Queen Creek needs your Help (again)

***REQUEST CALL TO ACTION***
====================================

Regardless of political affiliation in this debate...

--Queen Creek & Oak Flat-- YOUR PUBLIC climbing land, need your help NOW..! (:

Once again (just like last yr) we're headed into a 'Lame Duck' session of Congress where all things that didn't get passed this year, get a chance to pass without your knowledge more info -link:

YOUR Letter to your Congress, especially to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Senator Jeff Bingaman -helps to show that you are paying attention and will hold them accountable for their actions

The Sierra Club has issued a *Special Request* to ALL interested parties alerting that this could occur. It is up to the remaining 'concerned climbers' and 'friends' to help preserve our Climbing area for ourselves & future generations

Quoted from Sierra Club link:..."Please support a clean 2010 Omnibus Public Lands Bill Package when it is introduced; please oppose the inclusion of provisions regarding SeAlaska, Resolution Copper, and S1470 the Forest Recreation Act....We need the Senator's support for a clean Omnibus Public Lands Bill Package right now"...

Exerpt from Bon Witzeman's 'Wren-dition' Pg.12 'Oak Flat under Attack' ..."Now RCC is claiming that under newly proposed draft legislation RCC may, perhaps do NEPA --well, sort of NEPA! However, once they have been given title to the USFS land by Congress, RCC can thumb their nose at fulfilling the requirements of those “pesky” USFS/NEPA Impact Statements. Nor would RCC have to post bonds for clean-up upon mine closure or pay any royalties to Uncle Sam like U.S. coal, oil and gas industries"

For those *new* to this topic -sample info here and at AZ Mining Reform

Details of some general concerns of current legislation:
Problems with S.409

Thanks in advance to all for your time & consideration
Respectful regards, Kirra

====================================

Senator Jeff Bingaman
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
ph:(202) 224-5521 fax:(202)224-2852
email: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Senator Hary Reid
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
ph:(202)224-3542 fax:(202)224-7327
-email form-
also: senator_reid@reid.senate.gov

============== Queen Creek needs your Support ================

Will send. Thanks for info.

Done, but the first email link does not work.

Richard

Kirra,

Thanks for the info.

The link to Sen. Bingaman doesn't seem to work?

Fred

Thanks Kirra for keeping up on this issue.

kirra, wouldn't the land exchange actually "preserve our Climbing areas" in Queen Creek? The Ponds area is apart of the land exchange, right? As far as I know, The Ponds and Atlantis are both private land, so in reality access could be lost very easily. Other areas near Oak Flats are on private land, and access could be lost immediately, but the land exchange assures longer access. Including Queen Creek in this call to action is misinformation. It is not "your public climbing land".

Explain to me how we were in a lame duck session last year?

If you read the HR 4880 bill, a NEPA must be performed. Please explain how they are going to "thumb their nose" at the requirement of the bill?

@ Ben: Right, the Pond and Atlantis (near the highway) are privately owned by RCM. So are other parcels throughout the Queen Creek area. Atlantis will not be transfered to public ownership by the swap. The Pond may be transfered to the Nat'l Forest. RCM does currently allow climbing at both areas. It also allows entry to the Mine area, Eurodog and we can pass by their rigs to Lower Devil's Canyon. Given their numerous promises, I bet we can trust them to keep their word.

Oh. Maybe not.

What will happen is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas will be closed to public access forever shortly after mining operations begin. I don't call that preserving climbing.

Neither do I want to lose access to Devil's Canyon or Apache Leap, both of which may have the access roads closed due to mining operations. Maybe that's what you refer to as preserving climbing: closing access roads so we don't wear down the rock?

I want everything that RCM has promised us in writing on the legislation. Otherwise, we can kiss it all away.

Ben Beard wrote:wouldn't the land exchange actually "preserve our Climbing areas" in Queen Creek? The Ponds area is apart of the land exchange, right?

There are around 1-2,000 climbs that have a high likelihood to disappear over time (the long view) in and around the Oak Flat area (2,400 acres) as the mine develops as proposed in SB 409 as amended (HR 4880 is not the document for the land exchange since it never made it to a hearing for the amending process in the House like SB 409 did in the Senate)

The areas impacted for sure include Euro Dog Canyon, Yakov Wall, Atlantis I & II, Davy Jones Locker, Shark Wall, Guppy Wall, Bingham Land, The Maze, etc. The areas at risk comprise some 50-80% or so of the recreational climbing resource in the area, not to mention the removal of any sort of camping lands. (See the mining company's maps on their website for the various subsidence and fracture zones to assess for yourself)

Ben Beard wrote:As far as I know, The Ponds and Atlantis are both private land, so in reality access could be lost very easily.

Yes, The Pond climbing area and its dozens of climbs are on private land. The public has been accessing the area continuously for generations with no restrictions.

Same goes for Atlantis in terms of access, but it will not be turned over to the public because the mining company has a large tunnel beneath that area.

The Pond and Atlantis represent a small fraction of the climbing in the Oak Flat area, about 5-10% of the climbing resource in the area.

Ben Beard wrote:Other areas near Oak Flats are on private land

What other areas are on private land near Oak Flat?

Based on my maps and experience, outside of relatively unthreatened Queen Creek Canyon, the climbing is on either Federal Forest Service or State Trust Lands (Lower Devils/Gaan).

Ben Beard wrote:Including Queen Creek in this call to action is misinformation. It is not "your public climbing land".

Misinformation? The Call To Action was from the Sierra Club for principled reasons based on my reading of their stand over time.

Certainly The Pond is not owned by you as a citizen, but the Federal Lands are held and managed in part for your recreational use and you are explicitly given the right to be involved per the NEPA process. Why would you not consider your public lands yours?

Personally, I'm concerned that the shortened NEPA process stipulated in S409 may create another environmental legacy as is so well known in Arizona and other states from the time when environmental laws weren't in place. It's a bit unnerving to see steps being taken backwards for a massive mining proposal like this.

Ben Beard wrote:If you read the HR 4880 bill, a NEPA must be performed. Please explain how they are going to "thumb their nose" at the requirement of the bill?

Just a reminder, HR 4880 is not the correct legislation, S409 as amended is. Certainly, S409 refers to "NEPA," but then goes on to take exceptions to the general, evolved law.

Here are 3 examples of how S409 shortchanges your NEPA protocols from what I understand. There are many other objections based on both the legislation and on larger societal and cultural issues too, but since you have addressed the specific NEPA issues:

• S409 stipulates a shortcut 3 year NEPA process. NEPA processes are usually not specifically time limited. [Sec. 3i1] They take the time they take because they are essentially processes of discovery, public input, consideration of the impacts based on larger societal issues, etc. As an example of how long things can take, it took almost 2 years just to get through the process for the new expanded drilling out near Oak Flat, and this only disturbed a few dozen acres. The mine will disturb up to square miles of land . . . and only 3 years for all the documentation, studies, communications, etc. to take place? Even it if isn't too little time, it seems unwise to make such a huge and precedent setting endeavor in a closed-ended process, at least to me.
• S409 references a single NEPA generated document for ALL decisions related to the land exchange.[Sec. 3b2A] From what I am told, there are often and usually many documents used for decision making purposes in such instances.
• S409 specifically allows and encourages prior NEPA studies conducted outside the scope of the massive mine proposal be used in place of new studies with the larger scope in mind.[Sec. 3b2B]

These are just 3 that come to mind quickly, and one may not be as important or clear as the other, but they still take exception to the usual way things are done.

More than likely, environmental groups would prefer that these types of shortcuts be eliminated and a more conventional NEPA process be stipulated for such a huge and impacting proposal.

Fred

Thanks Fred and Manny, I just wanted to keep it factual, and thanks for the facts.

I might argue that Atlantis and the Pond sees more traffic than could be interpreted from the % of overall climbs in the area.

sincere thanks to everyone -'special for the guys pitching in to elaborate on the factual details for Ben

mucho appreciato (;

email address link repaired =now text only (copy & paste in em-address window)

I still support TOTAL OPPOSITION to this land exchange.

It is fundamentally wrong and against the initial reasons why this land is protected. Every step of the way these deals stink of back door deals, foreign influence and proliferation of OUR special land, circumnavigating environment protections/laws and McCain/other Congressmen being influenced by lobbyists.

SAVE QUEEN CREEK FROM BIG BUSINESS AND FOREIGN INTERESTS!!

Ben, gotta agree that the Pond and Atlantis seems to get more traffic. Maybe its the easy highway access? I see people all around the Queen Creek area but that may be due to my personal observation and my penchant for finding the hidden gems.

If all we have left is the pond and Atlantis I can see just how crowded and.abused this will become. You can forget about solitude, adventure and a relatively unspoiled landscape to enjoy.

Well, it depends on what your definition of traffic is. Oak Flat may be the most well developed winter bouldering area in the United States, except for Hueco Tanks and the Buttermilks--and neither of those places have been the perennial site of the world's largest climbing contest. The real shame is that a new mine could be constructed at Oak Flat to coexist with both recreational and native American interests--if only there was a will to do so.

Curt

Ben Beard wrote:I might argue that Atlantis and the Pond sees more traffic than could be interpreted from the % of overall climbs in the area.

Ben,

It's difficult to say on that point which area actually receives the greatest actual usage or if that's really the best way to judge an area for overall advocacy.

Undoubtably, The Pond is popular with sport climbers who like convenience, can get their dogs up there, or who may not mind taking their children up into the steep drop off areas. Atlantis is also popular for its convenience, shady walls, the occasional sound of flowing water, etc. Of course, neither of these places is at risk for being permanently destroyed like the Oak Flat Withdrawal areas and neither areas is real conducive for the beginning climber or the boulderer.

In recent weeks, I've seen many cars from around the US along the Magma Mine Road at the Campground Boulder Access point and across the road for Euro Dog and the bouldering/climbing areas up the canyon on the Oak Flat Withdrawal area (Atlantis I/II/Shark's Wall/Guppy Wall/Davy Jones locker areas). Not to mention, the Yakov Wall in the upper reach of Euro Dog has been busy too.

Euro Dog is somewhat nice for people with children and dogs for the pools of water and flowing stream after rains and the lower cave-like areas that can be played in. It's relatively safe for the dogs and kids compared to The Pond.

I've also found the parking area at The Mine Area overflowing with cars and many climbers at Lower/Upper Looner Land/Magma Gardens, etc. Again, both are popular with many different types of climbers and is a nice, safe, and interesting place for families with children. The easier climbs make for great beginner experiences as compared to either The Pond or Atlantis.

I've also seen a few people at Bingham Land on the actual withdrawal parcel of late and down at Lower Gaan/Devils (not to mention Upper Gaan/Devils) [Gaan is the name of the canyon for the San Carlos Tribe]

That's what's nice and so unique with the Oak Flat Withdrawal area in general, lots of variety for many different types and levels of climbing.

It's a rare and truly irreplaceable area. It would be a real loss for the overall climbing community if it gets mined and eventually shut off the way they currently propose to do it.

Fred

FYI here is a copy of the latest

-OMNIBUS SENATE BILL- *DRAFT*

*fast forward to page 241

As always, thank you Kirra & Everyone else

Please continue the good fight on this issue. It's a long, worn issue but it is still alive, we need to keep up the good fight.

Save Oak flat
Linda

"Nor would RCC have to ... pay any royalties to Uncle Sam like U.S. coal, oil and gas industries."

This is an extremely misleading statement. Under the 1872 Mining Law, metals mines have never had to pay royalties. Metal mining is a very different business than coal mining or oil production. The issue of whether or not RCC or any other mining company pays royalties has nothing to do with the land exchange being debated under this piece of legislation.

Leave it to the Sierra Club and their compatriots to bring it up...

You guys can keep fighting to stop the mine but I'm glad the QCC is still working to get us something in return if you fail. I hope the increased activity out there and this legislative activity will make people see the need to support QCC too or we will get nothing in return if and when this mine happens.

Dave Loring wrote:"The issue of whether or not RCC or any other mining company pays royalties has nothing to do with the land exchange being debated under this piece of legislation.

Sure it does. Mining companies have practices that don't make sense with respect to the mining law (such as lode claims over disseminated copper porphyry deposits) and now RCM wants special treatment to circumvent the intent of the mining law (proving economic feasibility to gain patent).

Seems to me that this sort of stuff shows that the mining law is truly antiquated and needs revision including discussion of royalties.

B

CJD wrote:You guys can keep fighting to stop the mine but I'm glad the QCC is still working to get us something in return if you fail. I hope the increased activity out there and this legislative activity will make people see the need to support QCC too or we will get nothing in return if and when this mine happens.

Hahaha. From the great giver in the sky - RCM? Do you shuffle your feet in their presence?

B

CDJ-
The QCC does not want any support or care of support from the public, they are incorporated and do their dealing behind closed door. As a result of endorsing the mine, they do not represent the climbing community.

Sorry buddy, they folded in my eyes.

There are more issues out there than just saving a few climbs. (As you know.)