Oak Flat land exchange legislation

Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote: usatoday.com/story/news/pol… From the article: He (Hegner) said he did not call the FBI because he did not want a scandal to squelch the overall land swap. He also said he did not directly confront Renzi because, as manager at a multinational copper company, "I was not going to take my company to war with a sitting United States congressman."

I would encourage anyone reading the thread to read the entire article...

Context is important.

ClimbandMine wrote: I would encourage anyone reading the thread to read the entire article... Context is important.

Agreed, however Hegner's interests at the time were presumably to see the project through to completion. The level of corruption the whole Renzi deal introduced, he recognized, would be counterproductive and took the steps necessary to run CYA for himself, nothing extraordinary there. I don't think that anyone would argue that what he did was particularly virtuous, he likely just did exactly what his legal team advised him to do to keep the project moving forward in the case that the proverbial crap hit the fan. That said, I'm interested to see if he'll be dealt anything by the courts, I'd guess not. It's in RCM's best interest obviously to put as much distance as possible between them and Hegner, which I don't think will be hard given that he's no longer with RCM or the project. This is all my wild conjecture anyways, interested to see how the dust settles.

Anyhoo, more pressing events are coming up:

resolutioncopper.com/wp-con…

Hopefully the meetings go better than the last one at Superior High School, bleh. Hope to see as many of you as possible out there!!!!!

Tony @ AZClimbersZone.com wrote: Anyhoo, more pressing events are coming up: resolutioncopper.com/wp-con… Hopefully the meetings go better than the last one at Superior High School, bleh. Hope to see as many of you as possible out there!!!!!

From the link:

"Mine Plan of Operations that will be submitted to the USFS later this year."

Which, for those not aware of permit requirements, is required by NEPA.

ClimbandMine wrote: From the link: "Mine Plan of Operations that will be submitted to the USFS later this year." Which, for those not aware of permit requirements, is required by NEPA.

Yes. And filing a mining plan of operations is what RCM should have done 9 years ago, before asking for a land exchange.

Hahahaha! I guess it is never too late to (attempt to appear) to do the right thing.

David Loring do you even climb here? It looks to me like the people who are posting here climb in Queen Creek frequently.

Geir wrote:Hahahaha! I guess it is never too late to (attempt to appear) to do the right thing. David Loring do you even climb here? It looks to me like the people who are posting here climb in Queen Creek frequently.

Is this another attempt to silence Dave? What sort of requirements are there to post on this subject? Basic knowledge of modern mining? Resident of Pinal County or Superior?

Who said anything about silencing him, Ben???? He obviously will post whatever he wants.

For some time Dave Loring has been posting up pro-RCM comments on these threads using an anonymous account. If he is not risking his own crags then I think he should be up front about it.

As Dave pointed out just a few posts ago, "context is important."

So Dave, please answer the question. Do you climb here or not?

Geir wrote:Do you climb here or not?

I have long thought and been of the opinion that since the Oak Flat parcel was set aside and protected from the encroaching mining activities way back in 1955 at the National Level (Public Land Order 1229, Eisenhower Administration) that pretty much anybody in any state should be concerned and aware of the impact of setting a precedent that turns lands protected expressly FOR recreation and FROM mining over to a company to mine them. As far as anybody can tell who has researched the topic, lands so protected from mining have never been turned over to a mining company to mine them (Access Fund research as I recall).

Whether or not somebody partakes of the protected recreational activities there is really not too important to me. However, it is interesting that some simply don't seem to understand or care about the potential impact on their own local recreational areas if RCM is successful with Congress in pulling the protection out from under Oak
Flat and pursuing an apparent circumvented NEPA process.

Besides, pitting one climbing area against another or one provincial climber against another simply serves RCM's purposes in my view. The infighting has served RCM well over the years in many various communities; as one would expect.

Just my view.

Fred

I'm with Geir. If you don't climb here then how can you so easily recommend Oak Flat's destruction?

It is an area that should be here for a long time to come so Dave can climb here anytime. Maybe it will modify his eagerness to destroy it.

ClimbandMine wrote: From the link: "Mine Plan of Operations that will be submitted to the USFS later this year." Which, for those not aware of permit requirements, is required by NEPA.

Noted, however somewhat mutually exclusive from the NEPA at this point.

The last link I put up is broken, here's a new one from RCM's Facebook:

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid…

Hope to see ya'll tomorrow!

Out of curiosity, if not climbing at QC disqualifies them from posting because by your logic one is less passionate and is missing some necessary facts about the local boulders / crags, does not having designed, built, or permitted a mine also disqualify you because you are also missing facts about mine design and permit process?

Climb and Mine.

Let me say this in the most direct way possible - go away.

You are not here to discuss the issues. You are here to promote mining and support this legislation because it will benefit the industry in which you make your living. You are a shill for the mine and your posts are meant to obfuscate the huge negative impact this mining operation will have. Although I have tolerance for individuals that have different opinions and a different perspective, I find your lack of candor disgusting and have no interest in hearing your disingenuous drivel.

ClimbandMine wrote:Out of curiosity, if not climbing at QC disqualifies them from posting because by your logic one is less passionate and is missing some necessary facts about the local boulders / crags, does not having designed, built, or permitted a mine also disqualify you because you are also missing facts about mine design and permit process?

Being a local, or not, is a surefire way to get into an argument on a climbing website, LOL.

As one who has actually been involved in the design, building and permitting of mines I do have a few comments even though I don't think that one needs these experiences to qualify to speak about the whole mess of RCM.

Why? Because the mine is a human construct and nature is not. Destroying an environment is irreversible. This orebody isn't going away. If we don't mine it now, it will still be there at some future time when more illuminated miners can mine the copper without destroying the land.

The conceit of a corporation like RCM, which brags about its "sustainable" practices while proposing leaving a mountain sized tailing and a huge crater in the ground - in an area that is important to a broad swath of people is a complete misuse of the term.

More telling is the fact that this very same corporation owns the mineral rights to another deep seated deposit adjacent to the one being proposed. They do not bring this up in any public way.

They have, however, spent years withholding information. This does not further the development of trust and community building. In fact RCM is expert at tactics of "divide and conquer" opposition groups. Working various communities against each other and rewarding those who take their side.

This is perverse. I much more trust the people on the ground who appreciate the beauty of this land and want a different way of mining it - that will not disturb the surface.

Will this cost more? Yes it will. Is it worth it. Not likely to a corporation that spends big bucks on lobbying and public relations. But to a climber that realizes that it is irreplaceable - it is.

ClimbandMine wrote:Out of curiosity, if not climbing at QC disqualifies them from posting because by your logic one is less passionate and is missing some necessary facts about the local boulders / crags, does not having designed, built, or permitted a mine also disqualify you because you are also missing facts about mine design and permit process?

One does not need to have previously designed or built a mine to fully understand the proposed destruction of this mine. RCM has provided an unfortunate and sobering visual to the public of a 1,000 foot deep crater existing where Oak Flat currently is. And if you're supporting RCM, please don't even mention permitting--when every effort put forth by RCM thus far has been towards fully bypassing the established procedures for permitting a new mine in the United States.

BUMP! Bill is on the floor today:

houselive.gov/
clerk.house.gov/floorsummar…

Contact your rep!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

azminingreform.org/content/…

Well, for the second time now, Republican leadership has brought HR 687 to the House floor for a vote (this time with no warning, hoping to catch opponents unaware) only to suddenly pull the legislation prior to voting. They obviously don't have the required votes--so any of you who have written letters of opposition to your Representatives can rightly pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. Another good day for climbers.

azcentral.com/news/politics…

This is great news! Thank you, to everyone that reached out to your representatives!

Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:Well, for the second time now, Republican leadership has brought HR 687 to the House floor for a vote (this time with no warning, hoping to catch opponents unaware) only to suddenly pull the legislation prior to voting. They obviously don't have the required votes--so any of you who have written letters of opposition to your Representatives can rightly pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. Another good day for climbers. azcentral.com/news/politics…

So just out of curiosity, where do you get this info from... Looking at the clerk page linked about there's no mention of 687 at all.

Red wrote:This is great news! Thank you, to everyone that reached out to your representatives!

+1million & thanks President Obama!!

timing was GREAT.. Yesterday the White House hosted 2013 Tribal Nations Conference at the Dept. of the Interior. Leaders from the 566 federally recognized tribes had the opportunity to interact directly with the President & White House Council on Native American Affairs. This was the 5th White House Tribal Nations Conference for this Administration and continues to build upon the President’s commitment to strengthen the government-to-government relationship with Indian Country and to improve the lives of Native Americans. credits: Native American Events.com

President Obama reaffirms his Administration's commitment to strengthening the government-to-government relationship with Indian Country and to improve the lives of Native Americans by focusing on four key areas: standing up for justice and tribal sovereignty; increasing economic opportunity; expanding quality health care; and protecting native homelands. Transcript of Speech

HAHA doomed to FAIL ~ H.R.687

Morgan Patterson wrote:So just out of curiosity, where do you get this info from... Looking at the clerk page linked about there's no mention of 687 at all.

Hi Morgan- It is interesting that the Bill# was omitted, be assured it's HR 687. Article

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Erin Kelly Republic Washington Bureau Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:53 PM

WASHINGTON — Plans to build North America’s largest copper mine near Superior were dealt a major blow Wednesday when congressional supporters of the project canceled a vote on their bill after a strong lobbying effort against the mine by Native American tribes throughout the nation.

For the second time in two months, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., was forced to pull his bill, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, from the House floor or risk defeat. Gosar is the lead sponsor of the bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.

Supporters and opponents of the bill credited heavy lobbying by tribes for derailing the bill. The San Carlos Apache Tribe, which fears the mine will destroy its sacred land, reached out to tribes across the country for help in stopping the project.

Those tribes then lobbied Republican House members in states with significant Native American populations to oppose a federal land swap that would have paved the way for Resolution Copper Co. to build the mine.

Lawmakers who didn’t care one way or another about a copper mine in Arizona began to oppose Gosar’s bill to avoid getting in political trouble with their own tribal constituents, according to supporters and opponents of Gosar’s bill.

To make matters worse for mine supporters, the bill was scheduled to come to a vote Wednesday in the midst of a Tribal Nations Conference this week that brought tribal leaders, including San Carlos Chairman Terry Rambler, to the nation’s capital to meet with White House officials.

President Barack Obama spoke to the tribal leaders Wednesday. Those leaders included representatives from tribes in states such as Oklahoma, where lawmakers had been wavering on Gosar’s bill. Opponents of the mine say it would weaken the ground beneath sacred Native American lands such as Apache Leap, harm the environment and rock-climbing areas, and threaten the Phoenix area’s water supply.

Gosar was angry about Wednesday’s setback but said he will try again if he can secure the votes. He and other supporters of the mine say it would create more than 3,700 jobs, generate more than $61billion in economic activity over the 66-year life of the mine, and supply 25percent or more of the nation’s demand for copper.

“Today’s setback will not discourage me from my continued fight for this important Arizona jobs bill,” Gosar said in a statement. “I am disappointed that a mine of national significance that would have employed so many Native Americans was opposed by the leadership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe — a tribe plagued with excessively high unemployment and poverty.

“It is inexplicable decisions like this that directly result in the continued poverty of the tribe and the deterioration of the economic prospects of the town of Superior and the entire state of Arizona.”

Gosar accused San Carlos leaders of misleading other tribes about the project. Tribal leaders had no immediate comment Wednesday.

“Polls show the majority of San Carlos Apache tribal members support the mine and the jobs,” Gosar said. “Their tribal leadership is out of touch with its own people. I am confident that the truth will prevail and the will of the members of the tribe and surrounding communities will be done.”

Kirkpatrick also vowed to keep trying.

“The families in Arizona’s Copper Corridor need these jobs, and Arizona’s economy needs this boost,” she said in a statement. “I remain committed to moving this forward, working across the aisle with Congressman Gosar and my colleagues and bringing local stakeholders together. When it comes to creating jobs and strengthening the economy, we need to find common ground.”

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., one of the major opponents of the mine, had no immediate reaction to Wednesday’s turn of events.

But he said in an interview last week that he believed an amendment to Gosar’s bill proposed by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., was causing a problem for the mine’s supporters. Any attempt to ignore or kill the amendment would cause “a political firestorm” for mine supporters, Grijalva said.

Lujan’s amendment had been scheduled for a vote Wednesday, in advance of Gosar’s bill. The amendment would have given the federal government greater authority to protect sacred Native American land not under tribal ownership.

Supporters of the copper mine said it was intended as a “poison pill” to kill the Resolution Copper project. But Lujan said his amendment would improve the bill, and tribal leaders urged their members of Congress to support his proposed change.

Lujan, in a recent speech on the House floor, cited strong tribal opposition to Gosar’s bill as a key reason he wanted to amend the legislation. Among the groups opposing the bill are the National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes, the All Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico, and the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache tribes of New Mexico.

“The cultural and sacred sites of Apache Leap and Oak Flat are located on public land and not on an Indian reservation,” Lujan said. “Although these sites are not on an Indian reservation, they are still sacred to the San Carlos Apache, the Yavapai Indian Tribe, and other tribes in Arizona — just as a Catholic church, where I practice my faith, is considered a holy place even though it’s not located in Vatican City.”

However, Resolution Copper officials have said they would not mine beneath Apache Leap.

The decision by the mine’s supporters to pull their bill is the latest twist in a saga that dates to 2005, when Resolution Copper began seeking a federal land exchange. Eleven versions of a land-exchange bill have been introduced in Congress.

If the bill was approved by both chambers of Congress, Resolution Copper would get about 2,400 acres in the Oak Flat area of the Tonto National Forest in return for giving more than 5,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona to the federal government.

“Resolution Copper is disappointed that a vote on (the bill) did not occur today,” company spokesman Troy Corder said. “We are focusing on the submission of our Mine Plan of Operation to the U.S. Forest Service this week. We are confident that our MPO will dispel misinformation around the project and establish that we have submitted the project for regulatory review. We feel that as the details of the MPO emerge, support will continue to grow for the legislation.” Reach the reporter at ekelly@gannett.com.