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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–192 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–572 

CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 2443 S. 2779 

S. 2875 S. 2898 

S. 3088 S. 3089 

S. 3157 S. 3179 

H.R. 816 H.R. 2246 

JULY 9, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming ............................................. 13 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 2 

Edwards, George, Livestock Loss Mitigation Coordinator, Montana Department of Livestock, Helena, MT ........................................................................... 59 

Featherstone, Roger, Southwest Circuit Rider, Earthworks, Tucson, AZ ........... 50 

Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 21 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona ........................................................... 20 

Lewis, Shan, President, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ ............... 46 

Nedd, Michael, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection, 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior .............................. 25 

Price, Charles C., Daniel, WY ................................................................................. 62 

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado .................................................. 16 

Salisbury, David, President, Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, Superior, AZ ..... 42 

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon .................................................. 14 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana ..................................................... 14 

Williams, Alice, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy ................ 18 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 71 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 77 

(1) 

CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Let us go ahead and begin. I would like to recognize the chairman, Senator Bingaman. I know his schedule is very tight. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you very much scheduling this hearing and inviting me to submit my comments concerning this important piece of legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Harry Reid, would provide for the release of the reversionary interest of the United States in certain property in Reno, Nevada. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the companion legislation, H.R. 2246, on December 4, 2007. The legislation is noncontroversial and addresses an issue arising from the conveyance by the Union Pacific Railroad to the 

city of Reno of property along the Union Pacific’s existing right-of-way for the construction of the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor (ReTRAC) project. 

With the merger of Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads in 1995, it was 

projected that the number of freight trains moving through downtown Reno would 

double. In order to mitigate the traffic, public safety, and environmental impact of 

the merger, the city developed the ReTRAC project to eliminate 11 at-grade railroad 

crossings and build approximately 2 miles of lowered train track through the heart 

of the City. Local, state, federal, and private funds contributed to this enormous 

$265 million transportation project, which created over 3000 jobs and supported the 

local economy. The project was completed on time and under budget in 2005. 

As part of the project, the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific Railroad granted to the 

city of Reno title to right-of-way and surrounding land for the project and any other 

economic development purposes. The city hopes to revitalize the area with retail 

components, a plaza for public events, and a more pedestrian-friendly downtown. 

However, it cannot implement these plans because the United States currently 

holds a reversionary interest in the land. Title for these lands was originally granted to the railroad in 1866 to facilitate construction of the transcontinental railroad. 

The federal government retained a reversionary interest to ensure that the land was 

in fact used for a railroad. Since that purpose clearly has been achieved, the proposed legislation would release the federal government’s reversionary interest in the 

property and allow the city of Reno to move forward with its redevelopment plans. 

Thank you Chairman and Committee Members for holding this hearing today. I 

hope you will join me in supporting this legislation that will allow the city of Reno, 
2 

Nevada, to continue redevelopment efforts associated with an important public 

works project that has been a tremendous success for the community. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden, and 

thanks for having this hearing. There are two bills that I have particular interest in that we are discussing today, along with the rest 

of the legislation. 

The first is S. 3179, the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute 

Land Conveyance Act. This is a bill that I introduced with Senator 

Domenici as a cosponsor. This legislation concludes the decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, which is located on Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It does so by transferring the site from 

the Federal Government to Lovelace. In doing so, it will save the 

taxpayers approximately $20 million in long-term monitoring costs. 

Similar efforts have successfully been completed at other former 

DOE cold war sites such as the former Mound Laboratory in Ohio 

which were transferred to the State for economic development purposes. 

Lovelace has already used its preexisting facilities to generate 

over 500 new jobs in New Mexico. 

This bill, which I am pleased to note is supported by the Administration and the Department of Energy and which includes 

changes recommended by the Air Force, ensures Kirtland will continue its national security mission without any impact from this 

privatization effort. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Pat Marx, who is 

Lovelace’s Chief Operating Officer. She is in the audience today, 

and I ask that the written statement submitted by Lovelace be included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marx follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT MARX, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LOVELACE

RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ON S. 3179 

The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) is pleased to provide the following written statement to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding S.3179. 

LRRI is a private, not-for-profit biomedical research organization located in Albuquerque, New Mexico which is dedicated to improving public health through research on the prevention, treatment, and cure of respiratory disease. Equipped with 

a broad range of scientific and technical expertise and a wealth of research capabilities, LRRI studies respiratory health issues of concern to scientists and health care 

experts in universities, government, industry, and patient advocacy groups. The organization is committed to curing respiratory diseases through research aimed at 

understanding their causes and biological mechanisms; assessing and eliminating 

exposures to respiratory health hazards; and developing improved therapeutics, vaccines, and diagnostics. It readily opens its unique research facilities to university, 

government, and private collaborators. 

The institute, formerly known as The Lovelace Institute, was originally founded 

in 1947. Today it employs 86 PhD level scientists and 453 technicians and support 

staff, has an annual budget of approximately $67 million all of which comes from 

out of state customers. This translates to 2,000 direct and indirect jobs for the local 

economy. 

LRRI and its predecessor organizations (collectively hereinafter referred to as 

LRRI) have operated the Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory (the ITL, formerly the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute) on Kirtland Air Force Base since its inception in 1960. The ITL was operated by LRRI from 1960-1996 under a cost-reim-
3 

bursement, no-fee management and operating contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies. ITL facilities and the land on which they 

are located is one of two parcels of land which are the subject of the conveyances 

which S3179 would authorize. 

The ITL and LRRI have a long and proud history serving the research needs of 

the United State Government. In 1996 the facility was determined to be no longer 

needed for the DOE’s mission. Since that time the LRRI has been pleased to continue important work in the facility for the Government under contracts and grants 

as well as serving the needs of the broader research community. After the facility 

was privatized under a lease from the US Government to LRRI on October 1, 1996, 

LRRI has been very successful in increasing the annual income of the facility as 

well as increasing staffing from 180 employees to 539 employees. 

The conveyance to LRRI which S.3179 authorizes will allow LRRI to further invest in the facility and thereby make even greater progress in understanding the 

fundamental biological responses of the respiratory tract to inhaled materials. Likewise, such conveyance will have a favorable economic impact on the Albuquerque, 

New Mexico community by allowing this facility to continue its important mission. 

Every day that passes without the completion of the privatization which this conveyance represents is a lost opportunity to the Institute. 

LRRI’s lease and subsequent operation of the ITL facility has been one of only 

a few privatization success stories in the DOE complex. Through the diligent efforts 

of LRRI personnel, new, productive research uses have been found for the ITL. By 

full conveyance of the property to LRRI, this success story will continue for many 

years to come. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(42 USC §§ 6901 et seq., as amended), the DOE has undertaken certain restoration 

projects to remediate contamination at the facility. However, due to historic research activities at the ITL during the Cold War era, the land on which the facility 

is located will continue to be contaminated for the foreseeable future. The environmental impacts and condition of the facility have been assessed and documented extensively over the years and are well known to the responsible federal and state 

agencies, the public, and LRRI. Because of LRRI’s commitment to seeing valuable 

inhalation research continue at this facility and preserving the role the facility plays 

in the economic stability of New Mexico, the Board of Directors of LRRI has expressed its willingness to assume the substantial cost of future remediation that 

may be required at the facility in exchange for conveyance of the property. 

We are very pleased that Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici have introduced S.3179 to authorize the conveyance to LRRI in order to complete the privatization of this research facility. With respect to several specific provisions of the Bill, 

we note the following: 

Section 3(c) directs the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of the Air 

Force to complete ‘‘any real property actions’’ necessary to allow the Secretary of Energy to complete the conveyance. LRRI is prepared to assume 

ownership of the property upon the passage of S 3179. We note that Section 

3(a) ‘‘authorizes’’ the Secretary of Energy to convey the property to LRRI, 

but unlike Section 3(c), does not direct the Secretary to do so. Without better specification of the real property actions Congress deems ‘‘necessary’’ for 

conveyance to be completed and without a time established for completion 

of the conveyance, LRRI is concerned that the conveyance could be prolonged. We look forward to working with the appropriate federal agencies 

and Congress to ensure timely completion of the conveyances authorized by 

S 3179. 

Section 3(f) contains a provision that requires LRRI to pay the costs incurred by the various agencies in carrying out the conveyance without placing any limitation on such costs. LRRI is certainly willing to pay the reasonable expenses the agencies may incur after passage of the Bill to effect 

the conveyance, but obviously we would like the parties to have an understanding in advance about what is deemed a reasonable expense. 

Section 3(g) contains a broad and expansive indemnification requirement 

that LRRI is not prepared to meet and which we believe was not intended 

by the drafters. Under the language of this provision, LRRI would be required to assume the liability not only for remediating the contamination 

located on the property (which we are prepared to assume), but would also 

be required to pay for ‘‘property damage, personal injury, or death resulting 

from releases, discharges...by the Institute and any officers, agents, employees...of the Institute arising from activities conducted on the parcel conveyed....’’ As we previously stated, LRRI and its predecessors operated the 
4 

facility for 36 years under a no-fee, cost-reimbursement Government contract. Employees and others have pending claims and may make future 

claims for personal injury for actions taken prior to the privatization. LRRI 

can not assume liability for such claims and no federal agency has requested that we do so. We therefore respectfully request that this provision 

be modified to reflect that LRRI will indemnify the Government for the actions described in Section 3(g) if they arise from the actions of LRRI or its 

agents and employees after September 30, 1996 when the facility was first 

privatized. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and the sponsors of this legislation as well as the federal agencies involved to develop appropriate mutually acceptable modifications to clarify these points. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the comments of LRRI on S.3179. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would also like to speak briefly about the other 

bill, S. 2779, which I introduced along with Senators Domenici, 

Salazar, Allard, and Bennett. 

This legislation makes a technical correction to address a recent 

interpretation by the Office of Surface Mining which restricts the 

ability of States to use funds under the Abandoned Mine Lands 

Program for noncoal mine reclamation. There is no additional cost 

to the Federal Government involved with this legislation. Western 

States, such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have used AML 

funds in the past for noncoal reclamation as authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and while activities on 

noncoal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of 

the funds provided for the overall AML program, the results in 

terms of public health and safety in our western States is considerable. 

There is a great deal of significant work yet to be done. For example, in my State of New Mexico, we have over 15,000 previously 

mined sites, with a vast majority of these being noncoal mines. 

I believe that OSM’s interpretation of the amendments to restrict 

the use of AML funds for noncoal sites is in error. S. 2779 would 

make a minor technical change to clarify that States may continue 

to use the funds for noncoal work. 

I would like to also ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, to put 

some statements in the record. First, there is a statement from the 

Secretary of Energy and Minerals and the Director of Mining and 

Minerals Division in the State of New Mexico, Joanna Prukop and 

Bill Brancard. Next is a statement by the Governor of Colorado, 

Bill Ritter. Next is a statement by the head of the Department of 

Natural Resources in Utah, John Baza. Next is a statement by the 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission. Next is a statement by 

the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. All of 

these statements support the passage of 2779. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, 

the statements that Senator Bingaman referred to in his opening 

remarks will be included in the record. 

[The prepared statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOANNA PRUKOP, SECRETARY, ENERGY, MINERALS AND

NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AND BILL BRANCARD, DIRECTOR, MINING AND

MINERALS DIVISION, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ON S. 2779 

Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on this important topic. 

We appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bingaman and this Committee to propose 

legislation that will clarify the intent of Congress under Title IV, the Abandoned 
5 

Mine Land (AML) program, of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA). 

The State of New Mexico strongly supports S. 2779. This bill will make only 

minor changes to SMCRA to correct a misinterpretation of SMCRA by the Office of 

Surface Mining of the Department of the Interior. S. 2779 will return New Mexico 

and other states to their longstanding role under SMCRA of directing abandoned 

mine land grant funds to the highest priority needs at either coal or non-coal abandoned mines. 

New Mexico has a long and distinguished history of both coal and hard rock mining. Centuries of mining have left a legacy of thousands of mine openings and other 

mine hazards that pose serious threats to public health and safety. We estimate 

that there are more than 15,000 unreclaimed mine hazards across New Mexico. Expanding populations and increasing recreational uses are increasing the exposure to 

abandoned mine dangers. An example of the AML problem is the numerous abandoned uranium mines located primarily in areas of Native American habitiation in 

northwestern New Mexico. 

The primary funding source for AML projects in New Mexico has been Title IV 

of SMCRA. SMCRA includes provisions for the safeguarding of abandoned coal 

mines and high priority non-coal mines. Funding from the fees collected on coal production has helped New Mexico address some of our most hazardous abandoned 

mines. Since the inception of the SMCRA AML program, New Mexico has addressed 

approximately 4,000 mine features and reclaimed over 700 acres of mine-disturbed 

land. 

Section 409 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1239) allows the States to use AML funds to 

address high priority non-coal abandoned mines as well as coal mines. While New 

Mexico still has abandoned coal mines that need reclamation, well over 90% of New 

Mexico’s 15,000 mine hazards are located at abandoned hard rock mines. In the past 

few decades, all of the fatalities associated with abandoned mines in New Mexico 

have occurred at non-coal mines. With our SMCRA grants, New Mexico has balanced the need to reclaim abandoned coal mines with the need to address the significant and immediate health and safety threats posed by numerous non-coal 

mines. Over the past 6 years, New Mexico’s $1.5 million annual grant was roughly 

split between coal (55%) and non-coal (45%) projects. 

In December 2006, Congress passed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 

which included a re-authorization of the AML fee on current coal production and 

other amendments to the SMCRA Title IV program. One of the major changes was 

the distribution to the States and Tribes of ‘‘state share’’ funds that had been previously allocated to the States under SMCRA, but had never been appropriated by 

Congress. For New Mexico, this amounts to approximately $20 million in additional 

AML funds distributed over the next 7 years, and presents a tremendous opportunity to address many of the high priority coal and non-coal abandoned mine 

threats. 

Under SMCRA, the ‘‘state share’’ funds were available for use by the States at 

abandoned coal mines and, under Section 409, also at high priority abandoned noncoal mines. In the 2006 legislation, Congress did not amend Section 409. However, 

the Interior Department issued an opinion in December 2007 prohibiting the additional AML funds from being used at non-coal abandoned mine projects. The Office 

of Surface Mining followed with a proposed rule on June 20, 2008, which codifies 

the Interior Department’s interpretation. 

The new interpretation flies in the face of Congressional intent. Had the funds 

been appropriated to the State when they were originally allocated to the State, 

there would have been no question that these funds could be used for either coal 

or non-coal projects. Congress did not amend Section 409 of SMCRA in the 2006 

amendments. However, the Interior Department has latched onto Congress’ use of 

a new funding source to distribute the previously allocated funds to claim that the 

intent changed. 

Since the beginning of the AML program, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado have 

balanced the need to reclaim abandoned coal mines with the need to address the 

significant health and safety threats posed by numerous non-coal mines. With these 

funds, New Mexico successfully completed a number of innovative projects that were 

recognized by OSM. In the Cerrillos Hills between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, we 

closed dozens of non-coal mines along trails in a park and protected park visitors 

from mine hazards while showcasing the mining history. This project received a national award from OSM. Last year, we received the highest national award from 

OSM for the Real de Delores project in the Ortiz Mountains which safeguarded 

mine openings within one of the oldest gold mining districts in America. 

The impact of the Interior Department’s interpretation is significant. While New 

Mexico’s annual AML grant increased this year to $4 million, less than one million 
6 

is discretionary and can be spent on either coal or non-coal projects; the remaining 

three million plus can only be spent on coal projects. As a result, needed projects 

at dangerous abandoned hard rock mines have been delayed and funds diverted to 

lower priority abandoned coal mines. 

This loss of flexibility also comes at a particularly significant time for New Mexico. Under Governor Bill Richardson’s direction, we are using a variety of funding 

sources to conduct an inventory of abandoned uranium mines, many of which are 

located in areas occupied by Native Americans in northwestern New Mexico. The 

impacts of these uranium mines on the nearby residents, particularly the Navajo 

people, are finally receiving national attention as evidenced by the hearings this 

year before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. New Mexico 

is working cooperatively with the Navajo Nation and the U.S. EPA to coordinate 

work on abandoned uranium mines in areas near the Navajo Indian Reservation. 

With the new AML money available, we have a unique opportunity to finally address some of these sites which have caused great harm to the Navajo communities. 

With the Interior Department’s restrictions, our options become much more limited, 

because the money for non-coal projects is much more limited. We hope you will prevent that reduction in funds for eliminating hazardous non-coal risks. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we thank you for this opportunity 

to present New Mexico’s position on S. 2779. We urge the Committee to correct the 

misinterpretation of SMCRA and restore the flexibility needed by the States. We 

look forward to working with the Committee in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RITTER, JR., GOVERNOR, STATE OF COLORADO, 

ON S. 2779 

Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on this important topic. 

I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bingaman, Senators Salazar and Allard, and 

this Committee to propose legislation that will clarify the intent of Congress under 

Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

Under SMCRA, Congress has allowed States to address public health and safety 

hazards at all prior mining operations—both coal and non-coal—through their Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Programs. See 30 U.S.C. 1239 (SMCRA section 409). Western states, including Colorado, have used these funds, based on gubernatorial request and secretarial approval, to protect public health and safety from the threats 

posed by coal and non-coal abandoned mines alike. These threats are significant and 

growing. 

In Colorado, there are over 17,000 mine openings remaining to be safeguarded— 

the overwhelming majority of these at abandoned non-coal mines, as well as 33 underground coal mine fires of which some are over a century old, 50,000 acres of 

abandoned coal mine area in the rapidly developing Front Range of Colorado, and 

over 150 coal and hard rock sites that require some form of environmental cleanup. 

Many of the mine related fatalities in Colorado (16 of the 20) over the past few 

decades have occurred at abandoned non-coal mines. As urban growth pushes into 

undeveloped areas and as recreational uses increase, the threat to public heath and 

safety from abandoned mines is increasing. To address this issue, Colorado is appropriating nearly $1 million each year of Severance Tax revenues for AML work. 

The reauthorization of the AML Program by Congress did not in any way change 

the provisions that allow AML funds to be used to address public health and safety 

hazards at either coal or non-coal mine sites. Yet, the Department of the Interior, 

Office of Surface Mining (OSMRE) has proposed rules that would prohibit the majority of the funds going to Western, non-certified states from being used on noncoal abandoned mines. This change is contrary to Congressional intent. Had Congress intended to restrict funding for non-coal projects, they would have done so in 

the legislation. 

OSMRE’s new interpretation of SMCRA is without support in the law. Section 409 

of SMCRA provides that funds allocated to the states under either the ‘‘state share’’ 

formula or the ‘‘historic share’’ formula (Sections 402(g)(1) and (5)) are available to 

safeguard high priority non-coal hazards. Despite Congress’ decision to leave Section 

409 unaltered, OSMRE has decided arbitrarily that ‘‘historic share’’ funds are no 

longer available for non-coal hazards. Similarly, Congress also decided to provide to 

the states the amount of ‘‘state share’’ funds that had been previously allocated to 

the states but not appropriated. OSMRE has now decided that these funds are also 

no longer available for abatement of non-coal hazards. 

OSMRE claims that once a state has completed all of its coal projects, then it can 

use all of its grant funds for non-coal projects. Therefore, under OSMRE’s new inter-
7 

pretation, in order to complete its coal projects, Colorado will spend years working 

on high cost, low priority coal projects that present little threat to public health and 

safety—meanwhile, numerous, highly hazardous abandoned non-coal mines will remain unattended. This is a potentially dangerous and unnecessary risk that 

OSMRE is imposing on the states. 

It is essential that we fulfill the intent of Congress to address the greatest threats 

to public health and safety whether they are at coal or non-coal abandoned mine 

sites. Colorado’s congressional delegation was a leader in this reauthorization to address the unabated hazards at both coal and non-coal abandoned mines. The impact 

of the Interior Department’s interpretation is significant to Colorado. While Colorado’s annual AML grant increased this year to $6 million, only $2.4 million is discretionary for either coal or non-coal projects, and the remaining funds can only be 

spent on coal projects—based on OSMRE’s decision. 

Since the beginning of the AML Program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah have 

balanced the need to reclaim abandoned coal mines with the need to address the 

significant health and safety threats posed by numerous non-coal mines. With these 

funds, Colorado has safeguarded over 7,500 hazardous openings. Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Utah have all received recognition from OSMRE on exemplary non-coal 

projects. 

Colorado supports S.2779 which will maintain the congressional intent to provide 

states with the flexibility to use Title IV funds for high priority coal and non-coal 

sites and not impose any new restrictions on the use of the funds. With a very 

minor change to SMCRA to correct a misinterpretation by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, S. 2779 will return Colorado and other Western states to their longstanding role under SMCRA of directing abandoned mine grant funds to the highest 

priority needs at either coal or non-coal abandoned mines. 

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

present Colorado’s position on S. 2779. I look forward to working with the Committee in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BAZA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES, STATE OF UTAH, ON S. 2779 

My name is John R. Baza and I am the Director of the State of Utah’s Division 

of Oil, Gas and Mining that is part of the Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement for the record with respect 

to the legislative hearing on S. 2779, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain federal fund payments for qualified non-coal 

abandoned mined land (AML) reclamation projects. I wish to state that I am unequivocally in favor of, and the State of Utah supports the amended language of 

SMCRA being proposed by S. 2779. 

Utah has and will continue to receive significant new funding under the SMCRA 

reauthorization legislation; however, because of federal agency interpretation, we 

will not be allowed to use it on non-coal hazards, which comprise the major physical 

public health and safety threat related to abandoned mines in Utah. The U.S. Office 

of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement (OSMRE) within the Department 

of Interior is severely restricting the ability of states/tribes to spend AML funds on 

non-coal hazards. This restriction applies to non-certified states/tribes and has the 

greatest impact on three western states with large non-coal problems: Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. 

Beginning in federal Fiscal Year 2008, the states/tribes received a substantial increase in AML funds from three sources: state share, historic share, and unappropriated state share funds. Previously, at our own discretion, the states/tribes could 

use all AML funds for either high priority coal or non-coal projects. OSMRE is 

choosing to interpret the reauthorization legislation as requiring them to restrict the 

money connected with the historic share and the unappropriated state share to 

abandoned coal mine projects only. State share funds alone will be available for noncoal projects. The ramifications are draconian: for Fiscal Year 2008, Utah will have 

$1.0 out of $3.7 million, Colorado will have $1.9 out of $6.6 million, and New Mexico 

will only have $1.2 out of $4.2 million available for non-coal projects. 

Although OSMRE argues that the unappropriated state share is federal treasury 

money, there is another interpretation. I believe that the intent of Congress, as 

demonstrated by the reauthorized legislation, is to return this funding to the states 

and tribes. It is a purely arbitrary decision on OSMRE’s part regarding from which 

Treasury fund cost category they actually find the money to pay a long past due 

debt. OSMRE claims that SMCRA was designed to eliminate coal related AML prob-
8 

lems all along and that it is incumbent upon them to carry out Congress’ wishes 

and ensure the completion of coal AML projects and push programs to certification. 

I disagree. Congress recognized an abandoned mine problem and identified the coal 

industry and a fee on production as a vehicle to fund the amelioration of the problem. OSMRE has funded the non-coal projects that meet all criteria set out in 

SMCRA without objection for the past twenty-five years. OSMRE’s position on this 

matter suggests a bias against western states who will derive the most significant 

impact from such decision-making. I believe OSM is taking this opportunity to block 

legal avenues that allow western states to address the extreme non-coal abandoned 

mine hazards and is using every possible interpretation of the reauthorization language to channel available funding to eastern coal states. 

In Utah, Colorado and New Mexico almost all (if not all) fatalities and serious injuries associated with abandoned mines have occurred at non-coal mines. These 

non-coal dangers are our highest priority. While we will continue to conduct abandoned coal mine reclamation projects, if we had a choice, we would target all of our 

funding increase on the significant public health and safety hazards posed by noncoal abandoned mines. 

Utah previously submitted testimony to the Senate Energy Committee on this 

same problem. During the reauthorization discussions, it was our understanding 

that the Committee agreed with us that the reauthorization would not decrease our 

ability to safeguard non-coal hazards. We are extremely disappointed and concerned 

that OSMRE’s interpretation of the reauthorization legislation results in a significant cut in the funding available to mitigate the most hazardous sites in Utah. Even 

though we now have more funding available than in previous years, we are more 

restricted in how we can use those funds than ever before. We do not interpret the 

new language in the reauthorized law as a mandate to deny states/tribes the ability 

to manage their own programs in their own best interests and in the best interest 

of the public. Again, I wish to add my name to the list of individuals in support 

of this legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on S. 

2779. I would appreciate your efforts to advance this bill into law. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION, 

ON S. 2779 

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the opportunity to submit this 

statement for the record with respect to the legislative hearing on S. 2779, a bill 

to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is an organization of 24 

states located throughout the country that together produce some 95% of the Nation’s coal, as well as important hardrock and other noncoal minerals. Each IMCC 

member state has active mining operations as well as numerous abandoned mine 

lands within its borders and is responsible for regulating those operations and addressing mining-related environmental issues, including the reclamation of abandoned mines. Over the years, IMCC has worked with the states and others to identify the nature and scope of the abandoned mine land problem, along with potential 

remediation options. 

In testimony we presented to the Committee last March at an oversight hearing 

on hardrock abandoned mine lands (AML), we noted that nationally, abandoned 

mine lands continue to have significant adverse effects on the environment. Some 

of the types of environmental impacts that occur at AML sites include subsidence, 

surface and ground water contamination, erosion, sedimentation, chemical release, 

and acid mine drainage. Safety hazards associated with abandoned mines account 

for deaths and/or injuries each year. Abandoned and inactive mines, resulting from 

mining activities that occurred over the past 150 years, are scattered throughout the 

United States. The sites are located on private, state and public lands. 

Over the years, several studies have been undertaken in an attempt to quantify 

the hardrock AML cleanup effort. In 1991, IMCC and the Western Governors’ Association completed a multi-volume study of inactive and abandoned mines that provided one of the first broad-based scoping efforts of the national problem. Neither 

this study, nor any subsequent nationwide study, provides a quality, completely reliable, and fully accurate on-the-ground inventory of the hardrock AML problem. Both 

the 1991 study and a recent IMCC compilation of data on hardrock AML sites were 

based on available data and professional judgment. While the data is seldom comparable between states due to the wide variation in inventory criteria, they do dem-
9 

onstrate that there are large numbers of significant safety and environmental problems associated with inactive and abandoned hardrock mines and that remediation 

costs are very large. 

Some of the types of numbers that IMCC has seen reported in our Noncoal Report 

and in response to information we have collected for GAO and others include the 

following: Number of abandoned mine sites: Alaska—7,000; Arizona—80,000; California—47,000; Colorado—7,300; Montana—6,000; Nevada—16,000; Utah—17,000— 

20,000; Washington—3,800; Wyoming—1,700. Nevada reports over 200,000 mine 

openings; Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned mine lands. 

What becomes obvious in any attempt to characterize the hardrock AML problem 

is that it is pervasive and significant. And although inventory efforts are helpful in 

attempting to put numbers on the problem, in almost every case, the states are intimately familiar with the highest priority problems within their borders and also 

know where limited reclamation dollars must immediately be spent to protect public 

health and safety or protect the environment from significant harm. 

Today, state agencies are working on hardrock abandoned mine problems through 

a variety of limited state and federal funding sources. Various federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers and others have provided some funding for 

hardrock mine remediation projects. These state/federal partnerships have been instrumental in assisting the states with our hardrock AML work and, as states take 

on a larger role for hardrock AML cleanups into the future, we will continue to coordinate with our federal partners. However, most of these existing federal grants 

are project specific and do not provide consistent funding. For states with coal mining, the most consistent source of AML funding has been the Title IV grants under 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 409 of SMCRA 

allows states to use these grants at high priority non-coal AML sites. The funding 

is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at hardrock sites. 

In December 2006, Congress significantly amended the SMCRA AML program to, 

among other things, distribute funds to states in an amount equal to that previously 

allocated under SMCRA but never appropriated. However, while Section 409 was 

not changed or amended in any way, the Interior Department has now interpreted 

SMCRA to prohibit this enhanced funding from being used for noncoal projects. This 

is a significant blow to states such as New Mexico, Utah and Colorado which have 

previously used SMCRA AML funds to address many of the more serious hardrock 

AML problems. S.2779 would address this misinterpretation by the Interior Department and as a result we strongly support the bill. 

As you noted in a letter to Secretary Kempthorne last month Mr. Chairman, Interior’s interpretation not only disregards the fact that section 409 was left 

unamended by Congress, it is also inconsistent with assurances repeatedly given to 

the states and tribes by OSM during the consideration of the legislation that 

noncoal work could continue to be undertaken with these AML funds. The interpretation would also have the unacceptable result of requiring states and tribes to devote funds to low priority coal sites while leaving dangerous noncoal sites 

unaddressed. While OSM will argue that this may impact the amount of funding 

available to uncertified states to address high priority coal problems, Congress did 

not seem overly concerned with this result but rather deferred to its original framework for allowing both high priority coal and noncoal sites to be addressed. 

OSM has also argued in a recent proposed rule implementing the 2006 amendments to SMCRA (at 73 Fed. Reg. 35214, et seq.) that ‘‘prior balance replacement’’ 

funds (i.e the unappropriated state and tribal share balances in the AML Trust 

Fund) are fundamentally distinct from section 402(g) moneys distributed from the 

Fund. This, according to OSM, is due to the fact that these prior balance replacement funds are paid from U.S. Treasury funds and have not been allocated under 

section 402(g)(1). This is a distinction of convenience for the Interior Department’s 

interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and has no basis in reason or law. The fact 

is, these funds were originally allocated under section 402(g)(1), are due and owing 

pursuant to the operation of section 402(g)(1), and did not change their ‘‘color’’ simply because they are paid from a different source. Without the operation of section 

402(g)(1) in the first place, there would be no unappropriated (i.e. ‘‘prior’’) state and 

tribal share balances. The primary reason that Congress appears to have provided 

a new source for paying these balances is to preserve a balance in the AML Trust 

Fund to 1) generate continuing interest for the UMW Combined Benefit Trust Fund 

and 2) to insure that there was a reserve of funding left after fee collection terminates in 2021 to address any residual high priority historic coal problems. There 

was never an intent to condition or restrict the previously approved mechanisms 

and procedures that states and tribes were using to apply these moneys to high pri-
10 

ority coal and noncoal problems. To change the rules based on such a clever invention is inappropriate and inconsistent with law. 

For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this misinterpretation for 

noncoal AML work, it should also do so for the acid mine drainage (AMD) set aside 

program. Section 402(g)(6) has, since 1990, allowed a state or tribe to set aside a 

portion of its AML grant in a special AMD abatement account to address this pervasive problem. OSM’s recent policy (and now regulatory) determination is denying 

the states the option to set aside moneys from that portion of its grant funding that 

comes from ‘‘prior balance replacement funds’’ each year to mitigate the effects of 

AMD on waters within their borders. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout 

the country, but especially in Appalachia. Given their long-term nature, these problems are technologically challenging to address and, more importantly, are very expensive. The states need the ability to set aside as much funding as possible to deal 

with these problems over the long term. We therefore urge the Committee to amend 

S. 2779 to correct the current policy interpretation by Interior and allow the use 

of unappropriated state and tribal share balances (‘‘prior balance replacement 

funds’’) for the AMD set aside, similar to the use of these balances for noncoal work. 

Suggested amendatory language is attached to our statement. 

Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine lands have 

been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been closed, and safeguards for 

people, property and the environment have been put in place. There are numerous 

success stories from around the country where the states’ AML programs have 

saved lives and significantly improved the environment. Suffice it to say that the 

AML Trust Fund, and the work of the states pursuant to the distribution of monies 

from the Fund, have played an important role in achieving the goals and objectives 

of set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted—including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. Passage of S. 2779 will further these congressional goals and objectives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on S.2779. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative process and see this 

bill, as amended, become law. 

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 2779 TO INCLUDE THE AMD SET-ASIDE ACCOUNT

(AMENDMENTS ARE IN ITALICS) 

A BILL

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use 

certain payments for certain noncoal and acid mine drainage reclamation 

projects. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 

States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

(a) Limitation on Funds.—Section 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. Section 402(g)(6)(A) 

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 

1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

(b) Use of Funds.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6)’’ before ‘‘section 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 409’’ after ‘‘section 403’’. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINED LAND

PROGRAMS, ON S. 2779 

My name is Loretta Pineda and I serve as the president of the National Association of Abandoned Mined Land Programs (NAAMLP). 

The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 30 states and Indian 

tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related hazards. These states and 

tribes are responsible for 99.5% of the Nation’s coal production. All of the states and 

tribes within the NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation 

programs funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to 

Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87). 
11 

Since the enactment of SMCRA by Congress in 1977, the AML program has reclaimed thousands of dangerous sites left by abandoned coal mines, resulting in increased safety for millions of Americans. 

The Association was pleased with the passage of the 2006 Amendments to 

SMCRA. The 15-year extension coupled with increased funding has provided the 

states and tribes with the ability to focus on the protection of the public health and 

safety while ensuring restoration of abandoned mines nationwide. The reauthorization of the AML program by Congress did not in any way change the provisions that 

allow AML funds to be used to ameliorate either coal or non-coal mine public health 

and safety hazards. However, the Interior Department has now published proposed 

rules to prohibit some of this funding from being used to address many of the serious non-coal AML problems. 

Therefore, we strongly support S.2779, which makes very minor changes to 

SMCRA to correct a misinterpretation of SMCRA by the U.S. Department of the Interior. S. 2779 will return states to their longstanding role under SMCRA of directing abandoned mine grant funds to the highest priority needs at either coal or noncoal abandoned mines. 

The NAAMLP has worked closely with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the Western Governors’ Association in providing information to quantify 

the non-coal AML cleanup effort. While the data is seldom comparable between 

states due to the wide variation in inventory criteria, they do demonstrate that 

there are large numbers of significant safety and environmental problems associated 

with inactive and abandoned non-coal mines and that remediation costs are very 

large. 

Some of the types of numbers that have been reported by IMCC in response to 

information we have collected for GAO and others include the following: Number of 

abandoned mine sites: Alaska—7,000; Arizona—80,000; California—47,000; Colorado—7,300; Montana—6,000; Nevada—16,000; Utah—17,000—20,000; Washington—3,800; Wyoming—1,700. Nevada reports over 200,000 mine openings; Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned mine lands. 

States and Tribes are very familiar with the highest priority non-coal problems 

within their borders and also have limited reclamation dollars to protect public 

health and safety or protect the environment from significant harm. States and 

Tribes work closely with various federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, all of whom have provided some funding for noncoal mine remediation projects. For states with coal mining, the most consistent 

source of AML funding has been the Title IV grants received under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 409 of SMCRA allows states to 

use these grants at high priority non-coal AML sites. The funding is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at noncoal sites. 

In written statements that we presented to the Committee in November of 2007, 

the Association prioritized two issues of highest concern to us. One involved the restriction noted above regarding the use of unappropriated state and tribal share balances for noncoal AML work. The second involves a similar restriction on the use 

of these unappropriated balances for the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) set-aside program under SMCRA. Congress expanded this program in the 2006 Amendments to 

allow states and tribes to set-aside up to 30% of their grants funds for treating AMD 

now and into the future. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout the country, 

but especially in Appalachia. The states need the ability to set aside as much funding as possible to deal with these problems over the long term. Again, OSM has 

acted arbitrarily in their interpretation of the reauthorizing language by limiting 

the types of funds the state may use for the set-aside program. We have proposed 

amendatory language that would correct this misinterpretation and allow the states 

to apply the 30% set-aside to their prior balance replacement funds. (Suggested 

amendatory language is attached to our statement.) 

In summary: 

• Since the inception of SMCRA in 1977 and the approval of state/tribal AML programs in the early 1980’s, the states and tribes have been allowed to use their 

state share distributions under section 402(g)(1) of the AML Trust Fund for 

high priority noncoal reclamation projects pursuant to section 409 of SMCRA 

and for the set-aside program for acid mine drainage (AMD) projects. 

• In its most recent proposed rules, OSM has stated that these moneys cannot 

be used for noncoal reclamation or for the 30% AMD set-aside. 

• Pursuant to Section 411(h)(1) of the 2006 Amendments, the states and tribes 

assert that these moneys should also be available for noncoal reclamation under 
12 

section 409 and for the 30% AMD set-aside. There is nothing in the new law 

that would preclude this interpretation. Policy and practice over the past 30 

years confirm it. 

Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine lands have 

been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been closed, and safeguards for 

people, property and the environment have been put in place. Be assured that 

States and Tribes are determined to address the unabated hazards at both coal and 

non-coal abandoned mines. We are all united to play an important role in achieving 

the goals and objectives as set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted— 

including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing 

employment, and adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and 

noncoal mining. Passage of S. 2779 will further these congressional goals and objectives. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record with respect 

to the legislative hearing on S. 2779, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation 

projects. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative 

process and see this bill, as amended, become law. 

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 2779 TO INCLUDE THE AMD SET-ASIDE ACCOUNT

(AMENDMENTS ARE IN ITALICS) 

A BILL

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify 

that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal and acid mine drainage reclamation projects. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 

States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

(a) Limitation on Funds.—Section 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. Section 402(g)(6)(A) 

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 

1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

(b) Use of Funds.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6)’’ before ‘‘section 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 409’’ after ‘‘section 403’’. 

Senator WYDEN. We are going to hear today a number of bills, 

S. 2443 and H.R. 2246, to release a reversionary interest of the 

United States in certain lands in Reno, Nevada; S. 2779, to amend 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, to clarify 

that certain payments may be used for noncoal reclamation 

projects; S. 2875, to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide grants to reduce predation and compensate landowners for 

livestock loss due to predation; S. 2898 and H.R. 816, to release 

certain public land from the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area 

in the State of Nevada; S. 3157, to authorize an exchange of certain 

national forest land in Arizona to facilitate the development of a 

copper mine; S. 3179, to authorize the conveyance of certain land 

in the State of New Mexico to the Lovelace Respiratory Research 

Institute. 

Let me close my opening remarks by just commenting briefly on 

two bills that I have introduced that are extremely important to 

my home State, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008, S. 

3088, and 3089, the Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008. These 

two bills would protect as wilderness two especially unique treasures in the high desert of central and eastern Oregon. They reflect 
13 

the wild, rugged beauty that makes our State and our State’s terrain east of the Cascade Mountains incomparable. 

The Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act would designate as wilderness almost 30,000 acres of the area just east of Bend known as 

the Badlands, in addition to the area’s natural attributes of lava 

flows and 1,000-year-old ancient junipers, many in the business 

consider this wilderness area as a very substantial boost to the region’s hub as an area of great attraction for outdoor recreation. In 

the Bend area, people can enjoy virtually any sort of outdoor activity imaginable, and we are excited about the prospects of this legislation moving forward. 

The Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008 would designate approximately 8,600 acres as wilderness, and with some of the revised exchanges that are being discussed and are supported widely, 

that would expand to more than 9,200 acres. This is one of central 

Oregon’s premier wild areas. It overlooks the John Day Wild and 

Scenic River where you have spring wildflower blooms and canyons 

and diverse geology that again offers exceptional recreational opportunities for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, and other outdoor 

enthusiasts. 

So we will talk more about this legislation and other bills, but 

I know colleagues have strong views on the measures before them 

that affect their home States. Let me recognize the ranking minority member, Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester and I have a bill, S. 2875, The 

Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act that we have introduced. 

It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to 

carry out programs to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by gray wolves and other predators. The program will compensate landowners for livestock loss due to predation. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, ranching is the backbone of the Wyoming way of life and it is a time-honored and vital part of the fabric of our western heritage. The Federal Government reintroduced 

the gray wolf into our environment. The ranchers of Wyoming did 

not ask that the wolf be reintroduced. As a matter of fact, Wyoming 

ranchers opposed it because they knew what the consequences 

would be, and one of those ranchers is with us today. Often decisions are made in Washington and awful impacts are felt back at 

home, and for Wyoming ranchers the decision to reintroduce the 

wolf has led to livestock loss and a direct threat to our livelihood. 

The wolf has been devastating not just to our livestock but also to 

our wildlife. 

The State of Wyoming, acting in good faith, has done its part. 

The gray wolf was recently taken off of the Endangered Species 

Act, but it continues to be a serious problem and the introduction 

of the wolves continues to have a significant impact. 

The State of Wyoming spent $1.2 million last year providing 

compensation to ranchers who lost livestock. The State needs additional assistance from the Federal Government to ensure that 
14 

ranchers get the assistance they need for a problem not of their 

own making. Washington forced the wolf on Wyoming and on our 

adjacent States in Montana and in Idaho, and Washington has a 

responsibility to help pay for the damage. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on S. 

2779. This legislation addresses abandoned mines in the 

uncertified States and tribes, those which have not addressed all 

the priorities under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act. The legislation before this subcommittee today would allow, 

even require, that these uncertified States and tribes use Abandoned Mine Land funds paid by the coal companies to address 

entryways and tunnels of the noncoal mines. 

I understand this legislative fix serves the needs of western 

States like Utah and New Mexico and Colorado, but I am going to 

urge the full committee to include a related bill, S. 2448, in the 

same discussion. That second bill, Mr. Chairman, will also provide 

a legislative fix for western States and tribes like Wyoming and 

Montana, States that have been certified by the Department of the 

Interior as having addressed their reclamation priorities. 

In Wyoming’s case, the executive branch is operating under a 

twisted interpretation of the same law which is giving other western States fits. In Wyoming’s case, the Administration is interpreting the phrase ‘‘seven equal annual installments’’ as an unlimited number of unequal grants. Legislation is needed to correct this 

erroneous interpretation. As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, I 

trust that both corrections can be addressed concurrently. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, and most importantly, I want to extend 

a warm welcome to Mr. Charles Price of Daniel, Wyoming. He has 

traveled here today to testify on S. 2875 and share his experience 

with the Senate. Charles, I appreciate your taking the time away 

from the ranch to come to testify on this important piece of legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. I will not take 

much time at all. I appreciate you holding hearings on all these 

bills. 

As Senator Barrasso pointed out, I am here primarily for S. 

2875. I will save most of my comments for the questions. So thank 

you. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Wyden. It is good to be here 

with you. 

I will start my remarks by addressing two wilderness bills that 

you have spoken to already, the Oregon Badlands and the Spring 

Basin Wilderness Acts. I would like to acknowledge all the extraor-
15 

dinary efforts that have been made by all parties to develop these 

two pieces of legislation. 

The Spring Basin area has been proposed as a wilderness since 

1980. It is encouraging as a legislator to be presented with a proposal that has already been thoroughly vetted by local governments 

and stakeholders. The BLM, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Indian Reservation, local landowners, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association have joined together in supporting this proposal. So today I would like to lend my support and ask that I be 

added as a cosponsor. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Smith, that is a request that is granted, 

and I thank you for it. 

Senator SMITH. This proposal contains four previously negotiated 

land exchanges between private landowners and the BLM, bringing 

the total area to be designated as contiguous wilderness to 8,632 

acres. There is a proposal by the Warm Springs Tribe to increase 

the designated wilderness to 9,268 acres by revising the lands exchanged between the tribe and BLM. The revised land exchange I 

believe improves the proposed Spring Basin Wilderness, and I will 

work with you, Senator Wyden, to see if this can be incorporated 

as well. 

The Oregon Badlands Area was also originally set aside for wilderness designation in 1980. The Badlands proposal includes two 

small land exchanges and creates a wilderness area of nearly 

30,000 acres. This area is only 15 miles east of the city of Bend. 

It is replete with jagged rock formations, Native American pictographs, ancient western juniper trees, and a diversity of wildlife 

from deer and elk to mountain lions and golden eagles. There is no 

question that this is a special area and it is worth protecting. 

I do want, though, to raise a couple of concerns for designating 

Badlands as wilderness, and that is—and we will work on this, 

Senator, to see if we can resolve this—the potential impact to 

offroad recreation. I understand that the Badlands were closed to 

off-highway vehicle use in 2005 and adjacent areas contain over 

600 miles of trails for offroad use. I would like to ensure that these 

alternate areas are adequate to meet the local demand, and we 

will, I am confident, be able to come up with some accommodation 

on this. 

Additionally, while both these wilderness proposals have broad 

support and do not affect grazing, this committee, I believe, should 

do all it can to ensure that family ranches are not regulated or litigated out of existence. I would ask the many conservation groups 

that back these wilderness bills to work with me and work with 

Oregon cattlemen to find a more appropriate way forward for grazing on public lands in eastern Oregon. 

Part of the solution includes releasing lands designated as wilderness study areas when supported by local government and 

stakeholders, both the Spring Basin and Oregon Badlands areas 

have been held as WSA’s since 1980. While I believe these areas 

are worthy of wilderness designation, some of the WSA’s simply are 

not and are being locked away from those who are making their 

living off the land. 

I would plead with conservation groups to stop the litigation. 

There is an accommodation that can be found here. Wilderness is 
16 

different than WSA. Some should be wilderness. We should finish 

the process, but this limbo that leaves cattlemen and everyone dissatisfied I think really deserves some kind of conclusion. Otherwise, I am left with little recourse but to respond with legislation 

to maintain cattle grazing at levels consistent with the land’s capacity. 

Also before the committee today, I am fully supportive of the 

Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act. Oregon’s Department of 

Fish and Wildlife has a wolf management plan in place and ready 

to implement pending further State legislative action. The Federal 

plan proposed by Senators Tester and Barrasso is similar to the 

Oregon plan, including a compensation component for livestock 

owners whose animals are destroyed by wolf predation. 

So I fully support the Senators’ work on the gray wolf act, and 

I would like to encourage the geographic expansion of this legislation. In its current form, the bill covers Montana, Wyoming, and 

Idaho. The successful recovery of gray wolves, however, has expanded their habitat boundary into eastern Oregon and eastern 

Washington. I believe we have an obligation to protect not only the 

declining species, but also the ranching families who make their 

living off the land of this great country. 

Once again, I would like to thank all of the parties who have assisted in crafting these bills, and I look forward to shepherding 

their refinement and their passage with Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Smith, thank you, and we will be working together on these bills. 

Let us go to Senator Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden, for 

holding this hearing. 

I want to simply state my appreciation to Chairman Bingaman 

and to Senator Allard for their support of 2799. The abandoned 

mine land issue is a major issue for us in the western States. In 

Colorado alone, we have some 17,000 abandoned mines, and action 

needs to be taken on them. Under the current interpretation of the 

Department of the Interior, we cannot access those funds in the 

State of Colorado, and the same is true for many of our western 

States, including New Mexico. So I am here just to voice my support for that legislation. 

I also would like to enter into the record a letter of June 6, 2007, 

which was signed by Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, Senator Allard, Senator Hatch, and myself, as well as other Senators 

whose names I cannot read, and ask that this letter of June 6 be 

included as part of the record. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, that will be ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, June 6, 2007. 

Hon. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY KEMPTHOME: We are writing to voice our serious concern over 

what we understand is a proposed interpretation by the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) of certain provisions relating to the Aban-
17 

doned Mine Land (AML) Program contained in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act 

of 2006. That law reauthorized collection of the AML fee and made certain modifications to the AML program. While we strongly support the AML program, we are 

concerned that OSM may interpret the new law in a manner that would prevent 

certain western states from addressing some of the most significant problems relating to abandoned mines—those involving abandoned non-coal mines. 

Section 409 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), provides that states may address public health and safety hazards at abandoned mine 

sites, both coal and non-coal. Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and 

Utah, have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both coal and non-coal mine sites. While these activities consume 

a relatively insignificant piece of the funding provided for the overall AML program, 

the results in terms of the public health and safety in these states is considerable. 

There is significant work yet to be done. For example, we understand that New 

Mexico alone has over 10,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these 

being non-coal, and that all fatalities there in the last few decades have been at 

non-coal mine sites. 

We understand that OSM, nevertheless, is seriously considering an interpretation 

of the recently-enacted amendments to SMCRA that would prevent western, noncertified states from using for non-coal work their historic state share and the payments comprising their previously unappropriated balances. We believe this interpretation is in error. First, it disregards the fact that section 409 was left 

unamended by the Congress. Furthermore, this interpretation is inconsistent with 

assurances repeatedly given to us by OSM during the consideration of the legislation that non-coal work could continue to be undertaken with these AML funds. Finally, the interpretation apparently being considered by OSM would have the unacceptable result of requiring these states to devote funds to low priority coal sites 

while leaving dangerous non-coal sites unaddressed. 

A fair reading of the recently-enacted amendments allows the use of AML funds, 

including historic and unappropriated balance allocations, for high priority non-coal 

sites in these uncertified western states. We strongly urge you to adopt this interpretation. 

Sincerely, 

JEFF BINGAMAN, 

U.S. Senator. 

PETE DOMENICI, 

U.S. Senator. 

KEN SALAZAR, 

U.S. Senator. 

WAYNE ALLARD, 

U.S. Senator. 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, 

U.S. Senator. 

ORRIN HATCH, 

U.S. Senator. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank the Senator. 

Senator Kyl is on his way, but I think in the interest of time, 

let us go forward and have the Administration panel come up. I do 

want to make clear that when Senator Kyl gets here, we will recognize Senator Kyl. 

Alice Williams, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and 

Environment, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy; Michael Nedd, Assistant Director of Minerals and 

Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management, Department of 

the Interior; and Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the National Forest 

System of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Why do 

you three not come on up? 

I am going to make your prepared statements a part of the 

record, and I always try—Mr. Holtrop has heard me say this—to 

see if I can persuade people to just summarize their principal con-
18 

cerns and it will save some time along the way. So if I can persuade you all to do that, extra points awarded for that. 

Ms. Williams, welcome, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALICE WILLIAMS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you to Chairman Bingaman and Mr. Domenici for introducing the 

legislation. 

My name is Alice Williams. I am the Associate Administrator for 

Infrastructure and Environment at the National Nuclear Security 

Administration of the Department of Energy. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on S. 3179, a bill to 

convey approximately 135 acres of land currently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Air Force but leased to the Secretary 

of Energy and the DOE improvements on that land to the Lovelace 

Respiratory Research Institute. S. 3179 also directs the change in 

administrative jurisdiction of another approximately 7 acres of land 

from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of the Air Force. 

The Department supports both elements of S. 3179. 

The Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, formerly known as the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, is located within the boundaries of Kirtland Air Force Base in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. 

The facility served an important role from 1960 to 1996 as a Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory performing research for the DOE and its predecessor agencies on the effects of 

inhalation of hazardous substances. 

In 1996, the Department determined that the facility was no 

longer required for its mission. In an effort to continue its productive use for research and to mitigate the economic impact that closing the facility would have on the Albuquerque community, the facility was placed under long-term lease to the Lovelace Respiratory 

Research Institute, which has operated it for the U.S. Government 

since its inception. 

Should I continue? 

Senator WYDEN. Why do we not do this, Ms. Williams? Why do 

you not finish your statement, because I know you were going to 

take 5 minutes, and Senator Kyl is a very gracious soul. When you 

are done with your statement, then we will go right to Senator Kyl. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

S. 3179 provides for the completion of the privatization of this facility by transferring the real property and improvements from the 

Federal Government to the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The bill specifies that the property and facilities must be used 

for the continuation of their current research, scientific, or educational purposes. 

S. 3179 further requires that Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute will take title to the property as contaminated, regardless 

of whether that contamination originated from past Government 

operations, and conduct any and all environmental remediation 

that might be required in the future. The assumption of this re-
19 

sponsibility provides for a significant benefit to the taxpayer by 

transferring an estimated liability in excess of $20 million in decontamination and demolition costs for a facility that is excess to the 

Department’s mission. 

Finally, S. 3179 directs the change in administrative jurisdiction 

of another approximately 7 acres of land from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of the Air Force. This property is no longer 

required by the Department, and we support its transfer for beneficial use to the Department of the Air Force. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and as appropriate, I 

will be happy to address questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE WILLIAMS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ON S. 3179 

Thank you Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso and distinguished members of the subcommittee, and thank you to Chairman Bingaman and Mr. Domenici 

for introducing this legislation. My name is Alice Williams. I am the Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment at the National Nuclear Security 

Administration of the Department of Energy (DOE). I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today on S. 3179, a bill to convey approximately 135 acres of land currently 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Air Force but leased to the Secretary 

of Energy, and the DOE improvements on that land to the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI). S. 3179 also directs the change in administrative jurisdiction of another approximately 7 acres of land from the Secretary of Energy to the 

Secretary of the Air Force. 

The Department of Energy supports both elements of S. 3179. 

BACKGROUND

The Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, formerly known as the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, is located within the boundaries of Kirtland Air Force 

Base in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. This facility served an important role from 

1960 to 1996 as a government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory performing research for the DOE and its predecessor agencies on the effects of inhalation of hazardous substances. In 1996, the Department determined that the facility was no 

longer required for its mission. In an effort to continue its productive use for research, and to mitigate the economic impact that closing the facility would have on 

the Albuquerque community, the facility was placed under long-term lease to the 

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, which had operated it for the United 

States government since its inception. 

This ‘‘privatization initiative’’ has been a significant success. The facility now has 

gross revenues exceeding $50M and provides employment for more than 500 workers in the Albuquerque area. The facility enjoys a very positive technical reputation 

for its work in inhalation toxicology supporting both the private and public sector. 

S. 3179

S. 3179 provides for the completion of the privatization of this facility by transferring the real property and improvements from the federal government to the LRRI. 

The bill specifies that the property and facilities must be used for a continuation 

of their current research, scientific or educational purposes. S. 3179 further requires 

that LRRI will take title to the property ‘‘as contaminated’’ regardless of whether 

that contamination originated from past government operations and conduct any 

and all environmental remediation that might be required in the future. The assumption of this responsibility provides for a significant benefit to the taxpayer by 

transferring an estimated liability in excess of $20 million dollars in decontamination and demolition costs for a facility that is excess to the Department’s Mission. 

Finally, S. 3179 directs the change in administrative jurisdiction of another approximately 7 acres of land from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of the 

Air Force. This property is no longer required by the Department and we support 

its transfer for beneficial use to the Department of the Air Force. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 
20 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Williams, thank you. 

Senator Kyl, I know you are very busy as a member of the Republican leadership, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the benefit of 

everyone here, we are right in between some votes, and I really appreciate the four of my colleagues being here to hear these important witnesses on these matters. 

I am testifying about the Southwest Arizona Land Exchange and 

Conservation Act. I just want to say three quick things about this 

legislation. 

We know that our copper needs in this country are going to increase exponentially, especially if we can produce more things like 

hybrid vehicles and other things which require more copper for 

electrical use. There has been a find in Arizona that is almost unsurpassed perhaps in the history of the United States with respect 

to copper, and I say that with some trepidation knowing that there 

is a lot of copper produced in the State of Montana as well, but this 

is huge. 

Part of the problem is that there is some public land overlaying 

this. That gets to part two, the benefit to the public of being able 

to acquire some extraordinary lands currently private that would 

be put into public use. These lands have tremendous environmental 

value, and rather than just listing them and so on, I will refer 

them. Your staff is well aware of them. Just a couple of examples. 

More than 2 miles of a perennial trout stream on East Clear 

Creek. I have been there. It is beautiful country, very important in 

our State that does not have very many perennial streams. 

Almost 7 miles of land spanning both sides of the lower San 

Pedro. This is the last totally flowing river in the State of Arizona. 

It has got to be preserved. There are a lot of efforts underway to 

preserve it. This is part of those efforts. There are some ranches, 

some inholdings in the Tonto National Forest, and so on. 

But the bottom line is that this mine, which does have to have 

a land exchange involved in it, offers us a wonderful opportunity 

to acquire these environmentally sensitive lands as well. 

Incidentally, this mine that I speak of could have a total economic impact of more than $50 billion. That is just how big this 

thing is. 

The third I want to mention is that when we first introduced this 

bill, despite the best efforts of all of the people in Arizona working 

on it—and there is virtual total unanimity among the leaders in 

the State of Arizona to support this, and they thought they had 

every single problem that could conceivably be brought up worked 

out. That is where the staffs of the minority and majority of this 

committee come in. They are really good at finding other things 

that need to be addressed, and the truth of the matter is there 

were a lot of serious questions that were asked by your staffs that 

have now been addressed. I think the best way for me to have you 

confirm that is just talk to your staff. 

We basically took a lot of their recommendations in incorporating 

changes into the legislation. They involved three specific areas, one 

relating to NEPA. I mean, there can be no question that there has 
21 

to be NEPA analysis in connection with this, and there has been 

basically a belt and suspenders put on that in the legislation. 

There was a question of market value because this copper is so 

deep into the ground, it is hard to know right now what the real 

value is and, therefore, how much land exchange you do. Built into 

this now is essentially a provision of whatever that value turns out 

to be, that is what the Government is going to get. There will be 

a value adjustment for the benefit of the Government. From my 

standpoint, that is a good thing for this bill because we can better 

assure our taxpayer constituents that they are going to get their 

money’s worth no matter what, however it turns out the value of 

this is. 

Then finally, there were some questions about a State park and 

climbing opportunities for mountain climbers—rock climbers, rather. I believe those issues have now all been worked out. 

So we changed the legislation originally introduced in those three 

respects, again pursuant primarily to recommendations of staff. I 

think it has made it a better bill. It certainly has provided a unanimous or nearly unanimous point of view among all of the key 

stakeholders in Arizona. I am really hopeful because a lot rides on 

how quickly we can do this in terms of the financial commitment 

to develop the mine that we can complete this legislation this year. 

It is really critical that we be able to move it forward quickly. 

Therefore, I very appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your holding this 

hearing and pledge to work with you if there are any other questions or issues that arise that we need to deal with. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Kyl, we will work very closely with you, 

and we will make sure that it is bipartisan, that all the staff is involved and that we do it quickly. 

Senator KYL. Great. Thank you very, very much, and I appreciate your attention. Thank you, colleagues, for letting me interrupt 

here. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us go now to Mr. Holtrop. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to provide the Department of Agriculture’s views on S. 3157. You have my full statement 

for the record and this afternoon I will summarize our views on 

provisions that relate to National Forest System lands. 

S. 3157 is a complex land exchange bill that directs the Secretary 

of Agriculture to convey to Resolution Copper Mining Company 

lands and interests in the Tonto National Forest, Arizona, in exchange for private lands and funds to acquire additional lands in 

the State of Arizona for management by the U.S. Forest Service 

and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Because this proposed exchange would result in the protection of 

lands that have outstanding natural qualities, as Senator Kyl just 

expressed, the Department supports the exchange and believes that 

overall it is in the public interest. 

We provided testimony last November on a similar bill, and we 

understand that S. 3157 reflects modifications in response to var-
22 

ious concerns and we appreciate these changes. However, some 

concerns remain and we have some new concerns which I will highlight. 

A new provision adds a 95-acre parcel called The Pond, which 

would be conveyed to the Department of Agriculture. Rock climbers 

currently use this area, and it could serve as an alternative for 

those displaced from climbing areas that would be conveyed to Resolution Copper. While we agree this offers an attractive site for 

climbers, it lacks access and infrastructure for public use. This includes safe parking, pedestrian access, and sanitary facilities, and 

we would like to work with the subcommittee to amend the bill to 

require that improvements be completed prior to the parcel’s conveyance. 

This bill includes a new provision that specifies which pre-exchange processing tasks are to be done, including land survey and 

various reviews. It requires the exchange to be completed within 1 

year. We still believe this is an insufficient time to complete all the 

work necessary to complete the exchange. This includes development and review of a mineral report, completion of appraisals and 

surveys, verification of title documents, and the many specified 

clearances, reviews, and consultation with Indian tribes. 

Another new provision directs the Secretary to complete an environmental impact statement post-exchange, but prior to commencing mineral production regarding any Federal agency action 

carried out relating to commercial production. The bill does not 

specify which party would be responsible for the costs of these provisions and our support is contingent upon the requirement that 

Resolution Copper would be responsible for these costs. 

We are concerned about provisions of section 5 regarding failure 

of the parties to agree on the value of any parcel. The bill would 

require that disputes be resolved through binding arbitration procedures found in a section of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. That section, however, is intended for discretionary exchanges. Accordingly, we believe that the bill should be 

amended to more specifically address applicable options. 

S. 3157 includes a new provision that would require a payment 

to the United States should actual mineral production exceed the 

projected production from the appraisal. The Administration generally supports this approach but would like to work with the subcommittee to clarify specific intent and implementation procedures, 

as well as the disposition of receipts. 

The bill directs the Secretary to design and construct one or more 

campgrounds to replace the Oak Flat Campground. We appreciate 

that changes have been made to this provision based on previous 

testimony. We still believe, however, it will be difficult to find a 

suitable replacement site. The funding cited in the bill remains insufficient and it may be difficult to construct a replacement campground within 4 years. We would like to work with the subcommittee to consider alternatives. 

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:] 
23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON S. 3157 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to provide the Department of Agriculture’s view on S. 

3157, the ‘‘Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008.’’ 

I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill directly related to National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and will defer to the Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

S. 3157 is a complex land exchange bill that directs the Secretary of Agriculture 

to convey to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (Resolution Copper) certain lands and 

interests in the Tonto National Forest, Arizona, in exchange for private lands and 

funds to acquire additional lands in the State of Arizona for management by the 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

The Department believes that the acquisition of the non-federal parcels to be 

managed as part of the NFS would provide protection for riparian habitat and water 

rights, archeological sites, two miles along a permanently flowing trout stream, a 

year round pond and an endangered cactus species. The Department provided testimony last November on a similar bill, H.R. 3301, and we understand that S. 3157 

reflects modifications to that bill in response to various concerns. We appreciate 

these changes. However, some concerns remain and we have some new concerns regarding the new provisions in this bill. In this context, the Department supports the 

exchange as well as the valuation provisions, and believes it is in the public interest, although some concerns remain regarding the overall bill. 

The bill directs the exchange of a 3,025-acre parcel referred to as the ‘‘Oak Flat’’ 

parcel from the United States for nine parcels of land owned by Resolution Copper, 

six of which would be conveyed to the Department of Agriculture: the 147-acre Turkey Creek parcel in Gila County; the 148-acre Tangle Creek parcel in Yavapai 

County; the 149.3-acre Cave Creek parcel in Maricopa County; the 266-acre JI 

Ranch parcel the 95-acre parcel referred to as The Pond in Pinal County (all located 

within the Tonto National Forest); and the 640-acre East Clear Creek parcel in 

Coconino County located within the Coconino National Forest. 

As a condition of the exchange, the bill requires Resolution Copper to convey a 

695-acre conservation easement for the Apache Leap escarpment on lands to be conveyed from the United States to Resolution Copper. This conservation easement, 

which would be held by a qualified unit of government, an Indian tribe, a land trust 

or certain other organizations, would provide permanent protection for the parcel 

from surface disturbance and ensure future public access and use. 

S. 3157 also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the Town of Superior, upon the Town’s request, the 30-acre town cemetery and approximately 181 

acres adjacent to the Superior airport. In addition, upon request by the Town, the 

Secretary shall convey the reversionary interest and any reserved mineral interest 

in the 265-acre Superior airport site already owned by the Town. 

S. 3157 includes the 95-acre parcel called The Pond that was not a part of H.R. 

3301, which would be conveyed to the Department of Agriculture. We understand 

that this area is currently used by rock climbers and could accommodate those who 

are displaced from current climbing areas that would be conveyed to Resolution 

Copper. While the Forest Service agrees that this would be an attractive site for 

climbers, it lacks the access and infrastructure to accommodate public use, such as 

safe parking, pedestrian access, and sanitary facilities. We would like to work with 

the Subcommittee and the bill’s sponsor to amend the bill to require such accommodations be completed prior to the conveyance of the parcel to the Secretary. 

If the value of the Federal land to be exchanged exceeds that of the non-Federal 

land in the specified 9 parcels, section 5(b) of the bill requires that Resolution Copper make a cash equalization payment. The payment may be greater than the 25 

percent limit imposed by Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b). All cash equalization funds are to be deposited into 

the Federal Land Disposal Account and could be used for either 1) acquisition of 

additional lands from willing sellers within the hydrographic boundary of the San 

Pedro River within a 2-year period from the date of the deposit or 2) the management and protection of endangered species and other sensitive land or environmental values in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

It is our understanding that upon completion of the land exchanges described 

above, Resolution Copper would explore developing a very deep copper mine beneath 

the Oak Flat parcel. 

Section 4(d) of the bill requires that the exchange contemplated by S. 3157 will 

be completed within one year. The Department believes that this is insufficient time 

to complete all the work necessary to complete the exchange, including the develop-
24 

ment and review of a mineral report, completion of appraisals and surveys, 

verification of title documents, and the many environmental clearances, reviews, 

and the consultation with Indian Tribes required under various laws, regulations, 

and policy, as outlined in section 4(e). 

Section 4(g) is a new provision not in H.R. 3301 that requires pre-exchange processing including land survey and specified reviews that are normally done in the 

course of a land exchange. Section 4(h) directs the Secretary to complete an environmental impact statement post-exchange but prior to commencing mineral production 

regarding any Federal agency action carried out relating to commercial production. 

The bill does not specify which party would be responsible for the costs of these provisions. The Department’s support is contingent upon the clarification section 4(e) 

to require that Resolution Copper would be responsible for these costs. 

We are concerned about the provisions of section 5(a)(3) regarding the failure of 

the parties to agree on the value of any parcel. As written, the bill would require 

that a dispute would be resolved through binding arbitration procedures pursuant 

to section 206(d) of FLPMA. However, section 206(d) is intended for discretionary 

exchanges. Accordingly, we believe section 5(a)(3) of the bill should be amended to 

more specifically address those options in section 206(d) of FLPMA that would be 

applicable to this exchange. We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the 

bill’s sponsor to amend section 5(a)(3) accordingly. 

S. 3157 includes a provision in Section 10 that would require a payment to the 

United States should the cumulative production of locatable minerals exceed the 

projected production used in the appraisal required by section 5(a)(4)(B). This provision recognizes that an accurate projection of future production will be difficult to 

develop, and provides a mechanism for additional payments to the United States 

should actual production exceed the projected production. The Administration generally supports this approach but would like to work with the committee to clarify 

the specific intent and implementation procedures, as well as the disposition of receipts. 

We object to the language in Section 10(b)(2) that makes funds from potential 

mineral revenue payments available for expenditure without further appropriation. 

This provision is meant to ensure that the government is fairly compensated in the 

event that the valuation process underestimates the amount of mineral resource 

that is ultimately recovered, and we support this objective. However, the legislation 

addresses the exchange of lands with mineral interests, the value of which may not 

be fully realized until long after the exchange has taken place. We would like to 

work with the committee to ensure that the bill deposits the receipts into the Treasury, subject to future appropriation. 

If the final appraised value of the non-Federal land exceeds the value of the Federal land, Section 5(d) reduces the Town’s payment for land it elects to purchase 

from the Secretary by an amount equal to the difference in the values. We would 

like to work with the committee to ensure that the taxpayer receives full fair market value in the sale to the Town, in keeping with long-standing policy. 

Section 8(a) directs the Secretary to design and construct one or more campgrounds, including access routes, on the Globe Ranger District of the Tonto National 

Forest within four years to replace the Oak Flat campground. We appreciate that 

changes have been made to this provision based on previous testimony on H.R. 

3301, to double the amount of funding and time to accomplish this task. However, 

concerns remain. We still believe it will be difficult to find a suitable replacement 

site within the Globe Ranger District, the funding cited in the bill remains insufficient to construct a new campground to current standards, and construction of a replacement campground within 4 years may be difficult to accomplish. One alternative to constructing a replacement campground would be to add to or upgrade existing campgrounds on the Globe Ranger District. We would like to work with the 

Subcommittee and the bill’s sponsor to address our concerns. 

Section 8(b) also was added to address concerns raised in our testimony on H.R. 

3301, but concerns remain regarding this provision as well. This section provides 

an interim period for the Forest Service to retain title to, operate, and maintain Oak 

Flat Campground. Due to the complex nature of this exchange, we are concerned 

that the completion of the land exchange could be delayed. We interpret the bill as 

requiring the Secretary to deed the campground and revoke the mineral withdrawal 

only if the land exchange is completed. We would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to clarify this language. 

Finally, we would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill’s sponsor to address some technical issues with the bill and to ensure that the maps described in 

the bill accurately reflect bill language, and are referenced and dated properly. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 
25 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Holtrop, thank you. 

Let us go next to you, Mr. Nedd. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEDD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DANNY LYTTON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF RECLAMATION SUPPORT, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING; AND ED 

BANGS, WOLF RECOVERY COORDINATOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, MONTANA 

Mr. NEDD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on seven bills 

of interest to the Department of the Interior. Because there are so 

many bills before us, I will very briefly summarize the Administration’s position on each of these and ask that our entire statement 

be made part of the record. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, that will be done. 

Mr. NEDD. The Department supports with minor modification S. 

2443 and H.R. 2246 which release any reversionary interest of the 

Federal Government to lands granted to Union Pacific under the 

act of 1862 within a 2-mile subsurface railroad corridor in Reno, 

Nevada. We believe this bill takes the correct approach to clarify 

any potential land title question that could result from placing this 

section of railway below grade. 

S. 2779 amends the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to authorize States and Indian tribes that have not certified completion of their coal-related abandoned mine land problems to expend funds received under section 411(h)(1) on noncoalrelated AML problems. The Department is concerned that the bill 

would ultimately delay coal-related health and safety reclamation 

work that is a priority to ensure the health and safety of people 

who live in or near our national historic coal fields. 

Danny Lytton, Chief, Division of Reclamation Support with the 

Office of Surface Mines, is accompanying me today and will be 

happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have on S. 

2779. 

The Administration opposes S. 2875, the Gray Wolf Livestock 

Loss Mitigation Act of 2008. Ed Bangs, Wolf Recovery Coordinator 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service out of Montana, is accompanying me today and will be happy to answer any questions the 

subcommittee may have on S. 2875. 

S. 2898 and H.R. 816 release 65 acres of public land within the 

Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area to provide for construction of 

a flood control project. The BLM supports S. 2898 and H.R. 816, 

but we recommend amending the legislation to release the entire 

ISA from interim management of its wilderness value so that the 

land can be managed for other multiple use and under existing 

conservation agreements for the area. 

The Department generally supports S. 3088, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act, and S. 3089, the Spring Basin Wilderness 

Act. Both of these bills designate public lands in Oregon as wilderness and provide for related land exchanges. However, we would 

like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the committee 
26 

to make modification to some of the land exchanges, as well as 

some of the management and technical improvements to both bills. 

In general, the Department of the Interior supports the efforts of 

congressional delegations to resolve wilderness issues in their 

States. Congress has the sole authority to designate land to be 

managed as wilderness and we have repeatedly urged that these 

issues be addressed legislatively. 

The Department supports the principal goal of S. 3157, the 

Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, though in 

general we defer to the United States Forest Service on issues directly related to National Forest Service System lands and associated validation issues. We appreciate that a number of changes 

have been made to the legislation in response to concerns raised in 

previous testimony. However, we would like the opportunity to continue to work with the sponsor and the committee on a number of 

additional modifications to the legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Administration’s 

position on these bills. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Nedd follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL NEDD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY

AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

S. 2443, H.R. 2246

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 2443, a bill to release any reversionary 

interest of the United States in and to certain lands located in Reno, Nevada. During consideration of similar legislation on October 23, 2007 before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands, we testified that we believed the goals of the House bill could be accomplished in a more simplified manner. The House-passed bill, H.R. 2246 and S.2443 

are identical bills that partially address our recommendations. The BLM appreciates 

the work of the sponsors in crafting these bills and we support S.2443 with a minor 

modification. 

Background 

In the mid-19th century, the Congress sought to encourage the development of the 

West by providing incentives for transcontinental railroads. Among those incentives 

was the Act of July 1, 1862, authorizing a transcontinental railroad to be built by 

the Union Pacific Railroad and Telegraph Company. As part of that authorization, 

the railroad was granted a right-of-way across public lands. One small piece of that 

right-of-way is addressed in S. 2443. 

A portion of the Union Pacific rail line authorized under the 1862 Act runs 

through downtown Reno, Nevada. As an active rail line, there was increasing concern about safety and traffic flow issues. The city of Reno found a creative solution 

in the form of the ReTrac (Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor) project, and 

in late 2005, the first trains began to run on a 2-mile long, 54-foot wide, 33-foot 

deep, train trench through downtown Reno. Unfortunately, there have been some 

questions raised about whether the right-of-way given to the railroad under the 

1862 Act is affected by the subsurface nature of these two miles of line. In addition, 

it is unclear whether the Federal government retains a reversionary interest in the 

corridor. 

S. 2443 

S. 2443 would resolve these questions by releasing any reversionary interest of 

the Federal government to lands granted to Union Pacific under the Act of 1862 

within the subsurface corridor. We would like the opportunity to work with the 

sponsor and the committee on minor modifications to the map so that the reversionary clause would only be released on those lands within the subsurface corridor. 

We believe this bill applies the correct approach to clarifying any potential land title 

questions to this 2 mile subsurface railroad corridor. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 
27 

S. 2875

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Administration’s views on S. 2875, 

the ‘‘Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act of 2008’’. For the reasons outlined 

below, the Administration opposes this legislation. 

Background 

On February 27, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a 

final rule to remove the gray wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains from 

the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. In doing so, the Service announced that the wolf had exceeded its numerical, distributional, and temporal recovery goals every year since 2002, and that the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming had made strong commitments to maintain wolf populations well above minimum recovery levels. The delisting was effective March 28, 2008. 

Since the time of its reintroduction, wolf depredation of livestock has been a concern among some landowners and grazing permittees. The Service, Tribes, State fish 

and wildlife agencies in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and USDA Wildlife Services 

currently work together to investigate and respond to reports of suspected wolf damage to livestock. The States and Tribes have signed cooperative management agreements with USDA Wildlife Services to assist them with wolf management. The 

States also have laws to protect private property from damage caused by wildlife 

that are similar to the Federal experimental population regulations that were in effect while wolves were listed. Under those laws, landowners and grazing permittees 

will be able to shoot wolves attacking or molesting their domestic animals, just as 

they now can shoot resident black bears or mountain lions that are seen attacking 

or harassing their livestock. Since 1987, a private group, the Defenders of Wildlife, has paid nearly $900,000 

for livestock and herding and guarding animals killed by wolves in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. However, it is uncertain if that private compensation program 

will continue now that wolves are delisted. Therefore, the States of Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming, as well as adjacent states, anticipate that State-administered compensation programs for wolf damage will complement or take the place of the Defenders program after delisting. 

S. 2875 

The ‘‘Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act’’ authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants to states and Indian tribes to pay a share of the cost of programs to compensate livestock producers for actions to reduce the risk of predation 

and for losses due to predation. The bill sets out eligibility requirements, provisions 

for allocation of funding, and provides for a maximum Federal cost share of 50 percent. 

In our view, for predator compensation and damage mitigation to be effective components of wildlife conservation strategies, such programs must seek to accomplish 

specific goals that contribute to the overall strategy. Further, incentives to private 

landowners must operate on clear bases of fact and performance so as to maintain 

the credibility and fairness of expenditures. The program proposed in S. 2875 falls 

short of both these requirements and, because of its broad scope, it could also be 

unacceptably expensive and difficult to implement. As wolf management is now a 

matter for the State governments, whether and how to use compensation programs 

to advance State management goals is most appropriately for State governments to 

decide. We are concerned, however, that the proposed program would privilege for 

Federal cost-sharing purposes a particular approach, financial compensation for 

damage, to a specific conservation issue, human-predator conflict, regardless of the 

conservation priorities identified by the States. 

Another of the Administration’s major concerns with the legislation is its broad 

scope, which would cover a wide range of predatory species and livestock losses. The 

bill defines a ‘‘predatory species’’ as ‘‘gray wolves, grizzly bear, and other predatory 

species, as determined by the Secretary.’’ Other predators that cause livestock damage could include mountain lion, golden eagle, black bear, coyote, fox, and many 

types of predatory birds. In the Northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Wyoming, 

and Idaho alone, the Service estimates that there are over 1,000 grizzly bears, several thousand mountain lions and golden eagles, and tens of thousands of black 

bear, coyotes, fox, and raptors. All of these animals are capable of causing livestock 

losses due to predation, or necessitating some type of preventative measure that reduces the risk of livestock loss. 

Because compensation programs generally require a rapid on-site inspection and 

physical confirmation of the purported damage by professional independent observers, such a broad program would result in a significant workload for the agency administering the program. In addition, the program would require Federal oversight 
28 

and management of some predatory species that are currently under state management, such as mountain lions, black bear, and coyotes. In regard to its geographic 

application, the bill refers specifically to Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, but indicates that it also applies to ‘‘other States and Indian tribes as the Secretary determines.’’ Because nearly every state contains predators that cause livestock damage, 

the program outlined in S. 2875 would potentially have nationwide application. 

Existing programs to compensate and mitigate for damage caused by wildlife are 

varied and exceedingly complex. Although the Federal government has worked with 

states, tribes, and non-governmental organizations in order to conduct agency management activities to reduce and mitigate the risk of damage to agriculture by wildlife, including livestock loss due to wolf predation, it has never provided monetary 

compensation for losses caused by wildlife. 

Numerous state and private compensation and mitigation programs for other 

types of wildlife damage (i.e., in addition to wolves) already exist in the United 

States. Damage caused by other predators such as black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions and wild ungulates is paid in Wyoming and Idaho by State-run compensation programs. Other compensation programs pay for agricultural damage caused by 

wildlife such as elk and deer (the amount of damage by predators is typically much 

lower than that caused by ungulates or migratory birds). Consideration should also 

be given to whether creating additional programs to pay the public for predator 

damage might increase expectations for compensation for damage done by non-predatory wildlife as well, or might create incentives to raise livestock in areas with 

predators. In addition, depending on the scope of this bill, wildlife agencies in other 

states may have concerns that a Federal compensation program for wildlife damage 

may compete for limited state match funding and may negatively impact funding 

for higher priority state wildlife conservation programs. It is our belief that most 

states will not have the resources to participate in such a program. 

Finally, we note that the program contemplated by S. 2875 would support activities that are within the authority of another Federal agency rather than within the 

Service’s core mission to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people. Such a program could duplicate activities and overlap with other Federal 

agency programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

S. 2898, H.R. 816

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on S. 2898, the Orchard Detention Basin Flood Control Act. S. 2898, which 

is substantively the same as the House-passed bill, H.R. 816, would release approximately 65 acres of public land within the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area 

(ISA) [now referred to as a wilderness study area under Section 603 of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)]. The Sunrise Mountain ISA is located 

on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley and within proximity to Las Vegas. The 

BLM supports S. 2898, but would like to work with the Committee on an amendment to the bill. 

The Orchard Basin Detention Project would provide much-needed flood control for 

the eastern portion of the Las Vegas Valley. The project is intended to protect the 

fast-growing Las Vegas area from flooding due in part to stormwater drainage. The 

BLM understands the needs of this growing area and supports efforts to protect 

both the expansion of the city and the natural surroundings of the Las Vegas area. 

The Sunrise Mountain ISA includes 10,240 acres of BLM-managed land. The ISA 

lacks wilderness characteristics; it is in a clearly unnatural condition and does not 

offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Sections of the 

ISA are affected by numerous off-highway-vehicle routes and illegal trash dumping, 

and there are remnants of a copper mining operation from the early 1900s. Furthermore, a portion of the ISA’s western section is adjacent to expanding land development that increases the likelihood of further disturbances and unauthorized uses of 

the lands. Releasing the ISA from wilderness study status would provide the BLM 

with additional management tools for managing human activities, such as mechanically removing litter and fencing off areas to protect sensitive resource values. It 

would also allow the BLM to address other vital management issues associated with 

the long-standing human uses affecting this area. Among these issues is the need 

for an additional storm water detention basin that is an essential component of a 

remediation project for the Sunrise Landfill, a hazardous waste site on the ISA’s 

southeastern boundary. The proposed detention basin would encroach several acres 

into the ISA. 
29 

The BLM recommends that S. 2898 be amended to release the entire ISA (10,240 

acres) from interim management of its wilderness values so that the lands can be 

managed for other multiple uses and under existing conservation agreements for the 

area. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2898. We look forward to working 

with the sponsors and the Committee on this piece of legislation. 

S. 3088, S. 3089

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 3088, the Oregon Badlands Wilderness 

Act, and S. 3089, the Spring Basin Wilderness Act. Both of these bills designate 

public lands in Oregon as wilderness and provide for related land exchanges. The 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) generally supports the wilderness designations. 

We also support most of the land exchanges, in principle, however we have several 

concerns. We would like the opportunity to modify the lands identified for exchange. 

We would also like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee 

to make management and technical improvements to both bills. 

In general, the Department of the Interior supports the efforts of Congressional 

delegations to resolve wilderness issues in their states. Congress has the sole authority to designate lands to be managed as wilderness and we have repeatedly 

urged that these issues be addressed legislatively. 

The Department is concerned about ensuring that consideration is given to energy 

potential when any legislative proposal for special designation is considered. The 

BLM has reviewed the traditional and renewable energy values of the areas proposed for designation, and has determined that there is low or no potential for energy development in the areas being designated. It is our understanding that there 

is substantial local support for both of these proposed wilderness designations. We 

support efforts to work together in the spirit of cooperative conservation to solve 

local land use issues. 

S. 3088, Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act 

The proposed Oregon Badlands Wilderness lies just 15 minutes east of the outdoor recreation-oriented community of Bend, Oregon. A trip into the Badlands area 

is an experience of ancient junipers and volcanic vistas. Visitors can explore ribbons 

of volcanic pressure ridges or walk narrow moat-like cracks in the ground. Windblown volcanic ash and eroded lava make up the sandy, light-colored soil that contrasts sharply with fields of lava. A variety of wildlife species inhabit the area including yellow-bellied marmots, bobcat, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. The southern portion of the Badlands includes important winter range for mule deer. Avian 

species of local interest include prairie falcons and golden eagles. 

S. 3088 proposes to designate nearly 30,000 acres of BLM-managed land as wilderness, release approximately 100 acres from Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status, 

and provide for two land exchanges which will add additional high resource value 

private lands to the public land estate. 

The Department generally supports the wilderness designation and release in S. 

3088 and would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee on minor boundary adjustments and management language modifications as is routine in such proposed designations. Among the boundary modifications we would recommend are 

minor alterations to protect adjacent landowner access and the exclusion of trailhead parking areas and trailheads from the proposed wilderness. 

We have serious concerns with section 5 of the bill which excludes from the wilderness area a 25 feet corridor to accommodate the existing use of the route for purposes relating to the training of sled dogs by Rachael Scdoris. We applaud the efforts of Ms. Rachael Scdoris, a visually-impaired sled dog musher living outside of 

Bend, Oregon, to continue to train her sled dogs. It is our understanding that the 

techniques she uses to train her dogs involve both motorized and mechanized transport. The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically prohibits the use of both motorized and 

mechanized transport in designated wilderness. If an exclusion from wilderness designation is going to be made by Congress in this single case for Ms. Scdoris, we 

would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to modify 

the language of Section 5. We believe that greater specificity is necessary. 

Section 7 provides for land exchanges between the BLM, a private party, and the 

Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID). Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act (FLPMA) provides the BLM with the authority to undertake land 

exchanges that are in the public interest. Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands while transferring public lands into private ownership 

for local needs and the consolidation of scattered tracts. In principle, we generally 

support the land exchanges envisioned by S. 3088, and we would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address specific concerns. 
30 

The BLM supports the acquisition of the lands described in section 7(a) (the land 

exchange with Ray Clarno of Redmond, Oregon) and 7(b) (the land exchange with 

COID). Some of the lands to be acquired are within the area proposed for designation of wilderness and others are within a Wildlife Connectivity Corridor designated 

by the BLM in its 2005 Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan. The wildlife 

corridor provides important connectivity habitat for pronghorn and other wildlife in 

the area. 

While the BLM could support the exchange out of Federal ownership of some of 

the parcels identified by the legislation, many of these lands provide important resource values, including wildlife and recreation connectivity. There are alternative 

public lands within the general area that the BLM has identified for disposal which 

may be more appropriate for exchange. We would like the opportunity to work with 

the sponsor to modify the land exchanges envisioned by the bill to address these 

issues. 

We would also like to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address more 

technical issues related to the proposed exchanges, including an extension of the 

current timeframe. Given the nature of the work to be accomplished on the proposed 

exchanges, we anticipate that it would take at least three years to complete the exchanges as they are currently contemplated. We note that the legislation does provide for an equal value exchange and standard appraisal provisions consistent with 

section 206 of FLPMA. We strongly support these provisions. 

S. 3089, Spring Basin Wilderness Act 

The proposed Spring Basin wilderness area lies just to the east of the Congressionally-designated John Day Wild & Scenic River in north central Oregon. Numerous vista points give visitors sweeping views of the beautiful John Day river valley. 

Rugged cliffs, remote canyons and colorful geologic features give the area a unique 

beauty. Wildlife species in the area include mule deer, golden eagles, prairie falcons, 

bobcats, California quail, meadowlarks, and mountain bluebirds. A destination for 

hunters, hikers, and nature lovers, the proposed Spring Basin Wilderness would 

comprise nearly 8,700 acres if the exchanges envisioned in the bill were completed. 

S. 3089 would designate a total of approximately 8,661 acres as the Spring Basin 

Wilderness, including the current 5,982-acre Spring Basin WSA. It would also provide for a series of four land exchanges with private landowners and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation (CTWSIR). The proposed 

land exchanges include lands that would be included within the proposed wilderness 

boundary. These exchanges would add high resource value lands to Federal ownership along the John Day Wild & Scenic River as well as other environmentally sensitive lands. 

The Department of the Interior generally supports the wilderness designation in 

S. 3089 and would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee on minor 

boundary adjustments and management language modifications as is routine in 

such proposed designations. Among the boundary modifications we would recommend are alterations to protect public access to the wilderness area as well as 

traditional hunting camps, current and future trailhead facilities and to provide for 

manageable boundaries. In addition, a possible modification to the CTWSIR exchange discussed below would result in further additions to the wilderness. 

One of the land exchanges provided for in the bill includes the exchange of a 

small parcel of land out of Federal ownership that is currently within the WSA. The 

legislation should be modified to include WSA release language prior to exchange 

of these lands. 

Section 4 provides for four land exchanges between the BLM, three private parties, and the CTWSIR. Section 206 of the FLPMA provides the BLM with the authority to undertake land exchanges that are in the public interest. Exchanges allow 

the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands while transferring public lands 

into private ownership for local needs and the consolidation of scattered tracts. In 

principle, we support the land exchanges envisioned by S. 3089; however we would 

like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address specific 

concerns. We would note that there may potentially be ongoing title issues regarding lands within the bed and banks of the John Day River. These issues will need 

to be resolved during the land exchange process. 

Section 4(a) provides for the largest of the four exchanges, between the CTWSIR 

and the BLM. This exchange would bring into Federal ownership a large block of 

land proposed for inclusion within the wilderness as well as additional tracts a few 

miles south of the proposed wilderness within and adjacent to the John Day Wild 

& Scenic River boundary. Bringing these additional parcels into public ownership 

would increase public access to BLM-managed lands along the river for hunting and 

hiking purposes and help to resolve ongoing inadvertent trespass issues on CTWSIR 
31 

lands. The exchange would also transfer out of Federal ownership a number of parcels of BLM-managed land. These parcels are largely scattered inholdings and the 

exchange would provide for improved manageability for both the BLM and the 

CTWSIR. 

The BLM in Oregon has been in discussions with the CTWSIR regarding land exchange opportunities in this area which are more extensive than those reflected in 

the legislation. We would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee to more 

accurately reflect those discussions. 

Section 4(b) provides for an exchange between H. Kelly McGreer of Antelope, Oregon, and the BLM (McGreer Exchange). The lands proposed for acquisition by the 

Federal government include Wild & Scenic river frontage and a portion of Clarno 

East (a popular river access area with continuing trespass issues), and we support 

bringing these lands into Federal ownership. 

The BLM supports the proposed exchange of lands out of Federal ownership 

which are agricultural lands adjacent to lands owned by Mr. McGreer. While we 

have not undertaken appraisals of the lands proposed for exchange, we are concerned that the values of the lands proposed for exchange under section 4(b) may 

not be relatively equal in value (as required both by FLPMA and this legislation). 

We believe this exchange may require substantial modification. 

The proposed exchange under section 4(c) between the BLM and Bob Keys of Portland (Keys exchange) provides for additions to the proposed wilderness area and 

river frontage along the John Day Wild & Scenic River, and we support their acquisition. We also largely support exchanging out the Federal lands identified in this 

exchange except that we would like to modify the proposal to insure continued nonmotorized public access to the Spring Basin Canyon trailhead in the southwestern 

portion of the proposed wilderness. In addition, many of the lands proposed for exchange out of Federal ownership are along roads that would form the wilderness 

boundary. We wish to insure that the land underlying the boundary roads remain 

in Federal ownership in order to protect administrative access to the proposed wilderness. 

Finally, section 4(d) provides for an exchange between the BLM and the 

Bowerman Family Trust (Bowerman Land Exchange). The lands proposed for acquisition by the Federal government include a small parcel within the wilderness 

boundary and the remainder of the Clarno East launch point. The parcel proposed 

for transfer out of Federal ownership is adjacent to a large agricultural field owned 

by Bowerman. We support this exchange. 

We would also like to work with the Committee and the sponsor to address more 

technical issues related to the proposed exchanges including an extension of the current timeframe. Given the nature of the work to be accomplished on the proposed 

exchanges, we anticipate that it would take at least three years to complete the exchanges as they are currently contemplated. We note that the legislation does provide for an equal value exchange and that the exchanges be carried out consistent 

with section 206 of the FLPMA and we strongly support these provisions. 

Conclusion 

While we believe that the land exchanges in both S. 3088 and S. 3089 are generally in the public interest, work needs to be done to clarify boundaries and appropriate parcels for exchange, and we would like the opportunity to work with the 

Committee and the sponsor on these exchanges before the bill moves to markup. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

S. 3157

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3157, the Southeast Arizona Land 

Exchange and Conservation Act. The legislation provides for the exchange of a 

3,025-acre parcel of Forest Service-managed land in exchange for a number of private parcels and funds to acquire additional lands in the State of Arizona for management by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Three of the 

private parcels are identified for transfer to the Secretary of the Interior. In general, 

we defer to the United States Forest Service on those issues directly related to Forest Service lands and associated valuation issues. We support the principal goals of 

S. 3157, and we appreciate that a number of changes have been made to the legislation in response to concerns raised in previous testimony. However, we would like 

the opportunity to continue to work with the sponsor and the Committee on a number of additional modifications to the legislation. 

It is our understanding that the intent of the legislation is to facilitate an exchange of land with Resolution Copper Mining. Resolution Copper has indicated its 

intention to explore the possibility of a very deep copper mine near Superior, Ari-
32 

zona, and wishes to acquire the 3,025-acre Forest Service parcel overlying the copper deposit as well as the subsurface rights. 

The legislation provides for the exchange of a number of parcels of private land 

to the Federal government. We note that while the bill states that three of these 

parcels are to be conveyed to the Secretary of the Interior, it is our understanding 

that the intention of the sponsors is for the parcels to be under the administrative 

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The parcels identified are: 

• 3,073 acres along the Lower San Pedro River near Mammoth, Arizona; • 160 acres within the Dripping Springs area near Kearny, Arizona; and, • The 956 acre Appleton Ranch parcel adjacent to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area near Sonoita, Arizona. 

The lower San Pedro parcel is east of the town of Mammoth, Arizona, and straddles the San Pedro River. The acquisition of these lands would enhance a key migratory bird habitat along the San Pedro River, and we would welcome them into 

BLM management. S. 3157 directs the BLM to manage the lower San Pedro parcel 

as part of the existing San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (NCA) designated by Public Law 100-696. The lower San Pedro parcel lies along the same riparian corridor as the San Pedro NCA, but is at least 60 miles downstream (north) 

of the existing NCA, and has substantially different resource issues and needs. The 

BLM intends to manage these lands as a separate unit of the existing NCA with 

its own management guidance. We understand there is a collaborative effort of 

stakeholders currently underway with which we would like to work in developing 

the direction for the management of this area. 

The legislation proposes to transfer 160 acres in the Dripping Springs area northeast of Hayden to the BLM We would welcome the Dripping Springs parcel into federal management. The parcel has important resource values including sensitive 

Desert Tortoise habitat and allows the BLM to acquire this small private inholding 

within a larger block of federal lands. The BLM does not intend to manage these 

lands intensively for rock climbing as envisioned by earlier versions of the legislation. 

Finally, the bill provides for the transfer to the BLM of the 956 acre Appleton 

Ranch parcel on the southern end of the Las Cienegas NCA. These lands lie within 

the ‘‘Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District’’ established by Public Law 106- 

538, which designated the Las Cienegas NCA. That law directs the Department of 

the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion in the NCA to further protect the important resource values for which the 

NCA was designated. These lands enable wildlife to travel north through the NCA 

and beyond, and federal management will seek to maintain this function. We support this acquisition and would recommend that the legislation be amended to make 

clear that these lands would become part of the Las Cienegas NCA upon acquisition 

and managed under the provisions of that Act. 

Other issues requiring clarification include: timing of the exchange; appraisal-related provisions; and, the equalization of values provisions. Section 4(d) of the legislation requires that the exchange be completed within one year. Based on our experience with exchanges, we do not believe that this is sufficient time for the completion and review of a mineral report, completion and review of the appraisals, and 

final verification and preparation of title documents. Preparation of a mineral report 

is a crucial first step toward an appraisal of the Federal parcel because the report 

provides the foundation for an appraisal where the land is underlain by a mineral 

deposit. Accordingly, adequate information for the mineral report is essential. We 

recommend adding a provision requiring Resolution Copper to provide confidential 

access to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior (and their representatives) 

to all exploration and development data and company analyses on the mineral deposits underlying the Federal land in order to ensure an accurate appraisal. 

We are concerned about the provisions of section 5(a)(3) regarding the failure of 

the parties to agree on the value of any parcel. As written, the bill would require 

that a dispute would be resolved through binding arbitration procedures pursuant 

to section 206(d) of FLPMA. However, section 206(d) is intended for discretionary 

exchanges. Accordingly, we believe section 5(a)(3) of the bill should be amended to 

more specifically address those options in section 206(d) of FLPMA that would be 

applicable to this exchange. We would like to work with the subcommittee and the 

bill’s sponsor to amend section 5(a)(3) accordingly. 

S. 3157 includes a provision in Section 10 that would require a payment to the 

United States should the cumulative production of locatable minerals exceed the 

projected production used in the appraisal required by section 5(a)(4)(B). This provision recognizes that an accurate projection of future production will be difficult to 

develop, and provides a mechanism for additional payments to the United States 
33 

should actual production exceed the projected production. The Administration generally supports this approach but would like to work with the committee to clarify 

the specific intent and implementation procedures, as well as the disposition of receipts. 

We object to the language in Section 10(b)(2) that makes funds from potential 

mineral revenue payments available for expenditure without further appropriation. 

This provision is meant to ensure that the government is fairly compensated in the 

event that the valuation process underestimates the amount of mineral resource 

that is ultimately recovered, and we support this objective. However, the legislation 

addresses the exchange of lands with mineral interests, the value of which may not 

be fully realized until long after the exchange has taken place. We would like to 

work with the committee to ensure that the bill deposits the receipts into the Treasury, subject to future appropriation. 

Finally, we would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on miscellaneous technical items including maps for the areas to be exchanged, as well as clarifying several references within the bill text. In the case of 

lands to be transferred to or from the Secretary of the Interior, the maps should 

be completed by the BLM. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT WAHLQUIST, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE

MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 2779

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

opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2779, a bill to amend the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), as amended. This bill would authorize States and Indian tribes that have not certified completion of their coal related 

abandoned mine land (AML) problems to expend funds received under section 

411(h)(1) on non-coal related AML problems. 

While this legislation would apply to all uncertified states, it is of particular importance to three States (New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah) that have traditionally 

spent a substantial portion of their AML funds to address hazardous non-coal AML 

problems. 

We recognize that many states have used AML funds to support a variety of 

worthwhile goals in addition to reclamation of coal related health and safety issues. 

One of SMCRA’s objectives is to provide funding to address these coal related issues. 

Accordingly, we are concerned that the bill would ultimately delay coal-related 

health and safety reclamation work that is a priority to ensuring the health and 

safety of people who live in or near our Nation’s historic coalfields. Therefore the 

Administration cannot support the bill. 

Background 

There are 21 uncertified States receiving grants under the abandoned mine land 

(AML) program. Together, they have a recorded inventory of over $3.1 billion of 

high-priority, coal-related AML problems (those representing health and safety hazards to the public) remaining to be addressed. Each of these uncertified States is 

now receiving grants from at least three sources. Two of these sources, State share 

funds (SMCRA 402(g)(1)) and historic coal share funds (SMCRA 402(g)(5)), have 

been allocated to uncertified States since 1990. Historic coal share funds are allocated only to those States that have remaining high-priority coal problems in their 

inventory, while state share funds are allocated to any state that has not certified 

completion of all remaining coal AML problems even if it no longer has an inventory 

of high priority problems. 

Also, since 1990, funds from these two sources are the only funds that may be 

used for non-coal reclamation by uncertified states. The 2006 amendments added 

Treasury payments (SMCRA 411(h)(1)), a third source, for repayment of unappropriated State share balances (prior balance replacement funds). However, these funds, 

which are paid out over seven years beginning in FY 2008, must be used for coalrelated AML problems. 

In some cases, a fourth funding source is available. Before the 2006 amendments 

were passed, SMCRA authorized all uncertified States with high-priority coal problems remaining to receive at least $2 million annually. The 2006 amendments 

raised that level to $3 million over a four year phase in period. When the sources 

of funding outlined above total less than the minimum funding level, an amount 

necessary to reach that threshold is granted from funds otherwise designated for the 
34 

Secretary of the Interior’s (Secretary) use. Use of these funds is also limited to addressing high priority coal AML problems. 

Historically, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah have spent about half of their AML 

grants on non-coal problems. These three States received approximately two-thirds 

of their fiscal year 2008 funding in prior balance replacement funds. It is important 

to note that the 2006 amendments provide enough State share and historic coal 

share to allow each of these three States to maintain their current non-coal programs at historic levels. As mandatory funding under the 2006 amendments is fully 

phased in, these states will have substantially more funding available for non-coal 

AML work than they were spending on non-coal prior to the 2006 amendments. 

S. 2779 

As introduced, S. 2779 would amend SMCRA to enable uncertified States to use 

prior balance replacement funds to reclaim non-coal problems. Since prior balance 

replacement funds are a major source of AML funding for uncertified states through 

FY 2014, this will substantially increase funds available for non-coal. However, 

since S. 2779 does not increase overall funding available, any increase in expenditures by a State on non-coal problems will mean a corresponding decrease in funds 

spent to address coal related problems, thus delaying completion of high priority 

coal AML work shown in that State’s inventory. This, in turn, would delay certification of completion of all coal problems for States that would increase spending on 

non-coal as a result of this bill. 

Certification of Completion of Coal Reclamation 

Once a State certifies completion of its coal AML problems, it is no longer eligible 

for AML funds. Instead, it receives payments from the Treasury in an amount equal 

to what the State share would have been (as well as any remaining prior balance 

replacement funds if certification occurs prior to 2014). This foregone State share, 

along with the historic share that state had been receiving, will be distributed as 

historic coal share funds to the remaining uncertified States to clean up high priority coal problems. Thus, the funding to states with remaining high priority problems is increased each time another state certifies. On the other hand, certified 

states have broad discretion and very little accountability to OSM for how they use 

their grants, which can certainly all be used for non-coal AML work. 

In summary, while S.2779 will increase the funding available for non-coal AML 

problems for uncertified states, it will cause a corresponding delay in the completion 

of high priority coal AML problems in those states which spend more on non-coal 

problems as a result of this bill. Further, as states delay certification of completing 

their remaining coal problems, it limits funding that would otherwise be available 

to remaining uncertified states. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nedd. 

What we are going to do—because I think we are going to have 

a vote in a little bit, I am going to ask a couple of questions about 

the Oregon bills, and I am going to recognize colleagues because I 

know they have concerns about the status of their bills. Then at 

the end, I am going to come back and ask some questions with respect to Arizona. 

Now, Mr. Nedd, we appreciate your support for the wilderness 

designations in Oregon. I know you have been in discussion with 

the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation 

about more extensive land exchange opportunities so that we could 

boost the wilderness in there. Is it correct to say at this point that 

the Bureau of Land Management supports the concept of a larger 

exchange with the tribe? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, we are very interested in working with you 

and with the tribe on the proposed exchange and agree that there 

is an opportunity for a larger exchange. 

Senator WYDEN. One other question just for you, Mr. Nedd, before colleagues. You raise concerns with the land selected for what 

is called the McGreer exchange and the question of potential inequality. It is certainly my intent to work with you all on your concerns, but you did note in your testimony that the legislation pro-
35 

vides for an equal value exchange, which is where we clearly wish 

to go. Is that not the kind of language you need to address the 

question of potential inequality? 

Mr. NEDD. Yes, Senator Wyden. Your legislation does provide 

that all exchanges are to be of equal value, and we strongly support your position on this. We simply felt we should point out that 

this particular exchange, the McGreer exchange, may require substantial modification. 

Senator WYDEN. I think we want to continue those discussions 

with you because any proposed exchange—and we have dealt with 

I do not know how many during my time on this committee—is 

based on rough estimates prior to an actual appraisal being undertaken. So we are interested in working with you cooperatively, and 

I appreciate your comments. 

Let me just recognize colleagues so they can get questions in at 

this point. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Nedd, I know you have people here for S. 2875 and for S. 

2779. I think you mentioned there were some colleagues that you 

have with you that could help answer some questions. 

If I could go to S. 2875 first, I would like to read a quote to you 

from the Twin Falls Times newspaper, and it says, ‘‘We didn’t want 

it. They brought it to us. If the Federal Government is going to 

bring it to us over our objections’’—and they are talking about the 

wolf—‘‘then they need to pay for it.’’ 

That quote was from James Caswell, who at the time was the 

Administrator for the Governor of Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation in regards to Idaho receiving Federal money through an 

earmark for Idaho’s wolf compensation program. As you know, Mr. 

Caswell is now the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Do you agree with the director’s statement that the Federal Government should pay compensation to ranchers for introducing the 

wolf to Wyoming and Montana and Idaho over the States’ objections? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, I would like to refer to Mr. Ed Bangs who 

is here to answer any—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I see him smiling, and he is very happy to do 

that. 

Mr. BANGS. Thank you. I guess the position of the Administration is that there are some serious problems with the bill as written and we oppose it. 

Senator BARRASSO. So do you agree, though, that the Federal 

Government should pay compensation to ranchers for introducing 

the wolf into these States? 

Mr. BANGS. I guess I am here to answer any technical questions 

I can. The Administration’s position is that, no, there should not 

be compensation offered. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you would disagree then with the statement of James Caswell, who is currently the Director of the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Mr. BANGS. I would say that the Administration’s position is that 

no compensation should be offered. 
36 

Senator BARRASSO. Reading the testimony that you submitted, 

Mr. Nedd—I know you did not have time because of the number 

of bills to go through each and every one of the testimonies in 

full—the testimony says, ‘‘As wolf management is now a matter for 

the State governments, whether and how to use compensation programs to advance State management goals is most appropriately 

for State governments to decide.’’ This seems to be implying that 

the management of the wolves is entirely a State issue. That is 

what I am hearing also from Mr. Bangs. 

There are people in Wyoming—and we have one of them as our 

guest today to talk about this—who would eradicate the wolves entirely. That would be their position. So if Wyoming wanted to adopt 

that position—that was our management plan—could we do it? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, again, I would have to refer to Mr. Ed Bangs 

who is here to answer any questions. 

Mr. BANGS. I think the wolves could be eliminated. We eliminated them once. If that happened, what you would see is a relisting under the Endangered Species Act. So you would get the 

Federal Government involved again. 

Senator BARRASSO. So then the Federal Government does want 

to manage the wolves, but they just do not want to provide assistance to those whose livelihoods are threatened. 

Mr. BANGS. I think the Federal Government wants to make sure 

that the wolves stay recovered and are managed as resident game 

species just like elk, deer, and other things are by the States. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do these States have any say in the decision 

by the Federal Government to reintroduce the wolves into the 

State? 

Mr. BANGS. I think that they did. The State of Idaho helped prepare the EIS. We had the State involvement. I think in the end 

they all opposed wolf restoration, but in the early development 

stages, they certainly had a voice in the issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. So they were forced upon the States in spite 

of the States not wanting them, but then you are willing to sit 

there and tell me and the members of this panel that it is now up 

to the States to deal with it on their own. Is that what you are 

really suggesting, that the Federal Government should have no responsibility for the damage that has occurred? 

Mr. BANGS. I think the issue is that the wolf population is recovered. The States of Idaho and Montana have been managing wolves 

under cooperative agreement with the Service for years while they 

were listed. Now that they are delisted, that management authority is transferred entirely to the States. 

Senator BARRASSO. So the additional damage being done by 

wolves to livestock—the position of the Administration is we came 

in, we created this mess, we are not responsible. Now it is up to 

you to clean up and pay for it. 

Mr. BANGS. Actually there is mitigation for wolf damage in the 

form of USDA Wildlife Services who partners with the States to remove problem wolves. So there is mitigation for wolf-caused damage even while delisted. 

Senator BARRASSO. If I could move on to S. 2779, Mr. Nedd. This 

is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. One 

of the statements in your testimony raises some real concerns. You 
37 

state, ‘‘Certified States have broad discretion and very little accountability to the Office of Surface Mining for how they use their 

grants which can certainly all be used,’’ it says, ‘‘for non-coal AML 

work.’’ If that is, indeed, the case, are you telling me that all of 

these hoops that certified States like Wyoming and Montana have 

to jump through are just that? Bureaucratic mazes that serve very 

little purpose and just slow down the distribution of money to the 

States? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, I have Mr. Danny Lytton, who is Chief, Division of Reclamation Support, with the Office of Surface Mining. He 

will be glad to answer any questions. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us do this. Let us recognize Mr. Lytton, but 

briefly because we have got Senator Tester and Senator Smith. 

Senator BARRASSO. That will be my final question. 

Senator WYDEN. Great. 

Mr. LYTTON. Senator, first of all, let me just say that our Solicitor’s Office has advised us that we must use grants to distribute 

the funds that certified States are getting. Recognizing that there 

is a tremendous amount of discretion that the certified States have 

in how they use their funds, we have actually changed our grant 

process for certified States in general. We require less information 

up front. We have cut in half the time it takes—time allotted for 

us to approve a grant. We do not require the listing or your show— 

certified States showing us what projects will be done. Finally, we 

cannot approve those projects. We are required to allow any project 

that falls within your purview, either through the State legislature 

or through the program’s decisions. We are required to approve 

those projects. The only requirement that we have placed is that 

we approve the use of the fund for your purposes. In other words, 

we have to approve a grant and we do. 

Senator BARRASSO. You can see, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty in 

dealing with a bureaucracy that says seven equal payments, an 

equal payment each year for 7 years, and it says nothing about a 

grant process and gives you this kind of an answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would assume, Mr. Nedd, you are going to refer all questions 

about the wolf mitigation bill to Mr. Bangs? 

Mr. NEDD. Yes, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Bangs, do you still work for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, since the wolves have been delisted? 

Mr. BANGS. I do. 

Senator TESTER. How long are you on the payroll for? 

Mr. BANGS. Until October 1 they told me. 

Senator TESTER. OK, that is good. I would hope that you are not 

the sacrificial lamb here. No pun intended. 

I can tell you that this program is very, very important and it 

is somewhat disconcerting that the person who makes the presentation refers all questions to somebody who is going to be gone October 1. That is not to say anything negative about you, Mr. Bangs. 

You have done a great job in your capacity. I hope you get a job 

that is very, very good down the line. 
38 

I will ask some questions revolving around the wolf program. 

Does the agency believe that public acceptance is an important part 

of wolf reintroduction? 

Mr. BANGS. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Do you think there will be public acceptance as 

long as cattle ranchers are having their cattle preyed upon by 

wolves with no mitigation funds for that? 

Mr. BANGS. If there was no mitigation, I think support for wolf 

recovery would go down. 

Senator TESTER. Are Defenders of Wildlife still in the business, 

since the wolf has been taken off Endangered Species, of putting 

up money for predation? 

Mr. BANGS. In Wyoming and Idaho, yes. In Montana, no. They 

have turned that program over to the State for compensation. 

Senator TESTER. Is it long-term? Are they going to continue to 

put money into those programs year after year? 

Mr. BANGS. I suspect not, no. 

Senator TESTER. Do you think this will probably be the last year 

for it? 

Mr. BANGS. I would suspect so, yes. 

Senator TESTER. So what are the impacts when we do not take 

care of predation with ranchers? What is going to be the long-term 

impact on all the work that has been done for the last 10 or 11 

years? 

Mr. BANGS. I guess the wolf predation will still be taken care of. 

The Wildlife Service participates in mitigation, killing problem 

wolves. The States will have hunting seasons. So there is a lot of 

mitigation of wolf damage. The compensation itself—— 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. BANGS. Each of the States has a compensation program that 

they are trying to raise money for. 

Senator TESTER. How successful do you think those States are 

going to be in raising money for wolf predation when both parties 

on both sides really do not have any obligation to step up to the 

plate? 

Mr. BANGS. I think raising private funds or funds within the 

States is going to be a tough row to hoe. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. So what role should the Federal 

Government be playing? 

Mr. BANGS. The Administration believes that the current bill in 

terms of compensation—we cannot support that. I might point out 

that in terms of mitigation, in terms of rider programs or something like that, there is Federal money through different grant programs available to the States for that currently. 

Senator TESTER. Is the Administration aware that over the last 

15 years, they have believed that public acceptance is critical for 

wolf introduction to be successful? 

Mr. BANGS. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Do you see any sort of diametric opposition to 

what you are saying and what the Administration is telling you to 

say? 

Mr. BANGS. I think the goal of the program was to get the wolf 

population recovered and delisted so the States can manage them 
39 

just as they do other resident wildlife with deer, elk, that kind of 

thing. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, but what about the compensation part of 

it? It is not a huge part of the whole overall program, but I think 

it is a critical part. Would you not agree? 

Mr. BANGS. I can see where you would feel that way. 

Senator TESTER. You are very, very good at what you do, Ed. I 

can see why they put you up here. 

All kidding aside, I will just tell you this, and Senator Barrasso 

alluded to it. Idaho has had an earmark for $100,000 for compensation for livestock losses. The reason that is important is because 

two of the folks, who I respect both very, very much, who are high 

up in the Department are from Idaho. Yet, the Department comes 

down and says, no, we are not in favor of this when in fact, if they 

were not in favor of this, why did they request the earmark and 

why did they get the earmark? Why did they utilize the earmark? 

Why did they not turn the money back? You do not have to answer 

that. 

Mr. BANGS. I do not really know. 

Senator TESTER. You do not have to answer that. 

I would just ask this. I mean, go back to the people that you 

work with. I can tell you that I think it is totally unfair. All the 

points that Senator Barrasso brought up were dead-on. I think it 

is totally inappropriate and unfortunate that the Federal Government is walking away from this. I think it is terrible. 

I think the fact—and this is not to speak poorly of you, Mr. 

Bangs—that they did not send somebody higher up in the office 

that made this decision because quite honestly, I do not think you 

have bought into it either. You do not have to answer that either 

because the truth is it is compensation for a select few people that 

raise livestock. We are not talking about a lot of livestock, but it 

is the same people that get hammered every time. A select few people to get compensation is the right thing to do, and for the Department to say, no, we are going to wash our hands of it, it is a State 

problem now, is absolutely ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. 

I appreciate the work you have done in Montana. You have done 

a great job. You need to influence the people above you for the next 

3 or 4 months to step back and take a look at this and ask if this 

is really the right position because it is not. Unequivocally common 

sense will tell you that this is not the right decision to be making 

because if we think wolf introduction is the right thing to do, which 

I would guess the Department does, if we are going to keep public 

acceptance at a high level, this has to be a part of the equation. 

That is all I am going to say. 

I got to tell you I wish you would have sent—and this is nothing 

against you, Mr. Bangs, I wish you would have sent somebody from 

the Department that I could nail to the wall because it is pretty 

difficult when you got a guy who is going to be gone October 1. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Nedd, can you speak for the BLM whether 

or not you believe that off-highway vehicle recreation demand is 
40 

currently being met by the BLM’s existing program in central Oregon? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, I do not have first-hand knowledge and I 

cannot speak for the BLM on that. 

Senator SMITH. I wonder if you can get someone from the BLM 

who has some knowledge of that—if they can get back to me with 

an answer whether they think that they are meeting that demand. 

Mr. NEDD. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SMITH. Could you also get back to me with a list of all 

WSA’s in eastern Oregon that have been studied and were deemed 

not suitable for wilderness designation? 

Mr. NEDD. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. That would be great. 

On a different issue, it is my understanding that the BLM has 

about 130 permits pending for solar energy development on public 

domain lands. Can you explain the backlog in processing these permits, and does the BLM need more resources to process these permit applications? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, I will have to get back to you with the exact 

reasons for the backlog and other information, Senator. 

Senator SMITH. That would be great. We need energy. Thank 

you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

We do need to have a few matters on the record with respect to 

the Arizona legislation, 3157. So let me, if I might, start with you, 

Mr. Holtrop. 

As I understand it, all parties believe that S. 3157 would limit 

the review of environmental impacts prior to the conveyance of 

Federal land and would, instead, require the Secretary to conduct 

the EIS at a later date prior to commercial production at the proposed mine. As written in the bill, if the EIS showed that the mine 

would cause unacceptable environmental impact, would the Forest 

Service still have the authority to prevent that from occurring, having already conveyed the land? 

Mr. HOLTROP. My understanding of the way the bill is worded is 

we would do an environmental impact statement that would be on 

those associated activities on the Federal lands that would be required to be looked at at that time. So what we would be looking 

at would be the impact of associated activities on the remaining 

Federal lands. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, you testified, Mr. Holtrop, that the Forest 

Service supports the exchange, believes it can be offered in the 

public interest. How do you all go about making that determination 

without knowing what the potential impact is of the proposed 

mine? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Mr. Chairman, that is a good question. I think the 

language of the testimony saying we believe that it is in the public 

interest—that the exchange is in the public interest—I will tell you 

the couple of things that I think we weighed when we looked at 

that. One was we looked at the benefits of the mine itself. We 

looked at the incredible resources that the lands that would be conveyed to the Federal Government would have with them, especially 

in a dry area of Arizona, the precious resource of water and riparian areas, as well as threatened and endangered cactus habitat and 
41 

some things like that, and the fact that it is a 1.8 or 1.9 to 1 acrefor-acre exchange coming into the public ownership. All of those 

things, I think, weighed together, lead us to the point of being able 

to say we believe, on balance, that this is in the public interest. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, Mr. Holtrop, the Inter Tribal Council’s testimony goes into a number of concerns about the impact of the proposed mine on the Apache Leap escarpment. My question is, is it 

possible that the subsistence that is anticipated as a result of the 

development of the mine would in your view significantly impact 

Apache Leap? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I am not feeling like I am qualified to answer that 

question. As you know, the legislation includes a conservation easement to protect the Apache Leap. I think that that was part of the 

intent of the legislation, and I am not qualified to answer a question about subsistence. 

Senator WYDEN. We will hold the record open on that because I 

think that is an important point, and it seems to me at some sort 

of basic level we really need to have a yes or no answer to that because if it is yes, we want to know how the exchange is in the public interest, even if Apache Leap is significantly impacted, and if 

no, we want to know how you all got about getting to that position. 

So we will hold the record open on that question. 

To be sensitive to Senator Kyl’s concerns, can you have answers 

to those questions for us a week from today? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I am sure we can. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Then one question for you, Mr. Nedd, and perhaps you have 

thoughts on this as well, Mr. Holtrop. It is our understanding that 

the Oak Flat Campground was administratively withdrawn and it 

appears that the Administration has the authority to revoke the 

withdrawal and undertake an administrative land exchange to facilitate the development of the mine. So our interest here is, is that 

your understanding, and if it is, why has the Department not pursued that? 

Mr. NEDD. Senator, I am not familiar with the specifics of the 

Forest Service withdrawal and would defer to the Forest Service on 

that specific—— 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Holtrop, do you want to—— 

Mr. HOLTROP. I would be happy to address that. The withdrawal 

occurred, I believe, in 1955 or some time close to that, to protect 

the resources of the campground, the Federal investment in the 

campground. My understanding is that administratively a withdrawal like that could be revoked. There are other aspects of the 

exchange and the operation which are beyond our Federal authority to be able to deal with, things such as an exchange that involves more than one Federal agency, because there are lands that 

would become managed by the Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land Management. We do not have the authority to handle 

something like that. The greater than 25 percent cash equalization 

is another thing that we do not have the authority to deal with. 

So there are other aspects of the bill that are beyond our administrative authority. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. Thank you all. 
42 

Senator Barrasso, do you have any questions about Arizona? 

Otherwise, we will excuse this panel and get on to the next one. 

Senator BARRASSO. No specific questions about Arizona. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

We thank all of you. We appreciate the cooperation of the Administration on all this legislation. 

David Salisbury, President and CEO of Resolution Copper, if you 

will come forward. Shan Lewis, President of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, if you will come forward. Roger Featherstone, Southwest Circuit Rider, Earthworks, if you will come forward. 

For all of you, so you will have a sense of what Senator Barrasso 

and I are juggling, there is an important vote scheduled for 4 

o’clock. So we are going and try and get as far down the road. We 

have Mr. Featherstone, Mr. Salisbury. There is Shan Lewis. Very 

good. We will get as far with the three of you as we can and we 

will try to come back quickly afterwards. 

Again, if you can summarize your principal concerns, we are 

going to make your printed statements a part of the hearing record 

in their entirety. 

Mr. Salisbury, why do we not begin with you? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SALISBURY, PRESIDENT, RESOLUTION 

COPPER MINING, LLC, SUPERIOR, AZ 

Mr. SALISBURY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

my name is David Salisbury. I am the President of Resolution Copper based in Superior, Arizona. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 3157. 

This legislation represents an important step toward restarting a 

mine in Arizona’s historic Copper Triangle Mining District. 

We also want to thank Senator Kyl for his longstanding leadership and support. 

Upon completion of this land exchange, we propose to invest, at 

considerable risk, the time and funding required to develop a deep 

underground mine. We believe the innovative and proven technology will allow us to build a block cave mine 7,000 feet below 

ground with limited surface impact. 

Mr. Chairman, there are six main reasons why we believe this 

land exchange is in the public interest. 

First, S. 3157 provides fair value to the American taxpayer. The 

appraisal will be done by the Forest Service using Department of 

Justice methodology to determine the fair value of all land. Additionally, it provides full cash equalization. If the appraisal indicates 

we owe additional money, we will pay the difference to equalize the 

value. If, however, the valuation indicates that the value of the 

land we are exchanging is higher than the land we receive, we will 

donate the excess to the United States. Importantly, this legislation 

also includes a new, unprecedented value adjustment payment, 

which ensures that the Government will receive payment for any 

ore mined that was not included in the original valuation of the ore 

body. 

Second, this legislation delivers significant environmental benefits and safeguards to the region. It includes language confirming 

that an environmental impact statement, pursuant to NEPA, will 
43 

be completed before we mine the ore body. Further, the parcels 

Resolution Copper would exchange to the Government are of high 

ecological value and were identified with the assistance of the 

BLM, Forest Service, and leading environmental NGO’s like the 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Arizona. Also, we plan to use 

tailings from our mine to reclaim an existing open pit mine in the 

region by filling it with our tailings and restoring the landscape. 

Third, we are listening to the suggestions and concerns from various stakeholders and doing our best to work with them. Since the 

House hearing last November, we have had more than 300 meetings with stakeholders to address issues raised. S. 3157 reflects 

changes suggested during these discussions. Here are a few examples. 

The Forest indicated that additional time and money would be 

required to relocate the Oak Flat Campground. This legislation 

doubles both the time and the money compared to the House bill. 

Concerns have been raised by Native American nations. So we 

have taken steps to ensure protection of the Apache Leap, to ensure access to areas for traditional and cultural activities. We acknowledge the sovereignty of the tribal nations and respect their 

requests for government-to-government consultations. We welcome 

the chance to work with them to address their concerns. 

We have addressed the mountain climbing community’s request 

to transfer Resolution’s Pond property to the Forest Service for future climbing. We have extended the duration of access to the Oak 

Flat area, and we will continue to work closely with the climbing 

community to provide additional opportunities. 

Fourth, the mine is expected to produce up to 20 percent of our 

Nation’s anticipated copper demand. This is important now more 

than ever because, for instance, hybrid vehicles use 70 to 100 percent more copper than conventional cars. 

Fifth, the mine will create significant economic prosperity for Ar- izona and the Nation. We anticipate spending $10 billion and generating 1,400 jobs in connection with mining operations, as well as 

several thousand construction-related jobs and a thousand more indirect jobs. Resolution is working closely with the Town of Superior 

and throughout the region to create a diversified economy so that 

economic upswing created by the mine will act as a catalyst for 

growth and help build a sustainable economy. 

I have submitted for the record a study which highlights the significant economic and fiscal benefits the project will generate, totaling in excess of $46 billion in economic activity and approximately 

$11 billion in taxes to various levels of government. 

Sixth, more important than our view that the project is in the 

public interest, many Arizona leaders, including Governor 

Napolitano, a significant majority of the Arizona legislature, county 

supervisors, mayors, city councils of the Copper Triangle, community leaders, and the Arizona Republic, and many other individuals 

and organizations have expressed their support for moving this legislation forward. 

In closing, this project represents a terrific opportunity for the 

State of Arizona and the Nation. We ask Congress to authorize this 

land exchange so that the promise of this project has a chance to 

be realized. We appreciate your consideration and respectfully re-
44 

* Map has been retained in subcommittee files. 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

quest your prompt action to enact this legislation this year. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salisbury follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID SALISBURY, PRESIDENT, RESOLUTION COPPER

MINING, LLC, SUPERIOR, AZ, ON S. 3157 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is David Salisbury. 

I am the President of the Resolution Copper Mining LLC (‘‘Resolution Copper’’), 

which is a company headquartered in Superior, Arizona and owned by subsidiaries 

of Rio Tinto plc and BHP-Billiton plc. I am here in support of S. 3157, and to briefly 

describe the efforts we have made to address various issues since this Subcommittee 

held a hearing on similar legislation two years ago. The Southeast Arizona Land 

Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 3157, represents an important step toward the development of a large, underground copper mine in a historic mining district. This legislation would allow us to acquire sufficient acreage of National Forest 

land, known as the Oak Flat parcel, where much of our new underground mine will 

be located. Most of the land needed is already blanketed by unpatented mining 

claims which we or our predecessors have owned and maintained for decades. As 

you can see from the map* attached to my testimony, the Oak Flat parcel abuts, 

or is intermingled with, private land we already own. That private land was the site 

of the Magma underground copper mine, which operated from 1912 to 1996, and 

produced 25 million tons of copper ore. 

In the late 1990’s, exploratory drilling revealed the existence of a very large copper deposit located adjacent to the old mine workings, but at a far greater depth 

of 4,500 to 7,000 feet below the surface. This will require us to sink deep shafts and 

tunnels to access the ore body. Once we have done this, we will complete a model 

of the precise geotechnical conditions and determine if it is feasible to construct the 

mine. 

Developing a mine a mile to a mile and a half beneath the surface, where the 

temperatures are up to 175 degrees Fahrenheit, is not only technologically difficult, 

but also an extremely expensive and financially risky proposition. Initially it will 

involve $750 million in exploration and feasibility work. If the mine is feasible, Resolution Copper will spend at least $4 billion toward capital investment before mine 

construction is finished and we ship our first load of copper. Resolution Copper has 

not made the final determination as to the economic and technological feasibility of 

mining this ore body. Despite a high level of confidence on the part of our engineering team, it will require a $750 million investment before we can make this determination. 

To secure this type of investment, we believe it is critical both to possess an ownership interest in most of the land where we will be operating and to provide an 

adequate safety buffer around the mining area. Further, the area around the project 

is intermixed with public and Resolution’s private lands preventing a safe and workable approach to mine permitting, development and operation. In addition, because 

we will intensively use the Oak Flat area for the mine, most of the land we are 

seeking to acquire, except for Apache Leap, will have a limited lifespan for continued public use in order to maintain safety for the public. 

We realize that our land exchange will result in the loss of a Forest Service campground and other public recreation, but believe that this legislation provides for a 

beneficial transfer of lands with the added potential of a mine that will only enhance the national interest in this exchange. Why? Because once operational, this 

mine would provide approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s annual needs for copper from a safe, domestic source for approximately 50 years. 

Building upon the national interest I have just outlined, allow me to explain the 

significant economic and fiscal impact the mine will have. The ore body is located 

in a region with over 100 years of mining history known as the ‘‘Copper Triangle.’’ 

This region has suffered with high unemployment for a number of years and our 

mine is expected to bring 1,400 permanent, high quality, technical jobs directly affiliated with the mine (1,200 direct jobs and 200 contract jobs) and a large number 

of service related jobs to the region. Further, we anticipate the creation of several 

thousand jobs during the construction phase of the mine. 

Included with my testimony I have submitted the executive summary* of an economic and fiscal impact study prepared in April 2008 by Elliott D. Pollack & Com-
45 

pany, and I would like to provide you with a few highlights directly from that report: 

• The mine impact is estimated to last 66 years, with 16 years of feasibility and 

preparation and 50 years of mining operations. • The total economic impact of the 66 year project on the State of Arizona, including the additional development of residential, commercial, and industrial land 

in Superior, is estimated to be $46.4 billion. During the peak years of mine projection, the annual impact of the mine itself is estimated to be $535.6 million. 

If the additional development of residential, commercial and industrial land is 

considered, the peak annual economic impact on the State is projected to be 

$798.2 million. For a comparative perspective, studies have estimated the economic impact of an NFL Super Bowl type event to be approximately between 

$250 million and $500 million. • In terms of fiscal impacts, the project is estimated to generate total federal, 

state, county, and local tax revenue in excess of $10.7 billion. 

It is important to understand that all of the fiscal and economic impacts were based on the assumption that copper is priced at $1.30 per pound (which was based 

on the long-term price as calculated by the Arizona Department of Revenue). Today, 

copper is trading at over $3.50 per pound, so the assumptions in this study are very 

conservative. 

As I indicated, the planned mine will be a very deep underground mine utilizing 

a proven method of mining called block caving. Unlike an open pit mine, it will have 

minimal waste rock dumps. We plan to ship the ore from Oak Flat via underground 

tunnel to an existing open pit mine site in the area. We then expect to process the 

copper ore at that site and deposit the tailings to fill up one or more existing open 

pits from closed mines, and then reclaim and re-vegetate those pits. We believe that 

undertaking will significantly benefit the environment. In addition, Senator Kyl has 

included subsection 4(h) in this legislation to expressly confirm that before we open 

the mine, as already required by existing law, the entire operation and its environmental impacts will be subject to full review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

In developing the land exchange proposal in S. 3157, we have worked with the 

United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona 

Game & Fish Department, and numerous Arizona conservation organizations to insure that the lands we are conveying to the United States have greater environmental and other public values than the lands we are receiving at Oak Flat. In S. 

3157, Resolution Copper will convey nine parcels of land, totaling approximately 

5,634 acres, to the United States in return for the Oak Flat parcel. Whereas most 

of Oak Flat is relatively flat, and has no permanent water—the nine parcels we 

have assembled for exchange have exceptionally rich ecological, recreational and 

other values, and many of them have significant year-round water resources. I want 

to emphasize that these parcels were recommended to us by The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, the Sonoran Institute and in consultation with the 

BLM and the US Forest Service. The attributes of these offered lands include: 

1) A new rock climbing parcel near Oak Flat which has just been added to 

the exchange; 

2) Seven miles of river bottom and riparian land along both sides of the free 

flowing San Pedro River, which is one of the most important migratory bird corridors in the United States (as requested by the BLM at the November 2007 

hearing on H.R. 3301 in the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands, this parcel will be immediately added to the existing San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area); 

3) Two miles of trout stream and other fish and wildlife habitat along East 

Clear Creek in the Coconino National Forest; 

4) Possibly the largest, and most ancient, mesquite forest (or bosque) in Arizona; 

5) Nine hundred and fifty-six acres of extremely diverse grassland habitat in 

the AppletonWhittell Research Ranch—an existing preserve jointly managed by 

the Forest Service, BLM and the Audubon Society inside the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area; and 

6) Four in-holdings in the Tonto National Forest which have significant riparian, recreational, cultural, historic and ecological amenities including populations of the endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus. 

S. 3157 also provides that Resolution Copper must convey all nine parcels to the 

United States, regardless of value. If the nine parcels appraise at a higher value 

than the Oak Flat parcel, we will donate the excess value to the United States. 
46 

Accordingly, this land exchange will result in very significant net gains to the 

United States in: 1) river bottoms and riparian lands; 2) habitat, or potential habitat, for threatened, endangered and sensitive species; 3) habitat for innumerable 

species of flora and fauna; 4) important bird areas; and 5) year-round water resources—a rarity in many parts of Arizona. 

Mr. Chairman, we have also agreed to several provisions in S. 3157 that are designed to assure that the taxpayers receive full fair market value in this land exchange and that any facilities or activities we displace at Oak Flat land are adequately replaced, or improved upon. I will briefly describe these key provisions: 

• S. 3157 requires that the existing Forest Service campground at Oak Flat, 

which has 16 developed campsites, will be replaced with a new campground or 

campgrounds. Based on testimony presented at the hearing in the House last 

fall the US Forest Service, we have increased the amount we will pay for the 

replacement campground(s) from $500,000 to $1 million and increased the time 

for establishing the new campground(s) from 2 years to 4 years. The bill now 

provides that the US Forest Service will continue to own and operate the Oak 

Flat Campground for 4 years after bill enactment. • Portions of the Oak Flat parcel and adjacent areas, including areas of our existing private land, are used for rock climbing. To accommodate these activities, 

we have agreed to two changes in the legislation. First, as mentioned earlier, 

we have now added our 95 acre Pond parcel to the land exchange. Second, we 

have dropped the immediate closure of certain other areas from the legislation 

and we will work at keeping them open for climbing for as long as it is safe 

to do so. • Resolution Copper has committed to the working with neighboring Native 

American communities. Resolution Copper also acknowledges the sovereignty of 

the San Carlos and respects their request for government-to-government discussions. The exchange provides protections for the portion of the Oak Flat parcel 

that comprises Apache Leap, which is an area of cultural and historic importance to Apache and Yavapai tribal nations. Likewise, S. 3157 requires that the 

JI-Ranch parcel we will convey to the US Forest Service in the exchange will 

be available to the Apache or Yavapai for acorn gathering. • Subsection 5(a) provides that all appraisals will be conducted in accordance 

with U.S. Department of Justice appraisal standards, which are used for all 

Federal land transactions. The Forest Service will write the appraisal instructions and all appraisals must be formally reviewed and approved by the agency. 

This means that the appraisal process will be under the government’s complete 

supervision and control. 

Finally, we are aware of the mining law reform legislation which passed the 

House and is pending in the Senate. While the Federal appraisal process to be used 

for this land exchange fully incorporates royalty considerations, as required by the 

Justice Department standards, and the lands and any cash equalization we convey 

to the United States in the exchange will constitute a full upfront royalty payment 

under the appraisal process, we have agreed to go a step further. Namely, section 

10 of S. 3157 now provides that if the cumulative production from our mine ever 

exceeds the production assumed by the appraiser, we will pay a ‘‘value adjustment 

payment’’ on any excess production. In doing that, the public will be protected in 

the event the appraiser errs in the mine production assumptions or if subsequent 

mining operations discover and produce more ore than originally assumed. We believe this is an eminently fair proposal which, by definition, fully protects against 

potential production errors in the appraisal process. 

That completes my testimony. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify 

before you today and stand ready to answer any questions the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lewis, let us go to you next. 

STATEMENT OF SHAN LEWIS, PRESIDENT, INTER TRIBAL 

COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX, AZ 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Shan Lewis. I serve as President of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Our members include 20 American Indian tribes, nations, and communities in Arizona on matters of international, national, and statewide importance to the tribes. I also serve as the 
47 

vice chairman of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe which has tribal 

lands in Arizona, California, and Nevada. 

I speak today on behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, 

and it is with deep concern that we respectfully oppose the passage 

by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the 

Senate of S. 3157, as introduced on June 18, 2008. 

We must say at the outset, as Chairman Wendsler Nosie of the 

San Carlos Apache Tribe and President Bear on behalf of the Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation testified before the House on November 

1, 2007, that the Federal agencies involved have failed to consult 

with us on a government-to-government basis on this matter. In 

this regard, this hearing is quite premature. No consultation has 

occurred. No environmental impact statement has been developed, 

and Resolution Copper does not even know if the mine is feasible. 

The Forest Service only announced on June 25, 2008 that Resolution Copper has filed a proposed plan of operation for a pre-feasibility study for the mine to be conducted around Oak Flat, the land 

Resolution Copper asked you to convey to it now. Comments on 

this pre-feasibility study are not due until July 18, 2008. 

S. 3157 would direct Federal agencies to literally dismember a 

federally established recreation campground authorized during the 

presidency of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in an area within 

ancestral Indian tribal lands that are of unique cultural, spiritual, 

and archeological significance to American Indian tribes in the region. 

This project would deplete and contaminate water resources from 

nearby watersheds and aquifers, leaving in its wake long-term and 

in some cases permanent religious, cultural, and environmental 

damage. Such destruction of the earth will remain long after Resolution Copper and its foreign-owned parent companies, Rio Tinto 

plc and BHP-Billiton, Ltd. have taken their profits from the copper 

ore and water, which it has no right, and have left the area. As 

American Indian tribes, we have seen this pattern repeated all too 

often and oftentimes with tragic consequences for our people and 

natural resources. 

Aside from the unequivocal surface destruction that would occur 

on lands under which the mining is proposed to take place, given 

the unpredictable reaction of nature and the extent of damage of 

block and cave mining has on the surface of land, contrary to 

claims by the mining companies involved, there is not a soul on 

this earth who can with certainty assure that Apache Leap will not 

be damaged by this method of mining, nor that it would potentially 

jeopardize the highway running through the area, nor the water resources of other people in the region. They can guess, estimate, and 

surmise, but they cannot guarantee. We ask then why would the 

United States permit this to happen when it is the trustee of our 

people, our cultures, our interests, and our homelands, as well as 

the steward of forest lands involved that belong to people of the 

United States. 

We strongly request and urge that you and your colleagues of the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee resist being pressured into giving these foreign entities such incredible rights to 

land and resources at the expense of so many environmental land 
48 

stewardship and trust responsibilities for which your committee 

has its own responsibilities. 

ITCA and the San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache 

Tribe, Yavapai Apache Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, Hualapai 

Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and many other 

tribes will submit more extended comments for the record of this 

hearing. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee for allowing 

me to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHAN LEWIS, PRESIDENT, INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF

ARIZONA, PHOENIX, AZ, ON S. 3157 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Shan Lewis. I serve as President of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Our members include twenty American Indian Tribes, Nations and Communities in Arizona on matters of international, national and statewide importance to 

the Tribes. I also serve as Vice-Chairman of the Fort Mojave Tribe, which has Tribal 

lands in Arizona, California and Nevada. Several ITCA Tribes have lands in more 

than one state. 

I speak today on behalf of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It is with deep concern that we respectfully oppose the passage by the Senate Energy and National 

Resources Committee and the Senate of S. 3157 as introduced on June 18, 2008. 

We must say at the outset (as Chairman Wendsler Nosie of the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe and President Bear on behalf of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

testified before the House on November 1, 2007) that the Federal agencies involved 

have failed to consult with us on a government to government basis about this matter. Under the United States Constitution, and our treaties, agreements, and Congressional and Executive policy, we request that the United States consult with us 

on a government to government basis about this matter prior to any decision to 

move forward. In this regard, this hearing is quite premature. No consultation has 

occurred. No environmental impact statement has been developed, and Resolution 

Copper does not even know if the mine is feasible. 

The Forest Service only announced on June 25, 2008 that Resolution Copper had 

filed a proposed ‘‘plan of operation for a pre-feasibility study’’ for the mine to be conducted around Oak Flats, the land Resolution Copper asks you to convey to it now. 

Comments on the pre-feasibility study are not due until July 18, 2008. 

Senate Bill 3157 would direct federal agencies to literally dismember a federally 

established recreation campground authorized during the presidency of President 

Dwight D. Eisenhower in an area within ancestral Indian Tribal lands that are of 

unique cultural, spiritual and archeological significance to American Indian tribes 

in the region. It would facilitate a serious and highly damaging assault on the 

water, wildlife, and other natural as well as archeological and historic resources of 

the area by using highly surface-destructive block and cave mining all in the name 

of making the mining operation cheaper for the foreign multinational corporations 

that seek to extract the minerals from the ground there. 

Although we are not opposed to mining in general, this form of mining and mining in this location does not make sense, is offensive to us, and would pose a danger 

to many important values of the region. Further, the proposed mining operation 

would cause the collapse of the surface of the earth on the public lands owned by 

the American People and endanger the historic terrain at Apache Leap, Oak Flat, 

and Devils Canyon as well as the surrounding countryside. 

The project would deplete and contaminate water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers leaving in its wake long-term, and in some cases, permanent religious, cultural and environmental damage. Such destruction of the Earth will remain long after Resolution Copper and its foreign-owned parent companies, Rio 

Tinto, PLC and BHP Billiton, Ltd. have taken their profits from the copper ore and 

water to which it has no right, and have left the area. As American Indian Tribes, 

we have seen this pattern repeated all too often and oftentimes with tragic consequences for our people and natural resources. 

This mining operation by Rio Tinto and BHP call for a land exchange that entails 

taking public land located in a particularly sensitive area and transferring it to the 

subsidiary of these two foreign conglomerates. To us, it is inappropriate for the 

United States to go to such extraordinary lengths to accommodate these foreign interests’ desires to mine an ore body with such profound adverse impacts. 
49 

These mining companies have sought to piece together a handful of small conservation projects in the state that may be meritorious individually in an attempt 

to soften the huge environmental blow that the mining project would deliver to the 

environment of the area. The proponents, in essence, advocate that the Congress 

agree to sacrifice the surface lands and the water that flows through their subsurface on lands immediately adjacent to Apache Leap; that is, to ‘‘look the other 

way,’’ so as to consciously permit this substantial insult to the lands and the resources involved to advance, just to facilitate the less expensive form of mining to 

benefit Rio Tinto and BHP. 

Aside from the unequivocal surface destruction that would take place on lands 

under which the mining is proposed to take place, given the unpredictable reaction 

of Nature and the extent of damage of block and cave mining on the surface of land, 

contrary to claims by the mining companies involved, there is not a soul on the 

Earth who can with certainty assure that Apache Leap will not be damaged by this 

method of mining, nor that it would potentially jeopardize the highway running 

through the area, nor the water resources of other people in the region. They can 

guess, estimate, and surmise . . . but they cannot guarantee. We ask, then, why 

would the United States permit this to happen when it is the Trustee for our People, our cultures, our interests, and our Homelands as well as the steward of forest 

lands involved that belong to the people of the United States? 

These foreign interests, clearly concerned about bottom-line matters rather than 

cultural and related matters of indigenous peoples, are apparently willing to promise almost anything to obtain more lands owned by the American public today for 

the self-interests of their shareholders. We urge that should not be the driving force 

or deciding factor in the Congress’s consideration of this ill-considered venture. 

The environmental consequences to the lands in the proposed mining area as well 

as the harm to spiritual, cultural, archeological, and historic resources from the proposed mining by these huge foreign mining companies is to us, simply not something that our Trustee should willingly and consciously countenance and support all 

in the name of what is the ‘‘cheapest’’ way for these mining companies to turn a 

profit on resources. This land and its environmental beauty and resources are National treasures. There are time that our government should just say no and this 

is one of them. This type of mining in this location should not occur. 

We strongly request and urge that you and your colleagues on the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee resist being pressured into giving these foreign 

entities such incredible rights to lands and resources at the expense of so many environmental, land stewardship, and trust responsibilities for which your committee 

has such solemn responsibilities. 

ITCA and the San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, YavapaiApache Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, Hulapai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Fort McDowell 

Yavapai Nation and many other Tribes will submit more extended comments for the 

record of this hearing. 

We thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis. 

Where we are, we have a vote on the floor of the Senate now. 

So Senator Barrasso and I will go over and make that vote. It is 

my intention to come back. Then we will go to you, Mr. 

Featherstone. Then I will have some questions for the three of you. 

Senator Barrasso may have some as well. 

Then for the third panel, which will be Mr. Price from Daniel, 

Wyoming, and Mr. Edwards from Montana, Senator Tester will 

chair. 

So our thanks to all of you for the patience. I know that you have 

come on a particularly chaotic day here in the Senate, and just 

know we will be back as soon as we can. 

With that, we are in recess until after this vote. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you all for your patience. We will hear 

now from Mr. Featherstone. Please proceed. 
50 

STATEMENT OF ROGER FEATHERSTONE, SOUTHWEST 

CIRCUIT RIDER, EARTHWORKS, TUCSON, AZ 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. My name is Roger Featherstone. I am the 

Southwest Circuit Rider for Earthworks based in Tucson, Arizona. 

My territory covers the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. 

I would like to start by thanking Senator Wyden for holding this 

hearing. 

I would also like to say I am delivering my written and oral testimony today also on behalf of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. 

Earthworks is a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment. 

We are strongly opposed to S. 3157. This bill was written to benefit Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton, two huge foreign mining companies, for the express purpose of expediting the building a mine in 

Arizona. These companies have formed a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary called Resolution Copper Company. This is the 

height of special interest legislation. 

This bill does not benefit the taxpayer. It does not benefit the environment, and if passed, it would set a dangerous precedent of 

mining companies going straight to Congress for legislative relief 

from laws that they and every other mining company have had no 

trouble in following in the past. Every other mining company in the 

United States that wants to build a mine goes through an established process that has been around since 1872. Instead of circumventing that process and going to Congress with this bill, what Rio 

Tinto and BHP should be doing is writing a plan of operations for 

a mine and then submitting it to the U.S. Forest Service for consideration. This would allow the public to participate in this process 

to help the Forest Service decide whether the mine design is a good 

one and should be permitted. 

Besides being unnecessary, there are numerous problems with 

this bill. The bill would override an executive order signed by 

President Eisenhower 50 years ago that recognized the value of 

having Oak Flat Campground as a haven for recreation and many 

other purposes. 

The bill would trample on the rights of the Native American 

community by giving away to a foreign corporation land that has 

been used for generations for cultural and spiritual practices. 

The bill purports to contain a NEPA provision, but upon closer 

examination, it does nothing but reiterate what is currently law. It 

does not allow a NEPA examination of the land exchange itself. If 

does not allow a NEPA examination of the mine proposal. All this 

NEPA language does is say that if Resolution Copper wants even 

more Federal land than what they would obtain in this land exchange for a road or other such structure, then an environmental 

impact statement would be prepared for that feature alone. 

This version of the bill also purports to include some sort of royalty. Again, this sounds good on paper, but when you look closer, 

you find several flaws. The companies would hire and pay for an 

appraiser that would set the royalty amount, set the method of royalty, and would also attempt to determine the amount of copper in 

the ground that could be mined. There would be no public input 
51 

into the appraiser’s decision. Only the Department of the Interior 

would oversee the appraisal, and as my written testimony points 

out, they have a track record of undervaluing public lands. If the 

appraisal comes in low or the royalty amount were set low, the 

public would be out of luck. 

If a royalty is to be meaningful at all as part of this bill, Congress should set the royalty amount, the royalty method, and the 

method for determining the quantity of mineral upon which that 

royalty is based. 

Further, S. 3157 makes it clear that the land surface will be 

given no value in the appraisal. Considering the ecological and cultural values of Oak Flat and the surrounding areas, at the very 

least the appraisal and any royalty should be set high. Maricopa 

Audubon Society in Arizona has done an extensive, on-the-ground 

survey of the parcels included in the exchange. While some of them 

have some ecological value, Maricopa Audubon Society has found 

that they do not equal the environmental and cultural value of the 

Oak Flat, Apache Leap, Devil’s Canyon area that we would lose. 

This legislation could help address the question of the value of the 

land the public would lose, but it is silent on that point. 

In conclusion, this bill is bad public policy that benefits corporations at the expense of the taxpayers and the environment. This 

bill should not make it past this hearing. 

Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Featherstone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER FEATHERSTONE, SOUTHWEST CIRCUIT RIDER, 

EARTHWORKS, TUCSON, AZ 

Earthworks is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental organization dedicated to 

protecting communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral 

development. Our national office, based in Washington D.C., provides support to 

citizens across the country and around the world. Our field offices in Arizona and 

Montana assist communities throughout the western United States concerned about 

the impact of mineral development in their backyards. 

Earthworks supports responsible mining policies and practices and recognizes 

that some mining companies seek to operate in a manner that protects our environment. 

The Sierra Club is America’s oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. Inspired by nature, the Sierra Club’s members—including 

14,000 in Arizona—work together to protect our communities and the planet. The 

Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; 

to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; 

to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and 

human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The 

Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter has been actively involved in protecting public 

lands in Arizona for more than 40 years. 

We appreciate the opportunity to express our view in front of the Subcommittee 

about S. 3157, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008 

(Oak Flat Land Exchange). 

BACKGROUND

Resolution Copper Company (RCC)—a wholly foreign-owned subsidiary of Rio 

Tinto and BHP, two of the largest mining companies in the world—is potentially 

planning to develop a deep underground copper mine. RCC seeks to acquire Oak 

Flat, Apache Leap, and surrounding public lands for its private use through this 

land exchange bill. There are many significant problems posed by this unusual bill. 

For example, if approved, more than 3,000 acres of the Tonto National Forest will 

become private property and forever off limits to recreationists and all those who 

enjoy public lands. Privatization of this land would end public access to some of the 
52 

most spectacular outdoor recreation and wildlife viewing areas in Arizona. If a mine 

is developed, this land would be affected by massive surface subsidence, leaving a 

permanent scar on the landscape among other lasting and ongoing damage. 

The Oak Flat Campground was recognized by the Eisenhower Administration as 

an important recreational resource in 1955, and specifically placed off limits to future mining activity. This unique area is a world-class natural resource for birding, 

hunting, hiking, camping, rock climbing, bouldering, canyoneering, picnicking, responsible OHV driving, and other recreational uses. Oak Flat receives tens of thousands of visitors each year. On the eastern border of Oak Flat is Devil’s Canyon, 

and the waters of Queen Creek, one of the crown jewels of Arizona’s state trust 

lands, with some of the finest remaining riparian habitat in the state. 

The Oak Flat Campground, Apache Leap, and the surrounding area are very important for recreation and respite to the citizens of the town of Superior and a large 

percentage of Superior residents oppose the Oak Flat Land Exchange. 

Oak Flat, Apache Leap, Devil’s Canyon, and the surrounding area have long been 

an important cultural site for Western Apaches as well as for the Fort McDowell 

Yavapai tribe. The Tonto National Forest has discovered at least a dozen archeological sites in and around Oak Flat. Apaches continue to use the Oak Flat area 

to gather acorns and pine nuts that are highly valued traditional and ceremonial 

foods. Making Oak Flat private land would forever eliminate those Apache traditional cultural and religious uses of that unique area. Apache Leap is an historical 

land known as the Apache’s Masada. It is hallowed grounds where many dozens of 

Apaches leaped to their deaths when trapped by the US Army. 

The bill contains no meaningful environmental studies. Furthermore, RCC has 

not yet filed a mining plan and has offered scant and often conflicting information 

about (1) what will become of Oak Flat, Apache Leap, and environs; (2) where the 

mountains of mining tailings will ultimately reside; (3) where the enormous 

amounts of water needed for mining will come from and be discharged; (4) how endangered species (such as the Arizona hedgehog cactus, echinocereus triglochidiatus 

arizonicus) will be protected and preserved; and (5) how necessary cultural resources will be protected. Importantly, the bill makes no mention of the subsidence 

that could occur if RCC is allowed to mine this area as it intends. Much has yet 

to still be dealt with in terms of environmental considerations. 

This bill is at best premature. Before we can decide on the merits of any exchange, the public must review and debate a plan of operation for an actual mine. 

Only if, after full review of a plan of operations and alternatives, a decision is made 

to move forward with a mine, should it be determined if a land exchange is needed. 

For this, and other reasons listed below, we are opposed to the land exchange in 

its current form. 

LOSS OF OAK FLAT CAMPGROUND

Oak Flat campground was recognized by President Eisenhower as an important 

area back in 1955, when he signed Public Land Order 1229 which specifically put 

this land off limits to future mining activity and reserved it for camp grounds, recreation, and other public purposes. Oak Flat provides many recreational opportunities 

for Arizonans, including for those in the local communities, and for others from 

around the country. Recreational activities in the area include hiking, camping, rock 

climbing, birding, bouldering and more. 

Oak Flat is a key birding area. Four of the bird species that have been sighted 

at Oak Flat are on the National Audubon Society’s watch list of declining species 

that are of national conservation concern including the black-chinned sparrow, 

Costa’s hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, and gray vireo. The endangered Arizona 

Hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus) also inhabits the Oak 

Flat area and is threatened by this proposed mine. 

In addition to privatizing this important area, S. 3157 also rescinds P.L.O. 1229. 

In Section 9 of the bill, titled ‘‘MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS’’, it revokes any 

public land order that withdraws Federal land or the land to be conveyed to Arizona 

State Parks It is disturbing to see this withdrawal of the protection for Oak Flat. 

Considering all the pressures on our public lands, the important services and opportunities they provide, and the important respite from the increasing urbanization 

they provide, it is a bad precedent and a bad message for the Congress to give up 

to a mining company an area protected by President Eisenhower more than 50 

years ago. 

THREATS TO DEVIL’S CANYON

Devil’s Canyon is located in the Tonto National Forest and on State Trust Lands 

near the proposed mine, just northeast of the town of Superior. It flows into Mineral 
53 

Creek which is a tributary of the Gila River. Devil’s Canyon provides important and 

all too rare riparian habitat in a state where much of our riparian habitat has been 

degraded or destroyed—most estimates indicate that more than 90 percent has been 

lost to water diversions, groundwater pumping, and other activities. It is an area 

enjoyed by hikers and climbers and those seeking some relief from the heat. Sycamores and Arizona alders thrive on Devil’s Canyon’s water and also provide valuable habitat for wildlife. 

Considering its proximity to the proposed mine and the amount of water the mine 

would utilize, between 17,000 and 19,000 acre feet of water per year, the risks of 

dewatering Devil’s Canyon are significant. Banking Central Arizona Project water 

at a remote location as the company is currently doing will not protect this important riparian area. 

NO MEANINGFUL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

For the first time, this version of the Oak Flat land exchange bill mentions the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While this may sound like a step forward, the bill language does not change the status quo. 

There would be no NEPA analysis on the land exchange. The bill forbids any 

NEPA analysis of impact except for commercial production and then ONLY if there 

were a Federal nexus to what would become RCC private land. The very fact that 

the entire section that deals with NEPA is titled ‘‘POST-EXCHANGE PROCESSING’’ makes it clear that no NEPA would occur until the land exchange was 

a done deal. At that point, the bill clearly states that NEPA would only happen ‘‘regarding any Federal agency action carried our relating to the commercial production...’’ This is already the case. A mine on private land that, for example, wanted 

to build a road across Federal land would require NEPA on that action. The only 

real difference this ‘‘NEPA’’ section would make is that an EIS would need to be 

done instead of a simpler Environmental Assessment. 

Even if this provision would somehow invoke a NEPA analysis on a mine design 

(and this would be highly unlikely), the exchange and the mine would already be 

a done deal and the NEPA analysis would be moot at best and more likely a complete waste of taxpayer money done simply to give RCC some extra ‘‘window dressing.’’. 

There would still be no analysis in the bill of the impacts on the land traded out 

of public ownership, including impacts from mining or other uses of the land on adjacent lands. 

There is plenty of time to undertake the full public review of any possible mine 

under Oak Flat and Apache Leap. Full public review and input would show that 

the area is critically important to Western Apache and others—a point that is being 

glossed over in the current rush to approve the exchange. 

S. 3157 allows Resolution Copper Company to bypass the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), as would be required if this land exchange was evaluated 

through the administrative process. An administrative exchange would require a 

NEPA Environmental Impact Statement on the exchange itself, including an examination of alternatives, the environmental impacts, the cumulative impacts (including past and anticipated impacts in the area), and possible mitigation of the impacts. This type of analysis helps the public better evaluate whether they are getting a fair exchange and also evaluate the true environmental impacts of such an 

exchange. A NEPA analysis can identify a less environmentally harmful alternative 

as well. It is clear that Resolution Copper Company (RCC) will benefit enormously 

from this exchange. It is clear that the public would not get a fair return on the 

loss of Oak Flat, the possible damage to Devil’s Canyon, and the threats to Apache 

Leap. 

Because there is no NEPA process associated with the exchange itself, there is 

no opportunity for the public to review a Mining Plan of Operation up front. 

There are key questions outstanding on this proposal which make it impossible 

to say the exchange is in the larger public’s interest. Where would all mining waste 

go? What is the plan for the mine tailings? Is this a sulfide ore, which is often the 

case for ore that is below the water table? If it is, how are they going to address 

the acid mine drainage from the rock dumps? How are they going to process the 

ore? At one point they suggested using the leach pad at Pinto Valley, but if their 

estimates on the amount of ore are accurate, they could only process a fraction of 

the ore at that leach pad. Are they going to smelt the ore? If so, where? Clearly 

there are significant air quality issues associated with that, not to mention considerable energy use. 

If done properly and with a solid open public process, an environmental analysis 

can inform the proposed action. A study after the fact does not allow that, plus there 
54 

will be no opportunity to choose the no action alternative or a less environmentally 

damaging alternative. We will not know the effects of this proposed mine on Devil’s 

Canyon until after the fact. We will not know if it is really necessary for the public 

to give up Oak Flat in the exchange or if they can mine this ore body without it 

until after the deal is done. 

The study after the fact might make people feel better about the deal, but its 

value is negligible, at best, as it will not change the outcome. The exchange will not 

be modified. 

If the information that Resolution Copper Company has provided on this proposed 

mine is accurate, this mine will be the largest mining operation in Arizona. It would 

be larger than the Phelps Dodge (now Freeport McMoRan) Morenci Mine and one 

of the largest working copper mines in the United States. To allow the company to 

circumvent the National Environmental Policy Act on such a large mine that has 

great potential to negatively affect the surrounding environs and that has so many 

unanswered questions associated with it, would be potentially harmful to Arizonans 

and United States taxpayers. 

SHAM ROYALTY

Section 10 of this version of the land exchange contains a provision for RCC to 

possibly pay a royalty to the Federal government. While this provision may look 

good on the surface,, it is essentially an attempt to ‘‘greenwash’’ the bill to make 

it more palatable to decision-makers. 

There is no mention in the bill of either the royalty amount or the royalty method. 

We have attached to our written comments copies of reports EARTHWORKS has 

prepared showing the problems with different kinds of royalties. Congress should, 

at the very least, specify both the royalty amount and define the royalty calculation 

method. Royalty amounts paid on private lands in the United States are as high 

as 18 percent. Especially since Oak Flat and Apache Leap are so important to the 

public (including Native American communities, recreationists, and for conservation 

purposes)purposes) the royalty amount should be enough to attempt to compensate 

for these losses. Especially since the bill language makes it clear that the appraiser 

will not be placing a value on the surface estate of Oak Flat and Apache Leap. 

The bill places the entire burden of setting the rate and method of the royalty 

to the appraiser and out of the hands of Congress and the public. This is bad policy. 

Since most appraisers that are experts in setting royalties spend the majority of 

their time working for the mining industry, there is a high likelihood that, without 

oversight by Congress or the public, that the royalty amount would be set far too 

low. The way the bill is written, only RCC and the Department of Interior will have 

any input into setting the royalty amount or method. 

This royalty section also does not specify the quantity of mineral production used 

in the appraisal calculations or any analysis of how the estimate was calculated. 

Again, the company (who would be responsible both in hiring and paying for the 

appraisal) would wish to lowball these calculations to avoid paying money up front 

for the value of minerals taken out of the public domain. 

A critical issue that is not addressed by this legislation is the value of the lands 

that RCC will acquire. There is no real discussion of the known and anticipated 

mineral values on the US Forest Service (public) lands. It is difficult to understand 

how this land exchange could move forward without solid appraisals, including on 

the value of the copper itself. 

The Mineral Report and Feasibility Study help provide the basis for the appraisal. 

The value of the exchange cannot possibly be properly evaluated without that. 

INHERENT PROBLEMS WITH LAND EXCHANGES

In particular, this land exchange bill does little to ensure that the land trade 

would fairly compensate the American public for the loss of Oak Flat and Apache 

Leap. The bill requires that an appraisal be completed within one year, yet the company itself will have no idea of the full value of the minerals that are now held in 

the public trust. This is particularly important given that the royalty payments in 

Section 10 of the bill are based on this appraisal. 

There is no mandate that RCC build a mine if the exchange were to be approved. 

If the company decides not to mine, Rio Tinto and BHP would be able to enter into 

the real estate development business. If this bill passes, the land will be private 

land, allowing mining companies to sell the land for condominiums or golf courses. 

Rio Tinto is currently planning a massive housing development on its mine land 

outside of Salt Lake City that could house as many as 500,000-600,000 people. BHP 

is planning a large subdivision for 3,500 at its mine site near San Manuel. There 
55 

is nothing to stop RCC from using this bill as a grab of public land under the guise 

of mining. 

While land exchanges can be a tool for conservation, it is a limited tool and the 

pitfalls are many. It should be used very judiciously. Even with an administrative 

exchange that would include examination of alternatives and would look at the environmental impacts, it is difficult to determine if the public’s interest is really being 

served. Even though the federal land management agencies are required to do thorough reviews and ensure that a trade is in the public interest, there are significant 

problems. The General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in June 2000 where 

it examined a total of 51 land exchanges, most of which occurred in the west (BLM 

and the Forest Service: Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and 

Serve the Public Interest, GAO/RCED-00-73, June 2000.) The GAO auditors found 

that often the public lands were being undervalued while the private lands were 

being overvalued, resulting in significant losses to taxpayers. The agency also found 

that many of these exchanges had questionable public benefit. 

The GAO discovered that there were some exchanges in Nevada in which the nonfederal party who acquired federal land sold it the same day for amounts that were 

two to six times the amount that it had been valued in the exchange. While that 

would not necessarily be the case here, we do know that the non-federal party is 

likely to make billions of dollars off this land, far short of what the public will get 

in return. 

While the GAO was examining administrative exchanges, it noted that there are 

inherent problems with exchanging lands no matter the mechanism. In particular, 

it noted that there are no market mechanisms to address the issues relative to value 

for value. 

Land exchanges have been very controversial in Arizona, which may be one more 

reason that large corporations do not want to go through the National Environmental Policy Act process which includes significant public involvement. Arizonans 

have made it clear how they feel about land exchanges by rejecting six times land 

exchange authority for the Arizona State Land Department. 

In 2003, an independent entity, the Appraisal and Exchange Work Group, was 

formed to review Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land exchanges. The Work 

Group’s report concluded that BLM’s land appraisals were inappropriately influenced by the managers wanting to complete the deals and that these unduly influenced appraisals cost the public millions of dollars in lost value in exchanges with 

private entities and state governments. 

One land swap resulted in an ethics violation investigation of Kathleen Clarke, 

the BLM Director at the time. The proposed San Rafael Swell land exchange would 

have cost federal taxpayers $100 million because the BLM lands were so undervalued. The Office of Inspector General’s Report on the San Rafael Land Exchange 

found that several BLM employees devalued the public lands and kept information 

from Congress. 

RECLAMATION

There is no discussion about reclamation or closure of a mine in the bill. If the 

land were privatized, Arizona state law would allow the company itself to insure the 

cost of reclamation. This type of self-guaranteed bond leaves the taxpayers vulnerable if the mining company is to go bankrupt. We should learn from the example 

of the bankruptcies of ASARCO and other mining companies. Without cash up front 

for reclamation, the taxpayer would be left responsible for reclamation costs. 

CATERING TO SPECIAL INTERESTS

RCC has gone to great lengths in this bill to attempt to accommodate several interest groups. The bill bends over backwards to provide incentives for rock climber 

support of the bill. Yet in spite of this effort, all but a few climbers oppose the exchange. The bill’s sponsors have offered parcels of land that would benefit only certain conservation organizations. Yet, the bill locks other groups out of areas traditionally used by the public. Not only would Native Americans be locked out of traditional-use areas, but so would recreationists and birdwatchers. Such a divide and 

conquer strategy of talking to and appeasing only certain special interest groups is 

not the way to conduct good public policy. 

In addition, RCC has used what could certainly be considered strong-arm tactics 

in eliciting letters of support from local governments including the town council and 

Mayor of Superior. If similar tactics, including working behind the scenes to force 

the firing of individuals opposing the Land Exchange, were used in other countries, 

Americans would be outraged. Such behavior is hardly consistent with an environmentally and socially conscious corporate citizen. 
56 

SUMMARY

There is no need for a land exchange in order for RCC to move forward with plans 

to mine on public land. The 1872 Mining Law, which governs hard rock mining on 

public land, makes it clear that RCC has the ability to propose a mine on public 

land. Of the 183 major hard rock mines in the US that have opened since 1975, 

137 have operated on public land. 

The real solution is to put this land exchange bill on hold and ask RCC to submit 

a Plan of Operation to the U.S. Forest Service so that an Environmental Impact 

Statement can be written to cover all the alternatives in the project. RCC has stated 

that it will not be ready to mine for at least 10 years, giving the Forest Service and 

the public plenty of time to scrutinize the mine plan and come up with a solution 

that benefits the mining company, recreationists, and the traditional-use tribal interests. 

Unfortunately, this land exchange bill leaves many affected parties out of decision-making process. The bill takes the decision from the many and puts it in the 

hands of a few, undercutting good decision-making that would involve and benefit 

the public and surrounding communities. Rather than working out the details behind closed doors, RCC should allow for full disclosure and scrutiny. This will allow 

any environmental issues—such as subsidence, water use, and pollution issues—to 

be dealt with early on in the process. It will also allow RCC to fully consult with 

the tribes and other constituencies that will be affected by the exchange. There 

seems to be only one reason this bill is being rushed through the process—the companies know that the only way to get what they want is to circumvent America’s 

tried and true public process by asking Congress to mandate a quick fix. 

This land exchange bill would set a chilling precedent, allowing for the revocation 

of similar land withdrawals such as parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. 

Public lands such as Oak Flat that are set aside for recreation should remain protected for future generations. This land exchange bill would sacrifice the interests 

of Arizonans and all Americans, to benefit a mining company. Twenty years from 

now—if a mine is built and ceases operation and the jobs once again leave—what 

will be the fate of these towns and landscapes? We strongly urge you to protect 

these public lands for the public’s future use and preserve the unique opportunities 

for Arizonans that the Oak Flat area provides. 

Recently the public has spoken loudly on several occasions about keeping America’s public lands public. This is just another land grab under the guise of mining. 

Do not let this happen. There is time to do this right. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you all. I just have a couple of questions 

at this point. 

For you, Mr. Salisbury, S. 3157 would lift a withdrawal and provide for the conveyance of this Oak Flat Campground, this popular 

campground. That is certainly part of the debate surrounding the 

legislation. Is the withdrawal and the conveyance of that national 

forest land essential to the development of the mine or could you 

proceed to develop the mine without it? 

Mr. SALISBURY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The known ore body 

that we have abuts the campground boundaries. Therefore, the 

mineral exclusion of the campground prohibits us from exploring 

and identifying what the extent of the ore body is. Therefore, as we 

look at the ability to fully develop a mine plan, to fully develop a 

plan of operations, we would be unable to carry that work out without knowing what the ore body extent is and what its extent is that 

extends under the campground. So therefore, that is why we need 

the campground in order to be able to drill under there and determine what the ore body capacity is. 

Senator WYDEN. So on a yes or no with respect to my question, 

you would say that you could not develop the mine without it. 

Mr. SALISBURY. The ore body, because it abuts to the campground—it would not be advisable for us to move forward with the 

mine development without knowing what is under there, and the 

exchange is essential to the development of the mine. 
57 

Senator WYDEN. So the answer is yes. 

Mr. SALISBURY. The answer is yes. The exchange is essential to 

the full development of the mine. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, it is my understanding that a number of 

people, including the Governor and members of the congressional 

delegation, have contacted you to urge you to include in the exchange a piece of property along the lower San Pedro River, an important piece of property evidently. It is near the Town of San 

Manuel that is owned by your minority partner in the project, 

BHP-Billiton. 

Can you tell the subcommittee why you have not included that 

piece of property in the proposal? 

Mr. SALISBURY. We have a relationship with BHP-Billiton as a 

minority partner where we have encouraged them to consider that 

addition. However, we have no control absolute over their inclusion 

of that in this bill. While we have encouraged their participation 

and they do participate in the Lower San Pedro Working Group, 

we can only encourage and solicit their participation or consideration of that, but we cannot command them to make that parcel 

a part of this exchange. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, Mr. Featherstone suggested that Resolution Copper should develop a plan of operations and alternative before a decision is made on whether to move forward with the land 

exchange. In your mind, is that a feasible approach? 

Mr. SALISBURY. Because we do not understand and cannot drill 

under the campground area, we can only do a partial design of a 

mine. It is important for us to know precisely the mineral capacity, 

the mineral quality, the geotechnical capacity that exists there in 

order for us to fully complete a mine design. This includes the determination of the degree of subsidence that may exist under the 

mine. 

May I just respond to an earlier question, chairman, if I might? 

Our infrastructure exists between the mine ore body and the 

Apache Leap. Therefore, any degradation to the Apache Leap 

would disable our mine. We would not be able to continue. So 

therefore, we are confident and our experience tells us in this mining process we know how to control, that we know how to monitor 

this kind of mining activity, and we will protect the Leap. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Featherstone, do you want to respond to the 

answer Mr. Salisbury gave to my question? 

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. The question of subsidence or the question 

of whether they need the campground? 

I would point out that in respect to the campground, President 

Eisenhower—and reiterated by President Nixon—knew very well 

that this was in the middle of a mining district and felt that the 

values of that campground far outweighed any mineral extraction 

values. So now we are hearing that another mining company wants 

this area and we should just roll over and give it to them. 

So I do not believe that—I mean, I think it is clear that the 

Apache Leap area—or the Oak Flat Campground can be sterilized 

in a mining operation, just as they would sterilize Apache Leap, 

and a mine could continue in that area, as the Old Magnum Mine 

happened, without interrupting or bothering that campground. 
58 

Senator WYDEN. Just one last question. Mr. Lewis, are the tribes 

opposed to the legislation under any circumstance, or are there a 

set of changes that would make the tribes support it? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think right now with the current legislation that 

the tribes oppose, I do not think we are at the point where anything could be put into legislation to change our minds. We hope 

that a full, comprehensive environmental study be done to determine whether or not this project is even feasible. Obviously, government-to-government consultation would be part of that also. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. I have finished my questions about 

Arizona. I know Senator Tester is very anxious to talk to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Price. 

Senator Craig, did you have questions that you wanted to offer 

now? Because if you do, I think I may have Senator Tester chair. 

I will yield the gavel. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I am here primarily under the 

same interest that Jon is. So why do we not proceed to that? 

Senator TESTER. If I might, Mr. Chairman. I did not hear the testimony of these three fine gentlemen, with the exception of Roger 

Featherstone. I do have a couple questions for David Salisbury, 

though. 

Senator WYDEN. Then let us do this. I am going to—because I 

think fairly shortly we will move to the third panel, I will turn the 

gavel over to you, Senator Tester, for any questions you have of 

this panel and, Senator Barrasso, if you have any questions of this 

panel, and that will wrap up this panel. Then we will go on with 

the additional witnesses. 

Senator TESTER. I just have two very simple questions for you. 

Do you know the size of the ore body, David Salisbury? Do you 

know the size of the ore body? 

Mr. SALISBURY. We have been exploration drilling the property 

since 2004. We have just completed and publicly released a statement that indicates that there is an inferred reserve. This is according to standards that are required by the SEC—an inferred reserve of 1.3 billion tons of ore containing 1.5 percent copper and .04 

molybdenum. So we do have an idea of what there is there on an 

inferred basis, yes. 

Senator TESTER. How deep is the ore body? 

Mr. SALISBURY. It ranges from a depth of 7,000 feet up to 4,000 

feet below the surface at the present time. That is our knowledge. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much. 

No other questions? Then I will release you three guys. Thank 

you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. 

We will call forward Mr. Edwards and Mr. Price. While they are 

getting situated, I want to thank Mr. Edwards and Mr. Price for 

being here today. I appreciate the trip. It is a long haul from Montana and Wyoming to get out here. So I appreciate you guys making the effort. 

We look forward to your testimony, and once you get situated, 

Mr. Edwards, you can start with your testimony. Your complete 

testimony will be a part of the record. I will ask you to summarize 

as best as possible because we have got some questions, and we are 

getting into the day pretty good. I am sure you guys want to prob-
59 

ably get somewhere tonight too. So, Mr. Edwards, you go ahead 

and go and summarize your high points. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE EDWARDS, LIVESTOCK LOSS MITIGATION COORDINATOR, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK, HELENA, MT 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

The Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act of 2008 is similar 

to Montana’s livestock loss reduction and mitigation program. 

Through our program, we are looking for ways to fund prevention 

efforts and livestock losses due to gray wolves in our State. Montana law also contains provisions so that we will be able to include 

Montana Indian tribes, provided they have adopted a wolf management plan that is consistent with Montana’s State wolf management plan. 

During the 2007 Montana legislative session, the Livestock Loss 

Reduction and Mitigation Board was created to administer programs for mitigation and reimbursement of livestock losses by 

wolves. This board is currently attached to the Montana Department of Livestock. Our mission is to help support Montana livestock communities by reducing the economic impacts of wolves on 

individual producers by reimbursing their confirmed and probable 

losses and helping to reduce their losses by approving projects and 

funding programs that will discourage wolves from killing livestock. 

Our program’s purpose is to acknowledge the importance of economic viability and sustainability of individual livestock owners 

who are negatively affected by wolf recovery. 

Our program is based on the belief that both government and 

livestock owners want to take reasonable and cost effective measures to reduce losses and that livestock producers should not incur 

disproportionate impacts as a result of recovery of Montana’s gray 

wolf population. 

We began to process claims as of April 15 and pay 100 percent 

of the market value for confirmed and probable losses. All confirmed and probable losses are verified by USDA Wildlife Services 

personnel. Prior to beginning our claims process, a private organization, Defenders of Wildlife, had been paying claims. Defenders of 

Wildlife has made a donation of $50,000 in April 2008 and has 

pledged to donate another $50,000 in 2009. Without this donation, 

we would be unable to pay claims for livestock losses as of July 1, 

2008. 

The fiscal note for Montana’s legislation creating our program estimated losses caused by wolves to be $200,000 annually. Since this 

legislation was originally drafted in 2006, the number of wolves in 

Montana has increased by 34 percent. Actual confirmed and probable livestock losses have more than doubled since this legislation 

was introduced. 

Livestock owners are shouldering an economic burden beyond 

their control. This legislation will help address funding of livestock 

losses and activities to reduce predation. Prevention programs in 

this legislation are critical to our livestock industry and we want 

to be able to implement them. Hopefully, being able to fund pre-
60 

ventative methods will reduce the financial and emotional toll to 

our livestock owners. 

Programs like Montana’s livestock loss reduction and mitigation 

program, with the help of Federal funding, will allow wolves and 

livestock to coexist. Help me help them and thank you for the support of this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE EDWARDS, LIVESTOCK LOSS MITIGATION

COORDINATOR, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK, HELENA, MT 

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

testify before you today. 

The Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act of 2008 is similar to Montana’s Livestock Loss Reduction and Mitigation program. Through our program, we are looking 

for ways to fund prevention efforts and livestock losses due to gray wolves in our 

state. Montana law also contains a provision so that we will be able to include Montana Indian Tribes provided that they have adopted a wolf management plan that 

is consistent with Montana’s state wolf management plan. 

In 2005, Montana entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that allowed 

the state to implement it’s approved plan within federal law and guidelines in place 

at the time. The MOU allowed Montana and the Indian Tribes to lead wolf conservation and management activities within their respective boundaries. In its 2007 

Annual Report, Montana reported over 420 wolves in about 73 packs and 39 breeding pairs, with demonstrated distribution among Montana’s portion of all three 

Northern Rocky Mountain subpopulations. 

In keeping with Montana’s tradition of broad-based citizen participation in wolf 

conservation and management, a diverse, 30-member working group met 4 times in 

2005. The working group was comprised of private citizens, representatives from 

non-governmental organizations, and representatives from state and federal agencies. A smaller subcommittee continued to meet in 2006. This group finalized a 

framework which became the basis for legislation in the 2007 Montana Legislature. 

During the 2007 Montana Legislative session, a bill to establish the framework 

of the working group was introduced and passed (HB364). The legislation created 

the Livestock Loss Reduction and Mitigation Board to administer programs for the 

mitigation and reimbursement of livestock losses by wolves. It also established the 

quasi-judicial board, its purpose, membership, powers and duties, and reporting requirements. The Board is administratively attached to the Montana Department of 

Livestock, but its role and duties are wholly independent from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Board of Livestock. 

Late in 2007, the Governor appointed the Board. The legislation also codified 

much of the actual draft framework in state law. It directed the Board to establish 

a program to cost-share with livestock producers who are interested in implementing measures to decrease the risk of wolf predation on livestock. It also directed the Board to establish and administer a program to reimburse livestock producers for losses caused by wolves. While some details of the grant program (loss 

reduction) and the reimbursement program (loss mitigation) are established in statute, the Board is in the process of establishing additional details through a rulemaking process, which will include public comment opportunities. 

Board makeup consists of seven members appointed by our Governor. Three members were selected from a pool of names recommended by the Montana Department 

of Livestock, another three members were recommended by Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks and one member from the general public. 

Gray wolves are firmly established in Montana. The long term presence of wolves 

is dependent upon comprehensive programs that carefully balance complex biological, social, economic and political aspects of wolf management. One challenge that 

must be addressed in seeking this balance is that gray wolf recovery has and will 

continue to result in the loss of personal property and income to livestock owners. 

Our mission is to help support Montana livestock communities by reducing the 

economic impacts of wolves on individual producers by reimbursing their confirmed 

and probable wolf-caused losses and helping to reduce their losses by approving 

projects and funding programs that will discourage wolves from killing livestock. 

Our programs purpose is to acknowledge the importance of economic viability and 

sustainability of individual livestock owners in Montana who are negatively affected 

by wolf recovery and to ensure a viable, well distributed gray wolf population that 

meets recovery goals and is managed similar to that of other large carnivores. The 
61 

program was created to fulfill a compensation provision of Montana’s Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

More specifically, the purpose of the loss reduction and mitigation programs are: 

• to proactively apply prevention tools and incentives to decrease risks of wolfcaused losses; 

• to provide financial reimbursements to livestock owners for losses caused by 

wolves. 

The program is based on the belief that both government and livestock owners 

want to take reasonable and cost effective measures to reduce losses, the acknowledgement that it is not possible to prevent all losses, and that livestock producers 

should not incur disproportionate impacts as a result of recovery of Montana’s gray 

wolf population. 

To help fund this program, Montana legislators created a trust fund that may collect up to five million dollars. The livestock loss reduction and mitigation trust fund 

is to be funded with gifts, grants, appropriations, or allocations from any source. 

In designing this program legislators envisioned using a trust fund, private donations, state appropriations and federal appropriations to provide loss reduction 

grants and payments for losses and mitigation efforts. 

The Montana legislation creating this program provided $60,000 appropriation 

from the general fund in fiscal year 2008 for one full time employee, operating expenses to establish the board and board activities. Another $60,000 is appropriated 

for FY 2009. $30,000 was placed into a fund for fiscal year 2008 for our program 

to begin loss payments. Currently, there are no funds appropriated in our trust 

fund. 

We began to process claims as of April 15th and pay 100% of the market value 

for confirmed and probable losses. All confirmed and probable losses are verified by 

USDA Wildlife Services personnel. Prior to beginning our claims process, a private 

organization, Defenders of Wildlife, had been paying 100% for confirmed losses and 

50% for probable losses. 

Defenders of Wildlife has made a donation of $50,000 in April 2008 and has 

pledged to donate another $50,000 in 2009. Without this donation we would be unable to pay claims for livestock losses as of July 1, 2008. 

The loss reduction element is intended to minimize losses proactively by reducing 

risk of loss through prevention tools such as night pens, guarding animals, or increasing human presence with range riders and herders. 

The fiscal note for the legislation creating our program estimated losses caused 

by wolves to be $200,000 annually. Since this legislation was originally drafted in 

2006, the number of wolves in Montana has increased by 34%. Actual confirmed and 

probable livestock losses have more than doubled since this legislation was introduced. Only a small fraction of predator-killed livestock are ever found. Loss figures 

in USDA Wildlife Services reports only reflect a fraction of predator related losses 

because no entity is able to verify all causes of livestock loss. As wolf populations 

increase, wolf/human conflicts are expanding on private land, other lands and across 

jurisdictions. The number of gray wolves is significantly increasing. Losses are occurring at a rapid pace and the importance of being able to fund prevention efforts 

becomes more vital to our livestock industry. 

As with this bill, Montana’s program covers cattle, swine, horses, mules, sheep, 

goats, and livestock guard animals. 

The Montana Livestock Loss Reduction & Mitigation Program covers losses due 

to gray wolves. Losses due to coyotes, grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions and 

red fox are not currently part of our program. 

The following is a breakdown of animals killed in Montana by wolves since 2006: 

Loss numbers are supplied by USDA Wildlife Services. 2008 numbers reflect only 

an eight month long timeframe. This is very early in the summer and most livestock 

are just going to summer range where a lot of predator related losses historically 

occur. 
62 

Our program offers a transparent approach to our operations. All livestock loss 

claims begin when a livestock owner calls USDA Wildlife Services to investigate a 

loss. When it has been determined that the loss is caused by wolves, Wildlife Services personnel send the livestock owner an investigative report and our loss reimbursement application. The livestock owner then has the option of submitting a 

claim to our office. We use a weekly USDA market report to determine livestock 

values for commercial livestock. Registered livestock values are determined by sales 

receipts of similar age and sex at public or private sales for that registered breed. 

The livestock owners of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are shouldering an economic burden beyond their control. This legislation will address funding of livestock 

losses and activities to reduce predation. At the present time we don’t have the necessary funding to offer preventative programs. Prevention programs in this legislation are critical to our livestock industry and we want to be able to implement them. 

Livestock losses are occurring at a rapid pace and we are having great difficulties 

in raising funds to keep up. Hopefully being able to fund preventative methods will 

reduce the financial and emotional toll to our livestock owners. 

Benefits to the general public are immeasurable. Our three state regions offer the 

ability for our children and future generations to see wolves in their natural habitat. 

We also need to keep our nations agricultural producers economically sound. Programs like Montana’s Livestock Loss Reduction & Mitigation Program with help 

from federal funding will allow wolves and livestock to co-exist. Help me help them 

and thank you for your support. 

[Additional information has been retained in subcommittee files.] 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, George. I appreciate your testimony. 

We will have questions after Mr. Price gets done with his. 

Mr. Price. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. PRICE, DANIEL, WY 

Mr. PRICE. I am, of course, Charles Price from Wyoming, and 

Senator Wyden is not here, but Senator Tester, I got the invitation 

from Senator Wyden. So I will thank him for the invitation. 

Senator TESTER. Good to have you here. 

Mr. PRICE. John Barrasso or Senator Barrasso. I knew him as 

Dr. Barrasso in Wyoming. Thank you. 

I guess I am addressing you on behalf of myself, the Upper 

Green River Cattle Growers Association, and the Wyoming Stock 

Growers Association and, to the best of my ability, the people or 

citizens of Wyoming who are being impacted by these large carnivores. In my discussion, it will be both grizzly bears and wolves because we are impacted by both of them. 

I am a member of the Upper Green River Cattle Association, an 

association of 16 cattle ranchers who graze cattle in the Upper 

Green River area. This area is within about 50 miles of the Yellowstone Park. The numerical information that I am presenting today 

is based on the Upper Green River Cattle Association records from 

1990 to 2004. I have also extracted information from 2005 to 2007 

so that you will get an idea of the complete losses. 

The details of this information are presented and analyzed in a 

draft of a paper that we are working on for publication. I have 

brought a number of copies of this paper today, and I left those 

with Senator Barrasso’s office and you can obtain them. It has got 

detailed analysis, statistical analysis, to support the numbers that 

we have generated in this report. I feel pretty confident that the 

information is good. 

We identified a predation problem in 1995 and began to compile 

a consistent record of the calf losses starting in 1990 using association members’ records. Prior to 1995, we had no known grizzly or 
63 

wolf predations, although as we look back, we recognize we did 

have a low level of predation earlier. 

In 1995, we had our first confirmed grizzly bear predation, and 

it is important to know what a confirmed kill or predation is. A 

confirmed predation kill or damage is one in which the responsible 

agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Wildlife Services, or 

the Wyoming Fish and Game, examines the damaged animal and 

confirms that it is damaged by a particular predator and issues an 

affidavit to the owner of that animal. So it is a third party confirmation. 

Analysis of our records shows that calf losses increased with the 

expansion of grizzly bears and wolves into our grazing area. From 

1995 to 2004, there were 29,693 calves that were grazed on the allotment. Out of that, there were 1,332 calves that were lost to all 

causes, but the predator losses for grizzly bears were 520 in that 

period of time. Wolves, having just come in at that time, were 177 

losses of those calves to those predators. 

Although there have been and are still various levels of compensation for livestock loss due to predation, these previous compensation programs fall short. Our analysis estimates that the uncompensated impact to producers in our allotment amounts to 

$22,500 for that period of 1995 to 2004. Compensation is usually 

based on a confirmed kill. However, only a fraction of the calves 

damaged or killed are actually found and confirmed. In the case of 

grizzlies, our study shows only 1 in 3.8 calves are found. In the 

case of wolves, it is even worse than that. It is 1 in 6.3. This is 

based on our finding. This leads to the concept of a compensation 

factor, a multiplier that can be applied to the number of confirmed 

kills to fairly compensate producers for their predator losses. 

As I said, I extracted information from 2005 to 2007, and from 

that period of time, we had 59 confirmed grizzly kills, 35 wolf kills. 

Using the multipliers of 3.8 for the grizzlies, means that there were 

224 calves killed by grizzlies in that 3-year period. For wolves, 

using the 6.3 multiplier, there were 221 calves in that period that 

were killed by wolves. Using this estimation, I estimate that over 

1,100 calves were killed from 1995 to 2007. Now, you can think 

about that a little bit. If a calf is $500, that is simple. That is over 

a half a million dollars of loss, direct loss, to the livestock owner. 

It is not including the management problems that occur. 

The grizzly bear and reintroduced wolf have expanded into areas 

where they are increasingly conflicting with human activity. Both 

species are represented as having a large national support from the 

public. Yet, the burden of the damage these species cause falls on 

a very small number of individuals. The result is that a few citizens are being driven into ruin by the implicit and unfunded mandate. 

To be fair, the Wyoming Fish and Game has been proactive in 

providing compensation for the grizzly damage at 3.5 to 1. With the 

delisting of the wolf, they are taking responsibility for it, and the 

compensation factor is set at 7 to 1. This is based on an Oakley 

study in Idaho that established that it was more like 7 to 8, and 

it was a very intense study. However, since the animals are of national public interest, I think the public interest should financially 
64 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

bear some of the burden that these few people that are being impacted do. 

Inadequate compensation results in resistance to large carnivore 

recovery programs. The development of compensation programs 

that fairly reimburse livestock producers for their losses is therefore a necessary component of large carnivore recovery programs. 

Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to comment 

here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. PRICE, DANIEL, WY 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LARGE CARNIVORE PREDATION ON CALVES

Impacts of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and gray wolf (Canis lupus) predation on 

calves in the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment in western Wyoming were quantified utilizing records of the number of animals grazed and the number lost from 

1990-2004. Confirmed predations by grizzly bears began in 1995, while the first confirmed wolf predation was in 2000. A ‘‘Confirmed Predation’’, is defined as predation 

that is identified by a responsible agency, USDI-Fish & Wildlife Service, USDAWildlife Services, Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD), as a predator damaged (2) animal for which an affidavit is issued to the owner of the animal. Our 

analysis indicates that calf loss increases coincide with grizzly bear and gray wolf 

arrival and population establishment. From 1995 through 2004, 29,693 calves 

grazed on the allotment. Of the 1,332 calves lost to all causes, an estimated 520 

calves were lost to grizzly bear predation and 177 calves were lost to gray wolf predation. 

Analysis of past and current grizzly and wolf compensation programs with respect 

to the reimbursement of producers estimated the value of the uncompensated financial impact on the allotment to be $222,500 for the period 1995-2004 (Ref. 1. pp 11- 

12). 

Only a fraction of the predated calves are actually found and confirmed as predator damage. Based on our findings, only one damaged calf is found and confirmed 

for every 3.8 grizzly bear damaged calves, in the case of wolves only one damaged 

calf is found and confirmed for every 6.3 wolf damaged calves. This leads to the concept of a compensation factor, a multiplier that can be applied to the confirmed calf 

losses to fairly compensate livestock producers for damage to their livestock by large 

carnivores. 

While the information is not in Ref. 1, I extracted the predator damage data from 

our records for the years 2005-2007. There were 59 confirmed kills for grizzly bears 

and 35 for wolves. Using the 3.8 and 6.3 multipliers yields 224 and 221 calves lost 

to grizzlies and wolves respectively for the 2005-2007 period. Using this information 

I estimate that over 1142 calves have been lost to grizzly bear and wolf predation 

for the 1995-2007 period. 

The grizzly bear and reintroduced wolf have expanded into areas where they are 

in increasing conflict with human activity. Both species are represented as having 

a large national support from the public; yet, the burden for the damage these species cause falls on a very small number of individuals. The result is that a few private citizens are being driven into ruin by an implicit unfunded mandate. To be fair 

the WGFD have been proactive in providing compensation for the grizzly damage, 

3.5 to 1, and with the delisting of the wolf they are taking responsibility for it with 

a compensation factor of 7 to 1. However, since these animals are of national public 

interest the public should support their interest financially. 

Inadequate compensation results in resistance to large-carnivore recovery programs. The development of compensation programs that fairly reimburse livestock 

producers for losses is therefore a necessary component of carnivore recovery efforts. 

Our analysis suggests that disciplined grizzly bear management coupled with adequate compensation for bear caused damage by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department is effective in minimizing conflict and resistance by private citizens. 

Reference 1: ‘‘Quantifying economic impacts of large carnivore predation on 

calves in the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment of western Wyoming’’, 

DRAFT, March 12, 2008; Albert P. Sommers, Charles C. Price, Cat D. Urbigkit, 

Eric M. Peterson.* 
65 

Reference 2: ‘‘Damaged’’ refers to a calf that may be killed or so badly mauled 

it can’t be economically salvaged. 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank you both for being here and for 

your testimony. I think we will just go right down the line. I will 

be last. Senator Craig, go ahead. 

Senator CRAIG. First and foremost, let me thank you, Jon, and 

you, John, too who introduced this legislation. It is critically necessary and important, and I am very supportive of it in that respect. 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming together over the last good number of years have felt the brunt of the reintroduction of the Canadian gray wolf, and finally, through exceptional efforts on the part 

of a variety of people, we have got it to the point of delisting and 

our States bringing in management plans. I am extremely proud of 

the State of Idaho and the cooperative effort of their management 

plan with both ranchers and public lands interests, environmental 

communities, pro-wolf interests. I think we can manage that wolf. 

I think, Mr. Price, you stated it well. There is a public interest 

out there. At the same time, there has to be a reality. Our greatest 

problem is the fact that up until now, the wolf has no known predator, and therefore, he has become so used to the human species 

that we are not viewed as a threat. So his separation from us, staying in the back country, is almost nonexistent. Wolves are seen all 

over Idaho today. Of course, as a result, domestic livestock grazing 

of all forms is taking a fairly heavy hit. At the same time, so are 

all of our wildlife that are the prey base of the wolf. 

Instead of asking questions, let me make this statement primarily to the Senators because I think it is a good window to look 

through that may address some of the issues of this legislation. 

Because I serve on the Appropriations Committee, I have been 

able to get an appropriated earmark, one of those evil, bad things, 

for Idaho on an annualized basis since 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 

averaging about $1.2 million going to Idaho. This is broken up, and 

DOI directs about $750,000 of it to the Office of Species Management, about $200,000 to research on ungulates, about $400,000 to 

mitigation collars, and $100,000 to compensation for loss. There is 

an estimated $200,000 need because the compensation is in part 

money left over. So therefore, some of our losses to our ranchers— 

they get pennies on the dollar. 

My guess is in Idaho alone, we are in need of about $1.5 million/ 

$1.6 million a year. Now, if you spread that across the three States, 

I think we are similar to each other in the sense of total costs. I 

mean, I think it is reasonable to assume a bill like this could cost 

us somewhere in the range of $4 million or $5 million annualized. 

I do not see that as a big price to pay, in all fairness, to bringing 

about reasonable management and the cooperative between the 

States and the Feds and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it 

relates to managing these animals and developing a good management program. 

So I thank both of you for the introduction of the legislation and 

you gentlemen for being here to testify. 

I lost this fight. Your predecessor, Conrad Burns, and I kept 

wolves out of introduction for a good long while until the Administration changed and one Secretary of the Interior came, whose 
66 

name will go unmentioned. I chose not to speak his name anymore. 

He ignored the law and did what he did. We now have the situation that we are trying to deal with in a balanced way. 

I do not think my attitude toward wolves has changed any since 

that day, but I do recognize reality and the need to build a balanced plan of management that keeps as whole as possible our domestic livestock industry in the State while recognizing the presence of the wolf. 

So I give you that as some thoughts, Mr. Chairman. This is a realistic approach. If it is a public desire to have these wolves in our 

States, then there ought to be a public commitment to help us 

manage them at the cost of the American taxpayer. 

Thank you all. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Craig, and we think it is a 

realistic approach too. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Price, I appreciate you being here all the way from Wyoming. 

Could you visit with us just a little bit about how far back your 

family goes in Wyoming in ranching and your family’s history with 

wolves in Wyoming? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. My grandfather homesteaded on the Green River 

in the late 1800s, and I guess I will say he was one of the ranchers 

that pursued and helped remove wolves from Wyoming. I can tell 

you stories about it, but it goes back. 

I have my grandfather’s homestead in my ranch. I still have the 

homestead. I have donated some of the buildings on it to museums 

and stuff. So it goes back over 100 years. The ranch was awarded 

here this previous year the Centennial Ranch Award for the State 

of Wyoming. They awarded all the ranchers who still had family 

living on the original homestead an award within the State, which 

I was grateful to get. 

Senator BARRASSO. So when they proposed reintroducing wolves, 

you had a history, you had a background. I assume that you made 

predictions as to what would happen if wolves were reintroduced, 

and Fish and Wildlife officials made predictions about what would 

happen. Could you talk a little bit about what those predictions 

were and how they differed? 

Mr. PRICE. You have to realize that when I came back to the 

ranch, there were still some of the old people alive there that had 

dealt with the wolves. Of course, we were strongly opposed to the 

reintroduction of the wolves because they knew what the problems 

were. I mean, they almost predicted what was going to happen. 

Now, I had never run into the wolves myself personally, but they 

knew. Some of those people were still alive. 

So we resisted it strongly. I think you will recognize that Wyoming did strongly resist that, finally caved in kind of, because 

those wolves were turned loose before they should have been before 

all the hearings and things were done. So they were kind of forced 

on us. 

Senator BARRASSO. Did the wolves stay in Yellowstone? 

Mr. PRICE. Hell, no. 

Senator BARRASSO. No surprise there. That is what you predicted. Right? 
67 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. We knew that. 

But I will say this. They planted them in Yellowstone in 1995, 

and on the Upper Green, I was the first person of the association 

to have a confirmed wolf kill in 2000. So it took them 5 years to 

expand that far. From there, the number has just escalated. We 

are now getting confirmed kills. You heard some of the numbers. 

In 2005–2007, we estimate we have got kills, confirmed kills, of 35, 

but then you multiply it, and we are talking over 200 head of 

calves that are destroyed. 

Senator BARRASSO. How far out of the park are you talking? You 

are not talking about right next to the border of the park. 

Mr. PRICE. We are about 50 miles from the park, the closest 

point of the association grazing area to the edge of the park. 

They are down around the ranch. They run around down there. 

We do not have as many problems. I have never had a kill down 

on the Green River itself, but up a little closer in the forested area, 

yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Now, you heard the testimony from the BLM 

today. I do not know if you want to comment on things you heard. 

Do you believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility? 

They said they do not believe that they do in terms of compensating ranchers. 

Mr. PRICE. I will just repeat what I have said. These were introduced as a public interest, a national public icon. If you remember 

the words that were used, this is an icon of the wild, and the public 

was interested in it. They were put into the Yellowstone with the 

prediction that they would not go very far outside of Yellowstone. 

As I remember reading some of the early literature, they estimated 

like 15 bovine cattle would be killed a year, something less than 

100 head of sheep killed a year. Shoot. I got 15 last—well, not last 

year, but I mean, I have got a lot more than 15 killed. 

Senator BARRASSO. That was their total number predicted. 

Mr. PRICE. That was their total number. I mean, that included 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. You know what has happened. 

They are everywhere. The game populations are down. The moose 

population—I am on the Green River. The moose population on the 

Green River has stayed relatively constant, but I have land up in 

the western Wyoming range. 

Senator BARRASSO. So what happened essentially is everything 

you have predicted and nothing about what Fish and Wildlife predicted. 

Mr. PRICE. They underpredicted the damage, also underpredicted 

how fast those wolves would multiply. They also greatly underestimated the range of those animals. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Price. I am very 

delighted that you could come here and share your story with the 

Senate. 

I think, Senator Tester, my time is expired. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

I have a few questions for Mr. Price and a few questions for Mr. 

Edwards. 

You said that there are 16 ranches in the Green River Cattle Association. Does your ranch have more losses than others or is it—— 
68 

Mr. PRICE. It is statistical. Some years one of us will be hit. Realize there is a twofold process. One is getting the animal confirmed. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. PRICE. Sometimes we have had ranchers that have lost 

calves and never had an animal confirmed. 

Senator TESTER. They never saw the calf? 

Mr. PRICE. Never found a calf that they could identify. Yet, their 

losses are consistent with predation. In fact, that is the first thing 

you see. All of a sudden, your losses jump up. 

Senator TESTER. You must have kept track of your losses pre1995. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. What percentage were they at pre-1995? 

Mr. PRICE. Roughly 2 percent. 

Senator TESTER. What are they now? 

Mr. PRICE. It varies from year to year. 

Senator TESTER. On average. 

Mr. PRICE. In the 5 or 6 percent range. 

Senator TESTER. How far south of the park do the wolves basically prey on cattle, on sheep? 

Mr. PRICE. One hundred miles south toward Kemmerer, and they 

have moved over into the Big Horns. There are wolves there. They 

have moved down toward Laramie. I think there is some in the 

Snowy Range down there. So hundreds of miles. 

Senator TESTER. But the whole State of Wyoming is not impacted 

as of yet. 

Mr. PRICE. Not impacted hard. You understand we are in a dual 

classification, and they are going to get burned when they get out 

of that trophy game area. 

Senator TESTER. Got you. OK, thank you, Mr. Price. I appreciate 

you being here and appreciate the work you do. I too farm the land 

my grandfather homesteaded, and there are very few of us left. So 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. Edwards, do you think compensation for losses is important? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Extremely important. We need to keep the livestock owners on that land, keep that land in production to feed our 

Nation. 

Senator TESTER. Is there any other reason why you think it is 

important? 

Mr. EDWARDS. It also gives an economic viability to the tourism 

industry in Montana as well. 

Senator TESTER. Defenders of Wildlife dollars—I touched on that 

a little bit with the BLM. It was not the BLM fellow. It was the 

Fish and Wildlife fellow. He indicated and I just want you to confirm, do you anticipate the Defenders of Wildlife dollars—you 

talked about $50,000 in 2008, $50,000 in 2009—continuing into 

2010, 2011, 2012? 

Mr. EDWARDS. At this time I have no way of knowing. They initially—when they contacted me and said they were willing to make 

the donation, it was based on the fact that Montana had started 

a compensation program. 

Senator TESTER. How available is the money out there in the private sector for compensation? 
69 

Mr. EDWARDS. So far, I have not been able to get another donation beyond Defenders of Wildlife. 

Senator TESTER. How long have you been working on it? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Approximately 7 months since the program began. 

Senator TESTER. Hopefully, there are some folks listening today 

that might throw you some dough. But I am not going to hold my 

breath on that either. 

What will happen if the compensation goes away? What will happen if the States cannot afford to pick this up, if the private sector 

does not pick it up, and the Federal Government does not step up 

to the plate? What happens? 

Mr. EDWARDS. We will have producers that literally go out of 

business. 

Senator TESTER. Is it going to affect all producers or just a select 

few? 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is hard to predict at this time. There is the potential to affect all the producers in our State. Wolves travel great 

distances and are filling into the blank areas now. 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Bangs talked about a USDA program that 

has dollars in it for predation. Are you able to access those dollars? 

Mr. EDWARDS. No, I am not. 

Senator TESTER. Have you tried? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I have been trying, yes. 

Senator TESTER. You cannot access them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. No. 

Senator TESTER. Supposedly they are there but you cannot get to 

them. 

Mr. EDWARDS. What he was describing was Wildlife Services 

coming in and removing wolves that are causing a problem in our 

State. It was not expanded onto like alternative pastures, fencing, 

other mitigation efforts. 

Senator TESTER. So that money is pretty well focused. It is not 

readily available. If you have a rancher that has some cattle or 

sheep loss, you cannot go to USDA and say, hey, I need 1,000 

bucks or 10,000 bucks. 

Mr. EDWARDS. No, I cannot. 

Senator TESTER. I have no more questions. Do you, Senator 

Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. I just want to thank both you gentlemen for 

coming. I make—and so does Senator Barrasso—a trip back, every 

weekend in my case, and it is not an easy shot, especially when you 

got haying to do and you got money to raise. So thank you guys 

both for being here. I appreciate the work you do. Thank you. 

This committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF JOEL HOLTROP TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

S. 3157

Question 1. At the hearing, Mr. Salisbury indicated that the mine could not go 

forward without the revocation of the Oak Flat withdrawal and the conveyance of 

that land. As a follow-up to Chairman Wyden’s question regarding the environmental review provided for in S. 3157, if the EIS required by section 4(h) revealed 

that the mine would cause unacceptable environmental impacts, would the Forest 

Service still have authority to prevent those impacts from occurring given that the 

withdrawal already will have been revoked and the land conveyed? 

Answer. The Forest Service would not have this authority because it no longer 

has jurisdiction once the federal land is transferred to private ownership. However, 

development must comply with state or local surface management regulations. The 

Forest Service would continue to be responsible for conducting environmental analyses, reviewing, and approving any proposals for ancillary activities related to the 

mining development, such as roads, or rights-of-way for electric lines and pipelines, 

that would take place on the adjacent National Forest System lands. 

Question 2. In follow-up to another question Chairman Wyden asked, do the Forest Service’s experts believe it is possible that the subsidence that is anticipated as 

a result of the development of the mine will significantly impact Apache Leap? 

Answer. At this point, we are unable to assess the impact of any subsidence on 

Apache Leap. Resolution Copper is currently conducting pre-feasibility studies and 

assessing the mining methods to be utilized. Although block caving has been mentioned as the possible mining method, we do not know if this is the only mining 

method under consideration. Because the mining development will occur on non-federal lands, there is no requirement for the company to submit a plan of operations 

to the agency. As a result, the Forest Service will not have supporting data from 

a plan of operations to evaluate the impact of the operation so we suggest that inquiry be made to Resolution Copper to provide more detailed technical data regarding its project to you and your staff. 

Question 3. If the Forest Service cannot predict whether significant impacts to 

Apache Leap may occur or if it believes that such impacts are possible, then is it 

correct that the Forest Service believes that the exchange would be in the public 

interest despite those impacts? 

Answer. It is the Department’s view that, on balance, the exchange as a whole 

is in the public interest. The National Forest System lands identified for exchange 

contain significant ore deposits of copper, silver and gold. This area is historically 

important to the economic vitality of Arizona and today remains an active mining 

area, contributing significantly to the nation’s mineral production. 

In addition, most of the non-federal properties that would be acquired have high 

public resource values and would benefit from public ownership. The Forest Service 

could protect the riparian habitat, archeological sites, two miles of a permanently 

flowing trout stream, a year-round pond, and an endangered cactus species on the 

acquired lands. Further, as part of the exchange, a conservation easement for the 

Apache Leap escarpment would be transferred to the federal government by Resolution Copper. 
72 

RESPONSES OF JOEL HOLTROP TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN BARRASSO

ON RAINBOW FAMILY GATHERING IN WY

Mr. Holtrop, I’m sure you’re aware that your agency recently played host to a 

Rainbow Family gathering in Wyoming. This event has been deeply troubling to the 

people of Wyoming. 

The Rainbow Family brought nearly 10,000 people to one meadow in the BridgerTeton National Forest. The group did not have a permit and were allowed to camp 

helter-skelter all over the Big Sandy. This forced the Boy Scouts to cancel a national 

gathering planned on that site. And it displaced livestock grazing, cabin owners, 

recreationists and lodge visitors. 

It is unacceptable that this group—or anyone—would be exempted from the rules 

that all public land users must follow. The people of Wyoming were forced to deal 

with the impacts while these folks went on with their unauthorized gathering. 

Enough is enough. We are expecting you to make this right for displaced users 

in Wyoming. And the Forest Service must handle this group differently next year. 

No state should have to endure this kind of double standard. Everyone using public lands must follow the same rules. 

Question 4. Can you provide the Committee a detailed explanation of the steps 

that the agency has taken to force the Rainbow Family to obtain the proper permits 

over the last decade? 

Answer. To enhance the agency’s ability to require compliance with the noncommercial group use permit requirement and to administer the permit, the Forest 

Service established an internal oversight committee to build relationships with the 

Rainbow Family, to monitor implementation of the noncommercial group use rule, 

and to make recommendations for improvements in implementation of the rule and 

administration of large group gatherings. The agency’s goal is to provide a national, 

consistent approach to all large group gatherings. A National Incident Management 

Team was formed to provide consistent enforcement of the noncommercial group use 

permit requirement and effective noncommercial group use permit administration. 

The following steps have been taken during the last ten years to enhance implementation of the noncommercial group use rule, which requires a permit for gatherings that involve 75 or more people, and to obtain the Rainbow Family’s compliance with the rule: 

• Town Hall Meetings have been held to allow the public to comment on any concerns they may have, due to the large group’s presence and impacts on their 

community. 

• Continual discussions with the Rainbow Family on compliance and permit requirements have occurred each year from the local to the national level, including discussions with the Chief of the Forest Service and the Under Secretary 

for Natural Resources and Environment. 

• Local line officers and special uses personnel have met with the Rainbow Family to discuss the group’s and the agency’s concerns and to obtain compliance 

with the permit requirement and other Forest Service regulations. 

• Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff (LEI) have met with 

state and local law enforcement officials to address potential issues and to coordinate their efforts and resources to minimize impacts on national forest resources, public safety, and the local community and to obtain the Rainbow Family’s compliance with federal, state, and local law. 

• LEI has met with the local United States Attorney’s Office to gain its support 

and assistance with prosecuting Rainbow Family gathering participants when 

permit requirements are ignored. In the past, cooperative efforts between the 

Forest Service and United States Attorney’s Offices to gain compliance through 

law enforcement have been successful. 

• The Forest Service has made numerous arrests and issued hundreds of citations 

at Rainbow Family gatherings for violations of law, including failure to obtain 

a noncommercial group use permit. 

Question 5. If a family group, or church group, or the Boy Scouts want to hold 

a large (more than 50 person) picnic on the National Forests are they required to 

have a permit to hold that event? 

Answer. Per Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B, noncommercial groups are required to obtain a free permit if their event will involve 

75 or more people, either as participants or spectators. If a group event involves 

fewer than 75 people, a permit is not required. Applications for a noncommercial 

group use permit must be submitted at least 72 hours before the event. The Forest 
73 

Service must respond within 48 hours of receipt of a noncommercial group use application; otherwise, it will be deemed granted. 

S. 3157, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCHANGE AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND OTHER LAND IN SOUTHEAST ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

I note the bill would limit the full environmental reviews typically carried out to 

analyze and approve a land conveyance, but it would provide that ‘‘before commencing production in commercial quantities of any valuable mineral from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper. . ., the Secretary shall publish an environmental impact statement ... regarding any Federal agency action carried out relating to the commercial production.’’ 

Question 6. Is this a common requirement that your agency has seen in the past 

for other land exchanges that involve mining? 

Answer. Section 4(h) is not a typical provision. It requires the agency to prepare 

an environmental impact statement after the land exchange is completed for federal 

agency actions related to commercial mineral production that would be carried out 

on non-National Forest System lands. In the vast majority of cases in which USDA 

has discretion in completing a land exchange, the Forest Service typically conducts 

NEPA analyses before land is exchanged out of federal ownership. Congress does 

not typically direct the agency to comply with NEPA after an exchange is completed. 

Additionally, it is unclear what additional requirements the bill’s sponsor intended to impose with this language. Normally, the Forest Service would not prepare an environmental analysis of activities that are proposed to be carried out solely on private land. On its face, section 4(h) would require the agency to prepare an 

EIS for ‘‘any federal agency action carried out relating to the commercial production.’’ However, an activity related to commercial production carried out by Resolution Copper on the land that it receives in the exchange would not be considered 

to be a federal agency action. If the mineral development is confined to private land, 

the agency would not be required to prepare an EIS under section 4(h). 

However, if the company needs to use NFS land for ancillary activities related to 

the mining development, such as rights-of-way for electric lines, pipelines, or roads, 

section 4(h) could be read to require the agency to prepare an EIS for these activities. While agency approval of these types of ancillary activities on NFS lands would 

normally require compliance with NEPA regardless of the direction in section 4(h), 

the provision could be read to mandate preparation of an EIS (as opposed to an EA) 

for the authorizations. Additionally, the language could obligate the agency to consider the environmental consequences of the entire non-federal action in the EIS. 

Given the scope of this exchange and the complexity of the proposed mine, clarification of the direction in section 4(h) would aid the Forest Service in complying with 

the requirements of the bill. 

Question 7. In your view, does this establish a precedent that you will have to 

carry out on other mining-related land exchanges? 

Answer. No. The legislation is limited solely to this exchange and carries no other 

precedential value. 

Question 8. Section 10 of S. 3157 provides for a value adjustment payment, whereby Resolution Copper would pay the United States a royalty for produced minerals 

if their value exceeds what was projected for purposes of valuing the Federal land 

at the time of the conveyance. 

Is there precedence for this requirement? 

Answer. We are not aware of any precedent. 

Question 9. Is it common for companies to agree to provide a royalty or even a 

partial royalty, as called for in Section 10 of S. 3157 for hard rock mining? 

Answer. Not in our experience. 

Question 10. S. 3157 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 

3,025 acres of the Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper for approximately 

1,445 acres of private land to be managed by the Forest Service and approximately 

4,189 acres to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

I see that the federal government is getting about 1.86 acres in return for every 

acre they give up in this exchange. 

Do you expect that the appraisals will show balance in value when they are completed? 

Answer. We expect the outcome to be an equal value land exchange. We expect 

that our appraisals will show an approximate balance in value. However, we note 

that in the event that the appraisals indicate otherwise, the bill provides for cash 

payment that would exceed the 25% limitation in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 
74 

Question 11. The legislation provides the Secretary four years to design and construct one or more campgrounds in the area to replace the Oak Flat Campground 

that would be conveyed for the mine. 

Are there other comparable areas to put a campground in the area? 

Answer. Thus far, we have identified three possible locations for the replacement 

campground, but are concerned that each location presents challenges related to access, potential mining-related hazardous materials, and cultural sites. We would 

also like to discuss alternatives, such as enlarging or improving existing campgrounds in the area. 

Question 12. Might the replacement have a water source which would be a significant improvement over the existing campground? 

Answer. The Forest Service is still analyzing potential alternative campgrounds. 

One of the alternative places suggested by the proponent, the JI Ranch property, 

is on a floodplain which would not be suitable for a campground. Availability of 

water for domestic use would be an attractive feature of any proposed site. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID SALISBURY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Mr. Salisbury, could you walk us through how much time and money 

has been expended by your company to get to this point regarding this mine? 

Answer. Exploration work began in 2001 and Rio Tinto became manager of the 

project in 2003. 

As of June 2008, $290 million has been invested in the Resolution Copper Project. 

Of this over $15 million has been spent on reclamation work on the 100-year old 

Superior mine site. Resolution Copper has recently received approval for $652 million (in addition to what has already been spent) to construct a new shaft. 

This shaft, reaching 7000 feet below the surface, is an important step in the development of the mine and will allow the pre-feasibility team to further study the 

rock conditions and help us determine if the mine is feasible. Resolution Copper has 

not made the final determination as to the economic and technological feasibility of 

mining this ore body. 

If we proceed, Resolution Copper will spend approximately $4 billion toward capital investment before mine construction is finished and we ship our first load of 

copper. 

Question 2. As I understand the legislation, Senator Kyl is asking you to do several things that no other company has done to develop this mine, including a more 

complicated NEPA process, paying a royalty for the copper if you ever do mine it, 

providing a conservation easement to Apache Leap, and giving the federal government nearly 1.86 acres for every one acre that you get back. Are you aware of all 

these requirements and is your Company willing to agree to them? 

Answer. We are aware of the environmental and financial requirements in S. 

3157. Resolution Copper agrees to fully comply with all of these measures. 

The company supports the public comment and review process included in NEPA 

and welcomes the opportunity to participate in this process. Resolution Copper feels 

that this process is consistent with our corporate commitment to transparency and 

community engagement. 

Resolution Copper understands the importance of the value adjustment payment 

in the bill. Resolution Copper is prepared to pay this value adjustment payment to 

the United States on any production from the mine which exceeds the production 

assumed in the appraisal. The royalty rate will be any rate enacted by Congress 

prior to December 31, 2012, or the rate assumed in the appraisal if Congress does 

not enact a Federal royalty. 

The company recognizes the importance of Apache Leap as a scenic and historical 

monument. Resolution Copper supports the preservation of Apache Leap and the 

protections called for in S. 3157. 

Finally, the emphasis on the exchange was assuring equal value for the properties. The selection of the parcels in this exchange was conducted in consultation 

with the Forest Service, BLM, and leading NGOs. Resolution Copper believes in the 

conservation value of the properties in S. 3157 and looks forward to seeing them 

preserved for future generations. 

Question 3. Can you tell us more about the public land order and its significance 

for your project? 

Answer. Public Land Order (PLO) 1229 was executed in 1955. The withdrawal 

order was signed by an assistant secretary of the Interior Department, and included 

numerous other campgrounds, picnic areas, fire lookouts and other administrative 

sites. The Forest Service has provided testimony to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In both cases, this testimony reflects that the Oak Flat with-
75 

* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files. 

drawal was one of a series of routine withdrawals made to protect campgrounds and 

other government facility investments from disruption by other development. During the July 9th hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests on 

S. 3157, National Forest System Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop testified that the purpose of PLO 1229 was to protect, ‘‘the Federal investment in the campground (page 

56, line 6 of the hearing transcript).’’ In l971, the withdrawal was modified to allow 

disposal of the area by land exchange and other means, and that is what Resolution 

Copper is asking Congress to do. Copies of both orders have been attached to this 

testimony.* 

(77) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O. HING, MAYOR, TOWN OF SUPERIOR, AZ, 

S. 2466

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Michael Hing, Mayor of Superior, Arizona. I am pleased to submit this testimony on behalf of the Town of Superior concerning S 2466. 

My roots in Superior are deep. I was born and raised there. My grandparents 

opened their grocery store in the 1920s and I operate it now with other members 

of my family. As a small businessman and active community member, I’ve witnessed 

the town’s success during boom times and its decline during busts. I plan to usher 

in a positive future for the town, and this land exchange is crucial to that future. 

Please allow me to explain what I mean. When the Magma Mine was operating, 

our town was prosperous and grew to 7,500 people. Jobs were plentiful and Superior 

made a name for itself But we depended only on the mine for our well-being. Then, 

in 1987, Magma closed. Our community was devastated. The effects are lingering 

to this day. Our population shrank by more than half, to 3,500 residents. Major social problems surfaced as employment plummeted and people lost hope. Crime and 

drug use skyrocketed. Schools for our children lost funding, compromising our ability to provide a solid education. The mine left an environmental mess for others to 

clean up. 

As mayor, I’ve absorbed an important lesson from witnessing that civic trauma. 

I know to never rely completely on mining again. Our economy needs to be diversified. 

That’s why I am so pleased that Resolution Copper Company has come to Superior. The company discovered a significant ore body 7,000 feet below the old Magma 

Mine. With such a major discovery, Resolution could’ve swept in to Superior with 

a flourish of promises and new mining jobs and then abandoned us when the ore 

was exhausted. But from the day company representatives first arrived, they have 

looked to the town’s future. They approached me with ways to build up our economy 

and to do it right. The company is just in the early stages of eventually extracting 

the ore, but its representatives are already helping the town plan for the day the 

mine closes. 

The company works with our schools, boosting math and science education to elementary-age children and providing summer jobs and college scholarships to older 

youth. They have spent and are continuing to spend millions in voluntary efforts 

to clean up, reclaim and improve their land and facilities. They helped arrange economic development meetings with the Arizona Department of Commerce to shape 

a workable plan that will diversify our economy in mining services, manufacturing, 

tourism, recreation and other businesses. They hire local contractors and provide job 

training to local citizens. They are working to beef up our infrastructure, including 

establishing Superior as a wireless Internet zone. If this land exchange legislation 

is successful, Superior will gain valuable property we can use for even more economic development. In short, from the beginning, Resolution Copper has worked 

with Superior and other area communities with a vision of sustainable development. 

The company’s willingness to build Superior’s future is very important to our 

partnership. But even more importantly, company officials have been completely 

transparent about their operations. The company formed a citizens’ committee to 

help town residents stay informed of company activities and to give our input. They 

routinely ask our opinions and include us in crucial discussions. 

I testify before you today as a partner with Resolution Copper. The land exchange 

legislation before you is critical to our shared vision of the future. Resolution must 

complete the land exchange before it invests $2 billion in mine development. 
78 

I will not bore you today with every detail of the exchange, which will streamline 

the now-fragmented ownership of 3,000 acres in the Oak Flat area. Suffice it to say 

that the town, the state, the governor, and members of our Congressional delegation 

including Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain and Rep. Rick Renzi, agree that Resolution Copper should acquire the land, including campgrounds and rock-climbing 

areas. In return, the non-federal properties that Resolution has assembled to convey 

to the United States for the exchange are spectacular in their contribution to wildlife habitat, protection of streams and other water resources, endangered species 

habitat, land conservation, and opportunities for recreation. 

Allow me to describe some of the other environmental benefits that S 2466 will 

include for Superior, surrounding communities and the State of Arizona. 

First, Section 6 of S. 2466 permanently protects the Apache Leap escarpment, an 

environmental landmark above Superior that dominates our landscape. The Superstition Land Trust and Resolution Copper, working with the town, support the language of S. 2466 which insures that the Apache Leap escarpment is never disturbed 

by development and remains as it is today. Additionally, Resolution will spend up 

to $250,000 to provide public access, trails, or trailheads to Apache Leap, if the 

Land Trust, local Indian tribes and town deem it appropriate. 

Second, Resolution, the town, and the U.S. Forest Service have been working together to identify a replacement campground or campgrounds for an existing 14-site 

Forest Service campground at Oak Flat. S 2466 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to design and construct one or more replacements in the Globe Ranger District, and requires Resolution to pay up to $500,000 for them. 

Third, Resolution will compensate for the loss of recreational rock climbing at Oak 

Flat. The company funded a large-scale search to find a bigger and better climbing 

area. The resulting find, less than 20 miles away at Tam O’Shanter Peak, has 

sparked interest from climbers all over the world. The Arizona State Parks Board 

and the Arizona Legislature have recognized this incredible find and are pursuing 

a new State Park there devoted to climbing. A bill is moving through the Arizona 

Legislature to authorize the park’s creation, assuming that S. 2466 is enacted. 

The land exchange also creates new economic opportunities for Superior, which, 

as you can see from the map attached to testimony, is largely surrounded by the 

Tonto National Forest. S 2466 provides the town with an opportunity to acquire 

some of this adjacent property from the United States to meet anticipated growth. 

Also, the Town’s 30-acre cemetery is located on an isolated parcel of federal land 

managed by the Tonto National Forest. While hundreds of our forefathers have been 

buried there for the past century, no authorization exists for our cemetery. S. 2466 

allows the Town to acquire this parcel at fair market value from the Forest Service. 

Additionally, the Town owns a 265-acre parcel, which has a small landing strip. 

The property has a reversionary interest, so if it ever stops being used as an airport, 

it will be returned to the U.S. government. The Town wants to acquire this reversionary interest, and S. 2466 provides for a sale of the interest to the Town at fair 

market value. Moreover, S 2466 provides that the Town may acquire up to 181 additional acres of land contiguous to the airport, also at fair market value, and in a 

manner that provides the United States with manageable boundaries on retained 

parcels. These airport parcels represent a significant opportunity for the Town in 

terms of future growth, economic diversification and development. And future airport uses have been protected by the Arizona Department of Transportation. The 

department’s 5-year capital improvement plan includes the ability to relocate the 

airport if we choose. 

Finally, S. 2466 provides that if the lands offered by Resolution exceed the appraised value of the federal Oak Flat parcel, any excess value can be applied to the 

Town’s purchase of the cemetery and airport parcels. Both Resolution and the Town 

are anxious for the Town to acquire these properties. 

Mr. Chairman, as our governor has stated, the new mine is projected to produce 

1,000 jobs during construction and 400 to 600 permanent jobs, plus more than a 

thousand related and indirect jobs. The economic impact of the new mine will allow 

us to grow in a way that ensures a future for our children and grandchildren. The 

possibilities the mine holds for Superior and Arizona are among the many reasons 

that Gov. Napolitano is joining us in strongly supported this land exchange. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would also like to thank the 

members of our Congressional delegation, including Sen. Kyl and McCain, and Rep. 

Renzi, for their efforts in bringing this legislation to fruition and our state delegation for promoting the creation of a state park. The town of Superior urges your 

thoughtful consideration and timely passage of S. 2466, so that this land exchange, 

which is so important to our future, can be implemented at the earliest possible 

date. 
79 

S. 3157

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Michael Hing. I am the Mayor of Superior, Arizona—a small town 

in Pinal County, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix. I would like to address the 

committee in support of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation 

Act of 2008. I firmly believe that this land exchange is in the best interest of the 

public. 

This land exchange represents an unprecedented opportunity to improve the long 

term economic vitality of the state and the region. Additionally, this exchange would 

transfer to the citizens of the United States thousands of acres of conservation properties. These properties offer permanent protection to endangered species, preservation of key riparian habitats, and conservation of some of Arizona’s most valuable 

lands. 

In addition to the ecologically valuable land exchange, Resolution Copper Company leads the industry in taking action on a variety of fronts to benefit and protect 

the environment. From their cutting edge and forward-thinking water management 

and water procurement strategies to their close working partnerships with the Arizona Trail Association, Audubon Arizona, Boyce Thompson Arboretum, and The Nature Conservancy, Resolution Copper Company continually focuses on tangible ways 

to be better stewards of Arizona’s precious natural resources. One excellent example 

is their ongoing $50 million rehabilitation effort to restore 1,500 acres of land affected by previous mining operations in Superior. 

I provided testimony to this committee in 2005, of which I have attached a copy. 

In my previous remarks, I discussed the importance of speedy passage of the land 

exchange to the economic and social well being of Superior and neighboring communities. It is my belief that the present version of this legislation is an even better 

deal for the public. 

Currently vast numbers of Superior residents are forced to commute into the 

Phoenix metro area and nearby towns to find employment. The lack of stable local 

employment has taken its toll on the residents of Superior. Families that have resided here for multiple generations are moving away. This situation has not improved since the last time I addressed this committee. 

Families and businesses across Arizona are feeling the impact of the decline of 

the real estate market and the rising costs of energy. At the same time, state revenues have been negatively impacted, resulting in an estimated $1.6 billion deficit 

predicted for fiscal year 2009. In order to secure our State’s long term employment 

and economic future, it is both prudent and reasonable to approve the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange Conservation Act. 

Elliott D. Pollack and Company—commissioned by Resolution Copper—prepared 

an economic study recently. This study provides a preview into the enormous economic and fiscal impacts of the construction and operation of the mine project. The 

study predicted a jarring $46.4 billion of economic activity to the region. This is exactly the shot in the arm needed by Superior. 

Mining towns have seen their share of boom and bust. We have learned from this 

and in partnership with Resolution Copper have already taken steps to diversify our 

economy. I believe our plan for the future will coupled with the economic development generated by the mine, will allow Superior to develop a sustainable economy. 

To mark this partnership, the town and Resolution Copper have entered into a 

landmark agreement providing funding for programs that will help Superior enhance business and residential opportunities. 

The land exchange will also allow Superior to acquire lands adjacent to the town. 

Mr. Chairman, Superior is only 4 square miles and is almost completely surrounded 

by public lands. The lands Superior will acquire through the exchange are crucial 

to attracting new development and will provide significant opportunities for us. 

I believe Congress has an excellent opportunity to provide an ideal balance between the expansion of jobs, local and state revenues, and diverse economic activity 

while conserving ecologically sensitive and pristine lands for future generations. Following several years of in depth research, study, and debate we submit to you our 

sincere hope that this legislation can be swiftly approved so that the remarkable 

economic impacts of this exchange can begin to be fully implemented and realized. 

I appreciate your consideration of this very important bill. 
80 

ATTACHMENT

TOWN OF SUPERIOR, 

Superior, AZ, June 27, 2008. 

Hon. SENATOR RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 230 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN, As Mayor and on behalf of the Council of the Town of 

Superior, Arizona, I would like to address the Committee signifying the Town’s fullest support for the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008, 

S.3157, introduced in the Senate of the United States Congress. The Town recognizes Resolution Copper for its investments and efforts towards enhancement of our 

regional, state, and national economy. 

As leaders of our community, the Council and I have always recognized the important role played by the copper industry since the birth of our State and its invaluable contribution to the development and strengthening of our region’s, state’s, and 

the nation’s economy. In addition, Superior recognizes and appreciates the level of 

support and local commitment provided by Resolution Copper. 

The Town of Superior has a comprehensive understanding of the evolving environmentally sound technologies and preventive measures incorporated by all new mining developments, operations, and closures, along with deepest appreciation for the 

mines’ individual and collective contribution to the economy, productive employment, creation of the support industries, and to the overall quality of life of each 

affected town, city, county, region, state, and our nation over the last 100 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to know that Superior has a comprehensive understanding of and fully supports the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008 including the positive gain to the taxpayers and people of our 

nation by approval of the proposed exchange, due to the gain realized in further 

preservation of natural resources, land, and the inherently present flora and fauna 

for the enjoyment and heritage of generations to come, in return for exchanging the 

gained land for the acreage needed by the Resolution Copper Company’s mine to facilitate its operations over the next three decades or more. 

The Town of Superior is in hill support of S. 3157 and in full support of the Resolution Copper Company’s Plans and Operations to develop the new copper mine in 

the area of Oak Flat. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL O. HING, 

Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KEEDY, PRESIDENT, ARIZON MOUNTAINEERING CLUB, PHOENIX, 

AZ, ON S. 3157 

As the President of the Arizona Mountaineering Club (AMC), the oldest and largest rock climbing and mountaineering club in Arizona with nearly 400 active dues 

paying members and literally 1,000’s of past members, I want to take this opportunity to communicate our continuing concerns about the Southeast Arizona Land 

Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008 (Senate Bill S. 3157) introduced recently 

by Senator Jon Kyl. 

Resolution Copper Mining, LLC will, over time, eliminate much of the rock climbing in the area of Oak Flat and the Queen Creek Canyon, destroy the present Oak 

Flat Campground and prevent access to many of the other areas that are frequented 

by rock climbers. These rock climbing areas have been developed over many years 

with literally thousands of routes being bolted for safety and for sport climbing. Additionally there are thousands of bouldering routes where bolts is not required. All 

this will be lost if the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 

2008 is passed without consideration of these valuable assets and reasonable accommodations for the loss of those climbing areas made to climbers. 

Having worked with Queen Creek Coalition over the past several months and 

supporting efforts to preserve climbing opportunities in the Oak Flat area, the AMC 

Board of Directors supports the items presented in their position paper as listed 

below: 

Queen Creek Coalition (QCC) has as its goal maximum climbing and recreational opportunities in the Queen Creek area. Our greatest want and desire 

is to continue alongside the mining operations as it has been in the past. We 

have been asked to assemble items that we want with respect to the mining 

activities proposed. 
81 

Accordingly, we want: 

• A mining technique that is consistent with and abides by existing protections, 

maintains surface integrity, complies with all environmental regulations, and 

respects multi-cultural traditions. 

• A contiguous, permanent, publicly accessible recreational and conservation area 

of lands encompassing Apache Leap, Queen Creek Canyon, and Devils Canyon 

and all appropriate infrastructure including but not limited to trails, roads, 

parking, information kiosks, restrooms, etc. 

• Fee Simple transfer of ‘‘The Pond,’’ ‘‘Atlantis,’’ and other privately held lands 

along Apache Leap, in Queen Creek Canyon, and any in Devil’s Canyon surrounded by or adjacent to the contiguous area to either federal, state, or other 

3rd party entity approved by the QCC. 

• The full and complete funding and follow-through for a State Park dedicated to 

climbing at Tam O’Shanter. This includes but is not limited to proper access 

roads and infrastructure. 

• Roads and infrastructure for the ‘‘Inconceivables,’’ ‘‘Land of the Lost,’’ ‘‘Steamboat Mountain,’’ ‘‘The Drip,’’ and ‘‘The Homestead.’’ 

• Campgrounds, recreational access points, and necessary infrastructure for the 

area north of ‘‘The Pond’’ and at the ‘‘Inconceivables.’’ 

• Coexistence agreement and climbing management plan for permanent, public 

recreational use of any lands involved with the ‘‘land trade.’’ 

Definitions, Assumptions, and Stipulations 

1) Roads are defined as a minimum of all-weather surface, 2WD, with full 

permanent, continuous, legal, no-cost to the user access and rights to be located 

as determined by QCC. Roads are to be built to specifications of the public entity that will be responsible for maintenance and repair. 

2) All lands transferred to the public or a 3rd party shall be transferred in 

Fee Simple to a transferee approved by QCC. 

3) All lands within the Contiguous area shall be withdrawn from uses other 

than recreation and conservation. 

4) All agreements will be made in writing. 

5) All the foregoing, bulleted items shall be written into the land exchange 

bill. 

6) Funding for all items shall not be borne by the public or come from public 

monies. 

7) Infrastructure shall mean all items necessary to create, replace, and maintain rock climbing routes, hiking trails, internal access roads, trailheads, 

bouldering fall surface preparation, etc. 

We welcome the opportunity to discuss our position. 

STATEMENT OF MANUEL ORTEGA, CHAIRMAN, THE CONCERNED CITIZENS & RETIRED

MINERS COALITION, SUPERIOR, AZ, ON S. 3157 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition is a group of citizens who: 

1) reside in Superior, Arizona, or do not reside in Superior, Arizona, but are affiliated with relatives who are residents; 2) are retired hard-rock miners who previously worked in the now non-operational mine in Superior, Arizona, and were displaced due to mine closure or personal disability; or 3) are individuals who are concerned that important U.S. public recreational land will be conveyed to a foreign 

mining company for private use. 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition realizes that Superior, Arizona, was born as a mining community and has lived through the mining booms 

and busts of the Silver King Mine, the Queen Mine, the Belmont Mine, the Magma 

Mine and the Broken Hill Proprietary Mine over the history of our 100 plus years. 

Because we recognize that mining is a large part of our history and will potentially 

be a larger part of our future, we are not opposed to mining. In fact, we strongly 

support responsible mining policies and practices in and around our community. 

However, we believe that S. 3157 is unacceptable as it presents serious negative impacts to us and our surrounding community as it seeks to circumvent the important 

National Environmental Policy Act review and analysis process. We also believe 

that there is no need for a land exchange for the mine to move forward with their 

plans to mine this area. 

We appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to express our views and voice 

our concerns about S. 3157, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conserva-
82 

tion Act of 2008 (Oak Flat Land Exchange) that will profoundly affect our community. 

OAK FLAT LAND EXCHANGE AND LOSS OF IMPORTANT PUBLIC CAMPGROUND AND

RECREATIONAL AREAS

Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, a foreign-owned mining company, is planning a 

massive block-cave mine and seeks to acquire Oak Flat Campground and the surrounding public lands for its use through this land exchange bill. If they succeed, 

the campground and an additional 2,300 acres of the Tonto National Forest will become private property and forever off limits to recreationists and other users. Privatization of this land would end public access to some of the most spectacular outdoor recreation and wildlife viewing areas in Arizona. It would deprive the Town 

of Superior, currently land-locked at only 4 (four) square miles, from economic diversification in and around our community. It would also deprive the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe of their religious burial ground ceremonies and their age-old cultural 

attachments to the area. 

Located just 5 miles east of Superior, Oak Flat is an important part of our history 

and our economic diversification. It has long been prized for its recreational variety. 

This area is exquisite and easily accessible to millions of visitors from the Phoenix 

and Tucson metropolitan areas, as well as the outlying areas of Gold Canyon, Queen 

Valley, Florence, Kearny, Winkelman, Hayden, Globe, Miami, Top of the World and 

Superior. It is significant to our neighbors, the Apache people, for their cultural values and religious heritage. 

The Oak Flat Campground, Apache Leap, and the surrounding area important to 

the Apaches who gather acorns and pine nuts that are used both traditionally and 

ceremonially. Apache Leap is an historical land known as the Apache’s Masada. It 

is there that many Apaches leaped to their deaths rather than be captured by the 

U.S. Army approximately 125 years ago. One of our local historians, Christine 

Marin, PhD, Archivist and Historian for Arizona State University and who is a 

former resident of Globe, Arizona, and still has family in Superior, Arizona, recently 

published an article in the Copper Country News dated June 11, 2008. In her article 

entitled, ‘‘Apache Leap Legend: Now We Have ‘The Rest of the Story’,’’ Dr. Marin 

indicated that the story of the Apache warriors is verified by two historical publications. We believe that these lands have significant import to the Apaches and that 

their wishes should be carefully considered and respected. 

You, our Federal legislators, are being asked to give up these publicly owned 

lands that have been in trust for the American and Native peoples since 1955, when 

President Eisenhower signed BLM Public Land Order 1229. This Order specifically 

put Oak Flat off-limits to all future mining activity. In 1971, President Nixon issued 

BLM Public Land Order 5132 to modify PLO 1229 and allow ‘‘all forms of appropriation under the public land laws applicable to national forest lands—except under 

the U.S. mining laws.’’ These two executive orders from two different Republican administrations both mandated that these lands were to be preserved in perpetuity 

with special emphasis on prohibiting mining activities on Oak Flat. 

A decision regarding these public lands should be made with utmost knowledge 

and care. Once these lands are lost to the public, they can never be regained. 

We are particularly concerned that a legislated land exchange of the Oak Flat 

Campground and surrounding area would bypass necessary and meaningful environmental impact studies. We fear that cultural resources will not be protected. We 

believe that subsidence will occur and that it will adversely affect our community. 

We don’t have any information regarding RCC’s proposed disposition of the massive 

amounts of tailings that will be produced and where they will reside. We are terrified that there will be downstream pollution that will affect the Town of Superior 

and everyone who depends upon the nearby aquifers for drinking water. Our local 

water supplier recently imposed an additional ‘‘arsenic surcharge.’’ While The 

Magma Mine was operational, local residents were told that there was no pollution 

or effects on the water supply. Now, 20 years later, we find that there was—and 

continues to be—a price to pay for giving a foreign-owned mining company carte 

blanche because we trusted the mine explicitly. 

It is for these reasons and many more that we oppose the Oak Flat land exchange 

legislation. 

WATER, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND DESTRUCTION OF LAND SURFACE

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition believes it is critical that 

Hydrology Surveys, Environmental Impact Studies, Subsidence Analyses and Transportation and Circulation Plans be conducted PRIOR to discussion of any land exchange and/or different use. 
83 

Resolution Copper Company’s Environmental Impact Assessment Manager, Bruce 

Marsh, indicated to one of our Coalition Members that the new mine would utilize 

40,000 acre feet of water per year. He further indicated that they would be buying 

excess water from the tribes and other sources, however, they are merely banking 

those water rights and the sources are not secured. This is a concern because: 1) 

Arizona is still in the grip of a 13-year drought with dwindling Central Arizona 

Project supplies, and we do not have any assurances that water will still be available when Resolution Copper Company begins mining in the next ten (10) years; 

2) Superior is located in the Maricopa AMA rather than the Pinal AMA, and Phoenix metropolitan area water supplies depend upon the Queen Creek aquifers; 3) The 

close proximity of the Queen Creek aquifer to a massive mining operation will negatively disrupt the underground water flow; and 4) Neither the State of Arizona nor 

the local residents should have to bear the burden of restoring clean and sustainable 

water utilized by mining. 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition have been concerned about 

the issue of subsidence by virtue of Resolution Copper Company’s proposed blockcave mining method and its effect on the Oak Flat Campground, the Apache Leap 

escarpment, and the Town of Superior. Resolution Copper Company has finally admitted to ‘‘minimal subsidence.’’ However, they admittedly have chosen this method 

of mining as it is the least expensive and quickest method to approach this massive 

ore body. Experts have demonstrated that there will be irreparable destruction to 

the surface utilizing the block-cave method of mining. This is absolutely unacceptable. 

Resolution Copper Company has not yet determined the manner in which the 

tailings will be accumulated. Since there will be a considerable volume of tailings 

that will be created by this method of mining, The Concerned Citizens and Retired 

Miners Coalition is concerned about the contamination associated with this activity. 

We are also concerned regarding reclamation of these tailings upon mine closure. 

S. 3157 does mention the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but the bill 

does not provide for even the most basic study and analysis of these issues and concerns prior to obtaining the land exchange. Furthermore, if the land exchange is 

granted, the National Environment Policy Act study and analysis process will be bypassed. 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition believes that Resolution 

Copper Company should not be exempt from the required national permitting studies and analyses that have been required of the other mines in the area by virtue 

of a land exchange. No other mining corporation in this area has been allowed to 

bypass the Federal NEPA process. 

If the start-up timeframe proposed by Resolution Copper Company is correct, then 

there is plenty of time to conduct the full public review process. Additionally, if Resolution Copper Company is as ‘‘transparent’’ as they profess, they should welcome 

this endeavor to put all the ‘‘cards on the table’’ and hear everyone’s input. 

We also believe that details of the project and potential impacts (Mining Plan of 

Operation) should be made available to our residents and to the general public up 

front. We continually hear that Resolution Copper Company will make this plan 

available later—after the Oak Flat land exchange. We feel that if the land exchange 

is of utmost importance, Resolution Copper Company should accelerate production 

of their plan NOW—before the Oak Flat land exchange. 

PUBLIC RESPONSE OPPOSING THE FEDERAL LAND EXCHANGE OF OAK FLAT

CAMPGROUND, AND SURROUNDING AREAS

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition began gathering signatures 

opposing the Federal Land Exchange of Oak Flat Campground and surrounding 

areas in March of 2007 and obtained 90 hard-copy petitions from the public over 

a 4-month period. Of the 692 individuals who signed, 315 were Superior residents 

and 377 were concerned citizens residing outside of Superior, Arizona. Additionally, 

we initiated an on-line petition process and to date have gathered 3,943 signatures 

world-wide opposing the Oak Flat land exchange. 

On June 29, 2007, we hand delivered a cover letter, copies of the petitions and 

photographs of some of the spectacular scenery in this public land use area to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, the Superior Town Council, as well as each of Arizona’s Senators and Representative to the United States Congress. 

We entertained dialogue with Superior Mayor Michael Hing, who indicated he 

wrote a letter to Congressman Grijalva in May of 2007 expressing some concerns 

and issues with the land exchange and requesting delay of bill until such time that 

the Town of Superior and Resolution Copper Company worked out a number of 

issues that materially impact the Town and its citizens. On August 16, 2007, Mayor 
84 

Hing sent a similar letter, requesting delay of the bill, to Governor Napolitano and 

each of Arizona’s U.S. Congressmen. Subsequently, the Vice Mayor and one additional Councilwoman attended our meetings to hear our concerns. 

At a Special Town Council meeting held on August 23, 2007, the Council approved 

a letter written by Rosie Cordova, Superior Town Manager, to John Rickus, President of Resolution Copper Company, LLC, with a proposed Memorandum of Agreement regarding issues that materially impacted the Town and its citizens. Subsequently, on September 6, 2007, the Town Council approved a second letter be sent 

to the Governor and each of the Arizona’s U.S. Congressmen—again requesting a 

delay of the bill and indicating that there were ‘‘other serious reservations due to 

a multitude of environmental concerns that may adversely affect the land, water 

and air quality of our community’’. 

The following Town Council meeting held on September 20, 2007, was dedicated 

to a Resolution Copper Company presentation of their September 10, 2007, letter 

to Mayor Michael Hing indicating their disappointment in the recent developments 

from the Town Council regarding our (sic Resolution Copper Company’s) land exchange and letter of August 24, 2007, and proposed a revised Memorandum of Understanding. The room was filled with a multitude of Resolution Copper Company 

supporters who presented petitions in support of the Resolution Copper Company 

land exchange. Some of these petitions were being signed before, during and after 

the Town Council meeting that was held in a public building. I have never know 

our local officials to allow any signature gathering for petitions to occur in a government building—at a government meeting. 

During this meeting, public comments were provided by various individuals that 

were disparaging toward certain members of The Concerned Citizens and Retired 

Miners Coalition. Members of The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition 

were not allowed to make any comments in support of our views and were heckled 

during their public comments. (Subsequent to this meeting, comments were directed 

to various employers asking that the employees opposing the land exchange be 

fired!) Signatures on petitions supporting Resolution Copper Company were obtained in the Town Council chambers prior to and during the meeting. Of the 386 

individuals who signed, 163 were Superior residents with the remaining 223 individuals living outside the Town. 

The Town council voted unanimously to support the Resolution Copper Company 

Memorandum of Understanding and agreed to write a letter to the Arizona U.S. 

Congressional delegation in support of the land exchange. The Mayor indicated that 

the Council felt compelled to vote positively since so many people turned out at the 

meeting who supported the land exchange. This did not make any sense since The 

Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners had provided more than twice as many local 

signatures in opposition to the land exchange! 

Many changes have occurred over the past three (3) months—to include replacing 

Mr. John Rickus as President of Resolution Copper Company. The new President, 

Mr. David Salisbury, came on board and quickly led the Superior Town Council 

through the execution process (and corresponding photo opportunity) of the abovementioned Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Salisbury has also provided a great 

deal of information regarding the abundant stakeholder meetings held and the positive response that they have received regarding their Superior Project. 

In fact, at a Town Council meeting in April, 2008, Mr. Salisbury indicated that 

Governor Napolitano was now in full support of the Resolution Project. The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition contacted Governor Napolitano’s office 

subsequent to this council meeting and were told, NO, the Governor still has concerns regarding the project and that her position has not changed. Why would Resolution Copper Company misstate the Governor’s position? 

April 30, 2008, Resolution Copper Company included several signatures from Arizona’s pool of local legislators in a sign-on letter. Interestingly enough, 14 of the legislators who originally signed on with Resolution Copper Company formally rescinded their sign-on on May 20, 2008, stating they did not have full information 

on the proposal at that time. This is again representative of RCC’s strong-arm tactics in obtaining support without providing full disclosure. We are proud to know 

that these 14 researched RCC’s position, obtained facts regarding the proposed land 

exchange and had the integrity to formally rescind their sign-on. We hope you do 

the same. 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition attendees find the RCC 

meetings to contain more ‘‘smoke and mirrors’’ than transparency. Any attempt to 

ask specific questions regarding their plan of operation, environmental impacts, 

other studies and the like are met with clear and concise statements and data provided by firms hired and paid by Resolution Copper Company. A frequent answer 
85 

to questions is that RCC will provide the information, details, copies and the like 

after the land exchange. That answer is unacceptable. 

Resolution Copper Company hangs the promise of jobs over local residents and 

government officials heads. Many individuals and officials have bought into that 

theory. The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition does not agree that 

our legislators, local officials or townspeople should be so anxious to support a land 

exchange because of a promise that may never materialize. We strongly urge everyone to ask difficult questions and expect that the process of the American people 

be respected. We ask that you do not act so cavalierly regarding some of our most 

important resources. 

THREAT TO THE TOWN OF SUPERIOR’S ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

Many members of our Coalition have lived through the boom and bust cycle of 

mining. After closure of the Magma/BHP mine in the 1990s, many people fled the 

community in search of jobs, medical treatment facilities and amenities that were 

not available in Superior. Voters taxed the political body to create a more diversified 

and sustainable economic basis for its residents. The Town received grants to develop an Industrial Park, a low-income housing subdivision, a new swimming pool, 

second fire station, airport, rest stop and numerous parks and trails. These projects 

were initiated to create jobs for our local residents, to increase state-shared revenue 

and local taxes and to encourage eco-tourism. 

The Concerned Citizens and Miners Coalition believes that in order to sustain 

growth and development, we cannot rely on any one industry to support us. Mining 

has an allure and historical ties in our community. However, just as in the past, 

mining has a short life. We cannot base our future on one single industry or employer. 

While Resolution Copper Company has promised great hope for another ‘‘boom,’’ 

they do not willingly embrace annexation into our town limits, they have purposely 

depreciated their land values in anticipation of the land exchange and they have 

strong-armed our government officials and management into accepting less than 

adequate compensation for future use of the Town’s services and support. 

SUMMARY

Resolution Copper Company has divided this community by demanding that the 

Town Council speak for the residents of Superior in unwavering support of a land 

exchange that is not necessary in order for Resolution Copper Company to mine. Behind the scenes, their representatives have attempted to force the firing of individuals opposing the Land Exchange. Those individuals who question Resolution Copper Company in any fashion are deemed to be ‘‘anti-mine.’’ Businesses deemed ‘‘antimine’’ are not supported by Resolution Copper Company, their employees or 

agents—in fact RCC employees are urged to boycott! These strong-arm tactics 

should not be allowed to pervade a community already distraught from previous 

‘‘boom and bust’’ mining cycles. 

S. 3157 does not represent a land exchange that is in the broader public interest. 

It is clear to The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition that Presidents 

Eisenhower and Nixon believed that they were protecting Oak Flat from big business interests in acquiring public lands for development, mining and transportation. 

Oak Flat has been important enough to protect from mining and other elements for 

over 50 years, and it should not be so easily conveyed to a foreign-owned mining 

interest. This land exchange sets a terrible precedent. 

The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition strongly urges the Public 

Lands and Forests Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure that the concerns of all public interests are addressed prior to consideration of any Federal land exchange. We believe you should protect these public 

lands for the public’s future use and preserve the unique opportunities for Arizonans—and especially Superiorites—that the Oak Flat area provides. 

For these and many other reasons, we oppose S. 3157, the Southeast Arizona 

Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2008 and feel that it should be rejected. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

STATEMENT OF BENNY R. WAMPLER, ACTING DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY, RICHMOND, VA, ON S. 2779 

My name is Benny Wampler and I serve as Acting Director of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit this statement for the record with respect to the legislative hearing on S. 
86 

2779, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 

use certain payments for certain noncoal and acid mine drainage reclamation 

projects. 

Virginia fully supports the statements submitted by The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land 

Programs (NAAMLP), organizations of which Virginia is a member, to the Committee at the July 9, 2008, hearing. We strongly urge Congress to clarify the current 

misinterpretation for the acid mine drainage (AMD) set aside program. Section 

402(g)(6) has, since 1990, allowed a state or tribe to set aside a portion of its AML 

grant in a special AMD abatement account to address this pervasive problem. Virginia recently celebrated the completion of a $3.4 million AMD remediation project, 

partially funded with AML dollars, to treat two impaired streams in the Powell 

River watershed. The Powell River is one of the most ecologically diverse streams 

in the nation and is home to 29 species of rare mussels and 19 species of rare fish. 

OSM’s recent policy (and now regulatory) determination is denying the states the 

option to set aside moneys from that portion of its grant funding that comes from 

‘‘prior balance replacement funds’’ each year to mitigate the effects of AMD on waters within their borders. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout the country, 

but especially in Appalachia. Given their long-term nature, these problems are technologically challenging to address and, more importantly, are very expensive. The 

states need the ability to set aside as much funding as possible to deal with these 

problems over the long term. 

We therefore urge the Committee to amend S. 2779 to correct the current policy 

interpretation by Interior and allow the use of unappropriated state and tribal share 

balances (‘‘prior balance replacement funds’’) for the AMD set aside, similar to the 

use of these balances for noncoal work. Suggested amendatory language is attached 

to our statement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on S.2779. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative process and see this 

bill, as amended, become law. 

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 2779 TO INCLUDE THE AMD SET-ASIDE ACCOUNT

(AMENDMENTS ARE IN ITALICS) 

A BILL

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify 

that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal and acid mine drainage reclamation projects. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 

States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

(a) Limitation on Funds.—Section 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. Section 402(g)(6)(A) 

of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 

1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

(b) Use of Funds.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6)’’ before ‘‘section 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 409’’ after ‘‘section 403’’. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY FREEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GROUNDWATER AWARENESS

LEAGUE, ON S. 3157 

There are several serious considerations why the land exchange proposed in SB 

3157 is not a good idea for the public or the Native Americans in the region. 

1) U.S. mining companies always go through the National Environment Policy 

Assessment (NEPA) to be able to mine on public lands. Why should Resolution 

with the legacy of its parent corporations’ horrific environmental records be an 

exception? They want the land to become private—with no justification at all. 

2) The nearby Apache Leap, a site of history of Native American heroes, 

should be protected and not be disturbed. The site should be made a national 

monument. 
87 

* Photos have been retained in subcommittee files. 

3) Oak Flat campground was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower 

in 1955. With the population growth and need for urban recreation, there is no 

reason to change that status—which is still in force. 

4) Tailings Disposal: There is no place to put the waste tailings without spoiling the landscape for several miles, which will amount to a pile equivalent to 

a 20 story-building spread over 2,389 acres. 

5) Cavity size: The underground cavity is estimated to be a mile in diameter 

and 3,000 plus feet high. Is there an insurance company that will provide insurance there will be no collapses or air blasts? 

6) Resolution Copper projects a use of 40,000 acre feet = 13 billion gallons 

of water per year. The Superior area does not have this amount of groundwater; 

the old small-scale mining company was piping water from 15 miles away by 

Florence. They can contract for up to 36,000 af per year of CAP excess water— 

WHEN and IF it is available. 

7) The proposed mine site is in an incredibly beautiful areas of Arizona, with 

oaks, riparian areas and a stream that provides a home of hundreds of sycamores. It is claimed that the private lands for exchange have endangered species. However, I have inquired of the Nature Conservancy and Senator Kyl for 

a list of the endangered species on the exchange lands. I have not received a 

reply from either party. 

For a comprehensive analysis of the situation, see http://www.mining-law-reform.info/Congressional Report.htm, which was sent to the Energy and Natural Resource Committee and Public Lands and Forests subcommittee on July 7, 2008. 

Why am I concerned? I live in mining territory and know what it does to the territory. I have spent over 1,000 hours collecting data and attending hearings, so that 

a local copper mine will stop its pollution to the water that is delivered in my own 

home. A picture is worth a thousand words. A bird’s eye view is available on Google 

Earth maps. 

ELABORATION ON POINTS 1 AND 2

1) Necessity of NEPA process 

For some 25 years, U.S. companies have been mining on public lands with public 

process and environmental oversight. Records show that even with the NEPA process, there are serious contamination to groundwater, soil and air. (www.mining-lawreform.info/EIS REPORT.pdf) Why should Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of Rio 

Tinto, whose Kennecott operations have created the biggest groundwater toxic 

plume in the U.S. at Salt Lake region of Utah, be granted the ability to mine without public process and oversight? This week a report came out that a Rio Tinto/ 

Kennecott operation in Nevada is accused of inaccurate mercury reporting: 

www.kiplinger.com/print.php?storyid=479706 

In 1997, a massive blowout of the sulfuric acid leach pads into Pinto Creek’s adjacent riparian watershed occurred at the BHP copper mine just a few miles east of 

Resolution Copper’s proposed mining site. Pinto Creek empties into the Roosevelt 

Lake, which provides a potable drinking water supply. See photo below:* 

Further, since this area is owned the other parent companies, BHP, Resolution 

Copper officials have proposed that they pipe the tailings waste up to this region, 

which is already a WQARF (Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund) site. For further information, see www.g-a-l.info/Remedial Action.htm 

2) Tailings Disposal 

There is no place to put the waste tailings without spoiling the landscape for several miles. Augusta projects that they will be processing 110,000 tons of ore per day. 

Since the ore only has less than 3% copper and moly combined, the daily dump will 

be some 100,000 tons of waste. When put in a pile 200 ft. high (20-story building), 

it will require 2,389 acres for disposal over the life of the mine. The tailings impoundment in my home town of Green Valley covers 3,600 acres and grows higher 

by 8 to 10 feet per year. 

ATTACHMENT.—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED MINING PROJECT AT APACHE

LEAP AND OAK FLATS, SUPERIOR, ARIZONA

Note: This report is available on-line at www.mining-law-reform.info/ 

Congressional%20Report.htm 
88 

A foreign company Resolution Copper, a joint venture corporation formed by a 

British and Australian Company, is attempting to get an Act of Congress to undo 

the protection that President Eisenhower gave to certain public lands in Public 

Land Order 1229 in 1955, including Oak Flat in Tonto National Forest in Arizona. 

Oak Flat is just as unique today as it was then. Further the mining operations 

would more than likely impact a traditional Indian historical site, Apache Leap. 

Although this region is not on designated Native American reservation land, it 

has historical, traditional significance for the Native Americans who have lived in 

the region for generations. It is a historical site of Apache heroes, rather like Custer’s ‘‘last stand’’—which has been made a National Monument. 

The proposed exchange lands do not in any way equal the sacrifice of Oak Flat, 

Apache Leap, and Queen Creek, which abound with unique flora and fauna. The 

proposed sites are principally over-grazed abandoned ranches that offer no uniqueness of bird, animal or plant. For details, see Attachment One: Land Exchange 

Properties. 

The exchange will limit the environmental oversight and the public process that 

proceeds with mining projects on public lands. One can not help but conjecture the 

motives of a mining company that is trying to convert public land into private 

land—when in fact public land is readily available for mining. 

PROFITS MADE FROM MINING ON PUBLIC LANDS

TOP MINING COMPANIES ON BLM LAND IN THE U.S.—RANKED BY ACRES AFFECTED

Tribal Coalition: The tribes of the region of formed a coalition to preserve the 

sanctity of the region. They have sent a letter of President Bush requesting that 

he continue to protect the region, which has been protected by former President Eisenhower. As you can ascertain by the above map, the mining site is to occur on 

the backside of the formation. See Attachment Two: Tribal Coalition Letter to President Bush 

An online petition has been posted this week so that others can express their support the efforts of the Tribal Coalition to save their traditional sacred site of Apache 

Leap. People across the U.S. are rallying to the cause. To date, there are 3941 signatures See on-line petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/modlperl/ 

signed.cgi?coop2468 

Impacts of mining: There are certain considerations that a person not familiar 

with mining practices would need to know before making any decisions concerning 

facilitating mining operations on or near these two sites. 

1) Mining is not a sustainable operation. The impact on the area where the 

waste is dumped is more than considerable. Using the figures of Resolution 

Copper, they will mill some one billion tons, which have only some 3% copper. 

The other 97% has to be dumped somewhere. If the tailings are stacked, they 

will cover 2,389 acres at a height of a 20 story building. For details, see Attachment Three: Volume of Tailings 

2) Water impact. This region has two streams that flow seasonally, but with 

some permanent pools—a rarity in Arizona. To construct any project that could 

drawdown the water table—thus emptying the creeks and streamlets—would be 

devastating to the birds and other wildlife, as well as the trees and other plant 

life. Even with the National Environmental Policy requirements and oversight, 

it has been shown by recent research that the Environmental Impact Statements underestimated the impact on water in 76% of the cases studied. For details, see Attachment Four: Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hard Rock 

Mines 

Another issue is that Resolution Copper will need to pump nearly two billion 

gallons of toxic water out of the old Magma Mine ‘‘shaft 9’’ before they start 

new operations. They planned to discharge the water into a stream that flows 
89 

behind Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park. After objections over sulfate 

levels by the Arboretum management, Resolution now plans to pipe the toxic 

water to Queen Creek, dilute it with water from the CAP canal, and have the 

area farmers use it. At this time, the residents of that region do not want the 

contaminated water to get into their groundwater table. Department of Environmental Quality as notified and is requiring Resolution Copper to obtain a 

discharge permit. 

3) Probability of subsidence: The company asserts that there will be no subsidence with a tunnels running through terrain 4,000 to 7,000 feet deep and sq 

feet long and wide. Nevertheless, they would not give a guarantee to Access 

Fund of no impact to the Oak Flat climbing area and they plan to close the region for recreational use. The bottom line on subsidence: It’s totally non-predictable. 

Madan Singh, Director of the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources reports, ‘‘Subsidence is an inevitable consequence of underground mining—it may be small and localized or extend over large areas, it may be immediate or delayed for many years’’ (SME, 1992). In Mining publication, 1997, 

Fejes calls subsidence ‘‘a natural result of underground mining,’’ and goes on 

to state that, ‘‘When a void is created nature will eventually seek the most stable geologic configuration, which is a collapse of the void and consolidation of 

the overburden material.’’ Central to all these opinions is the underlying fact 

that subsidence will occur and will result in impacts to the overlying strata. 

There is no way to predict the rifts and faults in a cliff-type area such as Oak 

Flat and Apache Leap. For details, see Attachment Five: Subsidence and 

Hydrological Environmental Impacts 

3) Environmental impact of processing. There are two methods for rendering 

the 3% copper (predicted grade ore at Resolution mine) from the general ore: 

1) Electro-winning is a method of dissolving copper ore with sulfuric acid, 

then electroplating it to 99% pure copper. The positive aspect is that it creates 

less waste than the second method; however, only certain better grades of oxide 

ores can be processed with Electro-winning. The drawback is the sulfuric acid 

is stored in open ponds where any animal or bird unfamiliar with the territory 

would be dissolved instantly. 

Further, although these ponds are lined, human and machine errors do occur. 

In 2002 at the ASARCO Silver Bell operations outside of Tucson, 242,000 gallons of sulfuric acid were released to the environment when a pond was inadvertently overfilled. Further, the caustic nature of sulfuric acid makes the pipes 

and equipment subject to breaks and leaks. For details, see Attachment Six: Environmental Impact of Sulfuric Acid Leaching 

2) Flotation is the method used for lower grade, or sulfide ore. Toxic chemicals are used in the Flotation Process to separate the copper and molybdenum 

out of the milled powder. This Flotation process is the major extraction method 

at Duval/Sierrita mine because of the poor quality of the copper at this site. 

Some chemicals produce bubbles that that the copper adheres to and the ‘‘bad 

stuff’’ falls to the bottom. At this point, the unwanted minerals, salts and processing chemical residues are piped over to a tailing impoundment. 

The concentrate is then smelted in order to separate the various metals and 

purify them. The smelting process also potentially introduces contaminants into 

the environment. It is noteworthy that at the historical mining sites in Arizona, 

the smelter was placed near the Latin town. For details, see Attachment Seven: 

Environmental Impact of Flotation 

There is particular concern because Resolution Copper was formed by BHP 

Billiton and Rio Tinto Mining Companies. Both of these companies vie as the 

worst polluter of the environment—world wide. For details, see Attachment 

Eight: Rio Tinto Environmental Record For details, see Attachment Nine: BHP 

Billiton Environmental Record 

Further, Rio Tinto is the parent company of Kennecott, a company that has 

created the largest toxic plume in the U. S. For details, see Attachment Ten: 

Kennecott Clean-up. 
90 

In closing, I would like to share with you an open letter from a resident of Superior and a former miner at the Magma mine. See Attachment Eleven: Open Letter 

[Additional documents and attachments have been retained in subcommittee 

files.] 

Æ