Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

Hello,
I'm a grad student at NAU in Flagstaff and am working on a term paper on this issue. I've not climbing in Queen Creek before, but am interested in what I can do to help save it.

After examining the House and Senate Bills I really think they can be attacked, and we can push that NEPA procedures have to be done.
I think it would be good to make it more of a public issue as well(this might be happening? I don't know)as an issue to climbers and indigenous tribes. Anyway I'd like to get involved let me know how I can. (I've been writing letters since the issue arose)

Thanks for the offer Jacob. PM on the way.

Folks,

The qcc's one of those "big tent" coalitions that's attempting to deal with a very narrow aspect of a much larger and very controversial national political federal land-use issue.

The thought that all climber's beneath that tent will have the same opinion, want to go in the same direction at any one time, or not want/be allowed to debate the issues is asking way too much and seems kind of unfair.

All those politicians and other interested parties that monitor these sites know and understand this. This is the 21st century and these sorts of online forums have become a fact/way of life.

If those strong and influential parties that lurk out there try to manipulate any apparent discord to their advantage somewhere (as silly as that sort of thing really is from a rational standpoint) just point to something like health care reform (gee, no public rancor there at those public meetings and posting forums, eh?), a Senate hearing on the land swap (Sen. Mccain didn't hesitate to show/voice his opinion, ask questions, voice displeasure, etc.), etc.

I respect his (Mccain's) right to do so and he actually seemed to respect my right to voice the qcc's opinion to him and he told me directly to continue to do so. He didn't tell me to say things in a certain way, say only things that others wanted me to say, etc. (This was at the Superior Town Hall meeting in August).

Seems like the best thing to do when posting here is to stick to the issues and continue to ask questions. Suspecting/impugning somebody's motives or asserting that somebody doesn't have a right to discuss something for some personal reason really just causes a distraction for either so-called "side."

We all have a right, regardless of where we live (this is a national issue about very public federal lands ) or what our particular take on the issue is ("Save Oak Flat," "Save As Much as Possible," "Don't Sink Oak Flat," etc.) to have and to articulate an opinion or to provide information.

Sunshine has proven to be the best thing for this issue as long as we respect each others rights. The 5+ years of public dialogue on the web bears this out. Also, as I recall from the history of this particular topic, it wasn't until somebody "leaked" the behind-the-scenes plans for the land swap that the public ever got wind of anything. Thank goodness that somebody was willing to talk about it out in the open.

Along those same lines, the qcc will be meeting in a week or so to discuss recent developments. Part of the meeting will be a public meeting of sorts and if you want to attend just send a note of your interest. See the web site at queencreekcoalition.com for contact info.

Fred

Wondering: Has anyone that wrote letters received anything in response yet? I haven't. It would be nice to get some kind of feedback or response from them!

I haven't gotten a response, except for the immortal words of our kind and caring senators: they've been taken care of! I have only ever had an automatic response saying thanks for contacting, blah blah blah. Didn't even address what my letter was about.

We have to keep getting others to get involved. Ask your friends to email/call/write. When we have a significant amount of people writing into various legislators, from other states even, then we may get a better response.

Red wrote:Wondering: Has anyone that wrote letters received anything in response yet? I haven't. It would be nice to get some kind of feedback or response from them!

I did, from Secretary Vilsack (actually from one of his staff). Clearly they read it carefully; they took a lot of time to address each of my concerns in their reply.

Folks,

The qcc met here this last week and discussed recent developments. The minutes are either on the qcc web site or will be soon.

Also, it looks like we'll be meeting again here pretty soon. Unlike this last meeting, the upcoming one will be a private gathering. So, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns please forward them to info@queencreekcoalition.com.

Thanks to those who attended the last meeting and provided input.

PS: The weather at Oak Flat has been great and there have been a lot of people at the various crags. Great to see such a great number of people out and about in the area.

Fred

All,

(Note: I chose the 3rd party "voice" to clearly identify that these were my words and not an official position of the QCC. The QCC offers its own official communications as noted elsewhere.)

Speaking as one member of the group, here is what I see personally as the group's direction (see also the QCC website): The QCC is meeting on a regular schedule. Given the sensitivities of the situation the QCC decided to hold a block of those meetings in private (see public meetings below). One of the current tasks is to go through the RCM Oct 2008 offer in detail and understand all of the potential implications of the issues involved. At some point they will need to respond to RCM and they do not want to respond without that understanding.

Because the QCC does not want to "show its cards" to those who could use that information against climbers, most of the details of those concerns and conclusions are very sensitive and the QCC is treating those discussions as an "internal work product". I believe that the QCC welcomes concerned climbers to address any issues they see to the QCC. Each individual member of the QCC has their personal network of input from climbers and those channels of communication are being heard. Everyone in the QCC cares deeply about Queen Creek and listens very carefully.

The QCC has stated that it plans to have quarterly public meetings which will be open to members of the climbing community and should have another one early in 2010. I would suspect that the QCC would be able to shed some light on its collective concerns and possible directions at that meeting.

The QCC is also working on a "legislative" thrust and has communicated that "climbers have not been taken care of." In response to the Az Republic article it is going to renew their communications to specific legislators of that same message. A response is being formulated and action will be taken quickly. Climbers are losing much and have not been taken care of and therefore remain opposed to the current legislation.

When the QCC judges that a strong and unified voice of the climbing community needs to be heard, I am sure it will put out a strong and unambiguous message to make some noise.

Thanks, and stay strong.
Erik

ErikF wrote:I believe that the QCC welcomes concerned climbers to address any issues they see to the QCC. Each individual member of the QCC has their personal network of input from climbers and those channels of communication are being heard. Everyone in the QCC cares deeply about Queen Creek and listens very carefully.

I can personally attest to the validity of this. I have been in contact with multiple members of the QCC (including Erik) and they have made every effort to take my opinions into account. I have also been to a QCC meeting and the group was very welcoming. Thanks for your efforts!

Here's Senator McCain's letter to the Chair of the Committee that is responsible for the Oak Flat privatization legislation.

Fred

• *********************************************

December 1, 2009

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
Chairman
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
304 Senate Dirksen Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Bingaman:

As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I’m writing to request that you include S 409, legislation regarding the Resolution Copper Project in Arizona, on the agenda of your next business meeting. This legislation is of tremendous importance to the people of Arizona and the nation.

S. 409 is the product of years of debate and negotiation. Over the past four years, the land exchange proposal has received multiple hearings in Congress, including most recently before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests on June 17, 2009. Please understand that the people of Arizona cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to act on this legislation. Arizonans are facing historic unemployment rates, and the promise of job opportunities and economic growth connected to this project will help ease the economic suffering of many hard-hit families.

I acknowledged that there were a handful of concerns raised by the Forest Service at the June 17th hearing, but all of these issues appear to be resolvable to the Administration’s satisfaction in the very immediate future. It is also my understanding that discussions between our staffs have yielded achievable grounds for compromise on several of your most pressing concerns. As you know, I have provided you with proposed language that corresponds with your draft amendment. Therefore, there is no reason to continue delaying the advancement of a compromise version of S. 409 at the Committee’s next markup.

Thank you for your attention to this important, long-overdue legislation,

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senator

Once again, most of Kirra's concerns, other than semantics, can be addressed by actually visiting QCC website. What we want is no secret: queencreekcoalition.com/med…

Kirra, you're right, public meetings should be open to everyone and ours are. Our private meetings are not. Sorry we don't play by your rules but you are welcome to attend any public meeting of the QCC.

"When the QCC judges..." doesn't really say much except we don't have anything to ask the climbing community right now. That does not mean we do not want you to do anything: write, call or email the legislators involved in this process.

Funny how Erik follows through on keeping the public informed and he's immediately attacked. Some people have all the fun.

kirra wrote: Public meetings traditionally are held for everyone without reservation. When the QCC 1st opened its meeting it was upon *approval* only. Will future QCC meetings be truly open to all..?

I don't know if "public meeting" is the correct title. It more like an open meeting to anyone in the "climbing community". I'm sure that anyone in the entire world would be aloud to join as long as they are not known to be associated with RCM. I didn't see you at the last "open meeting" Kirra. Were you at any prior to that? The QCC is here to work with you not against you. Share your thoughts and continue to work with the QCC. Stop attacking them, they are not against you or your interest.

Well said Manuel and Red.

WRITE LETTERS!!!

I want to respond to the comments above but don't know quite how (without risking breaking the 1 rule- don't be a jerk)....this issue is exhausting and if we are not working together it makes it that much harder.

My observation is: The QCC has some who are willing to deal and negotiate on this...and there is a group of the QCC that don't say much, but don't believe the over-turn of the EXECUTIVE ORDER will go through.

I plan to write and fax my ass off!!!!

'nough said

Kirra, Red,

Firstly, to be clear, I’m a QCC member and I’m speaking for myself, not for the group and here’s how I view some things that have come up here recently.

1) It’s my understanding that the QCC’s meeting protocol is to hold private meetings save for a quarterly meeting to which members of the climbing community may attend as long as they are invited and a known entity. Red attended as an invitee; Kirra was precluded from attending because she wasn't invited to that "public" meeting.

2) Personally, I feel that the QCC should evolve to hold true public, open meetings where anybody can attend at their leisure, even mining company officials. Executive sessions could be used for attending to sensitive issues. In my eyes, the issues we discuss are primarily public and everybody has a right to be welcome. Needing a larger room and having more participation would be a good problem to have. Like school board meetings, few people from the public really ever show up, but at least they can if they want; their choice, not mine. But this is just my opinion.

3) The 2,000+ climbs and the 2,400+ acres at risk for sinking 200-300 feet into a rubble pit if this land swap goes through comprise federal public lands, the included Oak Flat parcel having been set aside specifically from mining. So, anybody in the US has a right to speak up about what’s going on. And, any group that takes a stand on this public issue is fair game for questions; FoQC, QCC, Access Fund, AMC, Superstition Area Land Trust, Nature Conservancy, Arizona Audubon, etc. That’s the way it’s been all along and that isn’t going to change in my opinion.

4) If we really want to be honest, wouldn’t we have to admit that pretty much, save for the Native Americans, we’re all non-locals? How far in history do we go back to determine "local"ness anyway? How "local" do we have to reside? Seems pointless to me to chide people for this sort of thing. Also, it seems telling to me that mention of the Native American issues were completely missing from the recent letter from Senator McCain.

5) If you have an issue that you’d like the QCC to hear about as a group or have any opinions on how things are going, personally I welcome them, for better or worse. Post them here or send stuff to info@queencreekcoalition.com where everybody in the group will get your comments.

6) Also, if issues are not being addressed by the QCC, Access Fund, your local elected officials, etc., in a manner consistent with your personal view, then please write letters and/or speak to whomever you want about your opinion. It's your right and I'd be just about the last person to try to dissuade you from doing so. Every elected official I’ve ever spoken to, from Senator McCain on down, has consistently told me that our/your individual voice matters. I know this to be particularly true so please feel free.

Again, to be clear, most of this is my personal understanding and opinion on things and is not meant to reflect anything else.

Fred

Fred- as usual, extremely well said.

Erik- thanks for the update, and please continue to post despite kirra's statements.

Kirra- I've found from multiple personal interactions with the QCC that they have been open to the input of the climbing community and have been acting in our best interests. If for the sake of strategy some of their inner discussions remain private I'm completely OK with that. I appreciate your efforts in providing useful information such as the names and addresses of legislators involved (that was great), but think your negative statements about the QCC (most recently toward Erik) are counterproductive.

Everyone else- If you have a problem with McCain's most recent efforts to forward the legistlation then FIGHT. Get in front of the computer, write to Jeff Bingaman and tell him what you think of McCain's recent correspondence. His address is above. CC it to McCain, Kirkpatrick, Kyl, etc. I will have my letters out by the end of the week, and will gladly share my text with others if that helps.

Regards,
Geir

kirra wrote: once again, kirra asks questions NOT addressed on the QCC website and she gets chastised by manny ~ I love this game ahhh manny now don't start being a j*rk. QCC's attempt at a public meeting was not truly a public meeting by websters' definition not mine "we" -o.k. (perhaps) I'm now dealing with the QCC directly. Too bad you have nothing to ask... as negotiations are continuing possibly without regard for any environmental or subsidence issues. Will you ever ask the public if it's o.k. to give up 2,000+ climbs, turning it into a waste-pit sink-hole..??? I'm always personally attacked for asking any questions... and still no answer -semantics aside. The link manny posted is dated, so my question remains ~1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th person, don't really give a rat's harry who answers... Question #1. The QCC 10-27-09 mtng minutes refer to RCM Proposal October 10, 2008 What is this offer..? Will RCM mine this area with a method that will eliminate subsidence (QCC #1 request) Question #2.(added) The Mining Reform act has not yet been passed. Has the QCC determined that this legislation should be in effect before a deal is made..? (insuring long term protection for the environment & fair compensations to the community)- and/or will there be additional provisions added such as a NEPA process to be required before the xchange is allowed..? (referenced USDA letter) Red I never saw you at any FOQC or PRG meetings or at the climbers' rally at the recent town hall gathering -- your point is..??? I am sharing thoughts and asking questions to better understand how to "work the QCC" {{chuckle}} IMO they have missed the boat a few times, but the one that seemingly gets attacked is moi ~ *sigh* everyone enjoy the rest of your weekend, cheers ~k

kirra wrote: Geir as usual, interpretation (and assumptions) of negative statements and your (consistent) pile-on attitude do not help anything. I also do not need your patronizing appreciation toward my *tiny* contribution of a mailing list. I have spent countless hours writing letters, making lists and being involved over the past 5 yrs. Your recent involvement should include the respect for others that have been there long before you arrived... For those of you to whom it matters -- Erik & I have had numerous conversations offline about many of these matters and have been friends for years. Questions (and requests for clarification) should never be taken as attacks. He is new at posting in forum threads and should be given the space to learn & speak for himself which aparently he is able to do we're still waiting for Secretary Vilsack's response...did we miss it..? have a great day ~k

(yawning)

-

Folks,

The topic of subsidence is a big one for some so, to give one an idea of what it might mean, I have a photo here of a subsidence pit that lies at the western end of the emergency truck ramp as you start into the Queen Creek Canyon just outside of Superior. You see this best when you're heading back down from the Pond or Oak Flat areas as you head downhill toward Superior. (I saw a motorcycle actually stuck in the deep rock that they use for that ramp the other day, didn't look like fun!)

I've been told by local miners that this particular pit was formed years ago when a cavern from a former mining operation caved in. I don't know how deep the cavern was, big, etc.

This pit is a few hundred feet wide on a steep slope but gives a person a little bit of an idea of what the Oak Flat area might end up looking like in some years if the mine goes forward as has been talked about (1 mile in diameter, 1-3,000' in height void lying some 3-4,000' below ground that caves in on itself over time).

Of course the pit area in the image is a limestone/quartzite area so it may not be exactly what things will look like but it gives you a picture of what we're talking about when it comes to "subsidence."

Fred

(Note: solely my opinions and statements)

One of the problems is that we really don't know the surface effects of the huge underground cavern that the block caving mining will create. We can speculate and look to other examples. Resolution has stated that they will monitor the underground cracking of the bed rock mass such that when the cracking reaches a certain depth below ground they will stop the mining operations, the implication that it will minimize surface disturbance. They have also represented that the surface may "subside" but that it will maintain the its surface flora and fauna and therefore won't look much different from what you see now. (form your own opinion)

We all have heard and seen the horror stories about subsidence in a lot of different situations. Subsidence locally here in Phoenix is often associated with pumping of groundwater. This has been a serious concerns because subsidence causes major public (and private) infrastructure to weaken potentially. The Army Corps of Engineers spends a fair amount of time evaluating this, as do other governmental agencies. To give one example: ground water pumping in Scottsdale has caused the CAP canal to drop and lose 1 vertical foot of capacity, a very serious impact for the largest public infrastructure in the U.S. Subsidence is very serious no matter what the surface looks like.

To some degree it probably doesn't matter whether the subsidence associated with Resolution's mine creates the ugly result Fred's picture depicts, or that perhaps it will be a gentle sinking. Once Oak Flat is transferred and after climbing is eliminated (the timing of which is a matter of current negotiations), the Mining regulatory authorities (MSHA) probably would never let the public recreate on it given any mining technique that would eventually create surface instability.

Nevertheless, I had some of my engineers model what 300 vertical feet of subsidence might look like across a subsidence zone one mile wide (RCM's maximum model). The graphic appears below. It produces a 11% slope if the subsidence is uniform across the area. Conceivably that could continue to support existing flora and fauna and it's not clear what slope would create rock crags with roots below ground level to tilt. And as stated above it may be moot given the unlikelihood of continued climbing on an unstable mining surface due to mining regulators.

Brainstorming, it would be nice to see if Congress could force RCM to mine in a way that would not produce the instability, minimal or no subsidence, and would allow for continued recreational pursuits on Oak Flat. One of the fundamental statements of the climbing community is that it is our desire to keep the land surface intact. We have never been opposed to the mine (in our formal statements of any groups). We have been opposed to the destruction of a precious recreational resource that is currently in public hands. Can we get that? Or do we need to accept the mine as proposed, subsidence and resulting loss of Oak Flat so that we can keep the most net rock climbing in the region? Tough questions. No easy answers.

Queen Creek and Oak Flat in the news. The Access Fund Vertical Times newsletter, pg 12, Winter '09. Note the credits for the photos. The same photographer also took her time, money, and effort to make those signs and place them up and down the roads leading up the canyon and to the climbing areas for Secretary Salazar's visit in August of this year. Thanks for your efforts Kirra.

accessfund.org/atf/cf/%7B1F…

Fred