[House Report 117-634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress    }                                    {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                    {       117-634

======================================================================



 
   BOUNDARY WATERS WILDERNESS PROTECTION AND POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 December 14, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2794]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2794) to provide for the protection of the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and interconnected 
Federal lands and waters, including Voyageurs National Park, 
within the Rainy River Watershed in the State of Minnesota, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection 
and Pollution Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS AND WATERS IN THE STATE OF 
                    MINNESOTA.

  (a) Definition of Map.--In this Act, the term ``Map'' means the map 
prepared by the Forest Service entitled ``Superior National Forest 
Mineral Withdrawal Application Map'' and dated December 5, 2016.
  (b) Withdrawal.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and subject to 
valid existing rights, the approximately 234,328 acres of Federal land 
and waters in the Rainy River Watershed of the Superior National Forest 
in the State of Minnesota, as located on the Map and described in the 
Federal Register Notice of Application for Withdrawal, dated January 
19, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 6639), are hereby withdrawn from--
          (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the 
        public land laws;
          (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
          (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and 
        geothermal leasing laws.
  (c) Acquired Land.--Any land or interest in land within the area 
depicted on the Map that is acquired by the United States after the 
date of enactment of this Act shall, on acquisition, be immediately 
withdrawn in accordance with this section.
  (d) Removal of Sand, Gravel, Granite, Iron Ore, and Taconite.--The 
Chief of the Forest Service is authorized to permit the removal of 
sand, gravel, granite, iron ore, and taconite from national forest 
system lands within the area depicted on the Map if the Chief 
determines that the removal is not detrimental to the water quality, 
air quality, and health of the forest habitat within the Rainy River 
Watershed.
  (e) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be kept on file and made 
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 2794 is to provide for the protection 
of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and interconnected 
federal lands and waters, including Voyageurs National Park, 
within the Rainy River Watershed in the State of Minnesota.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Originally designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964, the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) is a 1,090,000-
acre federal wilderness area inside Superior National Forest in 
northern Minnesota. It is the nation's most visited wilderness 
area, welcoming approximately 150,000 visitors annually.\1\ 
Along with nearby Voyageurs National Park, the Boundary Waters 
is a lynchpin of the regional economy, supporting 22,000 jobs 
and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, Obama 
Administration Takes Steps to Protect Watershed of the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness, December 15, 2016. https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/obama-administration-takes-steps-protect-watershed-
boundary-waters-canoe-area.
    \2\Dissenting Views, H.R. 3905 Bill Report. https://
www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt422/CRPT-115hrpt422.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BWCAW is nationally significant because of its pristine 
water resources, remote location, and expansive solitude. The 
BWCAW contains nearly 1,200 lakes ranging in size from 10 acres 
to 10,000 acres, more than 1,200 miles of canoe routes, and 
2,100 campsites.\3\ There are also 1,500 cultural resource 
sites including historic Ojibwe villages and Native American 
pictograph panels.\4\ The BWCAW is a prime location for hunting 
and fishing and contains valuable biodiverse ecosystems that 
provide a protected home for wildlife such as loons, black 
bear, moose, foxes, and deer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Ibid.
    \4\``Section 2, Findings'' of H.R. 5598 Boundary Waters Wilderness 
Protection and Pollution Prevention Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BWCAW watershed is also internationally significant. In 
1909, the United States signed a treaty with Canada, known as 
the Boundary Waters Treaty, requiring that neither country 
pollute waters that flow across the international boundary. 
Within the Rainy River Watershed, the Kawishiwi River flows 
north directly into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 
and then into Canada and the shared waters of Voyagers National 
Park. The commitment to protect this international watershed is 
why the Canadian government has formally expressed concern over 
the risk to water quality from proposed increases in mining 
activity, through the International Joint Commission (IJC) in 
2015\5\ and Global Affairs Canada in 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Letter from IJC Secretaries Camille Mageau and Dr. Charles A. 
Lawson to Christopher Wilkie, Director of U.S. Transboundary Affairs 
Division, Foreign Affaris and International Trade Canada and Susan 
Saarnio, Director Office of Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 
January 22, 2015.
    \6\Letter from Eric Walsh, Director General, North American 
Strategy Bureau, Global Affairs Canada to Derek Strohl, Natural 
Resources Specialist and Project Lead, Bureau of Land Management. 
January 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the BWCAW is specifically protected for its 
conservation, recreation, and historical values, Superior 
National Forest also has a long history of industrial activity. 
In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued two mineral 
leases covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest 
just outside the BWCAW.\7\ These leases were valid for twenty 
years, at which point the federal government reserved the right 
to review the leases to determine whether they should be 
extended. In a 1966 press release, the U.S. Department of the 
Interior (DOI) explicitly stated that the leases ``grant mining 
rights to the company for 20 years; renewable for 30 years at 
10-year intervals if the property is brought into production 
within the initial 20-year term.''\8\ Neither lease has ever 
supported active mining, yet they received waivers from the 
production requirement and were renewed in 1989 and 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Under 16 U.S.C. 508b, national forests in Minnesota are not 
subject to the Mining Law of 1872.
    \8\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, ``Government 
Grants Leases for Nickel and Copper Mining,'' June 14, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota--a wholly owned subsidiary 
of Chilean mining company Antofagasta--requested an extension 
of the two leases in order to build a sulfide-ore copper mine. 
Although mining operations are common in northern Minnesota and 
the Superior National Forest, the type of mining practiced in 
the area has been taconite (iron ore) mining, which does not 
lead to acid mine drainage. Copper sulfide mining, on the other 
hand, has never been attempted in this water-rich ecosystem. 
Sulfide ore mining is notorious for polluting rivers, lakes and 
groundwater with severe and long-lasting acid mine drainage,\9\ 
and any pollution produced at the Twin Metals mine would flow 
directly into the Boundary Waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\B. Gestring, ``U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines: The Track Record of 
water quality impacts resulting from pipeline spills, tailings failures 
and water collection and treatment failures,'' Earthworks, July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2016, after a public input process, the U.S. Forest 
Service--which needs to provide consent before BLM can 
authorize mining operations on the leases--concluded that 
building a sulfide-ore copper mine in the watershed near the 
BWCAW could result in ``extreme'' and ``serious and 
irreplaceable harm'' to the wilderness area.\10\ The Forest 
Service withheld its consent for renewal, and the leases 
expired. In denying the lease renewal, the Obama administration 
cited ``broad concerns from thousands of public comments and 
input about potential impacts of mining on the wilderness 
area's watershed, fish and wildlife, and the nearly $45 million 
recreation economy,'' and ``the potential risk of environmental 
contamination of the surrounding watershed,'' including within 
the BWCAW. The Obama administration also determined that the 
Boundary Waters would be particularly sensitive to any acid 
mine drainage from the proposed sulfide-ore copper mine.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter from Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to 
Neil Kornze, Director of the Bureau of Land Management. December 14, 
2016, available at https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/sites/default/
files/attachments/twin_metals_proposed_lease_
renewal_with_bibliography.pdf.
    \11\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, Obama 
Administration Takes Steps to Protect Watershed of the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness, December 15, 2016. https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/obama-administration-takes-steps-protect-watershed-
boundary-waters-canoe-area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the refusal to renew the mineral leases, the 
Forest Service initiated a public process to withdraw 235,000 
acres of Superior National Forest within the Rainy River 
Watershed from potential mineral activity for a period of 
twenty years in order to provide further protections for the 
BWCAW.
    Nonetheless, reinstating the Twin Metals-owned leases in 
Minnesota and stopping the mineral withdrawal was a top 
priority for the Trump administration. In 2017, BLM reinstated 
the expired leases and Twin Metals' lease renewal application, 
and in September 2018, the Forest Service abruptly cancelled 
its withdrawal application and the associated Environmental 
Assessment (EA) before it was completed. BLM renewed the two 
Twin Metals leases in May 2019.
    In January 2022, the Department of the Interior's Office of 
the Solicitor issued a new legal opinion regarding the 2019 
renewal of these two leases. The opinion found that the Trump 
administration improperly renewed the leases by failing to 
follow Department regulations, did not incorporate the Forest 
Service's opposition to the renewal, and conducted an 
inadequate environmental analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Given these findings, the 
Department of the Interior cancelled the two leases. The Forest 
Service has also resubmitted a 20-year withdrawal application 
to the Bureau of Land Management, and at the time of H.R. 
2794's consideration at committee markup, published a Draft 
Environmental Assessment.
    As the significant back-and-forth between multiple 
administrations shows, the BWCAW deserves permanent protection 
from the threat of copper-sulfide mining, which can only be 
provided by Congress. The proposed Twin Metals mine is a direct 
threat to the pristine water, clean air, and healthy forest 
ecosystem of the Boundary Waters. Allowing sulfide ore mining 
to go forward on public land within the watershed of the BWCAW 
would present unnecessary risks to this treasured special 
place. H.R. 2794, the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and 
Pollution Prevention Act, would protect the wilderness for 
future generations by permanently withdrawing 234,328 acres of 
federal land and waters inside Superior National Forest from 
future mineral and geothermal leasing activities. Importantly, 
the legislation would still allow for sand, gravel, granite, 
iron ore, and taconite mining if the Chief of the Forest 
Service determines that those activities would not be 
detrimental to the water quality, air quality, and health of 
the forest habitat of the Rainy River Watershed.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2794 was introduced on April 22, 2021, by 
Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN). The bill was referred 
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the 
Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 
Lands. On May 24, 2022, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources held a hearing on the bill. On July 13, 2022, the 
Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 
Subcommittees were discharged by unanimous consent. Chair Raul 
M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) offered an amendment 
designated Stauber #1 to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 20 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Stauber offered an amendment designated Stauber #2 to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 23 nays, as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Stauber offered an amendment designated Stauber #3 to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18 yeas and 23 nays, as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Stauber offered an amendment designated Stauber #4 to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18 yeas and 22 nays, as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Stauber offered an amendment designated Stauber #12 to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 22 nays, as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Stauber offered an amendment designated Stauber #9 to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment was 
not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 22 nays, as 
follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    By unanimous consent, Rep. Stauber offered amendments 
designated Stauber #5, Stauber #8, Stauber #10, Stauber #11, 
Stauber #13, Stauber #14, Stauber #15, and Stauber #20 en bloc 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The en bloc 
amendments were not agreed to by a roll call vote of 18 yeas 
and 22 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Bruce Westerman (R-AR) offered an amendment 
designated Westerman #17 to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 18 yeas and 23 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Westerman offered an amendment designated 
Westerman #18 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas 
and 23 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) offered an amendment designated 
Boebert #16 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 
23 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) offered an amendment designated 
Tiffany #6 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 yeas and 
23 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    By unanimous consent, Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) offered 
amendments designated Graves #1 (Revised) and Graves #4 en bloc 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The en bloc 
amendments were not agreed to by voice vote. By unanimous 
consent, Rep. Graves offered amendments designated Graves #3 
and Graves #5 en bloc to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The en bloc amendments were not agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 17 yeas and 23 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to 
by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was adopted and ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll 
call vote of 24 yeas and 16 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
held on May 24, 2022.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the short title of the bill, the 
``Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution 
Prevention Act.''

Section 2. Withdrawal of certain federal lands and waters in the state 
        of Minnesota

    This section states that 234,328 acres of federal land and 
waters, as depicted on the ``Superior National Forest Mineral 
Withdrawal Application Map'' dated December 5, 2016, are 
permanently withdrawn from future mineral and geothermal 
leasing. If the federal government acquires lands depicted on 
the map, those lands are also withdrawn from future mineral and 
geothermal leasing. The legislation protects all valid existing 
rights and the Chief of the Forest Service is authorized to 
permit the removal of sand, gravel, granite, iron ore, and 
taconite within the areas depicted on the Map if the Chief 
determines that removal is not detrimental to water quality, 
air quality, or the health of the forest habitat within the 
Rainy River Watershed.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                  COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND 
                        CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to 
requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) and clause 3(d) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill from 
the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee 
adopts as its own cost estimate the forthcoming cost estimate 
of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, should such 
cost estimate be made available before House passage of the 
bill.
    The Committee has requested but not received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to 
whether this bill contains any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill are to provide for the protection of 
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and interconnected 
federal lands and waters, including Voyageurs National Park, 
within the Rainy River Watershed in the State of Minnesota.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chair of 
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the 
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee, if such 
estimate is not publicly available on the Congressional Budget 
Office website.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 2794 (McCollum) would permanently withdraw 234,238 
acres of the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota 
from mineral development. The Superior National Forest in 
northeastern Minnesota contains 3.7 million acres of National 
Forest System land, under which lies the Duluth Complex, one of 
the largest undeveloped mineral reserves in the world.
    Vast amounts of copper and nickel, as well as cobalt and 
platinum metal groups, began to attract interest from 
developers decades ago. Two mining leases were granted to 
project proponents in 1966 for an initial term of 20 years, 
with rights to renew for 10 years. These leases have been 
renewed multiple times since. The need for these valuable 
commodities has increased tremendously since the leases were 
initially granted; growth in the renewable energy sector and 
other advanced technologies has increased demand for many 
hardrock minerals by orders of magnitude. The Duluth Complex 
could be a crucial supplier of copper, nickel, and cobalt, all 
of which are vital for electric vehicles and other renewable 
technologies. This deposit is one of the richest in the world, 
containing an estimated 7.7 billion short tons of ore in total.
    In the last days of the Obama administration, the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) filed an application with the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) to withdraw 234,328 acres in the Superior 
National Forest from mineral development, immediately halting 
all mining activities pending the results of an environmental 
review. The Obama administration also declined to renew the two 
mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota, despite their 
long tenure and hundreds of millions of dollars spent exploring 
the prospective mine site.
    After 15 months of environmental review, the Trump 
administration cancelled the application for the mineral 
withdrawal on September 6, 2018, and reinstated the mineral 
leases on May 2, 2018. In December 2019, Twin Metals Minnesota 
formally submitted a Mine Plan of Operation to BLM.
    Unfortunately, on October 20, 2021, the Biden 
administration restarted the process for withdrawing taconite, 
copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and other minerals from 
development in the area, triggering an automatic two-year pause 
on mineral activities while the withdrawal application is 
analyzed. On January 26, 2022, the Biden administration took 
another step by cancelling the two mineral leases, originally 
issued in 1966, held by Twin Metals Minnesota. These actions 
interrupted regular regulatory review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) to thoroughly analyze Twin Metals' Mine 
Plan of Operations.
    In the face of rising mineral demand and supply chain 
risks, not to mention the 700 direct and 1,400 indirect jobs 
that would be created by the Twin Metals Minnesota project 
alone, maximizing domestic production in the Duluth Complex and 
elsewhere will help support responsible production of minerals 
for many years to come. H.R. 2794 would take our country in the 
wrong direction, furthering reliance on foreign supply chains 
powered by child slave labor for everything from cell phones to 
solar panels and permanently withdrawing 234,238 acres from 
nonferrous mineral development. H.R. 2794 would authorize the 
Chief of the Forest Service to have veto authority over 
taconite projects and quarries in the withdrawal area, hinging 
Minnesota's robust iron history on the attitude of the whoever 
occupies the White House, rather than on sound environmental 
analysis.
    For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 2794.

                                                   Bruce Westerman.

                                  [all]