,000 acre-feet of 
            water from the Oak Flat area (1 acre-foot is 325,851 
            gallons of water). Dewatering and destroying riparian 
            seeps, springs, and streams in and around Oak Flat that 
            support ecosystems and habitats for a wide variety of 
            species including the endangered Sonoran ocelot, black 
            bear, mountain lion, bobcat, coatimundi, javelina, ring-
            tailed cat, all four native Arizona species of skunk. Oak 
            Flat is also a critical area for resident and migrating 
            bird species including Bald and Golden Eagles (which have 
            religious and cultural significance to ITAA Member Tribes).

     The Forest Service also estimates that over the life of 
            the mine, this mine will deplete at least 550,000 acre-feet 
            of water from the east Salt River Valley just outside of 
            Phoenix. Extensive dewatering of ground and surface water 
            supplies would also add more strain on the desperately 
            needed and already thin water supplies of Arizona 
            residents.

     More than half a million acre-feet of groundwater would be 
            pumped for this mine from central Arizona, an area which 
            has already seen subsidence and fissures in the earth from 
            over-pumping. The Pinal AMA in this region alone already 
            faces an 8.1 million acre-foot shortfall between available 
            supplies and demand over the next century. Moreover, it is 
            anticipated that the agricultural users in this same region 
            will be hit hardest by additional predicted substantial 
            cuts in Colorado River water supplies, forcing them to 
            deepen their wells and compete with the mine for scarce 
            water resources.

     The Forest Service also estimates that approximately 1.37 
            billion tons of toxic mine waste (tailings) would be 
            deposited from this mine. This would be left forever only a 
            few short miles from the Gila River. This presents threats 
            of water and environmental contamination, spillage, and 
            human health concerns that have not been adequately 
            addressed by the Forest Service or the mine. In fact, none 
            of the short-term or long-term environmental threats posed 
            by this sprawling mine, including from its tailings slurry, 
            concentrate slurry, toxic pit lake in the subsidence 
            crater, and other facets of the mine have ever been fully 
            addressed.

     The construction of many additional miles of 
            infrastructure, pipelines, power lines, roads, wells, 
            railways will also have innumerable and widespread 
            environmental impacts. For example, pipelines transporting 
            slurried toxic mine waste to the tailings site would be 
            placed underneath Mineral Creek (critical habitat to the 
            endangered Gila Chub, and proposed critical habitat for the 
            Yellow-Billed Cuckoo). Transmission lines and pipeline 
            corridors will be bladed or blasted through miles and miles 
            of Forest lands, including through the nearby King's Crown 
            Peak mountain.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a magnifying glass on the 
fundamental need to protect and preserve healthy water supplies. Yet, 
the egregious amount of water required by the mine and its threat to 
water quality and the environment is a matter of serious concern to 
ITAA's Member Tribes. Dr. James Wells, Ph.D. of L. Everett & Associates 
is also here presenting testimony today to this Subcommittee in greater 
detail on the specific and profound water impacts of this project. The 
severe and ongoing drought which has stricken the southwestern United 
States and the State of Arizona for many decades would be made much 
worse by the staggering amounts of water this mine would consume. Water 
is necessary to sustain life. It is therefore important for our 
survival to understand and think about what the long-term impacts on 
water this project will have 10, 20, and even 100 years from now.
    In sum, the destructive legacy of this project would be staggering 
and forever leave a stain on eastern Arizona. It would also leave a 
stain on who we are as Americans, since we would be exchanging the 
religious freedoms of Tribal people for a promise of jobs and profit 
offered by foreign mining interests. The exchange would also create an 
unacceptable precedent--that is, the exchange of a well-documented 
Traditional Cultural Property recognized under the National Historic 
Preservation Act to two foreign mining interests to facilitate its 
destruction. And, all of Arizona's residents including tribal members 
of ITAA's Member Tribes would suffer the cultural, social, 
environmental and other consequences for years to come.
   permanent protection of oak flat (``save oak flat act'') is still 
                                 needed
    In December 2014, despite our strong protests, and despite failing 
for many years to pass as a standalone bill on its own merits, the 
highly controversial Resolution Copper Mine and Land Exchange was 
included in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act and enacted 
into law. Among other things, this provision required a full and 
legally compliant Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the 
project. Publication of an FEIS triggers a 60-day clock, by the end of 
which Oak Flat lands would be exchanged to Resolution Copper for 
eventual destruction.
    The Forest Service had originally anticipated publishing the FEIS 
in December 2021. But in the waning days of the prior administration, 
the Forest Service hurriedly published an incomplete, fatally flawed 
FEIS for the Resolution Copper Mine Project and Land Exchange on 
January 15, 2021, just 5 days before the Presidential inauguration. The 
document was glaringly incomplete and fell far short of a full NEPA 
analysis, failing in countless instances to consider direct, indirect 
and cumulative project impacts and mitigation measures.
    On March 1, 2021, USDA directed the Forest Service to rescind the 
FEIS and Draft Record of Decision, citing the need for more time to 
more fully understand Tribal and public concerns in accordance with the 
recent Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation (dated January 
26, 2021), as well as project impacts and to ``ensure the agency's 
compliance with federal law.''
    Rescission of the FEIS and Draft Record of Decision was welcome 
news as it halted the 60-day clock, temporarily saving Oak Flat. 
Nevertheless, the USDA and Forest Service are still estimating that 
another final EIS will be published at some point in the future, 
perhaps even later this year. If the land exchange legislation is not 
repealed, then upon publication of another FEIS, the 60-day clock would 
restart, and Oak Flat will be transferred from the Tonto National 
Forest into the private hands of Resolution Copper no later than 60 
days after that FEIS is published. This outcome is not acceptable to 
ITAA. And should not be acceptable to Congress.
    Long-term and permanent protections for Oak Flat are critically 
needed. Passage of H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat Act, would undo the 
original land exchange legislation and provide this protection.
                               conclusion
    We welcome the recently signed Memorandum on Tribal Consultation 
and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships signed by President 
Biden on January 26, 2021, making regular, meaningful and robust 
consultation with Tribal Nations one of the priorities of his 
administration. ITAA urges Congress to live up to these values as well, 
and consider the united Tribal concerns opposing this land exchange and 
mine which have been consistent, united, and unwavering since the 
beginning. To do this, we urge you to pass the Save Oak Flat Act to 
provide long-term, permanent protection to Oak Flat.
    Thank you for providing an opportunity on the part of the Inter 
Tribal Association of Arizona and our 21 Member Tribes to submit this 
testimony.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much, President 
Lewis.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Fawn Sharp, 
President of the National Congress of American Indians.

  STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FAWN SHARP, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 
          CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Sharp. [Speaking native language.] Good afternoon. My 
name is Fawn Sharp. I serve as President of the National 
Congress of American Indians. Founded in 1944, NCAI is the 
oldest, largest, and most representative organization comprised 
of Tribal Nations and their citizens.
    Chair Leger Fernandez, Ranking Member Young, and members of 
the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Congress for 
American Indians, we thank you for this opportunity to provide 
testimony on a critically important issue----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Excuse me, if we could hold the timer 
just a bit. You are not coming through very clear on my 
computer, so maybe getting it a little closer so we can all 
hear you well.
    Ms. Sharp. Can you hear me OK now?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. That is better. Thank you. Go on.
    Ms. Sharp. I am a case-in-point for the need of broadband 
in Indian Country.
    Today, my testimony addresses Congress' fiduciary 
obligations to protect tribal resources, the documented 
historical and cultural resources within the Oak Flat area, and 
highlights the long-standing national opposition to this land 
transfer.
    Tribal Nations have a unique legal and political 
relationship with the United States that is defined in the 
United States Constitution, treaty, statutes, court decisions, 
and executive orders. Through its acquisition of tribal lands, 
the United States has formed a trust relationship with Tribal 
Nations. Part of this trust obligation is to safeguard tribal 
rights, lands, resources, cultural practices, and sacred sites.
    For example, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act 
states, ``It shall be the policy of the United States to 
protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right 
of freedom to believe, express, exercise traditional religions, 
including but not limited to access to sacred sites.''
    Similarly, the National Historic Preservation Act states 
that it is the policy of the Federal Government in cooperation 
with other nations and in partnership with Indian tribes to 
provide leadership in the preservation of the prehistoric and 
historic resources of the United States.
    As part of its trust responsibility and trust relationship, 
the Federal Government has recognized the historic and cultural 
uniqueness of Oak Flat. Beginning with President Eisenhower, in 
1955, the Federal Government has recognized the importance of 
Oak Flat and protected it from mining activities. More 
recently, in 2016, Oak Flat was placed on the National Register 
of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property.
    Article 8 of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples, which was endorsed by the United States in 
2010, protects the right of Tribal Nations. Among other 
enumerated rights protecting Indigenous cultural expressions, 
Article 8 protects the right of Tribal Nations not to be 
subject to forced destruction of their culture and specifically 
requires state parties to provide mechanisms for the prevention 
and redress.
    Here Tribal Nations have been provided no avenues to 
prevent the destruction of an irreplaceable sacred site. The 
proposed transfer of Oak Flat would set a dangerous precedent 
and violate international law and the Federal trust 
responsibility to which the United States has charged itself 
with moral obligations of the highest responsibility.
    Lastly, there is a long-standing opposition to the 
destruction of Oak Flat from Indian Country and Congress. Since 
2009, NCAI has passed seven resolutions, specifically opposing 
legislation that would transfer the Oak Flat area to Resolution 
Copper. More recently, Resolution No. ABQ-19-062 expresses 
support for repeal of Section 3003 of the 2015 NDAA due to its 
circumvention of Federal laws that protect tribal sacred places 
from destruction and harm.
    Both the House and the Senate have previously rejected the 
destruction of the sacred site. Since 2005, there have been 13 
failed attempts to pass legislation that would transfer the Oak 
Flat area to Resolution Copper. Only the late rider to a must-
pass piece of legislation succeeded.
    I also want to draw your attention to the fact that while 
Tribal Nations all across this country have relinquished 
millions of acres of vast and pristine lands across this 
country, we have never relinquished our spiritual connection to 
these very sacred places. And the younger generations that are 
coming up, who would go to Oak Flat for coming-of-age 
ceremonies, for songs, for dance, for prayer, they too are 
exercising a right that Tribal Nations have exercised for 
millennia.
    We urge support, and we thank you for holding this hearing 
on H.R. 1884, a bill that would address an extraordinary threat 
to the religious practices of American Indians and tribal 
environmental, historic, and cultural resources. With that, 
NCAI urges passage of H.R. 1884, because the land transfer of 
Oak Flat violates the Federal trust responsibility.
    [Speaking native language.]

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sharp follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Fawn Sharp, President, National Congress of 
                            American Indians
    On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 
thank you for holding this hearing. My name is Fawn Sharp, and I serve 
as President of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). I 
look forward to working with members of this Subcommittee and other 
Members of Congress to protect tribal sacred sites, which includes Oak 
Flat.
    Founded in 1944, NCAI is the oldest, largest, and most 
representative national organization comprised of Tribal Nations and 
their citizens. Tribal leaders created NCAI in response to termination 
and assimilation policies that threatened the existence of American 
Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Nations. Since then, NCAI has fought 
tirelessly to preserve the trust, treaty, and sovereign rights of 
Tribal Nations, advance the government-to-government relationship, and 
remove historic structural impediments to tribal self-determination. 
Core to NCAI's mission is a tireless commitment to securing tribal 
traditional cultures and ways of life for present and future 
generations.
    Federal, state, and private lands are carved from the ancestral 
territories of Tribal Nations. In spite of this significant land loss, 
Tribal Nations and their citizens are place-based peoples that maintain 
deep and ongoing religious, social, and cultural connections to their 
sacred places within their ancestral territories. Sacred and cultural 
landscapes are places for Tribal Nations and their citizens to pray, 
hold ceremonies, and gather traditional and medicinal plants. They also 
are places where tribal cultures, religions, and ways of life are 
preserved, protected, and passed on to the next generation through oral 
tradition and traditional acts of cultural and religious observance.
    The United States government has a legal and moral obligation to 
ensure tribal peoples have access to their ancestral lands and to 
protect their traditional cultural territories in a manner that 
respects and preserves their tribal cultural, historical, spiritual and 
religious importance. Despite this established obligation, in a late 
rider to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (2015 NDAA), 
Congress authorized a land exchange that transferred all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in approximately 2,242 acres of 
public lands in the Tonto National Forest, commonly known as Oak Flat, 
to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of private, foreign-owned mining 
corporations. The purpose of the land transfer is to provide Resolution 
Copper with the ability to construct and operate a block-cave copper 
mine.
    If the transfer were to take place, it would result in an 
unparalleled destruction and degradation of tribal cultural places 
within the Oak Flat Area. The project proposes to remove copper ore 
through a technique called block-cave mining. This is a type of mining 
that digs deep below the earth's surface to extract ore as the earth 
above collapses from the void created. If permitted, Resolution Copper 
would create one of the largest and deepest copper mines in the United 
States.\1\ Resolution Copper proposes to extend mine workings 
approximately 7,000 feet below the surface of the earth \2\ and remove 
approximately 1.4 billion tons of ore to produce 40 billion pounds of 
copper.\3\ The result of removing ore from below ground would cause a 
subsidence of roughly 6,951 acres, or 11 square miles, approximately 
1.8 miles wide and 800 to 1,115 feet deep.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Resolution Copper 
Project and Land Exchange, at p. 3.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id. Executive Summary, at ES-3; see also Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement: Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange, at p. 6.
    \4\ Final Environmental Impact Statement: Resolution Copper Project 
and Land Exchange, Volume 2, January 2021, at ES-3; supra note, 33, at 
p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This testimony addresses Congress's fiduciary obligation to protect 
tribal resources; details the documented historical and cultural 
resources within the Oak Flat Area; and highlights Indian Country's 
united opposition to this land transfer, which will irrevocably destroy 
the resources within this sacred area.
 congress has a trust responsibility to protect tribal historical and 
                           cultural resources
    Tribal Nations are members of the original family of American 
governments and have a unique legal and political relationship with the 
United States as defined by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, 
court decisions, and executive orders. The Supreme Court has long 
recognized that Tribal Nations are distinct political entities that 
pre-date the existence of the United States and that have retained 
inherent sovereign authority over their lands and people. Through its 
acquisition of tribal lands and resources, the United States formed a 
fiduciary relationship with Tribal Nations whereby it recognized a 
trust obligation to safeguard tribal rights, lands, and resources.\5\ 
In fulfillment of this trust relationship, the United States ``charged 
itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust'' 
toward Tribal Nations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See e.g., Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823); Cherokee 
Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831); and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 
515 (1832) (collectively called the ``Marshall Trilogy'').
    \6\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress expressly and continuously recognizes its fiduciary 
responsibilities as reflected in the fact that ``[n]early every piece 
of modern legislation dealing with Indian tribes contains a statement 
reaffirming the trust relationship between tribes and the federal 
government.'' \7\ An essential component of this fiduciary 
responsibility is the preservation of sacred places, objects, and 
cultural landscapes, as provided for in numerous statutes, executive 
orders, departmental policies, and inter-departmental memoranda.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law Sec. 5.04[3][a] (Nell 
Jessup Newton ed., 2012).
    \8\ See e.g., The Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 1996; ``Special Message on Indian Affairs, July 8, 1970,'' 
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 
1970, pp. 564-567, 576; National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 
470 et seq.; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 
U.S.C. 3001 et. seq.; Executive Order No. 13,007, ``Indian Sacred 
Sites,'' (1996); Memorandum of Understanding Among: U.S. Department of 
Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Department of Energy, Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation on Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the 
Protection of Indian Sacred Sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since at least the early 20th Century, Congress has codified its 
policy to protect tribal cultural sites \9\ and religious practices as 
part of its trust responsibility to Tribal Nations.\10\ For example, 
the American Indian Religious Freedom Act states, ``it shall be the 
policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American 
Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and 
exercise . . . traditional religions . . . including, but not limited 
to access to sites . . . and the freedom to worship through ceremonials 
and traditional rites.'' \11\ Congress further recognized the federal 
responsibility to protect historic and cultural sites as well as engage 
in a process of formal consultation with Tribal Nations in the National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 431-433; see also, 
Ronald F. Lee, The Antiquities Act of 1906 (1970).
    \10\ The Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1996.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NHPA established formal procedures for identifying and 
protecting tribal cultural sites and landscapes and engaging in 
government-to-government consultation.\12\ Specifically, the NHPA 
states that it is the policy of the federal government, ``in 
cooperation with other nations and in partnership with . . . Indian 
tribes . . . [to] provide leadership in the preservation of the 
prehistoric and historic resources of the United States.'' \13\ Lastly, 
Executive Order 13007 directs that ``in managing federal lands, each 
executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility 
. . . shall, [to] the extent practicable . . . avoid adversely 
affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f; 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.
    \13\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470-1(2).
    \14\ Executive Order No. 13,007, ``Indian Sacred Sites,'' (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The right of Tribal Nations to their culture practices and sacred 
places is also recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the 
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was endorsed by the United States 
in 2010. Among other enumerated rights, Article 8 of the UN Declaration 
protects the right of Tribal Nations not to be subject forced 
destruction of their culture and specifically requires state parties to 
provide mechanisms for prevention and redress for ``any action which 
have the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, 
territories, or resources.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples, Article 8 (adopted 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposed land transfer of the Oak Flat Area to Resolution 
Copper, contravenes the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples, the federal trust responsibility, and Congress' longstanding 
intent to protect and preserve tribal historical and cultural places 
and items by placing them in imminent threat of destruction.
     the federal government recognizes the historical and cultural 
                         importance of oak flat
    In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the importance 
of the Oak Flat Area when he signed Public Land Order 1229. This order 
withdrew the Oak Flat Picnic and Camp Ground from future mining 
activities. Later, in 1971, the Nixon Administration's Department of 
the Interior again acknowledged the importance of this area when it 
retained the mining ban.\16\ In March 2016, the Oak Flat area was 
placed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) 
as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Lydia Millet, ``Selling off Apache Holy Land,'' https://
www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/selling-off-apache-holy-land.html.
    \17\ On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) released 
its six volume Final Environmental Impact Statement. See, ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement: Resolution Copper Project and Land 
Exchange'' (https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/documents/final-eis). On 
March 1, 2021, the USDA directed the USFS Service to withdraw the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement. See, ``United States Department of 
Agriculture, Tonto National Forest, Project Update: March 1, 2021.'' 
(https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A TCP is a type of property that is eligible for inclusion on the 
National Register based on its associations with cultural practices, 
traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social 
institutions.\18\ Properties may be nominated to the National Register 
by a State Historic Preservation Officer,\19\ Tribal Historic 
Preservation Officer,\20\ or federal agencies.\21\ Importantly, TCPs 
may also be identified as part of an agency's responsibilities to 
prepare a draft environmental impact statement,\22\ determine 
categorical exclusions,\23\ or prepare an environmental assessment 
under the National Environmental Policy Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ ``National Register of Historic Places--Traditional Cultural 
Properties (TCPs): A Quick Guide for Preserving Native American 
Cultural Resources,'' U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 
Service, American Indian Liaison Office.'' https://www.nps.gov/history/
TRIBES/Documents/TCP.pdf (last visited, Mar. 10, 2020).
    \19\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.6.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.9.
    \22\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.25.
    \23\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800(b).
    \24\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once determined to be eligible for listing on the National 
Register, a TCP is considered a ``historic property'' within the 
meaning of the NHPA.\25\ As such, any agency undertakings that may 
affect that property is required to engage in what is commonly known as 
a Section 106 review.\26\ Section 106 of the NHPA directs federal 
agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on properties 
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.\27\ The 
regulations for section 106 clarify how agencies are to meet their 
statutory responsibilities--from initiating the Section 106 process and 
identifying historic properties to resolving adverse effects. Central 
to the entire process is consultation with affected Tribal Nations or 
their representatives, including Tribal Historic Preservation 
Officers.\28\ Specifically, the NHPA requires the agency to consult 
with Tribal Nations that attach religious and cultural significance to 
historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking,\29\ assess 
adverse effects,\30\ and continue tribal consultation to resolve any 
adverse effects.\31\ If no resolution is reached, the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides comments to the head of the 
agency that must be taken into account as part of the final agency 
decision.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.16(l)(1) (Historic Properties are any 
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 
Historic Places).
    \26\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.1(a).
    \27\ 54 U.S.C. 306108.
    \28\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.2(a)(4).
    \29\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.2(c)(2)(ii).
    \30\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.5.
    \31\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.6.
    \32\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.7. On February 11, 2021, ACHP terminated 
Section 106 consultation. On March 29, 2021, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 800.7(c), the ACHP sent Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack its final 
comments regarding the proposed land exchange Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation. In that letter, the ACHP stated, ``the historic 
significance of Oak Flat cannot be overstated and neither can the 
enormity of the adverse effects that would result to this property for 
the undertaking.'' ACHP letter to Secretary Vilsack, Resolution Copper 
Mining Project and Land Exchange Tonto National Forest, Pinal County, 
Arizona (March 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The placement of the Oak Flat Area on the National Register is the 
product of lengthy historical and archaeological analysis. It 
demonstrates the federal government's explicit recognition of this 
landscape's national historical and cultural significance and trust and 
statutory obligations to preserve it. The proposed transfer of the Oak 
Flat area, to Resolution Copper violates the original purpose of the 
NHPA; that certain historic properties are so significant to our 
national heritage that ``the preservation of this irreplaceable 
heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of 
cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy 
benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of 
Americans.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    there is long-standing opposition to the destruction of oak flat
    In addition to being listed on the National Register as a TCP, this 
area is home to hundreds of additional sites eligible for inclusion in 
the National Register that are culturally important to Tribal Nations 
in the area.\34\ Degradation and destruction of these places and the 
larger landscape is unacceptable. Since 2001, NCAI has passed over 60 
resolutions that speak to the broad concerns of Tribal Nations and 
their citizens regarding the need to protect cultural and historic 
resources. Since 2009, NCAI membership, which is comprised of Tribal 
Nations from across the country, has passed seven resolutions directly 
opposing legislation that would transfer the Oak Flat area to 
Resolution Copper.\35\ Most recently, NCAI passed Resolution #ABQ-19-
062, titled ``Support for the Protection of Oak Flat and Other Native 
American Sacred Spaces from Harm.'' This resolution expresses NCAI's 
support for repeal of Section 3003 of the 2015 NDAA due to its 
circumvention of federal laws that protect tribal sacred places from 
destruction and harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Final Environmental Impact Statement: Resolution Copper 
Project and Land Exchange, Volume 2, January 2021, at p. 778 (noting a 
total of 644 archaeological sites in the area, of which 506 are 
National Register eligible). See also, Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement: Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange, at p. 628, 
(``Within the direct impacts analysis area, 721 archaeological sites 
have been recorded . . . Of the 721 sites, 523 are recommended or 
determined eligible for the NRHP [National Register of Historic 
Places]. . ..'').
    \35\ See, e.g., NCAI Resolutions #NGF-09-001, ``To Protect Oak Flat 
and Apache Leap in Arizona from Mining''; #MKE-11-002, ``Opposition to 
Legislation Proposing a Land Exchange in Southeastern Arizona for the 
Purpose of Mining Operations''; #PDX-11-001, ``Opposition to H.R. 1904, 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, Which 
Would Transfer Federal Land for a Massive Block Cave Mine that Would 
Destroy Native American Sacred and Cultural Sites''; #SAC-12-006, 
``Opposition to H.R. 1904, Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Conservation Act of 2011, Which Would Transfer Federal Land for a 
Massive Block Cave Mine that Would Destroy Native American Sacred and 
Cultural Sites''; #REN-13-019, ``In opposition to the Conveyance of 
Federal Lands to Foreign Mining Interests with Sacred and Cultural 
Significance to Tribes, Including H.R. 687 and S. 339''; and #MSP-15-
001, ``Support for Repeal of Section 3003 of the FY 15 National Defense 
Authorization Act, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 3003 of the 2015 NDAA is an affront to the 65-year history 
of federal administrative actions that acknowledge and actively protect 
the deep historical and cultural significance of the Oak Flat Area. It 
is also an abrogation of the federal trust responsibility and a 
violation of the United States' obligations under the UN Declaration on 
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Due to the problematic nature of how 
the land transfer occurred, tribal opposition, and broad Congressional 
opposition since 2005, there have been 13 failed attempts to pass 
legislation that would transfer the Oak Flat area to Resolution 
Copper.\36\ The late rider to the 2015 NDAA circumvented what had been 
long-standing Congressional acknowledgement of its trust obligation to 
Tribal Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Only H.R. 1904 passed the House during the 112th Congress. 
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/
1904?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22oak+flat%5C%22%22 
%5D%7D&s=3&r=17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If finalized, the Southeast Land Exchange would be unprecedented 
not only in its destruction of tribal religious, cultural, 
archeological, historical, and natural resources. It would be the first 
time the United States actively sought to relinquish control of federal 
property to a foreign entity that would knowingly destroy the sacred 
places of peoples to whom it has a trust responsibility.
                               conclusion
    On behalf of NCAI, I again thank you for the opportunity to submit 
testimony and holding this legislative hearing on H.R. 1884. Prior to 
the late addition of Section 3003 to the 2015 NDAA, Congress 
consistently rejected legislation transferring the Oak Flat Area to 
Resolution Copper. Given the clear cultural and environmental 
destruction that this land transfer will cause, and given the untenable 
impact this land transfer would have on Indian religious practices, 
NCAI calls on Congress to affirm its trust obligation, pass H.R. 1884, 
and permanently protect Oak Flat.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Fawn Sharp, President, 
                 National Congress of American Indians
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. You note in your testimony the long-standing opposition 
to the Southeastern Arizona Land Exchange (by both NCAI and tribal 
governments across the country) prior to its inclusion in the FY15 NDAA 
as a last-minute rider, without having passed the House or Senate that 
Congress. Can you talk about Congress' responsibility to tribes, as 
well as Indian Country's response to the inclusion of Sec. 3003 in a 
``must-pass'' bill with no opportunity to remove the provision by 
amendment?

    Answer. Federally recognized Tribal Nations have a unique legal and 
political relationship with the United States. This relationship is 
defined by the U.S. Constitution, executive orders, treaties, statutes, 
court decisions, and Departmental policy. For example, the Supreme 
Court determined that the United States assumed a fiduciary obligation 
to Tribal Nations in exchange for the historic taking of the immense 
lands that are home to tribal cultural places, and natural resources 
necessary to establish the United States.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 20 U.S. 1 (1831). See also, Indian 
Tribal Justice Support Act of 1993, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3601-31 
(stating, ``The United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal 
government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each 
tribal government''); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225 
(1983), (reiterating ``the undisputed existence of a general trust 
relationship between the United States and the Indian People''); United 
States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consequently, the United States acts as trustee for tribal rights 
and interests. These responsibilities include protecting tribal 
cultural heritage when developing and implementing federal policies or 
actions. The National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 13175, 
and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, for example, reaffirm 
the trust responsibility and require full and meaningful consultation 
as a method for meeting this obligation. When Tribal Nations are not 
given the opportunity to contribute to the development and 
implementation of policies, including proposed federal legislation, 
that have substantial and direct effects on their interests, the 
Federal Government has not met its fiduciary obligation; an obligation 
of the highest moral responsibility.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Seminole Nation v. U.S., 316 U.S. 286 (1942).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2009, NCAI membership, which is a strong representation of 
the many Nations, villages, communities, and individuals that 
constitute the whole of Indian Country, has passed seven resolutions 
directly opposing legislation that would transfer the Oak Flat area to 
Resolution Copper.\3\ Most recently, NCAI passed Resolution #ABQ-19-
062, titled ``Support for the Protection of Oak Flat and Other Native 
American Sacred Spaces from Harm.'' \4\ This resolution expresses 
NCAI's support for the repeal of Section 3003 of the 2015 NDAA due to 
its circumvention of federal laws that protect tribal sacred places 
from destruction and harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See, NCAI Resolutions #NGF-09-001, ``To Protect Oak Flat and 
Apache Leap in Arizona from Mining''; #MKE-11-002, ``Opposition to 
Legislation Proposing a Land Exchange in Southeastern Arizona for the 
Purpose of Mining Operations''; #PDX-11-001, ``Opposition to H.R. 1904, 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, Which 
Would Transfer Federal Land for a Massive Block Cave Mine that Would 
Destroy Native American Sacred and Cultural Sites''; #SAC-12-006, 
``Opposition to H.R. 1904, Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Conservation Act of 2011, Which Would Transfer Federal Land for a 
Massive Block Cave Mine that Would Destroy Native American Sacred and 
Cultural Sites''; #REN-13-019, ``In opposition to the Conveyance of 
Federal Lands to Foreign Mining Interests with Sacred and Cultural 
Significance to Tribes, Including H.R. 687 and S. 339''; and #MSP-15-
001, ``Support for Repeal of Section 3003 of the FY 15 National Defense 
Authorization Act, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange.''
    \4\ NCAI Resolution, #ABQ-19-062, ``Support for the Protection of 
Oak Flat and Other Native American Sacred Spaces from Harm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
    Question 1. NCAI long supported the Sealaska land exchange bill 
(Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization & Jobs 
Protection Act), which was also part of the 2015 NDAA. It transferred 
70,000 acres from the Tongass National Forest for timber harvesting 
that would result in economic development from Timber harvesting. As 
you know, the lands package in the 2015 NDAA is considered a major 
public lands compromise after 5 years of complete inaction. It included 
new parks, wilderness area and river protections, such as the 
Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park in Rhode Island, 
expanding the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington state, turning the 
Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico into a national park. 
All of these were considered ``late riders'' into the defense 
authorization bill, all had been proposed for multiple congresses and 
all had opposition. The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange was the only 
one that required a NEPA analysis and additional consultation before 
the land exchange could take place. Since this bill was included in the 
NDAA, key aspects of which NCAI supported, with additional requirements 
that were the result of compromise, why do you single out this bill as 
having been added to the NDAA as a ``late night rider'' when in 
reality, the entire lands package that was added into the NDAA was a 
broad bipartisan late-night compromise agreement?

    Answer. Federally recognized Tribal Nations have a unique legal and 
political relationship with the United States. This relationship is 
defined by the U.S. Constitution, executive orders, treaties, statutes, 
court decisions, and Departmental policy. For example, Supreme Court 
case law has long recognized that Tribal Nations are distinct political 
entities that pre-date the existence of the United States and have 
retained inherent sovereignty over their lands and people since time 
immemorial.\5\ Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that the 
United States assumed a fiduciary obligation to Tribal Nations in 
exchange for the historic taking of the immense lands that are home to 
tribal cultural places, and natural resources necessary to establish 
the United States.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
    \6\ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 20 U.S. 1 (1831). See also, Indian 
Tribal Justice Support Act of 1993, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3601-31 
(stating, ``The United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal 
government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each 
tribal government''); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225 
(1983), (reiterating ``the undisputed existence of a general trust 
relationship between the United States and the Indian People''); United 
States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consequently, the United States acts as a trustee for tribal rights 
and interests. These responsibilities include protecting tribal 
cultural heritage when developing and implementing federal policies or 
actions. The National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 13175, 
and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, for example, reaffirm 
the trust responsibility and require full and meaningful consultation 
as a method for meeting this obligation.
    Here, Tribal Nations were not provided the opportunity to 
contribute to the development and implementation of policies, including 
proposed federal legislation that will have substantial and direct 
effects on their interests, as directed by Executive Order 13175. Nor 
was Section 3003 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 supported by a 
majority of members from either the House of Representatives or the 
Senate.\7\ With respect to tribal participation, the Federal Government 
has not met its fiduciary obligation; an obligation of the highest 
moral responsibility.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The Save Oak Flat Act, H.R. 1884 Sec. 2, para. 5, as 
introduced.
    \8\ Seminole Nation v. U.S., 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942).

    Question 2. Were you aware that the following studies were 
conducted for the Resolution Land Exchange: an ethnographic/
ethnohistoric study, 100% class III cultural resources survey, Native 
Pant survey and tribal perspectives surveys--tribal members worked on 
the ground alongside experts for job training and employment to cover 
over 60,000 acres with millions in employment benefits spanning 3 
years? Yes or no? Why does NCAI not support these requirements as part 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the land exchanges you have pushed Congress to approve?

    Answer. Since 2001, NCAI has passed over 60 resolutions that speak 
to the broad concerns of Tribal Nations and their citizens regarding 
the need to protect cultural and holy places, ancestral remains, and 
historic resources. For example, in 2008, NCAI passed Resolution #PHX-
08-069c, entitled, ``NCAI Policy Statement on Sacred Places.'' This 
Resolution calls for, among other things, the Federal Government to 
establish a policy requiring cultural surveys prior to any transfer or 
issuance of a federal land-use permit; that the cultural survey be 
undertaken in consultation with Tribal Nations as part of the initial 
stages of any federally mandated identification process; and that the 
policy affirm the inherent rights of Tribal Nations and their citizens 
to access to and protect their historic, cultural, holy and sacred 
places; cultural patrimony; and ancestors.\9\ More recently, in 2017, 
NCAI passed Resolution #MKE-17-008, ``To Support Moratorium on Leasing 
and Permitting In Greater Chaco Region.'' Among other things, this 
Resolution calls for an ethnographic study of cultural landscapes 
within the Greater Chaco Region prior to the issuance of additional oil 
and gas leases.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ NCAI Resolution #PHX-08-069c: ``NCAI Policy Statement on Sacred 
Places.''
    \10\ NCAI Resolution #MKE-17-008: ``To Support Moratorium on 
Leading and Permitting in Greater Chaco Region.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCAI has long supported the completion of comprehensive cultural 
surveys of U.S. lands prior to any federal action that may affect their 
cultural and historic places and that these surveys be done in close 
and meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations.

    Question 3. Chairwoman Sharp, you mention in your testimony that 
the Oak Flat Area was placed on the National Register of Historic 
Places in 2016, but this nomination and process seems to have been in 
direct response of the passage of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange 
bill. The nomination as TCP has a very odd shape as it follows sharp 
angular boundaries that directly align to the land exchange boundary 
and unpatented mining claims held by Resolution Copper, yet 
specifically excludes and carves out private land holdings of 
Resolution Copper in the middle and State Land within and surrounding 
the nomination. Why is the nomination area such a strange shape--
historically did Native American Tribes follow sharp, odd, shaped 
boundaries to define sacred areas within a common landscape?

    Answer. A ``Historic Property,'' as defined in the National 
Historic Protection Act,\11\ may be nominated to the National Register 
of Historic Places by a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,\12\ State 
Historic Preservation Officer,\13\ or a Federal Preservation 
Officer.\14\ The National Congress of American Indians does not have 
the statutory authority to function as a Tribal Historic Preservation 
Office, State Historic Preservation Office, or a Federal Preservation 
Office. NCAI supports the inherent right of Tribal Nations to define 
what is sacred to them, protect the confidentiality of information and 
traditional knowledge used to make that decision, and manage their 
traditional territories.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.16(l)(1).
    \12\ 54 U.S.C. Sec. 302702; 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.6.
    \13\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.6.
    \14\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.9.
    \15\ See e.g., NCAI Resolution #SD-02-027, ``Essential Elements of 
Public Policy to Protect Native Sacred Places,'' NCAI Resolution #PDX-
20-070, ``NCAI Initiative on Sacred Places and Cultural Rights Laws and 
Developing Legislation.''

    Question 4. Chairwoman Sharp, you mentioned that the U.S. 
Government has ``a legal and moral obligation to ensure tribal peoples 
have access to their ancestral lands to practice traditional religious 
freedoms, you even site religious freedom. In a February 2021 press 
release, Resolution Copper asserted once again that they ``will 
maintain public access to areas within Oak Flat including the 
campground and recreational trails and climbing, after completion of 
the land exchange.'' This was also mandated in the land exchange bill. 
The land exchange bill also mandated a number changes per testimony by 
Wendsler Nosie and Chairman Rambler including the permanent protection 
of Apache Leap through the creation of a special management area, the 
completion of a final EIS prior to the exchange of title and enhanced 
consultation provisions. The USFS has over 550 documented consultations 
over the last decade (FEIS Appendix S). Based on this, how is the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
government not meeting its legal and moral obligations?

    Answer. Tribal Nations have a unique legal and political 
relationship with the United States as defined by the U.S. 
Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, and executive 
orders. In fulfillment of this trust relationship, the United States 
``charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility 
and trust'' toward Tribal Nations.\16\ Congress expressly and 
continuously recognizes its fiduciary responsibilities as reflected in 
the fact that ``[n]early every piece of modern legislation dealing with 
Indian tribes contains a statement reaffirming the trust relationship 
between tribes and the federal government.'' \17\ Additionally, the 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act states, ``it shall be the policy 
of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their 
inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise . . . 
traditional religions . . . including, but not limited to access to 
sites . . . and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and 
traditional rites.'' \18\ Similarly, right of Tribal Nations to their 
culture practices and sacred places is also recognized in the United 
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Specifically, 
Article 19 requires that ``States shall consult and cooperate in good 
faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own 
representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and 
informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or 
administrative measures that may affect them.'' \19\ The voices of 
Tribal Nations must not only be heard, they must be heeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942).
    \17\ Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law Sec. 5.04[3][a] (Nell 
Jessup Newton ed., 2012).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples, A/RES/61/259 art. XIX (Oct. 2, 2007).

    Question 5. Chairwoman Sharp, you also refer to obligations under 
Section 106, specifically that consultation with affected Tribal 
Nations or their representatives is essential. Most of the other tribes 
meaningfully participated in good faith, in hundreds of consultations 
and have considerably influenced activities resulting in the complete 
relocation of facilities off National Forest System Lands, and the 
protection of specific TCPs, avoidance of medicinal plants, seeps, 
springs and ancestral sites, the implementation of a tribal monitoring 
program that has resulted in the employment of over 30 tribal members, 
and the creation of a program to protect and restore Emory oak groves. 
Additionally, compensatory funds for Native American tribes were 
developed in response to tribal consultation efforts between the 
affected tribes and the Tonto National Forest. The purpose of the funds 
is to support the exiting tribal monitoring program, the emory oak 
collaborative restoration initiative, tribal youth programs, tribal 
higher education programs, and a tribal cultural preservation program. 
The San Carlos Apache Tribe did not participate in this dialogue, but 
other Tribes did. Was their time wasted? Does their input and voice not 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
matter?

    Answer. In light of Appendix S of the FEIS, which charts the tribal 
consultation events for this project, and the extensive documentation 
of the San Carlos Apache Tribe's participation in consultation, it is 
unclear as to what is being asked.

    Question 6. A number of San Carlos Apache members also depend on 
Resolution Copper for employment, directly or through local 
contractors--don't they matter?

    Answer. Through treaties, statutes, executive orders, and legal 
decisions, the United States has undertaken a trust obligation in 
exchange for hundreds of millions of acres of homelands. Yet the 
Federal Government has not sufficiently met these obligations to 
provide essential services, programs and benefits to Native people. 
Tribal Nations invest in and develop economies within their local and 
regional communities in order to create infrastructure and 
opportunities that self-sustain the general welfare of their citizens 
and fill gaps left by the Federal Government. Tribal Nations face 
unique challenges in attracting and leveraging private sector 
investment, creating jobs, and increasing economic activity due to 
unique jurisdictional and property law complexities of tribal lands. At 
the same time, Native small business owners and entrepreneurs lack 
support and incentives to invest in businesses on tribal lands, and 
struggle to find opportunities to gain expertise, business acumen, and 
advantageous partnerships to help develop economies within their 
communities. NCAI is committed to supporting the efforts of Tribal 
Nations to develop their economies and support their citizens.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See e.g., NCAI Resolution #MSP-15-045, ``Calling on Congress 
to Create Tribal Empowerment Zones.''; NCAI Resolution #MSP-15-005, 
``Calling on the President to Issue a New Executive Order on Native 
Nations.''

    Question 7. After a decade of opposition from the Carlos Apache 
Tribe to a new open pit mine and land exchange a few miles from the 
eastern border of the San Carlos Apache Reservation (Dos Pobres/San 
Juan), the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Freeport McMoran found a path 
forward through sales of San Carlos Apache water from the Black River 
and job/skills training. A recent expansion of that mine (Lone Star 
EIS) with a new open pit mine, waste rock dumps and a new leach 
facility was completed in less than 3 years with no opposition from the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe (or ITAA or other mine opposition groups). We 
see this as a positive example where mines and Tribes can work together 
for mutual benefit--Chairwoman Sharpe would you be willing to help 
bring the two sides together to initiate a mutually beneficial dialogue 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on how to shape this mine?

    Answer. The duty to consult and resolve disputes is a federal 
responsibility. For example, the NHPA states that federal agencies 
``shall consult with any Indian tribe and Native Hawaiian organization 
that attaches religious or cultural significance'' to properties that 
might be affected by a federal undertaking.\21\ The NHPA also 
contemplates the challenges of consultation and provides a process for 
assessing, resolving, and failing to resolve adverse effects on 
``historic properties.'' \22\ As part of this process, in a letter 
dated February 11, 2021, and pursuant to its authority under 36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 800.7(a)(4), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
terminated the consultation process because it determined additional 
consultation would not be productive. In a letter dated March 29, 2021, 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation communicated its final 
comments regarding the Resolution Copper mine to the Secretary of 
Agriculture. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.7(c)(4), the Secretary of 
Agriculture has a non-delegable responsibility to respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 54 U.S.C. Sec. 307706(b) (emphasis added).
    \22\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.5; 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.6; 36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 800.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCAI supports the inherent right of Tribal Nations to define what 
is sacred to them, protect the confidentiality of information and 
traditional knowledge used to make that decision, and manage their 
traditional territories.\23\ Here, a number of Tribal Nations oppose 
the citing of the Resolution Copper mine in the Oak Flat area and have 
made it clear that they did not consent to Section 3003 of the 2015 
NDAA.\24\ NCAI recognizes and supports the sovereign decisions and 
position of these Tribal Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ See e.g., NCAI Resolution #SD-02-027, ``Essential Elements of 
Public Policy to Protect Native Sacred Places,'' NCAI Resolution #PDX-
20-070, ``NCAI Initiative on Sacred Places and Cultural Rights Laws and 
Developing Legislation.''
    \24\ NCAI Resolution #MOH-17-001, ``A Call on Congress to Enact 
Legislation that Will Ensure Uniform, Effective and Meaningful 
Consultation with Indian Nations and Tribes whenever Federal Activities 
have Tribal Impacts.''

    Question 8. In 2017, NCAI Resolution MOH-17-053 `Continued Support 
for the Paris Climate Agreement and Action to Address Climate Change' 
was passed resolving that NCAI will continue to support and advocate 
for initiatives intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote 
climate resiliency including increased investment and use of renewable 
energy resources. In 2021, NCAI passed Resolution #PDX-20-30 
`Development of a 2021 Tribal Climate Crisis Action Plan' finding that 
``federal action must be taken to support the efforts of [American 
Indians and Alaska Natives] to adapt to climate change impacts and to 
reduce their carbon footprints through a range of mitigation 
approaches, including renewable energy development and energy 
efficiency.'' Given that Resolution Copper will produce copper and 
tellurium for renewable energy production here in the United States, 
how does NCAI reconcile the resolutions supporting clean energy and the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
resolutions opposing the development of the Resolution Copper Project?

    Answer. NCAI supports the sovereign right of tribal governments to 
determine how they manage their own resources. For some Tribal Nations, 
there is a complicated history that makes traditional energy resources 
the best--and in some cases only--way to generate the funds to provide 
governmental services to their citizens. In other cases, Tribal Nations 
have made a conscious, and sometimes economically disadvantageous 
choice to forego extracting valuable mineral resources on their lands. 
NCAI recognizes that governance is difficult; that ultimately, Tribal 
Nations have the sovereign right to manage their own resources. As 
tribal leaders often and poignantly state, we have lived here forever, 
we know how to manage our lands.

                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, President Sharp.
    The Chair now recognizes Dr. James Wells, the Chief 
Operating Officer at L. Everett & Associates.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES WELLS, PHD, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, L. 
        EVERETT & ASSOCIATES, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA

    Dr. Wells. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on 
H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat Act. My name is Jim Wells. I have 
been a practicing environmental geologist for more than 30 
years. For the last 7 years, I have advised the San Carlos 
Apache Tribe on environmental and water resource matters. And 
at the invitation of the Forest Service, I served on the 
groundwater working groups advising Tonto National Forest on 
the draft and final EIS for the Resolution Copper Mine, which 
is a joint venture of foreign mining giants, Rio Tinto and BHP.
    I urge Congress to pass this bill because of the 
devastating and irreparable cultural and environmental impacts 
that would ensue if this mine were developed. I am not anti-
mining. I have worked as a mineral exploration geologist. We 
need copper and other metals. However, we do not need to green 
light every mining project if the cultural and environmental 
costs are too high, as they are for this project.
    This mine will consume enough water to supply a city of 
140,000 people every year for 50 years. This represents a 
massive new water demand in a region already experiencing water 
shortage. The final EIS says this mine will use at least 250 
billion gallons of water. That is a lot of water. To provide a 
visual, this mine would need a tank the size of a football 
field 147 miles high to hold all that water.
    Most of this water will be pumped from the East Salt River 
Valley. The proposed wellfield is in the Phoenix Active 
Management Area, or AMA, and is just north of the Pinal AMA, 
where there is already an 8.1 million acre-foot groundwater 
shortfall. Tens of thousands of people in Pinal County rely on 
groundwater for their water supplies, and already wells are 
drying up. There is really just not enough groundwater to go 
around in this part of Arizona.
    EIS computer modeling acknowledged that cumulative effects 
of Resolution's pumping along with other known demands will 
drop groundwater levels about 450 feet. This outcome is 
contrary to Arizona's long-stated goal to achieve safe yield in 
this groundwater basin and avoid depleting the aquifer.
    There is no serious analysis in the EIS of mitigation 
measures for the impact on the state's water resources. The EIS 
claims that Resolution's water use adheres to Arizona's norms 
and values, but depleting groundwater aquifers is the exact 
opposite of Arizona's values.
    Even the Arizona State Land Department objected that 
Resolution's groundwater withdrawals would cause a loss of 
development potential for more than 3,000 acres of state trust 
land in the Superstition Vistas Planning Area for a loss of 
$536 million. After Resolution takes all the groundwater it 
needs, there is simply less water for other users.
    Now, Resolution chooses to employ block cave mining because 
that is the cheapest way to mine this deep, low-grade ore body 
causing a 1.8 mile wide crater 1,000 feet deep. The copper is 
7,000 feet below Oak Flat, but Resolution would destroy Oak 
Flat anyway. The EIS acknowledges that sacred perennial springs 
will be eradicated, and at least 18 different groundwater 
dependent ecosystems will be impacted.
    So, in summary, this mine would have profound and 
irreversible impacts on the citizens of Arizona and the 
environment. For these reasons, I urge the Committee to advance 
the Save Oak Flat Act to stop this mine from going forward. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Wells follows:]
  Prepared Statement of James Wells, PhD, Environmental Geologist, L. 
            Everett & Associates, Environmental Consultants
    I would like to thank Chair Grijalva, Chair Fernandez, and members 
of the House Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States 
for inviting me to testify at this hearing about the Save Oak Flat Act, 
H.R. 1884. I urge Members of Congress to support this legislation 
because of the profound and irreparable cultural and environmental 
impacts that would ensue if the proposed Resolution Copper Mine were 
allowed to be developed. I also urge USDA to fully withdraw the current 
EIS for this project so a more complete analysis of alternatives can be 
performed. I am not anti-mining. However, copper is not a particularly 
rare commodity. We do not need to green-light every mining project if 
the cultural and environmental costs are too high, as they are for this 
project.
    This is a project that could not meet the rather low bar required 
for mining on federal lands. For 150 years, the United States has 
promoted mining on federal lands. The 1872 Mining Law was written to 
encourage development of the West. It contains substantial incentives 
for private companies to mine on federal lands, including charging no 
royalties for extracting these public resources and generally defining 
hardrock mining as the ``highest and best use'' of public lands 
regardless of competing land uses such as recreation, logging, hunting, 
grazing, or cultural uses. Special legislative action was needed to 
make this project possible in the form of Section 3003 of the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA). The Save Oak Flat Act would reverse 
special treatment for the international mining companies, Rio Tinto and 
BHP through their joint venture limited liability company, Resolution 
Copper, and restore protections for Oak Flat that had been in place for 
over 65 years.
    As technologies advance, we ask auto companies to build cleaner 
cars. We ask power plants to reduce emissions. Shouldn't we be asking 
the same of mining? A mine like Resolution will have greater impacts on 
the environment compared to most copper mines in the U.S. due to the 
choice of mining methods. As shown on Figure 1, in addition to tailings 
(which are inevitable regardless of mining method employed), Resolution 
is insisting on destroying a vastly greater amount of Arizona landscape 
(including Oak Flat). This huge volume of rock and its aquifer would be 
disturbed and a large swath of landscape would be destroyed, not 
because this material has any value to Resolution, but rather because 
it is more convenient and more profitable to use block caving.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    .epsFigure 1. Relative volumes of copper, tailings and material 
above are deposit that would be disturbed due to block caving at the 
Resolution Mine. US Capitol is shown for scale.

                     background and qualifications
    I am a Registered Geologist and I have been a practicing 
environmental geologist for nearly 30 years. My Bachelor's Degree is 
from Dartmouth College and my Masters' and PhD degrees are from the 
University of Washington in Seattle, all in Geological Sciences. For 
the last 7 years, I have advised the San Carlos Apache Tribe on 
environmental and water resource matters related to the proposed 
Resolution Copper Mine, as well as other matters.
    At the invitation of the US Forest Service, I served on the 
Groundwater Modeling Workgroup which advised Tonto National Forest on 
its preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), 
using complex groundwater modeling methods to predict water and 
ecosystem impacts from the proposed mine. The working group consisted 
of Forest Service and Resolution Copper personnel, as well as 
professionals from stakeholder agencies such as US Environmental 
Protection Agency, US Geological Survey, Arizona Game and Fish, and 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Also, at the invitation of 
Tonto National Forest, I was also a member of the Resolution Copper 
Mine Water Resources Working Group which advised the Forest Service on 
its efforts to respond to public comments on the DEIS. For context, of 
roughly 30,000 comments submitted to the Forest Service on the DEIS 
during the public comment period, approximately 20% of the substantive 
comments related to water resources or water quality, demonstrating the 
public's deep concern about this issue.
    The EIS prepared by Tonto National Forest identifies a number of 
profound environmental impacts from this project that cannot be 
mitigated. The scale of this project is hard to fathom and 
unfortunately the Forest Service fell short of its obligation under 
NEPA to take a hard look and ensure scientific integrity in its 
evaluation of these environmental impacts.
  mine would create massive new water demand in desert region already 
                      experiencing water shortages
    The mine will consume enough water to supply a city of 140,000 
people every year for 50 years. This is a vast new water demand for an 
area of the southwest that is already experiencing water shortages. 
Resolution's water use could be much higher than they are disclosing. 
The current estimate (accepted at face value by the Forest Service) 
promises that this mine will use about 1/3 of the average water (per 
ton of ore) as existing copper mines in the United States. This highly 
optimistic estimate is largely based on Resolution's assurances that it 
can implement significant and unproven water-saving procedures in its 
ore processing and tailings handling operation.
    Even if one accepts Resolution's highly optimistic estimate for 
water usage, the mine will use about 775,000 acre feet of water over 
the life of the mine,\1\ of which approximately 70% will be pumped from 
a large network of new extraction wells in the East Salt River Valley. 
775,000 acre feet equals 250 billion gallons of water. It is hard to 
visualize the immensity of this amount of water. A football field 
covers about one acre, so if the water Resolution plans to use was 
stored in a tank the dimensions of a football field, such a tank would 
need to be 147 miles high to accommodate all the water. The Salt River 
upstream of Phoenix is about 100 feet wide and 5 feet deep. For a river 
the size of the Salt River to hold the amount of water required by this 
mine, it would need to be more than 12,000 miles long, extending 
halfway around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FEIS, Appendix H, Table H-3. This is the volume of water 
estimated to be needed over the life of the mine for TSF Alternative 6, 
Skunk Camp, which is the Forest Service's preferred alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona does not have enough water to accommodate this large new 
demand. Resolution's proposed Desert Wellfield is in the Phoenix Active 
Management Area (AMA) and is just north of the Pinal AMA. Active 
Management Areas were created by the state to better manage aquifers in 
parts of the state that were experiencing depleted groundwater 
resources. In an October 2019 study of the Pinal AMA, Arizona 
Department of Water Resources (ADWR) identified a future unmet demand 
of 8.1 million acre-feet.\2\ Tens of thousands of people in Pinal 
County rely on groundwater for their water supply and already, private 
wells are drying up.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2019 Pinal Model and 
100-Year Assured Water Supply Projection Technical Memorandum.
    \3\ ABC15 News, Private Wells Running Dry in Pinal County, Oct. 24, 
2019; https://www.abc15.com/news/region-central-southern-az/private-
wells-running-dry-in-pinal-county.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is simply not enough water to go around. In the Phoenix AMA, 
there are many municipalities and commercial operations that rely on 
groundwater from the very same basin that Resolution will be pumping 
from, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, 
Apache Junction and other towns. Arizona's goal for the Phoenix AMA is 
to achieve safe yield by 2025. For a groundwater basin, ``safe yield'' 
means achieving a long-term balance between the annual amount of 
groundwater withdrawn and the annual amount of recharge, thus avoiding 
depletion of the aquifer. Even without Resolution's pumping, the 
Phoenix AMA has not achieved safe yield and cannot meet the 2025 goal. 
In its latest study, the Arizona Department of Water Resources 
predicted demand to exceed supply into the foreseeable future for this 
basin and also predicted irreversible loss of aquifer capacity due to 
overpumping.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2010, Modeling Report 
#22, A Salt River Valley Groundwater Flow Model Application. 100-Year 
Predictive Scenarios Used for the Determination of Physical 
Availability in the Phoenix Active Management Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Arizona State Land Department has determined that Resolution's 
groundwater withdrawals in the East Salt River Valley would cause a 
loss development potential for 3,440 acres of State Trust Land in the 
Superstition Vistas Planning Area, representing a ``minimum potential 
loss to the Trust of at least $536,640,000 in revenue.'' \5\ The reason 
for these profound losses is that other entities wishing to use 
groundwater in the Phoenix AMA must demonstrate a 100-year Assured 
Water Supply in order to secure project approval. After Resolution 
takes all the groundwater it needs, there is less groundwater in 
storage for other potential users. By green-lighting this mine, the 
people of Arizona are embarking on an uncontrolled experiment on social 
priorities pitting the state's agricultural, municipal and tribal 
interests against those of a multinational mining company and the 
mining company is winning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Arizona State Land Department, November 7, 2019 Letter to Neil 
Bosworth, Tonto National Forest. (Reproduced on p. R-43 of FEIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          rush to finalize the environmental impact statement
    The FEIS was published on January 15, 2021, but Tonto National 
Forest later withdrew it on a temporary basis on March 1, 2021. The 
Forest Service chose to focus the EIS on evaluating different locations 
for the waste tailings. Considering this focus, it was surprising that 
the DEIS was issued without a competent evaluation of the geotechnical 
suitability and water quality impacts of Skunk Camp, the preferred 
Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) site. To make up for these omissions, 
Resolution embarked on substantial field investigations and computer 
modeling efforts, generating a large body of new information after the 
Forest Service issued the DEIS. This new information consisted of at 
least a dozen new studies and reports totaling thousands of pages that 
are relevant to environmental concerns. In particular, there is 
substantial new groundwater modeling work to evaluate the cumulative 
impacts to groundwater resources in the East Salt River Valley, site of 
the proposed Desert Wellfield where much of the water required by the 
mine would be pumped. Additionally, voluminous new studies of water 
quality impacts from the Skunk Camp TSF and a brand new assessment of 
possible surface water discharges from the mine operations under 
Resolution's AZDEPES permit have been prepared. All of this information 
was developed after publication of the DEIS, was not subject to public 
review or comment, and was not adequately analyzed by Tonto National 
Forest to determine whether this new information could impact the 
preferred alternatives or mitigation measures set forth by Tonto 
National Forest in its FEIS.
    Computer modeling in the EIS acknowledges that cumulative effects 
of Resolution's pumping along with other known demands in the East Salt 
River Valley are likely to result in a drop in groundwater levels of 
approximately 450 feet in parts of the Phoenix AMA. The computer 
modeling did not include any of the water demands resulting from future 
development in the Superstition Vistas Planning Area. This outcome 
would be profoundly contrary to the long-stated goal of the state to 
achieve safe yield in this groundwater basin. There is no serious 
analysis in the FEIS of potential mitigation measures from this impact 
on the state's water resources. Instead, the Forest Service noted that 
the state was likely required to grant Resolution a permit to withdraw 
groundwater for mineral extraction, as this is a non-discretionary 
permit under Arizona law provided certain conditions are met.\6\ The 
EIS further stated that ``By definition, Resolution Copper's legally 
permitted use of water adheres to the norms and values placed on water 
by the State of Arizona.'' This is hardly the ``hard look'' at 
environmental impacts that is required under NEPA. Arguably, it is not 
adhering to the values of the State of Arizona to greenlight a project 
that is guaranteed to deplete scarce groundwater resources in the East 
Salt River Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FEIS, p. 971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the failure to analyze cumulative impacts to water 
resources, Section 3003 of the FY15 NDAA created special requirements 
for the environmental review of this project. Specifically, it called 
for a single environmental impact statement and it required the USDA 
Secretary to engage in a collaborative process with affected Indian 
tribes to ``(i) address the concerns of the affected Indian tribes and 
(ii) minimize the adverse effects on the affected Indian tribes 
resulting from mining and related activities.'' \7\ Considering that 
the end result of this process would be the ``eradication'' of sacred 
springs and destruction of Oak Flat, it is legitimate to say that this 
requirement of Section 3003 has not been met. To fully comply with NEPA 
and the special requirements imposed in Section 3003 of the NDAA, the 
current EIS for this project needs to be withdrawn and the EIS process 
needs to start anew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ NDAA, Section 3003, (c)(3)(A) and (c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without the Save Oak Flat Act, the Land Exchange will take place 
and Resolution Mine will be built. Some of the irreversible impacts 
from this project are summarized below.
                 cumulative impacts on water resources
    Resolution Copper Mine will obviously require a vast amount of 
water in a desert region that is already experiencing water shortages. 
Arizona water law grants exceptional leeway to mines, which are 
essentially unregulated water users. As such, Resolution Copper may be 
entitled to develop a virtually unlimited number of wells and pump an 
unlimited amount of water from the East Salt River Valley. The Forest 
Service's preferred alternative TSF locating the tailings dump at Skunk 
Camp calls for pumping about 775,000 acre-feet of water over the life 
of the mine \8\ (of which 540,000 acre-feet would be from the Desert 
Wellfield and the remainder would mostly be supplied from dewatering of 
the mine site itself). The water proposed for withdrawal from the 
Desert Wellfield is a substantial amount of pumping, representing about 
6.7 percent of the total available groundwater in the East Salt River 
valley subbasin.\9\ The EIS analysis of past, present and reasonably 
foreseeable future regional water impacts is inadequate. In some ways, 
disclosures in the FEIS are even less informative than the DEIS. In the 
DEIS, the Forest Service acknowledged that ``groundwater demand is 
substantial and growing'' and ``total demand on the groundwater 
resources in the East Salt River Valley is substantial and could be 
greater than the estimated amount of physically available groundwater'' 
(DEIS, p. 342). These sober assessments inexplicably do not appear in 
the FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FEIS, p. 48.
    \9\ FEIS, p. 418.

    As shown on Figure 2, the Forest Service's own research shows that 
Arizona has experienced moisture deficits even when averaged over the 
last 100 years. Colorado and other parts of the desert Southwest remain 
in an almost perpetual drought. A 2017 Report to Congress noted that 
the Colorado River, source of critical water supplies to Arizona via 
the Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'', has experienced lower-than-
normal flows for the past 16 years, with some of the lowest annual 
flows in 900 years. The Report to Congress also noted that recent 
studies on the effects of climate change suggest that ``a transition to 
a more arid average climate in the American West'' may be under way. 
Likely consequences of climate change include higher temperatures in 
the West, higher evapotranspiration, reduced precipitation, and 
decreased spring runoff.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Congressional Research Office, November 9, 2017, Drought in 
the United States: Causes and Current Understanding, pp. 14-15.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    .epsFigure 2. USDA 100-year moisture index, showing much of Arizona 
has a moisture deficit, even when averaged over 100 years. Source, 
USDA, 2012, Forest Health Monitoring: National Status, Trends and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis.

    The FEIS fails to evaluate ``reasonably foreseeable future'' 
Colorado River shortages and cuts, as well as the events that will be 
triggered under the Drought Contingency Plan once the inevitable 
shortages occur. It also fails to look at the project's impact on 
regional water resources when combined with these shortages.
                      regional groundwater impacts
    Resolution's own assessment acknowledges that groundwater will be 
depleted by at least 10 feet (and in some places, more than 1,000 feet) 
over an area covering about 300 square miles. As shown on Figure 3, 
this is a consequence of dewatering at the mine site as well as massive 
amounts of pumping that will occur in the East Salt River Valley, about 
15 miles west of the mine. No one knows how long it will take for the 
aquifers to recover after the mine closes, but Resolution once 
estimated that it would take about 1,000 years. According to the Forest 
Service, ``Analysis of the economic value of the water used by 
Resolution Copper, the other beneficial uses to which water could be 
put, or extrapolation of economic harm to other entities due to 
Resolution Copper's legally permitted use of water, is outside the 
scope of analysis of this EIS.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ FEIS, p. 813.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    

    .epsFigure 3. Map showing predicted groundwater drawdown from mine 
dewatering and from the Desert Wellfield. Sources: Base Map: DEIS, 
Figure ES-2; Desert Wellfield drawdown contours redrawn from DEIS, 
Figure 3.7.1-2 (Desert Wellfield modeling analysis area and maximum 
modeled pumping impacts); Mine model contours redrawn from WSP, October 
31, 2018, Memo: Resolution Copper Groundwater Flow Model--Predictive 
Results, Figure 5 (Regional Groundwater Model Predicted Drawdown-
Proposed Action Post Closure (Year 200); Faults are redrawn from WSP, 
February 2019, Resolution Copper Groundwater Flow Report, Figure 2.1 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Regional Geology Map).

  land subsidence in east salt river valley due to groundwater pumping
    The Forest Service did not conduct an analysis in the DEIS of land 
subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal, claiming such 
analysis was not feasible. However, in the FEIS, there is an analysis 
of land subsidence, noting that ``drawdowns associated with the Desert 
Wellfield likely would result in subsidence of roughly 24 to 52 
inches.'' \12\ This information was not disclosed in the DEIS and was 
not subject to public review and comment. This newly quantified 
environmental impact is important because land subsidence due to 
groundwater pumping causes a permanent reduction in the storage 
capacity of an aquifer. This means that even after the drawdown 
recovers from Resolution's pumping, that portion of the aquifer in the 
East Salt River Valley will never hold as much groundwater again, thus 
constituting an unmitigable impact. Or, as admitted by the Forest 
Service, ``An important aspect of subsidence is that it is 
irreversible; once sediment layers collapse when dewatered, they remain 
collapsed even if water levels recover.'' \13\ As scientists and public 
officials know from other parts of the Salt River Basin as well as 
places like the Central Valley of California, land subsidence from 
groundwater pumping also causes harm to public infrastructure such as 
roads, pipelines and utility lines, as well as harming homes and other 
structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ FEIS, p. 412.
    \13\ FEIS, p. 412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     impacts to springs and streams
    The EIS acknowledges that ``Sacred springs would be eradicated by 
subsidence or construction of the tailings storage facility, and 
affected by groundwater drawdown.'' \14\ In the arid southwest, springs 
and perennial streams are extremely rare and constitute irreplaceable 
habitat. Use of groundwater that impacts springs and streams is 
contrary to Tonto National Forest's groundwater policy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ FEIS, p. 856.

        ``Groundwater shall be managed for the long-term protection and 
        enhancement of the Forest's streams, springs and seeps, and 
        associated riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Development and use 
        of groundwater for consumptive purposes shall be permitted only 
        if it can be demonstrated that such proposals will adequately 
        protect Forest resources.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Martin and Loomis, Keeping Our Streams Flowing: Tonto National 
Forest Groundwater Policy, in: Furniss, Clifton and Ronnenberg, eds., 
2007, Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest 
Service National Earth Science Conference, October 2004, PNW-GTR-689, 
USDA, Forest Service, Northwest Research Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     impacts from block cave mining
    Resolution chose to employ block cave mining because that's the 
cheapest way to mine this deep ore body. A consequence of this mining 
method is that reclamation or restoration is simply impossible: just a 
sturdy fence and maybe some ``no trespassing'' signs.
    Once mining commences, the formation of a subsidence crater becomes 
inevitable and unstoppable. Even Resolution Copper cannot stop this 
process once it has begun. Further, after the land surface collapses 
into Resolution's mine, creating the 1.8-mile wide subsidence crater, 
the Apache Leap Tuff Aquifer will be altered forever, irreversibly and 
permanently altering the region's water resources. This is the very 
definition of an irreparable harm. As stated in the FEIS, ``The deep 
groundwater system is being and would continue to be actively 
dewatered, and once block caving begins the Apache Leap Tuff would 
begin to dewater as well.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ FEIS, p. 369.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    .epsThe Apache Leap Tuff Aquifer is a critical source of water for 
springs and creeks, many of them sacred to Western Apaches. This 
permanent impact would not occur if alternative underground mining 
methods were employed, but the Forest Service did not conduct an 
adequate analysis of alternative mining methods largely because it 
accepted Resolution's assertion that any method other than block cave 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mining would be too expensive.

[[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    .epsThe EIS disclosed a number of profound impacts due to the 
collapse crater that cannot be mitigated, including to scarce water 
resources. By failing to conduct an acceptable and competent evaluation 
of project alternatives that could avoid the impacts caused by the 
collapse zone, the Forest Service is allowing one factor (cost of 
mining: i.e., Resolution's profitability) to outweigh all environmental 
and social factors combined.
       mitigation of impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems
    The FEIS concludes that the Resolution Copper Mine project will or 
is likely to deplete water supplies and harm or destroy the streams, 
springs, seeps and other water features in Oak Flat, Ga'an Canyon 
(Devil's Canyon), Mineral Creek and Queen Creek: ``Dewatering or direct 
disturbance would impact between 18 and 20 groundwater dependent 
ecosystems (GDEs), mostly sacred springs. While mitigation would 
replace water, impacts would remain to the natural setting of these 
places.'' \17\ The proposed mitigation for GDEs is inadequate. 
Mitigation plans are outlined in a September 2020 report.\18\ This 
report calls for replacing water flows in springs and creeks by pumping 
water from nearby wells (i.e., tapping groundwater from deeper in the 
aquifer), storing water in tanks and piping the water to the creek or 
stream or by constructing various water-collecting devices such as so-
called ``guzzlers,'' surface water capture systems or even trucking 
water in from alternative sources. Replacing a natural system with a 
manufactured facsimile of the system is not the intention of mitigation 
under NEPA. Just as it would not be permissible to replace the real 
Half Dome with a plaster model of Half Dome, it is not permissible to 
replace lost GDEs with artful but artificial copies of natural systems. 
It was not the intention of NEPA to replace nature with theme park-like 
imitations of nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ FEIS p. 156.
    \18\ Montgomery & Associates, 2020, ``Monitoring and Mitigation 
Plan for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and Water Wells.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The monitoring plan for GDEs is also inadequate because its 
discussion of triggers (i.e., occurrences or observations that would 
trigger mitigation activities) is vague and incomplete. The Montgomery 
Report \19\ reveals that Resolution has built in (and the Forest 
Service has bought into) any number of ways to avoid actually 
implementing mitigation measures for GDEs. In particular, the Plan 
explains that Resolution will somehow differentiate the impacts from 
its dewatering from other variables such as ``changes in weather and/or 
climate, impacts to the regional and/or local groundwater system from 
other human causes, landscape changes such as landslides and fires, 
natural succession of the GDE into a new presentation such as an 
increase in phreatophytic plants coincident with a reduction in spring 
flow rates, or other reasons not included in this document.'' Other 
than noting that Resolution will employ ``multiple lines of evidence'' 
there is no quantitative or qualitative discussion of how Resolution 
will accomplish this difficult task. Considering that most of the GDEs 
covered by the monitoring plan have already been identified as likely 
to be severely impacted by mine dewatering, Resolution's methodology 
for identifying impacts to GDEs is unworkable and is inadequate under 
NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Montgomery & Associates, 2020, ``Monitoring and Mitigation 
Plan for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and Water Wells.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                water quality impacts-acid rock drainage
    As noted in the DEIS, ``The deposit is associated with hydrothermal 
alteration and includes a strong pyrite ``halo'' in the upper areas of 
the deposit, containing up to 14 percent pyrite. This mineralization 
has ramifications for water quality, as sulfide-bearing minerals such 
as pyrite have the potential to interact with oxygen and cause water 
quality problems (acid rock drainage)''.\20\ Much of the mineralized 
halo (i.e., rocks with abundant sulfide minerals but a lower grade of 
copper) will not be mined out, rather it will become a permanent part 
of the collapse zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ FEIS p. 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FEIS makes the unsupported assumption that the mineralized, 
fractured rock in the collapse zone will not be in contact with oxygen, 
thus will not form acid rock drainage. This is a highly optimistic 
conclusion that defies common sense. As the collapse zone forms, the 
rock will dewater as it is transformed into a giant rubble heap, 
increasing its hydraulic conductivity many orders of magnitude. For the 
purposes of groundwater modeling, Resolution assumes that the hydraulic 
conductivity \21\ of rock in the cave zone will increase by as much as 
a factor of a million: ``Maximum hydraulic conductivity values were 
altered by a multiplier of 1E+6 or to a hydraulic conductivity of 100 
ft/day, whichever occurs first . . . The maximum hydraulic conductivity 
value of 100 ft/day was selected because it is much higher than the 
natural, un-altered bedrock, but higher values caused the model to 
become unstable.'' \22\ This statement highlights another deficiency of 
the groundwater model: hydraulic conductivity of rock in the collapse 
zone was arbitrarily limited to 100 ft/day because the model would 
crash if higher (i.e., more realistic) values were used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of how groundwater flows 
through an aquifer. This, in turn, affects the groundwater velocity 
through the aquifer. Solid rock has a very low hydraulic conductivity; 
sandstone has a higher hydraulic conductivity and very coarse grained 
sediments like gravels have even higher hydraulic conductivity.
    \22\ WSP, February 2019, Resolution Copper Groundwater Flow Report, 
pp. 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atmospheric air will easily penetrate the dewatered fracture zone, 
supplying oxygen into a subsurface environment that has been devoid of 
oxygen for thousands if not millions of years. This assumption (no 
oxygen thus no acid-generating reactions in to collapse zone) is 
incorrect and understates the environmental risks from acid rock 
drainage within the mine and in ore stockpiles. This assumption is also 
broadly inconsistent with Resolution's treatment of potentially acid 
generating (PAG) material in the tailings. In the tailings, Resolution 
acknowledges that PAG needs to be submerged under a layer of water to 
prevent contact with oxygen and minimize acid rock drainage. However, 
in the collapse pit, no such protection will exist, yet Resolution 
somehow concludes (and the Forest Service believed it) that acid rock 
drainage will not occur.
        water quality impacts from the tailings storage facility
    The scale of this project is hard to grasp, but the volume of 
tailings produced by Resolution Copper would fill the Rose Bowl to its 
brim, not once but nearly 1,800 times. This vast volume of waste 
material will permanently disturb 16,000 acres of land of which nearly 
8,000 acres is Arizona State Land. The principal accomplishment of the 
EIS seems to be to propose a new location for the mine's 1.37 billion 
tons of tailings. Water quality impacts from the tailings is one of the 
most profound and concerning environmental issues for a mine of this 
size, yet there remains great uncertainty about the magnitude of water 
quality impacts from the TSF.
                      tailings dam risk of failure
    Tailings would be transported through about 20 miles of pipeline 
across sensitive habitat--including Ga'an Canyon--to the Skunk Camp TSP 
in Dripping Springs Wash, a tributary of the Gila River. Over the life 
of the mine, the TSF would grow to cover 3,995 acres \23\ of this 
watershed behind a 3 mile long earthen dam and tower as much as 500 
feet--about as high as the Washington Monument--above the natural land 
surface.\24\ A failure of the tailings dam would put downstream lives 
at risk and would undoubtably contaminate the Gila River. The magnitude 
of impacts from large tailings dam failures can be immense. The 
tailings dam at the Fundao Dam in Brazil was much smaller than the 
proposed Resolution dam (about 300 feet tall compared to 500 feet at 
Resolution; Resolution TSF will ultimately have nearly 20 times greater 
volume of tailings). The 2015 Fundao tailings dam failure killed 19 
people and contaminated hundreds of miles of the Doce River, eventually 
spewing a toxic plume of tailings into the Atlantic Ocean, more than 
400 miles downstream of the dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ The direct footprint of the TSF would be 3,995 acres however, 
according to the FEIS, a total of 8,647 acres would be off-limits to 
the public due to tailings operations.
    \24\ FEIS, p. ES-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             impacts to apache leap special management area
    There is a high degree of uncertainty in Resolution's subsidence 
predictions, but the public has been assured that the subsidence crater 
will not extend into the Apache Leap Special Management Area. True or 
not, it is certain that the subsidence zone will creep up the eastern 
slope of Apache Leap and profoundly degrade the quality of this 
theoretically protected place. In 75 years, if we could stand together 
on the crest of Apache Leap, instead of the world-class view across Oak 
Flat, we would see a massive pit of collapsed rock, just a couple 
hundred meters away, devoid of life and gradually filling with toxic 
mine water. Imagine standing on the stairs of the US Capitol and seeing 
nothing but a 1,000-foot deep rocky pit, starting at the Capitol 
reflecting pool, swallowing not only the Smithsonian Museums and the 
Washington Monument, but extending all the way to the Lincoln Memorial. 
That's how immense this subsidence crater will be.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                            .epsconclusions
    Passage of the Save Oak Flat Act, H.R. 1884, is critical to stop 
this project that promises big profits to multinational mining 
companies, while imposing irreversible harm to the people and 
environment of Arizona. This mining project will have long-term 
consequences to the groundwater resources in Arizona as a whole and the 
Phoenix AMA,in particular, and, in some cases, permanent consequences. 
By pumping 176 billion gallons of groundwater from the East Salt River 
Valley, this project would make Arizona's goal for stewardship of its 
scarce groundwater resources all the more unreachable. Considering the 
effects of ongoing drought conditions and likely reductions in 
deliveries of Colorado River water to Arizona via the CAP, it is nearly 
certain that the new demand from Resolution's pumping of groundwater 
from the East Salt River Valley will lead to water shortages among the 
many users of this groundwater basin. Even more certain is the 
irreversibility of Resolution Copper's impacts to Oak Flat and the 
Apache Leap Tuff Aquifer which will be destroyed forever by the 
subsidence crater: permanently altering the region's water resources, 
causing local streams and springs to be ``eradicated,'' \25\ many of 
which are sacred to Arizona Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ FEIS, p. 856.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. James Wells, PhD, Chief 
               Operating Officer, L. Everett & Associates
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. Your testimony quotes the FEIS that as a result of this 
project's groundwater pumping in the East Salt River Valley that the 
land there will actually subside 24 to 52 inches. Can you explain what 
this will mean for infrastructure in the area and the aquifer?

    Answer. Land subsidence is a permanent consequence of overpumping 
groundwater. Land subsidence occurs when water is pumped out of the 
aquifer and the now empty pore spaces collapse. This not only leads to 
land subsidence, but the storage capacity of the aquifer is permanently 
reduced. In other words, even if water becomes available in the future 
to recharge the depleted aquifer, it will never hold as much 
groundwater as before. The maximum land subsidence predicted in the 
FEIS is 52 inches, which is more than 4 feet. Imagine what would happen 
to your home if one corner dropped 4 feet. As we have already seen in 
parts of the East Salt River Valley as well as places like the Central 
Valley of California, land subsidence from overpumping can cause 
dangerous and expensive damage to private homes, as well as public 
infrastructure like roads and power lines. Even the Central Arizona 
Project (CAP) is at risk from the predicted subsidence, as Resolution's 
proposed Desert Wellfield is only a few miles from the CAP canal.

    Question 2. You note in your testimony that FEIS states that as a 
result of groundwater pumping for the mine and other known demands the 
groundwater levels will drop in some areas by 450 feet. What will this 
mean for the future of the people who live and work in this area?

    Answer. This is a very long term consequence reported in the FEIS 
of the cumulative effects of Resolution's groundwater withdrawals in 
the East Salt River Valley as well as all other known water demands. 
This is a profound finding because it lays bare the fact that the State 
of Arizona's goal of ``safe yield'' (dating back to 1980 with the 
creation of groundwater Active Management Areas or AMAs) is being 
undermined--in part--because of mining operations' free reign to take 
groundwater from otherwise highly managed aquifers. For a groundwater 
basin, ``safe yield'' means achieving a long-term balance between the 
annual amount of groundwater withdrawn and the annual amount of 
recharge, thus avoiding depletion of the aquifer. A predicted drop of 
450 feet in the East Salt River Valley aquifer is simply a stark 
indicator that Arizona is far off track in achieving its goal of safe 
yield. In practical terms, this finding means that folks with wells 
shallower than 450 feet will eventually see their wells dry up. Those 
who can afford it will drill deeper wells. Those who cannot afford it 
will probably need to move away, since a property without water is not 
habitable. In the very long term, this trend suggests that without 
better management, the aquifer in the East Salt River Valley will 
gradually dry out completely and all wells will dry out. Agriculture 
would probably not be feasible without a groundwater resource and 
municipal and industrial users would need to scramble to make up for 
this loss of groundwater.

    Question 3. According to the FEIS, the dewatering and ground 
pumping of the mine will result in impacts on at least 18 groundwater 
dependent ecosystems. Can you explain what this will mean in practice 
on the ground for local habitat? And can you talk about why the 
mitigation measures proposed are inadequate?

    Answer. One of the most important tasks of the groundwater modeling 
effort supporting the EIS was to assist Tonto National Forest (TNF) in 
evaluating future impacts to springs and perennial streams that support 
groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Many people were disappointed 
in the lack of precision in the TNF's analysis of impacts to GDEs in 
the EIS. Unfortunately, the computer model used to evaluate this issue 
does not quantitatively simulate groundwater-surface water 
interactions. Instead, it was decided that a finding of hydrogeological 
``impact'' would only be identified if the model predicted at least a 
10-foot drop in the groundwater elevation in the immediate vicinity of 
a GDE. As stated in the FEIS,

        ``Based on combined professional judgment, the Groundwater 
        Modeling Workgroup determined that to properly reflect the 
        level of uncertainty inherent in the modeling effort, results 
        less than 10 feet should not be disclosed or relied upon, as 
        these results are beyond the ability of the model to predict.'' 
        (FEIS, p. 375).

    In short, TNF acknowledged that its scientific methodology 
(groundwater modeling) had a limit of precision of plus or minus 10 
feet. TNF did not scientifically conclude that 10 feet or more of 
groundwater drawdown is needed to cause an impact on GDEs, this is just 
an arbitrary number based on limitations of the method of analysis, not 
some scientific principle. Indeed, common sense would suggest that if a 
spring is fed by shallow groundwater and someone caused the water table 
to drop 8 or 9 feet, the spring will probably dry out.
    A consequence of the modeling issues discussed is that TNF probably 
underestimated the magnitude of loss, they do acknowledge that these 
impacts represent an ``Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 
Resources,'' and that ``Sacred springs would be eradicated by 
subsidence or tailings storage facility construction and affected by 
groundwater drawdown.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FEIS, p. 790, emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my opinion, there are three main problems with the mitigation 
measures. First, it is not clear that Resolution will need to follow 
the mitigation measures once the land exchange occurs and much of the 
mine site becomes private property. Second, the mitigation measures do 
not protect or restore natural systems, they replace natural systems 
with artificial water features. TNF acknowledged this problem in the 
EIS: ``Although mitigation would replace water, impacts would remain to 
the natural setting of these places.'' (p. ES-27).
    Finally, the monitoring plan for GDEs is also inadequate because it 
incorporates vague and incomplete triggers (i.e., occurrences or 
observations that would trigger implementation of mitigation 
activities) which provide Resolution with ways to avoid mitigation even 
if springs do start drying out. In particular, the mitigation plan 
explains that Resolution will somehow differentiate the impacts from 
its dewatering from other variables such as ``changes in weather and/or 
climate, impacts to the regional and/or local groundwater system from 
other human causes, landscape changes such as landslides and fires, 
natural succession of the GDE into a new presentation such as an 
increase in phreatophytic plants coincident with a reduction in spring 
flow rates, or other reasons not included in this document.'' Other 
than noting that Resolution will employ ``multiple lines of evidence'' 
there is no substantive explanation of how Resolution will accomplish 
this difficult task. Considering that most of the GDEs covered by the 
monitoring plan have already been identified as likely to be severely 
impacted by mine dewatering, TNF's methodology for identifying impacts 
to GDEs is unworkable and is inadequate under NEPA.

    Question 4. The Resolution Copper Mine needs at least 775,000 acre 
feet of water in order to be able to slurry both ore concentrate X 
miles and the toxic waste X miles through pipelines that need to be 
built across parts of Tonto National Forest not in the land exchange 
and other lands. This toxic waste will be dumped into tailings waste 
storage facility that will ultimately cover nearly 4,000 acres and 
stand nearly 500 feet tall. Can you explain more about the possible 
water quality problems as a result of this massive toxic dump?

    Answer. The FEIS provides a brand new analysis of potential water 
quality impacts that was missing from the DEIS. Many people are 
surprised to learn that tailings storage facilities seldom contain 
liners, as would be required of a new municipal landfill. Thus, as 
rainwater soaks into the waste, picks up heavy metals and eventually 
reaches the bottom of the tailings. At this point, the contaminated 
water (or ``leachate'') infiltrates into the native ground and impacts 
the underlying groundwater. Since there is no liner to prevent 
infiltration of leachate, this is an expected consequence of the 
tailings facility. None of this new work was subject to public review 
or comment. The FEIS finds that significant groundwater contamination 
will occur at Skunk Camp even with a seepage retention pond and 
downgradient interceptor wells to capture contaminated groundwater. 
Eventually, the groundwater plume is predicted to extend all the way 
down Dripping Springs Wash to the Gila River, which is approximately 13 
miles from the proposed TSF.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
    Question 1. In your testimony, you write that Special legislative 
action was needed to make this project possible in the form of Section 
3003 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA). Are you aware that the 
2015 NDAA included a full lands package compromise that as you say 
received ``special treatment'' ?

    Answer. Other than Section 3003 which relates to Oak Flat, I do not 
have an opinion about other components of the NDAA for FY 2015.

    Question 2. Were you aware that for 5 years, from March 2009 to 
March 2014, Congress did not add a single new wilderness area--a 
stretch that included the entire 112th Congress, marking the first time 
a Congress had not created a wilderness area since passage of the 
Wilderness Act in 1964. And that the Southeast Arizona land exchange 
was part of a 169 pages of energy and public lands provisions that were 
tucked into the must-pass defense bill in 2014. A package that also 
created nearly 250,000 acres of wilderness in Colorado, Montana, 
Nevada, New Mexico and Washington state, and protected about 140 miles 
of rivers. It added or expanded more than a dozen national parks and 
put mineral development off limits on hundreds of thousands of acres of 
federal land. Were you aware of that?

    Answer. I am aware that Section 3003 of the FY 2015 NDAA was part 
of Title XXX of the Act which is described as ``Natural Resources 
Related General Provisions.''

    Question 3. Dr. Wells, it is my understanding that the FEIS, which 
you testified to extensive participation, is a reflection of a myriad 
of experts that analyzed all impacts and mitigations over a 7-year 
period. The Forest Service led this process and published a consensus 
view. What is the reason we should regard your dissenting opinion and 
ignore the extensive analysis that was done by dozens of experts and 
reflected in the FEIS?

    Answer. The data I discussed in my testimony comes from the FEIS. I 
am not aware of any participating hydrogeology experts who disagree 
with the descriptions in the FEIS of the general magnitude of the 
disclosed impacts, although there were robust discussions in the 
working groups about the accuracy and precision of future predictions. 
The issue I am helping to raise is whether these impacts are 
acceptable. Perhaps because of the unusual nature of the environmental 
review process mandated by Section 3003 of the FY 2015 NDAA, the FEIS 
does not address this question.
    I disagree with your premise that the FEIS represents a consensus 
view of all experts. It is true that TNF convened advisory groups of 
experts, including the two I participated in: the Groundwater Modeling 
Working Group (advising TNF on groundwater computer modeling matters 
during preparation of the DEIS) and the Water Resources Working Group 
(advising TNF on its responses to water-related public comments during 
preparation of the FEIS). This was laudable. However, TNF made final 
decisions about how to analyze impacts and how to disclose them in the 
EIS. There were numerous disagreements among working group members. For 
example, US EPA issued a memo to the Water Resources Working Group 
questioning the adequacy of the water quality analysis for the Skunk 
Camp tailings storage facility (TSF).
    Another example of an absence of consensus is the fact that TNF's 
own consultant, BGC Engineering USA, Inc., issued a report highly 
critical of the new Skunk Camp groundwater modeling effort (new work 
which was completed after publication of the DEIS) and those criticisms 
and suggestions were not addressed in the FEIS. Predictions of water 
quality impacts from new modeling efforts differ substantially from the 
information contained in the DEIS. TNF made the unusual decision of 
including both the old and new modeling results for Skunk Camp in the 
FEIS.\2\ These results are profoundly different from one another: the 
decision to include two incompatible analyses of the same phenomenon 
muddies the waters with respect to disclosure of impacts and is 
arguably impermissible under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``we chose to present the results of both the DEIS water 
quality model AND the FEIS water quality model, not solely the FEIS 
water quality model (which does show lower concentrations).'' Chris 
Garrett (SWCA), December 11, 2020 email to Water Resources Working 
Group. (SWCA is TNF's EIS consultant.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BGC review contains numerous criticisms of the model and 
suggestions for improvement. TNF did not incorporate the suggestions 
into the model or into the Final EIS. BGC also noted how different 
these modeling results are when compared to the earlier analysis 
disclosed in the DEIS. The DEIS determined that Resolution would only 
be able to ensure acceptable water quality at the Gila River if it was 
able to capture 90% of the contaminated groundwater seepage emanating 
from the Skunk Camp TSF (DEIS, p. 113). The new model finds that only 
24% of the TSF seepage needs to be captured to avoid water quality 
exceedances. This is a significant change in the analysis of impacts 
that was incorporated into the FEIS without the benefit of public 
review and comment and is an example of a finding in the EIS that did 
not reflect a consensus opinion among participating experts.
    One consequence of this situation is that the basis for comparing 
the alternative TSF sites for relative impacts to water quality has 
been compromised. Despite the TNF claim that the new Skunk Camp model 
can be used for comparison between the different TSF and mitigation 
alternatives,\3\ this is not the case. Predictions of the other TSF 
alternatives are still based on the earlier modeling efforts reported 
in the DEIS, which BGC has described as inferior to the new Skunk Camp 
analysis.\4\ As shown by the work at Skunk Camp, the new modeling 
effort gives vastly different results than the previous GoldSIM 
modeling. It appears that the methodology utilized in the DEIS was 
terribly inaccurate. Instead of applying the new methodology to all TSF 
alternative sites, TNF only updated Skunk Camp. This is a classic case 
of comparing apples to oranges. While the new modeling methodology is 
undoubtedly an improvement for the Skunk Camp analysis (although it 
could and should be further improved by responding to BGC's findings 
and EPA's comments), the water quality analyses for the other 
alternative TSF sites are unreliable. It would not be scientifically 
sound to compare the new Skunk Camp modeling results against the old 
modeling results (which used different methodologies) for the other TSF 
alternatives, thus we must conclude that the FEIS will be unable to 
reliably compare water quality impacts between alternative TSF sites. 
This in turn, leads to the conclusion that the FEIS will not be capable 
of justifying the selection of a preferred alternative, from the 
perspective of water quality impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Alternatives are `the heart of NEPA', and the analysis must 
allow us to compare those alternatives. So a third goal [of TSF water 
quality modeling] is to inform the decision-maker by comparing the 
outcomes from the different alternatives.'' (Chris Garrett, December 
11, 2020 email to Water Resources Working Group).
    \4\ ``GoldSim mass balance model [the methodology used in the DEIS] 
was improved upon through a numerical model utilizing Modflow-USG [the 
methodology developed after the DEIS] for Alternative 6--Skunk Camp'' 
(BGC, p. 10, emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another consequence of this situation is that Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) now lacks the information it needs to make 
a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification that the 
Resolution project will not cause exceedances of water quality 
objectives. For the TSF, this certification will rely solely on 
Montgomery/Resolution's criticized groundwater model. It is hard to see 
how ADEQ can make a reliable determination that quantitative, numerical 
water quality objectives will not be exceeded from a model that TNF 
itself has described as a ``screening level model'' and that ``model 
results should only be considered an estimate.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Chris Garrett (SWCA) December 11, 2020 email to Water Resources 
Working Group.

    Question 4. Dr. Wells, you site that the public comments received 
in the DEIS of 30,000, 20 percent were regarding water concerns (6,000 
comments). But the FEIS endeavored to address those concerns and after 
45 days of public comment received only 13 total objections. Does this 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
not reflect significant process in addressing concerns?

    Answer. To my knowledge, there was no public comment period for the 
FEIS. One of my concerns--shared by many other parties--is that 
substantial new information was included in the FEIS that had not been 
previously disclosed in the DEIS and the public was denied an 
opportunity to review and comment on this new information.

    Question 5. Dr Wells, you testify extensively to the impacts on 
water of this mine. The FEIS discloses that adequate groundwater exists 
for committed regional demands, including Resolution Copper's needs 
over the next 100 years. This was based on assessments by third-party 
water experts, with input from federal and state agencies. Can you 
explain why your view is so vastly different from so many independent 
water experts and federal and state agencies?

    Answer. The FEIS assumes that Resolution has a legal right to 
however much water it needs and finds that Resolution will be able to 
physically pump the water it needs before the East Salt River Valley 
aquifer goes totally dry. However, the FEIS is very clear that this is 
not a sustainable situation and the groundwater resource will be 
progressively depleted.
    In the DEIS, TNF acknowledged that ``groundwater demand is 
substantial and growing'' in the East Salt River Valley and ``total 
demand on the groundwater resources in the East Salt River Valley is 
substantial and could be greater than the estimated amount of 
physically available groundwater'' (DEIS, p. 342, emphasis added). 
These sober assessments inexplicably do not appear in the FEIS.

    Question 6. You also refer to issues raised by the Arizona State 
Land Department, but I have a copy of a letter from ASLD that states 
clearly that their views have been mischaracterized and they do not 
have unaddressed issues with the project. As a matter fact they signed 
the programmatic agreement as part of the FEIS and states clearly they 
would not do so if they felt they could not mitigate impacts to State 
Trust lands. Were you aware of this?

    Answer. My statement about the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) 
was an accurate summary of a November 7, 2019 comment letter from ASLD 
to TNF which is reproduced in Appendix R of the FEIS. The FEIS does not 
describe this as a withdrawn or resolved concern. I am not aware of a 
subsequent letter from ASLD withdrawing these comments.

    Question 7. You know the line about repeating a lie enough times 
people will believe it is true. Well, that is how I feel about this 
statement from Dr. Wells testimony. Your testimony asserts that the 
1872 Mining Law was written to encourage development of the West. But 
there is nothing in legislative history to indicate that. The purpose 
was to incentivize private investment in a highly risky endeavor to 
supply the growing Nation with the minerals needed without risking 
taxpayer dollars. The Law recognizes that economically viable mineral 
deposits are rare and hard to find. The ownership of the minerals 
discovered is the reward for taking the risk. Everyone benefited, the 
discoverer and society. Development of the West was a consequence of 
discovering minerals in the West, not the purpose of the Law, unlike 
The Homestead Act. It seems that we face some similar issues today 
where we need to encourage these risky investments to ensure we have 
security of supply and can advance the low carbon future. Would you not 
agree that it is an imperative today as it was when the 1872 Mining Law 
was enacted?

    Answer. As I stated in my testimony, the United States does need 
copper and other metals. However, we do not need to green-light every 
mining project if the cultural and environmental costs are too high, as 
they are for this project.

    Question 8. My understanding is that USDA has withdrawn the EIS to 
ensure that the consultation requirements were met. The additional 
requirements called for in the NDAA bill were separate and additive to 
the NEPA process to ensure consultation on the land exchange. Why would 
that require an EIS process starting anew after 7 years of consultation 
and analysis?

    Answer. My testimony was in support of H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat 
Act, which (if passed) would render the EIS moot. However, starting 
anew with the EIS process does not mean discarding all the data and 
analysis that have already been collected. It does mean (at minimum) 
conducting adequate tribal consultations; adequately collecting and 
analyzing new information to address the many areas not properly 
evaluated in the FEIS; and allowing public review and comment on the 
substantial new analyses that were conducted and data that was 
collected after issuance of the DEIS that are important components of 
the overall record and would assist the public in understanding TNF's 
assessment of alternatives and disclosure of impacts. In situations 
like this, it is customary to at least issue a Supplemental DEIS to 
allow for additional public review and comment. In particular, 40 CFR 
Sec. 1502.9 requires that agencies ``shall'' prepare supplements if 
``There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to 
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its 
impacts.'' TNF has an opportunity to accomplish these things now that 
USDA has withdrawn the FEIS.

    Question 9. Mr. Wells, as a water expert, you understand that solar 
production in desert areas requires significant water usage, in fact 
DOE estimates suggest that solar farms demand between 865 gallons per 
MWh and 1,057 gallons per MWh. Do you believe that large scale solar 
farms are a threat to groundwater resources in Arizona?

    Answer. A more accurate estimate of water use for photovoltaic 
solar farms is 20 gallons per MWh. For a 1 MW solar farm, this 
corresponds to about \1/2\ an acre foot of water per year which is 
thousands of times less water than would be used by Resolution Copper 
in a year. Regarding competing demands for a finite supply of water, I 
would say that all water demands--mining, solar farms, ecological, 
agricultural, municipal and commercial--must be understood, evaluated 
and allocated against the sustainable supply. I agree that hard choices 
are needed because this part of Arizona does not have enough 
groundwater to sustainably meet all of the competing demands.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Wells.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Mila Besich, the 
Mayor of the Town of Superior, Arizona.

   STATEMENT OF MILA BESICH, MAYOR, TOWN OF SUPERIOR, ARIZONA

    Ms. Besich. Good afternoon Chairman Grijalva, Ranking 
Member Westerman, Subcommittee Chair Leger Fernandez, Ranking 
Member Young, and members of the Committee. I am Mila Besich, 
Mayor of the Town of Superior, a small community located 60 
miles east of Phoenix, Arizona, and the closest community next 
to the Resolution Copper project.
    Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to 
tell you about my town and its history. Superior is a close-
knit community with a long and rich history in mining that 
dates back to 1875. The town evolved as a center for commerce 
serving the mining industry throughout Arizona.
    H.R. 1884, if passed, will be devastating for my community. 
The population of Superior is just over 3,000 residents and has 
grown by 8 percent since 2010. About 40 percent of the 
residents have lived in the town for more than 20 years, and 
there are a number of multi-generational families. The median 
age of residents is 45.4 years old, which is well above the 
state and national median age.
    We need to create job and business opportunities for our 
youth and working adults so that our community remains viable 
for generations to come. Many of the employed residents of 
Superior commute to jobs in Phoenix or other parts of the East 
Valley. Only about 15 percent of residents work in the local 
community because our business space and areas for business and 
commercial opportunities are land limited.
    Superior is located at the base of Apache Leap Mountain and 
is surrounded by the Tonto National Forest, which is the fifth 
largest National Forest, and we are in the Globe Ranger 
District on the Tonto, which is one of the most mined districts 
in the lower 48 states.
    The areas surrounding Superior offers a diversity of 
climate zones from desert vistas to mountainous areas with snow 
and waterfalls. This stunning natural landscape creates a 
perfect setting for world-class outdoor recreation. The 
combination of scenery, rich cultural experiences, and 
gastronomy make for our community to be lively and diverse.
    My family has been in this area for five generations. Many 
of my friends and neighbors in Superior have roots tracing back 
seven or eight generations. When I graduated from Superior High 
School in the 1990s, opportunities were limited, and, in fact, 
my formative years did not include any hint of bright days of a 
mining boom.
    As a community, we truly understand the booms, busts, and 
risks associated with mining. We have also learned how 
critically important it is to participate in these important 
permitting processes and follow up on all environmental 
regulations. Mining will always be part of our economic DNA.
    The Resolution Copper project presented a unique 
opportunity to help us build Superior's future and develop a 
diversified economy. We are a town with a mine. This includes 
working with the mining industry and government officials to 
ensure that an operational copper mine is a net positive for 
Superior, our region, and our state.
    Superior remained at the table and actively participated in 
the FEIS process. To start over would be counter to the best 
interest of the people of Superior. We strongly support the 
rights of our Apache neighbors, that their voices be heard. But 
what has been overlooked in recent media reports is that 
through the entire EIS process the Forest Service and 
interested parties have worked and consulted with the tribes.
    The EIS process was long and laborious, but it achieved 
exactly what was intended: An intense process that has taken 
all of the stakeholders' concerns and melded it into one 
document to address these diverse and divergent views.
    Superior needs jobs and private capital investment so we 
can continue to thrive. And while this may be an unintended 
consequence, it is real. H.R. 1884 will repeal the land 
exchange that was enacted by Congress in December 2014. The 
land exchange is mission critical to Superior's ability to 
attract housing and economic development opportunities. 
Enactment of H.R. 1884 will essentially deprive Superior of the 
ability to build a more diverse economy and prosperous future 
for our children, youth, and families.
    Chairman Grijalva, you have been a champion for Arizona, 
and your long tenure and honorable service to our great state 
are respected and appreciated. However, our town's future is 
highly dependent on this mine opening; therefore, we 
reluctantly oppose your bill and ask that Secretary Vilsack 
approve the FEIS in a timely fashion so that we can get our 
project back on track to protect Superior and the Copper 
Corridor region.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would like 
to invite you to visit Superior and the Copper Corridor. I am 
happy to address any comments or questions you or the members 
of the Committee might have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Besich follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Mayor Mila Besich, Town of Superior, Arizona
    Good afternoon Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, 
Subcommittee Chair Leger Fernandez, Ranking Member Young and members of 
the Committee. I am Mila Besich, Mayor of the Town of Superior, a small 
community located 60 miles east of Phoenix, Arizona.
    Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to tell you 
about my Town and its history. Superior is a close-knit community with 
a long and rich history in mining that dates back to the first mining 
claim in the region in 1875. The Town evolved as a center of commerce 
serving the mining industry in the Copper Corridor of southeastern 
Arizona. However, copper mining is a volatile industry that has gone 
through numerous boom and bust cycles since the 1870s, turning many 
former mining communities into ghost towns.
    The population of Superior is currently reported at 3,063 and has 
grown by about 8 percent since 2010. About 40 percent of the residents 
have lived in the town for more than 20 years and there are a number of 
multi-generational families. The median age of residents is 45.4 years 
and about 19 percent of residents are over the age of 65, which is 
slightly above the state average, but similar to Pinal County overall.
    Many of the employed residents of Superior commute to jobs in 
Phoenix or other parts of the East Valley. Only about 15 percent of 
residents work in the local community. However, tourism could create 
small business opportunities that would allow more residents to work 
closer to home and could provide second income opportunities for 
families.
    In Superior, we are proud to say that we're a town where mining is 
one of the major industries but not the only industry and thus the need 
to diversify our local communities with other economic opportunities. 
My Town is located at the base of Apache Leap Mountain in the high 
desert and is surrounded by the Tonto National Forest, which is the 
fifth largest national forest in the country covering close to 2.9 
million acres in northeastern Arizona, extending north from Superior to 
the Mogollon Rim. The area surrounding Superior offers a diversity of 
climate zones from desert vistas to mountainous areas with snow and 
waterfalls. This stunning natural landscape creates the perfect setting 
for tourism related to hiking, camping, birding, hunting and other 
outdoor activities. Three local segments of the Legends of Superior 
Trail (LOST) were recently completed making Superior an Arizona 
National Scenic Trail Gateway community. The combination of scenery, 
rich cultural experiences and gastronomy make for a lively and diverse 
town.
    My family has been in this area for five generations and my 
children are part of that fifth generation. They are seeing a new 
future of opportunity for Superior and for our Copper Corridor region. 
Many of my friends and neighbors in Superior have roots tracing back 
seven or eight generations. When I graduated from Superior High School 
in the 1990s, opportunities were extremely limited and, in fact, my 
formative years did not include any hint of the bright days of a mining 
boom. My family has been actively involved in community leadership 
throughout all our generations, and I have served as Mayor of Superior 
since 2016.
    For the past 20 years, leaders in Superior have been tasked with 
developing a diversified economy, but we would be remiss to think that 
mining would not be part of this plan with rich copper reserves and a 
long history of mining, these rich copper ore deposits are not going to 
magically disappear and we must figure out solutions to how the these 
mines will work within our communities without our communities becoming 
solely reliant on the extraction industry. We have used the Resolution 
Copper project as a unique opportunity to help us build Superior's 
future. This includes working with the mining industry and the 
Resolution Copper EIS to ensure that the Resolution Copper Project is a 
net positive for Superior and our region. The Town of Superior has been 
actively involved in the FEIS process and to start over again is not in 
the best interest of the people of Superior and not fair to all of 
those stakeholders, including our Town, who will benefit greatly from 
this process and have actively participated in this arduous process.
    On March 1, 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture directed the 
Forest Service to withdraw the Notice of Availability and rescind the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and draft Record of 
Decision. This action has paused the many years of consultation by the 
Forest Service and the numerous stakeholders and the public--folks that 
participated and were at the table. We are hopeful that the 
Administration will move forward with the process and release the FEIS 
and Draft Record of Decision after consulting with all of the relevant 
stakeholders.
    In order to survive and grow, Superior needs jobs and private 
investment. This mine is critical to the economic viability of our Town 
and region. In short, we need this mine to open with the full 
permitting in place as soon as possible. And yes, we need it to be done 
in a way that preserves not only the economy of the region, but also 
respects the cultural and environmentally sensitivity of the region and 
the tribes. And while we strongly support the rights of our Apache 
neighbors' voices to be heard, the fact remains that Resolution Copper 
and the Forest Service, through the EIS process, have worked and 
consulted with the tribes throughout this process. The EIS process was 
a long and laborious but it achieved exactly what was intended: an 
intense process that has taken all of the stakeholders concerns and 
melded it into one document to address these diverse and divergent 
views.
    While we like to say that Superior is a town with a mine--and not a 
mining town--mining is in our DNA and the Resolution Copper mine will 
be a huge boost to our economy. More than half of the 600 workers on-
site will live within 40 miles of the mine. The mine is expected to 
support 3,700 direct and indirect jobs for Arizonans, creating 2,600 
jobs in Pinal County alone and adding an estimated $60 billion to the 
state's economy over the 60-year life of the mine. Resolution Copper 
will also be purchasing around $546 million per year in goods and 
services from local businesses.
    As the nation looks to build a clean energy future, where copper 
will be an essential building block, Arizona's Copper Corridor holds 
the equivalent of Yukon gold. Some of the richest and most accessible 
copper ore deposits are found here in eastern Pinal and southern Gila 
counties. Two of the three copper smelters left in the United States 
operate in our region. Mining is vital to the economy in this part of 
Arizona, and it can be done responsibly while protecting the 
environment and the beautiful landscape that we love and cherish.
    The land exchanged in the legislation that this bill will repeal 
will directly benefit Superior. For instance, we will obtain land south 
of the airport that will allow us to build new housing, retail and 
other development. This will allow us to provide housing for the 
expected doubling of our population because of this new mine and 
economic opportunities. Ironically, it will also prevent future mining 
claims in this area that several companies currently hold. Mr. 
Chairman, I'm sure this is something that you support.
    This new mine will also allow Superior to diversify our economy. We 
have plans to build a new multi-generational center and new business 
incubator with an emphasis on bringing new tech companies and jobs to 
the area. These can only be realized by the opportunities this new mine 
will present.
    Chairman Grijalva, you have been a champion for Arizona and your 
long tenure and service to our great state are appreciated. However, 
our Town's future is highly dependent on this mine opening. Therefore, 
we reluctantly oppose your bill and ask that Secretary Vilsack approve 
the FEIS in a timely fashion so we can get this project back on track 
and protect the future of Superior and the Copper Corridor region.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to 
address any comments or questions you or members of the Committee might 
have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Mila Besich, Mayor of the Town of 
                           Superior, Arizona
              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
    Question 1. How long has the NEPA process taken?

    Answer. The NEPA process to open a mine in America begins the day 
an extraction company determines it will need to access federal lands 
to construct its operations in order to mine the ore deposit. These 
extraction companies conduct years of study, data gathering and 
analysis before determining if it is feasible to begin the federal 
permitting process. That initial data is often used as a baseline for 
the NEPA requirements.
    Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) can vary in length depending 
on the magnitude of the project. For the Resolution Copper project, 
discussions on the permits required for the construction of the project 
on their property and the federal lands have been taking place for well 
over 20 years. The timeline for the actual EIS development began when 
Resolution Copper submitted its official mine plan of operations in 
2013. During this ensuing 8-year period, there have been countless 
public meetings and comment periods.

    Question 2. How many different changes has the mine project 
undergone--to both the scope and because of tribal and public input?

    Answer. During the 26-year history of the development timeline of 
the Resolution Copper Mine, there have been numerous changes. For 
instance, the location of the tailings sites has changed at least three 
times. As further study had been completed, there have been changes to 
where Resolution Copper will place the filtration plant and 
concentrator.
    As for public input, the project has evolved over the years to 
allow for access to Oak Flats for as long as possible. Early on, it was 
proposed that as soon as the lands were exchanged, the public would 
lose access to the Oak Flats Campground. At this point, it is planned 
that the public will have access to the Oak Flats Campground as long as 
it is determined to be safe.
    The tailings location is another example of public participation 
affecting the location of this one aspect of their footprint. When 
Resolution Copper no longer had the opportunity to pipe tailings to the 
then-shuttered Pinto Valley mine, they returned to the drawing board to 
find a different tailings location. The company studied its options and 
presented them to the Community Working Group (CWG). The CWG is 
comprised of local stakeholders that have worked together for years to 
study critical impacts of the mine, and then communicate their findings 
to the public as well as to the company. Resolution Copper funds a 
contracted facilitator to work with the CWG, and this has been very 
helpful given the complexity of the issues associated with a mining 
operation on the scale of this proposed mine.

    Question 3. Could you talk about some of the concessions made 
throughout the consultation process to mitigate the impacts of the 
mine?

    Answer. I can speak specifically for the Town of Superior. When the 
Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released, we 
quickly learned that the impacts to our Town infrastructure, 
socioeconomics, police and emergency services by Resolution Copper 
would cost the Town of Superior upwards of $1 million annually. The 
DEIS reported that the Resolution Copper project would only generate 
$350,000 in actual revenue to the Town. Clearly, just based solely on 
this economic data, we understood that the proposed project--without 
appropriate mitigations--would be a net negative for Superior. We 
utilized the comment period to address our concerns with the Forest 
Service and Resolution Copper. As a result of our focused advocacy, we 
were able to negotiate agreements to put measures into place that would 
mitigate the adverse impacts to our citizens and the Town's financial 
stability.
    The issues of water usage for the Resolution Copper Mine are very 
complex and involve the layered complexity of state and federal law, as 
well as the entrenched positions of key water rights owners. No water 
in the Southwest goes unclaimed and the mine will have to purchase most 
of their water on this open market. The market itself will regulate the 
availability of the water rights and the market will balance the 
competing interests. The physical availability of the water is a 
separate issue, and we and our water provider Arizona Water company 
have worked with Resolution Copper to develop mitigation measures to 
assure that groundwater in the desert well field area, that supplies 
the Town, remains available indefinitely.
    The effects of mine dewatering on Queen Creek exacerbate cumulative 
impacts caused by over 130 years of mining under the creek. Water that 
would normally flow down the creek seeps through the fractures caused 
by this mining activity and into old mine workings that eventually lead 
to the current workings. It is then pumped out to irrigate crops 
elsewhere, or for mine operations. Resolution Copper has contracted 
with the Town to study this problem and work to restore the Creek's 
natural flow. They have committed to provide baseline flows and to 
complete a hydrological study to determine how much water is lost to 
dewatering and to provide replacement water. In addition, they will 
place a conservation easement through the Town to restore the Creek. 
While this involves a small fraction of the water the mine will use 
over its life span, this impact is very important to the Town's 
survival and ability to maximize tourism as a part of a diversified 
economy.

    Question 4. Could you talk about the community investments that 
have been made in anticipation of the project?

    Answer. Resolution Copper has been a key community partner from 
their early days providing support to our local non-profits and the 
school district, as well as providing funds for strategic planning that 
allows the Town of Superior to diversify our local economy. In 2019, 
the Town of Superior, Superior Unified School District, Rebuild 
Superior Inc. and the Superior Chamber of Commerce signed multi-year 
funding agreements. These agreements invested private dollars from Rio 
Tinto (the parent company of Resolution Copper) into community and 
economic development programs, the Multi-Generational Center, education 
infrastructure for our school district and capacity-building funding 
for the Superior Chamber of Commerce and Rebuild Superior Inc. The 
Superior Chamber of Commerce and Rebuild Superior Inc. both provide 
important programs and services that advance the economic and community 
development for Superior.

    Question 5. As part of the land exchange legislation in 2014, the 
Town of Superior was authorized purchase some parcels of land. How 
would the inability to purchase these lands impact Superior?

    Answer. When the land exchange was proposed, a provision in the 
bill allowed the Town of Superior to purchase 546 acres of federal 
lands adjacent to our Town boundaries, which includes the reversionary 
rights to the Superior Municipal Airport and the Fairview Cemetery. 
This would at least double the amount of land available in Superior for 
possible future development, and some of the property is uniquely 
suited to the highest and best uses for the future of the community.
    The purchase of the reversionary right for our airport will mean 
that Superior will finally be able to legally subdivide the property 
and fully develop the airport and the airport contiguous properties. 
Superior desperately needs this land to be able to increase available 
lands for economic development and housing. Without the ability to 
purchase these lands, Superior will not be able to increase housing 
availability, create economic development and job opportunities, expand 
our industrial park or develop our airport.
    We are also under a tight time frame. At this time, we have less 
than 18 months left in our agreement with the Department of the 
Interior to purchase these lands before another mining company could 
start developing additional drill sites to explore for copper in this 
area. This proposed drilling plan is not in the best interest of the 
Town of Superior or the Boyce Thompson Arboretum. In fact, this other 
mining company will most likely begin its drilling for copper ore along 
the scenic and beautiful US 60, creating great harm to our budding 
visitor/tourism industry.

    Question 6. In your testimony you mention the Town of Superior is 
seeking to expand its recreational economy. Can you talk a bit about 
how Resolution Copper and recreational users interact now? Do you 
believe mining and recreation can co-exist into the future?

    Answer. I absolutely believe that mining and recreation can co-
exist and in a mutually beneficial manner. Over the past decade, 
Resolution Copper has helped to support key projects such as the 
development of the Legends of Superior Trails (LOST), which is the 
first gateway community connector trail to be constructed along the 
Arizona National Scenic Trail. We are proud of this accomplishment. 
Specifically, the Queen Creek Canyon segment of the LOST trail is 
located on Resolution Copper property. Access and use agreements have 
allowed residents and visitors to access this segment of trail and most 
recently it has become an important attraction to our downtown due to 
the proximity of the trail head to the heart of Superior.
    Resolution Copper has also developed additional agreements with the 
Queen Creek Climbers Coalition and REI to allow for bouldering and rock 
climbing on their property. The rock climbing in our region is world 
renowned and I am pleased the Resolution Copper has remained committed 
to allowing access. Their predecessor, Magma Copper, never tried to 
restrict access to these climbing locations or the Queen Creek trail, 
so there is precedence that these are important recreation areas.
    To help further develop our recreation economy, Resolution Copper 
has funded facilitation of many outdoor recreation groups that recreate 
in and around Superior on the Tonto National Forest. This group has 
been named the Recreation Users Group (RUG) and they have been meeting 
for the past 8 years to develop a planned system of trails within the 
Tonto National Forest that also connect into the local Superior LOST 
trail system. The RUG plan was approved by the multi-member group and 
submitted into the EIS. The plan would help to build upon the existing 
trails and roads and improve recreation access for both residents and 
visitors to the area.
    Furthermore, Resolution Copper has committed to replacing the Oak 
Flats Campground with a new modern campground with facilities at the 
Castleberry Ranch which is actually located in our Town's municipal 
boundaries. Resolution has committed to funding the construction of 
this campground, within 6 months of the Record of Decision being 
signed, as per our mitigation agreements. We urgently need this 
campground sooner rather than later. Recreational demand continues to 
grow in our area. In 2014, the Apache Stronghold organization was 
allowed to permanently set up their encampment at Oak Flats making it 
often difficult for those not associated with their organization to 
enjoy Oak Flats. Any further delay in settling this FEIS is affecting 
our ability to improve and increase outdoor recreation amenities to our 
community.

    Question 7. Have you or your staff had an opportunity to review the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement in detail, yes or no? Do you 
believe the outcome is thorough and should proceed? Have you been able 
to work with Resolution Copper to find solutions for issues outside of 
the EIS scope?

    Answer. Superior's Town Manager Todd Pryor read the Draft EIS in 
its entirety--all 1,400 pages--twice. After his study period, he 
prepared ``homework'' for our Town Council to reference the pages in 
the document where it was essential that our elected officials needed 
to review, provide input and fully understand the policy, economic and 
societal implications of the proposed operations. Working with our Town 
Manager and others, the Town Council not only developed positions and 
policies on the proposed mining operations and its impacts, we also 
hosted our own public meeting regarding our findings within the EIS 
seeking more public input. Through this study session, we then 
finalized our comment letter. We used this study session and comment 
letter to inform our local residents of the mitigations we were seeking 
to ameliorate or neutralize the adverse impacts of the proposed mine.
    We have read through the Final EIS to ensure our requests for 
mitigations were included and we have not found any discrepancy. The 
Town has not filed any objections to the FEIS. However, the Recreation 
Users Group and the Legends of Superior Trails Inc. did submit an 
objection that the miles of trails that would be constructed by 
Resolution Copper as mandated by the FEIS were significantly less than 
were proposed in the DEIS.

    Question 8. In your opinion what would it mean to your community 
and surrounding region if the Land Exchange were to be repealed, or if 
the FEIS is not re-published.

    Answer. If the Land Exchange were to be repealed or the FEIS not be 
re-published, it would be devastating for our community. Superior and 
its residents have been waiting for well over a decade for the 
opportunity to purchase this land in order to expand opportunities for 
housing, economic development and jobs, which at present are severely 
limited. Our mitigation agreements with Resolution Copper are staged to 
go into force at various points in time. For instance, when the Record 
of Decision is signed, Resolution Copper will fund the construction of 
the new Castleberry Campground and new trail system, which are vitally 
important community amenities. Further delays will create more hardship 
for the Town and for outdoor enthusiasts from Arizona and beyond who 
want to avail themselves of these facilities.
    If we cannot purchase our land exchange parcels, prior to our 
agreement with the Department of the Interior, expiring, there is a 
chance we will never be able to purchase these lands and Superior will 
be forced to have significant mining operations on our western 
boundary. Those operations will create far more damage to our community 
and aquifers, as those operations will likely need to be open pit 
mines. This is not in the best interests of Superior.
    Our Town leadership has been participating in this arduous and 
extensive process and if we were forced to start over, it would be a 
significant financial burden to the town. Our administrative staff 
consists of a Town Manager, Town Clerk, Finance Clerk and an 
Administrative Assistant. Actively participating in these permitting 
processes is part of our accountability to our residents; however, 
these protracted multi-year processes require an inordinate amount of 
time, resources and effort to effectively navigate through their 
complexities.


                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mayor Besich, for 
your witness testimony.
    We will now turn to questions from our Members. We will 
begin with Chairman Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. [inaudible] the Oak Flat transfer. More 
importantly, if tribal consultation had been codified at the 
time of Section 3003's insertion into the NDAA in 2015, could 
this land transfer have been prevented?
    And the other thing is, you briefly mentioned traditional 
cultural properties, and I would really like you to elaborate 
on those and explain their importance.
    And thank you, Madam President.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Chairman Grijalva, is that question 
directed to President Sharp? You were cut off at the beginning, 
I believe.
    Mr. Grijalva. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, it is. Thank you. Would 
you like me to repeat that?
    Ms. Sharp. Yes, please. I couldn't hear the beginning of 
the question. Thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. The issue of tribal consultation and the role 
that it would have played in the creation of legislation that 
mandated this land transfer in Oak Flat. If tribal consultation 
was codified at the time this section was inserted into the 
2015 National Defense Act, could the land transfer have been 
prevented?
    And then I think the point that you mentioned about 
traditional cultural properties, just to elaborate on that and 
explain their importance. With that, I turn it over to you, and 
sorry about the glitch there.
    Ms. Sharp. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I really appreciate 
that question.
    The issue of consultation for Tribal Nations, it is one 
that ensures that we have political equality with another 
sovereign, with our trustee, the United States. When we don't 
have consultation, we are vulnerable to another sovereign 
taking unilateral action against our lands, territories, and 
resources, not only without hearing our voice, but we think 
that we need to have consent in those relationships.
    None of that was accomplished here, and what it meant was 
this bill was passed without the knowledge, the wisdom, the 
timeless honored traditions of the San Carlos Apache people and 
was done unilaterally. So, the legislation itself was entirely 
void of any of that connection with the San Carlos Apache 
people.
    And to your point about tribal traditional, cultural 
properties, that too is an important point to mention, that not 
only is it important to recognize those areas where there is a 
geographical footprint, but there are traditions and there are 
connections to sacred sites and lands that can only be 
understood by consulting with Tribal Nations and in hearing 
from our perspective. These are things that you cannot find on 
the internet, study in a book, or any other environmental 
study. So, it is absolutely important that we be directly 
engaged and consulted with, and I appreciate the question.
    [Speaking native language]
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    Dr. Wells, if I may, your testimony mentions that you are 
part of a groundwater modeling work group for environmental 
review process. From your participation in this process, do you 
believe the citizens of nearby communities in Pinal County and 
others of the state should be concerned about the water 
scarcity if Resolution Copper moves forward, and if so, why?
    Dr. Wells. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. The 
answer is unreservedly, yes. Nearby communities need to be 
concerned about water scarcity, frankly, even without 
Resolution, and this only makes it worse.
    Another thing to keep in mind is the other major source of 
water for the state is the CAP, the Central Arizona Project, 
which brings in water from the Colorado River. And as a Member 
mentioned earlier, if the water levels in Lake Powell decline 
to a certain level, there will be automatic restrictions, which 
would result in very large reductions in Arizona's delivery of 
Colorado River water. And according to the Bureau of 
Reclamation's most recent estimates, there is almost a 50 
percent chance of that happening just in the next 2, 3, or 4 
years.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    And, President Lewis, it is good to see you. Can you talk 
about what it would mean--well, let me go to the other point 
that you made in your written testimony. You mentioned Rio 
Tinto's actions that destroyed Indigenous rock shelters in 
Australia, and I mentioned it as well. What has Rio Tinto's 
response been to that devastation at the gorge, and how does 
that parallel with Oak Flat?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Chairman Grijalva, given the technical 
difficulties, I will allow an extra 30 seconds for this. So, 
President Lewis?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewis. Like in the testimony, just the destruction of 
sacred sites, obviously they are irreplaceable, and I think 
that is what the main concern for tribes is. Once these sacred 
sites are lost, they cannot be brought back, they cannot be 
mitigated, they cannot be replaced.
    So, I think that is what we got the most out of looking at 
that other sacred site issue that happened over there, is that 
it is irreplaceable. And as we know, tribes are limited in 
their sacred sites, and that is what I feel about that.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva.
    Ranking Member Westerman is now with us and has asked that 
he be allowed to give his opening statement at this time. I 
will recognize Ranking Member Westerman for his opening 
statement, and then I will also recognize him to ask his 
questions at this time.
    Congressman Westerman, are you with us?
    If he is not here, I will now turn to Congressman Young.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the 
witnesses again. This is a very controversial issue, and I am 
always interested in the conflict. But to Mayor Besich, how 
long did it take? Do you think the NEPA analysis was rushed, or 
do you think it took some time?
    Ms. Besich. This has been an incredibly long process for 
everyone involved. Since the land exchange was approved, we 
have been in a permitting process for probably a decade, at 
least going through developing the draft EIS and coming to the 
final EIS that was released in January.
    Mr. Young. OK. Do you think the Forest Service did an 
adequate job?
    Ms. Besich. They did a more than adequate job. They were 
very thorough and provided all of the partners opportunities to 
consult and interact with them and the process.
    Mr. Young. Has Rio Tinto been asked about--instead of the 
cliff-type mining, about the possibility of undersurface 
mining? Has that been discussed at all in this consultation?
    Ms. Besich. I believe that Rio Tinto has suggested how they 
are planning on mining this ore body, but I am not aware of any 
other further consultations with the Forest Service and Rio 
Tinto.
    Mr. Young. OK. Because that is one thing that interests me. 
I understood the religious concept and the sacred ground, but I 
would wonder if there would be opposition, in fact, if it was 
underground mining, because this ore is quite deep, the way I 
understand it, and that is something we may consider.
    I am open minded on this. I was part of this program. I 
have gone through every hearing on it, and I want to listen to 
the author of the bill. But we keep talking about it, I talked 
with the President yesterday, about modern technology and it 
all includes copper, and if there is a way, I would just as 
soon make sure we can do it safely here, rather than buying it 
from Australia or some other country. So, I think we all ought 
to take that into consideration.
    And, Madam Chair, with that, I am going to yield back. I 
have another appointment. I will say I am sorry for Ranking 
Member Westerman. I don't know where he is. This Zoom stuff 
drives me crazy. But thank you, Madam Mayor. I was a mayor, 
hardest job I ever had, so I don't envy you.
    Ms. Besich. Thank you, Congressman.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Congressman Young.
    The Chair will now recognize Congressman Gallego for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Excellent. Can you hear me? Thank you.
    First question is for Mr. Wells. You, I think, describe 
what happens in case we have to go through a drought 
contingency where we fall to certain levels, which means that 
people will have to stop using water, farmers, some 
municipalities. Would the mine be exempt from that situation, 
let's say that if the state has to go through some type of 
drought contingency?
    Dr. Wells. Thank you, Congressman. I am just a geologist 
and not a lawyer, but I will tell you what I think. I think the 
answer is, the mine would be exempt from that because the 
drought contingency plan describes how water from the Colorado 
River would be allocated, and the mine would be pulling 
groundwater from the East Salt River Valley.
    So, it is my understanding that, yes, they would 
essentially be exempted from any water use reductions.
    Mr. Gallego. OK. We should probably get some clarification 
on that.
    President Lewis, back on water, your testimony pointed out 
the estimate that the proposed amount will deplete at least 
87,000 acre-feet of water in the Oak Flat area and pump more 
than .5 million acres from your groundwater from central 
Arizona. So, we know how this impacts obviously the valley 
where I am in central Phoenix, or south Phoenix, I should say. 
But how does this really impact Tribal Nations, which I think 
don't necessarily have as much of the water infrastructure that 
would be helpful when we are dealing with droughts?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, Congressman. Well, as we know, water is 
life. Obviously, if water were to be depleted from a 
reservation, obviously it takes away the life of the 
reservation. There are many tribes in Arizona. We are spread 
out. We have tribes on the Colorado River. We have tribes like 
San Carlos that are up in the mountains. We have desert tribes.
    So, water is very important to tribes, obviously. And I 
think the protection of water, especially in Arizona, has been 
seen through the drought contingency plan of tribes being at 
the table with all of those different things that are going on 
with this looking at this drought contingency plan in the 
future of what is going to happen.
    And I think that is what is most important to this with 
tribes. If they lose their water, obviously they lose their 
cultural resources, they lose things like that. So, that is 
really what is important. Water is life.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Congressman Gallego.
    The Chair would now recognize Mr. Obernolte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you 
very much for holding this hearing. I think this is an 
incredibly important topic, because when we consider the wide 
variety of land that is held by the Federal Government and the 
competing demands on that land, I think Congress exercises a 
really unique responsibility to recognize those competing 
interests.
    On the one hand, we have here the tribal interests, the 
sacred lands, the concern about resources like water; and on 
the other hand, we have the desire to have strategic minerals 
mined here in the United States, the recognition that that has 
to happen somewhere, and the jobs and the prosperity that that 
is going to bring to a very rural region of the country. So, I 
think this is very appropriate for us to be discussing this 
topic.
    I had a question for Mr. Lewis. Following up on the 
comments of Ranking Member Young, he was asking about whether 
or not there might be a compromise here, whether or not the 
areas of tribal significance could be avoided, whether or not 
different mining technologies could be used to extract that 
copper from one of the richest deposits of copper in the world.
    So, Mr. Lewis, is there some kind of compromise here that 
would preserve the aspects of this land that you are concerned 
about and yet still allow the copper to be extracted?
    Mr. Lewis. So, I think I can't fully answer that. I think 
the San Carlos Apache could better answer that question. 
Obviously, tribes aren't against mining, but with this type of 
mining and the potential destruction of the sacred sites and 
the depleting of water, I think that is more of a technical 
issue for the San Carlos Apache to be able to answer as far as 
mitigation. But at the end of the day, this type of mining 
would destroy sacred sites. So, I would probably refer that 
back to the San Carlos Apache, who actually live in the area.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. So, Ms. Sharp, same question to you. Is 
there a half a loaf here that can satisfy the desire to get 
access to these minerals on Federal land and yet still respect 
those tribal rights that I think we all very much appreciate?
    Ms. Sharp. I believe if the United States truly honored its 
trust and treaty obligations and understood what sacred sites 
and religious freedom meant to the rights of Indigenous 
peoples, it would be quite clear that the United States is not 
even in a position to ask that question and make that calculus.
    If a Tribal Nation says we have a sacred site, this is 
where we have an identity, the United States must honor that. 
It must honor the right of Indigenous people, to them 
practicing religious freedoms for millennia in a place that is 
not only essential to their spiritual health but their very 
core of their identity. It is wrong to even ask that question, 
to make a calculus.
    It would be like saying, if there was a copper mine 
discovered underneath the Vatican, would it be OK to desecrate 
the Vatican to access rich resources? I think the answer would 
be no.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. I think I am--Ms. Sharp?
    Ms. Sharp. Hello? You cut out at the beginning of that, and 
I couldn't hear the question. You are buffering.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. Let me state it again. I think I 
understand the point that you are making. Forgive my ignorance 
here though, is the entire site a sacred site or just portions 
of it?
    Ms. Sharp. I couldn't answer that definitively. I know that 
there are sacred sites in that space. I have seen a map of it. 
It is quite a large footprint. And I would imagine that whole 
area, just like in our area here at Quinault, we have sacred 
sites in certain places.
    But there is a geographical area that represents our 
ancestral homelands, and accessing it and being able to not 
only practice in certain spaces but the ability to access those 
entails a whole geographical area. And I just couldn't speak 
directly to that, about how encompassing that is for the San 
Carlos Apache people to not only practice their religious 
freedoms but to access it.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Well, thank you. I will yield 
back. Let me just say that, like the Ranking Member, I am 
hopeful that maybe there is a compromise that can respect the 
rights that I think we all want to respect and still allow 
Federal land to be used for a purpose that I think benefits----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Obernolte, you are buffering. I 
want to see if we can hear your statement. Can you hold on just 
a second because I would like to hear your statement, but you 
seem to be cutting out.
    Mr. Obernolte, I will give you time to complete your 
statement because you did cut out, and I believe you were 
trying to make an important closing to your questioning. I will 
give you time to do that right now.
    Mr. Obernolte. We are having mutual technical difficulties 
here. But I just want to reiterate what the Ranking Member was 
talking about--about perhaps finding a compromise here that 
respected both tribal rights and the vested public interest in 
extracting a strategic mineral from within the Continental 
United States.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Obernolte.
    The Chair will now recognize Congresswoman McCollum.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to make an 
observation. We have talked a lot about mining, but there is 
another way we can mine and it is recycling. And we do know 
that people will go through abandoned buildings or homes that 
are left unoccupied, businesses to strip the copper out.
    So, it is valuable, and we should be looking at doing more 
as a government for recycling these precious minerals and 
reusing and reducing the amount of disruption we do to our 
environment.
    Water has been discussed. Water has great value. As several 
people have pointed out, you can't live without the essence of 
water; yet, we don't place a dollar value on it, and because it 
doesn't have a dollar value it goes up against things that do 
have dollar values.
    So, with that, Madam Chair, I do have something I would 
like to ask President Lewis. I want to thank you for your 
testimony on behalf of fellow tribal leaders in Arizona. You 
shared some very powerful words about the value of the sacred 
Oak Flat area to the Western Apache people. This was their 
land, and this still is your land, and I would like to 
highlight one part of your testimony because I think it is 
incredibly important.
    When I served as a state legislator in Minnesota, I worked 
in the general legislative committee, and we dealt a lot with 
cemetery laws and places where there were burials and sacred 
sites and that. We did everything in our power to respect that, 
and so I bring that value and that ethic with me here.
    But, sir, you stated in your testimony, and it was very 
moving, and I quote from it, ``It will leave a stain on who we 
are as Americans since we would be exchanging the religious 
freedoms of tribal people for a promise of jobs and profit 
offered by a foreign mining interest.'' And I couldn't agree 
with you more.
    But for those who might like some more education and 
understanding of tribal tradition and religion, could you maybe 
talk a little more about the precedent that this would be 
setting to exchange Federal land that is currently protected, a 
known traditional, cultural property to a foreign--and I want 
to stress this--to a foreign mining company whose activities 
will destroy this sacred site. Mr. Lewis, could you tell us 
some more of what you would like us to know?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for those words.
    What I know about tribes in Arizona, there are 22 tribes in 
Arizona. Each one of them has its own beliefs. Each one of them 
has its own sacred rituals, all the way down to, like you 
mentioned, burial rituals.
    So, I don't want to speak for how another tribe does it, 
but every tribe has its own unique way of doing things. And 
what is important to know in this case is that if something is 
lost, like a sacred site or a burial site, for instance, here 
in San Carlos, once it is gone, it is gone forever. There is no 
way of bringing it back or mitigating it or doing anything to 
right that wrong. And I think that is what is important here 
and what we are trying to get across is once that is gone, you 
can't bring it back.
    And as far as San Carlos is obviously being against the 
mine, you could probably--I don't want to speak for them, I 
don't want to say exactly what it means to them.
    Ms. McCollum. I appreciate that. Thank you for that.
    I just want to refresh everybody. There was a great vocal 
opposition to this, and the Southeast Land Exchange was pushed 
through in a last-minute rider on the Fiscal Year 2015 NDAA, a 
defense bill, without allowing a vote in the House or the 
Senate. So, we have never had a clear vote on this. We have 
never been given that opportunity. And I remember the shock and 
anger I felt by the use of that tactic was outrageous, and I 
also remember rallying with you, Chairman Grijalva, as tribal 
leaders and Native youth came to our Capitol lawn that summer, 
and I said I would stand with them.
    So, Madam Chair, I am so glad you are having this hearing 
today, and I thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much.
    The Chair will now recognize Congressman Rosendale for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the hearing 
today. And, Chair Grijalva, please accept my condolences for 
you and your staff. Thank you very much to the panel also, the 
entire panel, for joining us today.
    As you may know, Montana is a leader of copper production, 
with copper being the second most produced mineral in Montana. 
It accounts for a significant percentage of the state's GDP. In 
2020, the United States saw a decrease in copper production by 
5 percent, and the United States imported 50 percent of its 
nonfuel mineral commodities.
    I find these statistics deeply troubling as we enter an era 
marked by innovation and global competition for 
telecommunications, electronics, and renewable energy 
technologies. The United States is the safest, most 
environmentally friendly country for mineral production. We 
have regulations in place to ensure stringent environmental 
standards are met, and much greater protections for our workers 
than anyplace else. U.S. mineral import dependence and the 
concentration of mineral supply from certain countries is a 
growing threat to economic growth, competitiveness, and 
national security.
    All that being said, Mayor Besich, could you please talk 
about the community investments that have been made in 
anticipation of this project?
    Ms. Besich. Thank you, Representative Rosendale.
    Resolution Copper has been making significant investments. 
Prior to the draft EIS coming out, we developed several 
agreements, one for education where they fund our schools in a 
5-year increment for $300,000. We have a multi-generational 
center agreement, which is helping us to recession-proof our 
community services, such as our senior center, library, and, in 
addition to our multi-gen center, we will also add an 
entrepreneurial and innovation center, which will grow and help 
support future entrepreneurs and existing entrepreneurs in our 
community.
    They have also funded our Chamber of Commerce to help us 
with promoting Superior and helping our existing business 
community grow, and also rebuild Superior, where we have been 
working on housing redevelopment, and really making sure that 
Superior is ready to support this monolithic mining operation.
    Mr. Rosendale. Excellent, excellent.
    What impact would this legislation and the repeal of this 
land exchange have on your community?
    Ms. Besich. We are very concerned if the land exchange is 
repealed because our opportunity for growth and economic 
diversification is tied to this land exchange. The Town of 
Superior will be able to purchase 546 acres of Federal Forest 
Service land, so we can develop additional housing and 
commercial and business opportunities. If this land exchange is 
further delayed and/or rescinded, we have to start at the 
drawing board. This has been an incredibly arduous process for 
the Town of Superior to actively participate. So, it would be 
devastating for us to start all over again.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, clearly, you wouldn't have the resources 
available to continue this work for your education, to take 
care of your seniors, and to develop this housing for your 
housing needs?
    Ms. Besich. Absolutely not. This would really set us back 
probably two decades at this point if we had to start all over 
again.
    Mr. Rosendale. And, finally, as part of the land exchange 
legislation in 2014, the Town of Superior was authorized to 
purchase some parcels of land. How would the inability to 
purchase those lands impact Superior?
    Ms. Besich. Quite frankly, we will not be able to grow or 
expand. We are already in a pinch for needing affordable 
housing and additional business opportunity. Without this land, 
Superior will be held in a holding pattern probably 
indefinitely.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. Thank you so much for your testimony 
today.
    Madam Chair, I would yield back my time. Thank you.
    Ms. Besich. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale.
    The Chair will now recognize Representative Lowenthal for 5 
minutes.
    It appears Mr. Lowenthal is not with us right now, so the 
Chair will now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, and, 
of course, to all of the witnesses that we have heard from.
    Last year, I met with a young girl named Vanessa from the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe. She talked about the importance of Oak 
Flat and what the sacred site means in a young woman's coming-
of-age ceremony. And now Oak Flat, a sacred site to many Tribal 
Nations for the past 1,500 years, is at risk of being destroyed 
for a mining operation. It may not be our religion, but to 
Vanessa's family, the death of the lands is the death of their 
daughter, who will be unable to become one with the earth.
    Plain and simple, this is a violation of the sanctity of 
ancestral lands of Indigenous peoples. You destroy it, and it 
is gone forever.
    A question for President Lewis, thank you for your 
testimony and for joining us today. You state in your testimony 
that moving forward with this project would also leave a stain 
on who we are as Americans, since we would be exchanging the 
religious freedoms of tribal people for a promise of jobs and 
profit offered by foreign mining interests.
    Can you talk about the precedent of exchanging a known 
traditional cultural property to foreign mining companies who 
will destroy it, that this would establish here in our country?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Garcia.
    Again, looking at the impact that this would have on tribes 
as setting a precedent would be the impact of destroying of a 
sacred site. As we know, and I think you made your statement 
earlier, that the destruction of a sacred site is 
irreplaceable. And to tribes, I think I agree with you, the 
importance of that may be more important to the tribes than 
people that aren't familiar, but the destruction of a sacred 
site, and the irreplaceable act of doing that is what is 
probably the most important thing to the tribes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, President Lewis.
    You mentioned the destruction of 46,000-year-old Indigenous 
rock shelters in Australia. What has been Rio Tinto's response 
to that devastation of Juukan Gorge? And how does this parallel 
Oak Flat?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to be totally familiar of how that exchange 
went, but the irreplaceable sacred site is, I think, what is 
most important. And to think that you can replace a sacred site 
with jobs or money, that is not acceptable to Tribal Nations.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
    In closing, I would just ask my colleagues, if Oak Flat 
were a Christian holy site, would we even be having this 
discussion? As we consider the harmful impacts of bulldozing 
through and desecrating sacred sites, let us not forget that 
this is ultimately about profits. The poorly vetted proposal 
from Resolution Copper, a joint venture run by foreign mining 
companies, will come at a great cost to the communities closest 
hit, all of which was done with little consultation with 
tribes, and all of which is happening because of the midnight 
rider that is giving our public lands, the sacred lands of 
tribes, to a corporation.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    The Chair will now recognize Mr. Bentz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank everyone for 
their most interesting testimony.
    A couple of remarks about the need for copper. The first, 
perhaps people should be reminded that a current automobile, 
conventional car, uses between 18 pounds and 49 pounds of 
copper; a hybrid vehicle, about 85 pounds of copper; a plug-in 
vehicle about 132 pounds of copper; and a battery electric 
vehicle about 183 pounds of copper.
    So, as we look into our future, which I think is going to 
be electric, we need four times as much copper for each car. 
This is nothing to be argued over. It is just the facts.
    And we also recently became aware, because of the COVID 
challenge, of the fragility of our supply chains when we are 
trying to import this precious metal from other countries, and 
the incredible risk we face if we rely upon countries that 
don't share our interests in protecting our Indigenous peoples. 
Why would we want to put our fate in their hands?
    I place this situation before President Sharp, as I am now 
going to ask her a question about how we balance, given the 
existential challenge that we face with these climate issues. 
How are we going to meet these challenges and balance against 
them the important religious issues we have now been hearing 
about?
    Would you please address that? Thank you.
    Ms. Sharp. Yes, absolutely, and I appreciate that question.
    The first point I would make is, and it goes back to my 
remark earlier, that the ability for a Tribal Nation to 
exercise its religious freedom is something that was gifted to 
us by our Almighty Creator. These are things that are 
absolutely central to our identity, central to our spiritual 
health, and the cost that a question of balancing interests, it 
is unconscionable to think that we are even having that 
question.
    When I hear the Mayor talk about the toll that the 
potential of not passing this bill would wreak on her 
community, that is a direct result of the failure of the United 
States to honor the basic human and civil rights of Indigenous 
peoples to begin with.
    So, that is one price that will be paid. There is another 
price for desecrating the spiritual health and well-being of 
the San Carlos Apache for which there is no way to bring that 
back. There is no way to fund that. There is no way to, in any 
way, monetize that.
    So, to even begin to analyze the question of balancing, I 
can't even let my mind go to that place, because this is 
something that is so central to who we are, and the precedent 
that this would create, not only at San Carlos Apache, but all 
across Indian Country, if we can monetize our spiritual health, 
if we can monetize that which the Creator gifted to us, if we 
can monetize our very identity, clearly that would create a 
path where all Indigenous peoples risk even surviving another 
generation. I can't even get to that place.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, President Sharp.
    And a question for Dr. Wells. I just want probative 
perspective, the 13,000 acre-feet of water this project would 
use each year, those are my numbers, and my understanding is 
that, under the Colorado River Compact, Arizona is to end up 
with 2.8 million acre-feet of water a year, and I know that 
could go down; but to put that in perspective, this project 
would use 13,000 acre-feet. The Colorado project allocates 2.8 
million acre-feet to Arizona.
    I just want to cull that out and suggest that the 
hypotheticals that we are using trying to show how much 13,000 
acre-feet is is interesting, but it needs to be played both 
directions.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Congressman 
Bentz.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I really understand the delicate needs that we are trying 
to grapple with this hearing, the need for copper and the 
certain level of independence. But I am struck by two comments. 
One is, once it is gone, it is gone forever, as we heard from 
President Lewis. And I am thinking about the comment that we 
heard at our last Subcommittee hearing where we were encouraged 
to use Indigenous women, wisdom from a wonderful Hawaiian 
woman, and that is the need to protect our planet while we move 
forward on developing our future. And it is really important 
that we learn the lesson of placing long-term protections over 
short-term prospects.
    And I think some of those concerns were reflected in 
several letters that we received, including from the San Carlos 
Apache Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation, outlining their concerns with the 
transfer of Oak Flat. And I ask unanimous consent to submit 
these to the record.

    [The information follows:]

          Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
                                             Washington, DC

                                                     March 29, 2021

Hon. Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250

Re: Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange, Tonto National 
        Forest, Pinal County, Arizona

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (54 USC Sec. 306108) (NHPA) and its implementing 
regulations, ``Protection of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR Part 800), I 
am conveying to you the final comments of the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation (ACHP) regarding the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS) Tonto National Forest's (TNF) 
proposed Resolution Copper Project and Southeast Arizona Land Exchange. 
On February 11, 2021, the ACHP terminated Section 106 consultation, 
having determined that further consultation to reach an agreement would 
be unproductive. I would again like to express the ACHP's appreciation 
for USDA's intervention on March 1, 2021, halting the statutory 
timeline to transfer the land for the project as this will allow you 
more time to consider our comments at this critical juncture. In 
accordance with 36 CFR Sec. 800.7(c), the ACHP is providing these 
comments, which you must consider and respond to before reaching a 
final decision on the undertaking.
Background
    On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) (NDAA), which directed a 
land exchange between the U.S. Government (USDA and Department of the 
Interior) and Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (Resolution Copper) for the 
purposes of extracting copper deposits known to be present in lands 
within the TNF. In the exchange, Resolution Copper would receive 2,422 
acres of National Forest System (NFS) land known as the Oak Flat 
Federal Parcel in return for 5,344 acres of private land owned by 
Resolution Copper. The land exchange would facilitate Resolution 
Copper's proposed copper mine by removing the Oak Flat parcel from 
federal ownership, therefore eliminating the mining restrictions put in 
place by Public Land Order 1229.
    As the agency required by law to transfer the property, the FS is 
responsible for carrying out the Section 106 review and consultation 
regarding both the proposed Resolution Copper Project and the Southeast 
Arizona Land Exchange (jointly, the undertaking). The NDAA did not 
modify the Section 106 requirements for this undertaking. However, 
because the NDAA requires specific actions be taken by the FS, the 
parties to the Section 106 review were unable to consider alternatives 
that would avoid all adverse effects to historic properties. Further, 
the NDAA placed additional requirements on the FS and Resolution Copper 
regarding consultation with Indian tribes and impacts on cultural and 
archaeological resources. This included seeking ``to find mutually 
acceptable measures to--(i) address the concerns of the affected Indian 
tribes; and (ii) minimize the adverse effects on the affected Indian 
tribes resulting from mining and related activities on the Federal land 
conveyed to Resolution Copper'' and, as part of the agency's analysis 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), identifying 
``measures that may be taken, to the extent practicable, to minimize 
potential adverse impacts on those resources, if any.'' These NDAA 
requirements are independent of the standard Section 106 procedural 
requirements, adding further complexity to the consultation process. 
The Programmatic Agreement (PA) that was being negotiated under Section 
106 referenced the agency's concurrent compliance with these measures 
in the NDAA. The NDAA also established a timeline for the land 
exchange, requiring it to occur no later than 60 days of the FS 
issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Undertaking
    The undertaking consists of the General Plan of Operations (GPO) to 
be approved by TNF for an underground copper mine submitted by 
Resolution Copper on land currently administered by the TNF, the 
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), and private landowners, and the 
exchange of lands between Resolution Copper and the United States as 
directed by the NDAA. The GPO to conduct mining operations includes the 
mine site, associated infrastructure, a transportation corridor, and a 
tailings storage facility. Resolution Copper proposes to conduct mining 
using a technique known as panel caving, which uses a network of shafts 
and tunnels constructed below the ore body located within the Oak Flat 
Parcel. While the proposed mining would occur underground, the removal 
of the ore would cause the ground surface to collapse, creating a 
subsidence area at the Oak Flat Federal Parcel that would result in a 
crater between 800 and 1,115 feet deep and roughly 1.8 miles across. 
Additionally, several alternatives are being considered for the 
permanent disposal and management of the mine tailings, including an 
alternative on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands. The 
undertaking spans the life of the mine, which is envisioned to occur in 
three distinct phases: construction, operations, and reclamation, 
spanning roughly 56 years. At the end of operations, facilities would 
be closed and reclaimed in compliance with permit conditions.
Historic Properties and Effects
    The TNF made an extensive effort to identify historic properties, 
including the development of a comprehensive area of potential effects 
(APE) to guide identification efforts. The APE divides the effects of 
the undertaking to three zones--physical effects within the project 
footprint and Oak Flat Federal Parcel; auditory effects within two 
miles of the project footprint and Oak Flat Federal Parcel; and visual/
atmospheric/socioeconomic effects within six miles of the project 
footprint, including the historic districts of Globe and Miami, 
Arizona. To support identification efforts within the APE, the TNF, 
with the assistance of Resolution Copper, also implemented a tribal 
monitoring program that utilized inventories/survey efforts conducted 
with tribal monitors and tribal field visits to identify historic 
properties of traditional religious and cultural importance within the 
APE. These efforts were used to expand and augment existing and ongoing 
identification efforts including past surveys and ethnographic studies 
conducted by and in consultation with Indian tribes.
    Early on in the consultation process, the TNF determined that the 
undertaking would result in adverse effects to numerous identified 
historic properties, including the National Register of Historic 
Places-listed Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic District, known also as Oak 
Flat. The TNF identified Oak Flat as a historic property of religious 
and cultural significance to Indian tribes and a Traditional Cultural 
Property (TCP) significant to multiple Apache tribes. The TNF 
previously recognized the site as having physical and spiritual 
integrity essential to the continuation of traditional Western Apache 
cultural practices, particularly to the San Carlos Apache Tribe. On 
March 4, 2016, the National Park Service listed Oak Flat on the 
National Register as a historic district and TCP under Criteria A, B, 
C, and D with particular emphasis on its association with Apache oral 
history and as a venue for ongoing Apache participation in traditional 
social activities. As part of the undertaking, Chi'chil Bildagoteel 
Historic District would be directly and permanently damaged by the 
subsidence area proposed for the Oak Flat transfer parcel.
    At the time of the release of the final draft PA, the TNF had 
identified 644 archaeological sites in the portions of the APE that 
included the Oak Flat Federal Parcel, GPO project areas, and the 
proposed tailings locations. Of these, 506 sites were determined 
eligible for the National Register, 22 required further evaluation, one 
was a natural gas line exempt from further Section 106 review, and 116 
sites were determined not eligible for the National Register. Forty-two 
of these eligible sites would leave federal ownership, along with the 
Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic District, as part of the land exchange 
and would be permanently damaged by proposed mining operations. Another 
377 of these sites would be affected by the TNF's proposed preferred 
alternative for the processing and disposal of mine tailings, which 
would occur on state and private lands.
    In addition to these identified historic properties and known 
adverse effects, the TNF also identified several other properties of 
traditional religious and cultural importance within the APE that would 
require further evaluation. The TNF determined that further 
identification efforts would be required for various portions of the 
APE, specifically those zones related to auditory, visual, atmospheric, 
and socioeconomic effects. To address this, the TNF proposed to phase 
the identification of additional historic properties. The TNF had 
further determined that the undertaking would result in numerous 
potential auditory, visual, and atmospheric effects to known and yet to 
be identified historic properties.
Section 106 Process
    The ACHP recognizes that this consultation posed unique challenges 
for all parties involved. The constraints placed on the consultative 
process due to the legislated nature of a substantial portion of the 
undertaking juxtaposed with the magnitude of the adverse effects to 
historic properties severely restricted the TNF's ability to consider 
alternatives to avoid or minimize those effects. Further, attempting to 
resolve adverse effects to historic properties as immensely important 
as Oak Flat, a property of religious and cultural significance to 
Indian tribes, in addition to potentially affecting more than 500 other 
sites eligible for listing on the National Register, made reaching 
agreement on appropriate steps to resolve these effects very difficult.
    Based on the documentation provided, the TNF appears to have 
initiated consultation with Indian tribes for the undertaking in 2015 
following passage of the NDAA, though these efforts were not 
consistently characterized as Section 106 consultation. Records 
provided to the ACHP also suggest that as early as 2003, the TNF had 
carried out preliminary discussions with affected Indian tribes 
concerning the potential land exchange, exploratory activities by 
Resolution Copper, and the development of historic property inventories 
and ethnographic surveys. It is not clear whether any of these 
interactions were characterized as Section 106 consultation. On March 
31, 2017, the TNF initiated consultation with the Arizona State 
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). On December 7, 2017, the TNF 
notified the ACHP of its finding of adverse effect for this 
undertaking, and on December 21, 2017, the ACHP informed the TNF that 
it would participate in the consultation.
    Consultation has included the SHPO; the Fort McDowell Yavapai 
Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, the Hopi Tribe, the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the 
White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Yavapai-
Prescott Indian Tribe, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Fort Sill 
Apache Tribe, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and the Tohono O'odham Nation; 
and other consulting parties, including Archaeology Southwest, Arizona 
Mining Reform Coalition, Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Inter Tribal 
Association of Arizona and others, and resulted in the development of a 
draft PA that would provide a mechanism for further identification and 
evaluation of historic properties as the undertaking was implemented, 
as well as a broad array of measures to attempt to resolve identified 
adverse effects. Because of the size and complexity of the undertaking 
and the scale of the adverse effects, the PA included a suite of 
proposed mitigation measures. These measures included treatment plans 
for data recovery efforts for the numerous historic properties that 
would be physically destroyed or damaged as part of the undertaking, 
including a specific plan developed solely for the Oak Flat Parcel. The 
agreement also featured a variety of off-site measures in the form of 
mitigation funds that would support tribal initiatives, including 
cultural resources, education, and youth programs; archaeological 
database funding; and development funds for historic properties in the 
local community. While initially these measures were vaguely defined, 
the TNF, through consultation and clarifying communication with 
Resolution Copper, refined and clarified them in the draft PA.
    On July 9, 2020, Terry Rambler, Chairman of the San Carlos Apache 
Tribe, requested that the ACHP support the prompt completion of the PA 
and that it review and report on whether the TNF has complied with 
Section 106 regarding this consultation. On July 21, 2020, the ACHP 
responded to Chairman Rambler with its recommendations on moving the 
consultation process forward as well as committing to review and 
provide an advisory opinion on the TNF's compliance with Section 106 
for this project pursuant to 36 CFR Sec. 800.9(a). The ACHP undertook 
this assessment following its review of the revised PA in September 
2020 and outreach to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the TNF staff, and 
other consulting parties. Based upon the ACHP's ongoing participation 
in consultation, the ACHP was able to utilize many existing records and 
ongoing correspondence. On December 15, 2020, the ACHP provided its 
observations and recommendations to the TNF on how to continue moving 
the Section 106 consultation process forward. The letter recommended 
TNF provide consulting parties with a summary of responses to comments 
received on the latest version of the PA, respond to the ACHP's 
recommendations on improving transparency in communication and 
consultation, and consider hosting a final meeting of consulting 
parties to discuss how the TNF responded to comments and its intent to 
finalize and execute the PA. Additionally, the ACHP provided two 
recommendations to the TNF that were focused on broader, long-term 
efforts to improve Section 106 consultation within the Southwestern 
Region.
    On December 23, 2020, the TNF responded to the ACHP's letter, and 
on December 29 released the final version of the PA, indicating its 
intent to move forward with its execution. On January 8, 2021, to 
inform the ACHP's decision on whether to sign the proposed PA, the ACHP 
again requested the TNF provide clarification on several items, 
including its coordination of the Section 106 review with the 
development of the FEIS under NEPA. On January 15, 2021, the TNF 
released the FEIS, which included an unsigned version of the PA. The 
issuance of the FEIS triggered the statutory timeline in the NDAA, 
requiring the TNF to execute the land transfer within 60 days.
    On January 26, 2021, the TNF responded to the ACHP's January 8 
letter. The TNF's response included correspondence from the Regional 
Forester regarding the ACHP's long-term recommendations. The same day, 
the TNF provided a copy of the final PA for the ACHP's signature. All 
other Signatories (the TNF and SHPO) and Invited Signatories (the BLM, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Resolution Copper, Salt River Project, 
Arizona State Land Department, and Arizona State Museum) had signed the 
agreement. On February 11, 2021, the ACHP terminated consultation 
pursuant to 36 CFR Sec. 800.7(a)(4) and notified Acting TNF Supervisor 
Tom Torres accordingly. On March 1, 2021, the FS announced that USDA 
had directed the TNF to withdraw the Notice of Availability and rescind 
the FEIS and draft Record of Decision for the Resolution Copper Mining 
Project and Land Exchange. Following discussions with FS staff, the 
ACHP learned that the decision to withdraw the FEIS halted the 
statutory timeline to transfer the land for the project following the 
publication of the FEIS.
    Execution and implementation of the proposed PA for this 
undertaking would have been one way for the TNF to fulfill its Section 
106 responsibilities for this undertaking. Because the ACHP terminated 
consultation in this case, however, it is now your responsibility, as 
the head of the agency, to consider and respond to these advisory 
comments in reaching your decision on the undertaking in order to 
complete the Section 106 process. In accordance with the statute, you 
may not delegate this responsibility. 54 U.S.C. Sec. 306114.
    To inform the development of these comments to you, the ACHP 
solicited input from consulting parties and the public. The ACHP 
received more than 500 comments regarding the proposed undertaking and 
its potential effects to historic properties from consulting parties 
and members of the public. The ACHP submits the following findings and 
recommendations to you for your consideration in making your final 
decision on this undertaking.
ACHP Findings

        Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) is a historic property of 
        profound importance to multiple Indian tribes and plays a 
        significant role in their religious and cultural traditions, 
        and the proposed measures in the PA are not sufficient 
        considering the severity of adverse effects to this property 
        and numerous other historic properties.

    The historic significance of Oak Flat cannot be overstated and 
neither can the enormity of the adverse effects that would result to 
this property from the undertaking. Oak Flat would be directly and 
permanently damaged with a substantial portion of the property being 
destroyed through subsidence. In addition, hundreds of other historic 
properties would be destroyed or otherwise adversely affected by the 
undertaking. The ACHP recognizes the intent of the PA's mitigation 
measures to account for the loss of these historic sites. While the 
ACHP routinely advises agencies to seek creative ways to mitigate 
adverse effects where possible, it finds the mitigation measures within 
the PA to be wholly inadequate in light of the magnitude of adverse 
effects to this and other historic properties of such significance to 
numerous Indian tribes. The importance of attempting to develop 
adequate measures to resolve adverse effects in this case is further 
underscored by Section 110(a) of the NHPA, which requires the agency to 
give special consideration to preserving the historic and cultural 
values of the nationally significant Oak Flat (54 U.S.C. 
Sec. 306102(b)(2)).

        The Tonto National Forest was frequently challenged to 
        effectively and consistently consult Indian tribes on the 
        resolution of adverse effects and in the development of the PA.

    Multiple Indian tribes notified the ACHP of their concerns that the 
TNF's consultation with them was inadequate, and the delay in TNF 
addressing these concerns diminished the effectiveness of its early 
efforts to consult. The TNF struggled to manage its consultation 
efforts with Indian tribes and to ensure that consultation informed the 
overall Section 106 review for this undertaking. It is clear that the 
TNF intended to carry out tribal consultation, including government-to-
government consultation, and solicit tribal input. However, the TNF's 
records show the undertaking was not fully defined for Indian tribes at 
the outset of the Section 106 review process and that the agency's 
early outreach efforts to tribes often lacked transparency and 
consistency. The ACHP recognizes the TNF undertook efforts later in the 
process that worked to improve consultation, such as the development of 
the tribal consultation plan.

        The Tonto National Forest had difficulty managing the pace of 
        consultation and coordinating the Section 106 process with 
        other federal environmental reviews.

    As previously observed in the ACHP's assessment provided to the TNF 
on December 15, 2020, pursuant to 36 CFR Sec. 800.9(a), the TNF was 
inconsistent in managing the pace of consultation and coordinating the 
Section 106 process with other federal environmental reviews and the 
concurrent requirements of the NDAA. The TNF's communication on the 
purpose of, and audience for, consultation meetings was often irregular 
and erratic. There was a general lack of clarity delineating the 
Section 106 consultation from the NEPA review process and public 
outreach. This confusion was further exacerbated by the TNF's efforts 
to meet the requirements of the NDAA regarding consultation with Indian 
tribes and measures to minimize impacts on cultural and archaeological 
resources. The ACHP recognized the improvements made by TNF in the 
Section 106 consultation process but also noted that valuable time was 
lost due to miscommunications during earlier consultation. Lastly, the 
publication of the FEIS, which started the statutory 60-day time limit 
for the land transfer, challenged the TNF's ability to conclude the 
Section 106 review for this undertaking within the stated timelines.

        Due to its controversial nature and the high level of public 
        interest in this undertaking and its effects, the Tonto 
        National Forest would have benefited from expertise within the 
        Region and Washington Office to assist it in managing this 
        consultation.

    Throughout the Section 106 review, the ACHP highlighted the 
challenges faced by the TNF during this consultation, including the 
inability of the TNF staff to commit to certain measures and persistent 
confusion regarding the timeline for completing the Section 106 
process. The ACHP recognizes the concerted efforts of the TNF's 
Heritage, Tribal Relations, and Environmental Program staff as they 
sought to manage and maintain the consultation process along with the 
other concurrent reviews. However, the scope and magnitude of this 
undertaking exhibited the clear need for stronger agency support to the 
TNF to respond to consulting party questions and concerns, specifically 
those of Indian tribes. Efforts such as the dedicated Heritage staff 
assignment from the Region would have been more beneficial to this 
consultation had it occurred sooner and would have been strengthened by 
parallel assignments across the Tribal Relations and NEPA programs as 
well. While recognizing consultation was centered at the TNF, the ACHP 
encouraged more direct avenues for the TNF to seek support and 
resources from the Region, including such things as facilitation 
support for consultation meetings. The need for this support was 
further emphasized by the complex role Regional and Washington 
leadership appear to have had in the management of the FEIS schedule 
(which due to its implications on the timing of the land exchange 
further complicated and constrained the management of the Section 106 
process). The ACHP believes more outwardly visible and transparent 
communication on the role the FS leadership had in this decision 
process and the constraints placed on the TNF would have aided the TNF 
in communicating with consulting parties on its decision process.
Undertaking Recommendations

        USDA should work with the Administration and Congress to take 
        immediate steps to amend or repeal the legislation directing 
        the transfer or otherwise prevent it from happening as 
        proposed.

    The ACHP was encouraged by the USDA's decision on March 1, 2021, to 
direct the TNF to withdraw the Notice of Availability and rescind the 
FEIS and draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the project. It is also 
encouraged by the FS' commitment to consult Indian tribes and other 
stakeholders further on the effects of this undertaking on, among other 
resources, historic properties. The ACHP urges the FS to explore 
directly with the Administration and Congress, and in consultation with 
other stakeholders, any and all opportunities to amend or repeal the 
exchange portion of the NDAA. It is evident that legislative action in 
this situation to stop this exchange would provide the most complete 
and appropriate protection of Oak Flat and the hundreds of other 
historic properties that stand to be affected by the transfer and 
subsequent mining activities.

        USDA should use further discussions with Indian tribes and 
        other stakeholders to develop and evaluate alternatives and 
        further modifications to the undertaking that might avoid 
        adverse effects while also pursuing additional steps to modify 
        or prevent the land transfer.

    As part of its efforts to conduct additional consultation with 
Indian tribes and evaluate its required environmental, cultural, and 
archaeological analyses for the project, the TNF, with the support of 
FS leadership, should take further steps in discussions with all 
stakeholders to develop and reevaluate any alternatives or 
modifications to the undertaking that could avoid or minimize adverse 
effects to historic properties. Such efforts should include a 
reassessment of alternative and more sustainable mining techniques in 
an effort to prevent subsidence at Oak Flat, including, if feasible, 
those techniques that were previously considered and rejected by the FS 
and Resolution Copper. Further, USDA should employ all measures at its 
disposal to incentivize the consideration of such alternatives.

        If USDA chooses to proceed with the undertaking as described, 
        the Forest Service should commit to carrying out mitigation 
        measures in the proposed PA, in consultation with the 
        consulting parties.

    If USDA decides to proceed with the undertaking as described, the 
ACHP recommends the FS commit to implementing the terms of the PA, 
including but not limited to the phased identification process, the 
historic property treatment plans, and the listed mitigation measures 
in cooperation with Resolution Copper and the other invited signatories 
and in consultation with the consulting parties. These terms could be 
incorporated in to the final ROD and/or as part of other agreements 
made with Resolution Copper and other signatories. As stated earlier, 
the NDAA includes independent requirements that the FS must meet (e.g., 
to address the concerns of Indian tribes and minimize the adverse 
effects on the affected Indian tribes resulting from mining and related 
activities) that extend beyond and in addition to the procedural 
requirements of Section 106. The ACHP encourages USDA to exercise its 
authority to the fullest extent to fulfill these requirements alongside 
the proposed measures in the PA. Furthermore, the ACHP recommends the 
TNF, Resolution Copper, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties 
continue to consult over the life of the project to continue to 
evaluate and seek ways that might minimize adverse effects to historic 
properties as mining progresses both through the utilization of new 
mining techniques and in response to mine production. Given the FS' 
renewed commitment to consultation with Indian tribes, the ACHP 
recommends their efforts occur at a government-to-government level, 
with senior FS leadership, utilizing the full breadth of the FS' 
resources to support such consultation.
General Recommendations

        The Forest Service should evaluate how the Regional and 
        Washington Offices can provide more timely guidance and support 
        for controversial or challenging Section 106 consultations.

    USDA should allocate resources within the FS for identifying and 
supporting complex Section 106 reviews early in the planning process 
that, while maintaining the individual Forest Unit's autonomy, could 
strengthen the agency's ability to carry out the consultation process. 
This is particularly salient given the frequent pressure placed on the 
FS Heritage Programs for large scale and complex undertakings. Such 
resources could include providing project-specific consultation 
support, including but not limited to additional staffing, facilitation 
support, and funding for travel to assist consulting party attendance 
at meetings. The identification of such consultations earlier on and 
the engagement of Regional and Washington Offices would allow these 
offices to convey best practices and lessons learned from other similar 
consultations and even consider detailing more experienced Heritage 
Staff to assist in certain consultations. The FS should leverage its 
existing network of heritage professionals to create a mechanism to 
direct knowledge, support, and resources to individual Forest Units 
when a controversial or challenging Section 106 consultation is 
identified.

        The Forest Service should work to identify and implement 
        opportunities to better coordinate environmental and historic 
        preservation reviews for large-scale projects.

    USDA and the FS should work with stakeholders to evaluate the 
existing guidance on consultation on mining activities in NFS lands, 
and to identify internal and Administration-driven improvements that 
might be pursued, particularly in how the various environmental reviews 
are managed as a part of this process. This consultation was emblematic 
of many of the challenges and constraints affecting previous and 
ongoing consultations regarding mining-related undertakings. The FS 
should seek perspectives from a broad array of stakeholders, including 
SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Indian tribes, industry 
representatives, and other interested parties. These discussions should 
aim to assist the FS in developing a more collaborative approach, in 
keeping with the FS' policy regarding Heritage Management, which seeks 
to ``[f]ully integrate opportunities for preservation, protection, and 
utilization of cultural resources into land use planning and 
decisions,'' by identifying and fostering the implementation of more 
sustainable mining activities on NFS lands (Forest Service Manual-
Chapter 2360 Heritage Program Management).

        The Forest Service should pursue initiatives to strengthen 
        early coordination with Indian tribes in this Region regarding 
        proposed mining activities.

    USDA should continue to leverage and expand upon the FS initiatives 
such as the ``Tribal Cultural Sensitivity Training'' under development 
in the Southern Region and the annual ``To Bridge a Gap'' conference 
that includes participants from the Southern and Eastern Regions. These 
and other such efforts represent innovative measures to develop and 
improve relationships with Indian tribes, and through these 
relationships, work to improve the Section 106 consultation process. 
The ACHP's previous recommendation to consider establishing an advisory 
board comprised of representatives from Indian tribes with an interest 
in the protection of historic properties of religious and cultural 
significance on FS-managed lands was born out of the benefits the ACHP 
has seen from Region-wide initiatives by the FS to engage in long-term 
consultation relationships with Indian tribes. The ACHP recommends the 
FS leverage the extensive resources available within the Offices of 
Tribal Relations and Heritage Resources to implement expanded 
consultation with Indian tribes.
Conclusion
    Given the potential magnitude of impacts to highly significant 
historic properties, the ACHP urges USDA to carefully consider and 
carry out these recommendations. Section 800.7(c)(4) of the Section 106 
regulations requires you, as the head of the agency, to take these 
comments into account in reaching a final decision on the undertaking. 
As mentioned above, per Section 110(l) of the NHPA (54 USC 
Sec. 306114), you may not delegate this responsibility. A summary of 
your decision regarding the undertaking that contains the rationale for 
the decision and evidence of consideration of the ACHP's comments must 
be provided to the ACHP before making a final decision on the 
undertaking and shared with the Section 106 consulting parties and the 
public.
    As the USDA and FS continue to consult on the potential effects of 
the proposed undertaking, the ACHP may provide additional advisory 
comments or technical assistance based on its responsibilities pursuant 
to the NHPA. If, however, the proposed undertaking and the potential 
effects to historic properties change, TNF should reinitiate the 
Section 106 review process with all consulting parties including the 
ACHP, to take into account the potential effects of the modified 
undertaking.
    As the heads of federal agencies, we have a responsibility to 
exercise leadership in the preservation of the Nation's irreplaceable 
cultural heritage. In that spirit, I hope you will see these 
recommendations as a wise path forward.
    I look forward to your response.

            Sincerely,

                                         Rick Gonzalez, AIA
                                                      Vice Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                        SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
                        Terry Rambler, Chairman
                  on H.R. 1844, the Save Oak Flat Act
                             April 11, 2021
    My name is Terry Rambler. I am the Chairman of the San Carlos 
Apache Tribe (``Tribe''), representing 16,900 tribal citizens. The 
United States entered into the ratified Apache Treaty of Santa Fe in 
1852 to end hostilities. The original San Carlos Apache Reservation 
boundaries were established by President Grant on November 9, 1871. The 
current Reservation boundaries span 1.8 million acres. The U.S. 
Calvary, through brutal military campaigns, forcibly removed Apache 
bands to the Reservation in the latter half of the 1800s. The San 
Carlos Apache people remain deeply connected to our traditions, our 
ancestral homelands, and the Reservation that we have called home since 
we were first put here.
    On behalf of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, I want to thank Rep. 
Grijalva and the bill's co-sponsors for introducing H.R. 1884, the Save 
Oak Flat Act, which would repeal Section 3003 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (``FY15 NDAA''). If enacted, the 
Save Oak Flat Act will restore federal protections to the area, 
preventing it from disposal or mining. In so doing, the bill will 
preserve our Apache cultural resources, religious activities, and way 
of life. H.R. 1884 will also protect our region's water and 
environment. The Save Oak Flat Act represents a true act of 
environmental justice and aligns with President Biden's promise to 
employ an ``all-of-government'' approach to ensure that environmental 
justice is a consideration in decision-making across the federal 
government.

                         Background and Summary

    The Resolution Copper Mine (``Project'') will destroy Chi'chil 
Bildagoteel (Oak Flat), a traditional cultural property (``TCP'') 
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and other cultural 
resources of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other tribes. If Oak Flat 
is transferred and the Project is approved, it will destroy with this 
sacred place our religion and way of life. My people will no longer be 
able to access the area for ceremonies, or to pray, or to gather our 
medicinal plants and traditional foods. As acknowledged in the Trump 
Administration's rushed Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(``FEIS''), Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) will cease to exist. In its 
place will be a 1,000-foot deep by 1.8-mile-wide crater.\1\ The Project 
will also cause severe impacts on the already depleted water resources 
of the entire region, harm local ground and surface waters, and cause 
irreparable damage to the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Final Environmental Impact Statement (``FEIS'') for Resolution 
Copper Project and Land Exchange, p. ES-3 (Rescinded on March 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To move forward, the project required the United States to transfer 
Oak Flat and with it 2,422 acres of federal lands located within the 
Tonto National Forest (``TNF'') to Resolution Copper Mining, a joint 
venture of foreign-owned mining corporations Rio Tinto (United Kingdom/
Australia) and BHP Billiton, Ltd. (Australia). Rio Tinto began lobbying 
for legislation to accomplish the land transfer in the early 2000s. The 
legislation, known as the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange, was first 
introduced in 2005. That bill and more than a dozen similar bills 
introduced after 2005 drew nationwide opposition from Tribal 
governments, Tribal organizations, religious groups, local citizen 
groups, and recreational and environmental groups, and failed to 
advance in Congress. Tribes nationwide opposed the bill because of the 
dangerous precedent that it would set by being the first and only Act 
of Congress that would transfer a known Native sacred place to a 
foreign-owned mining corporation for that corporation's sole 
benefit.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ In addition to the significant concerns raised in this hearing, 
the entire Project should raise serious strategic foreign policy 
concerns. Rio Tinto's single largest investor is Chinalco, China's 
state-owned aluminum producer. Rio Tinto held the controlling stake in 
the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia, partnering with the Iran Foreign 
Investments Company. In 2018, Rio Tinto sold its stake in Rossing to 
the state-owned China National Uranium Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most recent version of the bill, H.R. 687, was pulled from the 
House floor twice in the 113th Congress due to lack of support. The 
Senate companion bill, S. 339, did not have the votes to even move out 
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
    Despite this lack of support in Congress, the Southeast Arizona 
Land Exchange Act was attached as a rider (Section 3003) to the FY15 
NDAA in December 2014. Rep. Tom Cole and Rep. Betty McCollum championed 
an amendment in the Rules Committee to strike Section 3003 from the 
NDAA. However, no amendments were ruled in order and no further debate 
or consideration could be made. The FY15 NDAA was enacted into law on 
December 19, 2014.

    Section 3003 was written to maximize profit to the foreign-owned 
mining corporate beneficiary, while limiting public input, and 
minimizing accountability on the part of the corporate mining 
beneficiary. The provision mandates that USDA transfer Oak Flat and 
2,422 acres of TNF lands to Resolution Copper within 60 days of 
publication of a legally compliant Final Environmental Impact 
Statement.\3\ Section 3003(c)(9)(B) expressly states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Section 3003(c)(10).

        Prior to conveying Federal land under this section, the 
        Secretary shall prepare a single environmental impact statement 
        under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 . . . which 
        shall be used as the basis for all decisions under Federal law 
        related to the proposed mine and the Resolution mine plan of 
        operations and any related major Federal actions significantly 
        affecting the quality of the human environment, including the 
        granting of any permits, rights-of-way, or approvals for the 
        construction of associated power, water, transportation, 
        processing, tailings, waste disposal, or other ancillary 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        facilities.

    As noted above, the Project includes: the construction and 
operation of the largest and deepest underground copper mine in North 
America; and development of a tailings waste dump, a pipeline corridor, 
and electrical transmission lines that would cross national forest 
land. The limited analysis that led to the FEIS confirms that the 
Project will destroy a Traditional Cultural Property listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places and cause significant adverse 
impacts on the water and environment in the Forest and throughout the 
region. Any federal action of this magnitude requires a comprehensive 
review before moving forward. However, the Trump administration 
attempted to cut short the analysis and rush the legally required 
environmental review, publishing the FEIS on January 15, 2021, days 
before Inauguration Day.
    On February 11, 2021, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
(``ACHP'') terminated consultation with TNF pursuant to the National 
Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA''). ACHP noted that ``it is clear 
that the proposed undertaking would destroy significant historic 
properties, including the highly significant Oak Flat, and the measures 
in the PA are not sufficient to adequately resolve those adverse 
effects. The ACHP believes that further consultation in this case would 
be unproductive.'' In terminating the NHPA consultation, ACHP refused 
to sign the programmatic agreement with TNF, which would have 
documented the Forest Service's compliance with the NHPA and its 
implementing regulations.
    On February 19, 2021, Chairman Grijalva with 23 Members of Congress 
sent a letter to then-Acting Secretary of Agriculture Shea, 
highlighting the significant legal and procedural deficiencies in the 
FEIS, and urging him to ``withdraw the FEIS and thoroughly review and 
address its numerous flaws, including several federal Special Use 
Permits required for the proposed mine.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Letter from the House Committee on Natural Resources to Acting 
Secretary of Agriculture Shea (Feb. 19, 2021) (https://
naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2021-02-19%20HNRC 
%20to%20USDA%20re%20Oak%20Flat%20FEIS.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 1, 2021, USDA directed the Forest Service to withdraw the 
Notice of Availability and rescind the FEIS and draft Record of 
Decision (``DROD''). The Department's stated purpose for rescinding the 
FEIS is to provide an opportunity for the agency to conduct a more 
thorough review of the Project's impacts and ensure the agency's 
compliance with federal law.
    The Biden Administration's withdrawal of the FEIS was welcome news. 
However, the announcement also noted that it will likely require an Act 
of Congress to stop the Resolution Copper Mine and save the Apache 
religion, our culture and way of life, and the region's water supply 
for future generations. H.R. 1884 would accomplish this goal, and we 
urge this Committee to approve the bill and advance it to final passage 
this year.
    In addition to advancing H.R. 1884, we urge you to work with and 
encourage the Biden Administration to address the significant 
deficiencies in the rescinded FEIS. We encourage the Administration to: 
(1) fully examine and analyze the significant impacts of the entire 
Project (including the mine site, associated infrastructure, 
transportation corridor, and proposed tailings storage facility) on 
areas of cultural significance and on the region's water and 
environment; (2) with the developed record of impacts, conduct 
meaningful government-to-government consultation with all impacted 
Tribal governments; and (3) seriously consider alternatives to 
proposals listed in the rescinded FEIS as well as methods to mitigate 
the adverse impacts of the Project before consideration of reissuing an 
FEIS that complies with all federal laws and regulations.
The Known Impacts of the Project Support Passage of H.R. 1884
    While the Trump Administration's rushed review and publication of 
the FEIS (now rescinded) was legally and procedurally deficient, even 
the limited information uncovered about the Project's significant 
impacts provide ample evidence to support the enactment of H.R. 1884, 
which would fully repeal Section 3003 and stop the Project.
    The FEIS, while flawed and unfinished, confirms many of the 
significant impacts that the Tribe has warned of for years: the Project 
will result in the certain destruction of Oak Flat and will adversely 
impact the water resources throughout the region for generations to 
come. The impacts of the Project cannot be overstated: (1) Chi'chil 
Bildagoteel (Oak Flat), a TCP listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places, burial sites, spiritual areas, cultural landscapes, 
sacred springs and other water resources, food and medicinal plants, 
and hunting, fishing, and gathering areas will be forever destroyed; 
\5\ (2) the water, groundwater, and related resources of the area will 
impact the region's water resources for generations to come, even 
accepting Rio Tinto's optimistic estimate for water usage at face 
value--the mine will use 775,000 acre feet of water,\6\ of which 
approximately 70 percent will be pumped from new extraction wells in 
the East Salt River Valley; and (3) the Project's infrastructure will 
leave its dark footprint on the Tonto National Forest and nearby lands, 
encompassing 39,272 acres (over 61 square miles), including the 2,422-
acre Oak Flat Federal parcel, 1,861-acre subsidence area, 953-acre West 
Plant Site and Silver King Road realignment, 7 mile transmission line, 
685-acre railroad corridor and adjacent components, 553-acre filter and 
loadout facility, a 9,611 acre tailings waste dump storage facility and 
certain to be Superfund Site in the future, as well as mitigation 
areas.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ FEIS at 824.
    \6\ FEIS, Appendix H, Table H-3.
    \7\ FEIS at 821 (Additional indirect and atmospheric areas will 
require creation of a 6-mile buffer around all project and alternative 
components of the Project).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following pages detail the Project's destruction unveiled in 
the deficient and now rescinded FEIS.
Desecration and Destruction of a Native American Religion
    The FEIS confirms what we have warned for years. The dangerous 
precedent set by slipping Section 3003 into the FY15 National Defense 
Authorization Act, authorizing the transfer of a known Native American 
sacred place and with it hundreds of traditional cultural resources to 
a foreign-owned mining corporation will result in certain destruction. 
As laid out in the FEIS:

        The direct impacts on TCPs and special interest areas from 
        construction of the mine and associated facilities constitute 
        an irreversible commitment of resources . . . Sacred springs 
        would be eradicated by subsidence or construction of the 
        tailings storage facility, and affected by groundwater 
        drawdown. Changes that permanently affect the ability of tribal 
        members to access TCPs and special interest areas for cultural 
        and religious purposes also consist of an irreversible loss of 
        resources. For uses such as gathering traditional materials 
        from areas that would be within the subsidence area or the 
        tailings storage facility, the project would constitute an 
        irreversible loss of resources.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FEIS at 856.

    The Project will result in a 1,000-foot deep by 1.8-mile-wide 
crater. This will destroy Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) with no 
chance of ever restoring the damage. The Apache people will no longer 
be able to access our holy place. The impacts of the Project go far 
beyond Oak Flat. The nearly 40,000-acre footprint of the Project will 
also destroy dozens of sacred springs, and hundreds of other 
traditional cultural properties, including burial sites, petroglyphs, 
cultural landscapes, food and medicinal plants, and more.
    For hundreds of years, the Oak Flat area, known in Western Apache 
as Chi'chil Bildagoteel meaning ``a broad flat of Emory oak trees'', 
has been a place of cultural and religious significance to our people. 
Oak Flat is not only a sacred area for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, but 
as noted by the ethnographic study prepared for TNF, 9 other tribes 
have traditional ties to the area.\9\ These tribes have cultural 
resources on and maintain strong cultural ties to this land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Study of the Superior Area, 
Arizona, Hopkins, Colwell, Ferguson, and Hedquist, p. iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tonto National Forest encompasses Oak Flat. Like the vast 
majority of federal lands, TNF is carved out of the ancestral homelands 
of Indian tribes. Our historical and spiritual connection to these 
lands was never extinguished. Instead, our connection, ability to 
access these federal lands for religious purposes is guaranteed through 
treaties, federal court decisions, Executive Orders, laws, and 
regulations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Federal laws acknowledge legal rights of Native Americans to 
access to federal lands of religious significance. E.O. 13007, Indian 
Sacred Sites, requires federal agencies to provide access to and 
ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by religious practitioners and to 
avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. 
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), the Archaeological 
Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection 
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
(RFRA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) all seek to 
protect Native sacred places located on federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apaches on the Reservation have ancestors who came from the Oak 
Flat area before being forced to Old San Carlos. Tribal members' 
ancestors passed their knowledge to their descendants who are alive 
today. Our people have lived, prayed, and died in the Oak Flat area for 
centuries before this mining project was conceived. Oak Flat is a place 
filled with power--a place where Apaches conduct ceremonies such as 
Holy Ground and the Sunrise Dance that celebrates a young woman's 
coming of age, to gather medicines and ceremonial items, and to seek 
and obtain peace and personal cleansing. Oak Flat is the goiii' (home) 
of our diyi'n (sacred power), visited by our ga'an (spiritual beings) 
who provide us with healing and spiritual services. Oak Flat is the 
foundation of our religious beliefs.
    Tonto National Forest officials have been aware that Oak Flat 
encompasses a place of cultural and spiritual importance to the San 
Carlos Apache Tribe and other tribes for many years. In January 2012, 
the TNF began the formal consultation process with tribes regarding the 
nomination of Chi'chil Bildagoteel to the National Register of Historic 
Places. This exhaustive process included archival research, interviews 
with Apache elders, and fieldwork to identify cultural sites. By July 
2014, the TNF sent a draft nomination to the Arizona State Historical 
Preservation Office for comment and followed up with others seeking 
comment. In December 2015, TNF formally submitted the nomination to the 
National Park Service.
    Recognizing its historical and cultural importance, and after over 
four years of documenting the cultural importance of Oak Flat and going 
through the proper federal agency process, on March 4, 2016, the 
National Park Service listed Chi'chil Bildagoteel/Oak Flat on the 
National Register as a historic district and Traditional Cultural 
Property, emphasizing its association with Apache oral history and as a 
venue for ongoing Apache participation in traditional social 
activities.

    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in its NHPA Section 
106 comments to Secretary Vilsack, confirmed these facts.\11\ The ACHP 
found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See ACHP letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack (March 29, 2021) 
(https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/
VilsackResolutionCopperLTR20210329.pdf).

        Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat) is a historic property of 
        profound importance to multiple Indian tribes and plays a 
        significant role in their religious and cultural traditions . . 
        . The historic significance of Oak Flat cannot be overstated, 
        and neither can the enormity of the adverse effects that would 
        result to this property from the undertaking. Oak Flat would be 
        directly and permanently damaged with a substantial portion of 
        the property being destroyed through subsidence. In addition, 
        hundreds of other historic properties would be destroyed or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        otherwise adversely affected by the undertaking.

    To address concerns posed by the Project, ACHP urged ``the Forest 
Service to explore directly with the Administration and Congress, and 
in consultation with other stakeholders, any and all opportunities to 
amend or repeal the exchange portion of the NDAA.''
    We are in full agreement with ACHP. The very opportunity to save 
our religion, culture, and way of life is through passage of H.R. 1884.
Devastating Impacts on the Region's Water Resources
    In addition to the certain destruction of our holy place, Chi'chil 
Bildagoteel, our sacred springs, burial sites, petroglyphs, and 
cultural landscapes, the flawed FEIS confirms that our desert region 
cannot afford the Project's massive water demands. Simply put, Arizona 
does not have enough water to accommodate the demands of the Project. 
These findings further support the passage of H.R. 1884.
    Prior to passage of the land exchange, Resolution Copper and other 
supporters of the mine insisted that there would be no impact on water 
supplies or water quality. In 2011, Resolution Copper President John 
Cherry testified, ``Resolution Copper has already spent more than $33 
million to date studying the hydrogeology in and around the mine 
project, and has drilled more than 30 holes in the area to assess the 
water resources. These activities so far show little if any impact to 
local water quantity or quality from the new operations . . .'' \12\ 
Although it underestimates the impacts on water resources, the FEIS 
confirms that this could not be any further from the truth. In fact, 
there will be substantial impacts to water quantity and quality for the 
entire region for generations to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ House Committee on Natural Resources Hearing, 112-40, p. 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2009, Resolution Copper has engaged in mine dewatering 
activities on their land near Oak Flat that has caused groundwater 
levels below Oak Flat to drop over 2,000 feet, and near Superior, water 
levels to decline roughly 20 to 90 feet.\13\ This is even before the 
land exchange and actual mining project begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), at 312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FEIS concludes that the Project will harm or destroy the 
region's natural waters, streams, springs, seeps and other water 
features in Oak Flat: ``Dewatering or direct disturbance would impact 
between 18 and 20 groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), mostly 
sacred springs. While mitigation would replace water, impacts would 
remain to the natural setting of these places.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ FEIS at 156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, even under Resolution Copper's optimistic estimate 
(fully accepted by TNF), the mine will use 775,000-acre feet of 
water.\15\ The majority of the water (70 percent) will need to be 
pumped from a large network of new extraction wells in the East Salt 
River Valley where tens of thousands of people already rely on 
groundwater for their water supply. I refer the Committee to the 
testimony of James T. Wells for a full detailed examination of the 
Project's water demands on the East Salt River Valley, the irreversible 
loss of aquifer capacity, and resulting impacts the citizens of 
Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Chandler, Apache Junction 
and other towns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ FEIS, Appendix H, Table H-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) shared its concerns 
regarding the Project's water demands and impacts on the East Salt 
River Valley. ASLD, in a letter to TNF dated November 7, 2019, warned 
that the Resolution Copper's heavy groundwater pumping, ranging from 
180,000 acre-feet to 600,000 acre-feet over the life of the mine, will 
result ``in the loss of the development of at least 3,440 acres of 
State Trust land'' in the Superstition Vistas Planning Area. Nearby 
State Trust land was recently auctioned to a developer for $156,000 an 
acre. ASLD concluded that Resolution's ``negative impact of the 
proposed ground water consumption sourced from Superstition Vistas 
Planning Area far outweighs the estimated financial benefits to the 
Trust resulting from other aspects of the project by a factor of 
20:1,'' with a ``minimum potential loss to the Trust of at least 
$536,640,000 in revenue.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Arizona State Land Department, November 7, 2019 Letter to Neil 
Bosworth, Tonto National Forest. (Reproduced on p. R-43 of FEIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An acre-foot of water equals roughly 325,851 gallons. Under even 
the most conservative estimates, the mine would consume at least 256 
billion gallons of water--enough water for up to 168,000 homes over 40 
years. Resolution Copper admits that at least 550,000-acre feet of 
water coming from East Salt River Valley groundwater will be required 
to slurry toxic waste through over 20 miles of pipelines to Skunk Camp, 
the area Resolution Copper seeks to dump 1.37 billion tons of toxic 
waste across 2,300-5,900 acres that will be higher than the 40-story 
Chase Tower, the tallest building in Arizona. This groundwater pumping 
will result in water levels being drawn down 199 feet in some areas, 
which, in turn, could cause the land to subside by as much as 52 inches 
and impact the Central Arizona Project canal, municipal infrastructure, 
and agricultural infrastructure.
    Of equal importance to the San Carlos Apache Tribe is the 
devastating impacts that the ill-conceived Resolution Copper Mine 
project will have on the region and state's surface and groundwater. 
The demands of the Project will deplete, destroy and poison 
substantial, limited and precious surface and groundwater resources for 
the region.
    Based on ASDL's stark assessment, it is clear the Resolution Copper 
project would seriously and negatively impact State Trust land and 
therefore its beneficiaries, including K-12 public schools and 
Arizona's three state universities.
    Again, even the cursory review of the Project's water demands 
included in the rescinded FEIS support the expeditious passage of H.R. 
1884.
American Copper is Destined for China
    Throughout its consistent shell game, Resolution Copper has 
repeatedly claimed that this Project will supply up to 25 percent of 
United States' domestic copper demands.
    First, the United States is not facing a shortage of domestically 
produced copper concentrate. In fact, in 2019, the U.S. was the fifth 
largest exporting nation in the world shipping $2.3 billion of copper 
ore abroad. More to the point, the copper that would be produced from 
this project will never move through the doors of U.S. manufacturers. 
Instead, Resolution's copper concentrate production is most likely 
bound for export markets as the United States has only three operating 
copper smelters.
    Resolution Copper has never publicly stated where its copper 
concentrate will be refined. Arizona's two smelters are owned and 
operated by competitors including Freeport-MacMoRan's Miami smelter and 
Grupo Mexico's Hayden smelter. Rio Tinto operates the third U.S. 
smelter in Garfield, UT, where it processes concentrate from the 
Bingham Mine and appears to have limited excess capacity.
    More likely, Resolution's copper concentrate is bound for China, 
which is by far the world's largest importer of copper ore. As noted 
above, Rio Tinto's single largest investor is the government of China 
through Chinalco Mining Corporation International. This one fact makes 
the entire Project a strategic foreign policy concern, one that must be 
approached with caution and revisited.
    Resolution Copper fought against any amendments to the Southeast 
Arizona Land Exchange that would have required the company to keep any 
copper produced from the Project in the United States. During House 
floor debate on the Land Exchange, Chairman Grijalva pointed out that 
``Rio Tinto has a long-established partnership to supply copper to 
China--they repeatedly stated--and at a hearing refused to say what 
percentage of the copper generated from Federal lands would be retained 
and processed in the United States.'' \17\ At the close of this debate 
on H.R. 687, the bill was pulled from the House floor by the Republican 
majority because it lacked the votes for passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Congressional Record, H5853 (September 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration Must Cure the Legally Deficient FEIS
    As noted above, Tribal governments nationwide applaud the USDA's 
March 1, 2021 decision to rescind the FEIS and DROD to provide an 
opportunity for the agency to conduct a more thorough review of the 
Project's impacts and ensure the agency's compliance with federal law.
    However, the next steps taken by the Administration are equally 
critical. The Biden Administration must correct the significant legal 
and procedural deficiencies in the rescinded FEIS. This should require 
re-development of a Draft EIS that provides a fully informed record. 
With an informed record, the Administration must then conduct full and 
meaningful government-to-government consultation with all interested 
Tribal governments, utilizing these consultations and related 
discussions to develop and evaluate alternatives and modifications for 
the Project to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts.
    While the FEIS confirmed much of the destruction that the Tribe 
warned about for years, the FEIS understates certain impacts, and 
completely fails to consider reasonable alternatives to mitigate the 
certain damage on tribal cultural resources, the region's water, and 
the environment. In some cases, the FEIS makes assumptions about 
baseline models that skew the results, and in other cases, the models 
themselves are not accurate enough to be used to fully understand all 
of the impacts. In sum, these deficiencies prevent a full understanding 
of the environmental impacts of the Project.
    The most glaring omission in the FEIS involves its failure to fully 
examine the adverse impacts of the Project's water demands. The FEIS 
estimates that the total quantity of external water needed for the life 
of the mine is 590,000-acre feet.\18\ The Forest Service notes this 
water use amount is in addition to the approximate 87,000 acre feet of 
water that will be dewatered to serve the Project's tunnels, shafts, 
and underground infrastructure.\19\ In fact, Resolution Copper's GPO 
shows that the total water usage over the life of the Mine will be 
closer to 786,626 acre feet. The Administration must address this 
discrepancy in future examinations as it works to cure the deficiencies 
in the rescinded FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ FEIS at ES-25.
    \19\ FEIS at 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I again refer the Committee to the testimony of James T. Wells for 
a more detailed description of the failures of the FEIS to adequately 
evaluate the geotechnical suitability and water quality impacts of 
Skunk Camp, the preferred Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) site, as well 
as the flawed models used to determine the cumulative effects of 
Resolution's pumping and other known demands in the East Salt River 
Valley.
    Another glaring oversight on the water demands is the FEIS' failure 
to determine the source of the water needed for the Project. The Forest 
Service states that ``the entire amount of makeup water needed for the 
mine was assumed to be physically pumped from the Desert Wellfield.'' 
\20\ However, the FEIS fails to determine how and where all this 
mitigation water will come from. The FEIS instead relies on future 
Arizona state water permitting processes. As a result, the FEIS fails 
to analyze the physical availability of Arizona's water resources on a 
local, regional, or state-wide basis that will be consumed for the 
Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ FEIS at 969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instead, the rescinded FEIS admits that the actual water use by the 
Project would be determined by the Arizona Department of Water 
Resources at some time in the future, long after the Section 3003 
environmental review has been completed. This includes a determination 
of the ``unavoidable impacts'' and related mitigation measures 
associated with the massive dewatering of the East Salt River valley 
stemming from Resolution Copper's Desert Wellfield.\21\ This is 
unacceptable. The Biden Administration must work to fully determine the 
extent of these ``unavoidable impacts'', analyze them, and subject the 
findings to full public review before it considers revisiting a Section 
3003 FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ FEIS at 422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A determination of all sources of water, including the availability 
of the water supply, as well as the location, rate of pumping, and the 
governing legal authorities must be examined, and be subject to public 
review and input before inclusion in any future FEIS.
    Finally, the Forest Service has failed to include any information 
or opportunity to comment on the appraisals required pursuant to 
Section 3003. Despite repeated requests from the public and 
stakeholders to provide this mandatory public review of the appraisals, 
the prior Administration refused to provide any meaningful information 
on the appraisals to the public before it published the now rescinded 
FEIS.
    Section 3003 includes a unique appraisal requirement designed to 
maximize profits for the foreign-owned mining corporations that will 
benefit from the Project. In floor debate on the Southeast Arizona Land 
Exchange, Rep. Peter DeFazio, highlighted the ``bizarre . . . payment 
scheme, which would be controlled entirely by the company using 
proprietary information.'' He noted that the provision, later included 
as Section 3003, will ``trade away a multi-billion asset for a few 
thousand acres of recreation land.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Congressional Record, H5851 (September 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before reconsideration of the required environmental review 
pursuant to Section 3003, the Biden Administration must put forth the 
mandatory public review of the appraisals also required under this 
dangerous provision.

                               Conclusion

    For centuries, Oak Flat, Chi'chil Bildagoteel, has been a sacred 
place for Apaches and other tribes. It is a place of power, a holy 
place where we practice our religion, gather our medicinal plants and 
Emory oak acorns. The United States recognized the spiritual importance 
of Oak Flat, listing the area as a traditional cultural property on the 
National Register of Historic Places. The RCM project will destroy 
Chi'chil Bildagoteel. There is no mitigation that can be done, no 
replacing Chi'chil Bildagoteel once it is gone. We cannot build it 
somewhere else.
    I testified several times before Congress in opposition to the Land 
Exchange/Project. The objections raised prior to adding Section 3003 as 
a last-minute rider to the FY15 NDAA ring as true today as they did 
then. Resolution Copper/Rio Tinto crafted Section 3003 (the Southeast 
Arizona Land Exchange) to mandate the land transfer regardless of the 
findings of the environmental analysis, knowing that the level of 
destruction and environmental damage that will result from the Project 
would disqualify it from gaining approval under any other process. The 
result is a special interest give-away of unprecedented proportions to 
a foreign owned entity with no attachment to our nation. Simply put, 
the American public cannot afford this deal.
    To stop the certain destruction of Chi'chil Bildagoteel (Oak Flat), 
our religion, and way of life, we respectfully urge the Committee to 
advance H.R. 1884. In addition, we ask that you work with the Biden 
Administration to ensure that the many legal and procedural 
deficiencies in the rescinded Section 3003 FEIS are cured, and with a 
fully informed record that the Administration engage in full and 
meaningful government-to-government consultation with all impacted 
Tribal governments. Too much is at stake to advance the Project without 
fully understanding its impacts.

                                 ______
                                 

                                  THE NAVAJO NATION
                                            Window Rock, AZ

                                                     April 12, 2021

Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, Chair
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1884 the Save Oak Flat Act

    Dear Chairwoman Fernandez:

    First and foremost, we thank you for your support and sponsorship 
of H.R. 1884--the Save Oak Flat Act. As this bill is considered by the 
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States, we 
respectfully request the support of the Subcommittee for the long-term 
protection of Oak Flat.

    Chi'chil Bildagoteel, known as Oak Flat, is a Traditional Cultural 
Property listed on the National Register of Historic Places located in 
the Tonto National Forest (TNF) in southeastern Arizona. The Oak Flat 
area plays a vital role in tribal religion, tradition, and culture. 
Since time immemorial, Native American people have set foot at Oak Flat 
to conduct ceremonies, to offer prayers, to gather medicines and 
ceremonial items, and to seek and obtain peace and personal cleansing.

    Tribal leaders and allies have been working for over 18 years to 
protect the Oak Flat area from foreign mining conglomerates--Rio Tinto 
and BHP Billiton--who, through their joint venture Resolution Copper 
Mining, LLC, seek to develop the largest and deepest copper mine in 
North America. As part of a closed-door deal during the last days of a 
lame-duck Congress in December 2014, the Southeast Arizona Land 
Exchange (land exchange) was included as Section 3003 of the FY15 NDAA, 
P.L. 113-291. The land exchange transfers 2,422 acres of TNF land, 
including the sacred Oak Flat area, to Resolution Copper in exchange 
for Resolution Copper-owned parcels that will go to the Department of 
the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.
    As part of the legislation, the land exchange is subject to NEPA 
(Sec. 3003(c)(9)) as well as appraisals of the lands to be exchanged 
and public review of the appraisals (Sec. 3003(c)(4)). However, TNF 
failed to comply with NEPA and other applicable federal laws, and they 
failed to complete the required appraisals of the lands to be 
exchanged. Instead, TNF rushed to publish the Final EIS on Jan. 15, 
2021, to artificially start a 60-day clock under Section 3003(c)(10) to 
give away sacred Oak Flat to Resolution Copper to pave the way for its 
mine that will destroy Oak Flat, large swaths of TNF, and other 
surrounding areas with no simultaneous commensurate conveyances of 
Resolution Copper-owned land to the federal government. On February 11, 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) declined to sign 
the Programmatic Agreement under the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA) Section 106 process preventing its execution, stating ``[i]t is 
clear that the proposed undertaking would destroy significant historic 
properties, including the highly significant Oak Flat, and the measures 
in the PA are not sufficient to adequately resolve those adverse 
effects.''
    On March 1, 2021, USDA directed the Forest Service to withdraw the 
Notice of Availability and rescind the FEIS and draft Record of 
Decision. USDA noted that rescinding the FEIS will ensure the Forest 
Service complies with ``the environmental, cultural, and archaeological 
analyses required'' and concluded that ``additional time is necessary 
to fully understand concerns raised by Tribes and the public and the 
project's impacts to these important resources and ensure the agency's 
compliance with federal law.'' Importantly, USDA noted that because the 
land exchange was directed under the FY15 NDAA that ``long term 
protection of the site will likely require an act of Congress.''
    Although flawed, the withdrawn FEIS acknowledged that Resolution 
Copper's proposed mining activities will directly, adversely, and 
permanently affect numerous sacred springs, traditional areas, burial 
locations, and other cultural places and experiences of high spiritual 
and cultural value. The massive mine will also cause irreversible 
destruction to thousands of acres of public lands and contaminate 
already scarce water sources. The block-cave mining technique will 
create a 1.8-mile-wide crater (from the Capitol to the Lincoln 
Memorial) over a thousand feet deep. The mine will consume more than 
637,000 acre-feet of water and require over 40 miles of pipeline 
through large parts of the TNF to slurry out toxic waste and ore 
concentrate. It will also require the construction of massive utility 
and road corridors that could potentially span 500 feet in width. This 
mine will deplete and contaminate precious water resources in the 
region and result in a toxic waste dump that will be taller than the 
Washington Monument and potentially span over 15,000 acres.
    The Save Oak Flat Act will repeal Section 3003 and withdraw the Oak 
Flat area from mining laws to permanently protect this sacred area. We 
respectfully request that you co-sponsor the Save Oak Flat Act. 
Protecting tribal sacred areas and cultural resources is essential to 
upholding the federal trust responsibility.
    We appreciate your consideration of H.R. 1884. We stand with the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe and many others who support the long-term 
protection of Oak Flat. Should you require additional information or 
need to contact our office, please reach out to Santee Lewis, Executive 
Director, Navajo Nation Washington Office, [email protected] or (202) 
981-4331. Thank you.

            Respectfully,

        Jonathan Nez,                 Myron Lizer,
        President                     Vice President

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I want to begin with this concern 
about water. And, Dr. Wells, your testimony about a 450-foot 
drop in the water table is quite alarming. As somebody who once 
had a domestic well and helped others build wells for their 
smaller communities, this is quite alarming.
    So, I would like to ask you about the Trump 
administration's rush to complete the FEIS and publish it just 
5 days before the end of their administration. Now, the Biden 
administration rescinded the FEIS, but can you explain some of 
the most significant deficiencies of the FEIS as it relates to 
water resources?
    Dr. Wells. Yes, Chairwoman. Thank you for that question.
    I believe that the biggest deficiency in the EIS process 
with respect to water resources was taking a hard look, as NEPA 
requires, of the cumulative impacts on groundwater resources in 
Arizona, and in particular, the East Salt River Valley.
    Another thing I will point out is that after the draft EIS 
was published, there were major new studies that were completed 
and incorporated into the final EIS without public input, and 
the opportunity for public comment, and that included some 
really fundamental things, like water quality impacts at Skunk 
Camp, which is where the tailings dump would be, and none of 
this was subject to public review and comment because the final 
was rushed to publication.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    And, Mayor Besich, I share so many of your concerns about 
creating economic opportunities in our rural communities. I 
think that is basically a big job and task of us as public 
servants. But I am also concerned about the way in which the 
proposed mine may hinder other economic opportunities. I would 
like, and I will be pursuing, I can assure you, the need to 
invest in those communities like yours, which may have relied 
on mining, or fossil fuels in the past, and the importance of 
creating the infrastructure that we need, rather than, perhaps, 
depending on foreign companies to help keep our kids in school, 
I will pursue making sure that we have adequate funding for 
education, which is what we are trying to do with the new 
infrastructure bill.
    Dr. Wells, though, I want to ask you a quick question about 
your testimony, about there was acid rock drainage. What is 
acid rock drainage? And how might that impact recreational 
opportunities in an area?
    Dr. Wells. I have an hour-long lecture on that.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. You know what, I only have 20 seconds 
left.
    Dr. Wells. OK.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Maybe you can cite your lecture.
    Dr. Wells. Mining waste includes sulfide minerals, like 
pyrite. When that is exposed to air and water, it oxidizes, it 
rusts, it releases sulfuric acid. That, in turn, leeches toxic 
metals out of the rock, and that gets into our surface and 
groundwater, and it is really about the most significant 
environmental impact worldwide from mining.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much for completing 
that so quickly.
    In that case, the Chair will--I understood that Congressman 
Westerman had, indeed, joined us.
    Mr. Westerman. Madam Chair, I am sorry, I didn't hear you. 
I think your microphone muted earlier, so I didn't hear you 
call on me. Sorry about that.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, it is nice to have you with us. 
The Chair now recognizes you, Congressman Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I have been hearing a lot of talk about a rushed process, 
but looking at the data, this process has taken 20 years, with 
130,000 submitted comments, 35,000 submitted comments from the 
draft EIS, and there are only 13 objections during the period 
for the final EIS, and only one was from an Indian tribe, which 
was the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
    Mayor Besich, do you think it is necessary for the Forest 
Service to throw away 20 years' of work, and a nearly 3,000-
page environmental impact statement and, quote, ``start over'' 
as some other witnesses are calling for?
    Ms. Besich. No, it is not necessary. Their work has been 
adequate and complete, and it would be devastating for Superior 
and the surrounding area for this process to start over.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mayor.
    Dr. Wells, you testified extensively to the impacts on 
water from this mine. If the EIS discloses that adequate 
groundwater exists for committed regional demands, including 
Resolution Copper's needs over the next 100 years, further 
Resolution Copper has proactively stored more than 50 percent 
of predicted water needs from renewable sources, the EIS impact 
statement discloses the effects of withdrawing those renewable 
sources and additional water needs along with current and 
future water users. This was based on assessments by third-
party water experts, with input from Federal and State 
agencies.
    Can you explain why your view is so vastly different from 
so many water experts and Federal and State agencies?
    Dr. Wells. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    I served on the Tonto National Forest Groundwater Working 
Group for the draft and final EIS, and I can tell you that 
there are a number of hydrology experts that express the same 
concerns that I have. There is not enough water in the East 
Salt River Valley for all of the competing uses.
    With regard to the groundwater that Resolution has banked--
and that is correct, they have banked a lot of water from the 
Central Arizona Project--through kind of a fluke of Arizona 
law, it is not even stored in the same place where Resolution 
will be pumping their water from. So, in that area where 
Resolution will be pumping from--it is an area called the 
Desert Wellfield--there will be quite substantial impacts due 
to that pumping.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, sir.
    And, Madam Chair, I can't see the timer, but I will go into 
the next questions here, and just cut me off if I go past.
    Resolution Copper is in the Copper Triangle, where there 
are many operations between the proposed site and the San 
Carlos Apache Reservation. I understand there are at least 11 
tribes that have taken part in the consultation process. The 
majority of them are actively participating in the NEPA process 
in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service.
    Ms. Sharp, what is San Carlos' position more broadly with 
active mining? I understand that there is active mining 
immediately adjacent to the reservation, that water from the 
reservation is provided for use in those operations.
    Ms. Sharp. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    I can't speak directly to their position on other mining 
interests, but I can speak in general to the San Carlos Apache 
position, with respect to tribal consultation and the ability 
for them to voice their concerns, raise issues in a 
consultation process, and I think what we are witnessing and 
what you described as the 20 years of well-documented work, 
that is, again, a direct result of the failure to consult at 
the front end, and we are paying for the price.
    So, it is necessary to re-engage and honor the relationship 
that the United States has with the Tribal Nations going 
forward if we are going to continue to work through this issue 
in a way that ensures the trust responsibility is upheld.
    Mr. Westerman. And my understanding is that the Apache 
Leap, which is of religious significance, an additional acreage 
was given a special management area designation, will these 
areas be affected by the subsidence that may occur over the 
life of the project?
    Ms. Sharp. Just from my personal perspective, and what I 
recall from when the original legislation was passed in the 
NDAA, I recall a press release that a company did, and it 
assured the San Carlos Apache people they would be able to 
exercise their religion and their spiritual health and well-
being in these places, but what caught my attention was there 
was a provision that said so long as it is safe.
    So, that told me that in 2015, there was an idea that at 
some point in the future, it was not going to be safe for the 
San Carlos Apache people, and it was a springing expectation at 
some point in the future.
    So, I would say that if there isn't an entire ability for 
religious freedom, it is not religious freedom.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, President Sharp.
    And, yes, we have gone over about a minute, so we will now 
move, and the Chair will recognize Congressman Stauber if he is 
here. Congressman Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I would just like to make a few comments. I would like to 
make a comment about the bill history itself regarding the Oak 
Flat Land Exchange. The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Conservation Act was debated for nearly a decade in Congress 
before it was enacted. The exchange was part of a 56-bill 
bipartisan compromise package that was included in the Fiscal 
Year 2015 NDAA and not a lone midnight rider that some allege.
    And thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Young, 
for allowing me to join today to discuss a mining project 
seeking to extract the critical minerals needed for renewable 
energy, national security, and everyday life. It undergoes a 
rigorous review process for decades, receives hundreds of 
thousands of comments, makes adjustments, puts a plan together, 
and moves forward. The company signs a project labor agreement 
with the local building trades union committing to high-wage 
union labor.
    Democrats then take the presidency and Congress, ignore 
pledges made to domestically sourced critical minerals and hire 
union labor, and then attempt to undermine workers and local 
officials to appease activist groups with armies of lawyers and 
deep pockets.
    No, I am not talking about mining in my great state of 
northern Minnesota. Today, we are talking about Resolution 
Copper.
    Mayor Besich, the iron range mayors in my district in 
northern Minnesota want mining in northern Minnesota because 
they are proud of their resources and they want the investment 
in their communities and schools just like you. Could you 
discuss what it means to have 1,500 direct jobs in a small town 
like yours that have high-quality, family sustaining wages?
    Ms. Besich. Representative, thank you very much for your 
question. And I applaud the efforts of your iron range mayors 
in Minnesota. I have actually followed some of the techniques 
that they have used to ensure that the extraction industry 
funds important and critical things like infrastructure, 
education, and economic development, because I think we all 
understand that we are proud of our extraction-based industry, 
but we also know we have to diversify.
    Having these types of jobs in our community will give us a 
new opportunity to sustain our community for additional 
generations. As I stated in my testimony, my children are the 
fifth generation of our family. They have the opportunity to 
grow up here and consider mining as the opportunity, or to be 
entrepreneurs or support other tech-based jobs that we are 
trying to attract here in our community, because we are 
thinking outside of the box and oftentimes, following our 
predecessors in northern states that are making policies that 
are good for mining communities.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your comments, Mayor.
    So, to close, I would like to share two quotes: First, from 
the Boilermakers Local 627, President Jacob Evenson, about the 
Biden administration's FEIS reversal. ``The USDA's decision 
means our members, most of which are Navajo and Apache tribal 
members, will continue to hope and wait for the day when they 
can clothe their families, feed their parents, and put shoes on 
little feet.''
    And then the second from the Arizona Building and 
Construction Trades Council, President Aaron Butler, regarding 
the companion bill to H.R. 1884. Quote, ``On behalf of 
Arizona's workers and families, I ask that you not support 
Senate 915, a shortsighted bill that will do long-term harm to 
Arizona's skilled workforce and economy.''
    So, in closing, I would like to enter the following letters 
into the record: The first is the commitment made by Resolution 
Copper to the community in the EIS, and also, the consultation 
record in the EIS for Resolution Copper, which is close to 70 
pages.
    And union support letters, support letters from the Arizona 
Building & Construction Trades Council, UA Local 469 Plumbers 
and Pipefitters Union; United Steelworkers Union; and 
Boilermakers Local 627.
    And tribal support letters thanking the Forest Service for 
the consultation process; San Carlos Apache Tribal Member Cody 
Elgo; Jerome Kasey, the Vice Chairman of the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe; and John Huey, Chairman of the Yavapai-Apache 
Nation.
    And local business and stakeholder support letters: Arizona 
Chamber of Commerce; Greater Phoenix Economic Council; Greater 
Phoenix Leadership; Valley Partnership; Superior County Chamber 
of Commerce; Copper Corridor Economic Development Coalition; 
Southern Arizona Business Coalition; Laura Skaer; Women's 
Mining Coalition; Oddonetto Construction, Queen Creek 
Coalition, and Resolution Copper.
    And, then, the state and local support letters: Governor 
Ducey of Arizona; State Senator Shope of Arizona, District 8; 
Pinal County District Leaders; Gila County District Leaders; 
Towns of Superior, Kearny, Miami, Winkleman, and Hayden; City 
of Apache Junction; Greater Phoenix Leadership, Eastern Arizona 
Counties Organization; and the Community Working Group.
    Madam Chair, I request unanimous consent to have these in 
the record.
    And to Mayor Besich, I will just tell you, stay in the 
fight. We need these critical minerals. They are a part of our 
strategic national security, and we are blessed to have these 
minerals in our earth in this great country.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                                   STATE OF ARIZONA
                                     Office of the Governor

                                                     March 16, 2021

The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    I was very disappointed by the Department of Agriculture's 
(Department) actions on March 1st to direct the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) to reverse completed federal actions for the Resolution Copper 
Mine and Land Exchange Project.
    Resolution Copper is a vital project for economic development that 
will also ensure a reliable supply of copper and other critical 
minerals for the nation. The project is estimated to be able to supply 
up to 1 billion pounds of copper annually, which represents 25% of the 
U.S. domestic demands. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
prepared by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) estimates that the total 
direct and indirect economic impacts to the State of Arizona will total 
$1 billion per year.
    Arizona state agencies have been closely involved in the lengthy 
and thorough process that produced the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision. I have high confidence 
in the process and the resulting documents. The unprecedented 
retroactive step of rescinding a FEIS is very troubling and has 
implications beyond this single project. The vast amount of Federal 
land in Arizona means that federal actions, such as the completion of 
an EIS, are a fact of life for many large and important projects in our 
state. Discretionary retroactive decisions such as this one will cast a 
shadow on any large infrastructure project in the state and create 
uncertainty for these projects. Such actions cannot continue.
    I respectfully request an opportunity to discuss with you the 
timeline for the Department to get the project back on track, as well 
as how the Department will treat other existing permits and projects in 
Arizona. Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                          Douglas A. Ducey,
                                                           Governor

                                 ______
                                 
      Arizona State Building & Construction Trades 
                                            Council
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                     March 31, 2021

Hon. Senator Mark Kelly
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Suite B40B
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Request to Withhold/Abstain Support--Senate Bill 915

    Dear Senator Kelly:

    As the President of the Arizona State Building and Construction 
Trades Council (AZBTC), I represent thousands of professional 
craftspeople who are members of our 15 building trade-affiliated 
unions. I write to you today to respectfully request that you make 
Arizona's workers and their families a priority and withhold support 
for Senate Bill 915, reintroduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders on March 23, 
2021, and not co-sponsor this detrimental bill.

    Senate Bill 915 repeals section 3003 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, effectively reversing the land 
exchange agreement between the federal government and Resolution Copper 
Mining, LLC. This would shut down the proposed Resolution Copper Mine 
project near Superior, denying thousands of Arizonans high-paying, 
quality jobs and suppressing millions of dollars in much-needed 
economic investment in our region's economy.

    Passage of SB 915 would be a huge step backward in our country's 
efforts to implement progressive energy policies and mitigate the 
impact of climate change. Arizona workers support the Biden 
Administration's Build Back Better initiatives and the ``Buy Clean, Buy 
American'' sentiment that goes with it. Copper mining and production 
are essential to manufacturing of electronics and medical equipment, as 
well as the implementation of green technologies and proposed clean 
energy projects. Our country's future depends on copper, and Arizona, 
with its rich copper deposits, is poised to play its role to create a 
cleaner future for our children and grandchildren. Arizona's union 
workers are trained and ready to be part of these green solutions.

    Arizona's workers deserve quality jobs that provide livable wages 
and benefits, and SB 915 would take jobs away from the hardworking 
union members of our state. AZBTC and Resolution Copper Mines have 
signed a Memorandum of Understanding that ensures that union labor will 
be used during the construction, operation and shut-down phases of the 
mine over the next 50 years. A properly trained and experienced 
workforce is critical to economic growth, and by partnering with AZBTC, 
Resolution Copper Mining is demonstrating its commitment to generations 
of Arizona's highly skilled workers. The mine will create more quality 
jobs for residents of the Copper Triangle, including those with tribal 
affiliations and armed services veterans. Resolution Copper Mine will 
employ nearly 5,000 tradespersons during its 10-year construction and 
ramp-up phases. Once completed, the mine will employ 1,500 during its 
projected 40 years of operation, paying an estimated $134 million in 
wages and benefits each year. Many of these jobs will be staffed by 
union members who have highly specialized training and experience that 
prioritizes safety, efficiency and quality craftsmanship.

    Senate Bill 915 ignores the will of workers whose skills and 
expertise will be vital to the construction and operation of the mine. 
Resolution Copper Mining has actively engaged the public in every step 
of this seven-year planning and permitting process, which started under 
the Obama administration and garnered bipartisan support including that 
of late Senator John McCain. Because of public input, this project 
includes protections for tribal sacred sites and sensitive ecosystems 
to ensure that the land and its history are preserved for generations 
to revere and enjoy. The building trades community, which includes 
members who live in Southeastern Arizona and have tribal affiliations, 
have added their voices in support of this project because they know 
that it will provide opportunities for generations of workers, and 
enable them to stay close to their families and communities. The mine 
will create an additional 2,200 indirect and induced jobs in the 
surrounding communities, which will benefit the workers' families and 
tribes in the area. These investments will revitalize small towns, 
boost the tax base to support schools and infrastructure, and grow the 
local economy to lift up the middle class.
    On behalf of Arizona's workers and their families, I ask that you 
not support SB 915, a short-sighted bill that will do long-term harm to 
Arizona's skilled workforce and economy.

            Sincerely,

                                              Aaron Butler,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

      Arizona State Building & Construction Trades 
                                            Council
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                      April 2, 2021

Secretary Tom Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20250

Re: Request to Complete and Publish the EIS for Resolution Copper 
        Mining in Arizona

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    As the President of the Arizona State Building and Construction 
Trades Council (AZBTC), I represent thousands of professional 
craftspeople who are members of our 15 building trade-affiliated 
unions. I write to you today to respectfully request that the USDA and 
the USFS complete and publish the Environmental Impact Statement for 
the land exchange for the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona.
    Delaying the land exchange for the Resolution Copper Mine project 
near Superior denies thousands of Arizonans high-paying, quality jobs 
and suppresses millions of dollars in much-needed economic investment 
in our region's economy.
    The Resolution Copper Mine is a big step forward in our country's 
efforts to implement progressive energy policies and mitigate the 
impact of climate change. Arizona workers support the Biden 
Administration's Build Back Better initiatives and the ``Buy Clean, Buy 
American'' sentiment that goes with it. Copper mining and production 
are essential to manufacturing of electronics and medical equipment, as 
well as the implementation of green technologies and proposed clean 
energy projects. Our country's future depends on copper, and Arizona, 
with its rich copper deposits, is poised to play its role to create a 
cleaner future for our children and grandchildren. Arizona's union 
workers are trained and ready to be part of these green solutions.
    Arizona's workers deserve quality jobs that provide livable wages 
and benefits, and delaying or denying the land exchange would take jobs 
away from the hardworking union members of our state. AZBTC and 
Resolution Copper Mines have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that 
ensures that union labor will be used during the construction, 
operation and shut-down phases of the mine over the next 50 years. A 
properly trained and experienced workforce is critical to economic 
growth, and by partnering with AZBTC, Resolution Copper Mining is 
demonstrating its commitment to generations of Arizona's highly skilled 
workers. The mine will create more quality jobs for residents of the 
Copper Triangle, including those with tribal affiliations and armed 
services veterans. Resolution Copper Mine will employ nearly 5,000 
tradespersons during its 10-year construction and ramp-up phases. Once 
completed, the mine will employ 1,500 during its projected 40 years of 
operation, paying an estimated $134 million in wages and benefits each 
year. Many of these jobs will be staffed by union members who have 
highly specialized training and experience that prioritizes safety, 
efficiency and quality craftsmanship.
    Resolution Copper Mining has actively engaged the public in every 
step of this seven-year planning and permitting process, which started 
under the Obama administration and garnered bipartisan support 
including that of late Senator John McCain. Because of public input, 
this project includes protections for tribal sacred sites and sensitive 
ecosystems to ensure that the land and its history are preserved for 
generations to revere and enjoy. The building trades community, which 
includes members who live in Southeastern Arizona and have tribal 
affiliations, have added their voices in support of this project 
because they know that it will provide opportunities for generations of 
workers, and enable them to stay close to their families and 
communities. The mine will create an additional 2,200 indirect and 
induced jobs in the surrounding communities, which will benefit the 
workers' families and tribes in the area. These investments will 
revitalize small towns, boost the tax base to support schools and 
infrastructure, and grow the local economy to lift up the middle class.
    I am proud to be the voice of Arizona's workers and their families, 
especially on a matter that is so very important to the future of 
Arizona's workforce and economy. I would like to request a meeting with 
you and your staff to further discuss the Resolution Copper Mine 
project.

            Sincerely,

                                              Aaron Butler,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

                                                     March 17, 2021

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    As the Mayors of the municipalities in Arizona's Copper Corridor 
and County Supervisors of Gila and Pinal Counties, we are writing to 
you about a matter of critical importance: the completion and 
publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 
Resolution Copper Mine. We, along with many tribes and stakeholders in 
the region most affected by this proposed new mine, strongly support 
the long and arduous process that resulted in the publication of the 
FEIS in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021.
    We are gravely concerned that any delay in completion and issuance 
of the FEIS for Resolution Copper will cause irreparable harm to our 
region and the precious way of life that we have always known. Further, 
we are equally concerned about the delay in the release of the Capstone 
Pinto Valley FEIS, for the same reason.
    As leaders in Arizona's Copper Corridor, we are keenly aware of the 
role this industry serves in developing clean energy and continued 
technological advancement. We also have first-hand experience in 
navigating through the boom-and-bust cycles of the mining industry. We 
all have worked hard to create more resilient and economically diverse 
communities, and to become less dependent on the extraction industry. 
The mining industry is important to our region and state, not only 
through the private capital investment and jobs that it generates, but 
also the other direct and indirect benefits that accrue to communities 
where it is based.
    With respect to the Resolution Copper project, the FEIS and 
resulting land exchange will have a lasting effect on all of our 
communities, and in particular, in Superior where the mining operations 
will take place. We have actively participated in the process from the 
moment legislation was signed into law in 2014 as did every community 
and stakeholder in the region.
    Ten of the 11 tribes in the region actively participated in the 
process as well. One tribe chose not to participate in the process and 
most likely has no intention of doing so. But, because they have 
objected vociferously and garnered sympathy from many individuals and 
the media in the U.S. and around the world who have never been to our 
region, this process has been halted. This is patently unfair to those 
communities, tribes and stakeholders that worked tirelessly to forge an 
agreement with the mine to mitigate many of the impacts from this 
activity.
    Let us be clear: we love and honor our Native American brethren and 
sisters. Their voices must be heard and respected. They deserve a seat 
at the table. Ten tribes participated in this process and their voices 
need to be heard and respected too. And, so do the voices of small 
communities and stakeholders such as ours who see this new mine as an 
economic lifeline to our economically challenged communities.
    We are acutely aware that no negotiation or process is perfect. 
However, the FEIS process did exactly what it was supposed to do by 
forcing all stakeholders to the table to negotiate the best outcomes 
for all involved. Delaying the release of these FEIS and including 
additional tribal consultation will only create more consternation in a 
process that has entailed more than seven years of earnest and arduous 
work. The mitigations that have been put into place through this 
process will provide our communities with the means to advance our 
economic development and achieve greater economic diversity.
    With respect, we urge you to direct the immediate release of the 
Resolution Copper and Capstone Pinto Valley FEIS, consummate the 
Resolution Copper land exchange as required by law, and move this 
process forward for the benefit of the tribes and communities that 
fought hard to strengthen their communities.
    Thank you, Mr. President, for your attention to these matters which 
are of critical importance to us all.

            Most respectfully,

        Mila Besich, Mayor,           Jamie Ramsey, Mayor,
        Town of Superior              Town of Kearny


        Sammy Gonzales, Mayor,        Dean Hetrick, Mayor,
        Town of Miami                 Town of Hayden


        Louis C. Bracamonte, Mayor,   Kevin Cavanaugh, Supervisor,
        Town of Winkelman             Pinal County


        Woody Cline, Supervisor,      Jeff Serdy, Supervisor,
        Gila County                   Pinal County


                                 ______
                                 

                               Arizona State Senate
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                  February 25, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    As a member of the Arizona State Senate, representing District 8, I 
reach out to you on behalf of not only the individuals directly 
involved, but the thousands of people whose lives will benefit from the 
Resolution Copper project and Programmatic Agreement. Born and raised 
in Florence, Arizona, I have been fortunate enough to see the 
development and growth that has evolved throughout our desert oasis 
firsthand. Additionally, as an Arizona native, I have a personal 
attachment and appreciation for the unique beauty and culture our 
desert has to offer our great State. Now, as an Arizona State Senator, 
it is of the upmost importance that Arizona continues to succeed while 
upholding and cherishing our native roots. With the best interest of 
the communities of Arizona in mind, I strongly encourage ACHP to 
support and sign off for the Resolution Copper project.
    This project is set to bring remarkable economic growth and 
development to Pinal County and the communities surrounding it. The 
copper mine is not only an opportunity for economic growth, millions of 
dollars in wages, and support of small businesses, the project 
represents Arizona's longstanding mining heritage. Furthermore, the 
Programmatic Agreement in complete alignment with Section 106 
requirements considers years of consultation with Native American 
tribes and communities to ensure every person's voice has been heard. 
The Programmatic Agreement specifically spells out imperative measures 
to conserve the cultural heritage among our communities. Such measures 
include the Emory Oak Collaborative Tribal Restoration Initiative, 
Copper Triangle Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund, the development of 
an alternative Oak Flat Campground, and that is just the beginning. 
Further, the Final Record of Decision will trigger the preservation, 
development, and conservation of our beloved communities. Thus, the 
Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement clearly represents the values 
of the Arizona people--development and growth while cherishing our 
cultural heritage.
    Representing not only the countless groups and stakeholders 
supporting the project for years, but each community member of Arizona, 
I undoubtedly believe the Resolution Copper project is in the best 
interest of Arizona. I strongly request ACHP to reconsider its position 
on the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement and am hopeful ACHP 
will join the other signatories.

            Sincerely,

                                        Senator T.J. Shope,
                               State Senator of Arizona, District 8

                                 ______
                                 

                                                     March 23, 2021

Hon. Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    For more than four decades, key business organizations in Arizona 
including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Economic 
Council, Valley Partnership and Greater Phoenix Leadership among others 
have made it our mission to improve the greater Phoenix area and the 
State of Arizona by bringing together talent, resources and leadership 
to create action on priority issues. We represent Arizona business 
leaders and their employees across a diverse range of industries. 
Together, we work to advance initiatives, public policy and projects 
that will strengthen the future of Arizona.
    We are writing to express our concern over the USDA's recent 
decision to rescind the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 
Draft Record of Decision from the Resolution Copper project near 
Superior, AZ after years of thorough, independent, meaningful public 
consultation by the Forest Service that started in the Obama 
administration. This decision now unnecessarily delays significant 
benefits the project would bring to citizens in our region after they 
participated in good faith along with the Forest Service and almost a 
dozen other taxpayer funded federal and state agencies. The USDA has 
undermined the good work by the career-level staff within the Forest 
Service and tells every member of the public their time and effort was 
wasted. The decision to rescind the Final EIS will have a chilling 
effect on future decisions by businesses to invest in our state.
    As you know, Resolution Copper is developing one of the world's 
most significant untapped domestic sources of copper in Arizona's 
Copper Triangle, an area with a long and rich history of mining. It is 
one of the single largest private investments in Arizona's history.
    This project is a crucial part of America's clean energy future. 
Once in operation, the mine could supply up to one-quarter of the 
nation's copper demand. That's vital fuel for American innovation. 
Copper is an essential component in electric vehicles, battery storage, 
wind turbines, solar panels and other clean energy technologies.
    With demand for copper growing exponentially worldwide, the 
Resolution Copper project will bring enormous economic benefits to our 
state at a time when we need such investment more than ever to rebound 
from the severely negative economic impacts of COVID-19. The mine will 
employ about 1,500 workers and will pay approximately $134 million per 
year in total compensation when fully operational, primarily to a 
workforce that lives within 40 miles of the project. The project will 
also generate an estimated 2,200 additional indirect jobs. And it has 
won strong support from local labor leaders. All told, Resolution 
Copper could contribute $1 billion in economic value for Arizona 
annually over the project's 60-year estimated life. It will boost state 
and local tax revenues by between $88 million and $113 million each 
year of operations, while the federal government could see an extra 
$200 million in tax revenues per year.
    As leaders from some of Arizona's most prominent companies, we know 
what factors into decisions about whether or not to invest in a state. 
That is why we are so troubled by the USDA's last-minute decision 
concerning Resolution Copper, which the agency did without consultation 
with local leaders and communities.
    After all, legislation to facilitate the land exchange between the 
Tonto National Forest and Resolution Copper passed Congress with 
bipartisan support in December 2014 and was signed into law by 
President Obama. The Final EIS issued by the Forest Service in January 
reflects a decade of formal consultation with Native American tribes 
and community stakeholders. It outlines detailed plans to address and 
mitigate community concerns about the project's impact, while 
delivering lasting benefits to the region.
    The federal permitting process was nearly unprecedented in both its 
scope and its length. Entrenched voices of opposition who routinely 
oppose any and all development have been heard. Their voices, however, 
should not cast permanent doubts about this future investment in our 
state. Arizona is a state that relies so heavily upon mining, when it 
is required that businesses submit to lengthy and complex federal 
permitting and EIS review processes, then we must ensure that process 
is followed and respected.
    Now is not the time to play politics with Arizona's economic 
future. We urge you to review the facts, reaffirm trust in the 
extensive independent EIS process and allow the Resolution Copper 
project to move forward so that all Arizona citizens may realize the 
benefits.

            Sincerely,

        Garrick Taylor,               Chris Camacho,
        Interim President & CEO       President & CEO
        Arizona Chamber of Commerce 
        & Industry                    Greater Phoenix Economic Council

        Neil Giuliano,                Cheryl Lombard,
        President & CEO               President & CEO
        Greater Phoenix Leadership    Valley Partnership

                                 ______
                                 

                             PRESS RELEASE
          International Brotherhood of Boilermakers--Lodge 627

PHOENIX--Today the Resolution Copper project was put on hold by an 
order from the United States Department of Agriculture. This mine 
located near Superior, Arizona, will bring thousands of new jobs to 
rural Arizona and put hundreds of Boilermakers to work. Boilermakers 
Local 627 Business Manager and Secretary Treasurer Jacob Evenson 
released the following statement in response to the project setback:

``I am extremely angry and disappointed in the USDA's decision today. 
This mine will put hundreds of Boilermakers from Local 627 to work at a 
facility that needs a skilled and trained workforce. Every time 
decisions like this are made by DC bureaucrats, our Boilermakers are 
out of a job. The USDA's decision means our members, most of which are 
Navajo and Apache tribal members, will continue to hope and wait for 
the day when they can clothe their families, feed their parents, and 
put shoes on little feet.''

``The process by which the land exchange occurred was legal and proper. 
Throughout this process, Resolution Copper consulted with multiple 
tribal nations throughout the state of Arizona. Hundreds of our 
Boilermakers that are also tribal members have been at the table 
helping shape the vision of the Resolution Copper mine. To have a clean 
energy revolution, we need copper to power our windmills, move electric 
cars, and operate solar panels. We demand the USDA reissue the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement without delay and continue progress 
toward construction. Our members, which number in the tens of 
thousands, are watching and will remember.''

In Solidarity Local 627

Jacob Evenson
Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer

                                 ______
                                 
                            City of Apache Junction
                                   Apache Junction, Arizona

                                                  February 22, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    As the Mayor of Apache Junction, I have spent years of my life 
dedicated to the preservation and success of not only Apache Junction, 
but the communities surrounding us. To ensure only the best for our 
communities, other community leaders and I have devoted our lives to 
listening to our people and having their desires be heard. Along with 
this continued support, we continue to stand behind our culture, and 
preserve the heritage and treasures the desert gives to us. To further 
the success of our communities, I have been involved in and supportive 
of the Resolution Copper project for several years. The Resolution 
Copper project not only will have a substantial impact on Pinal County, 
but the many communities surrounding it.
    After tirelessly working for the past several years to have this 
project see its end, it was heart breaking to hear the White House 
Advisory Council decided to terminate their consultation on the 
Programmatic Agreement after involvement with the project for several 
years and months of commitment. It was quite shocking to hear that ACHP 
had such a substantial change of heart, as most of the interested 
parties and stakeholders have continuously supported the Resolution 
Copper project. The imperative impacts of the Resolution Copper project 
are monumental for the communities surrounding Pinal County. 
Specifically, the project spells out measures to address the cultural 
heritage surrounding the Native American Tribes and local Copper 
Communities by including ways we can preserve such communities moving 
forward. Such examples of preservation from the Programmatic Agreement 
itself include a Native American Education Endowment, Native American 
Tribal Endowment, and additional preservation funds and initiatives. 
Further, FEIS mitigations triggered by a Final Record of Decision 
include community development funds, preservation of communities, and 
constructing new trails to embrace our beautiful desert. These measures 
are just the beginning of the positive impacts the Programmatic 
Agreement and Final Record of Decision will bring to our communities.
    With the support of the leaders and communities behind this 
project, including myself, I am hopeful and confident ACHP will change 
its position on the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement and join 
all other required signatories on the Programmatic Agreement. Thank you 
for your consideration and the opportunity for our communities to be 
heard.

            Sincerely,

                                               Chip Wilson,
                                           Mayor of Apache Junction

                                 ______
                                 
                            SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

                                                      July 18, 2016

Resolution EIS Comments
P.O. Box 34468
Phoenix, AZ 85067-4468

    To Whom It May Concern:

    My name is Cody Elgo, I am a member of the San Carlos Apache Tribe 
who works for a contractor that provides services to Resolution Copper. 
I have to be honest with you, at first I did not want to write this 
letter but the more I hear some of my tribal leaders speak against the 
Resolution Copper project, the more I begin to think that they are 
interfering with my livelihood. Before my employment, I had a very 
tough time looking for a job in San Carlos. You see, there are very few 
jobs available so the job pool is highly competitive. Hence, I write 
because I have experienced firsthand how difficult it is to get a job 
in the area and how important it is to hold on to local employment 
opportunities because I want to live and work near my family and 
community. I want to make a difference that will help other tribal 
members get a job, learn a trade, participate in training, and have the 
ability to provide for their families like I do.
    Because I have heard that the Forest Service will be consulting 
with my tribal council on the Resolution Project, please consider:

  1.  an employment plan for Resolution Copper to hire and retain San 
            Carlos Apaches as direct employees and indirect employees 
            working for contractors.

  2.  a plan to train and provide educational opportunities for San 
            Carlos members in the various jobs that will be required at 
            Resolution Copper either as full time or contract.

  3.  a plan with Resolution Copper to work with and further increase 
            the ability of San Carlos tribal businesses that can 
            provide services to the Resolution Copper project.

    Furthermore, I have heard that Resolution Copper will be the mine 
of the future, different than the historic mining that has happened in 
the area, with new technology combined with the current environmental 
regulations. How is the proposed mine different from existing mining 
methods in the Copper Triangle and what are the positions needed to be 
filled when in construction and production phase? Can the EIS please 
describe the modern mining technology, the new regulations for 
protection of the environment and the kind of positions and jobs needed 
when in construction and production as these jobs will require a skill 
that can be used outside of mining?
    Thank you for taking the time to address my inquiries. I want to 
make sure that there is a clear path for everyone to benefit from this 
company because I believe there is true opportunity for people to 
benefit and applaud Resolution Copper for the good deeds they have done 
thus far. I support this project and hope to see it through to 
production.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Cody Elgo,
                                    San Carlos Apache Tribal Member

                                 ______
                                 
                            COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                  February 23, 2021

Mr. Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for ACHP and USFS Finalizing the Programmatic Agreement: 
        Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    Please accept these comments on behalf of the Community Working 
Group (CWG) in response to the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) request for public input for the Resolution 
Copper Mine Project and Land Exchange. The ACHP actions to terminate 
the Programmatic Agreement at the last minute and decline to sign after 
years of participation by the public and after ALL other federal and 
state agencies have signed is unprecedented.

    1. Please approve the Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the 
Resolution Copper Project. This agreement contains provisions that are 
vital to historic preservation, cultural integrity, and economic 
prosperity for everyone in this region, whom our members broadly 
represent. Of specific importance to the Community Working Group are:

     Establishment of a Copper Triangle Historic Preservation 
            Fund aimed at addressing effects from the project on 
            historic properties and other community infrastructure 
            throughout the Copper Triangle region

     Development and initial funding of a new Castleberry 
            Campground as mitigation for Oak Flat, to include cultural 
            resources interpretive information

    The PA also contains provisions that we believe must be valuable to 
tribal interests, including:

     The Emory Oak Collaborative Tribal Restoration Initiative

     Foundation for Tribal Program Funding

     Tribal Cultural Fund

     Tribal Education Fund

     Archaeological Database Funds

    This agreement has been widely vetted with the affected residents, 
eleven affected tribes, agencies, and varied interests in this region. 
As we understand it, all of the required and invited signatories to the 
PA have signed it, except the ACHP, and the vast majority of Native 
American Concurring Parties have also agreed to its provisions.
    Further, and much broader in scope, the Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) that is dependent on approval of the PA contains 
agreements and mitigation measures negotiated through seven years of 
good-faith collaboration among the affected communities, Forest 
Service, and Resolution Copper Company, without which the effects of 
this project would be devastating to the human and physical environment 
and economies of this region.
    We believe that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) processes have been carefully 
and admirably carried out, as envisioned, for this project, and that 
the objectives of reducing impacts to a significant extent have been 
met. Throughout the process, agreements have been forged among the 
affected parties, local communities, Resolution Copper Company, and the 
Tonto National Forest that address most of the major issues of concern 
to this region that were evidenced before the EIS began. The result of 
these agreements is that the many communities and individuals initially 
concerned or opposed to the Resolution Copper Project are now 
supportive of the project, ONLY because, over many years, reasonable 
balance has been achieved between impacts and meaningful mitigation 
commitments.

    2. Historic resources and cultural history are important, along 
with prehistoric and Native American cultural resources. ``Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal 
agencies, in consultation with state and tribal partners  and other 
stakeholders, to consider the effects of undertakings, proposed to be 
carried out by them or subject to their assistance or approval, on 
historic properties to ensure that historic preservation needs are 
considered along with project requirements.''

    Mitigation agreements for this project have been designed to ward 
against the ``boom/bust'' economic cycles typically experienced by 
communities in this region for the past 150 years. From a historical 
perspective, the modern history of this region is intrinsically linked 
to copper mining. Mining is the historical context of the area, so the 
important non-Native resources of the region are all associated with 
mines, mining, and the communities that grew up and thrived around 
copper mines. To a large extent (nearly 30%), these communities are 
comprised of people of Hispanic heritage, stamping their culture on the 
region for generations since the earliest miners hailed from Mexico. 
This heritage should be respected equally with other cultural concerns. 
The PA seeks to recognize the importance of all these historic and 
cultural resources through a commitment to fund wide-ranging 
preservation efforts.

    3. Everyone should have a voice in the Resolution Copper Project 
outcomes. This Community Working Group was formed in 2013 to provide 
constructive dialogue between Resolution Copper Company and the 
multiple stakeholder groups and community leaders in and around 
Superior. The purposes of our group are to learn independent analysis 
about the Resolution Copper Project, advise the company on community 
issues and concerns, and develop suggestions and programs for reducing 
negative impacts of the project and enhancing its potential benefits. 
The CWG provides two-way dialogue between Resolution and a broad range 
of individuals and groups and organizations that span multiple areas 
across three counties to balance the need for jobs and economic growth 
with environmental conservation and historical preservation. The CWG 
includes representatives of the many community groups, interests, and 
varying perspectives who have come together to preserve and enhance the 
values and resources of this region from the Phoenix East Valley to the 
Copper Triangle (Superior, Miami, Globe, Winkelman, Hayden, Kearny). 
The group has also included representatives of the San Carlos Apache 
community and multi-generational local families who hold varying 
historical interpretations of the cultural significance of Oak Flat to 
those presented to the ACHP by a few special interests.

    4. The EIS and PA represent good-faith efforts conducted over 
several years that have increased public trust in the federal 
government and Resolution Copper Company. As mentioned above, there was 
much skepticism before the EIS began about its effectiveness and about 
the sincerity of those involved to thoroughly study and address 
impacts. As a result, members of this CWG--as a whole, and as 
representatives of important community organizations--have participated 
extensively and in good faith during the coordinated Forest Service's 
NEPA and NHPA processes over many years. Members of this group have 
been instrumental in developing and supporting the array of agreements 
and mitigation measures included in the PA and in the EIS. These 
measures are critical to the future survival and prosperity of this 
region and, individually, to the local governments and civic 
organizations represented on the CWG. Although these measures may not 
be important to one group who did not participate in the NEPA/NHPA 
process, they are important to us and the voice of this group should 
matter.

    The CWG and its members have devoted tens of thousands of volunteer 
hours over seven years to this effort. If the PA is not advanced and 
finalized, and if a final Record of Decision can't be released, this 
good-faith work to consensus that has spanned years will have been in 
vain. More importantly, this would represent an extremely bad-faith 
effort on the part of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to 
change course at the last minute after extensive participation and time 
spent by the Forest Service, other state and federal agencies, the Town 
of Superior, the CWG, and all its member organizations who have 
participated for years along with Resolution Copper Company. The ACHP's 
actions send a signal to the whole CWG that our extensive participation 
and the mitigation measures that are meaningful to us were worthless.

    5. Copper is valuable, and Oak Flat will likely be disturbed in 
future with or without the PA and EIS. Regardless of whether the PA is 
approved and the EIS completed, the Secretary of Agriculture will grant 
title of the Oak Flat Federal Parcel to Resolution Copper no more than 
60 days after the final EIS is published (January 15) as legislatively 
mandated in section 3003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2015. Once in private hands, Rio Tinto or another mining 
company in future will be able to extract the copper resource without 
benefit of the regulatory and mitigation requirements inherent in the 
PA and EIS. Copper is increasingly one of the world's most valuable 
resources, even to the point of representing a national security issue, 
and it's entirely reasonable to assume that the Resolution claim will 
be mined by someone, some day.

    6. The Promise to the Public: The ACHP website (www.achp.gov) 
states that it takes ``its responsibilities to the American public 
seriously'' and the ACHP mission is to ``ensure that historic 
preservation needs are balanced with Federal project requirements.'' 
The ACHP customer service standards state that the ACHP is ``committed 
to providing first-class service. When you conduct business with us, we 
will treat you with courtesy and respect.''

    Our request of the ACHP is that you remember that ALL views of the 
American public matter. We have had ``meaningful involvement'' and we 
believe that the Programmatic Agreement and associated measures 
outlined in the Record of Decision strikes that balance. We ask that 
you take the time to treat our comments and views, and this entire 
process and the time spent by many stakeholders, with courtesy and 
respect and as such move forward to sign the Programmatic Agreement.

    We believe that the greater good should prevail here and that the 
ACHP should sign the PA to ensure vital environmental, social, and 
cultural mitigation as well as economic benefits that flow from it to 
this multicultural, historic, active mining region.


            Thank you for your consideration,

           MEMBERS OF THE SUPERIOR COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP:
        Barbara Armitage,             Lynne Nemeth,
        Superior Historical Society   Boyce Thompson Arboretum

        Pam Bennett,                  Lynn Martin,
        Queen Valley Homeowners       JI & JF Ranches

        Joanne Besich,                Ricardo Provencio,
        Optimist Club of Superior     United Superiorites

        Mila Besich,                  Todd Pryor,
        Town of Superior              Town of Superior

        Jeffrey Bunkelmann,           James Schenck,
        Central Arizona College       Rebuild Superior, Inc. & Legends 
                                      of Superior Trail

        Rick Cartier,                 Fernando Shipley,
        Superior Chamber of 
        Commerce                      City of Globe & Cobre Valley 
                                      Regional Medical Center

        Pamela Dalton-Rabago,         Silvia Werre,
        Superior Chamber of 
        Commerce                      Top-of-the-World

        Fred Gaudet,                  Bruce Wittig,
        Arizona Trail Association     Queen Valley Fire Department & 
                                      Queen Valley Water Improvement 
                                      District

        Martina Burman,               Arlynn Godinez,
        Town of Kearny                Superior Unified School District

        Sylvia Kerlock,               Supervisor Woody Cline,
        Town of Winkelman             Gila County

                                 ______
                                 
     Copper Corridor Economic Development Coalition
                                                 Oracle, AZ

                                                  February 25, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    The Copper Corridor Economic Development Coalition (CCEDC) 
represents and supports the communities along the Copper Corridor in 
Arizona, including Superior, Kearny, Hayden, and Winkelman. Our mission 
is to attract, create, and retain quality jobs and businesses and to 
support community leadership; and we have engaged and supported the 
Resolution Copper project for over a decade, participating in good 
faith and providing comments along the way.
    As President of the CCEDC, I write to you in support of the 
Resolution Copper Project, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
and most importantly, the Programmatic Agreement, all of which have 
been the subject of a rigorous review and engagement process for more 
than seven years. The CCEDC is incredibly disappointed to hear of the 
ACHP's actions to terminate the Programmatic Agreement at the last 
minute, after years of participation and after all other federal and 
state agencies have signed.
    The CCEDC understands and appreciates that the Programmatic 
Agreement incorporates significant cultural heritage preservation 
measures created through nearly a decade worth of discussions with 
Native American Tribes and local communities in the Copper Triangle. 
Mining and ranching history has been a fabric in the communities that 
the CCCEDC serves and the Programmatic Agreement and the NEPA process 
show how historic preservation and economic growth can be balanced.
    The CCEDC supports the mitigation measures lined out in the 
Programmatic Agreement, including the construction of the Castleberry 
Campground and the cultural heritage fund to preserve historic and 
cultural character in the towns in the Copper Corridor. This is an 
innovative and impressive balance of historic preservation and local 
economic diversification.
    This recent decision by the ACHP tells the CCEDC and other local 
organizations that our participation and voices do not matter. It is 
disheartening to see that ACHP has put a single focus and sole 
importance on one group of stakeholders; and not all who participated 
fully in this process.
    The CCEDC urges you to reconsider ACHP's position on the 
Programmatic Agreement as quickly a possible, so all communities and 
stakeholders can benefit from the mitigations agreed upon for this 
project.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Programmatic 
Agreement and the CCEDC looks forward to seeing this project move 
forward without further delay.

            Thank you,

                                 Celestino ``Tino'' Flores,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 
              Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
                                               Show Low, AZ

                                                  February 22, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization includes Gila County, 
Navajo County, Greenlee County, Graham County, Navajo County, Apache 
County, and Cochise County. Our primary mission is to plan and 
implement specific environmental programs impacting economic 
development in the Counties we serve. Such programs include forest 
restoration, watershed restoration, energy, water, recreation, 
threatened and endangered species, infrastructures, public lands and 
natural resources planning.
    The Resolution Copper Project and associated Environmental Impact 
Statement are issues of significant interest to our organization, 
especially those member counties who will see direct benefit from the 
project. Copper mining is part of the fabric Arizona's history and this 
project will continue that tradition through its operations and through 
several cultural preservation measures outlined in the Programmatic 
Agreement.
    Those measures are meaningful to many stakeholders, including local 
communities across the copper Triangle and Native American Tribes who 
participated extensively in consultation on the EIS and Section 106 
progress that was coordinated by the United States Forest Service. The 
data recovery measures for historic properties associated with mining 
will further our knowledge of the history of the Copper Triangle region 
and specifically the Pioneer Mining District. Tribal communities will 
be participating in the data recovery through the tribal monitor 
program, providing jobs and job training as well as information and 
knowledge. For beneficiary communities, these measures and the economic 
benefits Resolution Copper can deliver will ensure our mining 
communities continue to prosper and live on while balancing historic 
preservation through the measures outlined in the Programmatic 
Agreement.
    The recent action of ACHP related to the Resolution Copper 
Programmatic agreement is of significant concern from our perspective 
as it calls into question the integrity of the Advisory Council taking 
a political position at the very end of a process they have 
participated in for years. The USFS coordinated a thorough and rigorous 
NEPA process run in parallel with the Section 106 process which has 
spanned more than seven years and three administrations. The 
Programmatic Agreement was included in the Draft EIS for public comment 
and underwent almost a dozen versions, incorporating stakeholder 
feedback all along the way, including feedback from the Advisory 
Council.
    We are keenly aware of the delicate balance required when 
considering public lands and natural resource planning. The established 
process of developing programmatic agreements is critical to addressing 
concerns of rural communities most directly impacted by projects as it 
provides a voice to those communities. Furthermore, this dangerous 
precedent could have far reaching consequences to economic development 
opportunities in rural Arizona and also the much-needed infrastructure 
improvements needed across our country associated with any and all 
federal decisions. It is for these reasons that adherence to the 
processes described in Programmatic Agreement and finalization of that 
document are critical and we support that direction.
    Therefore, we ask that ACHP reconsider its position on the 
Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement in alignment with your 
organization's previous statements that USFS has completed consultation 
in line with Section 106 and the agreement should be implemented as 
drafted.

            Sincerely,

        Jason Whiting,                Nelson Davis,
        Eastern Arizona Counties 
        Organization Chair            Eastern Arizona Counties 
                                      Organization Director
        Navajo County Supervisor      Apache County Supervisor

        Richard Lunt,                 Peggy Judd,
        Eastern Arizona Counties 
        Organization vice-Chair       Eastern Arizona Counties 
                                      Organization Director
        Greenlee County Supervisor    Cochise County Supervisor

        Steve Christensen,            Pascal Berlioux, PhD, MBA,
        Eastern Arizona Counties 
        Organization past Chair       Eastern Arizona Counties 
                                      Organization
        Gila County Supervisor        Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                                        GILA COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                             Globe, Arizona

                                                  February 22, 2021

Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    I am a County Supervisor in Gila County, Arizona, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to comment on the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) decision to terminate the Programmatic Agreement 
for the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona. This Programmatic 
Agreement (PA) was developed among Resolution Copper, the US Forest 
Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Native 
American Tribes so the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can proceed 
to a Record of Decision. The process has taken many years to develop 
and has included many thousands of volunteer hours from local citizens 
who have a vested interest in this project.
    The EIS that is dependent on approval of the PA contains agreements 
and mitigation measures negotiated through years of good faith 
collaboration between the affected communities and Resolution Copper, 
without which the effects of this project would be devastating to the 
environment and economies of this region. The results of these 
agreements is that the many communities and individuals that were 
initially concerned or opposed to the Resolution Copper Project are now 
supportive of the project ONLY because of these mitigation commitments.
    The ACHP actions to terminate the PA at the last minute, after 
years of participation and after ALL other federal and state agencies 
have signed is unprecedented. The ACHP must consider that the Forest 
Service coordinated the NEPA process with Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act and provided multiple opportunities for 
public comment on the project, which has spanned many years. I urge, 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to reconsider their 
decision.
    If you have any questions regarding this letter, I would be more 
than happy to discuss any of these points with you.

            Sincerely,

                                         Steve Christensen,
                                  Gila County Supervisor District I

                                 ______
                                 
                                        GILA COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                             Globe, Arizona

                                                  February 23, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    I am a County Supervisor in Gila County, Arizona, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to comment on the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) decision to terminate the Programmatic Agreement 
for the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona. Even though the mine is 
located in Pinal County, Arizona it will have a profound effect on Gila 
County residents.
    This Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed among Resolution 
Copper, the US Forest Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation 
Office, and Native American Tribes so the Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) can proceed to a Record of Decision. The process has 
taken many years to develop and has included many thousands of 
volunteer hours from local citizens who have a vested interest in this 
project.

    The PA contains provisions that are vital to the historic 
preservation, cultural integrity, and economic prosperity for everyone 
in this region:

     Establishment of a Community Development Fund specifically 
            aimed at addressing effects from the project on historic 
            properties and other community infrastructure for everyone 
            in the Copper Triangle region.

     Development of a new Castleberry Campground as mitigation 
            for Oak Flat, to include cultural resources interpretive 
            information.

     The agreement has been widely vetted with all of the 
            affected residents and interests in the local area.

    The ACHP actions to terminate the PA at the last minute, after 
years of participation and after ALL other federal and state agencies 
have signed is unprecedented. The ACHP placed a singular focus and sole 
importance on one group of stakeholders that has refused to participate 
in the process, and yet the ACHP only listened to them. I urge you to 
reconsider your decision.
    If you have any questions regarding this letter, I would be more 
than happy to discuss any of these points with you.

            Sincerely,

                                           Tim R. Humphrey,
                                 Gila County Supervisor District II

                                 ______
                                 
                                        GILA COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                             Globe, Arizona

                                                  February 22, 2021

Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    I am a County Supervisor in Gila County, Arizona, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to comment on the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) decision to terminate the Programmatic Agreement 
for the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona. Even though the mine is 
located in Pinal County, Arizona, it will have a profound impact on 
Gila County citizens as well.
    This Programmatic Agreement was developed among Resolution Copper, 
the US Forest Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and 
Native American Tribes so the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can 
proceed to a Record of Decision. The process has taken many years to 
develop and has included many thousands of volunteer hours from local 
citizens who have a vested interest in this project.
    A Community Working Group (CWG) was formed in 2013 in order to 
provide a conduit between Resolution Copper Company and the multiple 
stakeholder groups and community leaders in and around Superior. The 
CWG has included community members from nearby Gila County as well. I 
personally was invited to join the group in 2019 and during my 
participation I have learned a great deal about the project, and I have 
been impressed with Resolution Copper's willingness to listen and work 
with the local communities. The EIS that is dependent on approval of 
the PA contains agreements and mitigation measures negotiated through 
years of good-faith collaboration between the affected communities and 
Resolution Copper Company. The agreements and measures are unmatched in 
our communities that have relied on mining for more than 100 years. 
Mining and ranching history has been the fabric of the Copper Triangle 
for a century and the PA and the NEPA process run by the Forest Service 
shows how historic preservation and economic growth can be balanced.
    The ACHP actions to terminate the PA at the last minute, after 
years of participation and after ALL other federal and state agencies 
have signed is unprecedented. I urge you to revisit your decision and 
take into consideration all of the hard work that has gone into this 
project not only by Resolution Copper, local and state government, but 
affected citizens as well.
    If you have any questions regarding this letter, I would be more 
than happy to discuss any of these points with you.

            Sincerely,

                                               Woody Cline,
                                Gila County Supervisor District III

                                 ______
                                 
                                        GILA COUNTY
                                             Globe, Arizona

                                                  February 24, 2021

Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for ACHP and USFS Finalizing the Programmatic Agreement: 
        Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    I am the County Manager for Gila County, Arizona, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to provide comments on the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation's (ACHP) decision to terminate the Programmatic Agreement 
(PA) for Resolution Copper Mine Project and Land Exchange. Although not 
located within the geographic boundaries of Gila County, Resolution 
Copper has and continues to create an economic benefit to Gila County.
    From a historical perspective, modern history of this region is 
intrinsically linked to copper mining and has been for over 100 years. 
Mining is the historical context of the area, so the important non-
native resources of the region are all associated with mines, mining, 
and the communities that grew up and thrived around copper mines. The 
PA seeks to recognize the importance of all these historic and cultural 
resources through a commitment to fund wide-ranging preservation 
efforts. The PA was developed among Resolution Copper, the U.S. Forest 
Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Native 
American Tribes so that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can 
proceed to a Record of Decision.
    The EIS that is dependent upon approval of the PA contains 
agreements and mitigation measures representing good-faith efforts 
between all affected communities and Resolution Copper Company. The 
ACHP's actions to terminate the PA at the last minute, after all other 
federal and state agencies have signed is unprecedented. The ACHP 
placed a singular focus and importance on one group of stakeholders 
that has refused to participate in the process, yet the ACHP only 
listened to them. I urge, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
to reassess their decision and take into consideration all the hard 
work that has gone into this project.
    Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions 
regarding this letter.

            Respectfully submitted,
                                             James Menlove,
                                                     County Manager

                                 ______
                                 
                         Greater Phoenix Leadership
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                      April 7, 2021

Hon. Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    Greater Phoenix Leadership (GPL) has worked for over four decades 
to improve the quality of life and economic vibrancy for the greater 
Phoenix area and the State of Arizona. We represent over 100 Arizona 
CEO's and their nearly 300,000 employees across a diverse range of 
industries. We work to advance initiatives, public policies and 
projects that with build a stronger and better Arizona.
    We have consistently supported the Resolution Copper project and 
the federal land exchange necessary to develop and operate the mine. 
This mine will have a significant and lasting impact on the economy of 
Arizona generating approximately $61 billion in economic value to our 
state and creating thousands of good paying direct and indirect jobs. 
This will have a very positive impact on our state's priorities for 
education and infrastructure development.
    While the economic impact of this project is important, so too are 
the environmental and stakeholder benefits. We have been very impressed 
with the conservation initiatives the company has embarked upon and the 
extensive consultation efforts to involve all key stakeholders in the 
process.
    The parcels included in the Resolution Copper land exchange total 
5,400 acres and have extensive conservation value. They include a 
parcel which spans over seven miles along the San Pedro River, one of 
the few remaining free flowing rivers in the Southwest. The San Pedro 
corridor is one of the most important riparian habitats in the Sonoran 
and Chihuahuan deserts. Other parcels transferring to federal ownership 
would be part of La Cienegas National Conservation Area. Parcels 
included in the exchange are home to dozens of threatened and 
endangered species, critical habitat, and riparian and aquatic 
ecosystems, which have long been recognized for their scarcity and 
overall contribution to wildlife diversity. Some of the properties 
contain river systems that are eligible for scenic designation under 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with habitat for native fish as well as 
rainbow and brown trout.
    The Resolution Copper project will also protect parcels which are 
home to numerous Native American archeological sites, including 
petroglyphs, structure ruins, and grinding sites. The Apache Leap 
parcel, an area of sheer cliff faces and hoodoos contains some of the 
most significant Western Apache archeological sites in the region. The 
land exchange requires that the Apache Leap area be incorporated into a 
Special Management Area for permanent cultural heritage protection and 
administration by the Tonto National Forest.
    The Resolution Copper project is the only Congressionally mandated 
land exchange requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
prior to exchange of title. The Tonto National Forest, several local 
communities in the Copper Triangle, stakeholders from three rural 
counties, nearly a dozen Tribes, multiple federal and state agencies 
all participated together to work with Resolution Copper during the 
comprehensive review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
for almost a decade. Not only would the Town of Superior have the 
ability to grow and develop with additional land as part of the land 
exchange, the EIS also contains important mitigation measures to expand 
recreation and the diversity of the local Copper Triangle economy. Very 
importantly, with the cooperation of consulting Native American Tribes, 
the first of its kind tribal monitor program was created employing 
dozens of Native American tribal members to ensure a transparent 
assessment and cataloging of sacred and culturally significant sites.
    Tonto National Forest has worked tirelessly to produce a nearly 
3,000-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with hundreds of 
independent analyses and a decade of meaningful collaborations and 
consultations with Native American Tribes. We applaud the outstanding 
work by the Tonto National Forest, and we urge you to encourage the 
Administration to republish the FEIS in the very near future and move 
this most important project forward.

            Sincerely,

                                             Neil Giuliano,
                                                  President and CEO
                                 ______
                                 

Mr. Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange; Tonto National 
        Forest, Pinal County, Arizona ACHP Project Number: 012344; 
        Response to Termination of Consultation

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    Please accept these comments in response to the press release 
issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on 
February 11, 2021 announcing that it had terminated consultation on the 
Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange and inviting public 
comment on that decision. I am very concerned by this decision. It is 
my position as an attorney familiar with the Resolution Copper Project, 
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the regulations 
governing the ACHP that this decision is based on an incorrect 
interpretation of the law and a distorted version of the facts related 
to the impacts of the Resolution Copper Project and the development of 
the Programmatic Agreement. The ACHP should reverse that decision and 
sign the Programmatic Agreement. If ACHP proceeds with this course of 
action, then the Forest Service should approve the project and 
implement the measures described in the Programmatic Agreement to 
resolve adverse effects to historic properties.
    I have more than 42 years of experience in the natural resources 
industries as a policy and legal expert. I have a BSBA and JD from the 
University of Missouri. For 23 years I served as the Executive Director 
of the Northwest Mining Association/American Exploration & Mining 
Association (AEMA), retiring in March 2019. I continue to provide 
consulting services to the minerals industry as a policy and legal 
expert. During my tenure at AEMA, the Association established itself as 
the recognized national voice for exploration, the junior mining 
sector, and maintaining access to public lands.
    I also served as a Trustee of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law 
Foundation for approximately 20 years and worked closely with the most 
respected mining, public land and environmental attorneys in the 
country. I gained in-depth knowledge of the General Mining Laws, the 
environmental and public land laws and the proper interpretation of 
those laws. As executive director of AEMA, I worked closely with 
members on NHPA issues and compliance with ACHP regulations, 
particularly implementation of and compliance with the Section 106 
consulting process. I continue to consult to the industry on Mining Law 
issues.
    I also am very familiar with the Resolution Copper Project and the 
Land Exchange authorized and mandated by the FY 2015 NDAA. Resolution 
Copper joined AEMA during my tenure as executive director and 
representatives of Resolution Copper served on the Association's Board 
of Trustees. I toured the Resolution Copper Project site, including Oak 
Flat in February 2017 and received a complete briefing on the project. 
I authored March 2016 comments on behalf of AEMA opposing the 
nomination of Oak Flat Historic District Traditional Cultural Property 
to the National Register of Historic Places, and July 2016 comments on 
the Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange Environmental Impact 
Statement. It is with this experience, background and knowledge that I 
submit these comments for your consideration.
    The ACHP actions to terminate the Section 106 consulting process 
after years of Tribal and public participation, and refusal to sign the 
Programmatic Agreement at the last minute, after all other state and 
federal agencies had signed the agreement, is unprecedented and 
inappropriate. It appears the ACHP's February 11, 2021 decision was 
driven by political interests that favor the interests of one Tribe and 
a small group of vocal project opponents over the fair administration 
of the ACHP's duties under the NHPA. The fact that the February 11, 
2021 termination letter was, within days, featured as the most 
prominent exhibit in the San Carlos Apache Tribe's motion for a 
preliminary injunction in its lawsuit against the Forest Service 
seeking to block the project is troubling.
    As both the FEIS and the Programmatic Agreement (an appendix to the 
FEIS) document, it is overwhelmingly clear that the Forest Service has 
conducted extensive consultation with affected tribes and other 
interested parties. The final version of the Programmatic Agreement 
includes significant, substantive measures to resolve adverse effects 
and, where impacts cannot be mitigated, to respond directly to the 
requests of local tribes and communities to offset the adverse effects.
    Impacts to Oak Flat were recognized from the beginning and 
acknowledged in the Programmatic Agreement in words that came directly 
from the affected tribes. Given the geologic fact mineral deposits 
cannot be moved and must be developed where they are found, impacts to 
Oak Flat are unavoidable because a world class copper resource lies 
under Oak Flat. The NEPA and NHPA processes were rigorous and took many 
years. The Forest Service, working with many federal and state 
cooperating and consulting agencies, and based on numerous Tribal and 
public comments has approved a plan with numerous limitations, 
stipulations and mitigation, that allows development of an important 
world class copper resource while limiting impacts to surface resources 
where possible and offsetting those impacts where they are unavoidable. 
The ACHP's recognition that the project would be a significant impact 
to Oak Flat is not an appropriate justification for terminating 
consultation or rejecting the Programmatic Agreement that was 
negotiated in good faith among the parties and signed by all other 
signatories.
    Importantly, the Programmatic Agreement adopts specific mitigation 
programs that were requested by Consulting Tribes, local communities, 
the State of Arizona and developed in consultation among all of the 
consulting parties. The ACHP has acknowledged that the consultation 
process complies with Section 106 requirements. Thus, all statutory and 
regulatory requirements have been addressed and satisfied. There is no 
legal or other appropriate reason for not signing the Programmatic 
Agreement and the ACHP should have signed it and thanked the Forest 
Service and the other consulting parties for their hard work.
    I respectfully request that the ACHP sign the programmatic 
agreement so that the endowments and programs to consulting tribes and 
local communities contained in the Programmatic Agreement are not lost. 
Without the implementation of the Programmatic Agreement, Consulting 
Tribes and the public will essentially receive nothing in return for 
the Congressional authorized and mandated land exchange. If the ACHP 
does not reverse course and sign the Programmatic Agreement, then I 
recommend strongly that the Forest Service approve the project and 
include the measures described and agreed to in the Programmatic 
Agreement to mitigate and resolve adverse effects to historic 
properties when it issues a record of decision.

    Thank you for considering these comments.

            Sincerely,

                                            Laura E. Skaer,
                                   Natural Resources Policy Advisor
                                      Attorney at Law--Columbia, MO

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                              Mila Besich
                       Mayor of Superior, Arizona
                                  and
   Executive Director, Copper Corridor Economic Development Coalition

My Turn: Resolution Copper Needs to Move Forward--With Permits in Place

    Superior is my hometown where my family has lived for generations. 
As its name implies, it is one of the most superior and scenic places 
in Arizona. From the surrounding mountains and canyons to trails and 
rock climbing to waterfalls, the magic of Superior's way of life can be 
felt. Superior is also a historic mining town where many critical 
mining engineering feats took place and where some of the world's 
largest copper deposits have been found. Revolutionary designs in 
mining like the first air conditioned mine and the longest and deepest 
single-lift mining shaft were constructed here. We are proud of our 
mining heritage, and as a community, we have a healthy respect and 
clear understanding for the challenges that the boom and bust cycles of 
mining have created for our community and our region.
    Arizona's Copper Corridor is the equivalent of Yukon gold. Some of 
the richest and most accessible copper ore deposits are found here in 
eastern Pinal and southern Gila counties. Two of the three copper 
smelters left in the United States operate in our region. Mining 
belongs in this part of Arizona and it can be done responsibly while 
protecting the environment and the beautiful landscape that we love and 
cherish.
    When the Resolution Copper project was introduced to Superior, it 
brought a glimmer of hope and opportunity to our small, close-knit 
community. Its predecessor, the Magma Mine, was shuttered in 1996 and 
opportunities were scarce for Superior to provide employment and 
business prospects for our diminishing population.
    If the Resolution Copper projects comes to fruition, it will employ 
some of the most technologically advanced and modern mining techniques 
ever. It will have passed the most thorough and exhaustive 
environmental permitting ever and it will boast new jobs focused on 
robotics and other innovations that will make this the most 
sophisticated, advanced and environmentally sensitive mine in the 
United States.
    This opportunity was critically important to the Town but not at 
the cost of the long-term sustainability of our community and 
protection of our precious environmental resources that makes us 
Superior. Our community goal has always been to be a town with a mine--
not a mining town. This project helps us achieve this.
    From the day this project was proposed, Superior chose to actively 
participate in the Resolution Copper Environmental Impact Statement. We 
chose to work with our Congressional delegation to bring to light areas 
that needed mitigation. We proactively engaged with officials at the 
Tonto National Forest and Environmental Protection Agency. We chose to 
stay at the table and negotiate with Resolution Copper to ensure that 
we had mitigation agreements in place to protect Superior's environment 
and socio-economic impact now and for generations to come.
    Most importantly, the leadership of Superior understands that this 
ore body is not going to magically disappear; it will be mined and it 
should only be mined with the full permitting requirements of the 
environmental impact statements. Our active participation in the 
process affords me the confidence to unequivocally state that this mine 
must move forward for the betterment of Superior and our surrounding 
communities and to protect the precious environment that we revere.
    Recent political maneuvers, fostered by opposition groups to reject 
the EIS, have created yet another roadblock to the progress of this 
mine and, ultimately, the future of Superior. If these opposition 
groups are successful, they will have opened up ``Pandoras box'', as 
the lands at Oak Flats will still be officially exchanged in March and 
the ore body will still be there.
    With Resolution Copper in full ownership of the lands currently 
held by the federal government, they could still mine the property. 
However, their ownership of these lands will mean that they won't be 
required to do the extensive environmental permitting they were 
required to do under the parameters of the Southeast Arizona Land 
Exchange and Conservation Act.
    For years, the Town of Superior, and the people who reside here, 
have actively participated in this transparent process as supporters 
and, in some cases, in opposition to this project. Oak Flats is 
important to our community: it has been a place of recreation, family 
reunions, union picnics and cultural celebrations, but it is also the 
place that many have gone to work. They have toiled and labored to 
provide for their families. The work is sacred to them and their 
families. It is part of our community fabric.
    Mining will always be part of our economic DNA and will forever be 
critical to Arizona's economy and to our national defense. Copper 
powers everything from our televisions to our smart phones to our 
laptops and smart cars. Demand for copper will only increase as we 
become more technologically advanced.
    The mine has been approved by the federal government. It is time 
for us to move forward with the permitting process. Further delay will 
be counterproductive to the goals of those who oppose this mine. When 
the land exchange takes effect next month, it could potentially create 
more opportunity for this mine to open without the proper permitting, 
environmental and socio-economic mitigations that are needed to ensure 
that the project is a net positive for Superior and the State of 
Arizona. This would be a travesty.
    A wise person once told me: if you are not at the table, then they 
will eat your lunch. It is time for the opposition groups to come to 
the table and help develop solutions. This ore body will be mined, and 
it must be mined with the proper protections in place. We have been 
fighting for these protections since this legislation became law in 
2014. Let's not let them eat our lunch.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                         Oddonetto Construction

         Oddonetto Construction supports Resolution Copper Mine

    Oddonetto Construction is a local contractor working at the 
Resolution Copper mine. We are thrilled to be a partner with a company 
so heavily invested in the local communities within and surrounding the 
Copper Triangle. Resolution Copper's commitment to employing from 
within the local communities has allowed us to supply over two hundred 
employees over the course of the past five years. Approximately 90% of 
the employees have come from within the Copper Triangle communities 
including many members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

    We are excited to see Resolution Copper's continued investments in 
the community we call home. Resolution Copper has, by far, gone above 
and beyond with their commitment to their employees, communities, 
safety, and environmental and historical and cultural preservation. We 
continue to strongly support the Resolution Copper project and the land 
exchange, including the measures as outlined in the Resolution Copper 
Programmatic Agreement which balance historical and cultural 
preservation with jobs and economic growth. Our community believes in 
Resolution Copper, a sustainable copper mine for our future 
generations.

    We applaud the work of the United States Forest Service for 
publication of the Final EIS for the Resolution Copper project after 
years of stakeholder feedback. It is time for this much needed project 
to move forward. The foundation of the NEPA and NHPA process is that 
all voices and opinions should be considered equally. One paid voice 
does not speak for an entire community.

                                 ______
                                 

                                                  February 22, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    I have been a part of the meetings with Resolution Copper in this 
journey since 2003 or 2004. This is mining and ranching country and is 
our roots. I am a resident of Superior, a member of the Superior 
Chamber of Commerce, a member of Rebuild Superior Inc, and a member of 
the Community Working Group and have been working to look at practices 
and mitigation efforts and comment on the EIS regarding Resolution 
Copper to have a transparent and balanced reopening of the mine that 
will be instrumental to help our region's economy. The USFS has 
conducted an open, transparent, and complete process giving all of us a 
voice in the process. I support Resolution Copper and the mitigations 
put in place so that EIS can go through.
    The development of the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement has 
not been rushed and ACHP has been involved in its development for 
several years. The USFS coordinated the NEPA process with Section 106 
of the National Historic process and provided multiple opportunities 
for all public and group comment for all phases and over many years. I 
participated in the process in good faith however one group though 
invited chose not to participate, (However there were members of the 
tribe that did participate on their own), in this process proscribed by 
the NEPA process and yet the ACHP only is listening to that group now 
not all of us. I request and support the mitigation measures in the PA 
and the PA and Final EIS should be supported.

    It contains provisions that are vital to the historic preservation, 
cultural integrity, and economic prosperity for everyone in this 
region:

     Establishment of a Community Development Fund specifically 
            at addressing effects from the project on historic 
            properties and other community infrastructures for everyone 
            in the Copper Triangle.

     Development of a new Castleberry Campground as mitigation 
            for the Oak Flats, to include cultural resources 
            interpretive information. Development of the Trail system 
            worked on by the RUG group and FS.
     The agreement has been widely vetted with all the affected 
            residents and interests in this area.

     Also has provisions for the Tribe: The Emory Oak 
            Collaborative Tribal Restoration Initiative, Foundation for 
            Tribal Program Funding, Tribal Cultural Fund, Tribal 
            Education Fund, Archeological Database Funds.

    The ACHP actions to terminate the PA at the last minute, after 
years of participation and after all Federal and State agencies have 
signed is unprecedented. The ACHP actions tell me that my and other's 
years of involvement in the work, participation and requested 
mitigation measures are worthless. The ACHP ignored all the work, 
ignored all our input and I/we do not understand why the ACHP walked 
away from this effort that we all spent years developing. What do these 
actions tell me and the country about how this process works. Did we 
waste our time and should have taken a political approach instead? We 
used the process as we believe we should have.
    This is so important to this region, the potential for jobs, the 
mitigations worked out for all towns and groups are needed and will be 
beneficial to the whole. Hopefully you will reconsider and think about 
all of us who followed the prescribed process and contributed to this 
work and find a way to move this forward and make it happen for all.

            Sincerely,

                                      Pamela Dalton-Rabago,
                                                           Resident

                                 ______
                                 

                                       PINAL COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                          Florence, Arizona

                                                     March 24, 2021

President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    The Pinal County Board of Supervisors, wish to express our ongoing 
support for the Resolution Copper project and land exchange, which will 
provide critical economic growth and opportunity, and support the 
culture and heritage of future generations. We have been active 
participants in the decade-long consultation process that produced 
meaningful changes in the scope of the project as requested by 
communities and stakeholders and resulted in our support for the 
publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 
Resolution Copper Mine in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. We 
are writing to you now to express our concern about the last-minute 
decision to rescind the FEIS for the Resolution Copper Mine.
    Mining is an important part of the heritage of Pinal County. 
Resolution Copper has demonstrated that it will support preservation of 
this heritage and rural economic development with measures such as the 
Copper Triangle Cultural Heritage Preservation Fund and the Copper 
Triangle Community Development Fund. Both measures will help provide 
the tools necessary for our rural communities to prosper beyond mining 
and well into the future. The Castleberry Campground and many other 
recreational trails and new access to climbing will support a continued 
tradition of world class outdoor recreation while also expanding 
economic diversification opportunities for local communities. 
Resolution Copper has also agreed to restore the landscape by spending 
$75 million on reclaiming the historic footprint of the Magma Copper 
Mine, all while using and building the capacity of our local community 
contractors.
    We commend the United States Forest Service, Tonto National Forest 
for their thorough, thoughtful, and transparent process in which they 
listened to all stakeholders and made many changes to the project scope 
in response to those voices. Local communities, Native American Tribes, 
and other stakeholders actively participated with local, federal, and 
state cooperating agencies to provide meaningful input throughout the 
process. Comment time frames have been generous and extended several 
times at the request of interested parties. The FEIS is nearly 3000 
pages and Appendix S of the Final EIS contains hundreds of 
consultations spanning more than a decade. We urge you to review the 
FEIS and all the components of the project record and proceed with the 
FEIS and land exchange so that transparency, fairness, and public 
confidence in the regulatory process can be maintained, and that the 
many benefits of the project for our residents and the County can be 
realized.

            Sincerely,

                PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS          
        Stephen Q. Miller,            Jeffrey McClure,
        Chairman, District 3          Supervisor, District 4

        Mike Goodman,                 Jeff Serdy,
        Vice-Chairman, District 2     Supervisor, District 5

        Kevin Cavanaugh,
        Supervisor, District 1


                                 ______
                                 

                                       PINAL COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                          Florence, Arizona

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    As Vice Chairman of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, I write 
to you in support of the Resolution Copper Project, associated 
Environmental Impact Statement, and the Programmatic Agreement which 
have been the subject of rigorous review for more than seven years. 
Making it this far has been no small feat, as it has required the 
cooperation of numerous governmental bodies, Native American Tribes and 
communities, local Copper Triangle communities and other stakeholders 
and interested parties. Several years' worth of consultation and 
feedback, representing nearly a dozen versions of the document has 
resulted in the Programmatic Agreement--a comprehensive document 
spelling out measures addressing cultural heritage measures and 
mitigations such that the Resolution Copper project would benefit all 
parties. The ultimate fruition of this project is crucial for the 
success of Pinal County and its residents.
    I am fortunate to represent the fastest growing part of Pinal 
County, and have spent the greater part of the last decade intimately 
involved in supporting its economic development. I am actively involved 
with my constituents who come from all backgrounds, and with confidence 
I can state they are in support of this project. The USFS has conducted 
this process with full transparency, allowing all interested parties 
the opportunity to comment on its outcome. It is unfortunate that the 
ACHP would now take a position against signing the Programmatic 
Agreement after years of development and careful planning. I urge you 
to reconsider the ACHP's position and join the numerous organizations 
and local communities that favor it. I look forward to the project 
becoming operational as planned, and the great amount of jobs it will 
bring for our residents who truly need them.

            Thank you,

                                              Mike Goodman,
                 Vice-Chairman, Pinal County Supervisor, District 2

                                 ______
                                 

                                       PINAL COUNTY
                                       Board of Supervisors
                                          Florence, Arizona

                                                  February 19, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    As Supervisor of District 5 in Pinal County, Arizona, I write to 
you with my constituents in mind. Before I became Supervisor, I served 
as Mayor of the city of Apache Junction for two terms. My years of 
public service have allowed me to take action in the face of 
opportunity, particularly when that opportunity would improve the lives 
of those residing in Pinal County. The Resolution Copper mine is one 
such opportunity. This copper mine is crucial for the continued success 
of the County and has been an important factor in planning for the 
future of the County for over a decade. I urge you to reconsider ACHP's 
position on this project, which will benefit all involved parties so 
greatly, as soon as possible.
    The Resolution Copper mine is supported by a bi-partisan group of 
constituents around the County and presents a unique opportunity to 
benefit all groups and individuals involved. The residents who would 
benefit from the copper mine are many, as its development would create 
new jobs while increasing economic activity in rural Pinal County. The 
COVID-19 pandemic has only compounded the difficulties already felt by 
families that feel like they've been left behind in our changing 
economy. The copper mine is an opportunity for continued economic 
growth in an industry that is familiar to the state of Arizona. Copper 
mining is engrained in our state's heritage, so much so that it's 
depicted on the state seal. It is undoubtedly woven in the fabric of 
Arizona's history, and the Programmatic Agreement was designed to 
ensure that tradition would continue with a number of cultural 
preservation measures in place.
    This project is nearly a decade in the making and has already been 
through a significant amount of scrutiny. The USFS has processed the 
Programmatic Agreement through rigorous review while accepting feedback 
from all those involved and interested in its outcome. It has been 
developed to include measures supporting the interests of Native 
American Tribes, the environment, Pinal County and the state of 
Arizona, and should not now fail at the finish line. As I mentioned 
previously the copper mine has bi-partisan support, and I firmly 
believe its development is in the best interest of all those involved. 
I strongly urge you to reconsider the ACHP's position and support the 
project's progression, and the future of Pinal County.

            Sincerely,

                                                Jeff Serdy,
                                Pinal County Supervisor, District 5

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                               John Keedy
                      Chair, Queen Creek Coalition
                            Peoria, Arizona
                    H.R. 1884, ``Save Oak Flat Act''
                             April 13, 2021
    Chairwoman Leger Fernandez, Ranking Member Don Young, full 
committee Chairman Grijalva and all of the distinguished committee 
members with a thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on 
this matter.
    Queen Creek Coalition is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity that has 
been involved in saving rock climbing and related recreational 
resources that could be impacted by the Land Exchange and Mine proposed 
by Resolution Copper near Superior, Arizona.
    It holds the Recreational Use License that allows recreation on 
Resolution's private property and works with Resolution to manage that 
recreation. As part of negotiations that were begun around 2006 and 
continued forward through the Environmental Impact Study conducted by 
the United States Forest Service, QCC has been a central stakeholder 
seeking to maximize rock climbing and other recreation in the area. In 
the early years of 2006 to 2008 representatives of Queen Creek 
Coalition marched alongside members of the Native American community 
and sought an equitable solution for all.
    However, while many stakeholders who remained in opposition based 
on inflexible positions, Queen Creek Coalition took the path of many 
other conservation and recreation groups and sought a ``win-win'' 
through negotiations. QCC found Resolution Copper very willing to work 
with stakeholders who were not inflexible. As a result, QCC reached an 
agreement in 2012 to maintain the recreation on Resolution's private 
property as well as to work with Resolution and surrounding land owners 
such as the USFS to achieve a recreational greenbelt around the Mine.
    The Land Exchange that was approved in 2015 was in fact a fair 
representation of the outcome of many years of negotiation among the 
parties who were willing to negotiate. It was a good outcome and should 
not be over-turned after many years of negotiation and good faith 
efforts by those willing to work toward a mutually acceptable goal.
    Therefore, Queen Creek Coalition opposes House Bill 1884 and 
encourages Congress to reject it.

                                 ______
                                 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Resolution Copper Project and 
                        Land Exchange, Volume 6
                    APPENDIX S--CONSULTATION HISTORY

    The link for the entire Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange Volume 6 is as follows:

https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/sites/default/files/feis/resolution-
final-eis-vol-6.pdf

    APPENDIX S. CONSULTATION HISTORY begins on page 409 of the 
document.

                                 ______
                                 

                           RESOLUTION COPPER
               Final EIS Programmatic Agreement Summary:
                         Process & Commitments

    Resolution Copper is making one of the most significant private 
investments in Arizona history, developing one of the world's largest 
untapped copper deposits in Arizona's Copper Triangle. Once in 
operation, the mine could supply up to one-quarter of the nation's 
copper demand, support roughly 3,700 jobs at full production and 
produce up to $61 billion in economic value for Arizona over the 60-
year life of the project.

In brief:

     The publication of the Final Environmental Impact 
            Statement (EIS) is a critical milestone for Resolution 
            Copper and our community and tribal partners.

     The mitigations and Programmatic Agreement reflect 
            significant commitments shaped through years of public 
            consultation. These have had meaningful impacts on the 
            project design and construction and will bring long-term 
            benefits for our partners.

     The Final EIS will detail the commitments as part of the 
            public record, and the funding will be agreed to with 
            specific partners as the project proceeds over time.

Ongoing Community Engagement

    Public engagement has shaped this project every step of the way. 
The Federal review process, led by the United States Forest Service 
(USFS), spent nearly a decade gathering insights from local leaders, 
Native American tribes, NGOs, community organizations and businesses to 
inform the publication of the Final EIS. USFS communicates with 
officials and stakeholders at the federal, state and local levels to 
ensure they understand the project. Simultaneously, Resolution Copper 
has participated in hundreds of other conversations and engagements, 
including numerous community working groups, to collect the input that 
continues to shape the project. That robust community dialogue will 
continue as we begin the process of allocating funding for mitigations 
included in the Final EIS.

Meaningful Mitigation

    Resolution Copper expects to invest around $100M in a range of 
important programs. While funding will proceed on a separate process 
with our partners, Resolution Copper has agreed to invest in programs 
that fall into the categories outlined below. We are in a long-term 
partnership with our key stakeholders and communities. We will continue 
to collaborate on program development and funding through the project's 
different phases and life.

Economic Development

     Cover net direct costs related to the use of Town of 
            Superior emergency and municipal services.

     Fund land development consultation for Superior planning 
            on additional residential and economic growth.

     Create and fund an endowment to develop sustainable 
            regional economic development in the Copper Triangle 
            Communities (Superior, Hayden, Winkelman and Kearny).

     Fund development of a new Entrepreneurship and Innovation 
            Center in the Town of Superior.

     Fund the creation of Rebuild Superior to address blight in 
            the community and preserve community character.

Environmental Mitigation

     Tailings facility relocated 30 miles away to Skunk Camp at 
            the request of the Town of Superior.

     Invest significant resources into the Queen Creek 
            Mitigation Site (1.8-mile reach) to restore natural 
            vegetation and promote natural streamflow.

     Implement monitoring and mitigation measures for 
            groundwater-dependent ecosystems and wells using EPA-
            approved methods.

     Invest in measures to reduce sky brightness and potential 
            dark sky impacts.

     Work with ADOT and the Town of Superior to develop a 
            traffic management plan for the construction period.

Recreation

     Fund construction, initial operation, and maintenance of a 
            new Castleberry Campground to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat 
            Campground--a historic property and an important local 
            recreation facility.

     Fund the Inconceivable Road Access Plan to improve and 
            guarantee safe access to popular recreational rock-climbing 
            areas.

     Protection of the Queen Creek Climbing Area, including 
            funding an endowment to support the continued use of the 
            area for climbing and bouldering.

     Fund the construction and maintenance of a new multi-use 
            trail network on the Tonto National Forest, in partnership 
            with the Town of Superior and recreational groups.

     Fund improvements to US 60 Park in Superior.

Cultural Heritage Protection

     Establish a Copper Triangle Cultural Preservation Fund to 
            address the project's impacts on historic properties and 
            other community infrastructure.

     Add land for inclusion in the Apache Leap Special 
            Management Area (SMA) to preserve the natural character of 
            Apache Leap, allow for traditional uses of the area by 
            tribes, and protect and conserve cultural and 
            archaeological resources of the area.

     Establish a Tribal Cultural Fund to address: the physical 
            and visual effects on the Chi'chil Bildagoteel Historic 
            District and other historic properties significant to 
            Tribes, Fund the Emory Oak Collaborative Tribal Restoration 
            Initiative, and Tribal Youth Program.

Education, Community & Youth Program Support

     Fund the design, development and construction of a Multi-
            Generation Center, including a new gym, library, senior 
            center and other venue spaces in the community.

     Agree to fund a four-year $1.2 million program on STEM 
            with the Superior Unified School District.

     Establish a robust training and apprenticeship program to 
            prepare more local workers for employment at Resolution 
            Copper.

Resolution Copper will bring long-term benefits that will play a vital 
  role in the economic recovery of the region, Arizona and the United 
                                States.

                                 ______
                                 
                Southern Arizona Business Coalition
                                            Tucson, Arizona

Mr. Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Resolution Copper Mining Project and Land Exchange; Tonto National 
        Forest, Pinal County, Arizona ACHP Project Number: 012344; 
        Response to Termination of Consultation

    Mr. Christopher Daniel:

    On behalf of the over 5000 employees directly and indirectly 
impacted by the mining industry here in Southern Arizona, the Southern 
Arizona Business Coalition stands confidently in support of the 
Resolution Copper Project and the NEPA process that has taken place. 
This includes the consultation of the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP). Our involvement spans over five years with the 
Resolution project.
    Our organization was dismayed to hear that the ACHP had at the last 
minute terminated Section 106 consultation on the Resolution Copper 
Mining Project and Land Exchange and are now inviting public comment on 
their decision. Further we believe political pressure had been applied 
by certain federal legislators or their staff to motivate this 
withdrawal. Their action alienates the Programmatic Agreement and the 
time and energy invested by all signers to the agreement and the public 
at large. This action seems to be totally contrary to ACHP mission 
statement as an Independent Federal Agency established to provide non-
partisan factual information to the President and Congress.
    As our comments are brief they are not without genuine concern for 
a NHPA and NEPA processes that allows for honest and open opportunities 
to find resolve to important concerns expressed during these reviews 
and consultations. Unfortunately, the sudden withdrawal and current 
state of pandemic left us unable to thoroughly consult with counsel and 
more completely detail the legal consequences of the action taken by 
ACHP.
    In closing, we respectfully request that the ACHP sign the 
programmatic agreement to ensure commitments made to the tribes and 
local communities contained in the Programmatic Agreement. If however, 
the ACHP does not revert back to its original position, stating the 
Section 106 requirements were complied with, we respectfully request 
the Forest Service move forward and approve the project. We would also 
ask that commitments noted in the Programmatic Agreement be upheld by 
the Forest Service.

    Thank you for your attention to this most important process and our 
comments.

            Sincerely,

        Bill Assenmacher,             Rick Grinnell,
        Co-Founder                    Co-Founder, Managing Partner

                                 ______
                                 

                                                  February 24, 2021

Reid Nelson, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Support for the Resolution Copper Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Nelson:

    Superior, Arizona and the nearby Copper Corridor are home to a 
mining and ranching legacy you can't find anywhere else. There is 
passion, respect, and appreciation for our history, culture, and 
heritage that continues to thrive with the progression of the 
Resolution Copper Project.
    When Resolution Copper begins construction and production, it will 
employ some of the most technologically advanced and modern mining 
techniques in the world; with employment from the local area expected 
to exceed 1,500 during full production. It will have passed the most 
comprehensive permitting process any mining project has even seen, with 
an ore body that will support the region for decades to come.
    As a local resident of Superior, Arizona, twenty-year business 
owner in Superior and longtime President of the Superior Chamber of 
Commerce, I have spent the last decade dedicated to the historic 
preservation of Superior and our mining heritage. I have been immersed 
in the engagement, consultation, and participatory process with 
Resolution Copper; and have been heavily involved in the creation and 
development of the Programmatic Agreement, as it pertains to cultural 
heritage and the historic preservation of the Copper Corridor.
    In my current capacity as a local resident, local business owner 
and community leader, I write to you in support of the Resolution 
Copper Project, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and most 
importantly, the Programmatic Agreement, all of which have been the 
subject of a rigorous review for more than seven years. I was 
incredibly disappointed to hear of the ACHP's actions to terminate the 
Programmatic Agreement, with this unprecedented decision, after years 
of participation. It is disheartening to know that the ACHP pulled 
their support, after all other federal and state agencies have signed.
    I understand that the Programmatic Agreement incorporates 
significant cultural heritage preservation measures created through 
nearly a decade worth of discussions with Native American Tribes and 
all local communities in the Copper Corridor. The Programmatic 
Agreement and the NEPA process show how historic preservation and 
economic growth can be balanced.

    I support the mitigation measures lined out in the Programmatic 
Agreement, including:

    --Construction of the Castleberry Campground;

    --Creation of the cultural heritage fund to preserve historic and 
            cultural character in the towns in the Copper Corridor

    This recent decision by the ACHP tells my Chamber members, my 
community and I that our participation and voices do not matter. I urge 
you to reconsider ACHP's position on the Programmatic Agreement as 
quickly a possible, so all communities and stakeholders can benefit 
from the mitigations agreed upon for this project.
    I am confident that Resolution Copper will continue to actively 
engage and continue to progress this project in a manner that is 
socially, environmentally and culturally responsible.

            Thank you,

                                              Sue Anderson,
                        Superior Resident, local business owner &  
                             Superior Chamber of Commerce President

                                 ______
                                 

                                   TOWN OF SUPERIOR
                                          Superior, Arizona

                                                  February 23, 2021

Mr. Christopher Daniel
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Re: ACHP Programmatic Agreement

    Dear Mr. Daniel:

    As you know, the Town of Superior has been working with Resolution 
Copper Mining to address the multiple impacts of its proposed mining 
operations on our community. These impacts include cultural heritage, 
socioeconomics, water, and environmental justice, and were analyzed 
through an extensive public engagement process and numerous technical 
studies. The Town, as well as many other agencies, has engaged in 
thousands of hours of meetings and negotiations in order to produce 
agreements to mitigate these impacts. In short, the NEPA process has 
done its job.

    Now, as we are nearing the end of this difficult process, the White 
House Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's decision not to take 
action on the programmatic agreement has placed the Record of Decision 
memorializing these mitigations in jeopardy. We feel this action is 
misguided for the following reasons:

  1.  This will not block the transfer of the Land Exchange properties. 
            The legislation is tied to the Final Environmental Impact 
            Statement and will transfer with or without the ROD on 
            March 15th of 2021. The legislation does not require the 
            programmatic agreement to proceed with the exchange.

  2.  This will remove all of the environmental, socioeconomic, water 
            and cultural mitigations from the table, but will not stop 
            them from mining. As Oak Flat will now be private property, 
            the next permitting cycle will be much less expansive, 
            including only an EA for the proposed pipeline. An EIS or a 
            404 would no longer be required. All of the mitigations for 
            the larger permit could be removed from discussion. This 
            would be a disaster for the affected communities, the 
            environment, and even the tribes.

    Mr. Daniel, we are very appreciative of your consideration of the 
many impacts of the Resolution Copper Mine project. We look forward to 
continuing this productive dialogue with you and your staff.
    Please contact our Town Manager, Todd Pryor at 520-689-5752 or 
[email protected], if you have questions or would like additional 
information.

    Thank you for your attention to these matters of critical 
importance to the Town of Superior.

            Sincerely,

                                               Mila Besich,
                                                              Mayor

                                 ______
                                 

                               U.A. Local Union 469
                                           Phoenix, Arizona

                                                      April 9, 2021

Hon. Representative Ruben Gallego
131 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Rep. Gallego:

    I am writing to you on behalf of the UA Local 469 Plumbers & 
Pipefitters Union, which proudly represents more than 3,500 Arizona 
working families, many of whom call the 7th Congressional District 
their home.
    On April 13th, the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee 
for Indigenous Peoples will hold a hearing on H.R. 1884, introduced by 
Chairman Grijalva to reverse the Congressionally approved land exchange 
between the U.S. and Resolution Copper. Since you are a member of the 
committee, I want to explain why we believe this short-sighted 
legislation would be a huge blow to Arizona's working families.
    Copper is one of the most important metals needed to build our 
clean energy future, and Arizona is fortunate to have a plentiful 
supply. In order to make the Biden Administration's $2 trillion 
infrastructure plan a reality, the country needs copper for 
manufacturing of electric vehicles, charging stations, wind turbines, 
solar panels, storage batteries, and even the transmission lines that 
connect renewable energy sources to the grid. We also need the rare 
earth critical minerals that are byproducts of copper.
    Right now, there's a global copper crunch. In fact, The World Bank 
estimates that global copper demand could grow 200% over the next 30 
years. There are only two smelters in the U.S. capable of producing 
copper today--one in Utah and one in Arizona. And China, in particular, 
is gaining fast.
    That's why the Resolution Copper mine near Superior, Arizona, is a 
vital part of securing America's leadership in the global clean energy 
economy. Once fully operational, it has the potential to supply up to 
one-quarter of the nation's copper demand.
    The mine will create thousands of good-paying jobs for Arizona 
workers. Resolution Copper has worked closely with the Arizona Building 
Trades to ensure union workers and apprentices will be a part of 
building this important project on a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). 
Resolution Copper will employ nearly 5,000 tradespersons during its 10-
year construction and ramp-up phases, many of whom have tribal 
affiliations. Once completed, the mine could be in operation for sixty 
years, paying an estimated $134 million in wages and benefits each year 
to 1,500 full time employees. In addition, the mine will create 2,200 
indirect jobs in the surrounding communities, benefiting the families 
of many workers and tribes in the area and boosting the tax base to 
support schools and other local infrastructure projects.
    Resolution Copper represents precisely the type of long-term 
investment in our economic future that Arizona so urgently needs. And 
we are proud it was informed by consultation with hundreds of local 
community stakeholders, like tribal leaders and the trade unions, in 
the seven-year federal planning and permitting process surrounding this 
project.
    Chairman Grijalva's legislation threatens to stall this project 
indefinitely and slow our ability to address America's copper crunch. 
Passing this bill would deny much-needed job opportunities to our union 
members and also mean a huge step backward in our country's efforts to 
implement progressive energy policies and mitigate the impacts of 
climate change.
    America, and the world, needs copper for a sustainable future. 
Arizona workers and their families need it for a prosperous future. We 
can have both with projects like this one. I urge you to not support 
this short-sighted legislation.

    Please do not hesitate to reach out to me should you have any 
further questions about our position on this matter.

            Sincerely,

                                              Aaron Butler,
                                                   Business Manager

                                 ______
                                 

                                United Steelworkers
                                             Washington, DC

                                                     April 13, 2021

Chairperson Fernandez
Ranking Member Young
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States
House Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairperson Fernandez and Ranking Member Young:

    I write to you on behalf of the members of the United Steelworkers 
(USW) union regarding today's hearing on H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat 
Act. We ask that this letter be put into the record for the hearing.
    USW is the largest industrial union in North America and is the 
largest mining union in the country. Steelworkers mine iron ore, 
copper, potash, salt, sand, silver, palladium, and much more. Like many 
stakeholders, we have a unique view of this mining project and want to 
share it with the committee.
    Our union opposes the legislation under consideration today, the 
Save Oak Flat Act (H.R. 1884), introduced by Rep. Grijalva, to repeal 
the Congressionally-approved land exchange legislation that would 
enable the Resolution Copper mine to move forward. This land exchange 
was under consideration by Congress for some time prior to being 
finalized in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It 
should remain in place to allow this important mining project to move 
forward.
    Overall, copper is an important material that will play a key role 
in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve 
efficiency in ways that are necessary for a future that mitigates the 
worst impacts of climate change. With the potential to supply up to 
one-quarter of the nation's copper demand, Resolution Copper will play 
a critical role in securing America's leadership in the global clean 
energy economy while creating good-paying union jobs for generations to 
come.
    The majority shareholder in the Resolution Copper project is Rio 
Tinto, which is a union-represented company. The company currently 
operates one of the two remaining copper smelters in the United States. 
Resolution Copper will supply that highly efficient smelter at 
Kennecott in Utah, which is operated by USW members.
    Our union has a long history with Rio Tinto that has had its ups 
and downs, but we are pleased that through an ongoing dialogue, Rio 
Tinto has agreed to neutrality on union organizing at the Resolution 
Copper project. In other words, the company will not oppose or 
interfere with workers at the facility joining together to form a union 
and collectively bargain over working conditions at the site. Should 
those workers opt to join USW, our union is committed to ensuring that 
the more than 1500 jobs are safe, high quality jobs with family 
supporting wages and benefits that benefit the local community, like 
the jobs that our members have at Kennecott in Utah, and at other 
mining operations across the country.
    Bearing in mind our nation's urgent need for copper, our union 
recognizes the importance of a circular economy and responsible mining 
in creating a low-carbon future. Responsible mining is the only viable 
future for the industry, and our union is actively working with 
environmental and industry partners to identify the qualities of a 
responsible mining project and a responsible mining company to ensure 
social responsibility, environmental responsibility, business 
integrity, and planning for positive legacies.
    As we look at this project at Resolution Copper, we know that it 
will have national significance given its strategic ability to supply 
the United States with a critical mineral. Our union is eager to ensure 
that it is ultimately a responsible mining operation.
    We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement from the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and are closely following the Biden 
Administration's review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS). Our union recognizes the importance of a thorough environmental 
impact analysis for this and any other proposed project. We were glad 
that USFS highlighted many important issues and described extensive 
engagement with stakeholders, including the tribes, across Arizona that 
resulted in design changes for the project. We encourage Rio Tinto to 
continue this ongoing stakeholder engagement throughout the development 
of the mine.
    In our country, we seem to be deadlocked and conflicted around 
mining as an industry. These projects are often cast in binary terms--
either you mine OR you protect the environment. But in order to protect 
the environment from climate change, we must mine and we must do so in 
a way that respects the environment, workers, communities, indigenous 
peoples, and other stakeholders.

    We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective with you.

            Sincerely,

                                          Roy Houseman Jr.,
                                               Legislative Director

                                 ______
                                 

                        White Mountain Apache Tribe
                                        Whiteriver, Arizona

                                                   November 6, 2019

United States Forest Service
Tonto National Forest
PO Box 34468
Phoenix, AZ 85067-4468

Re: USFS Consultation Comments on Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
        Resolution Copper Project

    Ms. Nez:

    On behalf of White Mountain Apache Tribe and colleagues of the 
Tribal Council, I would like to thank the United States Forest Service 
for the consultation process on the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Resolution Copper Project, and ensuring inclusion of the tribal voice.

    The White Mountain Apache Tribe is independent and sovereign, 
therefore not one (1) Tribe speaks on behalf of all Tribes, especially 
on behalf of Tribes like White Mountain Apache Tribe who has been 
partnering and participating in the consultation process.

    If you have any questions, please contact my office directly at 
(928) 369-6479.

            Sincerely,

                                              Jerome Kasey,
                                               Tribal Vice Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
                        Women's Mining Coalition
                             April 13, 2021
    The Women's Mining Coalition (WMC) wants to thank Chairwoman Leger 
Fernandez, Ranking Member Don Young, full committee Chairman Grijalva 
and all of the distinguished committee members for the opportunity to 
submit testimony on this matter.
    Since 1993, WMC has advocated for today's modern domestic mining 
industry, which is essential to our Nation. Our mission is even more 
important as the nation looks to rebuild our economy and lead the world 
toward a clean energy future. WMC's members represent many diverse 
sectors including metals, coal, iron ore, construction materials and 
industrial minerals companies; manufacturers and suppliers; trade 
associations; and consultants.
    We believe H.R. 1884, otherwise known as the ``Save Oak Flat Act,'' 
would cause irreparable harm to the economy of Arizona's Copper 
Corridor, erode trust in the federal permitting process and set a 
dangerous precedent that puts other critical mining projects in 
jeopardy. For these reasons, we urge you to reject this legislation.

    The broader context of this debate is important.

    The American public is finally starting to understand a truth long 
known to those in our industry: Our Nation cannot achieve its clean 
energy goals without copper. It is a key component in manufacturing 
wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, storage batteries, and 
even the transmission lines that connect clean energy sources to the 
grid. Many of the critical minerals that are byproducts of copper are 
similarly important to manufacturing the advanced technologies that 
will power our economy for generations to come. Recognizing the 
importance of copper to a clean energy future as well as its 
antimicrobial properties, WMC researched and produced the attached 
Copper Fact Sheet which we submit for the record along with this 
testimony.
    Globally, we are already experiencing a copper crunch. And it is 
expected to get worse as demand for clean energy grows. By 2050, the 
World Bank expects global copper demand to rise by 200%. In the U.S., 
there are only two active smelters capable of producing copper today--
one in Utah and one in Arizona, plus one idled smelter in Arizona. And 
China and other countries are working overtime to bolster their supply, 
while this Congress considers policies like H.R. 1884 that would 
strangle our Nation's ability to compete.
    Once fully operational, the Resolution Copper mine near Superior, 
Arizona has the potential to supply up to one-quarter of the nation's 
copper demand. That's absolutely vital to our ability to compete in the 
global clean energy economy.
    Of course, the project will also create thousands of good-paying 
jobs for residents of the Copper Triangle--jobs that are desperately 
needed to spur economic recovery and growth in the region. Resolution 
Copper will employ 1,500 full-time workers over the 60-year life of the 
mine, paying an estimated $134 million in wages and benefits each year. 
The mine also will spur the creation of 2,200 additional indirect jobs. 
And it has won strong support from local labor leaders, who see this as 
an enormous opportunity for union members and their families.
    All told, Resolution Copper is expected to contribute up to $61 
billion in economic value for Arizona over the project's lifetime. It 
will boost state and local tax revenues by between $88 million and $113 
million each year of operations, while the federal government could see 
an extra $200 million in tax revenues per year.
    These are real benefits to a community that desperately needs 
economic investment and opportunity.
    That is part of the reason why so many local leaders have been 
strong advocates for the project. Another is because these same 
leaders--along with tribal leaders and many other community 
stakeholders--have been a critical part of the extensive, years-long 
federal review and permitting process.
    It should be noted that the Resolution Copper project is the only 
Congressionally-mandated land exchange requiring a full Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) prior to exchange of title. For nearly a decade, 
the Tonto National Forest, several local communities in the Copper 
Triangle, stakeholders from three rural counties, nearly a dozen Native 
American Tribes, and multiple federal and state agencies have all 
worked together with Resolution Copper during the comprehensive 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.
    As a result of these efforts, a number of significant changes were 
made to the project design and Resolution Copper committed to important 
mitigations to address environmental, socioeconomic and cultural 
concerns associated with the land exchange. These would enable the Town 
of Superior to grow and develop with additional land. They would expand 
recreation and help diversify and grow the local Copper Triangle 
economy. And notably, they would also ensure ongoing support for the 
first-of-its-kind tribal monitor program, which was created with 
consulting Native American Tribes, employing dozens of tribal members 
to ensure a transparent assessment and proper cataloging of sacred and 
culturally significant sites and artifacts on the property surrounding 
the mine.
    To many in the mining community, the Resolution Copper project 
represents the model for what a sustainable, modern American mine can 
be. The permitting process, while long and arduous, was thorough and 
completely transparent to all stakeholders who willingly engaged in 
good faith. It was a process borne out of compromise to garner 
bipartisan support. And we know many of us believe that is something we 
could all use more of these days, especially in Congress.
    To throw all of this hard work and progress away right now would 
cause irreparable harm, not only to the local community at the center 
of this project but to the future of mining across our great nation.
    We note with great concern the addition of Section 4(b) which would 
go beyond the repeal of the congressionally mandated land exchange and 
withdraw from mineral entry the entire land exchange area consisting of 
2,422 acres. This would more than triple the amount of land withdrawn 
from exploration and development, and expose the federal government to 
substantial takings liability given Resolution's ownership of valid 
existing rights in one of the largest undeveloped copper deposits in 
the world. The only purpose of this section is to permanently put these 
lands off limits to mining.
    As stated in our Copper Fact Sheet, proposals to put lands off 
limits to mining or curtail mining on public lands are ill-considered 
policies that will increase our reliance on foreign minerals and 
disrupt domestic mineral supply chains. The United States can become a 
minerals supply chain powerhouse, but not if Congress withdraws lands 
from mineral entry and enacts policies putting lands off limits to 
mining. The withdrawal language in this legislation sets a horrible 
precedent and sends a strong antimining message from the federal 
government that will chill future investment in finding and developing 
domestic mineral resources. This language further exasperates our 
Nation's current dependency on foreign sources of critical minerals. In 
order for the United States to achieve its clean energy and new 
technology goals, public lands with mineral potential must remain open 
to mineral exploration and development.
    The inescapable fact is America's clean energy and economic future 
are dependent on mining. We have to find a way to secure a domestic 
supply of the natural resources we have in abundant supply as safely 
and sustainably as possible. And in order to do that, we must find ways 
to balance economic development opportunities with environmental and 
tribal concerns.
    As the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
Sciences recognized in a 1999 report, ``Only a very small portion of 
the Earth's continental crust (less than 0.01%) contains economically 
viable mineral deposits. Thus, mines can only be located in those few 
places where economically viable mineral deposits were formed and 
discovered.'' The Arizona Copper Triangle is one of those rare places. 
If we cannot mine in the historic Copper Triangle area of our country, 
then where can we?
    Passing this legislation would effectively shut the door on a 
project that would benefit Arizona and then entire nation and send a 
signal to other companies that America is closed for business when it 
comes to mining, no matter how responsible the approach.
    That would be a huge mistake.
    We urge you to consider the full picture and broader impact as you 
make your decision on this matter. Accordingly, we strongly urge you to 
oppose H.R. 1884 and vote no.

    Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony.

            Respectfully submitted,

        Sara Thorne,                  Emily Arthun,
        2021 WMC President            WMC Coordinator

                                 ______
                                 
                              YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION
                                             Camp Verde, AZ

                                                   November 7, 2019

Nanebah Nez Lyndon
Tribal Relations Program Manager
Tonto National Forest, Supervisor's Office
2324 E McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006

Re: USFS Consultation Comments on Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
        Resolution Copper Project

    Dear Ms. Nez Lyndon:

    On behalf of Yavapai-Apache Nation, I would like to thank the 
United States Forest Service for the consultation process on the 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Resolution Copper Project, and 
ensuring inclusion of the tribal voice.
    The Yavapai-Apache Nation submitted a pre-mitigation request letter 
in September 2019, to mitigate and off-set the impacts to the 
environment and cultural heritage of the Project.
    It is important to note that each Tribe participating in 
consultation, represents itself, as we are each self-governing and 
sovereign governments. One Tribe does not speak to determine the 
position of all Tribes.
    As the comment period concludes, it is important to note that the 
Nation is concerned about the location of the tailings. We know that 
mining tailings have lasting impacts on communities and environments. 
We do request that Tribes have the opportunity to continue to 
participate in the process of tailings location.

            Sincerely,

                                                  Jon Huey,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                              YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION
                                             Camp Verde, AZ

                                                 September 17, 2020

Nonabah Nez
Tonto National Forest
United States Forest Service

Re: Consultation and Mitigation Process of the Southeast Arizona Land 
        Exchange and Resolution Copper Project

    Dear Ms. Nez:

    On behalf of the Yavapai-Apache Nation, we want to thank you for 
your effort in the official tribal consultation process with the U.S. 
Forest Service regarding the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and the 
Resolution Copper Project.
    The Yavapai-Apache Nation, as many others Tribes, signed the 
Problematic Agreement and have been participating in the official 
consultation process with the USFS. This process is the official 
government-to- government consultation process for Tribes.
    Due to the COVID-19 public health pandemic, we want to officially 
request that the U.S. Forest Service not delay the consultation process 
or the mitigation process of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Resolution Copper Project.
    As federally recognized Tribes, we each have the same opportunity 
to participate in the government-to- government consultation process, 
and it is not fair to delay the process at the request of any single 
Tribe.
    We appreciate your consideration to this request. If you have any 
questions, please contact the Executive Office at (928) 567-1021.

            Sincerely,

                                                  Jon Huey,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                              YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION
                                             Camp Verde, AZ

                                                  December 13, 2019

Neil Bosworth, Supervisor
Tonto National Forest Service
2324 E. McDowell Road
Phoenix, Arizona 86006

Re: Yavapai-Apache Nation Comments on the Resolution Copper Mine EIS

    Dear Supervisor Bosworth:

    On behalf of the Yavapai-Apache Nation, we share our concerns and 
recommendations regarding the Resolution Copper Mine.

Consultation:
    The consultation with the Tonto National Forest Service and the 
Yavapai-Apache Nation has been fair and open. Your most recent effort 
was an inclusive event attended by concerned Tribes in late October 
2019. The meeting was beneficial to discuss important issues and 
respond to them. The meeting was conducted with several Tribes who 
shared their perspectives; however the Nation prefers a government to 
government consultation as a face to face conversation between the 
Nation and the Tonto National Forest Service. We look forward to 
scheduling a consultation in the near future.
THE TRIBAL MONITORING PROGRAM
    We support this effort as a step forward in the evolution of 
Cultural Resource Management (CRM). We have some concerns about how 
information gathered is being incorporated into the data set. We 
believe the monitoring program should be more fully integrated into the 
long-term CRM plan. This is a positive program and with further 
consultation with the Nation the concerns will sort out over time.
LOCATION OF THE MINE SPOILS/TAILINGS
    Vincent Randall, the Nation's Apache Culture Director has been 
involved with the process of designating a tailing site since its 
inception, including visiting the proposed sites. The challenge has 
been to identify a location with minimal environmental and cultural 
heritage impact. Our preferred alternative is the Skunk Camp near 
Hayden.
CONTINUITY
    Enclosed is the Nation's letter dated October 6, 2017 for your 
reference regarding Apache Leap and the Resolution Copper Mine. We are 
fully aware of the significant ongoing cultural and environmental 
impacts it will generate. It is our intention, working in conjunction 
with the Tonto National Forest Service, to mitigate the impacts to Shii 
Ke Yaa (the Apache Homeland) to the extent we can.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. Additionally, the 
Nation appreciates the work Nanebah Nez Lyndon has done to make the 
consultation process professional and comprehensive. The Nation 
submitted an official letter in October 2019 reflecting our 
participation in the process, as well as a letter requesting mitigation 
measures that we believe off-set the cultural and environmental impact 
of the project. It is our hope the process continues without 
interruption and in respect to those Tribes who have actively 
participated in the process.

            Cordially,

                                                  Jon Huey,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The Chair will now recognize 
Representative Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just wanted to express my appreciation to both you and to 
the Committee on working on the Oak Flat issue. It was 
something I was proud to co-sponsor. Just this past week, I 
read an amazing article in The Washington Post talking about 
the rights of passage for young women coming of age through the 
Oak Flat ceremonies. There is clearly a long ceremonial history 
for this sacred land, seeing whether it was in Bears Ears with 
destruction that comes about when we don't protect these sacred 
lands to now with Oak Flat. We need to continue to play an 
active role.
    So, I wanted to make sure to just express my support here 
today, and if there are any other questions that you, Madam 
Chair, wanted to ask, I would defer some time to you to give 
you more time to be able to do that since I just got into the 
meeting about 5 minutes ago.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Representative 
Soto. I think I am fine. I do appreciate the offer.
    Mr. Soto. In that case, I support your efforts, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    So, this concludes the time that we have set aside for the 
Members to ask their questions. I truly want to thank the 
Members. There was great conversation today about the competing 
interests, and I express my deep appreciation to our expert 
witnesses for their insightful answers to those questions, as 
well as their testimonies.
    As I stated before, the members of the Committee may have 
some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask 
you to respond to those in writing. Committee Rule 3(o) asks 
that members of the Committee must submit witness questions 
within 3 business days following the hearing, and the hearing 
record will be held open for 10 business days for these 
responses.
    If there is no further business----
    Ms. McCollum. Madam Chair?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes.
    Ms. McCollum. I don't have a question for the witnesses, 
but I would like to redirect a mis-statement that was made 
about how this piece of legislation came to be in a conference 
committee report.
    Do I submit that to the staff?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes. Please submit that, and we will 
make that part of the record, so that it responds to the 
testimony.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. If there is no further business, 
without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S 
                            OFFICIAL FILES]

Access Fund: Testimony for the Record on H.R. 1884 dated 
03.29.21.

Ak-Chin Indian Community:

  --  Letter to Sen. Sinema to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884/
            S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. O'Halleran to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884/S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

  --  Letter to Sen. Kelly to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884/
            S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

Anthropological Research, LLC: Testimony for the Record on H.R. 
1884 dated 04.13.21.

Apache Stronghold:

  --  Complaint as Filed in the U.S. District Court dated 
            01.12.21.

  --  Declaration of Cranston Hoffman, Jr. dated 01.14.21.

  --  Declaration of John R. Welch, PhD dated 01.20.21.

  --  Declaration of Naelyn Pike dated 01.14.21.

  --  Declaration of Wendsler Nosie, Sr., PhD dated 01.14.21.

  --  Opening Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Apache Stronghold, 
            Case No. 21-15295 dated 03.18.21.

  --  Wendsler Nosie, Sr.--Testimony for the Record on H.R. 
            1884 dated 04.22.21.

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition: Testimony for the Record on 
H.R. 1884 dated 04.09.21.

Center For Biological Diversity:

  --  Statement for the Record on H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat 
            Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Article titled, ``Kearny Mayor signs letter to President 
            in support of Resolution Copper without City of 
            Kearny's approval'' dated 04.28.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Grijalva in Support of H.R. 1884/S. 915 
            dated 04.19.21.

  --  London Mining Network Letter to Rep. Grijalva in Support 
            of H.R. 1884/S. 915 dated 04.16.21.

Cocopah Tribe: Resolution No. CT-2021-07 dated 04.09.2021.

Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition: Testimony for 
the Record on H.R. 1884 dated 04.13.21.

Danyell Dahn:

  --  Article titled, ``Safety concerns for Indigenous women in 
            resource development: MMIWG inquiry'' dated 
            06.06.2019.

  --  Article titled, ``San Carlos Lake's dry-up is earliest 
            ever as water levels plummet'' dated 04.20.21.

  --  Article titled, ``Southwest braces for water cutbacks as 
            drought deepens along the Colorado River'' dated 
            04.06.21.

  --  Arizona State Land Department Letter to Tonto National 
            Forest RE Resolution Copper Draft EIS Comments 
            dated 11.07.2019.

  --  Statement for the Record on Oak Flat.

Earthworks: Testimony for the Record on H.R. 1884 dated 
04.19.21.

First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance: Testimony for the 
Record on H.R. 1884 dated 04.20.21.

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation:

  --  Letter to Arizona Senators to Request to Co-Sponsor S. 
            915 dated 04.12.21.

  --  Letter to Representatives to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884 dated 04.12.21.

  --  Resolution No. Ft. McD. 2021-35 dated 04.20.21.

Havasupai Tribe:

  --  Letter to Representatives and Senators to Request to Co-
            Sponsor H.R. 1884/S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act 
            dated 04.13.21.

  --  Resolution No. 26-21 dated 04.13.21.

Hopi Tribe: Letter to Arizona Senators to Request to Co-Sponsor 
H.R. 1884/S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

Hualapai Tribe:

  --  Letter to Rep. Grijalva to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

  --  Letter to Sen. Sanders to Request to Co-Sponsor S. 915, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

  --  Resolution No. 19-2021--Supporting Oak Flat Act dated 
            04.09.21.

La Posta Band of Mission Indians: Resolution No. 212104A.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation: Testimony for the Record by the 
Hickory Ground Tribal Town of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation dated 
04.21.21.

National Wildlife Federation: Letter to Reps. Grijalva and 
Westerman to Request Support for H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat 
Act dated 04.12.21.

Navajo Nation: Letter to Arizona Senators to Request to Co-
Sponsor S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

Oglala Sioux Tribe: Letter to Leader Schumer, Sen. Manchin, 
Speaker Pelosi, and Rep. Grijalva to Request Support and to Co-
Sponsor H.R. 1884/S. 915 dated 04.26.21.

Oneida Nation:

  --  Letter to Rep. Fitzgerald to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Gallagher to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Grothman to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Kind to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Moore to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Pocan to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Steil to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Rep. Tiffany to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Sen. Baldwin to Request to Co-Sponsor S. 915, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

  --  Letter to Sen. Johnson to Request to Co-Sponsor S. 915, 
            the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.13.21.

Outdoor Alliance: Letter to Chair Leger Fernandez and Ranking 
Member Young in Support of H.R. 1884 dated 04.20.21.

Pascua Yaqui Tribe: Letter to Arizona Senators to Request to 
Co-Sponsor S. 915, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 03.24.21.

Patagonia: Testimony for the Record on H.R. 1884 dated 
04.16.21.

Poarch Band of Creek Indians: Letter to Rep. Carl to Request to 
Support and Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884 dated 04.21.21.

Pueblo of Tesuque: Letter to Rep. Leger Fernandez in Support of 
H.R. 1884/S. 915 dated 04.20.21.

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians: Resolution 
No. 4/20/21D dated 04.20.21.

Representative Grijalva: Op. Ed. Article titled, ``Don't trust 
this mining company to protect Oak Flat. Look what it did in 
Australia'' dated 11.16.20.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa: Resolution No. SR-3863-2021 in 
Support of H.R. 1884 dated 04.07.21.

Samish Indian Nation: Letter to Rep. Larsen, Senators Murray 
and Cantwell to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884/S. 915 dated 
04.12.21.

San Carlos Apache Tribe:

  --  Press Release dated 04.13.21.

  --  Resolution No. NV-19-183 Supporting the Protection of Oak 
            Flat and Other Native American Sacred Spaces From 
            Harm dated 11.22.19.

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians:

  --  Letter to Sen. Feinstein to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884/S. 915 dated 04.20.21.

  --  Resolution No. SP 042021-15 dated 04.20.21.

Save Oak Flat Act of 2021--Map dated 03.15.21.

Shawnee Tribe:

  --  Letter to Rep. Mullin to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884/
            S. 915 dated 04.16.21.

  --  Letter to Sen. Lankford to Request to Co-Sponsor H.R. 
            1884/S. 915 dated 04.16.21.

  --  Resolution R-04-14-2021-A dated 04.14.21.

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes: Letter to Sen. Crapo, Sen. Risch, and 
Rep. Simpson to Request Support and to Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884/S. 
915 dated 04.20.21.

Terry Rambler, Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe: Article 
from The Hill titled, ``Congress can protect sacred Oak Flat in 
Arizona from mining project'' dated 04.13.21.

Tohono O'odham Nation: Letter to Rep. Grijalva to Request to 
Co-Sponsor H.R. 1884, the Save Oak Flat Act dated 04.12.21.

Tommy Caldwell, Global Sports Activist for Patagonia: Testimony 
for the Record on H.R. 1884 dated 04.09.21.

Tonto Apache Tribe: Resolution No. 21-08 dated 04.07.21.

Tribal Organizations: Letter to Leader Schumer, Sen. Manchin, 
Speaker Pelosi, and Rep. Grijalva to Request Support for H.R. 
1884/S. 915 dated 04.27.21.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and 
Canada: Letter to Rep. Grijalva opposing H.R. 1884 dated 
04.09.21.

White Mountain Apache Tribe: Resolution No. 04-2021-68 dated 
04.08.21.

Women's Mining Coalition: Copper Fact Sheet.