DRAFT LETTER—COPY AND PASTE ANY PORTION INTO WEB FORMS ABOVE

The Honorable [your Senator here]
US Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Dear Senator [your Senator here],

I write in opposition to H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, and S. 409, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2009, as reported by the Committee during the 111th Congress. I am a climber who opposes this proposal because it would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the highly popular public recreational rock climbing resource at Oak Flat, Arizona for use as an underground copper mine.

Rock climbers are numerically the largest recreation group that uses the Oak Flat/Queen Creek area, and we also stand to suffer the largest loss if this area is destroyed by mining activities. There are over one thousand established rock climbs in the Oak Flat area that will subside into an enormous crater if Resolution Copper Mining (RCM) is allowed to proceed with their present plan to “block cave” mine the underlying ore deposit. For decades climbers have frequented the Oak Flat/Queen Creek Canyon area in Central Arizona to scale the vast assortment of cliffs, canyons, and boulders. Climbing at Oak Flat over the years—one of the country’s few areas widely visited during winter months—proved so popular that the area hosted the Phoenix Bouldering Contest for several years which eventually became the world’s largest such event.

Since 2004 a variety of climbing groups in Arizona have worked with conservation organizations, officials from local and federal government, and Resolution Copper Mining to address the severe impacts that this bill would cause to Oak Flat and the recreation community in central Arizona. Despite climbers losing the extensive and longstanding public recreation resource at Oak Flat, H.R. 1904 provides no compensation in the form of a “replacement” climbing area or any other means. Many of the previous commitments of compensation to climbers—in former bills (S. 1122, H.R. 4880, S. 409) and promises by RCM—are now missing including: 1) a recreational use agreement that permitted continued public use of Oak Flat for a period after the land exchange, and access to two specific climbing areas in Queen Creek Canyon owned by RCM, 2) the transfer of “The Pond” property, perhaps the most popular climbing area in the larger Oak Flat/Queen Creek area, to the US Forest Service to be managed for dispersed recreation, and 3) financial compensation dedicated to recreation facility development and management. All of this compensation is absent from H.R. 1904.

The Queen Creek Coalition, a local group that has been making efforts to receive mitigation for the climbing community through direct negotiations with RCM, reported on January 16, 2012 that negotiations were not going well and that “Queen Creek Coalition is and likely will remain opposed to Resolution's proposed land exchange.” While RCM has expressed an interest in upholding their commitments to the climbing community, QCC reports that RCM’s latest offer “fell far short of providing either reasonable access to Queen Creek climbing or compensation for the anticipated loss of much of the Queen Creek climbing area.” Another local Arizona climbing group, the Concerned Climbers of Arizona, is opposed to the land exchange bill. I urge you to oppose this bill because provisions favorable to climbers have been removed from H.R. 1904, new environmental concerns have emerged, and climbers have yet to complete an agreement with RCM to address the loss of climbing resources.

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011 also fails to require any meaningful environmental analysis prior to the transfer of public land to RCM. This bill would circumvent the public process mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for prior analysis of any major federal action on public land. Such an analysis would assess the impact mine operations would have on the health of nearby residents, water quality, air quality, cultural resources, transportation, and the overall environment. H.R. 1904 unreasonably requires the exchange to be completed within one year. Such a rushed timetable will eliminate any meaningful analysis of this project and limit a real determination whether this mine is in the public’s interest. Because the provisions in H.R. 1904 virtually ensure the development of this mine, and the public has very little information on the environmental implications of this mine, this exchange is not in the public’s interest.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Town, State]