EVENT TODAY May 24,2013 - Sponsored by San Carlos Apache - Details Pg.3

With regards to the continued process of saving climbing access in Oak Flat & Queen Creek, I am starting this thread for the benefit of all climbers in a non-partisan way. Being armed with facts and communicating directly to our Congressional Representatives about our concerns, is in my opinion the best way at this time to insure our voices will be heard.

I invite all discussions of the coming (or past) legislation and encourage any with proper facts & knowledge to contribute..
---- as well as ANY GOOD NEWS, Positive Messages Etc. to Share----

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


The Town of Superior Pulls it's support for the Land Exchange (yay)

"Due to the financial condition of the Town of Superior, I have been instructed to inform you that we
regret that we can no longer express our unqualified support of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange
and Conservation Act (HR 687 or SB 339, as drafted. )..."

Superior withdraws support - Letter to RioTinto

I agree kirra - the best way to be heard is by individually writing to Congress. I've inserted a link below to the list of senators to focus on.

To be clear, the 2013 version of the Southeast AZ Land Exchange and Conservation Act (a carefully-worded title meant to dupe the uninitiated) is the same as the 2011-2012 version.

We can also help by promoting recreation at Oak Flat. Glen Canyon was doomed because few of the public realized it was there before the gov't dammed it.

See this link to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Keep in mind that getting a friend who lives in any of these districts (outside of AZ) to write their senator on behalf of Oak Flat would be worth 10 Arizonans's letters to the same senator.

Senate Energy & Resources Committee

Thanks for the correction Fred. It's surprising that it's nearly the same bill because I expected Kirkpatrick to introduce some changes that would make it more acceptable to her peers. But she is partnering with Gosar so that explains it.

Thanks for clearing up the wording. I agree that because this Exchange bill is the same as the last one that failed, that it's probably part of the long-term strategy that RC is banking on to eventually wear down us obstacles to "progress."

On the other hand, we need to consider that longtime friend of Oak Flat Sen. Bingaman of New Mexico is replaced by Sen. Ron Wyden (Oregon) as the new Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee. There's of course also a new Interior Secretary in Sally Jewell.

Who knows how Wyden will react to RC? On the surface he appears to be an environmentalist (he just signed off on a bill to designate new wilderness areas in OR). But his record also shows that he's something of a pragmatist when it comes to big money.

Kirkpatrick is making RC her priority. One has to wonder why, when it seems that with a Democrat Senate and Obama, chances for this Republican-esque bill appear slim. Perhaps it's just that her and Gosar wanted to give this version of the bill a "bipartisan" appeal to see how it would fare in Washington.

Fred thanks for posting H.Bill. I noticed a referenced link to Senate Bill on same page but link failed -see correction below.
I'm gonna call it as you do *conservation* title of Bill is absurd.

S.339 - Oak Flat Privatization Bill of 2013

Mahalo Ben et al for comparison on House Bills, similarities may be a time saver for arguments. I wonder if new Senate Bill is similar to prior S.409 ? Maybe no new bills 'cause Rio-daddy is not footing any more bills LOL

I will check back w/additional Resource Committee contact details, eyes 2far back right now. 'RCM Land Exchange Parcel Overview' nu version is lipstick on pork. Will post prior version sans glossy language at some point -PM if any immediate interest

Many thanks to every any & all who assist -Cheers!

HR 687 and S 339 are identical bills.

Curt

"Main take-away: there hasn't been ANY budge by Resolution Copper to negotiate, to win any more favor from the town of Superior or the communities that their business interest directly impacts, or to offer up studies that prove to the public that their brute-force block caving mining techniques wont leave the riparian landscape of Oak Flat / Apache Leap / Devils Canyon in ruin."


The PFS / FS studies can't be made public till its complete, and since the miners got sent home (thanks, by the way - 400 well paying jobs down the tube... happy about that are we?), well, there won't be a complete study for a while, now will there...

Block caving is the opposite of brute force - it is allowing nature i.e. gravity and the rock structure to do most of the work for you. If you guys would listen you might learn something.

Based on my understanding, anyway, Apache Leap is outside the 45 degree crack line. Most caves actually break near vertical to 80-85 degrees. Oak Flat and apache leap are safe based on the graphics i've seen. i don't know where devils canyon is.

ClimbandMine is correct here.
In Block caving they gently coax out the underpinnings of the earth's surface leaving an undisturbed and paradise like surface.

Very gently destroyed. Submitted By: Dale Evans on Mar 9, 2013

gently destroyed huh

still destroyed though

thanks for posting up kirra

Sarcasm Clickety Clackmon.
I thought even you would comprehend that.

Ready to start sending letters to politicians as needed! (Not Sarcasm)

As mentioned, while this current Senate Bill is the same as the House Bill, there are SIGNIFICANT differences between S.409 (111th Session) and the *new* Senate Bill S.339 recently introduced in the 113th Session.

Not that it was ever proper to have negotiated a bribe/pittance payment of $1.25 mil for Oak Flat/Queen Creek, but in the *new* bill this amount has disappeared. Also gone are references to "The Pond" or any exchange other than to trade for 160 acres referred to as "Dripping Springs"

Also absent are ANY references to Climbers, Climbing or Events thereof. Climbing went from being mentioned 6x's in S.409 and having a voice as major stakeholders (which we still are) down to Zero. There was even an allowance in S.409 to permit at least 1 more "Boulder Blast" farewell event (how thoughtful..) -now that is gone as well.

This is what happens when any community allows public land discussions to become private or left in the hands of chairs who do not speak. We have only these 'access chairs' to blame for this broken pile of sticks.

What also concerns me is in Sec.2.Findings & Purpose -this area is now joined together to state 'explicitly' that because of reasons mentioned above, this land exchange is now formally "therefore, in the public interest" -something that some of us have fought long & hard arguing about.

This Land Exchange is only in the interests of large profits for a foreign corporate mining conglomerate who most likely will dig to export abroad.

Is it in the public interest to permanently destroy an un-replaceable recreational resource for the sake of a few temporary and unsustainable Jobs?

I urge everyone concerned about the future of Oak Flat/Queen Creek Climbing to read this bill and note that if this is allowed, it would have an almost IMMEDIATE impact on the Oak Flat withdrawal area as it appears directional drilling may then soon be allowed -even before a proper NEPA review...

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

SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE

(f) Oak Flat Withdrawal Area-

(1) PERMITS- Subject to the provisions of this subsection and notwithstanding any withdrawal of the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area from the mining, mineral leasing, or public land laws, the Secretary, upon enactment of this Act, shall issue to Resolution Copper--

(A) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 30 days of such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral exploration activities under the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area from existing drill pads located outside the Area, if the activities would not disturb the surface of the Area; and

(B) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 90 days of such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral exploration activities within the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area (but not within the Oak Flat Campground), if the activities are conducted from a single exploratory drill pad which is located to reasonably minimize visual and noise impacts on the Campground.

(3) TERMINATION- The authorization for Resolution Copper to undertake mineral exploration activities under this subsection shall remain in effect until the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area land is conveyed to Resolution Copper in accordance with this Act.

(i) Intent of Congress- It is the intent of Congress that the land exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

(j) Environmental Compliance- Compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) under this Act shall be as follows:

(1) Prior to commencing production in commercial quantities of any valuable mineral from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper under this Act (except for any production from exploration and mine development shafts, adits, and tunnels needed to determine feasibility and pilot plant testing of commercial production or to access the ore body and tailing deposition areas), Resolution Copper shall submit to the Secretary a proposed mine plan of operations.

(2) The Secretary shall, within 3 years of such submission, complete preparation of an environmental review document in accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)) which shall be used as the basis for all decisions under applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations regarding any Federal actions or authorizations related to the proposed mine and mine plan of operations of Resolution Copper, including the construction of associated power, water, transportation, processing, tailings, waste dump, and other ancillary facilities.

SEC. 5. CONVEYANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL LAND

(2) LAND ACQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-
(B) DRIPPING SPRINGS- Land acquired by the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and applicable land use plans.


--X--X--X--X--X-- Please HELP Save Oak Flat & Queen Creek --X--X--X--X--X--X--

Please write your Representatives & Call your Senators TODAY !!! ~ kudos 2 all

save it -don't sink it Submitted By: kirra on May 21, 2010

"The House Natural Resources Committee’s Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on the Oak Flat land exchange (HR 687) on March 21st at 10:00 AM. We are scrambling to prepare for the hearing. There are lot's of things to do for folks in Washington, DC, here in Arizona and across the US. If you are willing to pitch in, send us a note! Stay tuned for more details."

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition

F.Book Az. Mining Reform for updates..

U.S.House Subcommittee Energy & Mineral Resources - March 21 Hearing Schedule

"You need to know--Reps. Gosar & Kirkpatrick (in spite of the termination of the agreement between the Town of Superior and Resolution Copper Co.(2-21-13)--based on the Conflict of Interest conviction of Hank Gutierrez, and how little the agreement truly provided Superior), just this past Friday, have moved the Land Exchange Legislation (HB 687) into the House Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources in DC, set for Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 10 am.

By terminating this bogus agreement, the Superior Town Council has done the right thing, and are now looking out for the best interests of the entire community, environment and "Oak Flat", and not the few select people/businesses that received money from RCC. It would also appear that our AZ Congressional Delegation is only concerned in supporting these international corporate giants (Rio Tinto & BHP) by circumventing federal laws and mandates within the language of the bill.

It's apparent that they're not looking into the best interests of Superior and the concerns of the current Town Council. This action is a disgrace to our entire nation and possibly illegal. Now is the time to "turn-up the heat", voice your opinion and spread the word on how bad this special-interest legislation (benefiting these foreign mining companies), really is! We'll keep you posted, but for more info and how you can help, go to azminingreform.org. Remember: "Si Se Puede"!!! - Thanks, Roy "Potts" Chavez

reprinted- Facebook "Saving OAK FLAT Campground"

Possibly illegal?

Please name the CFR in violation (as in 30 CFR 57.XXXX). I'll buy you a beer if you can name one.

Ahh, so knee jerk. Show me where the AG or the court proved, or even mentioned, bribery with Councilman Gutierrez. Didn't RCM actually have a part in turning in Rep. Renzi? The fact is that the current council, which consisted of 4 members, of whom 2 lost horribly in their 1st real election, chose to hide the vote against the 2nd mutual benefits agreement (which took 6 months to pass) and break the agreement in an executive session, is going to change with 2 new members recently elected and understand the needs of the town.

Because I go to these meetings and don't watch from Colorado, I'm going to ask the council if they will reveal how much $$$$ they asked from RCM before they started this circus act. The town is broke, so they went to the mine and threatened them before the hearing. Pretty simple.

The Iran connection, really, talk about a smear campaign.

"The government of Iran ... does not gain access to any nuclear technology through its investment, it has no uranium product off-take rights and all dividend payments have been frozen."

Did you know that Hyundai, Fiat, Peugeot, Porsche and Renault were possibly violating sanctions by providing cars and parts to Iran. Similarly, Swatch continues to sell to Iran. Rio Tinto has cut Iran off from the Namibia mine that they invested in before the revolution.

It's official -Superior does not want this Mine in their backyard. Perhaps they can now be open to other ideas for business revenue. Mining is only 1 solution -it's not the only one.

Town of Superior passes formal Resolution opposing Oak Flat Land Exchange

On March 13, 2013, the town council of Superior, Arizona passed a unanimous resolution opposing HR 687, the latest version of the Oak Flat land exchange. The resolution passed following a town council meeting a week ago in which the town council took comments on their decision to oppose the land exchange and end a Mutual Benefits Agreement with Rio Tinto. At that meeting, the majority of comments supported the town decision.

Superior Town Council meeting
During the council meeting Rio Tinto threatened to lay off it's workers if the town passed the resolution. This is similar to a threat Rio Tinto made last November to lay off most of their workers is the previous version of the land exchange, HR 1904, was not approved by Congress. There is no word yet whether Rio Tinto will follow through with their threat now that the resolution has been passed.

Copy of Resolution No.451