U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33-608 PDF 2007

OUR NATIONAL FORESTS AT RISK: 

THE 1872 MINING LAW AND ITS 

IMPACT ON THE SANTA RITA 

MOUNTAINS OF ARIZONA

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Saturday, February 24, 2007, in Tucson, Arizona

Serial No. 110-2

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

JIM COSTA, California, Chairman 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Ranking Republican Member

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Don Young, Alaska ex officio 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(V)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on February 24, 2007 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 1

Giffords, Hon. Gabrielle, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 3

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Featherstone, Roger, Southwest Circuit Rider, EARTHWORKS ................. 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30

Forsgren, Harv, Southwestern Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Response to question submitted for the record by Jeanine Derby, 

Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest ..................................... 81

Huckelberry, Chuck, County Administrator, Pima County, Arizona ........... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Levick, Lainie, President, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas ................................ 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Lunine, Cynthia, Private Landowner ............................................................. 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52

Sturgess, James A., Vice President of Projects and Environment, Augusta 

Resource Corporation ................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Additional materials supplied: 

Oral statements from audience members ....................................................... 60

NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record has been retained 

in the Committee’s official files. ..................................................................

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘OUR 

NATIONAL FORESTS AT RISK: THE 1872 

MINING LAW AND ITS IMPACT ON THE 

SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS OF ARIZONA.’’ 

Saturday, February 24, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, joint with the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Tucson, Arizona 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 

County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, Pima County Administration Building, 130 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona, 

Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands] presiding. 

Present: Representative Grijalva. 

Also Present: Representative Giffords. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. The Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands will now come to order. 

Good morning, and it’s good to be home. In a previous life, I 

never got to play in this room and it’s good to be here. Welcome 

to the joint hearing. It’s a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources. 

Today, we will hear testimony on a proposed mine affecting both 

private land and the Santa Rita Mountains within the Coronado 

National Forest. 

My good friend, and colleague, Jim Costa, Chairman of the 

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, had planned to be 

here today to join me in taking this very important testimony. 

However, he is unable to be here, and without objection, I will submit his opening remarks for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

I wish to express the importance of today’s hearing on ‘‘Our National Forests at 

Risk: The 1872 Mining Law and Its Impact on the Santa Rita Mountains of 

Arizona.’’ This hearing marks the first step in this 110th Congress to overhaul the 

1872 General Mining Law under the leadership of Natural Resources Committee 

Chairman, Nick Rahall. This archaic statute, still on the books 135 years after 

2

President Ulysses Grant signed it, governs the disposition of ‘‘hardrock’’ minerals, 

such as gold, silver, and copper, on federally-owned public lands. 

There are many reasons this law should be replaced with a modern, comprehensive hardrock mining law. The proposed ‘‘Rosemont’’ mine, the subject of today’s 

hearing, presents a good example of some of the problems caused by the 1872 Mining Law. Concerns related to water quality, air quality, and waste disposal, are just 

some of the issues that will be addressed by the witnesses today. 

I regret that due to the untimely death of a close friend and constituent, I am 

unable to attend this hearing. However, I have full faith and confidence that my 

colleague, The Honorable Chairman of the Subcommittee Parks, Public Lands and 

National Forests, Rau ́l Grijalva, will take this important testimony, weigh carefully 

the significant issues and potential effects of the proposed mine on the citizens and 

environment of Tucson and Pima County, Arizona. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection, we will have Representative 

Gabrielle Giffords, who represents the area at issue, participate in 

today’s hearing. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The 1872 Mining Act is a relic of the 19th Century, that still has profound impacts on the public lands in the 

West. Passed at a time when Congress was encouraging citizens to 

populate and develop the West, the law allows anyone to file a 

claim of mining on public lands, unless the lands have been specifically withdrawn by an act of Congress or Executive Order. The 

Mining Act is long overdue for reform. 

The values of manifest destiny implicit within this bill are no 

longer the values of this society or the West. While we do need 

minerals for modern life, our current value system favors protecting our public lands and forests, and ensuring the protection of 

endangered species, water quality and open space. 

The Mining Act allows claimants to mine on public lands without 

paying any royalties to the American taxpayer. Anyone can stake 

a claim on public lands, pay a nominal fee each year, and conduct 

mining operations. These operations bring in millions of dollars in 

private revenue without paying one dime in royalties to the American taxpayers. Some estimate that the mining industry has extracted $245 billion worth of the public’s hard rock minerals without paying a royalty or a fee to the public. 

The impacts of mining in the West have been profound. More 

than 500,000 abandoned hard rock mining sites litter the United 

States, yet the 1872 Mining Act does not require them to be 

cleaned up. Hard rock mining is a source of toxic pollution in more 

than 1000 miles of Arizona’s rivers and streams. All over the West, 

mining has left behind Superfund sites and other undesignated 

toxic waste sites. 

Yet the courts have interpreted the Mining Act to prevent federal 

land managers from disapproving a mine. In short, the Mining Act 

is a free-for-all on public lands. It’s outdated and this process is the 

beginning process to reform it. 

As for the specific case before us today, Augusta Resource Corporation proposes to mine on private lands on the Rosemont Ranch, 

while disposing of the mining waste on the Coronado National 

Forest adjacent to the ranch. 

3

I am deeply concerned about this proposal that will use the 

irreplaceable forest lands as a dumping ground. 

I look forward to hearing the perspectives of the witnesses today 

on the implications of the proposed mine. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Good morning and welcome to the joint hearing of the Subcommittees on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and Energy and Mineral Resources. Today we will 

hear testimony on a proposed mine affecting both private lands and the Santa Rita 

Mountains within the Coronado National Forest. 

Without objection, we will have Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who represents 

the area at issue, participate in today’s hearing. 

The 1872 Mining Act is a relic of the nineteenth century that still has profound 

impacts on the public lands in the West. Passed at a time when Congress was encouraging citizens to populate and develop the West, the law allows anyone to file 

a claim for mining on public lands unless the lands have been specifically withdrawn by an act of Congress or Executive Order. 

The Mining Act is long overdue for reform. The values of Manifest Destiny implicit within the bill are no longer the values of this society. While we do need minerals for modern life, our current value system favors protecting our public lands 

and forests and ensuring the protection of endangered species, water quality, and 

open space. 

The Mining Act allows claimants to mine on public lands without paying any royalties to the American taxpayer. Anyone can stake a claim on public lands, pay a 

nominal fee each year, and conduct mining operations. These operations bring in 

millions of dollars in private revenue without paying one dime in royalties to the 

American taxpayer. Some estimate that the mining industry has extracted $245 billion worth of the public’s hardrock minerals without paying a royalty or other fee 

to the public. 

The impacts of mining in the West have been profound. More than 500,000 abandoned hard rock mining sites litter the United States, yet the 1872 Mining Act does 

not require them to be cleaned up. Hard rock mining is the source of toxic pollution 

in more than 1000 miles of Arizona’s rivers and streams. All over the West, mining 

has left behind Superfund sites and other undesignated toxic waste sites. 

Yet, the courts have interpreted the Mining Act to prevent federal land managers 

from disapproving a mine. In short, the Mining Act is a free-for-all on public lands—

it’s outdated and we must reform it. 

As for the specific case before us today, Augusta Resource Corporation proposes 

to mine on private lands on the Rosemont Ranch while disposing of the mining 

waste on the Coronado National Forest adjacent to the Ranch. 

I’m deeply concerned about this proposal that will use irreplaceable forest lands 

as a dumping ground. 

I look forward to hearing the perspectives of the witnesses today on the implications of the proposed mine. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And as we go on, I see a number of members of 

the audience are carrying signs today, and that’s fine. But as long 

as no one uses a sign to block somebody else’s view or attention to 

this meeting, that would be very much appreciated. 

At this point, I’d like to turn it over to Congresswoman Giffords, 

the opportunity for opening remarks. 

Ms. Giffords. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

ARIZONA 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Well, I would first of all like to thank all of you 

for coming out today to this hearing, on an issue that has direct 

impacts to our county and our community. 

4

I also would like to thank Congressman Grijalva for having this 

hearing, and also to publicly congratulate him for his new subcommittee chairmanship of National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands. 

It is important that we are gathering here to have a discussion 

and to learn about the impacts of this proposal. 

Let me be straight up front. I have some grave concerns about 

an 800-acre open pit mine in one of the most scenic areas of southern Arizona. The potential environmental impacts of this mine in 

the Santa Ritas are profound. 

Water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic hazards. 

The list goes on. In my view, the residents who are worried about 

these impacts have some very legitimate reasons to be concerned. 

I believe that the Santa Ritas are a national treasure. Anything 

that might threaten them must be taken seriously. 

I would also like to commend the Pima County Board of Supervisors for taking a very public position and a stance on this issue 

as well. 

But this specific mining proposal is only part of the reason why 

we are having this hearing today, and again, that’s why I would 

like to commend Congressman Grijalva. 

Another aspect is the 1872 Mining Law. I think it’s astounding, 

that this law was already 40 years old when Arizona just achieved 

statehood. It is telling, in my view, that the 1872 law has no environmental, public health or safety provisions. 

As we all know, those of us from Arizona a long time, or recently 

arrived, that mining has a long history here in Arizona, particularly in Pima County. Its contributions to our economy, our political development and culture are well-known. But it’s precisely because of the inability of the 135-year-old mining law to respond to 

the needs of our communities today, that congressional oversight 

and review of the law is necessary and important. 

So I look forward to hearing testimony from all sides, and again, 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. And today, the process will 

be like this. We are going to have three panels. Our first panel will 

include Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester for Region Three of the 

U.S. Forest Service, and Mr. Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County 

Administrator. 

On our second panel, we will hear testimony from Augusta Resource representative James Sturgess, and Roger Featherstone 

from EARTHWORKS. 

On the third, we will hear from Lainie Levick from Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, and Cynthia Lunine, a local landowner. 

Each of our witnesses will have five minutes of oral testimony 

and will also submit written testimony for the record. 

I encourage our witnesses to make their best efforts to keep their 

remarks to the five minutes allotted. There will be additional time 

for discussion during the question-and-answer period, in which Ms. 

Giffords and I will participate. 

After the invited guests speak, there will be an hour for public 

comment. Members of the public may have three minutes to speak. 

Speaker cards are available at the clerk’s table. We will 

5

accommodate as many people as we can. I will recognize the elected officials in the audience first. 

If you do not have the opportunity to speak today, you may submit written testimony to the Natural Resources Committee within 

ten days of this hearing. 

Our first witness today is Mr. Harv Forsgren, and welcome to the 

Subcommittee, sir, and we look forward to your testimony. Please 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HARV FORSGREN, REGIONAL FORESTER,

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. FORSGREN. Mr. Chairman, Representative Giffords, thank 

you for this opportunity to present the Department and Agency 

views on the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law on this Rosemont 

Mine proposal on the Coronado National Forest. 

The 1872 Mining Law, and its amendments, confer a statutory 

right to enter public lands, to search for, develop minerals, and engage in reasonably necessary associated activities. Whether those 

activities take place on or off mining claims, Department of Agriculture and Forest Service policy fully protects these statutory 

rights. 

The Federal Government’s policy for mineral resource management is expressed in the Mining and Minerals Policies Act passed 

by Congress in 1970, which, in essence, directs agencies such as 

mine to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development 

of economically sound and stable industries, and the orderly and 

economic development of domestic resources to help meet industrial, security and environmental needs. 

The Department of Agriculture’s long-standing policy regarding 

regulating mining operations on National Forest System lands, 

open to mineral entry. was reiterated in a 2003 memorandum. The 

memorandum includes four key points. 

First. The Forest Service’s locatable mineral regulations apply to 

operations on or off mining claims. 

Two. The Forest Service is not required to conduct mining claim 

validity exams before processing and approving proposed plans of 

operation. 

Three. The Forest Service will conduct a timely review of proposed operations and ensure proposed activities are required for 

and reasonably incidental to prospecting, mining or processing operations. 

And finally, four, the Forest Service will ensure operations 

comply with the regulations and minimize adverse environmental 

effects to the extent feasible. 

The Forest Service’s mineral policy recognizes our role in contributing to an adequate and stable supply of mineral and energy resources while sustaining the land’s capability to provide for other 

uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. 

We have adopted regulations to guide implementation of these 

statutes and policies. Our regulations provide rules and procedures 

that all prospectors and miners must follow when operating on 

Forest Service System lands. The regulations are intended to identify and apply reasonable conditions which do not materially interfere with mining activities authorized by the 1872 Mining Law, 

6

and which prevent or minimize and mitigate, or reclaim adverse 

environmental impacts to surface resources. 

With that background, let me address the proposed Rosemont 

mine. The Rosemont property is part of a historic mining district 

which began producing copper in the late 1880’s. Small 

underground workings and diggings in the district yielded copper 

and other metals, continuously, from 1915 to 1951. Over the last 

several decades, various large mining companies conducted mineral 

exploration in the mining district and two companies proposed land 

exchanges to facilitate mining in Rosemont Valley. Those proposals 

were subsequently dropped. 

However, in December of 1995, ASARCO, Incorporated was 

granted patents on 347 acres of National Forest Service System 

lands. The area Augusta Resource Corporation has proposed developing at the Rosemont mine includes these patented claims, adjacent private land patented in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and 

unpatented mining claims on the Coronado National Forest. The 

Coronado National Forest received a preliminary mine proposal 

from Augusta on the 1st of August 2006. 

The proposal lacks sufficient detail to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA analysis, and was withdrawn by 

the company on October 20th of the same year. 

A proposal for exploratory drilling was subsequently submitted 

in December of 2006. It was necessary for the Forest to respond 

with a request for additional information. Augusta has revised the 

proposed drilling plan and resubmitted to the Coronado National 

Forest the day before yesterday. 

The Forest Service will evaluate their drilling proposal under our 

mineral regulations and NEPA. If the Forest subsequently receives 

a proposed plan of operations for development of the Rosemont 

mine from Augusta, we will also evaluate it under our mineral regulations and NEPA. 

There would likely be significant impacts from the proposed 

mine, so we anticipate the project evaluation would require an environmental impact statement. 

That represents the current status of the proposed mine. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forsgren follows:]

Statement of Harv Forsgren, Southwestern Regional Forester, U.S. Forest 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Department’s views on the impacts of the 1872 Mining Law on National 

Forest System lands, in particular in relation to the Rosemont Mine proposal on the 

Coronado National Forest. 

Forest Service policy for administering the 1872 Mining Law 

Forest Service regulations provide rules and procedures for using the surface of 

National Forest system lands in connection with locatable mineral operations authorized by the 1872 Mining Law. This law and its amendments confers to a citizen 

a statutory right to enter upon public lands to search for and develop minerals and 

engage in activities reasonably necessary for such uses. Operations covered by these 

regulations include all reasonable activities, regardless of whether such operations 

take place on or off mining claims on National Forest System lands. All prospectors 

and miners whose proposed activities could result in significant environmental impacts must comply with these regulations through submittal and agency approval 

of plans of operation. 

7

All proposed activities are conducted to minimize, prevent or mitigate and reclaim 

adverse environmental impacts to surface resources. Reasonable conditions, which 

do not materially interfere with such operations, are required to ensure environmental impacts to surface resources are minimized. In evaluating a proposed plan 

of operations, the Forest Service considers the environmental effects of the mineral 

operation, including whether the proposed operation represents part of a wellplanned, logically sequenced mineral operation. On lands that are open for entry 

under the 1872 Mining Law, the statutory right of the public to prospect, develop, 

and mine valuable minerals is fully honored and protected. 

The Forest Service Minerals Program Policy signed by Forest Service Chief Jack 

Ward Thomas in 1995 states that the Forest Service will ‘‘foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and 

in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs.’’ This national policy was 

affirmed by Chief Dale Bosworth in 2004. 

Likewise, the Department of Agriculture has a long-standing policy regarding 

mining operations on National Forest System lands open to mineral entry. In a portion of a 2003 informational memorandum to the Chief of the Forest Service, Under 

Secretary Mark Rey stated: 

1. The Forest Service’s locatable mineral regulations 36 CFR 228 Subpart A have 

not been amended or limited and remain fully in effect for operations on or off 

mining claims. 

2. The Forest Service is not required to conduct mining claim validity exams before processing and approving proposed plans of operation. 

3. The Forest Service will conduct a timely review of proposed operations and 

continue to ensure proposed activities are required for and reasonably incidental to prospecting, mining, or processing operations. 

4. The Forest Service will continue to ensure operations comply with the regulations and minimize adverse environmental effects to the extent feasible. 

For National Forest System lands that are open to entry under the 1872 Mining 

Law, the Forest Service is not required to inquire into claim validity before processing and approving a plan of operation. 

Mining on the Coronado National Forest 

The Rosemont property is part of the historic Helvetia Mining District, which 

began producing copper in the late 1880’s. Small underground workings and diggings in the district yielded copper and other metals continuously from 1915 to 

1951. Until 1950, total production from the Helvetia District included 227,300 tons 

of ore which yielded 17,290,000 pounds of copper, 1,097,980 pounds of zinc, and 

180,760 ounces of silver. Over the last several decades, various mining companies 

conducted mineral exploration in the Helvetia Mining District, and two companies 

proposed land exchanges to facilitate mining in Rosemont Valley. These proposals 

were subsequently dropped when copper prices declined. In December 1995, 

ASARCO, Inc. was granted mineral patents on 347 acres of National Forest lands 

that were later sold in 2004. Shortly thereafter, Augusta Resource Corporation purchased the patented land and is currently interested in developing their mineral deposit. The Rosemont mine includes the land patented in 1995, adjacent land which 

had been patented in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and unpatented claims on 

National Forest System lands. 

Coronado National Forest Land Management Plan 

The current management direction for minerals in the Coronado National Forest 

Land Management Plan is to support environmentally sound energy and mineral 

development and reclamation. 

The proposed Rosemont Mine is within Management Areas 1 and 4 in the existing 

Coronado National Forest Plan. Management area designation provides overall 

management direction for the area based on the resources and uses occurring in the 

area. Management emphasis in Area 1 is for visual quality and semi-primitive dispersed recreation opportunities including those related to wildlife. There is no management direction for Area 1 that is specific to minerals. The emphasis for Management Area 4 is to manage for a sustained harvest of livestock forage and fuelwood 

while maintaining and improving game animal habitat. Visual quality objectives in 

this management area should be met or exceeded and dispersed recreation activities 

may occur, with the exception of those that adversely affect the productivity of the 

land or resources. Watershed and soil conditions will be improved or maintained. 

Direction for minerals management in Area 4 addresses mineral materials only, 

specifically, that permits will be required for common materials for personal or 

8

commercial use, and borrow pits will be located in areas such that resources or facilities will be enhanced. 

Concerning the Forest Plan revision, Phase I of the Comprehensive Evaluation 

Report for the plan revision will be completed in March, 2007, and the revision itself 

is scheduled to be completed by December 2008. 

Rosemont Project 

The Coronado National Forest received a preliminary mine proposal from Augusta 

Resource Corporation on August 1, 2006. The proposal lacked sufficient detail to 

initiate National Environmental Policy Act analysis, and was retracted by Augusta 

Resource Corporation on October 20, 2006. A proposal for geotechnical and 

hydrogeologic drilling was submitted to the Forest in December, 2006. The Forest 

responded with a request for additional information. The company is currently revising the proposed drilling Plan of Operations, and expects to resubmit it soon. The 

Forest Service will evaluate the drilling proposal under the National Environmental 

Policy Act with public involvement and disclosure and the appropriate analysis, documentation, and decision documents. 

If the Forest receives a proposed Plan of Operations for development of the Rosemont mine from Augusta Resource Corporation, it will be evaluated according to the 

locatable mineral regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act. The analysis and documentation in the National Environmental Policy Act process will be 

commensurate with the proposed mine activities. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, sir, and Mr. Huckelberry, 

you are now recognized for five minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK HUCKELBERRY,

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, PIMA COUNTY 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords. Pima County appreciates your holding this 

oversight committee hearing in our community today. We are honored with your presence and attention to this matter. Pima County 

has a long history, as a local Western government, of cooperating 

with Congress and the Federal Government and its various agencies and entities. 

We are the second largest growing urban county in Arizona. Our 

urban growth has been rapid and continuous. Through our concern 

for the environment, Western heritage and culture, we have, again, 

with the Federal Government’s full cooperation and funding assistance, developed a blueprint for our urban future. 

Former Supervisor, now Congressman Grijalva, was instrumental in moving the planning process for the Sonoran Desert conservation plan into action and our present board has seen it 

through to completion. 

With federal planning funds, the county has completed the 

Sonoran Desert conservation plan, to ensure that the county remains fully compliant with federal law, particularly the Endangered Species Act, while continuing our population and economic 

expansion. 

The voters of Pima County have emphatically endorsed the conservation plan by authorizing over 200 million in local property 

tax-supported bonds to purchase open space and preserve important ecological systems, our Western heritage and cultural integrity. 

In the past, uncontrolled population growth and expansion have 

been the greatest threat to our national ecosystem of the Sonoran 

9

Desert. This threat has now been successfully managed through 

implementation of the Sonoran Desert conservation plan. 

Today, mining, as it has been conducted in the past, may pose 

the greatest single threat to our ability to create and sustain a livable community in Pima County. 

The past legacy of mining in Pima County is not good. Permanently scarred landscapes, water and air pollution, threats to 

public health, is what we presently have to show for decades of 

open pit copper mining. 

While we understand the need for these resources, their method 

of extraction from our landscape has been devastating. Mining has 

been an important component in our property tax base in the past. 

However, today, it represents less than one percent of our total 

property tax base. 

Mining has created direct as well as indirect adverse impacts to 

our environment. These impacts have been relatively unmitigated. 

Meaningful mine reclamation has been nearly nonexistent. Something must change. I would suggest that appropriate modifications 

are amendments to the 1872 Mining Law, to include at least one 

meaningful and real reclamation, generally concurrent with mining 

activities. 

Mining, once complete, should replicate the landscape in a manner to how it was found before mining commenced. 

Financial assurances, for reclamation and mitigation of adverse 

impacts, must be real, substantial, and accessible. Issues of bankruptcy and inadequate financial assurances must be addressed. 

Third. I’d suggest that the process and procedures for utilization 

of public lands for mining must become more transparent and open 

for public review and comment. 

The filing of mining claims must give substantially more rights 

to the surface fee simple owners than the current process affords. 

While mining companies and ventures now submit a plan for federal review, these plans have little and almost no information regarding reclamation. There is little or no thought given to the use 

of the land after the mine has been abandoned. 

With regard to the proposed open pit copper mine of Rosemont, 

the county’s position has been unmistakable. We oppose this mine. 

The board of supervisors has passed resolutions in opposition. The 

mine’s impacts on the landscape and environment, in all likelihood, 

cannot be mitigated. Therefore, the county has requested that all 

federal lands in the Santa Rita mountain range of the Coronado 

National Forest within Pima County be withdrawn from mineral 

entry. 

We have further and further requested, by resolution, that the 

remaining lands within the Coronado National Forest within Pima 

County be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

We further have requested that the county’s national resource 

parks that we’ve purchased with taxpayers dollars be withdrawn 

from mineral entry. 

We believe that this withdrawal is warranted, for four reasons. 

First, because of the failure to amend the present mining law. 

There’s no other way to protect land, where there are competing 

non-mineral interests but through congressional withdrawal. 

10

Secondly, we have worked with the Federal Government to protect our landscape through the conservation plan which creates a 

long-term vision for conserving cultural and national resources 

while allowing economic growth. 

Congress has been a partner with Pima County in this plan. It’s 

been a partner with Pima County in creating the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area. 

The 1872 Mining Law undermines our conservation plan, and, in 

particular, the Rosemont mine is inconsistent with the formation of 

the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. 

Third, Congress and the Bush Administration supports local governments having a say in federal land management. 

That being the case, a mineral withdrawal would be consistent 

with our local preference as expressed through our resolutions of 

our elected officials. We certainly recognize that other parts of 

Arizona may prefer mineral development. Pima County is an 

urban, large county. At this point it does not. 

Finally, Congress has previously withdrawn from mineral development areas around Tucson at the request of local governments. 

This mineral withdrawal in the Rosemont area is consistent with 

previous congressional actions to protect our natural landscapes. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this very important matter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huckelberry follows:]

Statement of Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County Administrator 

Chairman Grijalva, Chairman Costa, and subcommittee members, I would like to 

thank you for holding this hearing on the 1872 Mining Law and its impact on our 

Santa Rita Mountains, and for inviting Pima County to testify. This is a significant 

issue to the residents of and visitors to Southern Arizona, and therefore I greatly 

appreciate this opportunity to formally convey concerns on behalf of Pima County. 

Through implementation of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County 

is successfully balancing an often divisive issue without Federal regulation: high 

population growth and the need to conserve important natural areas and ecological 

systems. However, the current 1872 Mining Law is threatening this balance by permitting mining to occur, subject to review and Federal permitting, in unique natural 

areas such as the Santa Rita Mountains within the Coronado National Forest. The 

legacy of mining under the 1872 Mining Law has left Pima County with scarred 

landscapes and little or no chance of meaningful reclamation. Impacts from mining 

to air, water, and soil quality, continue to cause public health concerns. 

The population of Pima County recently reached 1 million people and continues 

to grow rapidly. There needs to be recognition by the Federal government that 

urban counties, such as Pima County, are no longer compatible with mining. With 

a strong and diversified economy, Pima County no longer needs to be dependent on 

the boom and bust cycles of mining. Furthermore, the amount of revenue from mining contributed to Pima County’s tax base, and thus to local residents in the form 

of services, has declined drastically. From 1977 to 2007, mine contributions to the 

Pima County tax base declined from 15 percent to 1 percent. The first step towards 

recognizing this is the withdrawal from mining of the Santa Rita Mountains within 

the Coronado National Forest in Pima County. 

I. Background 

Like many western counties, Pima County has experienced and is still experiencing tremendous population growth. Recently it was announced that Arizona is 

the fastest growing state in the country. Also like many western counties, Pima 

County has been faced with the dilemma of how to continue accommodating such 

population growth, while conserving the unique natural open spaces that attract so 

many of us to this place. But unlike many western counties, Pima County has successfully developed and is implementing a largely locally funded plan, the Sonoran 

Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), which balances this issue without the need for 

Federal regulatory actions that so often divide us. We now have a guide, based on 

11

the best science available, for which lands are suitable for development, and which 

lands are needed for conservation. With this guide, we are directing growth to areas 

suitable for development, and conserving sensitive areas through purchase and development set-asides, among other tools. 

Public support for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has been high, as evi- denced by voter approval of $174 million of bond funds in 2004 to purchase lands 

for conservation. The County’s current natural reserve system stands at more than 

85,000 acres, not including Federal, State and other local government reserves. In 

2000, President Clinton and Congress recognized the importance of our unique 

natural landscapes by creating the Ironwood Forest National Monument and the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Other Federally-owned natural reserves 

in Pima County include the Organ Pipe National Monument, Saguaro National 

Park, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Goldwater Gunnery Range, the Coronado National Forest, Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area, Rincon Wilderness Area, Mt. Wrightson Wilderness Area, Baboquivari 

Peak Wilderness Area, and Coyote Mountain Wilderness area, totaling over 1.5 million acres. 

Almost all of the Federal reserves listed above are closed to mineral entry, notwithstanding mining claims that were valid at the time of their designation. The 

exception to this is the Coronado National Forest, outside of wilderness areas. Over 

200,000 acres of the Coronado National Forest in Pima County, including the Santa 

Catalina Mountain Range and the Santa Rita Mountain Range, are open to mineral 

entry. 

The Santa Rita Mountains have been designated as both an Important Bird Area 

by the Audubon Society and a World Biodiversity Hotspot by Conservation International. The Santa Rita Mountains provide water to the Cienega watershed, which 

includes the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, the County’s Cienega Creek 

Natural Preserve, and the proposed Davidson Canyon Natural Preserve, and is a 

significant high-quality water source for the Tucson basin. Cienega Creek is designated as a Unique Water of the State of Arizona and is home to Federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species. The Unique Water designation confers the 

State’s highest level of protection from degradation of water quality. Riparian areas 

containing perennial streams such as Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon are extremely rare in Southern Arizona. 

Not only are the Santa Rita’s important from a biological and hydrological standpoint, they also serve as an important recreation area and respite for Southern 

Arizonan’s who live in the warmer, lower elevations. The Santa Rita Mountains are 

also highly visible from the Tucson urban area, and the communities to the east, 

west, and south. Sonoita Highway is a designated Scenic Highway that passes 

through the Cienega Valley along the eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains. 

II. Proposed Rosemont Mine 

On July 31, 2007, Augusta Resource Corporation submitted a draft plan of operations to the U.S. Forest Service for the proposed Rosemont Mine south of Tucson 

within the Santa Rita Mountains. The Forest Service did not accept the draft plan 

for review due to insufficient information in the plan. Pima County completed a review of the plan of operations and provided Augusta with the opportunity to respond 

to County concerns. 

Pima County’s comments included performance criteria that should be met by any 

development, mining or other, proposed for this area. The performance criteria dealt 

with concerns that the County has regarding permanent destruction of habitat for 

wildlife and vulnerable species, conformance to Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, prevention of water quality and quantity impacts on both sides of 

the mountain range but especially to Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek, air quality impacts, visual impacts, concurrent reclamation, and an environmental enhancement endowment. 

This mine, as proposed, calls for the damming up of Barrel Canyon, a major water 

source for Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek. This would have a devastating impact on the rare riparian habitat found along these areas by reducing flows. It 

would also impact flows to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. These riparian areas are so unique that Pima County has spent over $30 million conserving 

land along Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon. We do not yet know how the proposed Mine will address conformance to the Clean Water Act, Stormwater and Section 404 permit requirements regarding the deposition of dredge and fill materials 

into waters of the United States. 

Pima County has questioned the validity of Augusta’s mining claims on Forest 

Service land. Lode claims are not valid unless the claimant can prove that the lode 

claims can be mined for the recovery of valuable minerals. The minerals have to 

12

be valuable enough that a reasonable profit can be expected to be made after subtracting the costs to mine the minerals and the costs to comply with required governmental rules, regulations, and mitigation. In this case, Augusta is not proposing 

to mine the minerals associated with the Forest Service claims, but instead to dump 

mine waste on the public lands from mining activities on their private lands. This 

has brought into question whether or not the minerals attached to the lode claims 

are indeed valuable and valid. 

On December 12, 2006, Pima County asked the Forest Service to request that Augusta prove the validity of these claims before countless more time and money are 

spent on reviewing future plans of operations. On February 11, 2007, the Forest 

Service responded by stating, ‘‘it is not current practice, nor is it Forest Service policy, to challenge mining claim validity, except when a) proposed operations are within an area withdrawn from mineral entry, b) when a patent application is filed, and 

c) when the agency deems that the proposed uses are not incidental to prospecting, 

mining, or processing operations.’’ Pima County respectfully disagrees. Current 

practice and policy do not preclude the Forest Service from requesting such a validity exam. It makes little sense for countless taxpayer dollars to be spent on a 

lengthy Federal review of a plan of operations that may be flawed due to invalid 

mining claims. Withdrawal of this area from mining would result in a validity examination. 

Residents of Pima County have successfully opposed mining on this site in the 

past. Land exchanges with the Federal government for the purpose of facilitating 

mining on this property were pursued to different extents in 1970 and 1997. In 

1997, ASARCO proposed a land exchange in this location to facilitate development 

of a copper mine. ASARCO held unpatented mining claims, as Augusta does now, 

but ASARCO sought to bring further validity to their right to use the land for mining via a land exchange. In May of 1997, the Pima County Board of Supervisors 

passed a resolution in opposition to the land exchange. The Santa Cruz County 

Board of Supervisors and Tucson City Council passed similar resolutions. In early 

1998, ASARCO dropped the effort to pursue the land exchange and develop the 

mine. 

III. Legacy of Mining in Pima County 

The concerns of Pima County regarding the proposed Rosemont Mine are more 

than reasonable, and by the high attendance levels at Board of Supervisors meetings where this issue was discussed, it is obvious that many members of the public 

share some of these concerns. Many of us have seen firsthand the legacy left behind 

by mining. The costs and adverse impacts placed on the local residents and taxpayers of Pima County far outweigh the few local tax benefits received from these 

mining projects. 

Arizona has a long history associated with the mining of our mineral resources. 

Pima County has been the State’s largest producer of copper from time to time, and 

numerous other mining activities that have occurred throughout the State in the 

last 200 years. It is readily apparent that Arizona’s rapid population expansion and 

urban growth, now the fastest growing state in the country, are not compatible with 

historic or continuing mining activities. 

A. Past Mitigation and Reclamation Inadequate 

One of the largest issues associated with past mining activities is the lack of any 

meaningful reclamation or mitigation of adverse impacts experienced by local communities from these practices. Over 35,000 acres, an area almost twice the size of 

Tucson Mountain Park, have been or are being used for mineral extraction purposes 

in Pima County. Much of this land is idle open pits or tailings ponds not now producing any valuable minerals. To my knowledge there are no plans by any inactive 

or active mine, particularly an open pit copper mine, to attempt to restore the natural landscape through the removal of tailings, depositing the same in the existing 

open pit, and restoring the general natural landscape. There has been almost no 

meaningful reclamation of any open pit copper mine, or for that matter, any former 

large sand and gravel operation in Pima County. 

Pima County is assisting with reclamation efforts. Since 1998, Pima County has 

worked with ASARCO to build soil and revegetate the Mission Mine waste piles 

through the use of high-quality biosolids. The University of Arizona’s Water Quality 

Center has been monitoring and evaluating the environmental and health impacts 

related to the mine tailings reclamation with biosolids. Rapid revegetation of mine 

tailings is possible with a combination of biosolids and native grass seedings, even 

without irrigation. Sites revegetated in 1998 and 2000 still have a higher percentage 

13

1Pima County Wastewater Management Department, 2006. Pima County Green Valley 

BNROD Biosolids Land Application, Mine Tailings Reclamation at ASARCO’s Mission Complex, 

April 2006. 2Kuipers, Jim. 2003. Financial Assurance and Mine Reclamation and Closure. The Mineral 

Policy Center: Center For Science in Public Participation. 3There is an IGA between BLM and the State, which in theory allows the state to require 

an APP on tribal lands. 4 An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, enough to serve two average households for one year. For 

22,400 acre-feet, this is enough water to serve about 45,000 households for one year. 

of cover under non-irrigated conditions than is typical for undisturbed Sonoran 

desert scrub 1. 

While the County’s biosolids might help, they are but a ‘‘drop in the bucket’’ of 

unfunded mining reclamation and mitigation needs. ASARCO’s estimated liability 

for the Mission mine reclamation and cleanup is around $415 million, and the land 

surface from which native cover has been greatly disturbed or removed entirely covers around 11,300 acres 2. 

ASARCO started the Mission Mine near Sahuarita in the 1950s. By 1959, 

ASARCO had received a lease issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to extend their operations onto the San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

Many environmental laws were passed by Congress in the last 40 years, but the 

Federal government has not successfully imposed these laws upon this mining operation. To date, there is no approved mining plan or reclamation plan, as we believe 

is required by State law, for the portion of the mine on tribal land, nor is there an 

aquifer protection permit 3. The Tribe is concerned about the sulfate groundwater 

contaminant plume and movement of tailings downstream by air and surface water. 

B. Impacts to Water Quality and Quantity 

Mining can have a profound affect on aquatic ecosystems. Although the extraction 

of minerals has a negative impact on the landscape, it is the processing of ore that 

greatly impacts aquatic resources. Most of the mining in Pima County is performed 

using open pit mines, which process the ore through a flotation process using water. 

The rejected materials from this process are then discarded into tailings ponds 

where the water evaporates, leaving a large pile of mineralized materials. Possible 

impacts on aquatic habitats from mining include the reduction of water resources 

from increased groundwater pumping and the siltation of streams and reduced 

water quality due to runoff from the tailings piles. Furthermore, a recent study of 

70 Environmental Impact Statements for modern-era hard rock mines found that 

impacts to water quality are continually underestimated, which causes mitigation 

to consistently be inadequate. 

The loss of an entire native fish population along Cocio Wash in Avra Valley is 

a good example of the potentially damaging effects that mining can have on aquatic 

ecosystems. In 1967, an Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) biologist discovered the Federally-endangered Gila topminnow in the Cocio Wash, about 1.5 

miles downstream of the Silverbell Mine. Several years later, in 1973, Arizona State 

University biologist W.L. Minckley informed the BLM that the endangered Gila 

topminnow occurred on a mix of Federal and private lands. Dr. Minckley also found 

longfin dace and leopard frogs at the Cocio Wash site. The owner of the mine commissioned Dr. Minckley to study the effects of mine seepage on the downstream riparian community. Dr. Minckley noted that copper and lead were highly concentrated at the site, and that the seepage from the Silverbell Mine tailings may 

present long-term damage to the animals found at Cocio Wash. 

In 1980, the longfin dace and leopard frogs had disappeared from the site, but 

the Gila topminnow remained. At the same time, green sunfish from a tailings pond 

at the mine had been washed downstream into Cocio Wash and topminnow numbers 

seemed low. Subsequent floods washed out the sunfish in 1981, and while the 

topminnow survived the floods, they could not survive the gray clay and siltation 

from the mine tailings that were washed into the Cocio Wash pools. BLM biologist 

Bill Kepner reported, ‘‘Our 1982 studies indicate that the Cocio Wash topminnow 

population is now extinct in that habitat due to recurrent mine spill and inundations by mine tailings.’’ From 1973 to 1982, the site was heavily managed by BLM 

and AGFD. Despite having been protected by Federal law, and having survived for 

thousands of years as a relic population, the combined management actions were 

not enough to protect the Cocio Wash drainage from the mine seepage and tailings 

deluge from the Silverbell Mine. 

In 2005, water use for metal mining accounted for 10 percent of the total water 

use in the Tucson Active Management Area (AMA) or enough water to serve about 

45,000 households for one year 4. The agriculture sector used 30 percent, while the 

14

5http://www.azwater.gov/WaterManagement—2005/Content/AMAs/TucsonAMA/TAMA—

documents/2005—TAMA—Water—Use—Summary.pdf 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 1993. ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants: Determination of the Endangered Status of the Plant Pima Pineapple Cactus.’’ Federal 

Register. Final Rule. Vol. 58, No. 183. pp. 49875. 7Doster, Stephanie. No date. ‘‘Battling Buffelgrass.’’ Institute for the Study of Earth. Accessed: 

http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/news/articles/buffelgrass.html 8Stauffer, Thomas, Joseph Barrios and Andrea Kelly, 2005. ‘‘Asarco seeks bankruptcy protection’’, Arizona Daily Star, August 11, 2005. 9 Blumenthal, Les, 2006. Asarco leaves legal heartburn. The News Tribune. March 20th, 2006.

Accessed at: http://www.wncja.org/documents/news/2006-3-20%20News%20Tribune%20-%20

Asarco%20leaves%20legal%20heartburn.doc on January 30, 2007. 

municipal sector used 55 percent and other industrial sectors used 5 percent of the 

water in the Tucson AMA 5. A significant portion of the water extracted for metal 

mining comes from Phelps-Dodge’s wells at Canoa Ranch. The groundwater pumping in the area lowers the water table, and affects the long-term viability of the riparian habitat. 

Unlike the municipal sector, mines are not required to use or recharge CAP water 

or reclaimed water in the Tucson AMA to offset their groundwater pumping. State 

laws do not impose restrictions upon their groundwater use to protect nearby wells 

from excessive rates of depletion. 

C. Endangered Pima Pineapple Cactus 

The Pima pineapple cactus is a Federally endangered species found in southern 

Pima County. Mining has resulted in the loss of hundreds of acres of potential habitat for this species. The various mines near Green Valley cover thousands of acres 

of formerly potential habitat. When the Mission Mine was expanded in the 1980s, 

dozens of Pima pineapple cactus were destroyed as mine tailings covered the cactus 

and the surrounding landscape 6. Actions associated with mineral extraction, such 

as constructing roads, tailings piles, and settling or leaching ponds can also contribute to habitat loss and are expected to continue or increase throughout the range 

of the cactus. 

D. Invasive Species 

As a result of the changed and disturbed surfaces of mining operations, many 

mining sites are colonized by invasive non-native species. Once established on-site, 

invasive species can spread into the natural surrounding areas. One species of particular concern in Pima County is buffelgrass. Buffelgrass chokes out native plants, 

and for ten months of the year, provides fuels for devastating fires that can destroy 

desert vegetation. The desert is not a fire-adapted ecosystem. Originally planted to 

stabilize slopes, buffelgrass is found on roadsides and on the tailings slopes of many 

of the Green Valley mines. The first known buffelgrass fire was in 1994, at the 

Duval Mine 7. 

E. Bankruptcy 

Mining is inherently risky, not only due to the nature of the global metals market, 

but also because contamination risks have been consistently underestimated by the 

industry. These risks sometimes mean even large mining companies can go bankrupt. In 2005, 106-year old ASARCO filed for bankruptcy, blaming environmental 

liabilities, including asbestos-related litigation 8. The move allowed parent company 

Grupo Mexico to isolate the most profitable parts of the company from about $1 billion in liabilities, including 19 Superfund sites. The Government Accountability Office said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials expect more such bankruptcies 9. 

ASARCO promised the San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Nation that 

reclamation of the Mission Mine would be done. There is a $10 million bond for reclamation on the reservation. The San Xavier District has tried to increase the bond 

to get adequate financial assurance that reclamation will be done, but they have not 

succeeded. ASARCO’s bankruptcy means that the promises to the tribe are just one 

liability among many that the bankruptcy courts and banks are negotiating across 

the country. Filing for protection under bankruptcy could mean that ASARCO will 

walk away from their obligations to the tribe and others. 

F. 1872 Mining Law 

The landscape of the western United States is littered with mining claims that 

survive indefinitely, whether mining occurs or not. The free access to minerals on 

State, private, County and Federal lands under the 1872 Mining Law makes it very 

difficult to assure land is protected or managed. The 1872 Mining Law also makes 

15

10 B. Newman, ‘‘Never Mined: Merle Zweifel Claims Acres of Mineral Land, But What is He 

Up To?’’ Wall Street Journal, Jan. 20, 1972, in Leshy, John. The Mining Law. Resources for 

the Future. Washington, D.C. p.79 11 John Lacy, ‘‘Conflicting Surface Interests: Shotgun Diplomacy Revisited,—Proceedings of the 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, vol. 22 (1976) in Leshy, John. The Mining Law. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. p.80 12 National Assessment Database, Environmental Protection Agency. 13 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Southwestern Copper Belt of Arizona. Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air, EPA 402-R-99-002. 

it possible for individuals to ‘‘lock up’’ access to the mineral estate, even when there 

is no real intent to mine. 

There is a long history of abuses of the 1872 Mining Law by individuals who have 

no intention to mine. For instance, in the 1970s, a person named Merle Zweifel filed 

claims on 600,000 acres of land along the future route of the Central Arizona 

Project. While he reportedly acknowledged that he would never actively explore for 

minerals there, Zweifel did apparently make money filing nuisance claims 10. The 

Federal government had to sue Zweifel to clear the claims placed on the five billiondollar Central Arizona Project. 

In a similar manner, claims were placed for iron ore in the 1970s on Casas Adobes 

Estates, a subdivision in Tucson. After a costly court battle with the surface owning 

residents, the claims were successfully contested. Eventually Congress withdrew 

large areas around Tucson and Phoenix from mineral entry to prevent a recurrence 

of spurious claims on otherwise valuable lands 11. 

G. Management Challenges 

Abandoned mines pose a number of challenges for our management of Countyowned lands. First, they present immediate public hazards. In almost every case the 

public routinely ignores signage, fencing and even gate barriers to explore the 

shafts. Open exploration pits pose hazards for cross-country hikers, equestrian riders or mountain bikers. 

In some cases the mine waste associated with exploration sites may pose environmental hazards. We have situations on several open space properties, including 

Rancho Seco, where after environmental testing the area around a site has been 

fenced to restrict public use as a precautionary action. This also can lead to impacts 

to localized watersheds and watercourses. If there is milling or processing activity 

associated with abandoned mines, the potential for airborne, surface and subsurface 

contamination increases. Costs for testing and fencing can easily run over $15,000 

to $20,000 for an area of mining activity of less than two or three acres. Formal 

remediation can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more. 

When trying to close mine shafts we also encounter significant costs. All shafts 

need to be evaluated for historical and biological values, especially for bats, and special status species under the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. A simple shaft can 

require $5,000 to $7,000 just for the baseline survey needs. Depending on the results, the shaft may be fenced, gated, filled in, or other approaches to closure appropriate for the location and hazard. Formal gating of a shaft could run $10,000 to 

$15,000, depending on size, complexity of the gating system and necessity to accommodate bat/wildlife use. If gating items and personnel need to be flown in, the price 

can double. 

H. Public Health Risks 

Active copper mines release other toxic substances in the course of crushing and 

concentrating the ore-bearing rock. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

Toxic Release Inventory indicates that Phelps-Dodge’s Sierrita Mine near Green 

Valley released 1,053 pounds of mercury and 1,243,048 pounds of lead in 2004. The 

Mission Mine, operated by ASARCO, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, emitted 

1,211,184 pounds of lead in 2004. It is located near Sahuarita. Over 100 miles of 

streams in Arizona are considered impaired by excessive copper, which can be toxic 

to aquatic organisms. Arizona’s mines are the largest known sources of impairments 

for rivers and streams 12. 

Processing methods for copper can enhance the concentration of naturally occurring radioactive materials coming from mines. EPA has compiled data regarding the 

concentration of radioactive substances in the Arizona copper belt. The results show 

that certain common mining practices can concentrate soluble pollutants such as 

uranium and thorium in groundwater 13. Elevated levels of uranium have been detected in groundwater at Phelps-Dodge’s mines near Green Valley. EPA and ADEQ 

are looking into the issue and have requested that Phelps-Dodge respond. 

16

High levels of sulfate and other non-toxic salts have entered groundwater in 

Green Valley from the Sierrita Mine. There is no enforceable health standard for 

sulfate, but it can cause problems with taste and digestion. As a result of concern 

expressed by Green Valley residents, Phelps-Dodge is providing a temporary replacement for two wells in the sulfate contaminant plume owned by Community 

Water in June 2005 until a permanent solution is developed and implemented. 

Many of the mining facilities also have the potential to generate large amounts 

of dust. Such dust, or PM10, is one of the most serious air quality health concerns 

in Pima County and can cause a variety of health problems, including breathing 

difficulties, respiratory pain, reduced lung function, weakened immune system, 

increased severity of acute bronchitis and asthma, heart attacks, and premature 

death (1 to 8 years). 

Pima County has been interested in acquiring BLM’s surplus 540-acre Saginaw 

Hill property for park purposes since the 1980s because of its excellent location in 

a growing region of the County, but has been unable to do so because the property 

includes the toxic remnants of mining activities that began in the late 19th Century 

and continued into the 1950s. A limited environmental assessment conducted for 

Pima County in 1988 found problematic levels of a number of metals on the Saginaw Hill property, including aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Acidic vapors were also noted on the site, and a variety of physical hazards were also 

present, including adits, shafts, test pits, tailings piles, and slag dumps. 

A 2005 study conducted by BLM at Saginaw Hill detected several chemicals of 

concern on the property, including arsenic, lead, antimony, copper, mercury and 

thallium. The study found that ‘‘Concentrations of these metals in waste material 

significantly exceed all risk-based guidelines and therefore pose a potential threat 

to human health and the environment.’’ In addition, groundwater is contaminated 

in the direct vicinity of one of the property’s mining sites, raising concerns about 

impacts to the surrounding area’s drinking water. BLM is actively pursuing the remediation of the site, but even the most bare-bones solution is expected to cost more 

than $2 million, and its ultimate efficacy remains in question. 

IV. Pima County’s Recent Threats from Mining Under the 1872 Mining Law 

Pima County has spent a considerable amount of public resources protecting our 

natural open space reserves from the threat of mining activities and, in particular, 

the filing of speculative mining claims for mineral exploration on County-owned 

public lands. Even our Tucson Mountain Park is subject to such threats. In 1981, 

the Bureau of Land Management received a notice for oil and gas exploration within 

Tucson Mountain Park. The County clearly opposed such exploration and in a 

County letter by Gene Laos, then Director of Parks and Recreation, stated ‘‘In 1974 

the people of this community voted overwhelmingly to outright purchase an additional 2,000 acres for Tucson Mountain Park just so this type of thing would not 

happen. We have literally spent millions of dollars restoring and revegetating the 

old mineral scars from the 1920-1950 and we are not about to sit idle and watch 

this whole sequence of events occur again.’’ Tucson Mountain Park was established 

in 1929, and the United States Department of the Interior withdrew Tucson Mountain Park from mining and homesteading that same year. In 1959, a portion of the 

park was reopened to mineral entry by the Department of the Interior. The reopening, and prospect of mining operations in Tucson Mountain Park, caused an immediate explosion of public furor and outcry, which resulted in the withdrawal to mineral entry, and established the Tucson Mountain District of Saguaro National Park. 

In 2005, Pima County began retaining outside legal counsel with expertise in mineral rights to object to mining claims filed on property acquired by Pima County. 

In the case of the 30,000-acre Rancho Seco recently acquired by Pima County, it was 

determined that individuals locating claims on County property were more of a nuisance than a real threat due to limited mineral values. Staff continues to have to 

monitor the situation. Mining activities on Federal in-holdings adjacent to our acquired lands at Rancho Seco have caused considerable destruction of the natural 

landscape and potential environmental contamination. During the acquisition hearings for Rancho Seco, individuals conducting mining activities on BLM parcels within Rancho Seco alleged that the property was a toxic waste dump. Testing of County 

lands acquired resulted in fencing off old mine tailings because of contaminants in 

the soil. The level of these contaminants was significant enough that public contact 

with the soil could have resulted in adverse health effects. BLM was notified of the 

statements made by these individuals, and Pima County requested that BLM take 

appropriate action to ensure that any contamination by these individuals be remediated. These individuals continue to conduct mining activities on Federal lands adjacent to the County land. 

17

More recently, our opposition to State and Federal mining leases within Davidson 

Canyon has been well documented. We are opposing an application for mineral extraction of mineral rights owned by the Federal government under State Trust land 

in a significantly sensitive and valuable ecosystem, Davidson Canyon. 

We were recently notified by BLM of a potential filing of mining claims and mineral exploration by BHP (the mining company responsible for the copper mine in 

San Manuel that ceased operations in 1999) on the County-owned Six-Bar Ranch 

in the San Pedro Valley, along a key tributary to the San Pedro River. 

V. Urban Counties Not Compatible with Mining 

A recent newspaper article regarding a new copper mine coming online in Safford 

(Graham County, Arizona) touts the economic benefits to the Town. Rural towns 

and counties such as this are in need of jobs and tax benefits, which a mine can 

bring. Almost all of the various residents cited in the article spoke in support of the 

mine and the benefits the mine will bring to the Town. 

Nothing could be further from the newspaper articles surrounding the proposed 

Rosemont Mine in Pima County. The majority of comments come from residents in 

Pima County who are concerned about the proposed mine’s impacts to air, water, 

soil, unique natural habitats, wildlife, views, recreation, and the economy. Those in 

support of the proposed Rosemont Mine and other proposed mines in Pima County 

are in the minority. 

The population in Pima County recently reached 1 million. The majority of residents live in the Tucson metropolitan area in eastern Pima County. For better or 

for worse, the urban population can reach most areas in eastern Pima County in 

less than an hour. A mine can no longer be hidden in an area so remote as to not 

have an impact on the people who live here. 

Moreover, mines in Pima County are no longer an economic windfall. Pima 

County has a stronger and more diversified economy than rural western counties, 

and no longer needs to be dependent on the boom and bust cycles of mining. The 

amount of revenue from mining contributed to Pima County’s tax base, and thus 

to local residents in the form of services, has declined drastically. Tax assessment 

ratios affect the amount of taxes levied on mines relative to other land uses. From 

1977 to 2007, the State has decreased the assessment ratio for mines from 60 percent to 25 percent. During this same time period, mine contributions to the Pima 

County tax base declined from 15 percent to 1 percent. Economically, Pima County 

no longer needs mines. 

There needs to be recognition by the Federal government that mining is no longer 

compatible with urban counties such as Pima County. In the long term, comprehensive reforms to the 1872 Mining Law are necessary. In the short term, support for 

Congressional withdrawal from mining of the Santa Rita Mountains within the 

Coronado National Forest in Pima County is needed. 

Reform should not ignore rural counties. No matter how much a rural county may 

benefit economically from mining, there is still an equal need for reformed mitigation and reclamation measures. 

VI. Strategies to Protect the Natural Ecological Resources of CountyOwned Property and Protect the Public Health from Adverse Impacts 

Due to Mineral Exploration and Mining Under the 1872 Mining Law 

Filing of mining claims, trespass and mineral extraction or the mineral exploration activities associated with mining claims have become a major threat to our 

preservation of natural resources, a significant potential threat to public health, and 

a financial drain on taxpayers. A comprehensive approach is necessary to resolve 

these threats, manage the filing of speculative mining claims, and to mitigate the 

adverse effects of mineral extraction. 

There are several strategies Pima County is undertaking to protect natural open 

space reserves owned by Pima County and others in Pima County, that are open 

to Federal mineral entry, as well as to address public health concerns, and to protect local taxpayers. 

1. Pima County continues to be actively involved in reviewing and making recommendations on mining applications at the Federal level. This includes the 

proposed Rosemont Mine on Forest Service land in the Santa Ritas. 

2. Pima County is pursing Congressional withdrawal from mining of certain lands 

via our Congressional Delegation. 

3. Pima County intends to be more involved in the long-term land use planning 

of lands associated with mining, so that the lands can be planned for an economically beneficial use post mining. 

4. Pima County is cooperatively working with the University on reclamation 

projects such as the use of bio-solids. 

18

5. Pima County will continue to encourage compensatory acquisition of lands to 

offset the irreversible losses that come with digging up the land surface 

through open pit mining. Off-site land acquisitions funded by the mining industry should help build the Conservation Lands Systems for the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan. 

VII. Resolution 2007-15 of the Pima County Board of Supervisors Opposing 

the Proposed Rosemont Mine 

In a packed Board hearing room on January 16, 2007, the Pima County Board 

of Supervisors approved Resolution 2007-15, opposing the proposed Rosemont Mine 

(resolution attached). Through this resolution, the Board also resolved to request 

that the Arizona Congressional Delegation initiate the permanent withdrawal from 

mining and mineral exploration of all Federal lands within the Santa Rita Mountain 

Range of the Coronado National Forest, as well as the withdrawal from mineral 

entry of all Pima County natural reserves. 

The Mayor and Council of the Town of Sahuarita passed a similar resolution on 

January 22, 2007, and also resolved to request that the Arizona Congressional Delegation initiate the modernization of the 1872 Mining Law (resolution attached). 

Other local governments and agencies in Southern Arizona are considering similar 

resolutions. 

VIII. Resolution 2007-33 of the Pima County Board of Supervisors to 

Withdraw Areas from Mining and Mineral Exploration 

On February 20, 2007, the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2007-33, reiterating and refining Resolution 2007-15 in preparation for this 

Joint Congressional Subcommittee Hearing, to request that the Arizona Congressional Delegation: first, initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining and mineral 

exploration of all Federal lands within the Santa Rita Mountain Range of the Coronado National Forest in Pima County (52,000 acres currently open to mineral 

entry); second, initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining and mineral exploration of the remaining Federal lands within the Coronado National Forest in Pima 

County (186,000 acres currently open to mineral entry); and third, initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining and mineral exploration of all County-owned natural reserves where the Federal government owns the subsurface mineral rights. 

The Board considered this most recent resolution after a comprehensive review of 

Pima County’s experience in dealing with the negative impacts of the 1872 Mining 

Law, historically and in the present. This historic law continues to cause contemporary community problems due to the total lack of meaningful reclamation. 

IX. Summary and Recommendations 

In summary, current mining practices under the 1872 Mining Law are not compatible with the rapidly growing urban population in Pima County, our need to conserve water for such a growing population, and the conservation of our diverse sky 

islands, rare riparian areas, Sonoran Desert habitats, and strong tourism industry. 

The legacy of mining in Pima County has negatively impacted our natural open 

spaces, public health, and the taxpayers financially. The County has been proactive 

in addressing these issues, to the extent that we can, through comments to agencies 

that regulate and authorize mining in Pima County. 

On the forefront of these efforts is the County’s opposition to the Rosemont Mine 

proposed by Augusta Resources Corporation in the Santa Rita Mountains within the 

Coronado National Forest in Pima County. The Pima County Board of Supervisors, 

in support of local residents, are asking that Congress at a minimum please consider withdrawing this area from mining. Other areas in Pima County should also 

be closed from mining, and comprehensive reforms to the 1872 Mining Law are necessary. 

Thank you very much for holding a hearing in Tucson, and inviting Pima County 

to provide testimony on this most important issue. 

Attachments 

NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Huckelberry’s statement have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Now to myself and my 

colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, to ask the first panel some 

questions, and I would like to begin with Mr. Forsgren, if I may. 

19

In going over your testimony, on the first page you mention all 

reasonable activities pertaining to mining operations on or off the 

forests are allowed under the Forest Service regulations. 

How do those regulations determine what is reasonable? 

Mr. FORSGREN. The standard of reasonableness we’re looking at 

there is their need relative to the proposed mining activity. There 

has to be a reasonable connection between that activity and the 

valid mining activity. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So it’s pretty wide open in terms of that interpretation of reasonable? 

Mr. FORSGREN. There is some gray matter that has to be used 

in the interpretation, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. Let me go back. Let’s say—and one was just 

submitted, a follow up was submitted, day before yesterday, from 

the mining company in question today. 

But if a mining company cannot come up with a well-reasoned 

plan, can the Forest Service deny the operation? 

Mr. FORSGREN. We have to have a well-reasoned plan or else 

we’re not in a position to go through our required NEPA analyses, 

and that’s why we have gone back to the company on two occasions, with material that they’ve submitted, and to ask for additional, more detailed information, that would allow us to evaluate 

those effects. 

Our discretion in regulating their activity is limited to the surface uses of Forest Service System lands and we cannot do that 

without adequate information and a well-thought-through and presented plan. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With regard to that forest plan revision, will that 

revision be conducted under the old planning regulations, or the 

new ones, which allows a Forest Service plan to be developed under 

the categorical exclusion of NEPA? 

Mr. FORSGREN. Our current thinking is that the forest plan revisions in the Southwestern region will all be conducted under the 

new planning regulation, the 2005 planning regulation, which does 

provide for the use of a categorical exclusion to meet NEPA requirements. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I think that begs the question that Mr. 

Huckelberry made about the transparency and the public process 

with regard to that exclusion. 

Mr. FORSGREN. We think that that transparency and public process will be more than adequately provided as we work through the 

NEPA process, which will fully engage the public in understanding 

what the proposal is and we engage the public to try and identify 

alternatives to that proposal and mitigations associated with that 

proposal to protect the Forest Service System surface resources and 

future uses of that land. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Is the Forest Service a partner, as we heard from 

Mr. Huckelberry’s testimony, or a party to the Sonoran Desert conservation process? And if it is, does that mean the Agency has to 

meet the criteria of the plan in terms of protecting wildlife habitats, visual quality objects, protection of critical watersheds, 

etcetera, that are part of the conservation plan? 

20

Mr. FORSGREN. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am not personally 

familiar with that situation to be able to address the question but 

would be happy to get back to the committee with an answer. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I appreciate that very much. And let me ask—we 

will have time, we will go back and forth, and these other questions, we will get to them in a little while. 

But I was going to ask, one of the things that we inevitably hear 

in this discussion relative to mining is the impact of, that it does 

to employment, i.e., jobs, that as a consequence of a mining operation are created in the community, and what it brings to a community in terms of employment. 

No question, as we look at 1872 and the reform of the mining 

law, that question will be persistent throughout these discussions, 

and jobs, and it always becomes a ‘‘jobs versus.’’ Jobs versus an 

open-ended 1872 law with no regulations and no reform, and if we 

don’t do that, then the consequence is a loss of jobs. Your reaction 

to that? 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think you have to look 

at it in the perspective of Arizona and perspective of our historical 

population growth. We have seen, over the years, and I had mentioned it in my written testimony, that mining has been historically 

very important to the economy of Arizona. 

That importance is declining, and declining rapidly. We just took 

a 30 year window and looked back in Pima County, and said what 

was the percentage of mining’s contribution to the property tax 

base in 1977, and it was 15 percent. 

Today, 30 years later, it’s less than one percent. We are a high 

immigration center for population shift. Even with that high population shift and growth, our unemployment in Pima County continues to be at record lows. 

Obviously, we want high-paying jobs in the county. The issue 

are: what are the tradeoffs, and what are the prices you have to 

pay for those? And in this particular case, that price may be too 

high, without complete and absolutely reclamation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me follow up on that if I may, Mr. 

Huckelberry. There is an impression that the West is wide open, 

and that I believe those days are long gone, and I think this part 

of the process, that our Chairman, Mr. Rahall, and the Natural Resources Committee is going to do, is to not redefine the West but 

accept the reality of what the West is now. 

And with that, you know, the mine would have impacts in the 

area, and what are the impacts of this mine on other uses in that 

southern Pima County area? 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Homestead Act was for 

settling the West, the Mining Act was for exploiting the West. 

What we see in the values of the southern part of Pima County, 

our conservation plan has set it aside as a low-impact area, low 

footprint, because of its scenic values, the values that it associates 

itself with, the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. 

The drainage tributaries from Rosemont mine drain into the Las 

Cienegas area, and the Las Cienegas carries its name because of 

water, because of endangered species, because of the open scenic 

views that you get from the Cienega Valley. 

Those would potentially all be destroyed with exploitation. 

21

We also know that a large component of our economy today, that 

has replaced mining, is tourism, and if we look at the Santa Rita 

Mountains, we know that it’s an important birding area as established by the Audubon Society. The conservation institution has indicated it as a biological ‘‘hot spot.’’ It is extraordinarily important 

in the biodiversity of the Sonoran Desert and it is something that 

we believe any alteration of significant modification would be detrimental to our future and our economy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, and then we have the luxury of having 

two of us at this hearing, so we can go back and forth and ask a 

lot of questions, but now I would like to yield to Congresswoman 

Giffords for any questions she may have. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I have a couple questions for Mr. Forsgren. First 

of all, was the quality of the initial submission for the proposed operation planned for this mine up to par? 

Mr. FORSGREN. As I mentioned, it lacked the kind of detail we 

would need to initiate that National Environmental Policy Act 

analysis, and so without that information, we shared that with the 

company and they voluntarily withdrew that proposal until a future time. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. If the mining company cannot come up 

with a well-reasoned plan, can the Forest Service deny the mining 

operation? 

Mr. FORSGREN. Yes. Again, we have to have a well-reasoned, 

well-documented plan of operations, so that we can evaluate the 

environmental consequences associated with that, share those with 

the public and work through the process to try and identify ways 

of minimizing the environmental effects associated with such an 

operation, and in the absence of that, we can’t move forward. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. You have talked about the area being managed for other purposes, visual quality, recreation. Can you address 

the effects of the Rosemont mine, if it were to open, and the balance between the other values of the property. 

Mr. FORSGREN. Obviously, when you are talking about an operation of the magnitude that has been proposed here, there is no 

question that there are potential environmental impacts, and we 

would not disagree with the types of impacts that are associated 

with mining activities, or can be associated with mining activities. 

But that the environmental analysis process is the process that 

we use to do that kind of specific analysis and look at what the 

specific impacts would be to water resources, air resources, visual 

quality resources, wildlife, the full sweep of uses and benefits that 

the public expect from their national forest lands. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. And Mr. Forsgren, how transparent is this process? How do we, as members of the public, how do we access the 

information and have an ability to understand a little bit more 

about the decision making process that you go through at the 

Forest Service? 

Mr. FORSGREN. We do the best job that we can, to try and make 

that process as transparent as possible, and so that includes holding public meetings, and we try and get those public meetings in 

the communities, the local communities that are most readily affected by a proposal, to explain what the proposal is, to share with 

them what our analyses would suggest the impacts of that would 

22

be, and to solicit the public’s views as to what values are at risk, 

that are of concern to them. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. Mr. Forsgren, if you can imagine, this is a 

pretty active community, so far as public hearings, you can see, 

just on a Saturday morning, you know, we would have a lot of public comment, obviously, if this were to move forward. 

Mr. Huckelberry, a couple questions. I was listening to a report 

on the radio, the other day, that was talking about the Colorado 

River and what is happening with global warming, and the effects 

of drought, and I am not an expert on mining but I certainly understand that mining requires an extraordinary amount of water. 

We are now the fastest-growing state in the nation. Pima County 

of course is growing very rapidly. But could you go into depth about 

if this mining operation were to move forward, what would happen 

in terms of our water. 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Yes, Congresswoman Giffords. The issue of 

mining and water is one, and generically, the mines have been exempt for recharge and replenishment. In the particular case, we 

understand that there may be an effort by Rosemont to acquire 

CAP water and to replenish and recharge it in Santa Cruz Basin 

as opposed to the Cienega Basin. 

The issues there are complex and difficult, and it is unknown as 

to how that is going to move forward, until there is much more detailed plans. 

The biggest issue associated with the present plan of operations 

is essentially the barricading of Box Canyon, one of the major tributaries into the Cienega Creek, and that has a potential of diverting the clean surface water flows into the Cienega, and that in fact 

depletes the potential for continued surface flows in the Cienega 

Creek which is home to four endangered species. 

So it would have very direct impacts. Water is very, very important to Pima County. That Cienega Basin provides subflow, natural 

process water that comes through the natural sediments into the 

Tucson Basin. It becomes part of the water supply for all of Pima 

County. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Huckelberry, in terms of reclamation, have 

you seen good examples where land is completely restored to as it 

was in the past, and can you touch on Augusta’s proposals for reclamation of this land. 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Yes. Congresswoman Giffords, I have not 

seen any meaningful reclamation by any mining activity in southern Arizona. Their attempts are abysmal and their follow-through 

does not exist. With regard to Augusta and their plan of operations, 

I have read it, it is 47 pages long, it has—and this is the draft that 

was originally submitted, not the new draft. 

It had six pages dedicated to the reclamation, and my view of it 

was that it was a ‘‘dressed up’’ version of doing business as usual. 

In fact, the reclamation proposal for the open pit was to basically 

try and prevent public access to it. There was nothing about trying 

to replicate the natural environment, trying to actually spend real 

money in reclamation, that would try and leave the land much as 

I indicated in my testimony, as they found it. 

23

And so I believe that the current effort that we have looked at, 

in the plan of operation that was originally submitted, was woefully inadequate. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. I have one final question. How many properties 

are we talking about in Pima County? I know that again, a lot of 

the focus today is on this one particular proposal, but can you go 

into greater detail about the other proposals in the county, that you 

would like to see removed and that need to be protected. 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Yes. Congresswoman Giffords, the county is 

in the process of acquiring a lot of open space, creating what we 

call working landscapes. It is part of our future urban forum as defined by the conservation plan. In many of the cases where we have 

acquired lands, we have acquired them only to have individuals 

come in and file mining claims, tactics that we have used very 

often as harassment, and we have had to spend public money to 

go out and rectify those claims, to basically determine that they are 

not valid. 

We have had this happen on our Rancho Seco acquisitions in 

Arivaca. We have had it happen on our Six Bar Ranch acquisitions 

in the area of Davidson Canyon. 

We have had it happen to our acquisitions in the San Pedro Valley. And so it is a constant issue and constant problem, and what 

we find is that the 1872 Mining Act gives the fee simple surface 

owner very little rights, and so we are actually reacting, spending 

public money to protect our natural parks. Everything is really inappropriate, and a waste of public resources. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me ask you, Mr. Huckelberry, to 

talk a little bit about as you are going up to get to the site, do you 

have plans to expand that road for the heavy truck traffic that will 

come in the future, and if so, what impact is it going to have on 

all surrounding property owners as a consequence of what would 

be heavy, intense, major vehicle traffic on that road right now, that 

could not sustain it as it is. 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the roadways leading to 

the site are actually state highways, and the county obviously, we 

don’t have enough money to maintain our own county highways. 

The state is trying to divest itself of its state highways because 

they don’t have enough money to maintain and improve their highways. 

This particular highway is a rural route. It has been a historic 

rural route. It requires substantial improvement to accommodate 

safely heavy truck traffic. If not, we are going to simply expose all 

the residents who drive on those roads today to very hazardous 

conditions, and that is something I think is really unacceptable, 

and frankly, the money that is required to be put into those public 

highways should not be solely a public cost because of the mining 

operation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. This is, as you mentioned, Mr. Huckelberry, a 

high priority conservation area, the site that we are talking about 

relative to the mine. 

When did the county purchase it? 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the county actually——

Mr. FORSGREN. Before the mine. 

24

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. Before the mine. We were very interested in 

doing so. We have this process in Pima County that is very open 

and transparent, and when we promise the voters we are going to 

do something, we follow through, and in 2004, we simply overlooked the Santa Ritas and what we call the end holding properties, and therefore in our bond prospectuses, in our bond ordinances, we do not include a disclosure to the public that we wanted 

to acquire land inside the Coronado National Forest, and particularly Rosemont. Therefore, we effectively were prohibited from 

doing it. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Got it. 

Mr. HUCKELBERRY. We have now learned our lesson about end 

holdings, and I can almost guarantee you, that if there is a bond 

issue in 2008, all end holdings will be considered. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Forsgren, in hearing your testimony, isn’t it true, that as you mention, the Forest Service can 

minimize the impacts of a mine? But as I understand, you have no 

statutory right to deny a mining operation on Forest Service lands. 

Minimize; but you can’t deny. 

Mr. FORSGREN. Again, we regulate the surface occupancy. The 

actual administration of mining claims is done through the Bureau 

of Land Management and the Department of Interior. And so our 

charge is to put into place whatever mitigations can be done, that 

do not materially interfere with the ability of those mining operations. So our discretionary space is somewhat limited. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So the 1872 Mining Act trumps the Endangered 

Species Act, and the Forest Management Act? 

Mr. FORSGREN. You know, I don’t think I would go quite that far, 

to say that it ‘‘trumps it,’’ because certainly, as we work through 

the environmental analysis process, we are looking at the impacts 

of those resources, we are looking at the relationship to what the 

forest plan has established for objectives there, and we work very 

hard to try and modify the proposed plan of operations to be as 

consistent with those as possible. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The key point here is minimize, not deny, and 

that is the question I was asking. 

Mr. FORSGREN. I think that is accurate, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Congresswoman, do you have any 

questions? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. I know we have got a couple panels and we 

have members of the public to hear from, so——

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, both of you. I appreciate it very much. 

And let me now—I want to thank the witnesses on the first panel 

for your testimony, and invite the second panel, Mr. Sturgess and 

Mr. Featherstone to please come forward. 

Thank you. Mr. Sturgess, welcome, and you are recognized for 

five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES STURGESS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PROJECTS AND ENVIRONMENT, AUGUSTA RESOURCE 

CORPORATION 

Mr. STURGESS. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Representative 

Giffords. It is always interesting to be here in this room. My name 

25

is Jamie Sturgess. I am vice president of Projects and Environment 

for Augusta Resource Corporation. 

I have been working in the resource management field since 

1973. I have worked in the energy and mining industries doing 

mine reclamation, water treatment, air quality and endangered 

species protection in those roles. 

My experiences include working for both Government and 

industry. 

My comments today are focusing on the mining law, the Rosemont mine project, and environmental mitigation as proposed by 

Augusta for the Rosemont project. 

Let me first talk a little about Rosemont. Before I start, I must 

point out that in the back of the room, in some of the handouts for 

this meeting, there have been some pictures that have been ‘‘photo 

shopped’’ with other mines, pasted on to the Rosemont topography. 

I won’t hesitate to call it creative, but I will point out that those 

are outright fabrications, and do not represent our plans for our 

mine. 

What I am providing today—there is a picture here, it is also 

submitted with the testimony—is a layout showing what we propose for the ‘‘year 10’’ perspective from Highway 83 at milepost 44. 

I understand yesterday, you were at milepost forty-four. The foreground in the picture shows that there is a mile-wide buffer area 

between the highway and the active mine area where we propose 

no activities at all. 

The gray-brown area in the background shows the active mining 

area, and then there is a green in the foreground that is a perimeter screen berm that we propose around the mining activities. 

Rosemont Ranch totals over 20,000 acres and completely surrounds the mineral deposit. Over the last century, this mining district has had repeated periods of mining, smelting and ranching. 

The mineral deposit itself is on private lands that are more than 

three miles from the nearest paved road. 

The closest part of the perimeter berm will be almost a mile from 

the highway. No more than 40 vacant square miles around the 

mine site. Now let’s talk about the mining law. 

It was, 135 years ago, that Congress recognized that the wealth 

of the nation rests, in part, on its mineral resources. Since 1872, 

the Mining Act has been amended many times, something like 50 

times and 50 amendments. Those who would state that the law has 

not been changed since 1872 would be incorrect in those statements. 

The mining law, even as amended, remains clear. I am going to 

quote from the Act, as amended. 

‘‘Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal 

Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in orderly and economic development of domestic 

mineral resources, mineral reserves, and reclamation of metals and 

minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial security and environmental needs.’’

The law goes on: ‘‘...and for the disposal, control, and reclamation 

of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so 

as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and 

26

processing upon the physical environment that may result from 

mining or mineral activities.’’ End quote. 

This is the law, as it has been amended, and this is the law that 

we have to follow. Augusta Resource is in the process of complying 

with this law by submitting a detailed plan of operations as required by FLPMA and by NEPA. 

The mine plan is also subject to compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and other environmental regulations 

that are in addition to the mining laws. 

This Rosemont mining district was first recognized by the Federal Government in the 1880’s. This was over 30 years before 

Arizona was even recognized as a state. Now, 125 years later, in 

2005, Augusta Resource Corporation purchased the Rosemont 

Ranch. The purchase came only after Pima County had declined to 

buy the property. 

In 2004, the entire Rosemont Ranch was offered to the county for 

$11 million. After public debate and careful consideration, the 

county decided Rosemont Ranch did not have the values that were 

worth buying relative to other properties that they had in their 

plans. 

In 2005, Augusta paid $20 million for the Rosemont, twice the 

price the county could have paid, and now the county opposes Augusta’s plans for development. These plans are consistent with 

multiple use designations of both the forest plan and the county. 

Now let’s talk a little about Augusta’s plans for the mine. 

Augusta has proposed conservation and protection measures that 

no other copper mine in Arizona has ever implemented. I have 

been in the copper mining business for 20 years in Arizona, 30 

years in resource. I can tell you that these plans have not been implemented anywhere in the country. It is not just in Arizona. Here 

is what the plan of operations will include. 

A truly closed loop process water system; putting more CAP 

water into the aquifer than is drawn out; no tailings pond. The 

smallest possible mine footprint. A commitment to meet the local 

‘‘Dark Skies’’ guidelines. Concurrent reclamation and re-vegetation 

of the land. Creation of a community endowment fund for preservation of open space and wildlife habitat. 

And we initiated the process with careful siting of facilities to 

minimize the visual impact. 

What are the benefits of developing at Rosemont? During my life, 

the mine will paid $1.8 billion in federal taxes, half a billion in 

state taxes, and those are predictions on prices of metals that are 

much lower than the ones we have today. Not insignificant. 

The mine will also produce 5 billion pounds of copper, 100 million pounds of molybdenum, and 100 million ounces of silver. Rosemont would be a nationally significant contributor to the trade balance and to domestic production of strategic minerals. 

This mine will produce 5 percent of the national domestic demand for copper for 20 years. The mine also brings high-paying 

jobs. Rosemont mine will employ 400 people at an average annual 

income of $59,000 per year. Our previous estimate was 350 people. 

The latest is four hundred. In addition, there will be at least 700 

27

indirect positions here in the Pima County community. A total of 

more than one thousand new jobs in the community for 20 years. 

To oppose Rosemont is to support sending those 1000 jobs overseas. The Rosemont mine not only contributes to economic and 

energy independence. It contributes to jobs at home in this district. 

If we don’t produce our own copper, whose copper do we use? 

What country gives up theirs? Or do we just export our jobs and 

import everything that we need in the way of natural resources, 

that can be produced here at home. 

We believe that our plan for Rosemont balances production of 

minerals and protection of the environment, and the details will be 

out when we finish our planning with the input that we are getting 

today and that we have got from our initial plan from July, that 

was submitted originally in July. 

The detailed, completed plan is expected within the next 60 to 

90 days. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sturgess follows:]

Statement of James A. Sturgess, Vice President of Projects and 

Environment, Augusta Resource Corporation 

My name is Jamie Sturgess and I’m Vice President of Projects and Environment 

for Augusta Resource Corporation. 

I’ve been in resource management since 1973. This includes work for the California Fish and Game Department on the threatened fishes program and for the 

mining industry researching reclamation, water treatment, air quality, and endangered species protection. From there I served in site management positions for large 

mining operations. Then I started up an environmental consulting company, working around the world with a balance of municipal, county, state, and private clients. 

I must point out that I’ve seen several pictures ‘‘photo-shopped’’ to paste other 

mines onto Rosemont topography. Those pictures are outright fabrications. We are 

still in the process of developing our plans and illustrations of what Rosemont will 

look like each year during mining and reclamation. 

What I’m providing today is a layout showing the ‘‘year 10’’ perspective from 

Highway 83 at milepost 44 which should be at the height of activity on the property. 

The brown area in the background is active mining, the green area in the foreground is the perimeter berm planned for the first few years of construction. 

The mine is on private lands more than 3 miles from the nearest roadway. The 

closest facilities are a mile away from the highway. I have taken many people on 

tours to the center of the proposed pit, you cannot see a single house. The nearest 

neighbors are over 2 miles away, over a ridgeline; and there are many square miles 

around the mine site with no occupied dwellings. The Rosemont Ranch totals almost 

20,000 acres, surrounding the proposed mine site. 

The mine site has had more than 100 years of active mining and ranching operations on the property. The Helvetia and Rosemont Mining Districts there were 

formed and recognized by the U.S. government in the 1880’s. 

The property will be developed into a modern mine. Exactly how the mine is developed and operated will be decided by thorough feasibility studies and a full-disclosure Environmental Impact Statement or EIS, with a very public review process. 

The EIS and public review process strengthens today’s application of the 1872 

Mining Law. It brings stringent regulatory, resource, and environmental evaluations 

to bear. And it reflects everything we’ve learned over the years about how to operate 

a safe, productive, and environmentally responsible copper mine. 

In 1872, our forefathers recognized that the wealth of a nation rests, in part, on 

its mineral resources. Their intention with the 1872 Mining Law is clear: 

‘‘Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in 

the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic 

mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure 

satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs’’

‘‘and for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste products, and the 

reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction 

28

and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.’’

The legislature of the State of Arizona recognized the need to protect this vital 

industry by ensuring that no county has the authority to regulate or restrict the 

use or occupation of land or improvements for mining or metallurgical purposes. The 

legislature further provided that no county is authorized to prevent, restrict or otherwise regulate the use or occupation of land or improvements for mining or metallurgical purposes. 

Augusta’s claims to the mineral resources are valid and not subject to forfeiture 

without significant compensation. We have the right to use our private property, 

patented claims and, consistent with the laws and in furtherance of the stated federal policy, the unpatented claims. 

This mine is proposed largely on privately owned land in mining districts nearly 

as old as the Mining Law itself. Rosemont also involves patented mining claims on 

adjacent federal lands that Augusta owns. 

We understand that Pima County opposes the proposed mine. Ironically, Augusta 

purchased the land it now owns only AFTER Pima County declined to do so at 

roughly half the price Augusta paid for it. 

Any new mine in Arizona must be a model of maximum safety and minimal environmental impacts. And it must be a positive contributor to our state, as well as 

to our country’s goals of strategic mineral and energy independence. 

Like so many natural resources we all need, copper is not easy to harvest. Nor 

is it found in very many places around the world. Using just one quarter of one percent of the state’s land, Arizona provides 65 percent of our nation’s domestic copper 

production. But our country still imports about 40 percent of our copper needs. We 

rely on copper for many of our everyday activities, including driving. Your car has 

about 50 pounds of copper. If you drive a new, energy-saving hybrid, it uses twice 

that much. Solar cells rely on copper and the next generation of solar panels will 

require even more copper. Copper is also essential to electrical wiring, jet aircraft, 

air conditioner units, water supply systems, and computers. 

Copper can be mined responsibly and that is central to Augusta’s plan for the 

Rosemont property. We’re a company of people with substantial experience and 

track records in operating safe and environmentally protective mining operations. 

Our commitment to environmental safety and reclamation is spelled out in our 

‘‘Comprehensive Plan of Operations.’’ It will be filed with the U.S. Forest Service 

this spring and the EIS will follow. 

Here’s what our Plan of Operations includes: 

• A ‘‘water miser’’ closed loop mine water system. • Putting more CAP water into the aquifer than we draw out. • No tailings pond. • The smallest possible mine footprint. 

• Specific limitations to protect air and water quality. 

• A commitment to meet local ‘‘Dark Skies’’ requirements. 

• Concurrent reclamation and revegetation of the land, beginning the first year 

of operation to return the site to ranching and open space. 

• Creation of an endowment over the life of the mine for preservation of open 

space, support of wildlife habitat and other community needs. 

• Protection of viewscapes through careful siting of facilities and operations. 

That plan will be a legally binding document detailing every aspect of how the 

mine must be operated and will be tied to ownership of the land, not simply to Augusta. What that means is further assurance that the commitments made in this 

plan endure over the life of the mine, and beyond. 

The mine will pay an estimated $1.8 billion in Federal taxes over the life of the 

mine. State tax revenue is projected at $490 million over the life of the mine. This 

tax revenue will have a significant impact on the state’s general fund and will help 

mitigate the burden on individual taxpayers. 

It also brings high paying jobs. Rosemont Mine will employ 350 people at an average annual salary of $59,000. In addition it will add another 700 indirect positions 

for a total of 1,000 new jobs for Arizona. 

Mining here in a responsible, environmentally effective manner also has global 

implications. The alternative is sending those jobs and control of strategic mineral 

supply overseas to countries without those same standards of protection or production. 

The mining industry, like so many in the last decade, has made huge technological advances. New mines do not need to look like old mines. We will put these 

technological advances to work for the community, for Arizona, and for this country, 

which depends on copper in countless ways. We invite questions from the public as 

we proceed with planning and implementation with the various agencies involved 

29

in this process. We look forward to answering questions and working with as many 

interested parties as possible as we advance this important project. 

Unless, we, as a country are willing to place all of our minerals resources power 

and its related economic strengths in the control of other nations hungry for such 

projects, we must be willing to allow such projects as Rosemont to proceed. This debate reflects some inconvenient questions: If we don’t use our own resources, whose 

resources do we use? If we don’t produce our own food, whose food do we eat? If 

we don’t produce our own copper, whose copper do we use? 

All of the members of the Rosemont team are pledged to produce the best example 

of the most protective mining operation ever built in this country. We are doing 

what no mining company has done before, in the way of sustainable water supply, 

concurrent reclamation, water conservation, and land conservation. We are prepared 

to back our promises. 

In turn, we understand that in proceeding, Rosemont will be held to incredibly 

high standards. We realize there is no other way. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Sturgess, and now Mr. 

Featherstone, you have five minutes. Please. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER FEATHERSTONE,

SOUTHWEST ORGANIZER, EARTHWORKS 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Hello. My name is Roger Featherstone. I 

have had more than 30 years experience protecting our natural resources across the country. 

I am the Southwest Circuit Rider for EARTHWORKS, based 

here, in Tucson. My territory covers the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. 

I would like to start by thanking Chairman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords for holding this important hearing of the Natural Resources Committee, and I would really like to thank the 

Majority for taking the committee back to its rightful name, Natural Resources, not just the Resource Committee. 

EARTHWORKS is a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment. 

EARTHWORKS supports responsible mining policies and practices 

that give taxpayers a fair return for valuable land and mineral assets, that eliminate government subsidies to mine on public lands, 

that require mining companies to meet adequate environmental 

protection standards, and that recognize that some special places 

on public lands should be off limits to mining. 

Mining companies argue that there are engineering solutions to 

environmental problems. But technical solutions are only part of 

the answer. It is one thing to design a safe and efficient mine. It 

is quite another to design public policy resulting in good decisions 

about the use of public land and resources. 

Good public policy must provide a basis for weighing environmental, social, economic and cultural issues as well as technical 

issues. As many have said, Augusta’s Rosemont Ranch proposal is 

the wrong mine in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The long-term solution to protect the Santa Rita Mountains is reform of the mining laws. However, the Santa Ritas need protection 

while full reform is debated. EARTHWORKS favors legislation to 

withdraw federal public lands in the Santa Rita Mountains, and to 

the south, in Santa Cruz County, with the recent development of 

a lot of interest down there for mining development. 

30

Throughout this debate, one theme continues to ring true. So 

long as special places on public lands are not placed permanently 

off limits, the public decision makers and mining companies will 

chew up a lot of time, money and energy, fighting over proposals 

to mine the area, that reoccur again and again. 

True 1872 Mining Law reform should protect special places, give 

land managers the ability to deny and irresponsible mine proposal, 

balance mineral development with other land values, prevent permanent damage to our public lands, safeguard surface and groundwater during and after mining, and ensure adequate reclamation. 

A reclaimed mine should be restored to pre-mining conditions. 

Comprehensive reform needs to protect the American taxpayer by 

forever ending patenting and eliminate special interest subsidies 

now enjoyed by the mining industry. 

Mining companies should pay a royalty for the privilege to remove minerals from public lands. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that $982 million in hard rock minerals were taken 

from public lands in the year 2000, and the industry paid nothing 

for those minerals. 

Reclamation bonds should be paid in cash, up front, to fully cover 

reclamation costs. The recent bankruptcy of ASARCO is a painful 

reminder of the danger of not having adequate and liquid reclamation bonds. 

True reform also needs to include an abandoned mine lands 

cleanup program paid for by the mining industry to ensure public 

health and safety from pollution and from physical hazards, and 

the restoration of land, water, fish and wildlife resources. 

EARTHWORKS encourages Congress to pass an 1872 Mining 

Law reform bill that contains the points I have just mentioned. 

EARTHWORKS further encourages Congress to pass a bill to withdraw federal public land in the Santa Rita Mountains from mineral 

entry. 

Passage of a comprehensive reform bill would help future generations to enjoy the wonders of the Santa Rita Mountains that we in 

southern Arizona now take for granted, and that other outstanding 

values in the public lands will remain for generations to come. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Featherstone follows:]

Statement of Roger Featherstone,

Southwest Circuit Rider, EARTHWORKS 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Roger Featherstone. I am the Southwest Circuit Rider 

for EARTHWORKS. I cover Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and 

Utah from my office based in Tucson. I would like to start by thanking Chairman 

Grijalva and Chairman Costa for holding this important hearing. 

EARTHWORKS is a non-profit, non-partisan, environmental organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment. Our national office provides 

support to citizens across the country and around the world. Our field offices in 

Arizona, Montana and Colorado assist communities throughout the western United 

States concerned about the impact of mineral development in their backyards. 

EARTHWORKS supports responsible mining policies and practices: responsible mining policies that give taxpayers a fair return for valuable land and mineral assets, 

and that eliminate government subsidies to mine on public lands; responsible mining policies that require mining companies meet adequate environmental protection 

standards; and responsible mining policies that recognize that on some public lands 

there are resources, and other uses, that may be more valuable than mining, including the protection of environmentally significant areas. 

31

EARTHWORKS (formerly known as the Mineral Policy Center) has been working 

to reform hardrock mining policies and practices in the United States since we were 

founded nearly 20 years ago. While this is a long time, it’s not nearly as long as 

the major statute regulating hardrock mining on our public lands has been on the 

books. The General Mining Law was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant almost 

135 years ago. Over the last two decades, EARTHWORKS has testified before Congress numerous times on the need for mining law reform and I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to do so again at this Field Hearing. 

One hundred and thirty-five years is too long. It is time to reform the 1872 Mining Law, a relic of a bygone era—when mining was a pick and shovel affair, when 

the frontier was still open and ‘‘Manifest Destiny’’ was this country’s creed. A product of its time, the mining law was written to encourage the development of the 

mining industry, and the settlement of the West. 

Today, the prospector’s pan has given way to giant earth-moving machines that 

can literally crumble mountains and dig pits the size of small cities. Prospecting by 

hand for copper has given way to the use of lethal chemicals such as sulfuric acid 

that leach microscopic flecks of ore from massive piles of pulverized rock. Today’s 

prospectors are multinational corporations and their mine sites occupy many thousands of acres of our public land. 

Under the federal government’s current interpretation, the 1872 Mining Law elevates mining as the highest and best use for public lands. As such, federal land 

managers give preference to mining over all other land uses—from recreation to 

clean water to hunting. This leaves places like the Santa Rita Mountains and countless critical watersheds, cherished recreation areas and vital wildlife corridors 

across the West in danger from mineral development. 

The mining companies argue that there are technical and engineering solutions 

to many of the environmental problems that mining can cause, but technical solutions are only part of the answer. They are not enough to fully address the broader 

environmental, economic, social, and cultural issues that this subcommittee, and all 

Members of Congress, must grapple with. 

It is one thing to design a safe and efficient mine, it is quite another to design 

public policy that results in good decisions about the use of public land and resources. Good public policy must provide a basis for weighing environmental, social, 

economic, and cultural issues, as well as technical issues. The experience in the 

Santa Ritas illustrates the need to reform the Mining Law of 1872. 

The Scenic Santa Ritas: Not the Place for a Mine 

Mining companies have used the 1872 Mining Law to threaten the Santa Rita 

Mountains in the past, and citizens of southern Arizona have twice rejected an open 

pit copper mine in the area as a bad idea. In 1970, the Anaconda Copper Company 

proposed a land exchange to obtain public land in the Santa Rita Mountains for a 

copper mine. Through a series of mergers and name changes, the proposal was resurfaced by ASARCO in 1995. 

EARTHWORKS assisted the local citizens group, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, 

and others in fighting the ASARCO proposal a decade ago because it was a bad deal 

for the land, the community, and the economy. What was true in 1998 when 

ASARCO withdrew their proposal is even truer today. 

The Santa Rita Mountains are important for bird watching, hiking, picnicking, 

off-road vehicle use and many other forms of recreation. Tucsonans flock to the 

Santa Rita Mountains to escape the hustle and bustle of the city and the summer 

heat. 

Pima County has worked hard to bring a wide variety of stakeholders together 

to create the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan to protect critical open space south 

of Tucson. The Rosemont Mine is proposed within the Plan’s conservation area and 

is incompatible with the plan’s goals. 

The mining industry has been using provisions of the Mining Law to take the copper resource out of the public trust. Over the years, nearly 2,000 acres of public 

lands have been patented under the 1872 Mining Law by the succession of companies attempting to mine the Rosemont Ranch area. 

Now, Augusta Resource Corporation (Augusta), a small Canadian mining company who has never operated a mine, has submitted a Plan of Operation to the U.S. 

Forest Service to open a large copper mine (Rosemont Ranch) in the Santa Rita 

Mountains south of Tucson. 

Potential Impacts to the Rosemont Valley from Open Pit Mining 

Air Quality: The area currently has excellent air quality. Citizens of Green Valley 

or Winkelman can graphically demonstrate what dust blowing from tailings and 

waste piles have done to their communities. Prevailing winds would blow dust from 

32

a mine at Rosemont Ranch toward major new residential developments east of the 

Tucson basin. Air quality in the National Forest and surrounding residential areas 

would be degraded by both dust and truck exhaust associated with mine operations. 

Noise: The impact from daily blasting at the proposed mine would be the equivalent of daily sonic booms to nearby residences, wildlife and recreational users in the 

National Forest. 

Scenic Vistas: Highway 83 (which would become the major access route for any 

mine) is one of Arizona’s few designated scenic byways. The current view to motorists is of grasslands, rolling hills dotted with oak trees, and the dramatic ridge line 

of the Santa Rita Mountains. The proposed mine would be visible from State Highway 83 for 3 miles out of the 24-mile trip from I-10 to Sonoita. This 3-mile segment 

includes an overlook and is one of the most scenic sections of the highway. 

Traffic Hazards: Highway 83 was not designed to service large scale industry. 

Tourist traffic, commuters, bicyclists, and school buses would share the narrow and 

winding road with mine traffic, including ore trucks and vehicles carrying heavy 

construction equipment and explosives for blasting. 

Property Values: The lands surrounding the proposed mine have experienced a 

rapid increase in new residential development including high dollar ranchettes. 

Sonoita Valley is currently a weekend tourist destination. A large nearby mine could 

disrupt the local economy and create a boom-bust economy typical of western towns 

adjacent to large mining operations. 

Recreation: As recreational uses of the Rosemont Valley increase, open space becomes more valuable. Loss of public land from a large mine would decrease the 

quality of recreational experiences and create possible conflicts between 

recreationists and growing subdivisions. Mountain bikers, birders, hikers, off-highway vehicles, bicyclists, and hunters all currently enjoy the Santa Rita Mountains 

but would likely find a large open pit mine in the area incompatible with their activities. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: Well established wildlife movement corridors would 

be disrupted by an open pit mine. This would potentially impact endangered, threatened, and candidate species, in addition to priority vulnerable species or species of 

special concern. 

According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, 10 Priority Vulnerable species are known to occur in the Rosemont Ranch area: the Pima Pineapple Cactus 

(Coryphantha scheeri robustispina) and the Lesser Long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris 

curasoae yerbabuenae), which are endangered; the Mexican Long-tongued Bat 

(Choeronycteris mexicana), the Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis), which are threatened; the Lowland 

Leopard Frog (Rana yavapaiensis), the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), 

which is a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the Giant 

Spotted Whiptail Lizard (Cnemidophorus burti stictogrammus), the Rufous-winged 

Sparrow (Aimophila carpalis), and the Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii). 

Economics: Since the early 1970’s the mining industry’s contribution to Pima 

County’s economy has diminished considerably while jobs dependant on a clean and 

healthy environment have increased. For example, in 1970 the mining industry employed 6,972 people in Pima County. By 2000, the number of mine employees in the 

County had dwindled to 2,476. In contrast, in 2001, 8,541 people were employed in 

Pima and Santa Cruz Counties in the recreation industry. Possible economic benefits from new large mines in the Santa Ritas would be offset by the negative impacts to tourism-related businesses dependent on the area’s scenic beauty. Any possible economic benefit from the proposed mine could be temporary given the normal 

boom-bust cycle of major metal mines in the western US. 

Water: Leaching of tailings piles or waste dumps, and leaks from other facilities 

are common occurrences at mine sites. This could result in the release of toxic materials into ground and surface waters draining into nearby riparian areas such as 

Davidson Canyon. Not only is a loss in water quality a potential problem from this 

mine proposal, so is a reduction in water quantity. It is likely that a large openpit mine would dewater the surrounding watershed. 

The potential for water contamination is of particular concern in light of 

groundbreaking research released last year. In a pair of reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions 

in Environmental Impact Statements, and Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock 

Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art, authors Jim 

Kuipers P.E. and Ann Maest PhD revealed that 76% of studied mines breach water 

quality standards, despite predicting compliance during the mine permitting process. These reports highlight the obvious: because mine proposals MUST predict compliance with water quality standards in order to be permitted, they always do—no 

33

matter the proximity to water resources, no matter the potential for leaching of 

toxic contaminants. 

Permanent Protection for the Santa Ritas 

The long term solution to protect the Santa Rita Mountains is comprehensive reform of the 1872 Mining Law. However, the Santa Ritas are in need of protection 

while full reform is debated. EARTHWORKS urges the U.S. Congress and/or the 

U.S. Secretary of the Interior to permanently withdraw federal public lands in the 

Santa Rita Mountains from mineral entry and to do so as soon as possible to preserve the status quo for all time. 

Moreover, EARTHWORKS favors a legislative solution that withdraws all of the 

federal public lands in the Santa Rita Mountains as well as federal public land to 

the south into Santa Cruz County from mineral development. It is clear that the 

citizens of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties have spoken about the need for protecting 

the Santa Rita Mountains from irresponsible mining proposals. Throughout this 

issue, one theme continues to ring true: so long as public lands of special concern 

are not placed permanently off-limits, the public, decision-makers, and mining 

companies will chew up a lot of time, money, and energy fighting over the inevitable 

proposals to mine the area that recur again and again. 

Real Reform of the 1872 Mining Law 

Comprehensive reform of hardrock mining law in the United States must include 

provisions that protect special places from irresponsible mining. Reform of the mining law must give land managers the ability to deny a mine proposal if there are 

other important resource values that could be damaged by a mining operation. Mining Law reform should balance mineral development with other land values in the 

following ways: 

1. Wilderness study areas, lands recommended for wilderness designation, lands 

managed as roadless areas, lands in the Wild and Scenic River System or recommended for such, lands administratively withdrawn or segregated, lands 

surrounding National Conservation Areas, lands proposed as roadless areas, 

and sacred sites all should be off-limits to mineral exploration and development. In addition, important lands such as those included in Pima County’s 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan should also be off-limits to mineral entry. 

2. When a mine is proposed, land management agencies should review the land 

involved to ensure that it is an appropriate use of the land, given the other 

competing demands for the public lands resources. 

3. Land managers need the authority to deny mine permits if an irresponsibly designed mine is proposed on public lands or outstanding resource values are at 

risk. 

Under current law, environmental standards written specifically for mining are 

weak or non-existent. For example, the Clean Water Act does not protect groundwater from mining pollution and lacks a definition of how to reclaim a mine. Relating specifically to the Santa Rita Mountains, there are no protections against a mine 

permanently altering the water table surrounding the mine. 

Comprehensive reform should balance the demands for minerals with the public’s 

demand for the long term use of the land by: 

1. Preventing significant, permanent and irreparable damage to our public lands. 

If a proposed mine would cause significant, permanent and irreparable damage, the Secretary of the Interior should deny the mining operation. 

2. Ensuring adequate reclamation. A reclaimed mine site should be restored so 

that it can sustain either pre-mining uses, or uses conforming to the applicable 

land use plan. 

3. Safeguarding surface and ground water during and after mining. Operations 

should minimize damage to surface and groundwater resources, and restore 

pre-mining hydrological conditions. 

Comprehensive reform needs to protect the American taxpayer. The 1872 Mining 

Law still allows multinational mining companies to buy (patent) mineral bearing 

public land for less than $5.00 per acre—although the annually renewed patenting 

moratorium has stopped new patents since 1995. It is important to note that the 

private land where Augusta would like to dig its open pit at one time was public 

land, but was sold by the federal government for $5.00 an acre under the Mining 

Law. 

Under the 1872 Mining Law, mining interests have enabled an area roughly 

equivalent in size to the state of Connecticut containing mineral values exceeding 

$245 billion to be patented. Reform of the 1872 Mining Law needs to bring an end 

to this practice and keep these resources in the public domain. 

34

Current law allows extraction of public minerals from federal public lands without 

payment to taxpayers. A royalty needs to be established on the removal of minerals 

from public lands. BLM estimates that $982 million in hardrock minerals were 

taken from public lands in 2000. Industry paid no royalty for those minerals. Coal, 

oil and natural gas extractors pay between 8% and 12.5%. A similar return to the 

American public for minerals taken from public lands is reasonable for hardrock 

mining companies to pay as well. 

The Interior Department mining regulations contain provisions enacted in 2003 

that require mining companies to post bonds to cover the full costs of mine clean 

ups. However, the regulation no longer provides clean up standards. Without such 

standards, it is unclear exactly what such reclamation bonds will pay for, and taxpayers may still be exposed to liability in the future. Reclamation bonds should be 

paid in cash, up front and in an amount that would fully cover third party reclamation costs. The recent bankruptcy of ASARCO is a painful reminder of the danger 

of not having adequate and liquid reclamation bonds. 

Comprehensive reform needs to recognize the ongoing social and environmental 

costs of abandoned mines and create a mechanism to clean up the mining industry’s 

historic messes. EARTHWORKS estimates that there are more than 500,000 

abandoned hardrock mines in the United States that will cost between $32 and $72 

billion dollars to reclaim. Currently there is no funding source for abandoned 

hardrock mine reclamation. True reform needs to include a fund mechanism and a 

process for reclaiming abandoned mines. For example, all revenues from royalties 

and fees could go to an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund. The cost of processing 

permits should be paid by the mining industry. Priorities should be set to ensure 

public health and safety from surface and groundwater pollution; general public 

health and safety; and the restoration of land, water, fish and wildlife resources. 

Finally, comprehensive mining law reform requires substantially better industry 

oversight, including the following concepts: • The Secretary of the Interior should use all legal powers available to prevent 

mining in protected areas. • Failure of a mining company to address a violation should require the Secretary 

of the Interior to stop operations causing the violation. • Regular inspections should be permitted without advance notice. They should 

occur at least once per quarter. The public should be allowed to request an inspection. • Violators should be fined an amount that would deter large international corporations from further violations. 

• Citizen suits should be permitted. 

• Operators that currently violate laws should not receive new permits. Past lawbreakers should only receive a permit if their past violations are not part of a 

willful pattern of abuses. 

EARTHWORKS encourages the Natural Resources Committee to introduce, debate and pass an 1872 Mining Law Reform bill that contains all of the points mentioned above. EARTHWORKS further encourages the Natural Resources Committee 

to introduce, debate and pass a bill to withdraw the remaining federal public land 

in the Santa Rita Mountains from mineral entry. 

Passage of a comprehensive reform bill can help ensure that future generations 

will enjoy the wonders of the Santa Rita Mountains that we in southern Arizona 

now have available, and that other outstanding values of the public lands will remain for generations to come. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to begin 

with some questions of Mr. Sturgess, if I may. You state, I think 

in your testimony, that you are still in the process—and correct me 

if I am wrong—of developing plans for the mine. You know, if that 

is indeed the case, why did you ask the Forest Service to approve 

a plan of operations that you acknowledge is not complete, before 

waiting for the complete plan? 

Mr. STURGESS. Which plan of operations would you be referring 

to? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. From July 31st. 

Mr. STURGESS. Thank you. Forest Service regulations stipulate 

that in a large or complex project, particularly like Rosemont, that 

it is encouraged to file an initial plan of operations when enough 

35

detail is available upon which to base a scoping process of initiate 

public review process. 

They also allow for submitting either addendums to that plan as 

more information becomes available, or doing what we did, which 

is to withdraw with the intention to resubmit, and they actually it 

initial plan of operations. 

We discussed this with our planning team, with our design team, 

and our community relations team, and we decided, in July, that 

we had enough information to come forward. That is when I met 

with some of the people on the panel, and I said we had a plan that 

we know if going to be controversial, we would like to get input, 

we would like to show our plan so we are not accused of hiding in 

the dark, and then to finish up and say, here it is, we hope you 

like it, cause we knew that wouldn’t be the case. 

So we came out with an initial plan of operations in July, it was 

49 pages of text and figures, and had about 50 pages appended, a 

demonstration of claims and technical filings. 

We also did this to allow the Forest Service the adequate opportunity to realize the scope of what our plans were going to be as 

they have to be prepared to do some reviews and evaluations in response to that with their NEPA obligations. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Relative to that, Mr. Sturgess, on page three of 

your testimony, you refer to an extensive list of activities that you 

claim you will do under your plan of operations. I just want to 

know if it is true, that under that plan of operations, that plan of 

operations was rejected by the Forest Service because it didn’t provide necessary detail to evaluate the plan. I am referring to your 

testimony that you provided us earlier. 

Mr. STURGESS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Your question—a clarification. I wouldn’t say ‘‘rejected.’’ The Forest Service told us that 

they were going to require a lot more detail before they could initiate their planning process in response to our plan, and so we 

chose to withdraw it. It wasn’t taken to the point of rejection. I 

don’t know if that matters but—your question is not clear to me, 

though. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Your answer kind of is. So I’m okay with it. A 

simple question. Your testimony, you own the property of Rosemont 

Ranch, which is 20,000 acres, if I’m not mistaken, that is what you 

mentioned, and since you have all this property under your ownership, why not use the private lands of Rosemont Ranch for the 

dumping for waste? Why use the national forests for that dumping 

ground? 

Mr. STURGESS. That is a very good question, Chairman. Let me 

try and clarify. An Arizona ranch would claim that it has 20,000 

acres when it has a combination of fee land, grazing leases, grazing 

rights and state leases. So I should clarify. The 20,000 acre Rosemont Ranch includes 3000 acres of fee land, that is both a combination of patented mineral land and some old homestead lands interspersed. 

It includes several thousand acres of state grazing leases. It includes several thousand acres of Bureau of Land Management 

grazing leases. It includes about 12,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service 

grazing leases. So the ranch is 20,000 acres. Our fee land that we 

own outright is about 3000 acres. 

36

Mr. GRIJALVA. So let me just, going back to a point you made in 

your testimony, how long has Augusta Resource Corporation been 

incorporated? 

Mr. STURGESS. I believe it was in the 1930’s or forties. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And so at this point, how many mining operations 

do you operate? 

Mr. STURGESS. Let me clarify. The corporation itself was incorporated in the thirties, or—and I’m not an expert on the corporate 

history. As a mineral venture, we have been in existence for about 

ten years, and looking at properties and looking at development opportunities. We do not at this time have an operating, producing 

facility. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And so there is no way to deal with your history 

of reclamation at this point; correct? 

Mr. STURGESS. Mr. Chairman, we have no failures on our record. 

You are correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That was a good one. That was a good one. Last 

question. I am going to ask Mr. Featherstone one and then yield 

to Congresswoman Giffords. 

In your testimony you stated no county, in this instance Pima 

County, is allowed to prevent the use or the occupancy of the land 

for mining. 

You talked about the fact that mining can override local communities. So is it your belief that residents and their elected officials 

here locally should have no say, at all, in what occurs in the community that they live in? 

Mr. STURGESS. I would not agree with that. I agree with your, 

what I—you asked me a double negative question. I am sorry, sir. 

It is my belief that the community in any area is very important 

to the success of every venture, whether it’s private, public or political, and we are very happy to acknowledge that, both the local 

community as well as what I call the extended community of interested parties. 

I think it is very important, the processes that we are just initiating, are going to take two years to three years, to however many 

years, to include community involvement in all steps. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We will come back around. Thank you, sir. Mr. 

Featherstone, let me get to the claim that Augusta makes, that 

since we have no track record with this company in terms of mining operations, reclamation, we are working off trust at this point. 

And the corporation is claiming that Rosemont operation will be a 

modern mine. 

I just wanted to ask you, what are some of the impacts that you 

have seen from, to quote, modern mines? 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Well, I think a good example is the 

Summitville mine in Colorado, which was a state of the art, and 

by the way, I mean, for 30 years of doing this kind of work, I think 

every mine proposal I have ever looked at has ben state of the art, 

a modern mine. Yet every mine that has operated has leaked, in 

some form of another, some more than others. 

A good example is Summitville, which was state of the art, which 

ended up killing about 15 miles of the Alamosa River, all the 

aquatic life in that river. 

37

The dangers of a modern metal mine depends a lot on the sulfur 

in the ore. I understand that this ore body is moderate sulfur but 

we are still waiting for Augusta to come up with the final geochemical analysis. That would make a lot of difference. A high sulfide mine is going to, when the ore is dug out of the ground and 

exposed to air and water, it is going to create sulfuric acid, it is 

going to leach heavy metals out of that. Copper ore, there is a high 

correlation between copper ore in the Southwest and uranium. 

For example, the Sierrita Mine and the Twin Buttes mine, and 

the Queen mine in Bisbee, all had uranium, and Twin Buttes and 

the Queen actually processed yellowcake, the raw uranium ore. 

And the process used in a modern sulphide copper mine actually 

concentrate the uranium as the ore is processed. So that is something really to watch for. 

There is just any number of problems that can happen. Leaking 

tailings impoundments, leaking waste rock, you know, dust. It is 

just quite a bit of problems that can occur. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. My last question. The drafters of the 1872 Mining 

Law, could they have imagined the size and scope of modern mining? And that is part of the question because it was crafted in 

1872. And if they did, if they were to look at the size and scope 

of modern mining now, what other kinds of accommodations do you 

think they would have made in that law? 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. The first part, I don’t think there is any way 

that the drafters of the law could have imagined a modern metal 

mine. In the old days, it was pick and shove; it was by hand. The 

workings down in Bisbee, the underground operations were, you 

know, real engineering feats. But that is a lot different from a modern mine where basically you are trading labor for oil. 

You know, a modern mine is an excavation operation. It is heavy 

equipment, it is huge equipment, and, you know, from a footprint 

of maybe a few acres to a footprint of tens of thousands of acres 

on some of the larger mines, is just something that the drafters 

could not have foreseen. 

The second part of your question—actually, I don’t remember the 

second part of your question. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let’s use the example you used, in terms of an absence in the 1872 law as it stands, and that would be the issue of 

current reclamation standards and bonding for liability and damage that might be caused to surrounding communities, to water, 

etcetera. That is the kind of accommodation that isn’t present now, 

but that may be, with rethinking this law, would be included now. 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Yes. I mean, the original law really had no 

provisions for reclamation. Currently, the Forest Service does require reclamation bonding. 

However, a report that EARTHWORKS, back when it was the 

Mineral Policy Center, commissioned by a mining engineer, Jim 

Kuipers, had looked at reclamation bonding across the West, and 

specifically in Arizona, and the amount of money that is required 

by the agencies and provided by the companies, and in all cases in 

Arizona, is far less than what full reclamation would require. 

I don’t have those statistics at my fingertips, or buried in my—

I probably do have them buried in my brain but they are not going 

38

to come forward right now, and I would be happy to provide those 

to the committee. 

But the difference is an order of magnitude, you know, like hundreds of millions of dollars in Arizona between what should be in 

the bank for reclamation and what is in the bank now. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and with that, let me yield to Congresswoman Giffords for any questions you might have. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. Actually, my questions are for Mr. 

Sturgess. Good morning, Mr. Sturgess, thank you for being here 

today. 

Mr. STURGESS. Thank you for the invitation. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes. How much did Augusta pay for the property? 

Mr. STURGESS. Augusta Resources paid $20.8 million—that is 

$20.6 million. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. And how much, based on today’s copper prices, do 

you believe the property to be worth? 

Mr. STURGESS. It depends whether that ground—that copper 

would be in the ground as an undeveloped property or whether it 

was permitted, constructed, developed, produced for sale. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. If you could address both aspects of the property. 

Mr. STURGESS. Okay. In the ground, I would say at the time we purchased it, it was worth $20.8 million. I believe it was a member 

of your staff who told me that was a lot to pay for a ranch, when 

we met, and I commented, it is a lot to pay for a ranch but it is 

very little to pay for a copper mine, and we will see what it turns 

out to be. 

In terms of value of the minerals, and it is going to take a 

minute to go through some math. Five billion pounds of copper, 100 

million pounds of molybdenum, 100 million ounces of silver. 

At today’s prices—and I haven’t checked in the last few days— the copper is over $2.50 a pound. Molybdenum is about $25- to $27 

a pound, and silver, I think yesterday, went over $14 a pound—or 

an ounce. An ounce, rather. The amounts are enormous. But those 

are market, retail, without having the cost of getting there. 

So getting back to what is the value? It depends what the price 

assumptions are. In our feasibility study modeling, we will probably use the trailing three year average, that is what the Securities 

and Exchange Commission looks at—that is about $2 a pound. 

And that is how I got with the number of $1.8 billion in taxes. 

That is the federal tax payment that comes—and this is part of the 

reason mines have historically been exempt from paying royalties, 

is because they pay income taxes, fairly substantial. 

So the $1.8 billion in income taxes would be about 30 percent of 

the—well, of the profits. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. So based on standard copper mining or mining 

practices, if you were fully operational, what would your profitability be if you were operating today? 

Mr. STURGESS. What I can tell you is published information, because that is all I am allowed, really. When we make disclosures, 

it has to be to all the public at the same time. That will be upcoming, within the next 60 to 90 days. So I encourage patience. In 

some ways, from Rosemont’s standpoint, this hearing is perhaps 

very early in the process as opposed to the 1872 Mining Act 

purpose. 

39

But the net present value of the property in material that was 

published in April of last year, at prices of a dollar, I believe a 

$1.50 copper, is about $500 million. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Has Augusta ever developed a fully operational 

mine? 

Mr. STURGESS. The individuals of a company make the company, 

the same as the individuals on an elected body make up the body. 

So Augusta—no. The people that work for Augusta, myself, I have 

been on a half a dozen mine projects, there are actually some pictures around the wall, some that I have personally been involved 

with, some reclamation projects where industry has had success. 

Globe Miami, for example, where the tailing reclamation—and 

anybody who drove through Globe Miami before 1988, when 

Cypress bought it, remembers what the terrible dust blowing was. 

A great example of a failed, or not even attempted reclamation effort. 

Drive through Globe Miami today. There are photographs on the 

side of the building, of the room, that show where the reclaimed 

or at least revegetated tailings are today. Those projects have been 

done by individuals. 

There are also pictures here from a Golden Cross mine in New 

Zealand. It still looks like a mine because revegetation, when the 

photograph was taken, was only about five years old. I was the environmental architect, you might say, for that project, in 1986, full 

mine, tailing ponds, revegetated, on its way back. 

The individuals that make up Augusta have started, built, 

closed, and operated mines, with good relations with the community, good relations with labor, organized and unorganized labor, 

good relations with the regulators, and I am proud of that record 

and everybody on our team, many which are here on our design 

team, I should ask, from Tucson—and I am sorry to grandstand 

but if we can have a quick standup, everybody who is here, who 

has had anything to do with the Rosemont planning design, that 

is proud to say I am part of it. 

Okay. These people live in the community. We are not going to 

fail you. We are trying to show the mining industry has to find a 

way to develop minerals, and this group is committed to doing that. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. But Mr. Sturgess, you would agree, that while all 

you work for Augusta mining company, and it sounds like you have 

quite a background, it is really the company that is the entity that 

we would deal with. 

So you have a problem with the company, if we were to go back 

in a reclamation standpoint, or whatever. It is not you, individually, that we would be dealing with. We would be dealing with the 

corporation. 

And the reason why I bring up the question is because if your 

company doesn’t have a track record, or we don’t have the faith 

that it is even your company that is going to be carrying this 

project forward, it just makes it difficult to be able to understand 

a little bit more about the planning process and your intentions. 

Can we shift, briefly, to talk about the environmental impacts? 

As a motorcyclist, that is one of the best stretches of roads in, I 

would argue, all the country, but particularly Arizona. 

40

Can you talk about trucks on the highway, how you would export 

the ore and the other—obviously, you touched on water, but if you 

can go into that in a little bit greater detail. 

Mr. STURGESS. I will try and take those three at a time. As a motorcycle operator myself, if we don’t concentrate on what we are 

doing, we crash, and actually, milepost 44, where I think you were 

yesterday, Congressman, and milepost 45, is the single most dangerous stretch of road on the Arizona highways. 

It is the most dangerous mile for motorcycles and it is in the top 

four for cars. I look at that, where the present access is into the 

ranch, and I said there is no way that our employees, our designers, or our haulage vehicles, would want to be anywhere near that 

stretch of road. It is dangerous enough already. It needs to be 

fixed. 

I know there is resistance against that but it needs to be 

straightened. I would like to see it straightened to the east and I 

would be happy for our company to commit to help pay to do that. 

I think it could be straightened, made more safer, and we could 

just drop it about 15 or 20 feet in grade, and if you don’t want to 

look at a modern mine, you wouldn’t have to see it. It could remain 

a scenic highway, with no view of the mine at all in those three 

miles. That is a scenic issue, which is part of the environmental. 

Back to traffic. What we instead selected, and what the engineers are designing, is back at milepost 47 there is a one mile 

straight stretch. You might know it now. It has got a picnic area, 

a table and an overlook. 

That is the safest stretch of that road, and that would be where 

we would propose to have our traffic and our access in and out. 

There are two other parts to your question. Help me again. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Water. 

Mr. STURGESS. Water. We did a telephone poll of all the zip codes 

around the area of the mine, in April, a year ago, we did it again 

in October, and we asked people, What are the most important values and concerns and issues you might have with a mining development at Rosemont, and the top three were water, water, and 

water. 

Water quality, water quantity, and water supply. And so that is 

a very important question. I can’t go into all the details now, but 

I can tell you that the plan of operations, 60 days, 90 days, when 

it comes out, will have a very thorough demonstration of exactly 

where our well fields would be, where the pipeline routes could be, 

where the Central Arizona Project Recharge Water, that we are actually starting in three days, four days—five days. March 1st, we 

are actually starting a recharge project, storing water in the Santa 

Cruz Basin. 

We have 15,000 acre feet that we purchased from the CAP 

system, that is going in the ground, to more than offset the water 

that we are going to take out of the aquifer for mine operations. 

We are not required to do it, but we realize, if we are going to have 

a chance with the public, we have to earn their trust. 

The water chemistry is going to be thoroughly evaluated. I think 

Mr. Featherstone—I don’t argue with much of what he said about 

the historic problems. The good news—and I think he alluded to 

41

this—low pyrite mines are a lot easier to manage that high pyrite 

or high sulfide mines. 

The limestone deposit at Rosemont, in my 30 years, is as clean 

and clear, from a water chemistry standpoint, as any place I have 

had the pleasure or challenge to work at. 

That doesn’t mean that by itself, we don’t have a lot of challenges to overcome, and to meet in the details. 

And the other part of your question was? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Well, actually, the number of trucks daily on the 

road. 

Mr. STURGESS. We have a transportation plan. I have seen a 

draft. The M3 Engineering company that is working on that has a 

schedule that will be out in 60 to 90 days. On that chart, it will 

show, by hour, our estimated number of trucks and employee 

vehicles. 

I have told them there are two blackout periods between—we are 

subject to change this—but between 6:00 and 9:00 in the morning 

and 3:00 and 6:00 at night, and those can be changed. 

No haul trucks during those hours when the school buses are on 

Highway 83. I know that was a concern that was raised here. We 

are listening. The answer to your question is three trucks an hour 

as far as—as concentrate trucks. 

We have scheduled our shift change, 12 hours, so we have two 

shifts at 12 hours apiece, which means we only have two crews 

that have to go back and forth instead of three eight-hour crews. 

It also means the employees get a four day weekend, a three day 

weekend, and then a six day weekend, which gives them a lot of 

flexibility. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. You talked about being in compliance with the 

‘‘Dark Sky’’ laws. You are planning a 24 hour open pit copper mining operation. Obviously, you need to do that with lighting. Can 

you address, a little bit, how you plan on keeping the skies dark? 

Mr. STURGESS. In our plan, again, those 60 to 90 days, we have 

a lighting plan, and I have tasked the M3 Engineering company 

that does—at least last year, about half their work was for the observatories, half for the mining industry. They are pretty wellqualified to do it. 

We asked them to put the details of the lighting plan for all the 

external lighting at Rosemont, to make sure we are in compliance 

with the guidelines. Those are strict guidelines. We are within 12.5 

miles of the, I guess Mount Hopkins Observatory. Part of the mine 

operation is within the strictest part of the guideline area. 

What we would do that with is through use of the proper—I 

think they are called low sodium vapor, basically yellow lights, 

what you see. A lot of is mechanical. You put a hood—if the light 

is up here, you put a hood and shielding, so that the light is focused where you want it, and a lot of that is energy conservation 

as well. Hoods, shields, and also limitations of activities occur inside of buildings versus outside. 

It will be a challenge. I am sure we can do it. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. One final question. How many public meetings 

have you had so far? 

Mr. STURGESS. How many public meetings on Rosemont? I can’t 

remember. There’s a lot more coming. 

42

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. But you don’t know how many meetings 

you’ve had where you’ve opened the public up to answer questions, 

to walk the property and——

Mr. STURGESS. The reason I can’t remember is I can’t count that 

high. We talked to Sahuarita, talked to Pima County, been here 

several times in this room, talked to the Pima Association of Governments, talked with, either myself or other members, talked to 

the Chamber of Commerce in several situations. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Sturgess, public meetings? Not meetings with 

planning officials or elected officials. But actual public meetings. 

Mr. STURGESS. Between five and ten. Probably between five and 

ten. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. All right. 

Mr. STURGESS. But I would point out that we have not officially 

filed a plan that we are in the process of reviewing here. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sturgess. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Congresswoman Giffords. A couple of 

follow-ups. Let me start with Mr. Featherstone. One question. You 

know, other than hard rock mining—and correct me if I am 

wrong—federal energy and mineral resources are managed under 

a lease or sale system? 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Do you think that we have reached the point, in 

the history of mining in this country, that we shouldn’t use a leasing system for hard rock mining? 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Yes, I think so, and I think a good example 

of that is uranium, which is kind of a duality, where you have got 

both some leases left over from the Department of Defense after 

World War II, and then you also have it as a hard rock mineral. 

So that is one where you have a duality. But I see no reason, in 

this day and age, why there shouldn’t be some sort of leasing system. 

Of course as part of two reforms, there needs to be, in our view, 

some places that are just plain off limits. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and just before we close this part of 

it, I would just like to comment for the record, in the statement of 

Mr. Sturgess, on page two, it’s erroneously asserted that the intent 

of the 1872 law is clear, the congressional intent. 

The problem with that, as he goes on with the quote, the quote 

comes from the Mining and Materials Act of 1970, which essentially provides guidelines and procedures, but does not supersede 

the 1872 law, and what has happened is that this proposal, this request is under that law, which is really written around ownership, 

and really doesn’t bear on any other criteria, and it does not address reclamation, it does not address disposal, control of material 

waste products. So that is part of the problem in which we are having this kind of hearing today. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and we will at 

this point call the next panel forward. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Levick and Ms. Lunine, please. Ms. Levick, you are recognized for five minutes, please. 

43

STATEMENT OF LAINIE LEVICK, PRESIDENT,

SAVE THE SCENIC SANTA RITAS 

Ms. LEVICK. Thank you, Congressman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords, for having this hearing today. My name is Lainie 

Levick. Can you hear me with this? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. It might be easier, for more audio. I know you 

don’t want to but——

Ms. LEVICK. Right. I don’t want to stand up here. Okay. Thank 

you, Congressman Grijalva and Congresswoman Giffords, for having this hearing today. My name is Lainie Levick. I am representing Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, SSSR, an all-volunteer 

501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. We were formed in 1996 to stop 

the ASARCO land exchange and mine proposal at Rosemont Ranch 

and to protect the scenic recreational and environmental values of 

the Santa Ritas. 

We are opposed to all plans for mining in the Santa Ritas, including those by Augusta Resource, a Canadian company, to use 

our public lands as a dump for their toxic mining wastes at Rosemont. 

When we helped stop ASARCO in the late 1990’s, there were 

over a hundred people actively involved, and almost 3000 people 

signed petitions opposing the land exchange and mine. 

SSSR was endorsed by 55 local groups, ranging from hunting, 

off-road vehicle and gun clubs, to neighborhood associations, hikers 

and birders. The Pima County Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz 

County Board of Supervisors, Pima County Parks and Rec Department, Arizona Audubon Council, and Tucson City Council, all 

passed resolutions against the land exchange in 1997. 

The public opposition to that proposal was enormous, and along 

with hard times for the copper industry, helped to end that threat 

to the Santa Ritas. 

And now with this new mine proposal, we are seeing there is still 

enormous public opposition to mining at Rosemont. The Rosemont 

Valley is important to our quality of life in southern Arizona for 

recreation, open space and environmental protection. Open pit mining is not compatible with these uses and the community is passionate about protecting this area. 

The potential impacts to the Rosemont Valley from an open pit 

copper mine are simply not acceptable. Impacts to our water resources are the greatest concern, as we have already heard. Most 

mines have unintended leaks and spills, degrade surface and water 

quality with sulphates and heavy metals, and de-water the aquifer. 

Our water resources are already severely stressed due to a growing population and existing groundwater contamination from past 

industrial and mining uses. It is crucial that we protect what is 

left, both quantity and quality. 

The newspaper, last Wednesday, reported that the EPA is investigating the mines in Green Valley after the monitoring wells at 

the Sierrita Mine found uranium in groundwater at twice the legal 

limit. According to a Coronado National Forest geologist, the deposit at Rosemont is the same as Sierrita. So now we have the 

threat of uranium added to the list of potential water quality contaminants at Rosemont, if this mine is permitted. 

44

Air quality is also a concern. Wind speeds throughout the Sonora 

Valley are high and prevailing winds blow towards Tucson. The 

winds originating from mine sites can move great distances. For 

example, tungsten originating from mine tailings in Bisbee is suspected as the cause of the leukemia cluster in Sierra Vista, about 

25 miles away. The Rosemont mine proposal is a perfect example 

of why the 1872 Mining Law must be changed. 

It is a grave injustice to the American people, and in spite of 

overwhelming public opposition, and a multitude of unacceptable 

environmental impacts, that the mining law makes it nearly impossible to deny this project. 

Although other laws exist to protect the environment, the mining 

law takes precedence, and most of the environmental destruction 

associated with mining is allowed. 

The small economic benefits of mining at Rosemont are not 

worth the huge risks to our water, environmental resources, and 

huge loss of recreational land. Mining is not the best use of Rosemont Ranch. This area will provide the greatest good for the 

greatest number, by leaving it as it is now. Arizona already has an 

abundance of operational copper mines that will help sustain our 

standard of living and provide copper to the country. 

The small amount of copper that may be produced at Rosemont 

is not significant enough to justify destroying this beautiful and important part of the Santa Ritas. 

We support efforts to withdraw this area from mineral entry. 

Mining is not an appropriate use of this land, and as Roger mentioned, and one of the speakers at the January 16th Pima County 

Board of Supervisors hearing on the resolution opposing this mine 

said: It’s the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue of great 

importance to the people and environment of Southern Arizona. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Levick follows:]

Statement of Lainie Levick, President,

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas 

Thank you Congressman Grijalva, Congressman Costa and members of the committee for convening this hearing on the Rosemont Mine, the 1872 Mining Law and 

the impacts on the Santa Rita Mountains. I appreciate this opportunity to testify 

before you today. 

My name is Lainie Levick. I am here today representing Save the Scenic Santa 

Ritas (SSSR). We are an all volunteer, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization formed in 

1996 to protect the scenic, recreational, environmental and wildlife values of the 

Santa Rita Mountains, including protection from degradation due to mining activities. We are intensely opposed to all proposals for mining in the Santa Rita Mountains. We are opposed to plans by Augusta Resource, a Canadian company, to use 

our public lands as a dump for their toxic mining wastes at Rosemont Ranch. 

We are in strong support of the efforts to withdraw this area from mineral entry. 

We are aware that withdrawal is subject to valid existing rights, meaning that valid 

mining claims remain in effect. The Forest Service has refused to conduct a validity 

exam of the claims at Rosemont, although they have the jurisdiction to do so. We 

hope this withdrawal will force an examination, and reduce the needless destruction 

of the area by further mineral exploration and development. 

I am the current President of SSSR. We have 11 members on our Board of Directors, and 8 members on our Advisory Committee. We have no paid memberships, 

but maintain an email action alert list which includes members from other organizations that forward the alerts on to their lists. These citizens are all passionate 

about protecting the Santa Ritas. They include off-road vehicle groups; hiking, 

birding and mountain biking groups; neighborhood and conservation groups; and 

many others. Our current activities include maintaining a website 

45

(www.ScenicSantaRitas.org), working with local public officials, public outreach and 

education, hikes to the Rosemont area, and contact with the local press. In addition, 

we have an online petition opposing the mine that has approximately 919 signatures 

since Oct. 29, 2006 when it went online (http://www.petitiononline.com/sssr2006/petition.html). A copy of that petition is attached. We also have over 80 names on 

paper petitions. No one has been paid to collect signatures or sign the petition, nor 

is anyone expecting to receive compensation or get a job by signing. It is all completely voluntary, and shows the strong public opposition to this mine proposal. 

History of SSSR and our efforts to protect the Santa Ritas 

The Santa Ritas and the Rosemont Valley have been of interest to mining companies for over a century. I will not discuss that history here (see our website for more 

information www.ScenicSantaRitas.org), but will just present the most recent attempts at mining that prompted the formation of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas. 

In 1995, the Rosemont Ranch was proposed for copper mining by ASARCO, Inc. 

ASARCO had acquired through purchase and patenting under the 1872 Mining 

Law, nearly 3,000 acres in the Coronado National Forest’s Santa Rita Mountains, 

which included the porphyry copper ore body. In 1995 they sought to acquire an additional 13,272 acres (more than 20 square miles) of claimed National Forest land 

through a land exchange, to provide additional areas for disposal of overburden and 

mine tailings, and to provide a land-use buffer for the mine. 

In 1996, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Association formed as a non-profit organization to stop the land exchange and open pit mine proposal. Over a hundred people 

were actively involved in that effort, and almost 3,000 people signed petitions opposing the land exchange and mine. These petitions were presented to the Forest Service in 1997. SSSR was endorsed by 55 local groups (see list attached) ranging from 

hunting, off-road vehicle and gun clubs, to neighborhood associations, hikers and 

birders. A campaign coordinator was hired to help with the political, administrative, 

fundraising, and media work. 

SSSR also gained the support of the local governments in Southern Arizona. In 

May of 1997, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to oppose the proposed Rosemont Ranch Land Exchange and passed a resolution in opposition (attached). Congressman Grijalva, who was at the time Chair of the Board of Supervisors, signed this resolution. It stated, ‘‘The public interest of Pima County and 

southern Arizona will...not be furthered by the proposed Rosemont Ranch Land Exchange.’’ The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, Pima County Parks and 

Recreation Department, the Arizona Audubon Council and the Tucson City Council 

also passed resolutions against the land exchange that year. A copy of the Pima 

County resolution is attached. The other resolutions are similar in content. 

All three major local governmental bodies gave similar reasons for opposing the 

land exchange: the loss of access to 20 square miles of public land, and the resulting 

stresses on remaining public land in the area; the loss of recreational opportunities 

for residents of, and visitors to, southern Arizona; the potential negative impacts on 

our tourism-based economy; the potential harm to wildlife as management of this 

diverse habitat passed from the Forest Service to a private corporation; the negative 

impact on the overall quality of life in southern Arizona; and several other reasons. 

In early 1998, Coronado National Forest Supervisor John McGee announced to 

the press that ‘‘he and ASARCO have mutually agreed to terminate the Memorandum of Understanding related to potential copper mine development or land exchange in the Santa Rita Mountains.’’ Although the immediate threat of a land exchange and copper mine was halted, there remained over 13,000 acres of unpatented 

mineral claims in the National Forest, as well as the unresolved situation with the 

private lands at Rosemont Ranch. 

In 2004, the Ranch was sold by ASARCO to a new owner who was considering 

conservation instead of mining, and was willing to sell all or a portion of the Ranch 

to Pima County. The County was very interested in purchasing this property since 

it is almost entirely within the designated biological core area of the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan (SDCP), and the Santa Ritas are a priority conservation area 

with important wildlife habitat. The SDCP is the result of years of scientific study 

that will help guide development and ecosystem protection in Pima County (http:/

/www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/intro.html). 

In late 2004, Pima County prepared a report to evaluate the potential benefits of 

acquiring Rosemont Ranch and associated water and mineral rights for open space 

preservation. The only available funding for this purchase was from the 2004 Open 

Space Bond funds; however, most of the Rosemont Ranch was not included in the 

list of properties to be acquired with these funds because all inholdings in the 

National Forest were categorically excluded from the 2004 land acquisition 

46

priorities. The groups working on this list assumed that Land and Water Conservation Funds would be available to acquire Forest Service inholdings. 

As a result, Pima County was not able to purchase Rosemont Ranch with 2004 

Bond money, and in 2005 the owner instead sold the property to Augusta Resource 

Corporation, a Canadian company. Augusta has proceeded with exploration activities and in 2006 submitted a mining plan to the Forest Service. This plan was rejected due to lack of detail. Although Augusta’s mining footprint would be similar 

in size to ASARCO’s land exchange proposal, unlike ASARCO, Augusta is not offering to acquire and protect other land in advance of mining to compensate for the 

irreversible losses of land that would occur. Instead, Augusta is offering a ‘‘regional 

trust’’ for a variety of projects, which may or may not include land acquisition, but 

the land acquisition, if any, would occur after the mining impacts. 

In 2006 Save the Scenic Santa Ritas succeeded in getting the private lands at 

Rosemont Ranch on the preliminary list of properties to be purchased for Community Open Space through Pima County’s upcoming 2008 Open Space Bond. If the 

property becomes available for sale, Pima County will be better able to protect these 

lands through bond funds. SSSR continues to monitor the activities of Augusta at 

Rosemont Ranch, educate and inform the public, and participate in any public participation opportunities that arise. 

The importance of the Rosemont Valley to the citizens of Southern Arizona 

and the potential impacts from mining. 

The Rosemont Valley is important to our quality of life in Southern Arizona, for 

recreation, scenic views, water resources, wildlife habitat and ecosystem processes. 

As our population grows, and development spreads out from the urban areas, there 

will be more pressure on Rosemont for its numerous values. Augusta claims they 

will maintain multiple uses at Rosemont Ranch, but it is unlikely that these uses 

would continue after it becomes an open pit copper mine. Intensive development of 

the area as a mine would result in the permanent loss of these resources. 

The potential impacts to the Rosemont Valley from an open pit copper mine are 

simply not acceptable to the citizens of Southern Arizona. These impacts would include destruction of the landscape (vegetation, soil and hydrologic processes), water 

and air quality degradation, noise and light pollution, destruction of scenic views 

from State Scenic Highway 83, increased traffic hazards, lower property values, 

huge loss of recreation lands, destruction of wildlife habitat, and damage to the local 

tourism-based economy. 

Degradation of Water Resources 

Most mines cause some damage to surface and ground water resources. Even 

though they may use modern technology or have good intentions, mines have unintended leaks and spills. In the arid southwest, we have lost over 80% of our riparian 

areas, making it even more important that we protect what’s left. Our water resources are already severely stressed due to a growing population and existing 

groundwater contamination from past industrial and mining uses. 

There are many potential water resource impacts from a mine at Rosemont. The 

mine site is in a particularly sensitive and important location. It is in the watershed 

of Cienega Creek, a state protected Outstanding Water (also called a Unique Water, 

a water quality anti-degradation protection), and part of the watershed for Tucson’s 

water supply. 

Augusta has proposed to dump their mine wastes (tailings and waste rock) into 

Barrel Canyon, one of the main drainages to Davidson Canyon which flows into 

Cienega Creek. They have also proposed several holding ponds that would impound 

surface flows in Barrel Canyon. Filling this canyon and impounding the surface 

water will deplete flows in both Davidson and Cienega Creek and cause significant 

damage to the riparian habitats. Any leaks or spills from the mine site would flow 

into and contaminate these rare riparian systems. Augusta’s mining plan used the 

100-year 24-hour design storm for their stormwater management plan; however the 

flood events during the summer of 2006 in Southern Arizona were determined to 

be 10,000 year events. 

Although Augusta claims they will use ‘‘dry’’ tailings, water will still be required 

for processing. When water is applied onto broken rock in areas with high sulfate 

concentrations, sulfuric acid is generated which in turn leaches out heavy metals. 

These potentially toxic heavy metals and other chemicals could leach into ground 

and surface waters and Tucson’s water supplies. 

An article in the Arizona Daily Star article on Wednesday Feb. 21, 2007, reported 

that ‘‘The EPA is investigating the mines west of Green Valley after monitoring 

wells on the Sierrita mine site found uranium in the groundwater at twice the legal 

limit. Mary Poulton, head of the department of mining and geological engineering 

47

at the University of Arizona, said uranium and thorium often occur in the same 

granite rocks that contain copper and molybdenum.’’ According to Bev Everson, geologist with the Coronado National Forest, the deposit at Rosemont is the same type 

of deposit as Sierrita. This creates concerns that the same type of water quality contamination may occur at Rosemont if the mine is permitted. 

Augusta hasn’t yet disclosed their water source, but it will likely be groundwater 

from the Santa Cruz Basin, at about 5,000—8,000 acre feet per year, or enough 

water for a city the size of Santa Fe. Domestic wells in the area of Rosemont Ranch 

already go dry periodically due to overuse of the aquifer and cannot handle additional stress. Stream flow and springs would likely dry up from this quantity of 

groundwater withdrawal, adversely affecting plants and wildlife. Most of the 

groundwater extraction would probably occur from dewatering the pit, and this 

pumping would lower the groundwater level, change the recharge patterns and 

change the groundwater flow direction. This has the potential to diminish underground flows moving southeast to the upper Cienega Basin, including Empire Gulch, 

as well as flows moving north toward Davidson Canyon. Until a complete water balance and hydrologic study of the area are completed, it is unknown exactly how 

much water would be required for processing, and what the surface and ground 

water impacts would be. 

A recent report by Anne Maest and Jim Kuipers looked at how well the NEPA 

process predicted water quality impacts from mines. They found that 73% of the 

mines that predicted no adverse impacts to surface water resources actually did 

cause water quality standard exceedances. They also found that 92% of the mines 

close to surface or ground water had surface water impacts, and 77% caused ground 

water contamination when they had predicted no impacts. The possibility of water 

quality and groundwater degradation is extremely high if the Rosemont mine is permitted. These are risks we can no longer afford to take in Southern Arizona where 

our water resources are already severely stressed. This is reason enough to deny 

the mine. But under the 1872 Mining Law, these concerns cannot be considered, 

leaving mineral withdrawal as the best available option to stop this project. 

Reclamation 

Although Augusta claims they will use environmentally responsible techniques 

and restore the area to ranching and wildlife uses, there are no legal requirements 

that they do so. The 1872 Mining Law does not require reclamation, and the 

Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act is extremely weak. This proposed mine would 

permanently destroy approximately 4,000 acres (over 3,000 acres of public land). Augusta will be required to post a bond for site reclamation, but it is unknown if it 

will be adequate for real restoration of the site. Most reclamation bonds mainly 

cover the cost of surface reclamation, and barely address water quality issues, which 

can be difficult to predict. By far the greatest expense in current mined land reclamation is for long-term water quality monitoring and treatment (i.e. for at least 

100 years), since ground water contamination can take years to appear, and leaching may continue into perpetuity. Furthermore, in this semi-arid climate, where 

rainfall is highly unpredictable, revegetating over 4,000 acres to ranching and wildlife uses would require intensive irrigation and long-term monitoring. Reclamation 

costs for similar sized mines have been estimated at $200 to $300 million, with most 

of the cost for water quality restoration. Augusta has not indicated how much they 

will put up for their reclamation bond. Open pit mining causes irreversible changes 

to the landscape, and in our semi-arid climate restoration to any form of sustainable 

use would be a formidable task. 

Air Pollution 

The region currently has excellent air quality. Mine tailings and waste piles 

would be sources of dust, which prevailing winds would blow toward the Tucson 

basin. Air quality in the National Forest and surrounding residential areas would 

be degraded by both dust and truck exhaust (which contains diesel fumes and particulate smoke). Augusta’s proposed ‘‘dry’’ tailings and other mine waste could allow 

dust particles to become airborne, creating a plume of metal particles in the air. 

Wind speeds throughout the Sonoita Valley tend to be high. Dust plumes originating 

from mine sites are serious concerns since they can move great distances (further 

than water pollution) and contain heavy metals. For example, tungsten originating 

from the mine tailings in Bisbee is suspected as the cause of the leukemia cluster 

in Sierra Vista, about 25 miles away. If gold is present, then airborne plumes of 

particulate arsenic may occur since there is a strong correlation between the presence of gold and arsenic. Predicting wind direction and velocity requires extensive 

monitoring and the analysis of wind rose diagrams. 

48

Impacts to Biological Values and Wildlife 

Rosemont Valley is biologically important from its pinion pine-oak grasslands in 

the higher elevations to the cactus shrub grasslands in the lower portions. The Valley is part of the Madrean Archipelago bio-region of North America. Named as one 

of four Biodiversity Hotspots in North and Central America in 2004, the Santa Rita 

Mountains and Rosemont Ranch contain a level of biodiversity that is unmatched 

in most other parts of the United States. The Santa Ritas have also been designated 

as an ‘‘Important Birding Area’’. From a landscape-level perspective, the northern 

Santa Ritas, where Rosemont is located, act as a critical landscape connection to the 

Empire and Rincon Mountains to the north and east. This connection is best characterized by the fact that several jaguars—one of many federally listed species within 

the area—occurred in the vicinity in the 1900’s. 

There are two Endangered Species known to exist at Rosemont: Lesser Longnosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) and Pima Pineapple Cactus 

(Coryphantha scheeri robustispina). In addition, this area may be home to the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis), listed as threatened, and the Yellowbilled Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), a candidate for listing. 

There are six others priority vulnerable species or Wildlife of Special Concern 

known to occur in the Rosemont Ranch area, according to the AZ Game and Fish 

Department: Mexican Long-tongued Bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), Western Red 

Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), Lowland Leopard Frog (Rana yavapaiensis), Giant Spotted Whiptail Lizard (Cnemidophorus burti stictogrammus), Rufous-winged Sparrow 

(Aimophila carpalis), and Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii). The Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida) may also occur there, based on its habitat requirements. 

For more information on wildlife potentially affected, see the report by Pima 

County, ‘‘Preserving the Santa Rita Rosemont Ranch’’ (2004). http://www.pima.gov/

cmo/sdcp/reports/d29/Rosemont%20Ranch.pdf 

Loss of Recreational Opportunities 

The Rosemont Valley is a valuable recreational resource for Southern Arizona. 

This area is used for hiking, camping, off-highway vehicles, mountain biking, dirt 

bikes, hunting, bird-watching, bicycling, picnicking, photography and sight-seeing. 

As the population in this region grows, and development spreads further out from 

the urban areas, there will be more and more demand on this area. A mine at Rosemont would result in the permanent loss of these recreation lands, and will aggravate our increasingly crowded public lands, decreasing the quality of recreational experiences. 

Noise Pollution 

Daily blasting is required to remove rock covering the ore body. The impact to 

nearby residences, wildlife and recreational users in the National Forest will be 

equivalent to daily sonic booms. The blasting may also cause damage to nearby residences. The noise from large mining trucks at the site and on the local roads would 

be disruptive to people and wildlife in the area. 

Light Pollution 

Mines operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They require huge amounts of lighting which would interfere with the operation of local observatories, such as Mt. Hopkins, and would not be in compliance with Pima County’s Dark Sky Ordinance. 

Many people live in the Sonoita and Empire Valleys because they value the rural 

lifestyle, which includes dark skies and stars at night. The lights from a mine would 

impact this aspect of their lives. 

Loss of Scenic Views 

The mine site is visible from State Highway 83, a designated State Scenic Highway. The scenic views will be impacted for about 3 miles of the 24-mile drive from 

I-10 to Sonoita. This 3-mile segment includes the portion of the highway where it 

gains its greatest elevation above the surrounding land, at which point drivers are 

treated to a sweeping panoramic view of the Rosemont Valley to the west. The mine 

site dominates this view which currently consists of spectacular rolling hills of 

grasslands, dotted with oak trees and backed by a scenic, rugged ridge line. 

Traffic Hazards 

Mine related traffic and trucks, including ore trucks and vehicles carrying heavy 

construction equipment and explosives for blasting, will use the Rosemont Junction 

Road and narrow, winding Highway 83 which is heavily used by commuters, school 

buses, tourists, motorcycles and bicyclists. This would create very dangerous and 

hazardous driving conditions, and the heavy mine trucks would damage the road 

more quickly than normal traffic. 

49

Decrease in Property Values 

The areas surrounding the mine site have developed into rural residential areas, 

ranches and ranchettes. The development of an open pit mine will lower property 

values in those areas due to increased air pollution, noise and light pollution, water 

quality impacts, and a generally reduced quality of life. The Sonoita Valley, a weekend tourist destination, may experience reduced tourism and could be thrown into 

the boom-bust economy typical of western towns adjacent to large mining operations. 

Economic Impacts 

Any economic benefits of the mine will be offset by the negative impacts on tourism-related businesses dependent on the area’s scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Mine employment may be partially or completely offset by (1) the impact of the mine on recreational and scenic values which might otherwise have lured 

companies into relocating to Southern Arizona; and (2) the long-term deleterious effects of mining’s well known boom-bust economies. Although Augusta is promising 

to provide about 350 jobs, these jobs will last only about 20 years (boom-bust economy of mining), and there is no guarantee they will come from the community. Typically, mining companies fill management positions from out of town, and other 

skilled mining jobs are typically filled by people moving from other mining areas. 

Mining no longer represents a large portion of the jobs or income in Arizona. Besides farming, mining has consistently represented a very small portion of personal 

income in Arizona since 1970. According to the Arizona Game & Fish website, in 

2000, mining provided about 2,500 jobs in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. In 

comparison, recreation related jobs totaled 8,541 in 2001, or more than 3 times the 

number of jobs as mining provided. This includes jobs related to non-consumptive 

recreation such as camping, hiking and bird watching (approximately 3,430 jobs), 

hunting and fishing (about 1,400 jobs), and OHV related jobs (about 3,700). 

The Arizona Watchable Wildlife program is a program run by the Arizona department of tourism and partnered with Arizona Game & Fish. Watchable wildlife recreation includes bird watching and general wildlife viewing at our parks and other 

attractions like the Boyce Thompson Arboretum, or local Bed and Breakfasts that 

focus on nature activities. Statistics show that retail sales related to this program 

totaled over $173 million in 2001 for Pima County, and $11.9 million for Santa Cruz 

County. There were 3,196 jobs from these industries in Pima County, totaling $90.7 

million in salaries and wages, and 236 jobs in Santa Cruz County with $6.2 million 

in salaries and wages. 

When comparing the economic contributions of the main industries in Arizona for 

2004, mining represented a small portion compared to aerospace, micro-electronics, 

and the food and travel industries. For example, the travel industry represents $4.3 

billion in Arizona, or nearly 7 times the mining sector contribution of $0.7 billion. 

Recreation related jobs produced nearly $210 million dollars in personal income in 

2001, compared to a projected $147 million from mining jobs. 

These are sustainable, non-consumptive jobs that improve our quality of life in 

Southern Arizona and do not harm the environment. Southern Arizona is moving 

towards clean, sustainable businesses, and is not as dependent on extractive industries as in the past. The small economic benefits from mining are not worth the 

great environmental risks. The current uses of Rosemont Valley provide more benefits to Southern Arizona than would be obtained from a copper mine. 

Conclusions 

The Rosemont mine proposal is a perfect example of why the 1872 Mining Law 

needs to be changed and updated. It is a grave injustice to the American people that 

in spite of overwhelming public opposition and a multitude of unacceptable environmental impacts, the Mining Law makes it nearly impossible to deny this project. 

In addition, the Mining Law contains no provisions for environmental protection or 

for reclamation and clean-up of the site once mining is finished. Although other laws 

are intended to protect the environment, the Mining Law takes precedence and most 

of the environmental destruction associated with mining is allowed. I am extremely 

pleased that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and 

the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources are listening to how we might 

address this problem. 

The goal of SSSR is to prevent any mining from occurring in the Santa Ritas and 

the Rosemont Valley so the area can be preserved for its current uses. We support 

permanent protection for the Santa Ritas through withdrawal of the Forest Service 

lands from mineral entry. We believe that the small economic benefits of mining at 

Rosemont are not worth the large risks to our water, recreation and environmental 

resources. Arizona already has an abundance of operational copper mines that will 

50

help sustain our standard of living. The small amount of copper that may be produced at Rosemont is not significant enough to justify destroying this beautiful and 

important part of the Santa Rita Mountains. 

We are in strong support of efforts to withdraw this area from mineral entry in 

the hope that the resulting claim validity exams will prove the claims at Rosemont 

to be invalid, and end the threat of mining there forever. Mining is not an appropriate use of this land. To quote one of the speakers at the Jan. 16, 2007 Pima 

County Board of Supervisors hearing on the resolution opposing mining at Rosemont Ranch: It is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and submit comments on this issue of 

great importance to the people and environment of Southern Arizona. 

Attachments 

1. Current online and paper petition opposing mining at Rosemont Ranch, by 

Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/sssr2006/petition.html. 

2. List of Groups who endorsed the position of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas and 

helped stop the Rosemont Ranch Land Exchange and Open Pit Copper Mine 

proposal in 1997. 

3. Resolution passed in 1997 by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in opposition to the Rosemont Ranch Land Exchange, signed by Supervisor Rau ́l 

Grijalva. 

[NOTE: Attachments to Ms. Levick’s statement have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And Ms. Lunine, you are recognized 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA LUNINE, PRIVATE LANDOWNER 

Ms. LUNINE. It is a privilege to speak here today. I thank Congressman Grijalva, Congresswoman Giffords, and all those who 

support them, who will continue to expand the work done today. 

I am not an expert in economics, toxicology, science, politics, mining, or law. I speak today because in my lifetime, and via the history that my family continues to relate to me, greater than this 

lifetime, has been shared with the benefits and the disasters of 

mining in the Southeast. 

My family settled near Lordsburg, New Mexico, before it was a 

state, right around the time the mining laws were being written, 

and various members worked for or in mining. My grandfather 

hauled ore with his team and wagon. Various uncles owned claims 

and did small-scale independent work, on and off. And I hiked the 

hills all my life, always wary for unprotected vertical shafts. That 

was a normal part of my childhood landscape. I never fell in. But 

others I knew did. 

My Uncle Claude, a senior aide to Senator Clinton Anderson 

from 1949 to 1973, still tells me stories of how conservation legislation was made into law and how the interests of mining and water 

were folded into almost every bill. 

Open pit mining at Tyrone started up while I lived in Lordsburg 

and the pit is still expanding today with unbelievable tall mountains of tailings visible for miles along the highway. 

Friends have worked there, on and off, because layoffs occur 

every time the price of copper drops. My dad always worked in the 

bank in Lordsburg, and I worked there summers, during the time 

the smelter was being built by Brown and Root Corporation in 

Playas, New Mexico. 

51

So I have seen the economy of that town from the inside. My parents still live there and we visit frequently, talk with friends from 

Lordsburg, Animas, and Silver City. 

I moved to Tucson in 1976 and lived here almost 18 years. Since 

my husband and I bought land in 1989 in Sonoita, and built our 

home a few years later there, we have seen the historic effects of 

mining in the Santa Ritas and have both been active in these and 

other land use issues in the area. 

We hike with our son, I ride horseback with a friend in the Santa 

Ritas, Patagonia Mountains, and everywhere there is the evidence 

of mining sites that have not adequately been cleaned up. 

My life’s experience has taught me that an open pit copper mine 

in the Santa Ritas, and an awakening of smaller-scale mines in the 

Patagonia Mountains, would be a disaster on every scale. It must 

not be allowed to occur. 

Mineral entry withdrawal seems to be the only tool currently 

available and it must be imposed. Even if mining reform is enacted, these mountains must not be ever invaded on that scale, for 

the following reason, among others that other people have stated. 

Larger cities have enough diversity and economic stability to absorb these 10 to 20 year cycles of good jobs; then nothing. Sonoita 

and probably Patagonia are too small to survive a boom/bust cycle 

unscathed. Businesses come in, people become rooted in the community with families, sometimes multiple generations of families, 

and then it’s just all gone. 

These smaller towns, like Superior, Arizona, where friends of 

mine lost their pharmacy after the mine closed and crime levels 

surged, are not resilient. 

From the last major down cycle of copper, Lordsburg was left 

with boarded-up buildings and out-of-work families on Government 

subsidies. This is with the mine at P-D, and back in full operation. 

They still have a worthless housing market. They have lack of 

money to support parks and recreation. No substantial shopping. A 

struggling county budget. 

Very few of the hundreds of Border Patrol agents now stationed 

there are actually willing to live there. They commute, 45 minutes 

to an hour, from Deming or Silver City, which are larger communities, more resilient, more robust, with diverse economies. 

One of my dearest friends and her husband operate an international mineral exploration company, and I know them to be individuals of the highest integrity. We don’t always see eye to eye on 

this issue, but this issue is not about the character of the individuals involved in it. 

The issue is about industry practices that have been allowed to 

get seriously out of balance with American values through neglect 

of the checks and balances applied to almost every other major industry in this nation, and prices of a commodity that do not reflect 

what should be reasonably required to extract it. 

From power production to building construction, from airlines to 

agricultural, all major industries, except the mining industry, are 

required, by law, to clean up for themselves, a basic value that we 

teach our kids from their earliest days. 

I would like to point out that reform of these industries has not 

apparently limited jobs and prosperity within those industries. 

52

Highest and best, for this industry, highest and best use of forest 

land seems to have been defined by law, and by precedent, to be 

open pit mining on public lands, above all other uses, such as grazing, recreation, timber harvesting, wildlife, or health. 

Mining reclamation activities are not required to be fully funded 

and functionally guaranteed. That balance must be reassessed and 

the laws be brought into harmony with that reassessment. 

As with passage of the Wilderness Act, it will take years of persistent effort, and bold leadership, to state to the world that this 

damaging process cannot continue unchecked. 

Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lunine follows:]

Statement of Cynthia Lunine, Sonoita, Arizona 

My thanks go to Congressman Grijalva and the committee and guests here today 

to hear these comments and consider diverse perspectives on a historically powerful 

process of land modification in the southwestern United States. I am grateful to all 

those who are willing to step forward at a national level to advocate bringing our 

laws in line with current American values and realities. 

It is because I would so much like to see true reform accomplished in my lifetime 

that the following comments are balanced between a desire to live within and adjacent to an uncontaminated environment that is beautiful and protected from devastation and a recognition of the dependence I also have on minerals in my lifestyle 

and the respect that I have for people of integrity that I know and who work in 

the mining industry. 

The viewpoint that I will attempt to describe is that of a small landowner living 

for 12 years at the southern base of the Santa Rita Mountains; the previous 18 

years in Tucson, Arizona, and a childhood in the small town of Lordsburg, New 

Mexico. All of my life I’ve lived close to mines and their influence and this testimony 

will be a personal opinion of how mining has affected my family and the various 

communities that I’ve been a part of. Part of the perspective has been shaped by 

exposure to both economic and political careers of members of my family. My uncle, 

Claude Wood, was the top aide to Senator Clinton P. Anderson throughout his Senate career (1949-1973) and took over many of his duties as the Senator suffered 

from Parkinson’s disease in his last two terms. He has inspired me with stories of 

the delicate and protracted years of negotiations that resulted in the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, legislation whose final form and reality of passage owes much to the Senator’s talent in deal-making and integrity, but also to the skill of a tightly-run staff 

and their behind-the scenes activity. 

My family roots in the southwest extend back to the late 19th century when the 

West was being settled; my ancestors were looking for land to make a living upon 

and took advantage of the Homestead Act and hard work to eventually stay in 

southern New Mexico along the Gila River near Red Rock for my mother’s parents 

and south of Lordsburg for my father’s. Both sets of grandparents had small ranches 

where they raised a few cattle from time to time, but mostly angora goats for their 

mohair. This was the early 20th century and the land was dry and arid, and ranching was always very marginal for small land-owners and people often had to work 

at other activities during periods of drought or depressed economies. My mother’s 

father worked at least at one time of his life hauling ore for mines south of 

Lordsburg; an uncle was employed at various mines (the Banner, Bonney, the 85 

Mine) in the 1930s & 40s and had a few of his own small claims that he worked 

on and off for years. In my childhood, once a year another uncle, Jack Ewing, came 

to do his annual assessment work on claims near Steins, NM, and I would always 

enjoy going along to help with what I could and be in the outdoors and pick up samples of ore from the floor of the tunnel. Uncle Jack still does the assessment work 

today, in order to keep the claims, although the mine hasn’t been actively producing 

for decades. I am not averse to extractive activities on public land. A few years ago 

I purchased a permit from the Forest Service to take out landscape stones for building walls around our home. My permit was just adjacent to the land now owned 

by Augusta. We did most of the work by hand ourselves and were always very careful to leave no visible trace by selecting only some stones, by filling in any holes 

and by not taking stones from sloped areas that could erode. 

53

Small Mining Operations 

There are two points to be made regarding small (under 5 acres) mining activities. 

The first point is that small mining has been both economically important and 

perceived as a treasured ‘‘right’’ within individual families and small communities 

in the southwest and politically has blocked mining reform because of the large 

numbers of citizens who are involved in it or support it. The perception has been 

that reform of the 1872 Act would eliminate or seriously reduce the ability to participate even in limited activities such as panning for gold or taking small amounts 

of turquoise for jewelry manufacture. In 1977 Mo Udall proposed a bill to repeal the 

1872 mining act, a move that met with punishing resistance in Pima County in particular and Arizona in general. Mining law historian Charles Miller (Miller 1991 p. 

245-246) writes, ‘‘The ‘‘little man,’’ the ordinary prospector/miner and small businessman, was the primary opponent of Udall’s proposal. Congress had initially directed the Mining Laws of 1866, 1870, and 1872, at this group. Over a century later 

considerable evidence exists that the ‘‘little man’’ who was supposed to benefit from 

the law was still doing so, at least psychologically.’’ Representative Udall’s proposal 

was dropped and serious attempts at reform of these laws was not again attempted 

until 1990, and was narrowly defeated then. Perception is paramount. 

The second, some might say opposing point, is that in my experience on the land 

all of my life, small mining activities are rarely cleaned up or filled in, and are extremely hazardous on a number of levels. My mother’s direst warnings to me when 

we hiked in the hills was to look out for holes, because there were open shafts and 

tunnels that were not protected by wire fences or filled in. I still see these when 

we go out south of Lordsburg on my Dad’s family’s ranch (now owned by Ed & 

Lindy Kerr). Every once in awhile one would hear of someone falling in and either 

being injured or killed. Those people (usually young men, although I did it a couple 

of times too) who climbed down without injury reported skeletons of wildlife at the 

bottom, so they obviously are hazardous to wildlife, and ranchers still lose an occasional animal. 

This is only the most obvious hazard. Another hazard that I’m now more aware 

of is the possible level of toxicity to tailings or waste piles left behind after yet another mining company declared bankruptcy or left without cleaning up. Only lab 

tests would tell which heaps of mining materials I and my family have climbed up 

and down on are dangerous to touch or breathe dust from, but it’s very difficult to 

hike off-trail for any distance in southern Arizona or New Mexico without encountering one. Abandoned works of small mines are reputed to pollute ephemeral drainages such as those running into Temporal Gulch, north of Patagonia, where local 

residents warn you not to drink or let your kids wade in the water. Mansfield Canyon has been referred to as a superfund site. Flux Canyon, south of the town, is 

scheduled for another round of expensive cleanup because of small mining activities 

that left toxic materials leaching into drainages and exposed to wind. I just spoke 

(Feb. 21) with John Millikin, Arizona Game and Fish Unit Manager (south of Highway 82) who said that high levels of toxic minerals in perennial streams or springs 

would prevent reintroduction of threatened or endangered species of fish or amphibians. He also reiterated common knowledge that the laws don’t have too many teeth 

in requiring adequate cleanup of mining activities. (see also the discussion of Wildlife Impacts from Kurt Bahti, in later paragraphs) 

In addition to hazards, mines destroy property values. My mother’s family home 

and adjacent 300 acres came on the market again from the family who bought it 

from them in the 1950s. It is the ranch located closest to the National Forest at 

the mouth of the box on the north side of the Gila River and is beautiful country. 

My husband and I wanted to purchase it as a link to our family roots, to hold for 

retirement, to encourage a local tenant to do a little farming. What we found was 

that it had been devastated by mining. A fluorspar mine across the Gila River had 

been allowed to dump all the mill crushings/tailings on the land in a huge multiacre surface, I believe in the 1970s or 80s. In addition, Phelps Dodge bought all the 

water rights to the property except for a residential permit, making agriculture 

unfeasible, even though the property includes productive agricultural wells. The 

property is still on the market, but will be a difficult sell because it has been heavily 

degraded. Phelps Dodge has been known in that area (Red Rock) to have bought 

numerous water rights from retiring or financially needy ranchers and farmers 

along the Gila River. This transference of water from agriculture to mining is allowed by law, but can make huge changes in culture as well. 

Small Communities and Boom-Bust Mining Economy 

Urban centers, such as Tucson, are large enough to absorb the surge of prosperity 

as mines and mineral prices rise, then deflate precipitously as the mine works out 

and/or copper prices plummet. Small communities—Superior, Arizona, Lordsburg, 

54

New Mexico (where I grew up), and Sonoita, adjacent to the proposed Rosemont 

Mine—are not so resilient to the large-mine economic reality. 

My father, Fred Ewing, worked in the bank in Lordsburg for all of my life. He 

had been driven from ranching by the drought in the 1950s and took a job in town 

and worked his way up to retire in 1989 after a long tenure as president (First 

National Bank, now Western Bank). As his daughter, and working summers at the 

bank during college years in the 1970s, I had an inside picture of the local economy. 

The Tyrone mine employed many local people from Lordsburg during that time, the 

smelter at Playas, NM took several years to be built by the Brown & Root Corporation out of Houston, and those times allowed people to buy homes, cars, pickups, 

and make good money. The bank opened a branch at Playas, built a building, employed a couple of people full time. Tyrone built a little town, complete with supermarket and gas station. Another cluster of homes was constructed at Playas. But 

when copper prices plunged, when the smelter was finished, when it shut down 

completely, those people were out of work and the businesses were just gone. The 

supermarket at Tyrone never re-opened, even though Phelps Dodge’s mine is back 

in operation. Those low-quality homes are more of an eye-sore and maintenance 

nightmare than cherished neighborhoods (Homeland Security recently bought the 

town of Playas to use as some sort of training center). Silver City’s economy seems 

to be fairly robust because of its climate and beauty and proximity to the Gila 

National Forest and Wilderness recreation areas. Lordsburg, at this time, is crumbling. It’s my opinion that a very large factor was the inability to recover after the 

last wave of mining left. Even now, a couple of years into the new mining ‘‘boom’’, 

because small businesses hadn’t survived the previous bust, there’s inadequate 

shopping, very little recreation for kids, no parks, deteriorating housing. My aunt’s 

brick home was placed on the market, years ago after she passed away, at a bargain 

$36,000 and just sold last year at a paltry $12,000. The influx of Border Patrol 

workers hasn’t made much difference; they all live in larger communities such as 

Silver City or Deming that have always had more diverse economies & commute an 

hour to Lordsburg for work. In Superior, Arizona, friends of mine bought a pharmacy a couple of years before the mine closed (early 1980s?). They told stories about 

the surge in shoplifting that occurred in their business after the economy collapsed, 

and they lost their investment in the business. 

The critical aspect of the modern large mining economy to small communities is 

that the cycle is so long—usually ten to twenty years—that people become very rooted to their jobs and their community. No one is going to take a menial low-paying 

service job if they can work for a well-heeled mining company with excellent pay 

and benefits. The mining company doesn’t tell them that most of these jobs will be 

gone sooner or later, at which time their family will be unemployed and most likely, 

untrained to do other skilled work. They are not required to retrain and relocate 

workers or provide bonds that provide for this activity. If workers do leave to find 

other jobs, what about the community they leave behind? They don’t say that the 

local economy will possibly collapse and businesses will leave empty, boarded-up 

buildings and loans that go into default. They don’t point to higher crime statistics 

and higher levels of dependence upon public assistance. And small communities 

often do not have the sophisticated and deft political clout that can demand that 

the mining company pay for required infrastructure upgrades in times of prosperity. 

Once again, the laws have no teeth. 

Our son is now 11 years old, in fifth grade at Elgin Elementary School. If there 

is an opening of a Rosemont open pit mine with a 20-year ‘‘boom’’ of production, he 

will, most likely, be just starting a family when the ‘‘bust’’ occurs. If he has chosen 

to stay in the Sonoita area, I would say with some certainty that it will be enormously difficult for him to maintain whatever job he had here and he may have to 

move away from his childhood home, along with many of his friends. 

The little village of Sonoita is far too small to survive one of these cycles unscathed. It mustn’t be allowed to occur. 

Mining Profits Leaving the United States 

I have not read the Mining Laws and may not understand them if I did. I know, 

however, that Augusta is a Canadian company and that much of the money produced from this mine would leave the county, leave the state, and probably leave 

the country (depending on who the owners and investors are). Evidently, Augusta 

has some interests in the Patagonia Mountains as well, and residents there (personal conversation with Don Wenig) have publicly expressed dismay and frustration 

at the lack of information and at the fact that any profit would be gone forever. Yes, 

some jobs are created and some cash would end up in Arizona, but I’ve been told 

that it is one industry that gets a free ride by not having to pay royalties on the 

minerals extracted. 

55

It’s an archaic and economically unsound system that was developed for frontier 

times, not for the 21st Century. These areas need to be withdrawn from mineral 

exploitation. 

Health Concerns 

As we waited for a Pima County Supervisor’s meeting to convene late last year, 

people sitting close to me, from Green Valley, talked about how their houses and 

yards would get covered with dust from the tailings piles of the mines along I-19. 

They had come to protest the Rosemont Mine initiative, as had I, and knew directly 

what it was to live with the aftermath. What is the health hazard to that dust? Evidently, nobody knows with certainty, even now. 

A couple of days ago (Feb. 20) I called my friend and neighbor, Mary Kay 

O’Rourke, a researcher at the U of A medical school who does this kind of work 

(O’Rourke 2007). She authorized me to quote her in this testimony and described 

the difficulty of unraveling causes and effects of contaminants on human health of 

people living in mining communities. She sent me a few copies of journal articles, 

one of which concluded that ‘‘High serum copper, low serum magnesium, and concomitance of low serum zinc with high serum copper or low serum magnesium contribute to an increased mortality risk in middle-aged men.’’ (Epidemiology 2006;17: 

308-314) 

Her e-mail response to my questions about whether epidemiology studies had 

been done with people living near mines comes down to the difficulty in separating 

out causes from mining versus problems that would occur even if a mine weren’t 

further exposing existing minerals to the air & water. Higher than normal levels 

of Arsenic, for example, are found in test subjects in some mining towns, but not 

in all (O’Rourke, et. al., 1999). People move in and out of communities and may 

have been exposed to toxins from other sources. In the case of arsenic, the 

researchers had to correct for those people who had high levels because they ate a 

lot of fish. 

So, it’s not so simple. But I don’t want my child growing up breathing that dust, 

or drinking water downstream from an open-pit mine. 

It is, however, pretty easy to predict what can happen when traffic increases 

along Highway 83 between the Rosemont site and I-10. Someone counted the number of school buses that traverse that section of highway twice a day—I don’t remember the number, but I do know that many kids from Sonoita and north of there 

go to high school and middle school in Vail and that’s who is in the buses. And I 

know from training and experience as an Emergency Medical Technician that higher traffic translates into more accidents. Are our kids going to be on the road with 

mining trucks? With workers speeding because they’re late to punch in? Contractors 

delivering supplies who are behind schedule? 

What about people in Patagonia as mining reawaken old claims in the Patagonia 

Mountains because the price of copper is now so high? How will mining impact their 

water quality? Who will see to it that adequate bonding is secured to do truly effective cleanup? 

What does ‘‘reclamation’’ really mean in practical terms? I haven’t seen anything 

on mine tailings/overburden sites that is convincingly sustainable, no matter how 

mining companies make progress. (attached photos of Tyrone reclamation slopes) 

The fine material of the tailings will inevitably erode in many places after the mining company has left. Because they have been through a crusher mill, the tailings 

will always be finer particulates than adjacent consolidated soils. What water and 

air contaminants will leach out of those finer-than-natural particulates? In PD’s own 

words on a sign in front of their newly graded tailings slopes it says, ‘‘There will 

always be evidence on these private lands that this was a mining district.’’

Mining from Space 

Our actions as a society leave a legacy for the future. Do we want Arizona’s legacy 

to be a continuation of landscape devastation? A number of years ago, an astronaut 

took pictures of Tucson from the space shuttle (Jones, STS059) and sent one to my 

husband, Jonathan. He did his doctoral work at the University of Arizona Lunar 

and Planetary Laboratory and lived in Tucson for a number of years, then went on 

to NASA and flew on several space shuttle missions. It’s ironic that the most visible 

evidence of Tucson is the mine complex. When I spoke with Tom (now retired from 

NASA) on the 20th of February, he told me that the Great Wall of China, one of 

the world’s largest man-made structures, is not visible to the naked eye from space 

as many people believe, but these mine sites are. What are we leaving for future 

generations to see of our work on the planet? 

56

Visual Resources 

The site for the Rosemont mine has the misfortune to be centrally located in one 

of the most scenic vistas along the Patagonia-Sonoita Scenic Road, the state’s second 

officially-designated scenic drives (designated in 1985). Criteria from Arizona’s process and a tour of this road were part of the development of Federal legislation know 

as National Scenic Byways in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

of 1991. In 2003, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) released a Corridor Management Plan (Wheat & Scharf 2003) that represented hundreds of hours 

of community-volunteered time and many thousands of dollars spent by ADOT to 

plan for protection of the values inherent to the corridor. Out of 23 values assessed, 

‘‘scenic overlooks along the corridor’’ ranked in the top 3, along with the PatagonizSonoita Creek Preserve and the Las Cienegas NCA (the corridor includes the start 

of State Highway 83 from I-10 in the north to Sonoita, then turns right and follows 

Highway 82 through Patagonia to Nogales). 

That overlook is my favorite view, with its series of folded, oak-studded ridges; 

the dramatic skyline of Mt. Wrightson shoots up on the left and jagged ridges and 

the Gunsight slot spread out on the right. Because the highway is very close to the 

top of the pass here, it would expose even more of the mine’s devastation to view 

than if it were lower. People stop in the pullout and take pictures. 

I am one of the citizens who attended many of the management plan meetings, 

and later became a member of ADOT’s Development & Construction Review Committee that has met regularly, for the past 2 years, with the Tucson District Engineer and his staff and a coordinator in Tucson to attempt to monitor and advise 

them of ongoing local concerns. A lot of time and energy and state money has been 

spent to date to work on the values contained in the Corridor Management Plan. 

Initiation of the mine would invalidate much of that effort by industrializing the entire northern end of the drive. Tourism is the primary industry in Sonoita and 

Patagonia and many people come just to do that drive. Tourism is sustainable over 

generations, mining is not. 

Wildlife in the Santa Ritas 

Kurt Bahti is Field Supervisor for Arizona Game and Fish for the sector that 

stretches from I-10 to Mexico in the south, and from the Tohono O’Odham Reservation to Sulfur Springs Valley near Wilcox. It includes the Santa Rita Mountains. 

Kurt is also a long time resident & landowner in the foothills of the mountains, east 

of Sonoita, has worked for 25 years here, and was previously Wildlife Manager in 

the Santa Rita Mountains. He has the local reputation of knowing these mountains 

better than just about anyone and is trusted by all the people I know to give honest, 

direct, detailed, and highly useful advice about issues pertaining to wildlife and natural resources. I spoke to him Feb. 21 about the issue of mining in the Santa Ritas 

and he authorized me to quote him in this testimony. 

When asked about the effects of the proposed Rosemont Mine on wildlife, he answered unequivocally that it would be disastrous to wildlife in the northern portion 

of the range. He said that although he doesn’t know the exact size of the footprint 

of pit, overburden, tailings and operational facilities, that a boundary extending 

from one to two miles around it would potentially affect wildlife populations and behavior, depending on the species and their sensitivity to various human activities 

and the mine would disrupt wildlife corridors and fragment habitat. He mentioned 

existing populations of whitetail deer, javelina, mountain lions, and bear that would 

be affected, along with many smaller mammals & amphibians. He noted that a couple of natural springs in the area that supply water to wildlife would likely be compromised, and that it would make reintroduction of the Tarahumara frog to the area 

not possible because of their sensitivity to changes in acidity in their environment. 

He is concerned that their current reintroduction of wild turkeys into the Josephine 

drainage (April of last year and again last week) would not spread the population 

as they would expect from the success they’ve experienced in the Huachucas, if the 

mine is developed. 

I asked Kurt about any problems from historical mining in the mountains and he 

told me that he had had water samples from an area that used to be mined in 

Mansfield Canyon tested for Ph (acidity) and the results showed a startling 2.1. As 

an example of what that level, or similar levels of acidity does, he told me he had 

worked bare-handed for a few minutes in the mud in Happy Jack canyon (site of 

another extensive mining tunnel complex) to release some dammed-up water and 

got up to realize that he no longer had fingerprints on his fingers. They had been 

burned off by the acid. Other anecdotes are common locally—people talk about sitting down on a rock covered with the ochre precipitate and getting up without seats 

in their jeans. Kurt noted that although wildlife naturally stay away from water 

that smells bad or is heavily acidic, he suspects they would drink water that may 

57

contain unsafe levels of heavy metals or other contaminants that cannot be smelled 

or tasted. Game and Fish has not performed these tests on the waters in drainages 

in the Santa Ritas. Once again, amphibians or native fish cannot live in water that 

is contaminated by acidic mine leachings & effects of metals are unknown. 

Summary 

Copper and other valuable minerals are useful and prominent in everyone’s life. 

It is necessary, however, that their true cost be reflected in the manner in which 

they are extracted and that extraction does not destroy valuable landscapes, wildlife 

habitat, recreational resources, and local cultures. Our laws and costs of metal must 

reflect our most deeply held values, not the ephemeral values of profit and instant 

gratification. 

Values that Americans commonly hold—those that history has validated—dictate 

that issues of such major impact not be left to the primary influence of the market 

and profits and short-term gains. The copper will be there for future generations 

who may have greater wisdom and technology to extract it without destroying everything else, should there be a national crisis. But just because copper sells for $4 

a pound right now doesn’t make it the right time to dig it out; this land is too precious to too many people to be utterly destroyed. 

Please initiate mineral withdrawal for land in the Santa Rita and Patagonia 

Mountains. 

Once again, I extend gratitude to those of you who are willing to undertake this 

activity with the wisdom of reading history, the years of persistence that will be required, and the love of this land and its people. 

Postscript: 

I would recommend a very concise and well-written account of Anderson’s career, 

written by Senate historian Dick Baker, for historical details of the issues of 

western conservation legislation, including interests of mining, which played large 

in the landmark Wilderness bill. The book is Conservation Politics The Senate Career of Clinton P. Anderson by Richard Allan Baker, UNM press, Albuquerque 1985. 

Another good, but short account of legislative history is Miller’s Stake Your Claim! 

The Tale of America’s Enduring Mining Laws (cited below). 

REFERENCES: 

personal conversation 2007. Kurt Bahti 

Field Supervisor 

Arizona Game & Fish 

Tucson, Arizona 

(520) 628-5376

personal conversation 2007. Thomas D. Jones, PhD 

Former NASA Astronaut; Consultant 

P.O. Box 693

Oakton, VA 22124

(703) 242-9256 (office) 

skywalking@cox.net

Nathalie Leone, et. al. ‘‘Zinc, Copper, and Magnesium and Risks for All-Cause, 

Cancer, and Cardiovascular Mortality’’. Epidemiology 2006;17: 308-314.

Charles Wallace Miller, PhD. Stake Your Claim! The Tale of America’s Enduring 

Mining Laws. Westernlore Press: Tucson, Arizona. 1991.

personal conversation 2007. John Millikin 

Unit Manager, 35A & B 

Arizona Game & Fish 

Tucson, Arizona 

(520) 628-5376

personal e-mail 2007. Mary Kay O’Rourke, Ph.D., Associate Professor 

Community, Environment and Policy 

The University of Arizona 

Tucson, Arizona 

(520) 626-6835

MKOR@email.arizona.edu

Wheat Scharf Associates. Corridor Management Plan for the Patagonia-Sonoita 

Scenic Road. ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division. 2003.

[NOTE: Photographs attached to Ms. Lunine’s statement have been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

58

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. As you were standing, if I could, let 

me just ask you one general question, because in your testimony, 

you talked about the ‘‘boom and bust’’ cycle. You also talked about 

your own experience, family, and other mining operations associated not only with you, individually, but with areas. 

And you heard the representative of the mining operations being 

proposed here, to talk about the fact that this is a different proposition, and what do you think about those claims that the proposed 

Rosemont mine will be different from the other mines that you 

spoke to directly or alluded in the ‘‘boom and bust’’ example, of the 

past? 

What would make this different, and do you have any confidence 

in that difference? 

Ms. LUNINE. Well, I heard Mr. Sturgess cite the same number 

that I did, which is 20 years. You know, in 20 years, my son will 

be raising his family, and if he wants to stay in the area, that is 

going to be the bust. I don’t know if it’s going to be exactly 20 

years, but prices of copper go up and down, and between that time, 

there could be a lot of mini busts, where the price of copper goes 

so low, that they shut down the mine for periods of time. 

That is what happened with the Tyrone mine, is people would 

work for a few years, the price of copper would drop, they would 

reduce operations, people would be laid off. 

So it is just the effect of one major industry on small communities, because that industry dominates that community, and so 

when it declines, then that whole community declines. So I don’t 

see anything different in the economics of what he is proposing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Ms. Levick, you mentioned, you talked 

about the recent report that looked at how well the NEPA process 

predicts water quality impacts for proposed mines. There seems to 

be a big difference, a disconnect between what is predicted and 

what ends up occurring, and I wonder if you could elaborate any 

more than the testimony we have on that process, and on that disconnect that I spoke to. 

Ms. LEVICK. I know that, as Mr. Sturgess mentioned, they do 

their best to design the mine facilities, so there are no leaks or 

spills or water contamination issues. But there are always—it 

seems like there are always problems that occur. I can’t talk about 

every mine that has ever been constructed in the United States or 

in the world. 

But most of the time there are some leaks and spills. There 

might be a rainstorm that a tailings damn is breached or the liners 

under the leach pads are torn and leach the sulphates and the 

other toxic metals into the groundwater. 

So even though they design for no contamination and for zero 

discharge facility, there are always accident and spills. So in the 

NEPA process, when they do the analysis based on what is proposed in the mining plan, it appears that they are taking all precautions, but frequently, there are unforeseen circumstances and so 

as the Kuipers/Maest report, which I haven’t read everything, just 

a summary, it is a huge document, they have shown that in whatever the statistics were, 70 percent of the times where they predicted no water quality impacts, there actually were. 

59

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. One more and then I will yield to my 

colleague. If a new mine is developed, do you foresee much 

opportunity for residential and commercial growth in the area that 

you are speaking to, for the future, if a new mine is developed? 

A potential for residential and commercial growth as a 

consequence? 

Ms. LEVICK. Not really. I think that frequently, a lot of the people that come to work at a new mine are from out of town. They 

are the experts the community might not be able to provide. Although Mr. Sturgess has stated there would now be about 400 new 

jobs provided by this mine, there is no guarantee that they will all 

come from the community. Is that your question? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That, and could you respond to that same question about a new mining operation and the potential, and people 

proposing this mining operation and others always talk about the 

boom that will come in terms of residential and commercial growth 

as a consequence of this mining operation, and it is alluded to in 

this one as well, and I would just like to get your perspective on 

that claim. 

Ms. LUNINE. It does provide commercial growth, initially. You 

know, it provides good jobs to a lot of people in communities, and 

that has always been cited as the great benefit of mining. 

And, you know, people do benefit for a period of time. It is just 

a short-term prospect, and then it is the aftermath of that shortterm prosperity. You know, people have mortgages, they have property that gets devalued, after it is over. They have families that are 

embedded in the community. They don’t leave. 

Some of those families that had really good mining jobs are now 

on public assistance. It is such a cultural mandate to stay where 

you put your roots down. When small communities are built up by 

that way, by any single industry, it doesn’t have to be mining, if 

that industry then leaves, then those people and that community 

are bereft. 

If you look at P-D’s town that they built in Tyrone, you know, 

they had a grocery store, they had a gas station, they had a lot of 

facilities there. The houses were inexpensive houses, but, you 

know, it is basically not a desirable neighborhood to live in now. 

So you have to look at the long-term effects of these things, and 

that is what I am speaking to, is the long-term effects. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. With that, let me yield to my 

colleague, Congresswoman Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. A quick question for, and same question for Ms.—

is it Lunine? 

Ms. LUNINE. Lunine. 

Ms. GIFFORDS.—Lunine, and also Ms. Levick. Mr. Sturgess 

talked about the public process. He said five or six meetings. Can 

you talk about how those meetings were conducted, whether or not 

as a landowner and as a community group, you are asked to participate, in which way? Do you feel satisfied with the process, and 

whether you agree or not agree? But I am just curious about that 

public process. 

Ms. LUNINE. I have seen Mr. Sturgess in this room but I have 

no personal knowledge of any public meetings held in my area. 

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t. It is just that I don’t 

60

remember being informed of public meetings by this mining 

company in our community. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Levick? 

Ms. LEVICK. Does this work? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Ms. LEVICK. Yes. I have the same response basically. I have seen 

Mr. Sturgess present at various City Council or, you know, supervisors hearings, or PAG meetings, but I don’t recall the company 

ever holding a public meeting where we were invited, and I wanted 

to ask him, if he had these meetings, why weren’t we invited? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Anything else? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, thank you very much. We will thank 

the witnesses. And under Committee Rule 4(h), additional material 

for the record should be submitted by members, or witnesses, 

within ten days after the hearing. I would appreciate the witnesses’ 

cooperation. If there are questions that we didn’t get to, and we 

will submit those in writing, and would appreciate the cooperation 

of responding to those as well for the record. 

We are going to take a little break before proceeding to the public comment period. The Subcommittee is in recess, a 10-minute 

break, and we will resume the hearing after 10 minutes. Thank 

you. 

[Recess from 11:45 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I will reconvene this meeting of the Subcommittee, and thank all of you for being with us today. The panels and the question-and-answer period went longer than we anticipated, but that was good, that was good information. Other commitments are going to come into play in a little while, but rest assured that all the information that you give us will be part of the 

record, and any written information that anybody wants to provide 

to us within ten days should be submitted to the Natural Resources 

Committee. 

Protocol and courtesy. First, I would begin with the public comments of elected officials, beginning with the Chair of the Pima 

County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Elias, for three minutes, please, 

and hopefully everyone that we call forward can limit their comments to three minutes. Thank you. 

Mr. Elias. 

ORAL STATEMENTS FROM AUDIENCE MEMBERS 

Mr. ELIAS. Thank you, and good morning, Representative 

Grijalva, and Representative Giffords. It is a pleasure to see you 

here today. I understand that we tried to find the plaque with 

Chairman Grijalva’s name on it, in order to reuse it again, but it 

was made of recyclable material, so——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ELIAS. I didn’t do it but somebody did. Where is Chuck? No. 

I am sorry. I digress. I will try and make this quick because I realize that as many people as we can, we want to have testify today. 

But I do want to thank you, and comment to you that it is an 

honor to have you here, holding this hearing here today, with all 

61

of these folks who truly believe in Tucson and Pima County and 

what a wonderful place it is. 

I am a fifth generation Tucsonan, and my family has been here 

for longer than that, actually. My first relative being in the first 

detachment of soldiers sent to the Presidio. So within that time, 

and all the time we spent out on the Sopate ranch, we have 

watched the economy grow, here, in Pima County, and change, over 

time. 

We heard mention of the ‘‘boom and bust’’ nature of mining and 

mineral exploration, and it is true, and my family and myself have 

witnessed that, over time. 

I think it is important that we make a special note of that, because the discussion typically, about mining and mineral exploration, revolves around jobs versus environmental concerns. 

And those of us who have lived here, in Arizona, for a long period 

of time, recognize that this is really a hollow argument, in many 

ways. 

Economic changes versus tourism and the changes that have 

come in related to that, and the growth in that industry, are important to us. 

But also, I would comment that, over time, the unions and organized labor, have worked hard to protect miners’ interests, and we 

have seen ASARCO renege on the retirement promises to their 

workers, over time, and now their health, which they gave to their 

employers, is truly at risk, because now, they must pay out of their 

own pockets, when they were promised something different. 

This is another example of that ‘‘boom and bust’’ problem that 

happens in relation to mines. 

This is something that we must come to some kind of agreement 

on, so that we can recognize that we have to protect the important 

biological and scenic natures of Pima County, but also show an interest to not only the environment but also the people who live 

here, because they are all important to us. 

Issues. The Sonoran Desert conservation plan and comprehensive 

land use plan have been designed to protect our remaining valuable assets and eco systems, and towards that end, the voters, in 

2004, approved over $174 million to purchase open space. 

$30 million dollars of that has been spent in the area of the 

Rosemont mine. Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, 

Cienega Creek National Preserve, and the proposed Davidson Canyon Natural Preserve. Several of those areas are under attack now, 

not just from the Rosemont mine but also from a proposed cement 

mine in the Davidson Canyon area. The Board of Supervisors has, 

in a bipartisan manner, and I am very proud to have some of my 

colleagues here in the audience today, look forward to hearing their 

comments, unanimously passed a resolution in opposition to all 

those mining efforts. This is something that is very important to 

us. 

$30 million of local money with more than 60 percent of the voters approving that money being spent in that manner, being 

changed by a decision where we have very little to say about it. 

That concerns us, greatly. 

Legacy. Legacy issues are important to us. The Mission Mine 

that ASARCO currently owns radically altered more than 11,300 

62

acres of land in that area. 11,300 acres. And the price tag for cleanup and reclamation in that area is more than $415 million. 

But, again, the company’s financial future remains in doubt. We 

do not know, the Tohono O’odham Nation do not know where that 

$415 million of reclamation are going to come from. Promises are 

nice but reality is another thing that all of us must face in a changing economic world. 

Public health, and protecting the public health is important to us 

too, and I think that when you put biological concerns, conservation concerns, that I might add, have really become a bipartisan 

concern of all this region, due, in large part, to Chairman Grijalva’s 

leadership in his time on the Board of Supervisors, has grown to 

a tremendous size. 

I will couple that with the issues related to public health. Thus 

Sierrita Mine, owned by Phelps Dodge, in 2004, released 1,053 

pounds of mercury into our environment. That same year, 1.2 million pounds of lead were released into our environment. I assure 

you, that is not good for anyone, and our friends from Green Valley 

that are here, I am sure will be the first ones to testify to the 

damage related to their own health and the future of their homes 

and their community. 

We remain very concerned about that. We stand in opposition to 

this mine at Rosemont. We ask you to take the lands of the Coronado Forest Service out of mineral exploration for the future, and 

I would ask that you include the public lands owned by local municipalities in that request as well. 

We look forward to your help in maintaining the sacred place we 

live and assisting the honest, hard-working people who live here. 

Because we have such a short amount of time available to us, I will 

cut my comments off now, but before I leave, I would ask everyone 

who is in the room, in opposition to the Rosemont mine, to please 

stand and let their voices be heard. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, let me—thank you—let me call—the 

next person I’m going to call is Mr. Ray Carroll, supervisor of the 

district, who will bear the consequences of a decision on Rosemont 

in the future and now. 

Mr. Carroll. 

Mr. CARROLL. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you and good morning. I would like to thank the esteemed Chairman, Congressman 

Rau ́l Grijalva, for presenting this excellent opportunity today, to 

discuss some of the vitally important issues for our community and 

our country. 

I want to welcome you back to your chambers, where I began as 

a member, almost ten years ago, and it is an honor to have you 

in Congress, and it is an honor also to welcome Congresswoman 

Giffords here to our hearing room, as well as all the Washington, 

D.C. staff. I hope your stay is a pleasant one here and I hope that 

you enjoy southern Arizona. 

My name is Ray Carroll. Do you need my address for the record, 

like——

Mr. GRIJALVA. Please. 

Mr. CARROLL. Okay. I’m watching that, and the yellow light, I 

am out of here. I am the county supervisor who represents District 

4, and that includes some of the most pristine and environmentally 

63

valuable areas in Pima County, including Mount Lemon, Cienega 

Creek, Colossal Cave, Madera Canyon, and other, many unique 

natural environments. 

District 4 also includes areas that are highly threatened by proposed mineral extraction. Included in those are Rosemont Ranch in 

the Santa Rita Mountains and Davidson Canyon. District 4 includes a retirement community mentioned by our Chairman, Richard Elias, which has been burdened with viscous dust, some molasses type material coming off the tailings of the mines in the area. 

It stuck to most everything in each house in South Green Valley, 

including the family pets. It was so hard to get off, that the mining 

entity itself volunteered to clean up almost 600 homes, because it 

took a lot of elbow grease. Even it got on some of the family pets, 

which are not easy to clean in the first place. 

Our constituents rightfully complained about the effects of the 

mine on their quality of life, and I have listened, and as a representative of those people, I am here to tell you, I support their 

claim. This is not a good idea, to create more mining in District 4, 

and especially in the recreational basin, and the view shed of what 

is a growing population, an area slated for new growth in Pima 

County. 

One of the greatest political leaders for conservation in our nation’s history was a fellow Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt. T.R. was a man who had a lifelong, intense personal interest in great outdoors, but he also had a deep understanding that 

it is the responsibility of political decision makers to take care of 

our natural resources, because doing so protects our nation’s 

strength and prosperity for future generations. He called conservation ‘‘a great moral issue,’’ and if it were so then, it is even greater 

now, because the threat to our land and water is much greater 

today. 

In Pima County, we have stepped up to meet the challenges. 

Each resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors in opposition 

to mining has been unanimous. There are numerous issues that 

need to be addressed. The pollution of air and water, the effects of 

overpumping our water table, proliferation of invasive species such 

as buffelgrass, which due to the disturbed surfaces of mining operations, get a strong foothold on their lands. 

The public health risks. The ultimate cost to the taxpayer due to 

the grossly inadequate mitigation and reclamation efforts of the 

mines after they leave. There is about 35,000 acres used for mines 

already in Pima County. Most of it has not been reclaimed. 

In the West alone, it is estimated that the cleanup of mineral extraction could cost 72 billion, with a b, dollars. The history of mining in Arizona is replete with ‘‘horror stories,’’ but state law prohibits Pima County from exerting authority over mine reclamation. 

That is why we are here today, to ask for federal assistance from 

our congressional delegation, to initiate the permanent withdrawal 

of mining on all federal lands within the Santa Rita Mountain 

range and the remaining federal lands within the Coronado 

National Forest. 

It is the American people who are the ultimate landlords of the 

over 270 million acres of public lands open to mining claims, and 

64

as representatives of those people, we ask for your strength and 

leadership to do the right thing on their behalf. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me at this point welcome our next speaker, a 

former colleague, Supervisor Bronson. 

Ms. BRONSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Grijalva, Congresswoman Giffords, welcome home. It is a pleasure 

to see you today and we truly appreciate you holding this hearing. 

I am going to be brief. I want to talk about three things. I want 

to talk about validity, I want to talk about transparency and I 

want to talk about accountability. 

You heard that the Forest Service has a policy that they don’t 

examine claims, validity claims until after the fact. If this is indeed 

a policy, I would then urge Congress, before I would begin this 

costly, expensive process, costly in the end to taxpayers, that Congress require that the Forest Service indeed investigate the validity 

of this claim. 

Number two. Transparency. Of the mining claims to come forward through the U.S. Forest Service, to date, to my knowledge, 

once the NEPA process has started—and again, remember, in 

previous testimony it was said that the NEPA process would provide the transparency, the ability of the public to influence outcome. Not one mine has been denied. They have all moved forward. 

So I would question that transparency does indeed exist in the 

process and I would ask that Congress review, and in fact demand 

better transparency than currently exists. 

In regard to accountability, recent studies of 70 environmental 

impact statements for modern era hard rock mines, have found 

that water quality impacts for mineral extraction are consistently 

grossly underestimated, mitigation measures consistently grossly 

inadequate and undercapitalized, where taxpayers are left to bear 

unjust financial burdens. 

Again I would ask, as this process moves forward, that we have 

in fact, through the environmental impact statement, the NEPA 

process, that we have guaranteed measures that will not underestimate the impact to water quality, undercapitalize the reclamation 

process. 

And then I would like, on behalf of the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, to alert you to the fact that yesterday they passed resolution 2003-03, requesting the permanent withdrawal of mining exploration and extraction from all federal lands within the U.S. 

Coronado National Forest in eastern Santa Cruz County. They request that those lands be withdrawn. 

The vote was unanimous and the resolution will be forwarded to 

you. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity and welcome you home, 

once again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me at this point ask 

Councilwoman Ullich to please come forward and on behalf of the 

City Council, and make a statement. 

Ms. ULLICH. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Congresswoman 

Giffords, and all of you for being present on this important matter. 

I am simply here to transmit a residential, a memorial that I introduced for consideration by the Tucson mayor and City Council on 

65

February 6th. That measure was unanimously adopted and clearly 

articulates the reason why we, as a city, oppose the Rosemont mine 

request. 

We are also wholly in support of the leadership of our county 

Board of Supervisors and stand ready to provide further information, as you would require it of us, or ask it of us. Briefly, our local 

experience, and numerous local studies, indicate that the proposed 

mine would clearly damage our area ecosystem and jeopardize 

water quality in our region. 

It would be hard to overstate the long-term economic and environmental repercussions of this kind of project, not only to Tucson 

but the entire regional economy and health and well-being. 

It is clear to us, as well, that it would return little, if any, net 

economic benefit. We cannot solely look at and try to measure the 

benefits of this kind of venture, in terms of the billions of dollars 

of mineral profits that might accrue to a particular corporation, or 

even the interests of the Nation, that might be served by a fraction 

of the minerals that are being offered through this venture. We 

must look at the overall net effect, and I can tell you, as we all 

know, who live here, that this ecosystem is unique in the world. 

This is the only place where certain flora and fauna are found, and 

we are a worldwide draw, and that is integral to the economic 

health and well-being of our community. 

If we jeopardize that, if we are not good stewards, we are, in fact, 

put at risk, much more than the minerals at stake here, I would 

argue. 

Speaking as an individual member of the Council, we therefore 

would—I would urge you to work with the county Board of Supervisors, and others, to ensure that this plan not go forward, and 

that we take a more holistic approach to the factors that are at risk 

here. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me invite Mr. Doug LaFollette, 

Secretary of State, Wisconsin, for your comments, sir. 

Mr. LAFOLLETTE. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak 

this morning on this very important issue. M y name is Doug 

LaFollette. I have been Wisconsin’s elected Secretary of State for 

many years. I also serve as the Chair of the Wisconsin Land Commission and I hold a PhD in organic chemistry. 

I am here in the Tucson area for a few days of hiking. I love Wisconsin, but a break from walking to work at minus 12 degrees is 

going to be nice. I, like many others from the Midwest, have visited 

the Tucson area many times. We bring our tourist dollars with us 

and we are glad to spend them here. I am very pleased to see the 

local involvement in this process. As a public official myself, I think 

it is critical, and what I have learned here this morning, and I am 

learning from the county board representatives, City Council, and 

others, is very enlightening, and really, very encouraging. We, in 

Wisconsin, have experienced a number of episodes of mining activity, and many of the complaints and concerns I have heard are very 

valid in terms of transparency, openness, accountability, etcetera. 

I have hiked the Santa Ritas. I have driven the scenic 83 that 

will be destroyed by this proposed mine. Wisconsin also depends on 

tourism, it is one of our major industries, and without major reform 

of the 1872 Mining Law, our beautiful north woods, lakes and 

66

streams can be threatened, very much the way the Santa Rita 

Mountains are threatened by the Rosemont mine. 

I urge you to protect this area in your community now. In all respect to Members of Congress, I doubt if the mining law reform is 

going to pass any time soon. Let’s hope it passes your House, but 

the Senate is more problematic. We have been at this for many 

years. Senator Bumpers, who is a friend of mine, fought this battle, 

over and over again. 

So as a short term, you need to protect your community by withdrawing some of this land. In the long term, you know, the reform 

of the law is of course critical. Both mining reform that is fiscal 

and environmental is very long overdue. 

When I mention the 1872 Mining Law to many of my constituents, as I have worked with them over the years, they try to correct 

me, and they tell me, no, 1972, and I say no, no, it is 1872, and 

they don’t believe it. 

I know a large majority of my fellow Wisconsinites want reform 

along the lines that you have heard here today. Some of the topics 

that I will not talk about but only mention, that we have dealt with 

in Wisconsin, and I would be glad, Mr. Chairman, member, to 

discuss this with you. There are people in Wisconsin who have 

dealt with it, who could also be helpful. The jobs issue. It is a ruse, 

in most cases. We have had mine developments open and closing, 

many, many jobs promised. There were jobs, temporarily. 

The real estate industry does pretty well for a while. Most of the 

jobs come into the community by expert people. A few local guys 

get to drive some trucks and make some money. But it is not the 

boom you think, in terms of the local people. I would urge you to 

look at the work of a professor, sociologist, Al Gedicks, University 

of Wisconsin, who has done a form called The End Of An Era, done 

extensive research on boom/bust economies as far as mining is concerned, and his research would be helpful to you. 

The water issue is critical. Wisconsin, we have got lots of water. 

You folks don’t have nearly enough and you have to be very careful 

about it. But even in Wisconsin, we have had serious water issues 

with these mining proposals, proposals to build 20 mile pipelines, 

to move water from one river to another river, all kinds of schemes 

to deal with the water, all of which could be real problematic. 

We have stopped some of the worst ones in Wisconsin, I am 

proud to say. 

The ownership issue. We have dealt with at least two cases 

where the owners were foreign corporations, they had local subsidiaries, no connection and accountability. As Secretary of State, I understand something about corporate accountability. That is where 

you have a local Falambo Mining Company—that is a real story in 

Wisconsin—that was also owned by Rio Tinto, Inc., a British company—but Rio Tinto had no responsibility for the liabilities of 

Falambo Mining Company who was actually on the job, driving the 

bulldozers. Very complicated. 

And one thing I have heard nothing about, that I will just mention, that is processing. We heard about three trucks an hour going 

somewhere, but I don’t know where they are going, and that is another factor that your community should watch out for, cause 

67

where they take that ore presents another very serious issue to be 

concerned about. 

Well, in conclusion, I urge you to finally reform the 1872 Mining 

Law, it has become a sad joke, and it is a giant give-away of public 

resources. And I want to thank you very much for this opportunity 

to not only be here today but to enjoy your beautiful community. 

I will come back again, I assure you. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I did very well trying 

to keep the elected officials to 3 minutes, and I promise to do better 

in the rest of it, and I would really hope that—it is a courtesy and 

a protocol—but as we go forward, that the names that are called, 

please, so that we can get as many people as we can in to discuss, 

try to keep it at three minutes. 

I have some good comments here from the Vindiola family, and 

I would like to ask Ms. Anita Vindiola to please come forward for 

three minutes. 

Ms. VINDIOLA. Yo soy la Senora Anita Vindiola. Y vengo a decir 

que por favor pues que no destruyen alla, yo recreo en los montes. 

Que alla vamos cada summer con mis hijos y mis nietos. [English 

translation: I am Mrs. Anita Vindiola. And I came to say that 

please don’t destroy over there, I recreate in the mountains. It’s 

over there that we go each summer with my children and grandchildren.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. A little English, a little Spanish. That will work 

too. 

Ms. VINDIOLA. So I would appreciate very much if they wouldn’t 

destroy all the—I am 82 years old and here I am still going over 

there with my children and grandchildren to pass the days and 

pick acorns. Then if all those trees are gone, we are not going to 

have that anymore, no bellotas. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That would be terrible, no bellotas. It would really 

be terrible. Thank you very much. Thank you and I appreciate it, 

and your comments will be part of the record, that you submitted. 

Thank you. 

Let me at this point welcome Mr. Manny Armenta for his comments, please. And after him—I will call up a couple of names. 

After him, Ms. Nancy Freeman, after Mr. Armenta. 

Mr. ARMENTA. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and Congresswomen Giffords. My name is Manny Armenta. I am the subdistrict 

director for the United Steel Workers of America, that represents 

the mining industry. I am personally in charge of Arizona, New 

Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and southern Idaho in my subdistrict. I 

guess I’m here as a minority but I do support Rosemont in their 

efforts to do it. I have worked a lot in my career with the different 

people and organizations in the environmental issues. 

I also was involved with the ASARCO situation, which has drastically changed because it was Grupo Mexico, not necessarily 

ASARCO. I believe that in the 30 plus years I have been in this 

industry—I am also a third generation miner—that this is probably 

one of the best plans I have seen, and I know there are a lot of 

issues out there, environmental. But I feel that our Government, 

through the EPA, should enforce the laws that are out there, and 

unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. 

68

I think we have an umbrella to cover those issues that are not 

being covered, and if Rosemont was to fall in the same predicament 

as the other people we deal with, EPA should do it, and I thank 

you for your time, for letting me speak here. I do believe this could 

be a positive thing, and we could stop, we could stop all the metals 

that are coming in from other parts of the world, because this country no longer has an industrial base in this country, because some 

of the decisions the parties have done, mostly the Republican Party 

with their free trade issues that are now affecting this country. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. FREEMAN. I am Nancy Freeman, Groundwater Awareness 

League. I really appreciate this opportunity and thank you all for 

being here. I am going to talk about water but I have to stick in 

one comment because everyone is interested in jobs, and the mining company talks about high-paying jobs. In 1985, a haul truck 

driver at Mission Mine, or Twin Buttes Mine, got $15 an hour, and 

that is the starting pay for a haul truck driver today. 

So the myth of the high-paying jobs is long since gone. I have 

been studying the water pollution by mining and the water depletion problems in Arizona for over four years now. 

From extensive research, including attending committee hearings 

at the Arizona Legislature, I would suggest that there be a 

thorough hydrological study of water levels of national forest and 

national wildlife refuges in the Southwest, and that consideration 

be made to protect the groundwater levels in public lands. Mining 

is one industry that uses huge amounts of water for their extraction processes. 

In Arizona, industries, including power plants in mining, are 

exempt from all groundwater pumping laws, even in active 

management area. This means that in regions of mining, groundwater tables are going down and there is no recourse. Problems of 

depletion in mining areas was highlighted in early 1970’s, when 

Farmers Cooperative in Green Valley, sued the local mining companies for depletion of the Santa Cruz aquifer, which would eventually infringe on their water rights in that aquifer. 

Further, Farmers Cooperative and Tucson Water Company asserted that water not fit for drinking should not be put into the aquifer, and I have included copies of those law suits. I remind you, 

that at least in Arizona, the so-called aquifer protection permit is 

an aquifer pollution permit, allowing industry to pollute up to a 

certain point. 

So, in Green Valley, we have a sulphate level, ambient, of 50 milligrams per liter whereas aquifer protection permit allows pollution 

up to 250 milligrams per liter, and this is a special case. In New 

Mexico, they felt lucky to get 650 milligrams per liter. 

Frankly, I want to speak up for the trees, plans, and wildlife. 

Birds and animals do not have the intelligent capacity nor the ability to dig wells down to bedrock at 12,000 feet, then decide what 

they are going to do next, as we do in Arizona. They are dependent 

on surface water. The water has to be cleaned. Not only is Rosemont area in danger of dropping water table, but we have a similar 

situation in the Superior area, where a British company proposes 

to tunnel down to 7000 feet, which means the tunnels will have to 

be de-watered down to 7000 feet. 

69

At the Oak Flat, U.S. Forest Service campground, there is a 

stunning and diverse array of priceless breeding and wintering 

birds, that bring birders throughout central Arizona. And mining 

is not the only source of drawdown in Forest Service areas in public lands. At the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge, the riparian area is 

being threatened by exempt wells pumping in nearby Arivaca. The 

Tonto National——

Mr. GRIJALVA. If you could just start to conclude. Thank you. 

MS. FREEMAN. Okay. The Tonto National Forest riparian areas 

are being dried up by development near Payson. So originally, the 

Forest Service was designated to provide a watershed. So I hope 

this important aspect of the National Forest will be taken into consideration, and I do have quite a bit of documentation to give you 

a lot of information. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and let me just for the sake of trying 

to get as many people that have requested, which we won’t get to 

everybody, that written comments are going to be a part of the 

record, they can be submitted for 10 days. 

[NOTE; Numerous comments, letters and statements 

submitted for the record have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And what was the other point I was going to 

make? The little red light means something, and——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Dr. Tim Marsh, please. 

Dr. MARSH. Representatives Grijalva and Giffords, it is a pleasure to be here today. I am not like the other people who have spoken today. I am a scientist, I am an engineer, with a PhD from 

Stanford University in the field of ore deposits and exploration. I 

am a geologist. I look for new ore deposits. I am formerly chief geologist of Resolution Copper Company. I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines. Rocks are my business. 

You can’t go anywhere on this planet and find copper. It comes 

from very specific environments, and I would argue that the Santa 

Rita Mountains are a very precious environment that needs to be 

preserved. It needs to be preserved for a single purpose that is the 

exploitation of mineral resources. 

One thing we have done in this country very successfully, and 

that is to preserve parts of our country for special uses. We have 

national parks, we have State parks, we have got a lot of areas 

that have been zoned for very specific uses. 

We have got industrially-zoned parts of our towns and counties. 

I have witnessed, firsthand, the results of Mr. Huckelberry’s efforts 

in Pima County and what his dream is for this county. I don’t like 

what I see. I see tens of thousands of acres being paved over by 

residential areas, and instead of triangle-leaf bursage, and prickly 

pear, and creosote, all the plants that we love as part of our 

Sonoran Desert, we see houses and houses and houses, and a serious problem is arising in our Nation today because of that uncontrolled growth, and that is the paving over of our Nation’s mineral 

resources. 

We have got housing developments in Casa Grande and in Pima 

County, here, that are being built on our Nation’s mineral resources. There is a hungry dragon east of here by the name of 

70

China, and all of Eastern Asia, that is growing phenomenally fast, 

and it is sucking up minerals from the places that we have been 

importing them from. 

From Chile, from Peru, from Mexico, those minerals are going to 

China, they are going to India, to make the things that everybody 

has to have these days. We have all got to have Ipods, we have all 

got to have cars with our 40 pounds apiece of copper in them. That 

copper has got to come from somewhere. 

We are not going to be able to get it from Chile forever. We are 

not going to be able to get it from Mexico forever. We have got to 

get it where we have got it, and where we have got it is in the 

Santa Rita Mountains. It is in Pima County. Pima County is an 

epicenter of mineral resources, specifically molybdenum, uranium, 

gold, copper. This is the place. Let’s protect it for the right use and 

the right use is development of mineral resources. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me call a couple of names. Mr. 

Dick Schuman and Ms. Dawn Garcia. Is Mr. Schuman here? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. He is not here. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. Ms. Garcia, and after her will be Joy 

Maccabee. 

Ms. GARCIA. My name is Dawn Garcia. I am an Arizona licensed 

professional geologist. I am representing the American Institute of 

Professional Geologists, the Arizona section, and we formally ask 

that the U.S. and State governments do whatever they can to better facilitate development of this country’s valuable mineral resources. 

AIPG supports unfettered access to public lands for environmentally responsible and smart development of mineral resources. 

The vast extent of public lands managed by Federal and State 

agencies contains undiscovered and discovered resources that are 

vital to maintaining and improving Americans’ standard of living 

and national security. 

Existing Federal and State laws and regulations are intended to 

ensure that the citizens protect water, air, biological and cultural 

resources that exploration and development of mineral resources is 

undertaken with minimal adverse impacts to the natural environment. 

Restricting access to public lands severely inhibits the responsible development of domestic energy and mineral resources. Such 

restrictions further impact the national economy and our quality of 

life. 

Lack of access to public lands encourages imports of oils, metals, 

and other resources from other conventional without the environmental protection laws that we have in the U.S., or from countries 

where those are not enforced. 

The American Institute of Professional Geologists believes that 

the U.S. should be a world leader in environmentally responsible 

development of its own natural resources. Please do not weaken 

the 1872 Mining Law. The American Institute of Professional Geologists encourages the U.S., State and local governments, to facilitate the development of domestic natural resources. 

Thank you for listening to this testimony and entering this document into the public record. 

71

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. I recognize Congresswomen 

Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I am glad to 

see such an interest in this. I thought the hearing was going to go 

to noon and I have a 12:30, and I need to step out, but if you would 

please make sure that I have information that is going to be 

proposed. 

And, particularly, I just want to say, because I do believe that 

a hearing is important to hear all sides, and I know that we are 

now just starting to hear from the other side of the issue, and I 

am looking forward to hearing that testimony but I have to leave, 

so——

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. I called Joy Maccabee, and 

also let me call a couple more names. Glenn Martin after that, and 

Scotty Johnson after that. 

Is Joy here? 

Scotty Johnson here? And then Mr. Martin after that, please. 

Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman Grijalva, many thanks for keeping 

alive via such meetings the all-important dialogue of democracy 

and for bringing this opportunity for citizens in the area to speak 

on this issue which is important to all of us. 

My name is M. Scott Johnson. I am both a native Arizonan and 

the senior outreach representative for Defenders Of Wildlife in Tucson. Defenders is a national wildlife conservation organization 

dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their 

natural communities. 

I prepared some comments in more formal fashion and I will submit those, in writing. I will skip some of them today because I 

think a lot of people have covered a lot of the impacts of the Rosemont mine, in particular. 

And I want to jump straight to the overarching 1872 Mining 

Law, and I want to put it in the context of as we look at the environment in large, and how that has changed since 1872. 

As we look at the newly free rein that the law, today, gives on 

environmental concerns, it is important to note that the forests of 

America and the American Southwest are in serious trouble. 

They are suffering, not from one factor but from many factors. 

A sort of death by a thousand cuts. Extended drought, an epidemic 

of pinebark beetles, a century of fire mismanagement, extirpation 

of keystone and cornerstone species, an influx of invasive species, 

and surface disruption, which this would be one. 

And then overarching all of this, we have the larger concerns of 

global loss and biodiversity, facing what biologists call the Sixth 

Great Extinction, and global climate change, which is throwing factors into this we cannot even being to think about or imagine, or 

can’t even begin to quantify exactly. Extreme water events and 

their impacts on mining collection ponds is a good example. 

I just have to say, quickly, that any new developments now allowed in the Coronado National Forest, under the auspices of that 

law, should proceed with a scientifically-based, holistic view of 

forest and diversity health. Rosemont is just such a situation. 

Now, in quantifying the science here, it is important to note that 

we can’t quantify this exactly because our National Forest policy 

72

has also gone a sort of ‘‘death by a thousand cuts.’’ Reduced funding and resources for forest managers, politics over science, and 

land managers and scientists—excuse me. Politics over science and 

special interests over public interests. 

They have handcuffed our land managers and eliminated good 

scientific data. One example of this is the wildlife population viability analysis which were required in the regulations in the National 

Forest Management Act. 

Shortly after taking office, George W. Bush gutted these PVAs. 

These were enacted under the Reagan Administration as Reagan’s 

wildlife legacy policy, as part of the Forest Service Management 

Act regulations. Assessing the health, or viability of wildlife populations under this, this is a necessary tool, and we have that no 

longer because the Bush Administration saw an expedient and 

eliminated—saw those as inexpedient and through expediency 

eliminated those. 

So, in closing, let me just directly say that the mission of the 

1872 Mining Law needs to be updated, both to ensure forest health 

and to ensure consideration of a new emerging ethic or value that 

the public has, in seeing the forest as a resource for future generations. 

This emerging ethic is a desire to leave wildlife and wild lands 

legacy for our children and grandchildren, and to enjoy forests as 

we now enjoy them. 

There is now, in the public mind, a new spirit born of concern 

for our forests, and a strong desire to protect them, a new ethic, 

a new value, yet unformed in 1872 when this mining law took effect, and this ethic, this desire to leave a wildlife legacy——

Mr. GRIJALVA. You need to wrap up pretty soon, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON.—for future generations must be taken into consideration and thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me call Mr. Martin. If I may, before you begin 

Mr. Martin, let me call some other names. Annie McGreevy, Richard Bishop and Jesse Edmondson. If those three could be ready. 

Okay. Sir, please. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Glenn 

Edward Martin. I am the president and CEO of United Mines, Incorporated. We’re an Arizona corporation. We are at 11924 North 

Santoras Place. My phone number is [520] 742-3111. How is that 

for transparency? Anybody wants to contact us, we are available to 

talk on all these issues. 

Primarily, going back in, starting with Mr. Featherstone who 

mentioned that, you know, the 1872 laws were not applicable 

today. Well, the Comstock Load was a huge silver mining operation, started Virginia City, and if it wasn’t for the Comstock Load 

and the Government using that silver, we might all be speaking in 

southern tongues. 

So it goes back to a long history. Yes, this 1872 Mining Law 

needs to be corrected and things need to be modified with it. The 

biggest thing that I see throughout the threads of everybody’s comments is we’re not paying royalties. 

I agree with that standpoint. I believe mining is a God-given 

right, and it is under the laws of the United States, and I believe 

we should be paying for those rights. 

73

We own some 3500 acres of mineral rights in Arizona, primarily 

in southern Arizona. We own a mill site down by Arivaca that Mr. 

Huckelberry had mentioned about the Rancho Seco project. The 

Rancho Seco project, we spent several millions of dollars, that gave 

to local landowners, and they did not take into any context of the 

subsurface mineral rights, that they could either go to the BLM 

themselves and get, or that type of nature. 

They also wanted—the patented properties on the Rancho Seco 

property is called the Silver Queen. It’s a 20 acre patented piece 

that is now owned by Pima County and there’s huge tailing piles 

there, but they’re not doing anything with, and it’s going to just go 

right into the water. 

Pima County needed to address these things before. They put 

millions of dollars in the pockets of a few landowners but they did 

not take in any mineral rights concerns at all. We would offer to 

even clean up that site, free. Give us the patented property, we’ll 

clean it all up for them. It’s not a problem. But Pima County is not 

addressing—they’re buying property and they are not addressing 

their own cleanup problems at the properties that they buy. 

The landowners that are out there do not take into effect mining 

that is out there. They own the surface rights but they do not do 

anything with the subsurface rights, and they cave in a lot of these 

tunnels that are a danger to people coming through that area. 

Primarily that is the main thing I wanted to address, was the 

fact that we need to pay royalties. You know, I think as Augusta 

Resources is a Goliath, we are Little David. You know, they have 

a very good plan, from what I have read from it. I would encourage 

the board to approve their plan, and we need, as Dr. Marsh had 

said, we must go into an industrial age and competing with the 

gross domestic product of China, is 8 to 10 percent, and right now, 

they have already stopped 50 percent of their copper exports. 

So we need to mine where we can, and it is good right now. We 

thank you again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. MCGREEVY. Chairman Grijalva, I am Annie McGreevy from 

Senoita. I bring you the resolution passed yesterday by the Santa 

Cruz County Board of Supervisors, requesting permanent withdrawal of mining exploration and extraction from all Federal lands 

within Coronado National Forest in eastern Santa Cruz County. 

Whereas the U.S. Forest Service, via the National Environmental 

Policy Act, will be required to take into account consistency with 

local land use plans, which in this case is the Santa Cruz County 

comprehensive plan, and whereas the Santa Cruz County Board of 

Supervisors believes mineral exploration and extraction is not consistent with the goals of the Santa Cruz County comprehensive 

plan for this area of our county, and whereas the Santa Cruz 

County Board of Supervisors has concerns about both the quantity 

and quality of groundwater resources in eastern Santa Cruz 

County, critical to support our current and projected residential 

population. 

And whereas recent studies of 70 environmental impact statements for modern era hard rock mines found that water quality impacts from mineral extraction are consistently underestimated, and 

74

therefore mitigation measures are inadequate and undercapitalized, leaving taxpayers with unjust financial burdens. 

And whereas mineral extraction has a legacy, in Arizona, of leaving behind adverse environmental, economic and visual impacts, 

that place undue hardships upon local citizenry, and often require 

Federal assistance for reclamation and restoration efforts, such as 

the removal action currently underway in Alum Gulch, Flux Canyon, in eastern Santa Cruz County. 

And whereas recent budgetary reductions in the United States 

Department of Agriculture left the United States Forest Service 

understaffed, and therefore unable to adequately monitor mineral 

exploration and extraction activity in Santa Cruz County, now 

therefore be it resolve that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors requests that the Arizona congressional delegation initiate 

the permanent withdrawal of mineral exploration and extraction 

from all Federal lands within Coronado National Forest in eastern 

Santa Cruz County. Passed and unanimously adopted by the Santa 

Cruz County Board of Supervisors, this 23rd day of February 2007, 

yesterday afternoon. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Mr. Edmondson, and I believe I called Mr. Richard Bishop and Mr. Bill Ketzel after that. 

Sir. 

Mr. EDMONDSON. Hello. My name is Jesse Edmondson. I am a 

resident in Tucson. I have been here for about 11 years. Not very 

happy to be here. I would rather be working. I have come to these 

with the resolutions for Pima County against this mine, and it’s 

also taken me away from work. A lot of us who have work have 

not been able to come to these meetings. 

The resolution from Santa Cruz, I found out yesterday, at 2:30. 

They had their meeting at 2:00 o’clock. I would not have been able 

to be there if I tried. There is transparency on that side. 

This comes down to a moral issue to me, and a value issue. People talk about jobs, with no value of what that implies. Jobs implies families, children, lifestyle. At least for 20 years to me is still 

life—it is still more important than any endangered species I have 

ever met. A human life is way more valuable than that. 

A tree is not as valuable to me as somebody’s life and livelihood. 

We are not taking that into consideration. We are saying save 

these mountains but get employed 400 families. 

Another issue I have is the 1872 mine law has been, as Mr. 

Sturgess has said, amended, adopted. We have laws, and laws and 

laws that we have forgotten. Let’s enforce some of our laws. 

EPA has tons of laws, to where it is almost impossible to start 

mining. If we enforce some of these, the mines will be cleaned up. 

We are also holding Augusta to a unfair level. They are humans, 

we are all humans, and we are expecting perfection from them. 

Leaks will happen from any industry. Accident happen. 

As far as pollution, our vehicles are more of a pollutant in this 

area than Augusta mine will be. 

As far as water, stop development. If this mine is out there, I believe the developments will stop out there. As we have heard Carol 

say, there is going to be developments, this land will be developed, 

in one way or another. What is the best way to develop it is what 

is at issue. I believe the mine will stop public developments which 

75

would—and I believe septic tanks of the residents out there now 

to be as detrimental as a mine, to me. 

I was trained in the Marine Corps to make right decisions, and 

I was also trained in my family to make right decisions. If I didn’t 

believe in Augusta, I would not have been working for them. I have 

turned away other jobs that I don’t feel well about; other missions, 

personally. Illinois. We lost our family farm from the Nature Conservancy because they condemned us for a plant. My family’s lives 

were ruined, and consequently, divorce, from an environmental 

movement. I jokingly call the Reversal of Freedom Acts. 

I do not feel free. I feel I am endangered again from environmental movements, because they don’t value my life or my decisions. They would rather look at a tree and a mountain. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. I called Mr. Bishop and Mr. 

Katzel next, if they are here. Sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. Richard Bishop, Chairman of the Dragoon Conservation Alliance in Dragoon, and I would like to also thank you 

for having these hearings. 

Our group has dealt with a number of mining operations that are 

proposed, and we would like to add, that we believe the mining law 

of 1872 needs to be reformed, revised. But one, we would also like 

to make a point that that is not the only law that needs revision. 

In particular, our community has had to deal with aspects of the 

Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, and that Act involves the 

ability of mining companies to make claims on private land, and 

that has caused quite a bit of problems in our community. Just to 

give you an example, an elderly lady who has lived in Arizona for 

quite a while, and got a letter in the mail, that in 30 days, a large 

Australian copper company was planning to start drilling and exploring on her ten acres. To us, this seemed unbelievable, but, in 

fact, it is part of the law, the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, 

and in conjunction with the 1872 Mining Law, that private land 

can be claimed. 

We think that needs to be changed. There was a revision in 1993, 

that basically just allowed a 30-day advance notice. Before that, 

there was no notice, and we think that when people move and buy 

that land, their piece of land, five acres, ten acres, 20 acres, intending to have a small ranchette, they should not have to put up with 

the prospect of a mine operation starting drilling in their back 

yard. 

My second point has to do with the Forest Service, and there 

have been some mine issues where we have tried to communication 

with the Forest Service and we find it difficult, and, in fact, in the 

Forest Service’s own planning, meetings for their long-range plan, 

they found that communication is one of the biggest complaints. 

We don’t believe that the 1872 Mining Law, or any other law, 

says that the Forest Service can only talk to the mining companies. 

We would like that community groups also have the ability and the 

access to the Forest Service. In particular, I would give it as an example, that just a few months ago, Phelps Dodge did a drilling 

project in the Dragoon Mountains off Middlemarch Road, that was 

on the schedule of proposed actions of the Forest Service. We believe that all actions should be on the schedule, and they should 

76

be available for public review. In this case, by the time we learned 

of it, there was no time for public review, and this was a fairly substantial project that involved building a helicopter pad in the 

National Forest, running water lines, and drilling. 

So to conclude, we would like to see better communication with 

the Forest Service through your oversight ability. We would like to 

see that our group could communicate a little better with the 

Forest Service, we get advance notice of what is going on, so that 

we can decide whether we want to oppose or not oppose actions in 

terms of mining. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. KATZEL. My name is Bill Katzel. I am a two year resident 

of Green Valley. I am a 31-year-resident of Pima County, and ‘‘Mo’’ 

Udall was my Congressman when we first acme here. In a previous 

incarnation, I was representing the health of every American citizen as the regulations officer for the U.S. Public Health Service. 

They call it delegated legislation. Every piece of legislation that 

Congress passed, at least in the health arena, required that the 

executive agency implement that law through regulation. I was responsible for Title 42 and Title 21. 

If the analogies apply, Congress has three immediate remedies. 

One is the withdrawal legislation analogous to the Cave Creek Act. 

Second, long term, is the modification of the 1872 Mining Act. 

Third, and overlooked in this hearing today, is the requirement, 

through legislation, for executive agency regulations to be implemented to the congressional intent, and subsequently reviewed by 

Congress to ensure that that intent is met by the implementation. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. Let me call a couple more 

names before the time runs out on us. Christina McVie and Mr. 

Mark Marra, in that order, and we were just talking about ‘‘Mo’’ 

Udall and I received a note, a quote of ‘‘Mo’’ Udall. ‘‘Everything has 

been said but not everyone had said it.’’ And I thought it was kind 

of interesting. No reflection on you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCVIE. Mr. Chairman, I hope not to include anything that 

has previously been said. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. MCVIE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, congratulations and welcome home——

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. MCVIE.—distinguished members of local Government, my 

name is Christina McVie, and I am the Conservation Chair of the 

Tucson Audubon Society. I am going to cut, this isn’t going to make 

a lot of sense because I am just going to hit some highlights. I will 

submit fully competent, written comments, but in interest of time, 

let me just cut to the chase. 

I am speaking today on behalf of our more than 4000 member 

households in southern Arizona. As this hearing will assist in the 

determination of possible future uses of public lands in Pima 

County, it is critical that it set a direction that focuses on the best 

scientific and commercial information available. 

The Tucson Audubon Society is engaged in wildlife issues in 

southern Arizona and, in particular, has focused on research, 

77

education, recreation and conservation through habitat protection 

and restoration, specifically of riparian systems. 

We have partnerships with private and governmental entitles 

and work to conserve and protect habitats where wildlife is at risk 

to the many factors that threaten their existence, such as development, habitat fragmentation, roads, watershed degradation, exotic 

invasive species, and subsequent fires, and the potentially toxic byproducts of our transportation, sewage, mining and commercial operations. 

We have helped to gather the scientific data to identify and protect significant bird habitats as part of an international effort 

known as the important bird area program, which is particular relevant to protecting a diversity of wildlife species. 

For the record, the Santa Rita Mountains have been designated 

as an important bird area and reviewed by a scientific panel for 

inclusion in that designation. 

Our members enjoy wildlife viewing, and think it is critically important to protect habitat and ensure sustainable populations of 

the full spectrum of native species. 

In the 2006 draft Arizona Game and Fish Department strategic 

plan for the years 2007-2012, Wildlife 2012, it states that the goals 

of its wildlife program are to conserve and preserve wildlife populations and habitat, to provide compatible public uses while avoiding adverse impacts to populations and habitat, and to promote 

public health and safety and to increase public awareness and understanding of wildlife resources. 

One of their recreation strategies is to, quote, ‘‘identify, assess, 

develop and promote watchable wildlife recreational opportunities.’’ 

End quote. 

You might be surprised to learn that birding leads all other recreational activities in promoting the economic growth of ecotourism 

in Arizona. A 2001 study on birding impacts by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that there are 56 million 

American birders, who account for $32 billion in annual retail 

sales. 

I am going to cut right to Pima County. I will submit the rest. 

In Pima County alone, watchable wildlife generated retail sales 

of $326,536,328. We created 3,196 full and part-time jobs, earning 

salaries and wages of $90,726,309. 

We contributed State sales and fuel tax revenues of $9,908,109, 

State income tax revenues of $2,267,822, and Federal income tax 

revenues of $15,820,112. 

So please consider this information as you deliberate, help our 

community ensure a stable economy, help us save all the public 

lands, or any jurisdictionally-protected lands in Pima County for 

future generations, and I thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Marra, and after Mr. Marra, Don 

Steuter, and Mike Quigley. And that should probably wrap us up. 

Sir. 

Mr. MARRA. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Grijalva. 

I didn’t come here today with the expectation of speaking, but 

again, thank you for the opportunity. I am an engineer, an economist, and I am also an attorney. I represent a number of interests 

78

in the mining industry, and natural resource sector. However, 

today, my comments are strictly my own. 

The first thing I want to say, just for the record, is that I very 

strongly oppose any withdrawal of any minerals within Pima 

County or Santa Cruz County, or, for that matter, anywhere in the 

United States. 

Minerals are not held by the crown, they are held by the Federal 

Government, in trust, for citizens. I am a citizen regardless of 

where I am. I happen to live in Maricopa County. However, people 

in New York have just as much right to these minerals as anybody 

in Pima County. 

These minerals were reserved for society, to benefit society, and 

we should not restrict access to these minerals. If we do, we will 

no longer have them, and be able to provide cars and put them into 

production for all the things that we, as people, use and need, electricity being the primary use. 

The second thing that I want to point out and mention, that I 

strongly oppose any change to the mining law. Specifically, I oppose any change that would necessarily take hard rock, load minerals into a leasable category. To the extent that there are changes, 

I suggest that you work with the resource sector in working out 

those changes. 

To the extent that there is just a wholesale change in the laws, 

it will have drastic consequences, and we, as a society, national security, we will not be able to further our interests nationally, and 

that is a serious problem. I implore you not to consider withdrawal 

of minerals in Pima County or elsewhere, or further changes to the 

mining law. It is not broken; let’s not try and fix it. Thank you for 

your time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. STEUTER. Chairman Grijalva, my name is Don Steuter. I am 

the Conservation Chair for the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra 

Club. We have about 13,000 members in Arizona. About 3500 of 

those reside in the Tucson area. The Sierra Club leads hikes, has 

for many years in the Santa Ritas. We love this area dearly. We 

opposed the mine back in the 1970’s, when the land exchange was 

proposed by ASARCO, and we are opposing this mine now. 

I guess I would have to start by taking issue with some of the 

comments, that somehow mining is going to save us from growth 

and from development. I guess if you degrade an area enough, and 

make it ugly enough, people probably won’t want to live there. So, 

to some extent, maybe it is true. But I would suggest that probably 

the opposite really has happened over the past century, and that 

is that this country’s policy of producing cheap minerals, which is 

really what the mining law of 1872 is all about these days, by encouraging mining in virtually all areas on public lands, including 

areas that are near and dear to our hearts, special places, really 

has resulted most of the time in overproduction of various minerals. 

Speaking of special places, I had a chance, about a week ago, to 

fly over parts of central Arizona in a small plane, the Globe, Superior, Miami area, and get a aerial perspective of our mines, and 

then also a perspective of some of the proposed mine sites, and 

79

even though I’ve hiked in these areas for probably 15 or 20 years, 

this was a different vantage point for me. 

And it was very interesting, flying south, from Superior towards 

Hayden, looking out of one side of the plane and seeing the Ray 

mine with Mineral Creek obliterated for most of its distance on its 

way to the Gila River, the deep pits and the tailings, and waste 

rock piles, and then looking out the other side of the plane, and 

seeing the White Canyon wilderness, a beautiful place called Battle 

Ax Butte, a place called The Spine, just north of the Gila River, 

a magnificent area, a big horn sheep population in there, very rugged, very wild, very scenic, very important for recreation purposes, 

and as you might have guessed, a mine, an open pit mine is proposed right adjacent to the White Canyon wilderness. 

From there, we flew towards Miami, we flew up Pinal Creek, 

over the Pinal Valley mine, and in that area a mine has been proposed for about the last 10 or 15 years, called the Carlotta Mine, 

and that area contains probably some of the finest desert riparian 

vegetation anywhere in the Southwest. We have studied this area 

for a long time, environmental groups have. We have been opposed 

to this mine site. This mine would suck water out from underneath 

Haunted Canyon, probably either kill this riparian area from underneath, or another scenario would be if one of the tailings dams 

failed up in a nearby gulch, bury it from above with mining waste. 

I am convinced, that if we could get enough people out to see 

these special places, that we could reform the 1872 Mining Law in 

very short order, and I think what we need to do is start thinking 

about some sort of a leasing system like we have with oil and gas 

in this country. 

We need to prioritize areas that are mineralized, figure out 

which ones are special places, which ones are suitable for mining 

and which ones are not. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. STEUTER. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I called another name, if that person is not here. 

Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Chairman Grijalva, thank you for the opportunity 

to speak today on this important issue. My name is Mike Quigley 

and I represent Sky Island Alliance, a regional conservation group 

working to preserve the rich national heritage of the Sky Island region. We are based here, in Tucson. 

To the issue before you today, Sky Island Alliance opposes the 

Rosemont mine in the Santa Rita Mountains. Further, we submit 

that our public lands are more valuable intact than dug up. There 

are currently eight open pit copper mines in varying degrees of operation in Southeastern Arizona. 

Our region has done our fair share of producing raw materials 

for growth at home, and increasingly, for growth in countries far 

from home. We are proud to contribute to the success of our great 

Nation, though economically depressed communities, environmental Superfund sites, and big ugly holes in the ground are the 

costs of doing business that we have shouldered for that contribution. 

Southeast Arizona and the larger Sky Island region have been 

named a World Biodiversity Hot Spot, and for good reason. The 

80

natural beauty and ecological integrity of our region are truly special, and they are assets that support one of the largest service and 

recreational-based economies in the West. 

The Coronado National Forest, a treasure of southern Arizona, 

and indeed, the Nation, hosts more special and endangered species 

than any other forest in the Southwest. We submit that the Coronado National Forest and its Sky Island mountain ranges provide 

more to our Nation’s character than one more open pit copper mine 

ever will. 

The copper era in Arizona has been surpassed by a diversified 

and more sustainable economy supported, not by what we take 

from the earth, but by what we leave intact to enjoy and relish. 

The value of preserved wild lands and open space, of views free 

from mine tailings, of natural places for recreation and spiritual 

connection, these are driving forces of the economy of the New 

West. 

Please permit me to make our point directly. In Arizona and 

throughout the West, our national forests are worth much more to 

us intact than dug up. It is not 1872; it is 2007. The times have 

changed. The West has changed. We urge you, we encourage you, 

we ask you, our leaders and fellow citizens in Congress, to guide 

us forward towards a more intelligent and sustainable future, a future of 21st Century vision, not 19th Century exploitation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Before we end this hearing, let me thank Pima County, Mr. 

Huckelberry and his staff, for their hospitality, beyond the work 

that they put into making sure that this hearing could take place. 

I want to thank them very much. 

I also thank the committee staff for assisting me through this 

first run at a hearing. I appreciate it very much, and thank you. 

Patience and advice have been very helpful, and I appreciate that 

very much. 

The issue of unfettered access to public lands is part of what I 

heard today, and that is represented very well under the 1872 Mining Law, and I think part of the hearing also was to begin to talk 

about and acquire the information, beginning the process to look at 

that law of 1872, between the point of unfettered access to the 

point of the needing to modernize and bring that law up to date 

to what the West is really now as opposed to what it was in 1872, 

and going through the very difficult process with this law—and I 

think the Secretary made a good point—that this 1872 law is not 

going to be ‘‘a walk in the park’’ as we begin to look at modernizing 

it, creating a balance, looking at issues of transparency, what the 

taxpayer gets back as a consequence of the extraction, and the reclamation responsibilities and the liabilities to the American taxpayers if their reclamation standards are not strong. 

So as we go through this process, I appreciate all the commentary today in that process. The short term is the Santa Ritas, 

the Rosemont proposal before us, and the effect, not only on the 

general region, but the effect and affect on the Coronado National 

Forest. 

That is as we look at a remedy for that situation and consider 

crafting legislation to specifically deal with that issue. We will 

81

certainly disseminate that information to all parties. We try to be 

as balanced today, asking both members that support the mine in 

the audience as well as those that are opposed. I want to thank all 

of you, want to thank the staff, and my colleague, Congresswoman 

Giffords, for the time that she was here with us. 

Before I adjourn, you know, I told Gabby we were going to end 

with—since we have been invoking ‘‘Mo’’ Udall twice today, I 

thought a third time would be okay. 

‘‘Mo’’ Udall’s politician’s prayer, and before I adjourn, I told 

Gabby that I would do that. 

‘‘Lord, may the words I speak be soft and gentle, for tomorrow 

I may have to eat them.’’ And so I——

[Applause.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I want to thank everyone in attendance, and with 

that, this hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to 

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

Response to Mr. Grijalva’s question from Jeanine Derby, Forest Supervisor, 

Coronado National Forest 

Question: ‘‘How has the Coronado National Forest been involved in the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan?’’

Response: The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, initiated in 1999, is a guide 

for Pima County to use when determining where to focus land acquisition or conservation easements within the County in order to protect valuable open space. The 

County’s desire is to protect open space corridors in the County that connect lands 

already protected from development (including federally managed lands) thus creating a network of ecologically valuable corridors as habitat for wildlife and other 

values. Public support for subsequent bond issues provided funding to support the 

Plan. 

The Forest Service role in the early development of the Plan was to provide biological information about habitat for species of concern on National Forest lands and 

adjacent lands. The Coronado Forest Biologist attended several meetings to provide 

biological information to the planning group. The County did not address private 

land parcels interior to the National Forest for purchase with the bond proposals. 

The County’s Conservation Plan is now being implemented. The Coronado 

National Forest stays informed of the County’s activities under the Plan through informal information exchange through the Tucson Basin Managers’ meetings. Upper 

management for Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Pima County and AZ Game and Fish meet over lunch about 

once a month to exchange information. Tucson Basin Planners, staff for these same 

agencies, meet periodically to coordinate planning efforts and to work on joint 

projects, such as noxious weed eradication and riparian restoration. 

The Coronado National Forest is currently revising the Forest Land Management 

Plan. The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is one of the plans that will be incorporated by reference, along with other land use plans such as the Santa Cruz 

County Comprehensive Plan. The Coronado National Forest Land Management 

Plan revision will be completed in 2009. Chuck Huckleberry stated in his testimony 

at the hearing that the next attempt to pass a bond issue will include consideration 

of private lands interior to the Coronado National Forest.

Æ