Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

Hey everyone,

So has anyone spoke to RCM as of late? (since the bill got porked through the committee?)

Who talks with the San Carlos Tribe from the QCC?

Let's make 2010 better than 09

Hi Linda, a meeting with RCM is in the works.

I have had some conversations with Ch. Nosie's secretary.

Thanks, Manny.

Folks, we are trying to get our QCC meeting minutes out there quicker. If you check the QCC website the Dec 15th Minutes contain a statement about setting up the meeting with Resolution to discuss the "Matrix of Concerns and Possible Fixes" that is based on their October 10, 2008 offer to the QCC and the Access Fund. Each row of the Matrix contains one of the 23 paragraphs from that offer. Each column (within house doc) contains concerns about weaknesses with that item and what it would take to "fix" that "gotcha." The intent is that over time the QCC take all available input into those "concerns" and "fixes" and present Resolution with a unified statement on each of the 23 paragraphs. The matrix also contains additional conditions, e.g., additional climbing resources like Northern Devils, that we would like to secure access to.

If you want to have input on your concerns and suggested fixes, message me through MP (or email at smorefil (at) aol (dot) com) and I'll send you a blank copy (without our responses).

Manny, just to clarify, I agree with you, Grijalva does deserve a huge amount of respect for standing up like he is, I meant no disrespect to him or his office, I just think it is hard in this political climate to stand like that for long. I think the more we communicate with him, the better.

About the bill in the senate, maybe Curt can clarify, but it was my understanding that yes the bill had passed committee, but it is common that once it passes committee, the entire senate commonly follows along.

ErikF wrote:I agree that those elements of the QCC process are good, but they are process items and not the end result. <Erik

Erik,

I was simply acknowledging the positive evolution for the QCC over the last few months. You know, New Year's and all, learn from history, time to move on to a better tomorrow sort of thing.

There will always be disagreements; but I think the evolving protocols for the group will be good for the community overall and may deliver a better end result.

Fred

Greg,

I think we are talking about two different documents – the RCM offer and Climbers Wish List vs. the Matrix Worksheet of Concerns.

The document shown on the QCC web site is the comparison of the October 10, 2008 offer from RCM to the original QCC Statement of Understanding (SOU). This document was the summary document used in the January 18, 2009 Climbers public meeting where the QCC updated the climbing community at PRG. It contains short bullet points of what the QCC told RCM that they “wanted” and what RCM offered in its last offer.

(Historic note: Following the presentation of the SOU to RCM on June 4, 2008, the original RCM offer was made on July 25, 2008 and the first QCC counter offer was presented to RCM on August 27, 2008. The last RCM counter was made on October 10, 2008 and is the subject of the current discussion. A lot has occurred over time.)

During the summer of 2009 in an attempt to digest potential problems and potential solutions with those problems in the RCM offer, the QCC began in June of 2009 to uncover those two elements. The goal was to gather these together and present them to RCM. This document became known as the Matrix Worksheet of Concerns.

Different from the RCM Offer vs. Climbers Wants document cited above, this Matrix contains the actual language of each point of the RCM offer in its rows. Many of the specifics to be worked out involve the actual language of the agreement. The practice has been for QCC Board members (and other interested parties) to respond by listing in the cells next to each item their concerns and proposed solutions.

The QCC has been taking its internal and external input into account in drawing together a unified response for each item with the goal being to present those unified responses to RCM in the next round of negotiations.

For folks who really want to understand the details and to address their specific concerns and potential solutions to those concerns, the “Matrix” offers the necessary material to make a substantive contribution.

Best,
Erik

Greg, thanks for posting this information.

One quick question..Should Item 3 under Part A read "by methods that do NOT adversely impact the surface of Apache Leap"? Or am I reading that section incorrectly?

Thanks,
David

David,
Good catch. I was the "author" of the original matrix spreadsheet for QCC internal use, and I created it simply by cutting and pasting each paragraph from the "October 10, 2008" offer from RCM into a cell of the spreadsheet. Therefore, upon reading your post, I immediately went back to the original RCM document (offer) and took another look at that item. The wording in the spreadsheet is an exact replica of what was in the original RCM document. I suspect that the second "that" in the phrase you reference was intended to be "not" as you point out. The intent, as discussed with RCM, is consistent with including the "not," i.e., any rights that they maintain should not adversely impact the Leap.

We'll be sure to correct that with RCM in our discussions with them.
Erik

Greg wrote:The QCC met with Resolution Copper Company (RCC) on January 12th to discuss a number of items. The minutes of that meeting have been placed on the Queen Creek Coalition web site if you'd like to give them a read (warning: it's long).

QCC folks: Great work, and thanks for your efforts!!

thanks for posting Greg and to others for attending especially Brady who may have traveled from CO

good job on forcing important details on "Item 10" (regarding MSHA)

Q(s). In regards to the "no action" condition (land x-change does not occur)- Would RCM's current mining claims & patents give them the right to still sink (subside) other ajacent areas? Would the public still be allowed to request a NEPA study prior to any mining in the Queen Creek area? (climbing areas surrounding OF proper)

kirra wrote:In regards to the "no action" condition (land x-change does not occur)- Would RCM's current mining claims & patents give them the right to still sink (subside) other ajacent areas? Would the public still be allowed to request a NEPA study prior to any mining in the Queen Creek area? (climbing areas surrounding OF proper)

Kirra,

It's my understanding that on non-patented claims on public lands (lands that the public owns but the mining company has made a claim on for the minerals), a mining company may proceed with pursuing a mine but must comply with whatever regulations are in place at the time. From what I've been told, this would mean that for those areas of mine claims on public lands outside of the Oak Flat withdrawn parcel the mining company could submit a mine proposal that could include block cave mining. This would probably still lead to subsidence of areas adjacent to Oak Flat.

Of course, they've said they want Oak Flat also, but yes, they could probably mine the adjacent areas and a NEPA process would be needed because it involves federal lands.

Fred

Another Interesting Winter Visitor to Arizona

Recently sighted on the road to Queen Creek/Oak Flat . . .

Fred

National C.Y.A.

Oak Flat is open, the weather is fine, and the climbing is great! Too bad nobody goes here anymore . . . some recent photos.

USFS signage at Oak Flat with Resolution Copper mine infrastructure in background

Enjoying Hook Wall Area, Ground Zero for the subsidence crater from the proposed Resolution Copper mine.

Enjoying Oak Flat Campground with some (100's) of fellow picnickers and campers.

RV's are welcome . . . and being turned away for lack of space . . .

Fred

QCC Response to RCM Offer
February 2010

The QCC board is hereby responding to the full list of items contained within the RCM Offer of October 10, 2008.

Preface:

The QCC would like to see a timeline of RCM’s major steps in the development of the Mine starting from the passage of the legislation to formal commencement of ore extraction under full operational status. A Gantt chart with critical path items based on those major steps would be an optimal means of communicating that time line.

Issues to be addressed by congressional legislation

Item (1) of the CCR states that: "As part of RCM's land exchange with the United states, RCM will transfer to the United states three parcels of RCM land, totaling approximately 365 acres, known as i) the "Pond"; ii) "Dripping Springs"; and iii) "Apache Leap South End." These three parcels will be transferred to the United States regardless of the values of any other lands or cash equalization involved in the exchange."

QCC's current concerns here lie not with RCM, but rather with the USFS and potentially ADOT. The USFS does not want to take the Pond parcel under the terms of the current exchange language, which specifies that the parcel must be actively managed as a climbing area.

Action: QCC will ask RCM and, in parallel, congress to restate the language in the bill so that the USFS would take the parcel and merely allow recreational use of the land. If USFS still believes that taking the Pond parcel is not in the public interest, QCC will approach both RCM and congress with the idea of transferring the Pond to another party--instead of the USFS.

Also, the USFS recently informed the AF that ADOT may have issues with climbers parking at the existing Pond parking lot and then crossing the highway to the north to access the climbing area. I don't believe there are any specific actions here, as we do not know the validity or nature of the ADOT objections. QCC can certainly provide solutions however, including signage indicating that the correct approach to the Pond is via the path going under the bridge at the base of the Pond--instead of crossing on top of the highway.

Finally with respect to the Pond, highway 60 may eventually be re-routed outside of Queen Creek canyon, essentially "land-locking" the Pond inside RCM private property.
Action: QCC will ask RCM to guarantee access to the Pond even in the eventuality that existing highway 60 reverts to RCM ownership.

Dripping Springs Action: QCC will ask that this parcel be conveyed to the BLM with access.

Apache Leap Action: QCC will ask RCM and congress that the QCC be added to the groups that are named in the legislation tasked with developing the future management plan for Apache Leap.

Action: The Local Climbing Affairs subgroup of the QCC will explore the possibility of expanding both the 95 acre size of the Pond Parcel and also the acreage of the Atlantis parcel, that falls under the long-term license agreement with RCM.

Action: The QCC will continue to push for at least a "primitive" campground above the Pond area.

Item (2) of the CCR states that: "RCM will pay the sum of $1,250,000 to the USFS in the land exchange, and will ask congress to add language to the legislation specifying that the USFS shall use these funds for the construction or improvement of access roads, turnouts, trails, camping, parking areas and other facilities to promote and enhance rock climbing and bouldering opportunities in the areas near Superior, Arizona known as the "Pond," "Upper Pond," "Inconceivables," and "Chill Hill" areas."

Action: The QCC will ask RCM and congress for similar language changes as in Item (1) above, removing the specific requirement that the USFS "promote and enhance" rock climbing on the parcels in question.

Action: QCC will explain to both RCM and congress that the improvements to the parcels in this section are imperative and that it should not be "our" problem if the USFS will not agree to use the designated funds for the stated purposes. Further, we will ask that these specific improvements be provided, whether $1,250,000 is sufficient for this purpose or not.

Action: QCC will clarify that these improvements be provided to "passenger car" standards.

Item (3) of the CCR deals with surrender and withdrawal of mineral rights for the Pond and Apache Leap South End parcels.

Action: Rick Cecala has agreed to provide a legal opinion of the language contained in the current draft legislation.

Item (4) of the CCR states that: RCM will ask congress to specify that the USFS allow reasonable climber access to Apache Leap from the west as part of the Apache Leap study process already in the legislation.

Action: QCC will continue to ask RCM and congress that this language be included in the legislation.

Issues to be resolved by amended climbing license and/or other means.

Item 1) Access to the Pond, Upper Pond and Devil's Canyon. This section basically says that RCM will work with ADOT and QCC to identify and construct safe turnouts and access to these climbing parcels from highway 60. Further, the section says that this work will be done by RCM at its own expense and in addition to the $1.25M previously mentioned for other purposes.

Action 1 - Separate Pond issues from Devil's Canyon issues.

Action 2 - Question RCM regarding how the Pond "improvements" can be constructed without USFS approval/support of the construction.

2. Atlantis climbing parcel: This 74 acre parcel is existing RCM private land, and is under existing license to the Access Fund. RCM believes this area may be needed for tunnels or other mining facilities in the future, but that any such uses are unlikely to interfere with climbing activities for any significant period of time. Therefore, RCM will extend the existing license for the Atlantis parcel until 2060. If the Atlantis parcel is no longer needed for mining activities at the expiration of the license, RCM will consider a transfer of the land to the U.S. Forest Service or other governmental entity at that time. Otherwise, the license may be renewed on similar terms, for 10-year periods.

Action 1: The QCC would like to work with RCM to evaluate the currently proposed 74 acre parcel with an eye on expanding it to cover all the climbing that is currently on RCM lands (exclusive of the Pond parcel) in the general area of Atlantis proper, including climbing crags north of Highway 60 that may not be included in an expanded Pond parcel.

Action 2: As stated in item 10 below, the QCC has concerns with the current License Agreement. Jason Keith of the Access Fund will be taking the lead on this item.

Action 3: As stated in item 11 below, the QCC would like to receive an addendum to the MSHA letter of December 9, 2008. The addendum to that letter should also cover the roads, trail heads, trails, climbing crags and associated easements that will be on future RCM lands after the Land Exchange is finalized.

3. Central Oak Flat: This 234 acre parcel, and access thereto, will be under license to the Access Fund once RCM acquires it in the land exchange. RCM will extend the existing Access Fund license for this parcel until 2019, with an option for renewal.

Action 1. The QCC would like to work with RCM to evaluate the currently proposed 234 acre parcel with an eye on expanding it to cover all the climbing that is currently on RCM lands or will be owned by RCM after the Land Exchange is finalized. The QCC will work with RCM to identify continued climbing areas adjacent to the parcel based on their proposed Mining Plan of Operations

Action 2. As stated in item 11 below, the QCC would like to receive an addendum to the MSHA letter of December 9, 2008. The addendum to that letter should also cover the roads, trail heads, trails, climbing crags and associated easements that will be on future RCM lands after the Land Exchange is finalized.

Action 3: As stated in item 10 below, the QCC has concerns with the current License Agreement. Jason Keith of the Access Fund will be taking the lead on this item. In any case, the time period in this item should be changed from the time certain of “2019” to a “10 years from the passage of the legislation.”

4. “Eurodog Valley”: The area is on land that is either already owned by RCM, or land that will be acquired by RCM in the land exchange. RCM will grant a license allowing access to and use of this area for rock climbing and bouldering until 2019, with option to renew. Reasonable access and parking on RCM land will be provided by RCM. RCM presently expects that a new Shaft 9 access road (to replace the Magma Mine Road) will be constructed, and will be licensed for climber access to Eurodog Valley once completed. RCM also agrees to be able to license Lower Eurodog (i.e. the portion below any new Shaft 9 road) for climbing on a long term basis, similar to the Atlantis license, if upon completion of RCM's feasibility studies for Lower Eurodog, it does not appear to be needed for mining activity.

Action 1: Change the sentence, “Reasonable access and parking on RCM land will be provided by RCM. RCM presently expects that a new Shaft 9 access road (to replace the Magma Mine Road) will be constructed, and will be licensed for climber access to Eurodog Valley once completed, to, “Reasonable access and parking on RCM land will be provided by RCM when RCM builds the new Shaft 9 access road (to replace the Magma Mine Road). RCM will also provide under the license for climber access to Eurodog Valley once the new road is completed.”

Action 2. As stated in item 11 below, the QCC would like to receive an addendum to the MSHA letter of December 9, 2008. The addendum to that letter should also cover the roads, trail heads, trails, climbing crags and associated easements that will be on future RCM lands after the Land Exchange is finalized.

Action 3: As stated in item 10 below, the QCC has concerns with the current License Agreement. Jason Keith of the Access Fund will be taking the lead on this item. In any case, the time period in this item should be changed from the time certain of “2019” to a “10 years from the passage of the legislation.”

5. The "Mine Area": Portions of the rock climbing area known as the "Mine Area," including but not limited to Upper Looner Land, Lower Looner Land, Magma Gardens, The Arena, Simpsons Hall, and the Grodens, are located on land that either currently belongs to RCM, or that will be acquired by RCM in the land exchange. RCM will grant a license allowing access and use of this area for rock climbing and bouldering until 2019, with option to renew.

Action 1: The QCC wants to clarify and represent on a map what the proposed road and parking access would be to the “Mine Area”, including the existing road to Lower Devils Canyon which exits off of the current Mine Road.

Action 2. As stated in item 11 below, the QCC would like to receive an addendum to the MSHA letter of December 9, 2008. The addendum to that letter should also cover the roads, trail heads, trails, climbing crags and associated easements that will be on future RCM lands after the Land Exchange is finalized.

Action 3: As stated in item 10 below, the QCC has concerns with the current License Agreement. Jason Keith of the Access Fund will be taking the lead on this item. In any case, the time period in this item should be changed from the time certain of “2019” to a “10 years from the passage of the legislation.”

6. Apache Leap and access from the East: RCM will grant a license allowing climbers reasonable access to Apache Leap from the east (top side) across RCM property. Further, those portions of Apache Leap, if any, which are property of RCM following the land exchange, or which thereafter become property of RCM through any means, will be subject to a license allowing access and use of such area(s) for rock climbing and bouldering until 2019, with option to renew.

Action 1: Change the text of item 6 to read: “Apache Leap access from the East: RCM will grant a license allowing climbers reasonable access to Apache Leap from the east (top side) across RCM property.” (with additional language on duration and character of license below).

Action 2: Include the climbing areas north and south of the three electric poles on the edge of the Leap within the Licensed Area.

Action 3: Clarify where the road access, parking and trailhead will occur on a map.

Action 4. As stated in item 11 below, the QCC would like to receive an addendum to the MSHA letter of December 9, 2008. The addendum to that letter should also cover the roads, trail heads, trails, climbing crags and associated easements that will be on future RCM lands after the Land Exchange is finalized.

Action 5: As stated in item 10 below, the QCC has concerns with the current License Agreement. Jason Keith of the Access Fund will be taking the lead on this item. In any case, the time period in this item should be changed from the time certain of “2019” to a “10 years from the passage of the legislation.”

7. Apache Leap Westside Access: RCM will grant an access easement across its property in the Cross Creek drainage on the west side of Apache Leap to allow climber access to Apache Leap from the west. Use of the easement will be contingent on the Forest Service approving access on its land to the east and west of the RCC easement area – a matter which will be examined in the Apache Leap study process already in the legislation.

Action 1: (1-12-10) The QCC expressed its concerns that while RCM was promising to give access and easements across its land under a license, in point of fact a related issue was an easement across the USFS parcels and the related construction and long term maintenance costs involved in coming up the hill to the Leap. Therefore, the QCC was not sure how much value there was in an agreement that had that amount of uncertainty.

What is needed is for the parties (e.g., RCM and USFS) who own lands and interests along the potential access roads, trails and parking to identify the optimal alignment for road, parking, trailhead and trail easements and to agree on a solution which includes granting of easement rights to a suitable entity, construction of the related infrastructure, and provision for long term operating and maintenance costs.

Action 2: The QCC would like RCM to place the historic climbing into any relevant documents concerning Apache Leap during the NEPA process.

8. Upper Devils Canyon: RCM will grant a public access easement on the existing “power line road” to the existing trailhead and trail (near the 500KV power line) which access upper Devil’s Canyon. The easement may be extinguished and replaced by another easement of similar character, conferring equivalent access, without cost to the easement grantee and at RCM's sole expense, if relocation of the existing access road becomes necessary to accommodate future mining activities.

Action 1: (1-12-10). The QCC expressed concerns that ADOT might not allow a turn-out near the curve where old highway 60 left the new alignment. Instead, it might be necessary to come off the current Mine Road after it leaves Highway 60 and then head east to Upper Devils through the Exchange Parcel.

Action 2: The QCC would like to clarify on maps that the easement offered will extend to the Beach, Bingham Land, and the Boy Scout Trail.

9. Lower Devils Canyon: RCM will license use of the Magma Mine and “drill roads” until 2019, or until new access to Lower Devils Canyon becomes available via an improved Rawhide Road on east side of Devil’s Canyon and/or via an improved road from Highway 177 into Oak Creek. RCM will make reasonable efforts to assist and encourage the Forest Service to keep any such improved roads open for recreational use.

Action 1: (1-12-10) The QCC stated that it wanted to be sure that proper access to Lower Devils Canyon was secured. It also had concerns about access across the State Trust Land to the rock crags.

David stated that there will be at least two access routes to Lower Devils Canyon due to the monitoring wells that Resolution must install. An east side approach (down the current Rawhide Road) will place a monitoring well at the north edge of the State Trust Land. The QCC stated that if such were to occur, it would want the road taken down the approximate 1 mile to the edge of the canyon itself. David said that he would approach the State Land Department to investigate extending recreational roads on State Trust lands past the Monitoring well.

David stated that the other access to Lower Devils would be from the south. The existing four-wheel dirt road that comes up from Highway 177 would be improved to allow Resolution to access a monitoring well on the western side of Lower Devils Canyon.

The QCC stated that it would want all of the roads being discussed as Monitoring Well roads, and other access roads, to be drivable by 2-wheel drive vehicles. David said that that should be easy enough, unless USFS standards for grades made it impossible without the addition of switchbacks. If the road was steep and drivable to access their wells, the USFS might not want them to cut additional road footage in the form of switchbacks. He will investigate this further.

Action 2: It is imperative that RCM and the rock climbing community have a means of communicating when the access roads deteriorate due to man-caused or natural occurrences and that RCM institute a rapid response to address and correct the deterioration.

10. License terms: Each license agreement described herein shall be in a form and contain provisions acceptable to QCC and Access Fund, and, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Letter of Intent, neither QCC nor the Access Fund shall have any obligation or duty hereunder prior to their approval and acceptance of such license agreements. The privileges granted under any license shall not be unreasonably suspended by RCC, but may be temporarily or permanently suspended if necessary to: 1) accommodate RCC’s mining operation needs in a specific area or areas; 2) to protect public health and safety; and/or 3) if licensee or its members utilize a licensed area in a manner so as to significantly damage the climbing resource or environment, or engage in consistent and repeated behavior that violates the terms and conditions of the license and/or creates risks to the licensees or to public health and safety.

Action 1: (1-12-10) The QCC stated that it wanted a new or amended predetermination letter from MSHA stating that all of the climbing parcels, climbing paths, access roads, and trailhead facilities were not within lands MSHA would consider lands of “active mining operations.” This in effect would remove MSHA concerns from the climbing parcels.

David stated that they already had such a letter from MSHA. The QCC handed him the letter and stated that it was specific to the Town of Superior and a hiking path up Queen Creek Canyon from the Town. The QCC stated that they felt it did not necessarily cover the climbing areas, etc. They urged David to take another look at the letter and perhaps get an “addendum” addressing the specific climbing areas as not being under MSHA oversight.

11. MSHA: RCM will work with QCC and the Access Fund in an attempt to insure that MSHA regulation does not interfere with activities authorized under any climbing license or licenses granted by RCM.

Action 1: (1-12-10) Given that a number of the items above would be covered in a revised License Agreement (current signed License Agreement allows for continuing climbing for a 5-year period but is unilaterally revocable), the QCC and David discussed moving forward with taking another look at the License Agreement Language and beginning to make some changes. Jason Keith, Policy Director the Access Fund would be the primary party representing climbers in this process.

12. Tam O’Shanter: It is acknowledged that existing law permits the State of Arizona and/or local government to apply to BLM for an RPP Act conveyance of Tamo land in the future. Once RCM acquires the Oak Flat Federal land in the land exchange, and if and when the State and/or a qualified unit or units of local government make a written request to RCM, RCM will provide $1 million to assist the entity(s) making the request for Tamo lands. RCM will also work with climbers and others to consider providing additional funds to such entity to assist in the development of a Tamo climbing area upon the transfer of Tamo land to the State and/or unit(s) of local government.

Language remains as is:

13. The Drip, Steamboat Mountain, Land of Lost, and The Homestead: RCM has been advised of access issues with regard to these areas and agrees to consult with representatives of the climbing community and State or local governments, after RCM receives mine plan approval, regarding creation of a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which RCM would assist efforts to preserve or enhance climbing opportunities in these areas.

Action 1: The QCC would like to work with RCM and the State Land Department concerning access easements to the Homestead through the State Trust Land parcel.

14. Boulder relocation: RCM and QCC agree to discuss relocation of a limited number of boulders and/or a limited amount of vegetation, off- site, from land currently owned by RCM or which will be owned by RCM following completion of the land exchange.

Language remains as is:

15. Route development fund: RCM will furnish $50,000 upon signing of this Letter of Intent to be used as a fund to purchase hardware for developing new rock climbing routes and/or the maintenance of established routes, subject to a memorandum of understanding acceptable to RCM governing the custody and disposition of the funds.

Language remains as is:

16. Queen Creek greenbelt: RCM agrees to facilitate meetings with QCC, Forest Service, Town of Superior, State and ADOT to discuss and develop a long-term memorandum of understanding pursuant to which a greenbelt in and near Queen Creek Canyon can be established and maintained.

Language remains as is:

17. “Co-existence” agreement: Each license referenced herein shall recite that RCM intends for climbing and mining to co-exist in Queen Creek Canyon and environs to the greatest extent possible consistent with reasonable safety and mining operation concerns, and this Letter of Intent and any agreements which it contemplates shall be interpreted so as to give effect to this intention.

Language remains as is:

18. Insurance: All future insurance premiums for insurance required by any license agreement referenced herein, if RCM elects not to self-insure, shall be paid by RCM.

Language remains as is:

19. Scope of Agreement: Except as otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of this Letter of Intent are conditioned on passage into law of S.3157 or a measure substantially similar to it, with the modifications described herein, prior to the end of the 111th Congress. If that does not occur, then the provisions of this Letter of Intent shall expire at the end of the 111thCongress, unless extended by the parties. Further, it is hereby agreed that upon signing of this Letter of Intent, QCC and the Access Fund will promptly sign a letter of support for the proposed legislation, with the modifications described herein, and send the letter to the Arizona Congressional delegation.

Action 1: The sentence, “Further, it is hereby agreed that upon signing of this Letter of Intent, QCC and the Access Fund will promptly sign a letter of support for the proposed legislation, with the modifications described herein, and send the letter to the Arizona Congressional delegation,” will be changed to read, “Further, it is hereby agreed that upon signing of this Letter of Intent, QCC and the Access Fund will promptly sign a letter of cooperation with regard to the proposed legislation, with the modifications described herein, and send the letter to the Arizona Congressional delegation.

III. Additional Issues to be resolved by amended climbing license and/or other means.

Northern Devils Climbing Area.

Action 1. RCM and the QCC will add an additional item to the Agreement. This item will cover RCM’s commitment to work with the QCC, ADOT and any other party with the goal being roadway, trail head and climbing crag access and any required easements thereto with regard to the area known as Northern Devils Canyon on Marty Karabin’s climbing maps.

Great questions, Kirra.

I hope others will read and comment on what the QCC offered in response as to the concerns and possible solutions raised by RCM's proposal. Thanks to everyone who gave input.

You raise the excellent point that any agreement should be handled such that its provisions extend beyond the life of the current ownership interests and potential "run with the land."

Although I am not attorney my understanding is that there are a wide variety of methods for doing this that we should keep in mind. One, to the extent that we can move land away from RCM and into third party hands, in particular governmental third party hands like the USFS or BLM, we have additional protection beyond a simple agreement with RCM. Second, legal documents can be written to contain “successor and assigns” language which is intended to bind a future owner to the same obligations and rights. Third, agreements such as easements can be written to run with the land and the rights accrue to the beneficiary interest, e.g., climbers, such that the easement is somewhat of a “land right to use” no matter who owns the property as long as the beneficiary does not violate the terms of the agreement. Lastly, to the extent that we can talk legislators to including “use rights for climbers” into the legislative language itself, we are afforded a higher level of protection than absent such language.

We should keep those tools in our war chest and use them appropriately. I'm sure our legal eyes will be checking for these opportunities.

Erik

Here is an Update on recent QCC Activities.

January 12, 2010 – QCC met with RCM to present list of items related to Concerns and Possible Solutions with the Oct 2008 RCM Offer Proposal.

January 19, 2010 – QCC met to work on the rest of the Concerns and Possible Solutions with the Oct 2008 RCM Offer Proposal.

January 30, 2010 – Members of QCC met with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack in Superior, Arizona. (The meeting included representatives of the Sierra Club, Maricopa Audubon, Concerns Citizens and Retired Miners, and the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition - mostly groups opposed to the current legislation and those concerns were presented.)

February 2, 2010 – QCC met to finalize the Concerns and Possible Solutions with the Oct 2008 RCM Offer Proposal.

February 8, 2010 – QCC delivered to RCM a full list of the Concerns and Possible Solutions with the Oct 2008 RCM Offer Proposal.

February 8, 2010 – RCM sent QCC a letter of initial responses to QCC’s concerns. The issues covered involved the Pond parcel and MSHA.

February – second week – Representatives of the QCC and the AF held meetings in Washington DC with key congressional staff members

February 16, 2010 – QCC met to discuss items and information gained since previous meeting. It will continue on the dual tracks of continued negotiations with RCM to address concerns and possible solutions as well as pursuing its legislative track with congressional contacts.

Are you serious Kirra? Yes, to both your questions. People are talking.

I agree that we should respect our ancestors and those of the Apache. Cave Rock was closed due to other reasons, not because it was a burial ground. The Washoe did not want women touching the rock was a basic reason for us losing the right to climb in Cave Rock.

Apache Leap is not a burial ground, it is the site of a battle where Apaches chose to leap rather than be captured by their enemies. Heroic and sad. At that time both sides were ruthless. None were spared in a raid or battle. That much has been a part of human history unchanged since men have been around. That it happened is not in dispute. It's a sad part of human history but not uncommon. Every time I climb there I think of the tragedy and say a prayer for those that lost their lives there. Personally I do not support keeping us away from any lands that we use, whether they are on Oak Flat or Apache Leap. We can co-exist with anyone's view of our public lands.

manuel rangel wrote:Apache Leap is not a burial ground, it is the site of a battle where Apaches chose to leap rather than be captured by their enemies.

Manny, unless the Apaches *flew* then wouldn't it be safe to say that they lost their lives at that location..? Most folks are aware of the story involved so I skipped details for brevity to focus my post on other issues. Same also true for my mention of Cave Rock, NV. Point being that the Native Americans decided to CLOSE the area to rock climbing -period. I never said that Cave Rock was a burial ground

Thanks for answering questions with a "yes" however, that is not usually the way to make progress in a forum discussion

manuel rangel wrote:Are you serious Kirra?

easy with the sarcasm there chief, perhaps if you were more positive & inviting in your tone, more folks in the community would be encouraged to participate

BTW, when is the next open PUBLIC meeting of the QCC..? (this is not a yes or no question) Thanks and have a nice day ~

As climbers we fight an uphill battle against closures. Especially when it comes up against Native American issues. Their ability to claim "special knowledge" puts us (climbers)at a huge disadvantage when land use is in question.

Kirra your opinion of what the Apaches have a right to is only an opinion and one that at this point in time might be better kept to yourself.

Climbers have enjoyed the climbing at Oak Flat and Apache Leap for decades, respecting and co-exisiting with the mine and it's native american history. Our goal is to continue that for generations to come.