Here: Kennecott FDO

Of note, the last paragraph on page 8 reads:

Of the six features specifically enumerated in Rule 202(2)(p), four unquestionably occur in structures: residential dwellings, schools, hospitals and government buildings. The other two, places of business and places of worship, could be reasonably construed as not requiring a structure. However, Rule 202(2)(p) contains a catch-all provision that the PFD did not address: “or other “buildings used for human occupancy all or part of the year.” R 425.202(2)(p). This inclusion of this phrase means an EIA must identify all buildings, including those used for the six enumerated features, in the proposed mining area and affected area. Consistent with the rules of statutory construction discussed above, I conclude, as a Matter of Law, Rule 202(2)(p) applies only to buildings used for human occupancy. I further conclude, as a Matter of Law, because Eagle Rock is not a building used for human occupancy, there is no basis to require the EIA identify and describe the feature as a “place of worship.” Concomitantly, the EIA submitted by Kennecott complies in all respects with § 62505(2)(b) and Rule 202, and I so conclude, as a Matter of Law.

Emphasis added.

So DEQ seems to have concluded that an outdoor American Indian sacred site is not a “place of worship” under the relevant law because it is not inside a building (as “used for human occupancy”). In other words, no American Indian place of worship can ever be a “place of worship” unless it’s inside a building.