Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

Fred, maybe you can answer Kirra's questions since I am not capable of doing so?

I must be confused on the QCC public meeting policy. I thought it was open to the public, rather than by invitation, unless the meeting was private.

I appreciate all of Kirra's efforts to help QC remain in its current state. Thanks for posting the info, Fred.

for the record (with QCC minutes as back-up)

the portion of the QCC meetings that are "open" are open to anyone. the last QCC "open meeting" occurred in the second half of a Board meeting where some "private" discussions were held. it is false that the intent was only to "invite" attendees.

the QCC needs to do a better job of announcing those Open meetings to the climbing community. it turned out that the last Open meeting was not as well advertised as it should have been and maybe only folks who received personal invitations (from a variety of the QCC members) were in attendance. i would note that many who post herein showed up because of their involvement with individual QCC board members. we have held at least 2 fully Open meetings in the past years - one PCDS and one at PRG.

In sum, i believe we (QCC) will do a better job of advertising in the future. i don't believe anyone is trying to keep the door only half open.

so far, we have not yet picked the date of the quarterly Open meeting, but we will do so soon. the next one will be in the first quarter of 2010 i'm sure.

(personal comment from here on)

i might also note that Kirra and I are old friends (meaning friends for a long time - not that both of us are old - i'm old, Kirra is not - ) Over the years we have worked together on many projects. We have also been through a lot together as friends. I respect Kirra's passion and acknowledge her many contributions. She and I may not always agree, but I will continue to listen to what she has to say and argue with her when we disagree. I probably will do most of the arguing with her "off-line" because I think those types of disagreements are best not aired where potential opponents (non-climbers) can view them and bolster their position because they know the specifics of our disagreements.

I've had to make a choice here, do I want to be right or do I want to be happy with respect to the QCC meeting protocol issue?

I'll go with the latter on this one; I think it's best for everybody.

I'm very happy to hear that the QCC quarterly meetings will be held as true open, public meetings. Anyone of any opinion may attend at their leisure or so I'm understanding from what others are saying here. That's a great feeling of warm sunshine!

I will do my part to publicize the meeting once it has been set and help accommodate those who need help to attend if needed. I will invite as many people as possible and I hope we need a larger room and more cookies.

Good problems to have and good news for the public!

Fred

Manny,

I'll offer my view of answers for Kirra's questions. To be clear, these are just my view at this time and do not reflect anything else.

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)

As I read it, the proposal that the QCC is entertaining at this time essentially presumes that the land will be privatized and the mine will proceed eventually in a manner of the mining company's choosing.

Right now the mining method that has been discussed is some sort of block cave method that will result in the subsidence of those areas directly above and purportedly predictably near and around that area. Google "San Manuel subsidence" some time and click on some of the case studies for that area and others to give you an idea of what subsidence surfaces actually look like and form your own opinion of this phenomenon. (See also the Resolution web site for their latest description of what they may or may not plan for the area)

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)

The Mining Reform Act has not been included as part of this proposal. I will bring that into the discussions for you and get back to you.

NEPA has been discussed peripherally but it is not part of the proposal at this time. There is much concern in general from many in the community on this isse.

I will bring this up to the group at the next meeting and get back to you. By the way, a NEPA process, where the effects of an actual mining plan would be publicly reviewed would probably get you a higher confidence model in terms of the impact of that operation on the lands and region; or at least some so concerned with these big-picture economic, social, and environmental issues have asserted.

Good questions; wish I had better answers.

Fred

(I apologize for 3 consecutive posts; the various topics and time constraints have forced me to get to things at different times over the last few days.)

Erik,

Can you help with some things with respect to what you posted? I'm trying to form an opinion of what you have said and on your model that you have posed and some explanation would help.

ErikF wrote: 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.

Having been present at multiple meetings with Resolution where the block cave concept and its physical effects on the land were discussed, my understanding was that they would "sanitize" those important areas such as Apache Leap and their mine infrastructure such as the new shaft #10 or the old shaft #9 areas from any subsidence/movement/cracking to the best of their ability. I don't recall a guarantee that they would/could do that with absolute certainty though.

Also, I don't recall that they ever said or implied that they were going to ensure in a written, binding document that the surface generally above and adjacent to the ore area would only be allowed to subside what some have characterized as "a little."

Has there been a new development in writing where the mining company has promised to "minimize" surface disturbance? Maybe more importantly what does "minimize" mean? Minimize to some may mean "absence of" or "zero" subsidence. Is this what you're implying? If unwritten, in your mind, what does the promise to "minimize" subsidence really mean?

ErikF wrote: 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.

If the legislation and current mining proposals move forward as they stand now then what you've stated here directly above seems to be what most people can agree on.

ErikF wrote:I had some of my engineers model what 300 vertical feet of subsidence might look like across a subsidence zone one mile wide

(These questions are not meant to take issue with what you pose personally, but for those of us technically oriented, knowing the answers and explanations helps me form an informed opinion of the methods used by your engineers and model you have posed. I apologize for the technical nature of these questions ahead of time.)

• Are your engineers mining engineers?
• Are they versed in block cave methods and effects?
• Are they versed in the modern modeling methods for block caving?
• What sort of level of confidence do your engineers ascribe to your model?
• Are the engineers intimately familiar with the local geological make-up of the soils/rock layering in the Oak Flat area?
• What sort of assumptions, other than those listed, were used? Swell factor? Angles? Localized topographical characteristics? Euro Dog Valley, Atlantis Bouldering areas, and other impacted areas have relatively high relief. Has this been taken into account to draw the resulting surface and final configuration that your model implies?

Again, knowing some of these items helps me in deciding whether to accept or reject your proposed model as an adequate depiction of what would likely happen to Oak Flat and the surrounding public lands.

Fred

Hi folks,

Somewhat frustrating to me and everyone I'm sure is that neither we nor the mine nor anyone really knows what will happen to the land surface within the impact zone when you extract such large amounts of material from a mile beneath the surface. The model I presented was the "best case" situation for 300 vertical feet of subsidence, occuring primarily in the middle of the impact zone. It was not a statement of what was likely to occur, but simply a visual look at that "best case", i.e, the minimal impact. The various possible outcomes are somewhat interesting speculation based on whatever assumptions we start with. Unfortunately final answers may not occur even with RCM's feasibility study in hand 5 years from now and may only occur when all is said and done 40 or more years after the mining operation is concluded.

I agree with Fred that the most important element, and final conclusion without any demonstrable evidence otherwise, is that no matter the nature of the land surface above a block cave mine, MSHA and mining attorneys are never likely to allow rock climbing on rock crags or boulders within that potential zone of subsidence.

Kirra, always "discussions..."
Erik

kirra wrote:Erik ~I don't think we have to worry about contributors such as Toofast

(yawning, licking own butt)

-

ErikF wrote:..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 been opposed to the destruction of a precious recreational resource that is currently in public hands. Can we get that?

Erik, it's not really about wishing for *nice* things to happen or sitting back and hoping right now...

Congress only acts upon the direction of it's constituents and/or contributors. If the climbing community is not sending $$$ then we should be writing letters imo. It's o.k. to say, "No we will not allow this foreign mining company to destroy our public climbing land & environment in this way"

At the end of the last congressional hearing (link to video), it was comical to see the president of the mining company ignoring the chairman (several times) when he requested to see the mining plan, justa wee-bit arrogant eh ~(:

Erik, thanks for clarifying the issue without getting too many engineers involved. I think we all remember asking RCM for an alternative method of mining that would not cause subsidence and every time they returned with a strong negative. Our impact on their mining technique has essentially been: no impact.

The QCC's goal is limited to how much climbing we can save. It hurts to realize that we may lose Oak Flat and especially that we have little say in RCM's methods.

I am glad others are still holding the line and I feel we should too, but I have chosen the path agreed upon by QCC members: save what we can. Support the cause any way you feel necessary and you will be doing us all a favor.

Fred, since you and Kirra appear to be good friends as well, maybe you can keep her better informed about QCC?

No offense, Manny, I think Fred does enough to try to inform us all of what is going on...I wish the others in the QCC would step up. I know this is tedious but it's only you, Erik and Fred that say anything.
I have no idea why.

remember the #1 guideline....'Don't be a jerk!'

Manny,

Just a quick note; I have some other thoughts too that I hope to get to soon on some other things brought up recently.

Like Linda, no offense, but nobody should have to rely on "friends" to get information on what the QCC is doing if the group really purports to be acting for the greater public's interest.

Just my personal opinion of course and not meant to be anything other than that.

Fred

Kirra- mostly I have heard the phrase "save as much climbing as possible" in my involvement with the QCC. To me, that's what the whole letter of understanding posted on the QCC website is about.

In my opinion, this is a prime time to continue work with RCC on the letter of understanding. If the legislation were to go through prior to the completion of these negotiations, it seems that RCC would have no incentive to continue working with us, and we could be left with nothing.

This is an EXECUTIVE ORDER... has anyone found anything on an Executive Order on Public Land being overturned, yet?

I still have a tough time with the whole....'give up for fight and start making a deal with Big Co.'

Where are the others in the group that mentioned, 'This deal won't go through!' Come on guys, I know there are approx half of the group. The whole 'Save Oak Flat'-ers.

I've seen you on here....
Back to writing more letters...

Hey Gier, can you forward me the letter you've sent lately, as of late and/or the responses you've gotten.

Lidna

Linda White wrote:Hey Gier, can you forward me the letter you've sent lately, as of late and/or the responses you've gotten. Lidna

will do. i'm out of town for a few days but will get it to ya asap.

I really should learn how to spell my own name, eh?

lmao

Thanks Geir!

Hope your having fun Manny!!!!

Greg, Marty, Curt, Paul.....I know your out there.

Back to writing Obama-Rama...

Geir Hundal wrote:"save as much climbing as possible" in my involvement with the QCC. To me, that's what the whole letter of understanding posted on the QCC website is about.

Geir,

Just want to clarify what document/concept you're referring to. Are you referring to the "letter of understanding" on the QCC website here: LOU vs. RCM Offer comparison? The "letter of understanding" listed there is a short-hand version of what is known as the QCC's "Statement of Understanding;" what the QCC has determined (so far) that the climbing community wants, as detailed here: SOU. I don't know why there's a difference in the title; I'm not the author of the document that refers to the LOU.

Anyway, both contain non-subsidence as the #1 stated goal. In a practical sense this one goal item, if accomplished, would probably "Save Oak Flat" (SOF).

I'm wondering if you aren't referring to the "Response" portion of the LOU vs. RCM Response? This "Response" side is the QCC's somewhat current take on a "deal" that seems to be more in alignment with "save as much climbing as possible" (SAMCAP) as you describe?

I apologize for the detailed question, but the difference is significant in many respects (SOF vs. SAMCAP) and I want to make sure I adequately understand what you're referring to.

Fred

Stae Strong wrote:You are both doing what you think is in the best interest of the climbing community. After reading the QCC Meeting Minutes, it is good to see the committee outlining a plan of action (if not, a strong call to action).

you may have missed the point - there is no strong call to action right now

isn't the best interest of the climbing community to keep as much climbing as possible..? How is that accomplished if the QCC & the AMC let RCM sink OF & QC into a giant hole of acronyms

Good discussion. (personal views follow)

Knowing that we don’t want to give away certain details of our strategy “publicly” in a way that can benefit our Opponents, my intent is to share my thoughts in a general way that would fit a lot of situations while also listening very carefully to the input from everyone. And while most of what is being expressed has been aired and discussed within the QCC, and within the constraints of not showing our hole cards, imo, that is a good thing with these discussions making sure that all ideas are heard and no stone unturned.

Imo, many of the actions and positions stated herein are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In WWII, Eisenhower let Patton keep on the pressure even while knowing that peace talks were underway. It ensured that the enemy would not renege and it ensured the outcome. The Pacific theatre was a whole different story with the war ending because of the atomic bomb. It is unlikely that climbers will have a weapon of that magnitude to decisively end the matter without negotiations.

To switch analogies away from war to another public policy and decision making body, I happen to have been elected to the Planning Commission in the City of Scottsdale. It has been very interesting to sit in a role somewhat analogous to that of Congress (I’ll admit huge differences in scale and scope.) Our governing documents are the City Charter, Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan (plus any other City or State Land Use Regulation). We interpret those documents as they apply to cases, and we “change the law” by recommending changes to the language of those documents.

An applicant comes before us wanting X. They hire attorneys and teams of consultants to present their “case.” Because they want to change the status quo, inevitably a member of the “public” weighs in. Some cases generate a ton of letters, emails and phone calls. Usually the more contentious cases are not settled at one hearing, but may string out over a longer period of time.

It is interesting to watch the process unfold and I find that the cases often fit into a pattern. The applicant initially wants X, but the more successful applicants try to approach and work with their opposition. The applicant modifies X to be X+. At that point the opponents fall into two camps – those that sit down and work with the applicant, and those that say “no way.” The applicant further works with the opposition groups through several iterations which ends up as X++.

The outcomes across cases seem to further fall into two categories – in the unusual situation where there is an extremely large and almost unanimous vocal opposition, the applicant’s case fails, or they have to go back to the drawing board and choose a different tactic (they almost never go away).

In the other situation the opposition itself tends to split into different camps (often along lines of specific interests – a user group vs. nearby homeowners for example), the applicant works with the group willing to do trade-offs and that group usually gets most of its “wants” addressed. The hold-out opposition often gets nothing.

For us climbers, Save Oak Flat, is one goal, and not only a good battle cry, but as Manny has stated, where most of our hearts lay. Getting the most net rock climbing is another very worthy goal to consider. By willing to consider alternatives does not mean that folks are “giving in”. They may simply be reading the ‘cards’ in a way that that course of action is the realistic one.

Until the QCC works through negotiations with RCM and climbers all around have a say, like Patton, we should not give in and if necessary take the fight to the end.

Erik

Another push for the mine, from a high tech jobs standpoint this time:

bizjournals.com/phoenix/sto…

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote:Another push for the mine, from a high tech jobs standpoint this time: bizjournals.com/phoenix/sto… Fred

One reader left a great comment at the bottom of that article. Hopefully more of the public's eye will see, read, and act on it!