Queen Creek Update

UPDATE FROM QUEEN CREEK COALITION

For more information about the Queen Creek Coalition (QCC), please visit theqcc.org

Greetings Friends!

The QCC has been carefully monitoring the progress of the land exchange legislation and continuing to negotiate with Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (RCM) as part of our mission to maximize climbing opportunities in the Queen Creek area. The next few months will likely have significant developments with regards to the legislation and our negotiations, so we wanted to provide the climbing community with an update as to what is likely to happen and how we have been preparing for this.

General news:

In late June 2010, QCC was incorporated under the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act , in order to: 1) ensure the continuity of QCC as an organization; 2) to allow donations to QCC to be tax-deductible to the donor and tax-free to QCC; and 3) to allow QCC to hold assets in its own name. As a nonprofit corporation, QCC is and will continue to be operated for the benefit of the climbing public. You may be aware that many public charities benefiting climbers (such as the Access Fund) are organized as not-for-profit corporations.

Shortly after QCC was incorporated we established a new website, theqcc.org. We are in the process of building a new website that will soon be going live. In the interim, you can still find information about QCC, its mission, and its activities at our new address. We will continue to post meeting minutes and developments in our correspondence with RCM here.

In addition to our attempts to secure an agreement with RCM, QCC is also working with local officials to promote rock climbing in the Queen Creek area. In November, QCC officers met with representatives of the Town of Superior, Arizona, including Mayor Michael Hing, and laid out the fundamentals of a long term working relationship that will benefit the Town as well as the climbing community.
One of QCC’s current priorities is to increase the size and diversity of its Board. We are pleased to announce that two new Board members were added in December: Geir Hundal of Tucson, Arizona and Tina Behrens of Phoenix, Arizona. We look forward to adding more Directors in the coming months.

Update on the proposed agreement with RCM:

In June 2010, QCC began working on a new proposed agreement on climbing issues with RCM. This agreement would provide for: 1) changes to the terms of the existing license agreement pursuant to which climbing is allowed at RCM-owned areas Atlantis and The Pond; 2) expansion of the Pond and Atlantis licensed areas; 3) additional licensed areas in Euro Dog Valley and the Mine Area; 4) provision for long-term maintenance of several regional access roads; 5) development of the Tam O’Shanter climbing area; and 6) funding for other regional access initiatives. This proposed agreement would contain significant improvements upon prior drafts that had been exchanged between QCC and RCM. The cost for this would be that QCC would endorse RCM’s proposed legislation pursuant to the agreement.

QCC delivered its draft agreement to RCM on July 28, 2010. Approximately two weeks later, at the request of RCM for additional information, QCC delivered detailed area maps to RCM. In early September, RCM advised QCC that it had completed a preliminary review of QCC’s proposal and would give feedback shortly. QCC has remained in contact with RCM and is currently waiting for their feedback.

Some delay in this recent round of negotiations may have resulted from changes both at RCM and in Congress. By late August, predictions that the Democrats were going to lose their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives began to be widely circulated. In September, RCM CEO David Salisbury announced he was leaving RCM and that a transition process had begun. In the November elections the Democrats lost their majority. It is difficult to know what effect these changes and the last-minute maneuvering during the lame-duck session of Congress have had on the timing or content of RCM’s as-yet-undelivered response. RCM continues to assure QCC that it intends to work with us. QCC remains hopeful that an agreement can be reached that will furnish significant benefits for Queen Creek climbers beyond what is written in the legislation.

In the absence of such a supplemental agreement, the proposed land exchange legislation does not provide climbers with compensation sufficient to justify QCC’s support of the legislation. Until and unless an agreement is reached, QCC remains opposed to the land exchange.

Update on the status of the land exchange legislation:

To this point, climbers have been fortunate in that circumstances outside of our control have delayed the progress of the legislation. Former Rep. Renzi's troubles and Rep. Raul Grijalva's ability to delay the legislation in committee are examples. During this time hardworking, dedicated climbers have expended much energy trying to change the legislation for the better of the climbing community. Despite these efforts, there have been few gains specific to climbing written into the legislation, while the likelihood of it passing has risen significantly.

There is much at stake if we take the stance that climbers can stop the legislation and we have misjudged. We will lose the Mine Area, Oak Flat, Euro Dog, and access to Apache Leap as soon as RCM declares such. The license for continued climbing on RCM land will be at risk, and climbers will be left with no assistance from RCM for Northern, Upper, or Lower Devils Canyon, Tam O'Shanter, the Homestead, or any other regional climbing.

The exchange has the overwhelming support of Arizona politicians including the Arizona Congressional delegation, most of whom have acted as its sponsors. Environmentalists, Native Americans and those concerned with recreation in the Oak Flat vicinity, including rock climbers, have made their appeals to these leaders, but except for Tucson’s Rep. Grijalva, none has been convinced. Both of Arizona’s Senators are sponsors of the legislation.

In the recently-ended 111th Congress (2009-10), with the Obama administration paying more attention than its predecessor to environmental concerns raised by the proposed exchange, Sen. McCain brokered a compromise in which pre-exchange NEPA review was incorporated into the legislation. This helped the exchange sail through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where it had been languishing. Like many other land bills, it never came up for a vote in the full Senate. Note that McCain's efforts here were a compromise; there are those in the Senate who would be quite happy to have the NEPA provision removed. This is a fact that those who demand a “full NEPA” should keep in mind given the change in the make-up of both chambers in the current Congress.

The exchange will be introduced again in the 112th Congress. The bill likely will be identical to the one reported favorably out of committee in the Senate. If so, the bill will include a NEPA review prior to the final approval of the land exchange and RCM’s Mining Plan of Operations. Some have argued that the bill’s provision for a three-year, time-limited NEPA review process is something less than a full NEPA review, but many Republican legislators are opposed to including any NEPA provisions. The news is less good for climbers, since it would mean that 1) the definition of the Pond parcel will be the same (we would like it to be larger); and 2) the $1.25 million that originally was intended to benefit climbers will remain in the bill as money to be spent by the Forest Service on “dispersed recreation” in the area, which may or may not result in a direct benefit to climbers.

As before, this bill will have the support of both of Arizona’s powerful Senators. In fact, Sen. McCain is so strongly in favor of it that he has threatened to block all land legislation until it passes the full Senate. The bill is likely to be passed through Committee and sent to the full Senate once again.

The big difference we will see is in the House. With the Republicans now having a majority, they will chair committees and sub-committees. The House Committee to which such bills are assigned (National Parks, Forests and Public Lands), has been chaired in recent years by Rep. Grijalva. The new Chairman is Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, who in 2009 labeled as “tyranny” the Obama administration’s move to block uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. You can expect him to be friendly to this exchange and to move it along in the House, rather than block it, as Rep. Grijalva was able to do.

In short, it is likely that the land exchange will finally pass and become law in 2011.

We are aware that some of our former colleagues, who now call themselves the “Concerned Climbers of Arizona,” will continue to enlist your support, ask you to write letters and to fight what they see as the good fight. We are not going to discourage anyone from doing that. But understand you are preaching to the choir, among yourselves. The fact that this exchange was in some last-minute land packages but not in others in the recent lame-duck session had nothing to do with impassioned letters and everything to do with arm-wrestling among some of the most powerful members of the United States Senate.

If the land exchange passes in 2011 , the only way climbers will get anything more than what is provided for in the legislation will be if the QCC can obtain it for them. It is important to realize that climbers are in no position to demand “no subsidence” from RCM or Congress. We will see a reminder of this when the new legislation rolls out with the same provisions for climbers as last year. It may not be the way you want the world to be, and we would be thrilled to have the status quo continue, were it possible, but it is the political reality.

Ultimately the QCC cares about maximizing climbing opportunities in the Queen Creek region. It is likely that some of these will be lost. We are determined to maintain access to as much as possible and to help develop new areas. Queen Creek is an area every member of the Board cares deeply about: the QCC Board includes Queen Creek’s guidebook author, prominent and prolific Queen Creek route developers, a former Access Fund regional representative, and past Presidents of the Arizona Mountaineering Club. We are acting and will continue to act in climbers’ best interests.

Thanks for posting up Tdog

BTW the new group theQCC incorporated is just grasping at straws so they can be prepared to grab some money for supporting RCM's mining.

NO, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE CLIMBERS OF ARIZONA!
THEY ARE NOT BACKED BY AF OR THE CLIMBING COMMUNITY.

Thanks for the update Dief. It is a scary situation for sure. QCC needs more support from the community not less. I think the board of QCC does represent a very diverse and well qualified group.

"Queen Creek is an area every member of the Board cares deeply about: the QCC Board includes Queen Creek’s guidebook author, prominent and prolific Queen Creek route developers, a former Access Fund regional representative, and past Presidents of the Arizona Mountaineering Club. We are acting and will continue to act in climbers’ best interests."

You can't argue with their record of commitment to AZ climbing and the various official positions as well as interest in QC in particular..

If this land exchange goes through as written we are in trouble. It is time to stop fighting and get behind their efforts to save more of OF/QC.

@ CJD: You really believe QCC is diverse? "a very diverse and well qualified group" Does that mean when two of the board members work at PRG: Marty works for Dief; Mike works in Dief's gym. How is that diverse? Nice voting bloc, isn't it?

If the board were diverse, maybe the people that left under protest would still be representing the diverse opinions that had a place to be heard. Instead, it is a reflection of Dief and Erik's viewpoint.

Dief wrote:The cost for this would be that QCC would endorse RCM’s proposed legislation pursuant to the agreement.

CJD wrote:If this land exchange goes through as written we are in trouble. It is time to stop fighting and get behind their efforts to save more of OF/QC.

CJD,

What part of "endorse proposed legislation" do you not quite understand? You and I are clearly being told not to make noise because our voices to Congress could threaten what is asserted to be tenuously in the lapsed bills (truncated NEPA, $1.25M for FS, etc.). Furthermore, it's clear from the QCC's perspective that any new bills will be very much the same as the old bills as long as climbers stay on the sidelines.

Besides, why would the mining company make any changes now when they have what they have always wanted: Silence bought from some controlling local climbing community types probably accompanied with their behind the scenes support and, maybe more importantly, the real prize in the form of the Access Fund's equivocal stance of late, albeit most likely brought about from confusion and political subterfuge at the local level.

Did you not read Jennifer Johnson's recent article? cronkitenewsonline.com/2011…

Here's a quote from the ariticle attributed to David Salisbury, former? President of RCM and his thoughts about how they distribute their monies to their friends: "Why would we spend money for someone that continues to oppose us?" he said

If I were the mining company, I'd be very happy with my investments in these particular locals right about now.

Fred

Hey Dief.

I really appreciate you providing an update.

I grew up in AZ and learned to climb while at school at the U of A in the early 90's. I visited Queen Creek often during my first few years as a climber and have many fond memories of the area. I always found QC to be a special place, and although I have not climbed there in over a decade I still consider myself a stakeholder in regards to access and preservation.

Over the last few years, I have watched the ongoing battle between the various factions of climbers play itself out over the internet. I have no close relationships with any of the "players," nor have I formed an opinion as to which is the correct course of action. I have, however, been VERY disappointed that the climbing community in AZ cannot find a more harmonious way to work together. At the very least, both sides need to respectfully agree to disagree and stop the internet bashing of the "other side." With that in mind, I appreciate the respectful tone of your post.

One point that is not covered in your post is the QCC's relationship with the Access Fund. As I am sure that you are aware, there are posts posts floating around that claim that the QCC ignored the advice of the Access Fund and is no longer working with them. Can you please explain the QCC's past and present relationship with the Access Fund, and how / if you intend to work with them in the future.

Thanks in advance for your reply. Also, thanks again for the information in your original post.

Well said NCRC,

I have a feeling that many others following these threads share a very similar, if not, same view point that you do.

NC Rock Climber wrote:Can you please explain the QCC's past and present relationship with the Access Fund,

The Access Fund provided a glimpse into the local support/relationship issue from their perspective in their latest Oak Flat related News item on its website:

accessfund.org/site/apps/nl…;b=5000939&ct=8972417

Specifically with respect to the local split:

• "The Access Fund has not exclusively sided with either of central Arizona’s climbing advocacy groups, but continues to work with each organization, Congress, and RCM directly to advocate for climbing access and the conservation of climbing resources in Arizona.

What would really be helpful is if the Access Fund would clarify its stance on the proposed legislation in terms of support/endorse, neutral, or oppose, assuming that it stays essentially the same as it was in the previous Senate committee referred version as argued above.

Until recently, they were clearly publicly opposed to it but that seems to be unclear at this time, at least as I read things in that eNews item.

Based on the numbers (as Congressional people often size things up), if they decide to endorse/support as QCC intends, then they essentially risk setting a precedent of 100 climbs (The Pond) in exchange for the ~2,000 climbs on the Oak Flat parcel and adjacent areas lost (that's ~5% compensation).

Fred

manuel rangel wrote:You really believe QCC is diverse? "a very diverse and well qualified group" Does that mean when two of the board members work at PRG: Marty works for Dief; Mike works in Dief's gym. How is that diverse? Nice voting bloc, isn't it? If the board were diverse, maybe the people that left under protest would still be representing the diverse opinions that had a place to be heard. Instead, it is a reflection of Dief and Erik's viewpoint.

Manny, with all due respect, I find your statements about Marty and Mike uncalled for. Marty works at PRG and Mike trains kids there. This does not equate to having the same viewpoint as Dief/Erik or being unable to speak and vote independently.

Thanks NC Rock Climber for your question. To answer, QCC is in regular contact with the Access Fund and our two organizations enjoy a good relationship. An example of our collaboration is the draft agreement that RCM is currently reviewing. Before this draft agreement was finalized, QCC sought and received detailed input from the Access Fund which resulted in changes consistent with their recommendations.

In this article cited earlier, the Access Fund recently characterized its relationship with QCC as follows:

"This past year strategic disagreements in the climbing community split the QCC into two groups: one that retains the QCC name and works directly with the copper company to obtain the “most net rock climbing,” and the Concerned Climbers of Arizona who advocate for continued recreational access to climbing areas that are threatened by development or other forms of encroachment. The Access Fund has not exclusively sided with either of central Arizona’s climbing advocacy groups, but continues to work with each organization, Congress, and RCM directly to advocate for climbing access and the conservation of climbing resources in Arizona."

Omnibus Lands Bill Could Affect Climbing at Oak Flat (Dec. 14, 2010)(emphasis added).

See accessfund.org/site/apps/nl…;b=5000939&ct=8972417

We are appreciative of the Access Fund's continued support and look forward to continued partnership with them.

@ Marcy: what don't you understand, you even made my point: "Marty works at PRG and Mike trains kids there." What would you do if they sided against you on an issue you publicly decided was the one true way and a vote were held. They vote against you. No problem???

Thanks for the info, Dief.

Manny, when you were with the QCC, over the years you showed up for less than 1/2 of the meetings. It is awesome to have a climbers life, but if you are going to be a voice of the people, maybe you should be more involved with the people.

It really sucks that you are now stabbing your friends in the back. I always looked up to you as a great explorer.

It's important to be a concerned climber, but I thought Queen Creek for the climbers was the issue, over where Marty and Mike is working presently. Dief is an awesome guy, but unfortunately he does not make my lunch every day or does not do my laundry on the weekends.

Queen Creek Rocks!
--Marty

You're right Marty, I did show up for less than half the meetings. Usually cause I was either climbing or working.

I never chose to be a voice of the people. It's my voice you're reading. My opinion only.

I usually stab people in the back when they're not looking. I'm sorry if my response to CJD's statement bothers you. The way I see it, a conflict of interest exists in QCC. Simple. I'm sorry if you think I'm personally attacking you, I still think you are a great explorer. I'll make your lunch and wash your laundry but I'll expect something in return.

Oak Flat Rocks, for now.

Manny, what you will get from me in return is a great big hug.
I still think you are a great person.

karabin museum wrote:Manny, when you were with the QCC, over the years you showed up for less than 1/2 of the meetings. . . It really sucks that you are now stabbing your friends in the back. Queen Creek Rocks! --Marty

Oh, the irony, a stone from a guy who lives in a glass house.

You missed so many pivotal discussions and meetings yourself, albeit partly from your injuries from bouldering but also just not there sometimes.

And, you, stabbed in the back?

Dude, unbeknownst to me, Erik Filsinger registers the group's name with the intent to incorporate weeks before the meeting where you guys in the ruling majority force my ouster, has corporate documents without me as a member on them ready for signing that night, others in your group have purchased web domains in the days leading to that fateful meeting, you six guys have a very interesting discussion previous to my entrance to the meeting, then proceed to follow through and boot me because my diverse opinion disagrees with your mission to endorse the legislation that destroys over 2,000 climbs and you want to talk about feeling stabbed in the back???

Wow, red letter day, the iron-y runs thick in so many directions.

Fred

Jodie Bostrom wrote:I am being censored. I hope that other climbers saw my post, before it was removed. A member of the QCC sent a private email to me. He was quite dismayed over my post. He tried to convince me of the 'error' of my ways. He spoke negatively about certain ousted members of the QCC, and he tried to convince me that his reality should be my reality. I am not convinced. I do think that ALL climbers should be represented - not just those that agree with the status quo. So, I look forward to an open and transparent dialogue on this site. Post here, do NOT send a private message to me to hide your personal agenda.

It's unfortunate that a member of the QCC would send you a private email concerning a post that you made here in a public forum--especially one containing disparaging comments about some people who simply happen to disagree with him. It probably would have made better sense for him to have simply posted those same comments here, in the same public forum--unless, of course, he knew quite well that his comments were wholly absurd and would not stand up to any sort of public scrutiny.

Curt

Posting a private email violates the copyright held by the original author of the email. It would no different than if someone handed you a book they wrote. The book is yours…. but the words are theirs. You can destroy or sell the book, but you can’t reproduce the words. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

So if a copyright holder requests their material be removed, we are obligated to delete it.

(Ugh, posting issues.)

Jodie, tons of us saw the post and agree with your perspective. It is unfortunate that MP is now editing something that was valid.

Makes me wonder...

Linda

btw WE ALL OWN OAK FLAT! Thanks to our President of days gone by.
Oak Flat ROCKS!

TDog wrote: Lots of "IF"s floating around. Queen Creek Coalition - Board of Directors Tina Behrens Rick Cecala Mike Covington Paul Dief - Vice-Chair & Webmaster Erik Filsinger - Chair & Secretary Geir Hundal Marty Karabin - Treasurer John Keedy

some of the actions of these people are a disgrace to the community

these folks are NOT the Queen Creek Coalition. A band of disgruntled self-absorbed cry babies with their own personal agenda at stake, is a more accurate description

DISCLAIMER --ANY email sent to me will be up to my descretion to publish where ever and whenever I choose. If it gets deleted here I will publish elsewhere. There will be no private conversations between the "rougue of outcasts" attempting to refer to themselves as 'theqcc' (corp) and the rest of the community

too bad for any litt'l whiny-babies

IMO Erik F's email should be published -the one about what he REALLY thinks about the QC area. Also important to note is the AMC is now filtering it's membership. No answers given -letters returned unanswered & unopened from board members. Membership committee chair's hands are tied by the self-elected "Board of the AMC" --Gee wonder who's on that board... E.F. J.K.

Inclusive community..?!?!? B.S.

Dief:

Is the latest QCC draft agreement to RCM and maps available to the public?

Thanks,
Dan