|
dief
Mar 11, 2010, 3:15 PM
Post #1 of 5
(2671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 91
|
The QCC will hold a Public Meeting on Tuesday April 6th at 6:30pm at the Phoenix Rock Gym.
The QCC will give an update on the status of the Land Exchange legislation and on negotiations with Resolution Copper. This is an opportunity to hear where things stand and to give your input into the process. The QCC web site - www.queencreekcoalition.com - has a full list of the Questions and Concerns the QCC gave to Resolution Copper concerning their previous offer to the QCC. Read that list and bring any comments, questions, and suggestions you would like to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
ErikF
Apr 6, 2010, 12:19 PM
Post #2 of 5
(2570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2009
Posts: 41
|
Queen Creek Coalition has received a full response today from Resolution Copper regarding our letter of February 8th of this year.
To see the response in full, click here:
http://www.queencreekcoalition.com/media/RCM_Response_to_QCC>>>>>
If you want to see the letter that the QCC sent on Feb. 8th, that is here:
http://www.queencreekcoalition.com/media/qcc_response_rcm_Fe>>>>>
READ UP ON THIS STUFF!!! REMINDER: TOMORROW IS THE PUBLIC MEETING WHERE YOU CAN BRING UP QUESTIONS AND COMMENT TO THE QCC IN PERSON REGARDING THIS INFORMATION!!!
April 6th, PRG, 6:30pm
|
|
|
|
|
dief
Apr 9, 2010, 9:14 PM
Post #3 of 5
(2546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 91
|
Summary – QCC Quarterly Public Meeting
April 6, 2010
Phoenix Rock Gym
About 30 people were in attendance, mostly members of the local climbing community. QCC Board members Filsinger, Diefenderfer, Keedy, AmRhein, Rangel, Covington, Cecala and Karabin were present. Being a public meeting, interested parties had invited the Concerned Miners and Retired Miners group from Superior. In addition to Native American communities, that is the primary group opposed to the current legislation and contains representatives from local citizenry, the Sierra Club, Maricopa Audubon Society, and Arizona Coalition for Mining Reform. They were given full opportunity to listen and participate. It was good to hear them out and to also discuss the specific climber concerns with them.
The meeting began with an introduction of the QCC board and some of the prominent members in the audience. Copies of the recently acquired Resolution Copper (RCM) response to the January QCC letter were distributed. Paul gave a brief history of the climbers’ discussions with RCM that began in 2004. Various climbing groups had interfaced with Resolution, including the Friends of Queen Creek Coalition. Paul explained that the FoQC was followed by an attempt to broaden the climbers’ voice even more broadly and the Queen Creek Coalition was formed in early 2008. Since that time the QCC has been outlining what the climber concerns were, and responding to offers and counter offers from RCM.
Erik (EF) continued in the role of meeting moderator and stated that the QCC had decided within the past 6 months to make a renewed effort to reach out to the rock climbing community and keep them apprised of the developments. He stated that the QCC wanted to hear back from climbers as to what they were thinking. He emphasized that this Quarterly Public meeting was intended to give such information and solicit that feedback.
EF explained that the QCC had received RCM’s latest response on Monday, April 5, 2010, and had not met as a group to discuss it, but that because it was received it was offered out to the climbers. The original purpose of the QCC’s Quarterly Public Meeting was to give an update and discuss the list of concerns that QCC had offered to RCM in January, so it was advantageous to have the actual RCM response in hand for this update.
EF explained that the negotiations with RCM had begun with the QCC presenting a list of what the climbers wanted, and RCM’s response with an offer of how it proposed to addresses those “wants”, to which the QCC had made a counter offer, followed by another counter from RCM. This last document was generated by the QCC making a detailed list of its concerns about the specifics in the previous RCM offer, and this document included an Executive Summary from RCM, and then the full text of what the climbers had said and RCM’s response to those concerns.
EF further stated that what he would do is go through the document and highlight what RCM appeared to be saying, after which the session would be opened to a Q&A with everyone participating.
EF stated that it appeared that RCM was offering 3 options (although the wording seemed less clear in places) – (1) Endorse the Land Exchange legislation and receive everything they are currently offering in the “agreement” plus the $1,000,000 for climbers to use toward making Tamo a regional climbing focal point, or (2) entering into a more formalized “working relationship” with RCM where we wouldn’t have to endorse the legislation but would basically take a position of “Non-Opposition,” in return for which the climbers would receive everything but the Tamo $1,000,0000, which would go to a regional entity such as the local communities to develop regional recreational opportunities, or (3) continue to oppose the legislation and work toward a solution that protected the land surface and had even more environmental safeguards. In the latter case the climbers would only receive what was in the legislation if it passed without climber support (1st 4 points in the document).
RCM was also noted in the response that certain items were not within their control, but would be determined by other parties such as the USFS and the BLM. Therefore, RCM appeared to be offering three different mechanisms for solving the climbers’ concerns – (1) putting some elements in Land Exchange legislation and those items would be governed by law; (2) putting some things into documents that were agreements between the climbers and RCM, e.g., lands that would not be conveyed to the USFS but which were RCM’s lands could be included in an expanded license agreement; and (3) particularly for those thing that were not under their control, RCM would enter into a cooperative “working relationship” with the climbers and work along side of them with the third party decision makers.
EF then overviewed how RCM responded to the list of 4 items that would be governed by the Land Exchange legislation, the 18 plus 1 items that would be governed by an expanded license and/or other means. (Note: the document speaks for itself on what all of those elements are and which are included herein by reference.)
The meeting was then opened for Questions from the attendees. Members of the QCC Board answered those questions and/or responded to the comments. The Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners folks spoke at length about their concerns, many of which go to the environmental issues, their perspective on the mining company’s track record, and other concerns they have. This led to a discussion of NEPA, US mining laws, RCM’s potential ability to mine even without the Land Exchange, and the like.
Several climbers voiced concerns similar to those of the Concern Citizens and Retired Miners folks. EF also asked that the attendees about the specific elements of the document presented as to climber concerns and issues. The discussion and concerns were far and wide, reflecting both the complexity of the issues and the diversity of opinions.
It was explained that the status of the legislation is that the appropriate Senate committee has approved the bill and the full Senate can now vote on it. On the House side, Representative Kirkpatrick has introduced it and it has gone to a House Committee, but it has not been assigned yet to a sub-committee. The sub-committee in the past that has received the bill is chaired by an opponent of the Land Exchange and so far has not budged in that point of view.
The focus of the discussion then switched to the RCM response and the issues raised with RCM by the QCC. General topics of concern for the attendees included:
Timing of the need for a decision. What was the status of the legislation, what were the likely outcomes, and when did the QCC need to make a decision? A fundamental assumption in the decision matrix concerned whether or not someone felt that the Mine and Land Exchange were inevitable.
Another central point was that a distinction can be made between what's best for climbers and other serious considerations such as environmental or cultural concerns. Comments were made that conceivably the decision regarding climbing at QC could be made while as individuals interested parties could pursue other agenda such as environmental ethics driven stances.
In response to recognition of recent newspaper articles and editorials, it was explained that early on RCM had worked with several respected environmental groups to either support or not oppose the legislation. These groups are currently not opposed to the Land Exchange include The Nature Conservancy, Arizona Audubon, and The Sonoran Institute.
Specifics of the details of the RCM offer. What were the things that really could be counted on and what needed to be clarified? Were there a number of “gottchas” where RCM could later renege?
A number of items were diminished from earlier Offers. The primitive campground and funding for such were being replaced by the general “replacement campground” which now would be determined by process lead by the Town of Superior. The RCM explanation included that the original offer had been in a prior context and that with changes and discussions with the USFS and the legislation pending it couldn’t make that offer.
The importance of a “working relationship.” Many of the possible ways of meeting climber concerns hung on a continuing working relationship with RCM. This troubled some and lead other participants to concede the importance of having a positive relationship with RCM so that those things could be obtained.
Late in the session Mike asked if we could have a show of hands to get a sense of where folks were at. EF framed the question this way –
“The QCC decision making wouldn't involve a public "vote", but we want input, now or in the future, and we have been highlighting trying to keep the community updated. Let's have a show of hands to give a general indication of your feelings. Don't worry, you can later change your input, etc. but it would be handy to see where you are at now.
How many folks would want to make a deal now to get the most things from RCM and endorse the land exchange?
how many folks would want to make a deal now but avoid endorsing by taking a position of non-opposition, meaning working with RCM and getting some but not all of what they offered
How many folks would want to keep opposing the land exchange as currently formulated and continue working for a solution that did not affect the land surface?
A show of hands, with some voiced highlights and qualifications, was taken. (Note: Folks who were present saw and heard what was stated. It would not be prudent to broadcast those results, and whatever was “voted” was non-binding and very situational.)
On behalf of the Board of the QCC, EF thanked the climbers and guests present for attending and said that the QCC welcomed any and all feedback they could offer.
The meeting was adjourned shortly thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
ErikF
May 20, 2010, 12:46 PM
Post #4 of 5
(2426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2009
Posts: 41
|
Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger
Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action.
Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange.
The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion.
Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy.
Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation.
After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4.
Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Jun 9, 2010, 3:17 AM
Post #5 of 5
(2354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
ErikF wrote: The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events.
the discussion was overtaken and dominated by a few personal opinions who DO NOT speak for the entire climbing community
ErikF wrote: Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange,
no, not "the likelihood" of passage. The QCC is now split thanks to your efforts.
What is *most net* climbing -- you mean what is left-over..??? We should be working for max climbing and not what are the "left-overs" after RCM destroys Oak Flat & Queen Creek. You've got your priorities backward
ErikF wrote: Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy....The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation..
This is B.S. The QCC no longer represents the best interests of Queen Creek & Oak Flat
You people should be FIRED..!!!!!!!!!!!!
I heard you even went against the advice of the Access Fund.
This error in judgment is hardly different than when J.Sherman took the bait. How much is the mining company offering you Erik Filsinger..?!?!?! There is NO $$ for Tamo, never has been and not gonna be anytime soon -it's amazing how gullible people have been to believe you on this.
It's also quite disturbing to know how you have turned against your community while pretending to be a proponent for climbing access, yeah right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
