A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the senator plans to reintroduce the landexchange bill in the Senate this year. Kyl, who co-sponsored the legislation with Sen. John Mc-Cain, R-Ariz., last year, said the exchange is "a win for Arizona environmentally and economically" and meets "the needs of outdoor recreation, conservation, resource protection and mining interests."


"a win for Arizona environmentally" - that's a good one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328055/

Interesting. I thought that one of the issues for the mine was the extraction of the copper itself. Remember those rumors that it would have to be mechanical robots? How's that going to create 1000 jobs? Sounds to me like maybe 10 people with really big brains and a couple dozen worker bees for day to day operations.

As for the drop dead date of September....I'm not buying that either. Magma Mine is rumored to be the richest copper concentration in North America but if they can't get it going by fall they're gonna blow the project off?

~Susan

WTF does he represent but himself, typical carpetbagger. The only way he can say it pleases anyone in AZ is that we all got a pittance for this beautiful resource. Nobody I know is pleased.

Hi Fred, OK I'll nibble...alright, bite! I saw your TR a few weeks ago and appreciate your opinions. I felt that you didn't get a true sampling of the area do to time and weather but you've seen a lot of areas over the years and it doesn't take a 3 day tour to get the full effect.

I went out to Tamo and found the area extremely interesting. The rock to me was quite unique and I like the variety of climbing it provides. I am looking forward to going again and hope that all climbers will have the opportunity to enjoy the area. If they choose to do so.

As for QC - my personal disclaimer is that I don't want to see the area lost. With that said, I feel that RCC has made several good faith efforts to accommodate the climbing community. I don't have to be a political scientist to know that RCC didn't "have" to do anything to accommodate anyone. The mineral rights alone for the state of AZ is HUGE money.

This is just a few things that RCC has done so far to make the deal attractive....

• Bankrolled finding comparable area(s) for a land swap

• Paying for development of proposed climbing park

• Agreement for QC "climbing license" for certain areas

• Offered to pay bulk of liability insurance coverage policy so climbers can continue to enjoy parts of QC

By pittance, I compare what they will get to what we are paid for it. If they put their money into saving the land we already had set aside by executive order for recreation, then we would all have won. The Friends of Queen Creek wanted just that, mining underground in a way that we could still enjoy the area safely.

As you showed in your trip report, excellent reportage BTW, you could climb at tamo if you so desired, albeit by a 4wd road. My friend Brent Bingham told me he had been there years before and was impressed by the rock but depressed by the road!

I have climbed Tamo with Chris Hill and was asked to put routes up there. I appreciated the invite but I like Isolation more. The routes are fun, and much like Queen Creek they're short. I think they are better quality rock though. The road in was blocked by a gate, other than that, a 2wd truck could make it in. It would still take at least 2+ hrs drive that way. If a good gravel road is ever carved in thru the desert, it will hopefully reduce the approach somewhat. I would climb there again even if I had to pay a fee. It's a new place and as you know Fred, I like new rock.

I am glad that RCC did us a "favor" but wish they were better stewards of the land they wish to use. Once you take the land and wipe it away, like the other huge mines in the area, it will never come back.

Susan,

I apologize ahead of time for the formality of the quoting and the clarifying editing. My software was having some issues. If I made an error, please let me know.


Ms. Peplow wrote: "I felt that you didn't get a true sampling of the area d[ue] to time and weather"

I believe that what I got was actually just that, a sampling and I believe I divulged this in my TR. As to its "true"ness, I'm not sure what you mean.

Can you explain a little better?

Perhaps listing the area I went to in the now-unavailable guide as the "Main Crag" is a misnomer? I hiked about 3/4 to 1 mile of cliff line and climbed one of the most highly rated in quality climbs. Had I climbed more, then I would certainly have more data from which to draw a more complete conclusion. But, truly, a sample it definitely was.

Ms. Peplow wrote: "I am looking forward to going again and hope that all climbers will have the opportunity to enjoy the area. If they choose to do so."

Great, maybe we can meet up and you can show me the rest of the places you visited or some of the new stuff. Meantime, can you tell me about those other places? Route lengths, spacing of climbs?, hike in from the helipad?, etc.? I think others would really like the details too.

Ms. Peplow wrote: "The mineral rights alone for the state of AZ is HUGE money."

The folks at the BLM explained to me recently that the State of Arizona does not own the mineral rights on federal lands within its boundaries. I was told that they are reserved to the national interest and managed by the federal government. Maybe I misunderstood something in their explanation and you have different information. Can you share this with me? The BLM office was helpful but not always consistent.

Ms. Peplow wrote: "This is just a few things that RCC has done so far to make the deal attractive.... *Bankrolled finding comparable area(s) for a land swap"

Yes, I believe this is true. I'd do the same, bankrolling (investing) with the eye toward profit. Nothing wrong with this.

Ms. Peplow wrote: "*Paying for development of proposed climbing park "

It's my understanding from the legislation and the public testimony on the issue, that RCC is committed to and involved at this time to aid in the finding of an exchange climbing area and for procuring some lands to be eventually turned over to the government. That they are funding consultants for the continued development of climbs on public (and private?) lands is at their discretion from what I can tell.

Perhaps there is some other legal document that they have enacted that actually commits them to something on a continuing basis? Not that they aren't continuing and acting in good faith, just curious as to the long term commitment that is implied by your statement.

As I understand it from the legislation in place and proposed, RCC will not be paying for the actual development of the climbing park infrastructure other than some certain limited amount. I'll have to reread the federal legislation from last year again to refresh my memory on the specific numbers and what can be used toward that end.

Based on what I read, the citizens of the State of Arizona will pay for the bulk of it if it actually comes to be and probably already are paying for that development (who funded the climbing park survey for instance? RCC, ASU, State of Arizona?) Who is paying for the park employees to be trained by the consultants in the art of climbing? (see Sherman thread on RC.com)

An estimated $6.5 million for a dirt road alone will be needed from the citizens for instance. I haven't seen the estimate for the actual park amenities, restrooms, internal roads/access, electrical lines, water pumps/system, sewer hookups, RV pads, shade structures, etc., etc. Although I have seen estimates of $350,000 per year for the 4 full time rangers on the premises.

I believe the politicians are of the opinion that RCC will be paying their fair share of taxes to the state over the years so they shouldn't have to carry the budget item burden of the actual park development costs. (see notes for committe meetings for State of Arizona legislation passed last year)

As a side note, I've been a bit curious about a private entity funding the trail infrastructure and climb installation on public property. Usually, once money exchanges, there is an implied agreement and acceptance of liablity, etc. If it were state funded that's one thing, but the consultants are privately funded. So, how does that work on the public property?

Perhaps they have a public letter of permission or some other BLM/State Trust Land document that allows them to do this? A private citizen recreating and putting routes up is one thing (we need a State Trust Land permit don't we?), a privately funded consultant on public property or somebody doing something of a commercial nature on public property seems like something else. Maybe this sort of thing happens all of the time and it's all above board and every i is dotted and t is crossed already?

Ms. Peplow wrote: "*Agreement for QC "climbing license" for certain areas *Offered to pay bulk of liability insurance coverage policy so climbers can continue to enjoy parts of QC"

From what I understood at the time of the license agreement announcement, RCC had agreed to pay for the first year or so and then it was up to somebody else to pay for it, Access Fund?, local climbers via a user fee?, any further ideas on this? I also believe that the Access Fund has the right to apply for a license, not necessarily a right to a license. Maybe I misread something.

Ms. Peplow wrote: "Sure, they've got money to burn but to me, they could be paying themselves bigger bonuses and giving climbers the big f-U and still get what they want. They didn't and don't have to do shit to this through legislation."

I'm not sure what this means precisely.

It doesn't seem that the power and political structure is in question.

I'm just asking for those who have visited the place to start talking about it all in a public manner so we can all have a good idea of what is going on and there will be no surprises.

Can you explain more clearly what is meant by "don't have to do sh*t to [get] this through legislation?" I believe that many Native Americans and the head of the committee that will hear the bill (Congressman Grijalva?) might beg to differ.

Fred

Here are two simple facts.

1. State Parks has NO money to develop or staff this park. The Legislature has repeatedly pulled capital funds from State Parks and all that is left is O & M $'s. If you saw last weeks article on how our State Parks are run, than you would recognize that this "park" will get NO money. The road in? well that is a gift, but no endowment by RCC to fund a ranger and any improvements (not that we need them) will mean that State Parks can not open a park which does not have an operations and management plan (in others words "How do we make money here?") There will NOT be adequate revenues at $5 a visit to fund even one ranger.

Why are we turning a public area (albeit access difficult) amenity over to another public entity that can only utilize it if they collect money to fund its existance? RCC needs to prove it did something...acquiring land for that which they closed and proving that it is now official (done by giving to State Parks) validates to them and their financial backers that they did the right thing by kicking us out and giving us a bone.

2. The system that needs to be designed, built and installed to pump the existing water OUT of the ground is 5-8 years from being completed in its entirety. There will be NO work done that will create subsidance until the pump is installed. Therefore the mine as it exists today will be technically inactive from a undergraound subsidance point of view. Yet Bruno had to prove he won and he got us out of there, despite the fact that he and many others know that this project will not be active till the water issue is resolved. Had FoQ known this they would have looked differently perhaps at the leverage we had. I do believe the new manager is amenable to the fact that there will be no subsidance issues for years to come and that we can all coexist for years

Only found this out about 4 months ago. If I tell you how, I have to kill ya

The license that is now in place, providing climbing access to The Pond and Atlantis climbing areas is a multi-year license entered into between RCC and the Access Fund, with provision for renewal. The license can basically continue on indefinitely, until RCC says it can't.

The insurance policy covering climbers in these areas runs around $25,000 per year and RCC pays all but $2,000 of this annual amount. It is the responsibility of concerned local climbers to raise the $2,000 annual difference, which will be paid to RCC by the AF. Hopefully, that clears up a few things. If anyone wants further information--just ask.

Curt

Quote FRIENDS OF QUEEN CREEK
"The value of the Oak Flat area as a recreational resource has been officially acknowledged for many years. President Dwight Eisenhower recognized this in 1955 when he signed BLM Public Land Order 1229 which specifically put this land off-limits to all future mining activity. President Richard Nixon issued BLM PLO 5132 in 1971 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.”"

Go Eisenhower. Boo Nixon.

"Perhaps, the tangible penny has become obsolete." Me

I wrote what you quoted above. It is important to note that Nixon's modification of the original Eisenhower PLO still banned mining on the parcel in question.

Curt

There is no money or endowment promised to state parks. State Parks is notorious for wanting to expand their kingdom without having money to sustain the operations and managment. This will be one more example, ASP will just cannabalize money from other parks and line items to hobble together a budget for this "park". They, like the town of Superior, have been bambozzled by promises and visions of a cash cow courtesy of RCC.

So what does this mean? Technically the park will never open until it is "managed" with some sort of skeleton system in place and since there have been no funds set aside specifically or an endowment by RCC (as I have told management should happen), we may not see the "opening" of this park for a while. So what you say, I'll climb there anyways. It is unlikely that ASP will push to have the road put in until they can figure out how to manage this place. SOOOO if you know how to get there without the benefit of a installed access this means nothing to you, but for the rest of us who are waiting for the road, we'll be waiting a while.

Fred,

Laurel knows far more about the AZ state parks funding process than I do, so I can't really add anything there. As far as the original PLO protecting Oak Flat goes, we also tried to find the rationale for setting the land aside in the first place--but were not successful. I suppose there could be something in the records of the NFS or BLM from the mid-fifties someplace, but we never found it.

Also, PLOs are modified and/or removed from time to time. It really isn't too uncommon. It may be somewhat uncommon for a PLO to be rendered moot because the protected land is traded away in a legislated land exchange, but that also may not be unique. I'm simply not sure.

Curt

Here's another article - local in nature: http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?ID=5142

In this article -- The "Sides" are becoming clear. Thanks for your response Laurel ~

• added note 4-02 ~ Here is copy should anyone have difficulty accessing without login: http://www.savequeencreek.com/articles/AzCapitolTimesMarch23>>>>>

Article from Town of Superior 4/10/07:

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=864&NewsID=7>>>>>

A group of retired miners have stepped forward in the local community to say they believe there is a more responsible way of mining to avoid environmental impact to Oak Flat and the surrounding areas

thx kirra for staying up on this

For those that know the situation -- this recent development could be a HUGE acomplishment in the delay of the Oak-Flat/QC massacre ~ enjoy ~

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/topstories/articles/0>>>>>

Who ya gonna call now RCC..? (Renzi is main sponsor of RCC landtrade bill)

The Apache save the white man from himself ~

http://www.savequeencreek.com/articles/ApachYavapaiOpposeRCC>>>>>

Same article, just a bit easier to read...

http://www.silverbelt.com/articles/2007/04/25/apache_moccasi>>>>>

~Susan