Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

The current QCC position is really quite simple:

1) The QCC opposes the current land exchange legislation, as the concerns and interests of the climbing community have not been adequately addressed. This is wholly consistent with the message that the Access Fund has been communicating to Congress on their recent visits to Washington.

2) The QCC will not endorse any form of the land exchange legislation that fails to permanently preserve the recreational resource (climbing) that currently exists above the proposed mine site. As others have mentioned, this is a condition that RCC has thus far refused to accept.

3) The QCC is committed to remaining actively engaged with both Congress and RCC to work toward some outcome that is acceptable to all parties. As you may imagine, this is much more easily said than done.

Curt

Stae Strong wrote:my name is as it appears.

pm a b-certificate & you'll get an answer

Fred AmRhein wrote: Geir, Just want to clarify what document/concept you're referring to. Are you referring to the "letter of understanding" on the QCC website here: LOU vs. RCM Offer comparison? The "letter of understanding" listed there is a short-hand version of what is known as the QCC's "Statement of Understanding;" what the QCC has determined (so far) that the climbing community wants, as detailed here: SOU. I don't know why there's a difference in the title; I'm not the author of the document that refers to the LOU. Anyway, both contain non-subsidence as the #1 stated goal. In a practical sense this one goal item, if accomplished, would probably "Save Oak Flat" (SOF). I'm wondering if you aren't referring to the "Response" portion of the LOU vs. RCM Response? This "Response" side is the QCC's somewhat current take on a "deal" that seems to be more in alignment with "save as much climbing as possible" (SAMCAP) as you describe? I apologize for the detailed question, but the difference is significant in many respects (SOF vs. SAMCAP) and I want to make sure I adequately understand what you're referring to. Fred

Hey Fred,

Thanks for the question. I was referring to the LOU. I do see how the non-subsidence addressed in its first point would effectively SOF. The items that address permanent access to the diverse climbing areas in queen creek (and how they would effectively SAMCAP) were the topic of my earlier post.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Just heard that SB 409 has been set up for moving through the Senate starting on December 16th. It has evidently been slated to move to "markup," which is where the bills get entertained for amendments, etc. At this time I do not know how it is slated to be changed in any respect.

A Call to Action has been issued by the folks at the Az Mining Reform Coalition: azminingreform.org/amrc/.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote:Just heard that SB 409 has been set up for moving through the Senate starting on December 16th. It has evidently been slated to move to "markup," which is where the bills get entertained for amendments, etc. At this time I do not know how it is slated to be changed in any respect. A Call to Action has been issued by the folks at the Az Mining Reform Coalition: azminingreform.org/amrc/. Fred

Crap!

Fred, is there a wider range of legislators that we should be contacting now?

Thanks very much for this important update.

Geir there is a second page to the link that Fred posted which has contact info listed toward the bottom:

azminingreform.org/amrc/con…

I compared this list with the one I posted prior and it seems that the Bill is now being referred to a different Committee. I plan to use the list that is on the webpage link mentioned above and encourage everyone to do the same

Here's the committee information on where the bill is scheduled to be addressed:

energy.senate.gov/public/in…

I so grateful you beat me to it Fred and Kirra. I was gonna post that call to action, but went climbing 'early' out at the mine area. It was a beautiful day and a few groups of folks out there.
Thanks for keeping us update...
My priorities were challenged @ 6am.

Linda

kirra/fred-

thanks for the info. i'm going to write monday.

i'm also available to help in any other way should the qcc request. just let me know.

regards,
geir

Just another modeling of what could happen near Superior:

Before:

Apache Leap-No Impact
After:

Apache Leap-GL Worst Case

Graphic was developed by a mining engineer for FoQC a few years ago according to the web site source. Source and technical data is here: GLopez web site

qcc folks - do you think there will be a formal call to action as a result of this?

(Note- personal views)

Curt - nice statement. concise and inclusive.

Geir - i believe that this Senate hearing is a potentially major step, as others have indicated. while parallel legislation must work its way through the House, and so far Grijalva has been able to keep it bottled up, McCain is a powerful force and conceivably the Land Exchange could be moved forward through a variety of available mechanisms. it is my belief that this is a time when climbers should make some noise. i can't speak for my fellow qcc members but will be visiting with them about a "call to action".

as folks are composing their communications to congress, each person should keep in mind what elements they feel will be most effective. i see three different elements that could be included - general opposition statements to the land exchange, requests to have other environmental elements included (NEPA-first and possible meaningful Mining Reform-first), and specific climber concerns.

in general, what folks put into their communications will likely depend on their read of the current situation. Imo, the more everyone can be specific about how the legislation should be changed to benefit climbers the more targeted impact we will have. folks can pick key elements from the climbers "wants list" or specify additional language that could make the results for climbers more certain.

and, imo, we need to continue negotiations with RCM in case the outcome of the Senate activity results in this train no one wants to ride begins rolling forward.

Geir Hundal wrote: i'm going to write monday.

Geir, could you post or email me what you are writing/sending in today? It would help as I don't have much time for writing today. Either way; thanks a ton for your help!

Luke

Just an FYI in case anybody wants to share any of their thoughts on the current state of things, the QCC is meeting tomorrow night (12/15). It's a regular private work meeting.

I encourage you to not only post concerns here and/or talk to your friends/congresswoman/man, but please also send in your comments to the QCC web site.

Here's the email address: info@queencreekcoalition.com

Fred

Article in the 12/15 Az Republic (azcentral.com) with respect to the land exchange legislation on the Senate side:

azcentral.com/arizonarepubl…

Fred

"The bill is expected to be considered and approved by panel members on Wednesday, said a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "

"Under the original proposal, Resolution Copper Co., a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, would get about 2,400 acres of land in the Oak Flat area of the Tonto National Forest in return for giving more than 5,500 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona to the federal government."

Nice! The company from another country will "give" us land that we already have. Or is 5,500 acres of England now going to be known as Arizona? What a joke! The land that they are "giving" us is already part of Arizona! We get nothing!

Does anyone know where exactly this 5,500 acres is located? Or is that part of the land swap still to be determined?

Climbers need to voice their opinion TODAY..!!!

Chairman of Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Sen. Jeff Bingaman - New Mexico
703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-5521 Fax: 202-224-2852

Members of Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee

Chairman of Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests
Sen. Ron Wyden - Oregon
223 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-5244 Fax: 202-228-2717

Chairman of Committee on Indian Affairs
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota
322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-225-2551 Fax: 202-224-1193

Sen. Tim Johnson - South Dakota
Phone: (202) 224-5842
Fax: 202-228-5765

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu - Louisiana
Phone: (202)224-5824
Fax:(202) 224-9735

Sen. Maria Cantwell - Washington
Phone: 202-224-3441
Fax: 202-228-0514

Sen. Robert Menendez - New Jersey
Phone: (202) 224-4744
Fax: (202) 228-2197 *corrected 9/15 -9:00 pm*

Sen. Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371

Sen. Evan Bayh - Indiana
Phone: (202) 224-5623
Fax: (202) 228-1377

Chairman of Subcommittee on Water & Power
Sen. Debbie Stabenow - Michigan
Phone: 202-224-4822 Fax: 202-228-0325

Chairman of Subcommittee on National Parks
Sen. Mark Udall - Colorado
Phone: 202-224-5941 Fax: 202-224-6471

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen - New Hampshire
Phone: (202) 224-2841 Fax: 202-228-3194

Ranking Member of Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Sen. Lisa Murkowski - Alaska
Phone: 202-224-6665 Fax: 202-224-5301 *fax added 9/15 -9:00 pm*

Thanks for posting those contacts Kirra. I have been able to reach 9 of those 13 so far...

Edit: 10 of 13

Calling would be the best right now. NOW! EVERYONE!!! All they are doing is getting a count of people in support and opposed to it. The vote is tomorrow so chances are slim that an email or fax will be read before then. But anything is better than nothing. If the fax or email is short and to the point they may still get your opinion today.

Red,the 5,000 +/- acres are located in various places across the state of AZ. Through negotiations with various stakeholder groups in past years, RCM agreed to buy those lands to "exchange" for the exchange parcel ("oak flat"). Those stakeholder groups included the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Arizona (I may have the names slightly off). A substantial portion of the 5,000 acres are in southern AZ in ecologically sensitive habitats, e.g., a former copper mine holdings near the San Pedro, etc. I believe that the list of the lands are in the legislation, although I haven't checked for that listing recently. The legislation set out the requirements and process for the legal title for the lands to transfer between the entities.

What RCM achieved with the identification and acquisition of those lands was to satisfy the concerns of certain stakeholder groups to the extent that they have subsequently either endorsed or agreed not to oppose the land exchange itself. This was a key part of their efforts to obtain sufficient public support for the Land Exchange(Note that not all environmental groups have agreed that these "exchanges" meeting their concerns, e.g., Maricopa Audubon Society, Earthworks, etc.)

Kirra, thanks for the list.