Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

kirra wrote:How about we realize that this is still not a "done-deal" and try to move forward while *honestly* admitting that mistakes have been made

In moving forward, we need to write our Senators & representative today and let them know how displeased we are. Here is a snippet from my sources who have been most accurate on these matters of B.S. backroom politics:

"Well folks, it's official. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee would rather give another handout to a foreign mining consortium worth $300 Billion than to protecting the religious freedom or the natural treasures of this country.

Today, by a voice vote and without debate The Committee passed S.409 as amended along with 31 other bills despite knowing that the compromise between Senator Bingaman and Senator McCain did not pass muster from taxpayers, Native Americans, climbers, or conservationists. However, to get the job done Senator Bingaman and Senator McCain resorted to backroom horse-trading and maneuvers instead of doing the people's business in the light of day.

Please contact your Senators on the Committee and express your disappointment and stay tuned for ways you can help stop this government handout on the Senate floor and in the House.

These mining giants have had an army of paid lobbyists and PR hacks working this legislation since 2004 and this is the first time they've gotten a bill out of committee."

---------------------------------------------

imo this fight has only just begun ~ SAVE OAK FLAT/QUEEN CREEK ~ Amended Bill S.409

Really Kirra?

Who outside of Resolution and the Congressional staffs involved knew the details before a few days ago? If there had been a call to action last week, or last month, do you think Resolution would have been more forthcoming with climbers about their plans? Resolution does not share their tactics with us beforehand. They understand the value of keeping quiet. They also have far better access to Congress than we do. We do what we can, but we are not a joint venture of two of the world's three largest mining companies, with the near-unanimous support of Arizona's prominent politicians, including the two Senators who are sponsoring their bill.

You are taking potshots because, evidently, that is what you do - that is all you do - but what would you have done differently? How would you have kept "on top" of confidential meetings between Resolution and Congress? We knew RCM was talking to staff; we know they are always talking to staff. Who do you think would have better access to, e.g., Sen. McCain's staff, as between us and Resolution, given that Sen. McCain is a sponsor of Resolution's exchange? We all knew (via the McCain letter) that there would be a big push to get this moving this month. So who, exactly, was caught off guard? If you want to know how Roger Featherstone and friends heard about some of the specifics of the compromise before we did, why don't you ask him? That's a good scoop on their part, not dereliction on QCC's part. (By the way, I note that the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, despite being so well-informed, wasn't able to prevent the bill from advancing.)

If you watched the June 17, 2009, hearing on S.409, you know that the big stumbling block was the timing of a NEPA review. It was pretty obvious that that would be the subject of a compromise effort, if there was to be one. If you think they were all waiting for climbers to weigh in, and we made a huge mistake in not doing so, then you are living in a dream world. The question - the only question - was whether Resolution would be willing to compromise on the NEPA timing. They were.

A press release from Representative Raul Grijalva pertaining to Rio Tinto's (majority owner of Resolution Copper) human rights issues in one of its non-US operations:

grijalva.house.gov/index.cf…

Fred

S.409 passed.........wow that totally blows!

Now we get to jump onto the next roller coaster!

I don't think that this is the time to lose focus and attack each other, considering that there are still years and years of negotiating to go on between climbers, Resolution, Tonto Natl Forest, City of Superior, let's just say basically close to the same peoples, groups etc we have all been talking to for years, now more.

Throwing in the towel now is a joke! Climbing has not been stopped in Queen Creek, Queen Creek is totally open so go have fun! Around 10 or so years from now a few areas are possibly going to be closed which are on mining land, and maybe not? The rest of Queen Creek is still open with no restrictions at all. How many new routes and boulder problems will be put up in the next 10 years? I guess that all depends on how much the climbers visit Queen Creek.

Queen Creek Canyon is a very beautiful place. I just hope that Resolution mining company also sees the beauty of this area, and preserves what they can of the surface.

Photo of the Road Area going through Queen Creek Canyon.

Road Area, Queen Creek Canyon, Superior AZ

Rock on! Marty

"...How about doing any of the following:

• Contact Congress regularily & establishing relationships with aids
• Meeting w/district Govt. Representatives such as Ann Kirkpatrick
• Attending town hall meetings in Superior or meet with Mayor Hing
• Contact & meet with the Native Americans
• Meet & form alliances with other like-minded groups with similar concerns like the Sierra Club
• Have regularly scheduled open meetings where all climbers are invited to participate & contribute (instead of an o'boys club) How did I do, anything look familiar...?"

Well, first of all I don't see anything on that list that the FoQC/QCC has not done, although we typically meet with aides rather than aids. I would also like to add that we have held numerous meetings with the Tonto NF people here in AZ, as well as meeting with DC Staffs of the NFS, the Department of Agriculture and the BLM. Additionally, the AF/QCC has retained multiple mining engineers and mining law attorneys to better understand the bigger picture.

Having personally invested over 1,000 hours of my own time and over $2,000 of my personal funds towards the Oak Flat lobbying effort (over the last 5 years) I think it's a shame that anyone feels that they have not had their interest adequately represented with regard to this issue. I guess that's just the way it goes--and I should be glad that I have fairly thick skin.

Curt

Article in the local Phoenix paper today about the Senate's actions and what lies ahead according to them:

azcentral.com/arizonarepubl…

By the way, yes, I did meet on behalf of the QCC with the FS in a meeting earlier this year and I keep in contact on an informal basis from time to time. As the meeting notes from an earlier meeting reflect, Greg and I are the point people to talk to the local FS about issues.

I can't speak with authority for those involved with the other various activities and must leave it to them to address their specific areas of responsibility.

This is of course just my understanding and not meant to be anything other than that.

Fred

Similar article from the online service of the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson:

azstarnet.com/metro/321723

Fred

I have included another round of fax's - letters as part of this weeks
activity - I have posted on the Meetup.com group site and have posted on FB ... I know its not alot...

I posted a few comments on the azcentral.com/arizonarepublic site, also the azstarnet site

Marty

Well, good morning all.
I had to leave the site because I was breaking that #1 rule and did not feel that was productive.
I want to thank everyone for their passion and steadfast-ness. I think ultimately we all would like to save Oak Flat.

Does anyone know that response from San Carlos Apache Nation yet on this?

Rick, Eric, Fred, Marty and all the rest...what can you use help with from us who are willing help? The folks that do post on here often are involved, I think it may be a good thing to gather our energy and work together from here. What can I do to help our efforts?

When is the next public meeting?

Linda White

(My personal statement.)

Thanks to everyone who is rolling up their sleeves and getting involved. Keep in mind the policy statement Curt offered above.

It is important to move forward on our dual fronts - pressure on Congress that climbers are not yet take care of, and it is also important to continue to move forward on the second course of action of talks with Resolution (RCM) in case of the alternative that the Land Exchange goes through. We don't want all of our eggs in one basket.

The QCC will be meeting with RCM, hopefully in January, to renew the discussions. Over the past two years the QCC (as presented in prior public meetings and stated on the QCC web site) has been in discussions with RCM. We presented our "statement of understanding," a list of what climbers wanted. Resolution gave us an offer of how they proposed to address each item (those lists are available on the QCC web site). The QCC formally responded with a Counter Proposal that reworded the RCM letter, to which RCM presented a further Counter in October of 2008.

In exchange for giving climbers the list of 23 items, RCM wanted the QCC to endorse the Land Exchange legislation. This was a non-starter for us and a real sticking point - we would not endorse any legislation that lead to the destruction of Oak Flat. In June of 2009 the QCC authorized representatives to inquire of RCM if they would accept a position of Non-Opposition to the legislation, contingent on the QCC's ability to discuss and agree on specifics of the offer, and to add some additional climbing resources. RCM replied that they would be willing to talk, but they wanted to know the specifics first (and they seemed to indicate that they didn't want to give us the whole list if we wouldn't endorse the legislation.)

The QCC has been looking in detail about the specific concerns (some call them "gotchas") of where the offer may not contain as much certainty as we would like to guarantee rock climbing in perpetuity. The QCC has also been working on what they feel are needed as Fixes for the concerns.

The next meeting between the QCC and RCM will begin to nail down the specifics. We are not committing to anything yet, but we need to do that work so that we know what we can really get with the second path of negotiations. I would anticipate that we will hold next quarter's public meeting to update the climbing community on the status of those discussions.

While not taking your eye off the ball of letting Congress know that we are not satisfied yet, it would really help if you could let the QCC board members know what you think of the specifics of the RCM offer, what are your highest concerns, and what you would like any potential agreement with RCM to include. That "public input" is both needed and desired.

Contact me if you need any further information concerning the above.

ErikF wrote:In June of 2009 the QCC authorized representatives to inquire of RCM if they would accept a position of Non-Opposition to the legislation, contingent on the QCC's ability to discuss and agree on specifics of the offer, and to add some additional climbing resources. RCM replied that they would be willing to talk, but they wanted to know the specifics first (and they seemed to indicate that they didn't want to give us the whole list if we wouldn't endorse the legislation.)

Interesting thanks for posting

Stae Strong wrote:AND, you are scary.

people are oftentime scared of things they don't understand. If you'd like to discuss your confusion *civily* offline - this is your 2nd formal invitation. Attacking people here on this thread is counterproductive to our goals. I delete things that I feel have no value in this discussion

ErikF wrote:(My personal statement.) Thanks to everyone who is rolling up their sleeves and getting involved. Keep in mind the policy statement Curt offered above. It is important to move forward on our dual fronts - pressure on Congress that climbers are not yet take care of, and it is also important to continue to move forward on the second course of action of talks with Resolution (RCM) in case of the alternative that the Land Exchange goes through. We don't want all of our eggs in one basket. The QCC will be meeting with RCM, hopefully in January, to renew the discussions. Over the past two years the QCC (as presented in prior public meetings and stated on the QCC web site) has been in discussions with RCM. We presented our "statement of understanding," a list of what climbers wanted. Resolution gave us an offer of how they proposed to address each item (those lists are available on the QCC web site). The QCC formally responded with a Counter Proposal that reworded the RCM letter, to which RCM presented a further Counter in October of 2008. In exchange for giving climbers the list of 23 items, RCM wanted the QCC to endorse the Land Exchange legislation. This was a non-starter for us and a real sticking point - we would not endorse any legislation that lead to the destruction of Oak Flat. In June of 2009 the QCC authorized representatives to inquire of RCM if they would accept a position of Non-Opposition to the legislation, contingent on the QCC's ability to discuss and agree on specifics of the offer, and to add some additional climbing resources. RCM replied that they would be willing to talk, but they wanted to know the specifics first (and they seemed to indicate that they didn't want to give us the whole list if we wouldn't endorse the legislation.) The QCC has been looking in detail about the specific concerns (some call them "gotchas") of where the offer may not contain as much certainty as we would like to guarantee rock climbing in perpetuity. The QCC has also been working on what they feel are needed as Fixes for the concerns. The next meeting between the QCC and RCM will begin to nail down the specifics. We are not committing to anything yet, but we need to do that work so that we know what we can really get with the second path of negotiations. I would anticipate that we will hold next quarter's public meeting to update the climbing community on the status of those discussions. While not taking your eye off the ball of letting Congress know that we are not satisfied yet, it would really help if you could let the QCC board members know what you think of the specifics of the RCM offer, what are your highest concerns, and what you would like any potential agreement with RCM to include. That "public input" is both needed and desired. Contact me if you need any further information concerning the above.

Erik, this is GREAT to hear. Marcy and I will have our responses to the list to QCC asap.

QCC has my full support, you folks have done a lot of good for the community.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me all, but I think I need to open a can of worms. I know that QCC has discussed this but wanted to make my thoughts known.

I believe that we should offer to endorse the land swap if in return we gain permanent access to significantly more climbing areas than without our endorsement. To me, preserving Oak Flat is not as important as saving as much climbing as possible.

I'd be curious in knowing (civilly) what percentage of the climbing community is in agreement with this idea. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I thought I'd speak up anyway.

Geir Hundal - " believe that we should offer to endorse the land swap if in return we gain permanent access to significantly more climbing areas than without our endorsement. To me, preserving Oak Flat is not as important as saving as much climbing as possible.

I'd be curious in knowing (civilly) what percentage of the climbing community is in agreement with this idea. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I thought I'd speak up anyway."

I don't want to piss anyone off. I realize that we all have our own opinions about this. But agree with Geir. I also think we should save as much of the climbing as possible. I think that the later we wait the weaker our position becomes.

Geir - thanks for putting out there. Most of the people I climb with have similar feelings, including myself. To go one step further...I really don't care much about a replacement campground and would rather see any monies designated for one to go to maintaining access to climbing areas.

In a perfect world, we fight the huge corporation and (sadly) our own government and the entire area is saved forever...but realistically, that isn't gonna happen.

I've written two rounds of letters to Senate and House folks..I know others who have done the same, and more. This pales in comparison to the efforts of the QCC. Thank you QCC!

Yes, I find it sad that this area may be traded away because of money and politics. That said, while we continue to let Congress know that we are dissatisfied, we need to maximize the climbing areas saved in the event of this legislation passing. If it fails this time, great, we have more time, but we'll find ourselves in this situation again. In the meantime, all these "gotchas', as Erik referred to, need to be figured out. If we don't figure them out, and the legislation passes, then what are we left with.

SAVE CLIMBING IN QC!

Well, there does seem to be two schools of thought here.

I keep going back to the fact this is an Executive order. It was my understanding, such an issue has never been over turned...is that correct?
Curt? Rick?

I understand the thought pattern that you share Marcy and Geir, but want to remember our mission statement first! Which I thought was to SAVE OAK FLAT.....?

Erik, what is the QCC's mission statement for representing the climbing community?

I cannot stand all this semantics stuff....I just want to be clear.

Linda

Linda,

I don't know the answer to your Executive Order question, but since you brought it up, I've always been struck by how the whole Executive Order history has been downplayed by both Resolution and the proposed legislation.

I would think that a strict (read real) interpretation of its intent would prohibit many of the activities that Resolution has already conducted at Oak Flat. The Forest Service and everyone else should honor the wording of the order when it states that no mining activity should occur there. I would think that pipes, seismic exploration, road access and repair and claim posts (all of which I've witnessed) would qualify as "mining activity".

Geir,

Concerning your comment: "I believe that we should offer to endorse the land swap if in return we gain permanent access to significantly more climbing areas than without our endorsement. To me, preserving Oak Flat is not as important as saving as much climbing as possible."

I think that this is bigger than climbing. Oak Flat deserves better. There are plenty of messes around that mining companies are contending with, where if you had calculated the clean-up in the original plan, the original plan never would have happened. I think that any mine permitted should guarantee no subsidence, return of tailing back into the hole created underground, address serious water issues and, last but not least, honor and preserve the Native and climbing access and history in the area.

The methods and innovation that would be created if the whole thing was approached as outlined in the previous paragraph would certainly create more work and better jobs - maybe less profits in the short term but a lot better and sustainable environment.

Brent

Hey Linda,

It's very difficult to determine whether or not a land exchange has ever been used before to vacate a withdrawal, via executive order. It is pretty clear, however, that Congress is within its rights to do this. As morally and ethically wrong as this obviously is on its face, apparently, it is perfectly legal.

Curt

BGBingham wrote:I think that this is bigger than climbing. Oak Flat deserves better. There are plenty of messes around that mining companies are contending with, where if you had calculated the clean-up in the original plan, the original plan never would have happened. I think that any mine permitted should guarantee no subsidence, return of tailing back into the hole created underground, address serious water issues and, last but not least, honor and preserve the Native and climbing access and history in the area.

Brent,

Thank you for your honest and well-thought-out opinion.

Linda, here is a bit more about what I'm saying. I hope this clarifies my point of view. This quote is from the OP.

Fred AmRhein wrote:Essentially, the qcc states that it cannot endorse legislation that is going to destroy the surface of Oak Flat by the mining company and that any compensation outside of the legislation that might be forthcoming should not require such an endorsement.

Currently, the QCC is negotiating to see what RCM will offer if we adopt a "non-opposition" stance to the legislation. Note that if we choose this stance, Oak Flat will still be at risk of being destroyed. (QCC has not committed to this position, as I understand they are simply exploring it.)

Again, I believe that we should offer to endorse the land swap if in return we gain permanent access to significantly more climbing areas than without our endorsement.

In both cases (non-opposition vs endorsement) Oak Flat is at risk of being destroyed. The difference between the two stances is that we have greater negotiation power if we offer to endorse the land swap.

RCM has already said "no" to our request of no subsidence in the Oak Flat area. So to save Oak Flat we would have to stop the legislation completely.

I'm so glad that a few people have chimed in with their thoughts. I'd love to see what the rest of the members of the community think about this (again, civilly please, as Brent and Linda already have.)

My question: what do you all think? Do you agree with my belief that we should offer to endorse the land swap if in return we gain permanent access to significantly more climbing areas than without our endorsement?

This is only a poll, of course, but the QCC has been excellent at listening to our thoughts so far and they value our input.

Thanks to you all,
Geir

The San Carlos response to the progress of S409:

azminingreform.org/sites/de….

Linda,

I've never been able to find any evidence that land withdrawn from mining by an Executive Order has been turned over to a mining company as a result of Congressional action. I have asked just about everybody I have met over the past many years who might be in a position to know. I carry a laminated copy of it with me and show it to them. Based on what others so concerned assert (such as the Az Mining Reform Coalition), it appears that it has never been done.

Also, I believe that Curt has singularly and accurately depicted the QCC group stance in his enumerated list from his post a few days ago. The QCC group stance, in my eyes, is broad enough to include the possibility of maintaining the surface of Oak Flat but the group is also aware that push may come to shove.

I prefer a FS campground near the climbing at the higher elevation near Oak Flat if it can somehow be worked out. As I understand it, the alternative as proposed at this time is a location down near the town probably run by the local municipality.

Fred