Oak Flat News

Sara88 wrote:Hi, I am new to this sport and am looking for areas near the city of queen creek for beginning bouldering. Is there ever a time when people meet up at QCC or other areas close by to climb together? I would love for my kids and I to grow in this sport! THANK YOU!

Sara, I sent you a personal message on here.
Welcome to the vertical world.

Linda

I found the 'STATEMENT OF Mary Wagner' (ASSOCIATE CHIEF US FOREST SERVICE) very interesting. Pages 3-5

The STATEMENT OF Marcilynn Burkef (Deputy Director Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior) Pages 2-3

All of 'Roger Featherstone' (Director Arizona Mining Reform Coalition) I count climbing mentioned 4 times in his statement.

Looks like this is not over....
Thanks to all who faxed and emailed letters!

AZ Central 6-15-11

So, the USFS and the BLM, the Oak Flat land managers that are involved, do not support the legislation as it is written for broad, principled reasons.

Also, see Roger Featherstone's revelation about the possibility of waste product being stowed on lands not too far from Gold Canyon, the Superstition Wilderness area, and the future Superstition Vistas development (near the curve at Florence Junction as US 60 swings east toward Superior). They have a rail line that could easily spur off to dump waste onto State Trust lands, or so it has evidently been proposed?

Wow, imagine the view from the kitchen windows of all the retirees, the dust on the elevated tee boxes at the area golf courses and the impact on the view from the tops of the ridges in the Superstition Wilderness Area.

Interesting indeed.

In their own words and in plain public view:

Mary Wagner
Associate Chief
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture

"[T]he Department [of Agriculture] cannot support the Bill as written . . . [t]he principal concern is that the Bill would require the agency to prepare an environmental review document under NEPA after the land exchange is completed.

Statement of
Marcilynn Burke
Deputy Director
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior

"The Department [of the Interior] has several concerns with the bill and cannot support the bill as written.

Written Testimony of Roger Featherstone
Director
Arizona Mining Reform Coalition

"[N]ew information is pointing to a Rio Tinto plan to move ore and waste from their proposed mine out under Apache Leap through an existing tunnel, and perhaps new tunnels, through the town of Superior and then disposing of the tailings to the west near the proposed Superstition Vistas housing development.

He continues and points out that the recreational impact on the economy is not small (that's us climbers, hikers, campers, birders, bikers, etc.)

"A recent report on the economic value to Arizona from human-powered recreation (birding, climbing, hiking, etc.) shows that human-powered recreation in Arizona provides more than 86,000 annual jobs and provides 12 percent of Arizona's retail economy. It also shows that more than 1 out of 4 Arizonans climb, hike or canyoneer.

Here's a link to the report he references: accessfund.org/site/apps/nl…¬oc=1

A relevant excerpt:

"[The] study . . . shows that more than 87,000 Arizona jobs and $371 million in state tax revenues are supported by “human-powered recreation” such as climbing, hiking, mountain biking and camping.

Fred

Silver Belt
Apparently all this great recreation money has forgotten the people of Superior and San Carlos. 80% poverty and 70% unemployment in San Carlos, 15% in Pinal County. Maybe mining and "human powered" recreation are not mutually exclusive. Tamo is a great place to climb, even if you can see Ray mine and the tailings.

Ben Beard wrote: Maybe mining and "human powered" recreation are not mutually exclusive. Tamo is a great place to climb, even if you can see Ray mine and the tailings.

Ben,

The unemployment issue is a very bad one, no doubt, and has been for many generations; mines or no mines.

I agree with you, as history has shown, recreational activities can take place at Oak Flat alongside and above active mining operations.

Unfortunately, in my view, the current proposal does not respect the coexistence of a majority of the historical stakeholders, as the USFS, BLM, Native American, and environmental advocates have pointed out in their testimony.

Also, to me, there is a difference between occasional recreational visitors to Tamo looking out over the vestigial waste piles and pits near Winkelman or Ray and proposing that homeowners on the edge of the Valley of the Sun who now either look out over open desert or other residences embrace the possibility of square miles of new mining waste piles towering in the not too far distance?

If you do the math and take the words of Mayor Hing to heart, he suggests that "copper concentrate" can easily be shipped from Superior by rail; you have to ask yourself just how much "non" concentrate goes to those waste piles? After all, approximately 98% of the ore body will be waste, so eventually only about 2% becomes marketable product. In the past, the waste pile has been characterized as being of the order of Picketpost Mountain just west of Superior. (See Hing's testimony, item #3 discussing the rail line: naturalresources.house.gov/…)

Potentially some or all of this may be done without public oversight given the rather complicated and perhaps lacking NEPA provisions in the bill?

I read Roger Featherstone's point to be that by taking the land private and by working with the cooperation of a very willing state administration, local communities, and organizations that are desperate for the possibility of tax revenue, jobs, cash to administer, etc., that the mining company may be able to circumvent our evolving environmental protocols; and this would be bad for the greater community.

Just my reading of course.

Fred

Ben Beard wrote: Silver Belt

Ted Lake the writer of the article fits well into the category of "tourist journalist". His articles always manage to reflect the interests of RCM rather than exploring the issues and concerns of all stakeholders. His past articles on Apaches are downright insulting IMO.

Interesting as well is that in his article he leaves out the contrary opinions of the land managers from the FS and BLM.

BGBingham wrote: Ted Lake the writer of the article fits well into the category of "tourist journalist". His articles always manage to reflect the interests of RCM rather than exploring the issues and concerns of all stakeholders. His past articles on Apaches are downright insulting IMO. Interesting as well is that in his article he leaves out the contrary opinions of the land managers from the FS and BLM.

Actually he does quote the position the USFS, from Mary Wagner, concerning the land exchange. He also quotes Roger Featherstone. As the headline reads, the main story for the first half of the article is about a San Carlos former tribal leader in support of RCM. But I am sure you can think of some way to slander that guy too.

Ben,

I stand corrected on his mention of Wagner.

Lake's reporting seems to take a consistent position that economic concerns and predictions as described by RCM trump all other concerns. I would wager he wouldn't disagree. At least it isn't reflected in his writing. That isn't slander. It is an observation.

For instance. A good reporter would note that RCM describes, on their website, how they have been banking CAP water. Here is the quote:

RCM wrote:Each year, we purchase enough water to meet approximately two to three years' worth of mining production requirements. Total water purchased and banked for 2006, 2007 and 2008 was approximately 120,000 acre feet. An additional 94,500 acre-feet are being purchased in 2009. (An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.) This equates to nearly five years of mining production requirements.

So lets see. The first sentence says that each year they acquire two to three years worth of water. Then they describe four years worth of doing so and then brag on having gotten "nearly" five years worth (not the 8 to 12 years the first sentence implies). This is basic math done wrong.

Lake spreads this happy tale with this bit of reporting:

Lake wrote:I am pleased to hear that Resolution Copper has been banking water and will have secured the entire water supply for the life of the project before the first ounce of copper comes out of the ground,remarked Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn who appeared before the subcommittee. Additionally, Resolution Copper has already spent literally millions of dollars on water studies in the area to date. These studies have indicated that there will be no impact on the water supply of Superior, Globe-Miami, San Carlos or any other community. It is because of this that I am certain that the future of the regional water supply is secure, Martyn said.

No problem! BTW, Using basic math you can calculate from RCM's quote above that the mine water usage will be equivalent to that of the city of Tempe, or 38 million gallons per day.

RCM J. Cherry must be proud of his recent efforts to exploit one of the Apache against their own. Apparently Harrison Talgo is no stranger to flipping sides for personal gain

In a story about Mt. Graham ~Whole Earth No. 91, W'1997

..."Tribal Chairman Harrison Talgo ran for office defending the sacredness of Mt. Graham, then lost his re-election. Disappointed, he accepted a University offer to become a crew foreman at the telescope site. The University had another Apache who proclaimed that "sacredness" was passé, an obsolete fossil of pre-modern Apaches..."

BGBingham wrote:Ben, I stand corrected on his mention of Wagner. Lake's reporting seems to take a consistent position that economic concerns and predictions as described by RCM trump all other concerns. I would wager he wouldn't disagree. At least it isn't reflected in his writing. That isn't slander. It is an observation. For instance. A good reporter would note that RCM describes, on their website, how they have been banking CAP water. Here is the quote: So lets see. The first sentence says that each year they acquire two to three years worth of water. Then they describe four years worth of doing so and then brag on having gotten "nearly" five years worth. This is basic math done wrong. Lake spreads this happy tale with this bit of reporting: No problem! BTW, Using basic math you can calculate from RCM's quote above that the mine water usage will be equivalent to that of the city of Tempe, or 38 million gallons per day.

You might be reading it wrong or doing the wrong math. The statement ("brag") about obtaining 5 years worth of water is for the purchase in 2009 of 94500 acre/ft of water, not for the 4 year total.

According to the statements: 120,000 acre-ft over 3 years is 40,000 acre-ft per year. 40,000 acre-ft is roughly 2 or 3 years of use during production, meaning water usage per year production is ranging from 13,333 to 20,000 acre-ft. Thus the statement that 5 production years of water (94500 acre-ft) was purchased in 2009.

Ben Beard wrote:The statement ("brag") about obtaining 5 years worth of water is for the purchase in 2009 of 94500 acre/ft of water, not for the 4 year total.

Are you asserting this to be a true statement? If my math is wrong then their grammar is horrible.

Ben? You there? You're in the industry. I seriously doubt your assertion.

RCM wrote:Because excess CAP water will not always be available for purchase, Resolution Copper is also exploring additional long-term sources of sustainable water to meet the long-term needs of operations.

The above follows my previous RCM quote. If they are getting five years worth of water in a one year effort then how come they are looking for other sources of water? Even more importantly, in the land of drought, why is the Federal government even considering giveaway actions if basic information such as: Where is the water coming from? Or, Where will the considerable tailings be placed? Or, How can a project be described as "sustainable", when it creates a mile long plus hole in the ground that is projected to be 850 feet deep?

I wonder how much money Talgo has in his bank account right now?
Just saying that this Mine has a way to throwing money around...getting folks to separate from their original stance.
It is unfortunate....
It has even touched our climbing community in that way. (not going into details. Those who know, know...)

Lindajft wrote:I wonder how much money Talgo has in his bank account right now? Just saying that this Mine has a way to throwing money around...getting folks to separate from their original stance. It is unfortunate.... It has even touched our climbing community in that way. (not going into details. Those who know, know...)

Everyone must be in the mine's pocket, even a tribal elder who speaks his own mind and brings up the poor condition of the San Carlos tribe.

Equal Access to Justice
Looks like some groups are going to have to start fundraising.

Ben Beard wrote: Everyone must be in the mine's pocket, even a tribal elder who speaks his own mind and brings up the poor condition of the San Carlos tribe.

I'm not pointing fingers. I just don't get how folks start out strong on one stance and then change in the middle of the mission. Maybe he found he was proved wrong on something, I don't know. It's just hard to understand after all the voices of the Apache Nation have been united in their stance. Makes me wonder...

Lindajft wrote:I wonder how much money Talgo has in his bank account right now?

+1 -and where was his opinion during the time Tribal Chairman Nosie testified in D.C.

Ben Beard wrote:Everyone must be in the mine's pocket, even a tribal elder who speaks his own mind and brings up the poor condition of the San Carlos tribe.

this mining company bought the Town of Superior with FREE HOT DOG PICNICS. Just for the record, the tribal elders of the San Carlos have historically always been against this land trade. Does being "old" automatically qualify one as a tribal elder -would accepting bribes eliminate that respectful title ?

The San Carlos Apache are still very much against this land exchange...

'San Carlos Apache Tribe voices opposition at United Nations' -June 8

'New San Carlos Chairman aggressively campaigns to stop Resolution' -June 20

.."The campaign to stop the 1,400-employee Resolution mine project continued on April 15 when Rambler along with Vice Chairman Dr. Bush appeared at a meeting of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona in Phoenix. This group represents 20 of the Native American Tribes in Arizona.

In speaking to the leaders of the other Indian Tribes, Rambler said he appreciated their past support in standing against any legislation that would transfer Oak Flat to Foreign Mining Companies. "I ask for your continued support. The integrity of our culture and our beliefs as Apache people," he said.

It was earlier this month on May 4 when Chairman of the San Carlos Apaches announced publicly to the people of San Carlos that their tribal council has passed another resolution re affirming its opposition to large scale mining proposed by Rio Tinto's Resolution in the Oak Flat vicinity and the opposition to the land exchange with the U.S. Forest service which would allow this mining operation..."

Ben Beard wrote: Everyone must be in the mine's pocket . . . Looks like some groups are going to have to start fundraising.

Ben,

In some very specific cases with respect to the land exchange issue, these two have the appearance to approximate being often in fact one and the same:

• The Town of Superior has an MOU in place that was modified earlier this year/late last year after the other one expired at the end of last year. Generally, it allows for an annual cash payment to the Town along with some other goodies in exchange for their continued support and cooperation on the mining operation. Mayor Hing's efforts are clearly in line with the MOU. (see J. Johnson's article as referenced below for his view on the support)
• Also as reported by Ms. Johnson's reporting per Cronkite News related to the Audobon Arizona and The Nature Conservancy's postion on the sidelines: (source: cronkitenewsonline.com/2010… )

"Resolution Copper purchased and made part of the proposed exchange family-owned grassland in southern Arizona and mesquite forest near San Manuel that Audubon Arizona and The Nature Conservancy, among others, want to preserve. Both groups have taken no stand either way on the land exchange, drawing the ire of some other conservation organizations.

• The Superstition Area Land Trust took money from Resolution a few years ago (Oct. 2008) and shortly thereafter (June 2009) testified before congress on behalf of Resolution ( see resolutioncopper.com/res/me… and ajnews.com/vol12/102008/ )

"On Tuesday, October 14, [2008] Resolution Copper presented a $2,500 check to SALT, which will complement the five miles of trail already constructed by SALT volunteers.

There are others that are publicly known, unknown, or in continued negotiations who can essentially be viewed as being in the mine company's pocket and giving their support or silence. Certainly, there are practical, pragmatic, personal, corporate, or otherwise, reasons for taking cash, a job, management deals, or other deals where cash or other benefits are involved. Regardless of your philosophical underpinnings or your group's mission/purpose, shouldn't you seek to trade your voice for something if you feel you really have no power to change the outcome?

None of this is to suggest of course that there is anything illegal or surreptitious going on of course, it all makes perfect pragmatic sense; get something or get nothing. It's an old strategy that has a well documented history.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote:shouldn't you seek to trade your voice for something if you feel you really have no power to change the outcome? ...it all makes *perfect pragmatic sense; get something or get nothing.

Fred -couldn't the question also be...(if one feels they have no power to change the outcome) --Should you seek to trade your voice for something, if the outcome led to a negative effect upon others in your community?

*note- intelligence doesn't necessarily preclude pragmatical behavior

kirra wrote: Fred -couldn't the question also be...(if one feels they have no power to change the outcome) --Should you seek to trade your voice for something, if the outcome led to a negative effect upon others in your community? *note- intelligence doesn't necessarily preclude pragmatical behavior

Kirra,

If by "you," it's meant a group that asserts that it represents a greater, larger community, it all depends on the motives and personalities of the group's leadership and where they land in the spectrum from command/control/dominate to listen/collaborate/lead.

If one emphasizes majority rule at the expense of a minority simply because it legally can, then it certainly follows that the negative effect on a portion of the larger community is probably viewed as simply manageable collateral damage and is an acceptable price to pay for obtaining those things that the simple majority wants to get.

As to intelligence (being smart as we all commonly hold this to be), I don't think there's a lack of any of that on any side of this issue. I guess in many ways I've always figured that the differences were more between smart/legal and wise/principled and I'm not sure how to assess which is which sometimes; though the differences are clear at times. Only time will tell which decisions and paths are/were the more beneficial to the greater community of course.

Just my personal view.

Fred