Mountain Project Logo

Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

Original Post
Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Below is the latest letter to congress from the queen creek coalition on the new legislation to privatize Oak Flat. (SB 409, HR 2509)

Essentially, the qcc states that it cannot endorse legislation that is going to destroy the surface of Oak Flat by the mining company and that any compensation outside of the legislation that might be forthcoming should not require such an endorsement.

A big difference between the new and old legislation for climbers is that Tamo (the "State climbing park") was removed due to a deadlock between the State and the mining company (Resolution).

In its place, The Pond climbing area parcel will be turned over to the public and several other areas are targeted for eventual development/improvement for access to climbing. Money is designated for infrastructure such as roads, trails, etc., at the Pond, Inconceivables, and chill hill (the latter 2 areas are just South of Superior on the west side of the highway-long hikes/rough roads at this time). Also, Apache Leap is set aside and left in the public's hands, though better legal/perpetual public access to it is not provided for in the legislation.

Any one with any concerns or thoughts is encouraged to voice them in writing to your congressman/woman, the appropriate subcommittee, and to the qcc (web address below).

Again, the bills are SB 409 and HR 2509. Note: The "list of the concerns" mentioned in this letter is the qcc's Statement of Understanding that is on the qcc website, queencreekcoalition.com.

Fred

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


Queen Creek Coalition
Board of Directors
May 28, 2009

Statement of Current Position with Regard to Oak Flat (re: S. 409 and H.R. 2509)

A little over a year ago members of the Arizona rock climbing community formed the Queen Creek Coalition (QCC) to look after climber interests with regard to the proposed exchange of federal recreation land for other lands of significant ecological value by Resolution Copper Mining, LLC (Resolution), a joint venture owned by Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, as they move forward with mining operations on a large copper ore deposit near and potentially under what is referred to as “Oak Flat.” The land exchange and mining operations would potentially destroy climbing areas or eliminate access to the rock climbing in the area.

Last fall, QCC presented to Resolution a list of the concerns of the rock climbing community and laid the basis for points, which, if agreed to, might alleviate those concerns. Resolution representatives have presented draft responses and proposals designed to address these concerns. In many cases the concerns have been addressed straightforwardly, but in other cases Resolution advised QCC that the rock climbers’ concerns could not be alleviated; most significantly, maintaining the surface and ecology of the land above the mine.

The last version of an offer from Resolution could be characterized as having two components: 1) a set of responses to rock climbing concerns that would be placed in the legislation; and 2) additional regional rock climbing access and opportunities reflecting the present and future co-existence of copper mining and rock climbing in the region. Resolution maintained that it was willing to offer the latter only if QCC signed a letter endorsing the land exchange legislation.

While Resolution has made serious and what appear to be good faith efforts to work out a reasonable compromise that is responsive to the rock climbers’ concerns about the land exchange legislation and proposed mine, QCC, on behalf of the rock climbing community, is not prepared to endorse legislation which authorizes the transfer, and makes possible the eventual destruction, of the unique resource that is Oak Flat. QCC believes that Resolution should furnish to the climbing community the elements offered by Resolution in their last draft without requiring QCC to endorse the land exchange (or any legislation contemplating such exchange).”
kirra · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 530

The Access Fund announced today additional details in their June E-News #104 -referred article linked-

...as mentioned, here is the location to the Subcommittee Hearing

fyi~ there may be a *live* webcast of this event at 2:30 EST. Letters of concern should be faxed to representatives no later than tomorrow before lunch ~

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

The subcommitte hearing time has been changed to 1:30 pm Eastern (10:30 am Arizona time). Still tomorrow, June 17th.

Fred

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

I apologize for replying to my own post.

Here's the web address to the archived Senate Hearing Webcast where testimony was provided for and against SB 409 yesterday, June 17th. This bill is the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and conservation Act of 2009 that has part of it the privatization of Oak Flat and much of the climbing in that area for use in a new copper mine.

Not as fun as the latest climbing video clip, but not as dry as you'd think . . .

energy.senate.gov/public/in…

Noteworthy:

1) The Native American testimony is absolutely compelling, regardless of the side one takes on this issue.

2) Who knew that the actual queen creek used to be a perennial stream instead of just intermittent?

Fred

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Here's a link to an article about yesterday's hearing on the bill to privatize Oak Flat:

nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/1…

Fred

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

I can’t speak to precisely why Senator Kyl, Mr. Salisbury of Resolution Copper, or Ms. Shearer of the Superstition Area Land Trust (SALT) seemed to take the stand that climber concerns have been addressed fully.

However, respectively, they are in the business of making legislative deals for their various constituencies, developing mines and mining the land, and preserving their own back yard (SALT preserves lands surrounding the Superstition Wilderness Area). As an interesting note: SALT was given $2500 by Resolution in October of 2008 for Silly Mountain issues: See Resolution Press Release resolutioncopper.com/res/me…

My guess would be that each of the parties was acting out of their own self interest and doing their best to make convincing arguments to further their cause. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this.

On the other hand, as a founding member of the Queen Creek Coalition who is intimately involved with these issues, I was certainly surprised (more like stunned) to hear these people say such for me (and you).

While it seems fair to say that there has been a certain amount of effort on both the climber’s side (in the form of involvement by the 10 member, local QC Coalition) and the copper company over the last year and a half to address things, it didn’t seem fair for any of those people to say what they did.

The legislation and any preliminary proposals for non-legislative agreements for user licenses of private lands, etc., aren’t near sufficient for them to say that climber’s concerns have been satisfied at this time. That they used us without consent or knowledge to try to further their aims is very disconcerting.

Anybody arguing that climber’s concerns have been satisfied is doing a sales job and hasn’t really read the legislation or non-legislative proposals and is relying on something other than the black and white of the legal language for their perhaps not too distant future climbing access and use. All one has to do is look at the QCC’s Statement of Understanding and compare it to the resulting legislative language and other proposals. (see the SoU at queencreekcoalition.com)

Perhaps they meant “our intention is to” address the climbing communities concerns fully at some point in the future? Again, who knows, but it doesn’t sit well.

Fred

kirra · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 530
Fred AmRhein wrote:Perhaps they meant “our intention is to” address the climbing communities concerns fully at some point in the future? Again, who knows, but it doesn’t sit well.
"our intention is to" ...to be written in the legislation? By *our* do you mean Resolution..?

If the climbers' concerns are not addressed as part of the land exchange, what guarantees will there be. If Rio Tinto continues to sell off holdings to raise cash, could the climbers be left holding a worthless piece of paper and/or the *word* of a company president that may no longer be there..?

The Subcommittee Chairman was denied access to the mining plans and Resolution flat-out refused to include it in the legislation -then what makes you or the QCC confident that the mine will not destroy all of the climbing forever... oops. How do we know that they are not actually drilling diagonally under Oak Flat as we speak

The "may" "might" "until" & "if" type-words sprinkled throughout the legislation are not much of a written guarantee of anything. Has the mining safety (MHSA) folks addressed the local climbers' safety concerns with regards to the mining plan and how it could affect future climbing in the area during mining..? Thanks for your time & response ~k
Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Kirra,

Since the mining company has written the legislation and Sen. Kyl introduced it and advocates for it on their behalf, the "our" I am referring to would be them.

The MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) issue is still unresolved. As an OSHA-like organization, they evidently regulate safety and health related activities on mine/mining property.

Allowing non-mining company people (climbers) on mine property could potentially be a liability/safety issue. MSHA might trump any access or recreational activities allowed under a license agreeement with the mining company for recreational (climbing) activities on their property. The question has been raised several times and has not been completely/adequately answered at this time to eliminate access concerns.

Fred

kirra · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 530

Fred, thanks for your time & response. Concerning future climbing access to this area, I have some rather direct questions for you...

1. What action/s will the QCC take to clear up this apparent *misunderstanding* of the climber's position before the Congressional SubCommittee.?

2. What actions are being taken with regards to MSHA and how it *could* affect future climbing access.?

3. With regards to QCC's requests, - QCC vs RCC want list/Letter of Understanding - On the #2 request/response -- What does "Pesumably" translate to..? (misspelled). The environment is a pretty BIG issue and assumptions shouldn't be made - what is being done to get guarantees from Resolution..?

4. Are any follow-up communications taking place with Joel Holtrop, NFS & Ned Farquhar of the Dept.of Interior..? Their testimony was being questioned and they seemed be in support of the climbing communities concerns. Mr. Holtrop is due back in front of the subcommittee in 2 wks from the hearing date.

5. Are there any communications going on with the remaining support groups concerning the potentially negative environmental outcome this could have if there is no NEPA study performed before the exchange.?

Resolution Copper hides environmental violations from the media. Apparently, like father (Rio Tinto) like son...

Resolution Copper EPA Violations

11/18/2008 recent violations, skirting the penalty

Resolution Copper ranks #24 AZ, 168 tons of hazardous waste, pg 25-29

thanks again ~k

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Kirra,

Good questions. I’m following your format here to hopefully better address things for you.

1) The QCC is meeting soon to discuss issues. How to respond to how “others” are characterizing the climbing community’s stances, etc., will no doubt be one of the items discussed. I’ll get back to you when I know more about the response.

2) MSHA is potentially a HUGE threat to reasonable access and climbing. At this time it isn’t a big deal for people who visit the area because most of the climbing takes place on public property relatively unaffected by mining activity or on lands that are not really in the path of development for the mine (The Pond isn’t affected at all but Atlantis does have a major tunnel below it and therefore the mining company wants to retain ownership). Once the land swap goes through, one will either have to pass through, park on, hike on, climb on, etc., a lot of property that may be actively involved with the development of a mine. Also, this land will then be in large part “theirs” and subject to “their” rules (and consequences for “breaking” them), as opposed to those rules that are in play on public property. It’s a BIG, BIG, BIG, problem that to date has not been resolved satisfactorily.

3) That’s not my wording or document that talks about the non-legislative items on the QCC web site, but I’ll take a stab at the issue on that particular item.

Here’s what the group has said with respect to the environmental issue:

[It’s the group’s desire that the mining company use] “A mining technique that is consistent with and abides by existing protections, maintains surface integrity, complies with all environmental regulations, and respects multicultural traditions”. [Source: queencreekcoalition.com, Statement of Understanding, 6/4/2008]

It is hoped that the elected representatives in Washington and the professional land managers of the public lands act in accordance to the environmental laws so that any impact is avoided or minimized by a mine such as is proposed.

Unfortunately, there is a big disagreement on how to do this. The government/Forest Service and other interested parties evidently feel that the environmental studies, etc., should take place before the land goes into private ownership. The mining company on the other hand is committing to do some studies, etc., as stated in the legislation once they own the land.

The difference here is evidently quite significant in the scope of lands potentially included for study and what will/won’t be done in response to the impact that will result from a mining operation (loss of water sources, etc.). There seems to be great concern that once the mining company owns the land (before impact studies as public lands) that it will do what it is allowed to do as a private owner as opposed to what would be required be done under US government direct management and oversight. It’s a tough question to answer, because it is so all-encompassing and appears to be a HUGE stumbling block for this project.

It’s not clear from the QCC which of the two environmental protection methods it would prefer. I’ll bring it up at the next meeting and see if there is a consensus and/or desire for clarification.

4) See #1. I’m pretty sure the QCC will be discussing how to respond. If the group does send a message, I’m certain that these organization’s leaders will be getting a copy of whatever is sent.

5) Most of the interested groups involved present their ideas from time to time in various venues and most of the QCC members are aware of what’s out there. However, at this time I’m not aware of the QCC being involved formally with other groups other than the Access Fund.

I will try to put out an update after the QCC meeting next week. Meantime, if there are any further questions, please ask and I’ll do my best to get you an answer.

Fred

kirra · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 530
Fred AmRhein wrote:Meantime, if there are any further questions, please ask and I’ll do my best to get you an answer.
thanks Fred... o.k. here is another one for you

What are the climbers getting in exchange for loosing all of Oak Flat & Queen Creek in this legislation..?

The Pond..?? Climbers have documented climbing in "The Pond" area for years. What is the compansation to climbers for loosing all of the other climbing areas. What is Resolution Copper giving up to climbers in this trade that the climbers don't already have..?
nobody · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 0
kirra wrote: What is Resolution Copper giving up to climbers in this trade that the climbers don't already have..?
TAMO!

oh wait...
nobodyelse · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2009 · Points: 0
nobody wrote: TAMO! oh wait...
your profile speaks volumns about your lack of wisdom...

"Colorado is pretty cool, it's too bad it seems to be full of douchey people who post stupid shit on the Internet."
Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Kirra,

In addition to the ownership of this approximately 95 acres of land at the Pond, the bill supplies $1.25M “to construct or improve road access, turnouts, trails, camping, parking areas, or other facilities to promote and enhance rock climbing, bouldering, and such other outdoor recreational opportunities as the Secretary [of Interior/Agriculture] determines to be appropriate” near The Pond, and at two bouldering spots south of Superior on the west side of the highway.

(Note: In the non-legislative “side deal” that has not been finalized and fully detailed, the mining company has offered to put in some amenities on the property before turning it over to the public. The money needed for this work will be provided in addition to the $1.25M.)

There seems to be some controversy about whether the bill’s $1.25M would actually have to be spent for climbers/climbing or if it could perhaps just go into another FS fund and used somewhere else on the Tonto NF. Also, there might be some liability and management issues that could complicate things for the FS with an area that is designated for “rock climbing” specific activities. This still has to be worked out to guarantee that when it gets transferred to the public the money gets spent to benefit “climbers/climbing” and/or the place doesn’t get shut down until the FS has everything in place for managing the area.

The only other Oak Flat area related to climbing that the bill references is Apache Leap.

The bill’s focus for the escarpment is primarily to “permanently protect the cultural, historic, educational, and natural resource values of Apache Leap.” Right up front the bill places “special emphasis on preserving the natural character of Apache Leap” and calls for the development of a management plan to be put in place within 4 years of its passage to figure out what sorts of activities, etc., can take place there.

Just what “natural character” might mean is left to speculation because it isn’t defined in the bill. A good question would be whether this might allow for the cleaning of loose rock, installing permanent anchors, bolting routes, using motorized tools, putting in trails for crags, etc. Aside from this little detail, there’s no money provided for any type of public road to The Leap, parking areas, etc.

While the bill does call for the management plan to “examine . . . whether Apache Leap should be managed to establish . . . additional opportunities (including appropriate access) for rock climbing, with special emphasis on improved rock climbing access to Apache Leap from the west,” it doesn’t quite go to the point of saying that access WILL be provided or that rock climbing WILL even be allowed.

Also, and probably some of the more worrisome verbiage in the bill (in my mind anyway), the bill directs the Secretary to “examine . . . whether Apache Leap should be managed to establish . . . additional cultural and historical resource protections or measures, including permanent or seasonal closures of any portion of Apache Leap to protect cultural or archeological resources.”

A fear here would be that The Leap might ultimately be treated similarly to Cave Rock at Lake Tahoe in Nevada where climbing has been banned in deference to Native American cultural issues.

Anyway, ultimately what the bill does seem to do for sure is ensure the public gets the deed for the 95 acre Pond parcel and $1.25M in funds for the Forest Service to use to “promote” rock climbing.

Fred

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

Kirra,

The "public" would probably accurately be described as the Forest Service who would actually be the managing entity, hopefully working to keep areas seamlessly open and available to rock climbing. Members of the qcc have met with, conversed with, and voiced concerns to the FS on several occasions and will continue to do so.

Of course the FS testimony in the hearings is unsettling given the "intent" of the powers that be (the mining company and congressional members) to ensure that climbers get their due and just compensation for what will be lost. On top of the legislative shortcomings, it would appear that the implementation of the legislation with respect to The Pond (and the other areas too) may be problematic for logistical, legal (liability?), and funding reasons also.

Anyway, it's clear that there are a lot of moving parts to this whole swap and essentially the qcc is attempting to focus and address the narrow rock climbing issues and this one area is mind boggling by itself. The environmental concerns are valid and huge topics in and of themselves, and the hope is that the proper approach is taken, but the group's focus is primarily on the climbing aspects of things.

With that said, everybody is encouraged to voice and funnel their environmental (NEPA) concerns as they see and feel is warranted.

It's obvious when comparing the legislation and the comments entered in the hearings over the years that some very important concerns haven't been addressed when it comes to the climbing issues. The qcc will continue to try to make sure that they are.

Fred

Fred AmRhein · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 512

In a continuing effort to keep climber's advised of what's going on wrt the proposed Oak Flat land swap:

Interior Secretary Salazar and Senator John McCain will be holding a Town Hall meeting at the Superior High School on August 21st at 11:30 in the morning to hear what the public has to say about S. 409, the Oak Flat land exchange bill.

Why it's important: The Secretary oversees many of the issues regarding the land beneath Oak Flat and Senator McCain is pushing the land trade bill hard in the US Senate. Interior plays an instrumental role to what/how/when happens to our beloved Oak Flat/Queen Creek climbing areas as the mining company continues its efforts to privatize much of it.

If you can attend to voice your concerns, great, if not and would still like something said on your behalf, post up or send an email and I'll do my best to get it included.

Thanks,

Fred

Red · · Tacoma, Toyota · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 1,625
Fred AmRhein wrote: Interior Secretary Salazar and Senator John McCain will be holding a Town Hall meeting at the Superior High School on August 21st at 11:30 in the morning to hear what the public has to say about S. 409, the Oak Flat land exchange bill.
I really hope that anyone that can make this, will. I unfortunately will have to be at work:( Really with I could make it!

If someone that does make it could post on here what all was talked about, that would be amazing!!!
kirra · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 530

The current legislation is a BAD deal for climbers. We have less this time then the last version of this legislation - ask questions... it's YOUR land

There is no designated replacement campground for Oak Flat and the list goes on...

Red · · Tacoma, Toyota · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 1,625

That sucks! I am so bummed I have to work today! They only schedule town hall meetings when people have to work!!!

Linda White · · maricopa, AZ · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 100

I was there...you didn't miss much!

Some voiced concerns...concerns were not addressed. Lots of publicity. The Native's met with the officials 'before' the meeting in the gym. Many of the Tribal leaders could not attend because of a threat on someone's life.

I tell ya, this issue has been hung up for a while now. I am proud to be part of stalling 'Big Company' bullying their way. (Even though plenty of mining is going on as we speak up @ Oak Flat) But it never ceases to amaze me what some folks will stoop to to get 'their' agenda/way.

Anyhow, you didn't miss much...

Linda

Geir www.ToofastTopos.com · · Tucson/DMR · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 2,751

I was at this meeting with Marcy. The only public mention of climbing was by one person (a non-climber) who suggested that the requests of the climbing community had been met. I raised my hand to respond, but was not called on in the sea of other people wanting to comment.

Fred from the QCC was there, and he spoke to several of the politicians who were there and reminded them that the requests of the climbing community have NOT yet been met. I myself had the opportunity to talk with the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick and informed them of the same.

I spoke with Fred from the QCC and he did not sound optimistic at all. Folks, we are still far from a binding written agreement with RCC. If one is not reached, a huge amount of climbing in Queen Creek can be lost.

I asked Fred what we could do to help the cause of the QCC. He suggested that we raise awareness among climbers about the current state of the negotiations between the QCC and RCC, and write to our representatives to make it clear that the climbing community has not yet reached an agreement with RCC regarding the future of Queen Creek.

In the coming days I will provide contact information for these individuals. It is up to all of us to put the pressure on. If we don't, we risk the possibility of losing a giant amount of climbing.

Fred or any other members of the QCC feel free to chime in with any additions / corrections.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Arizona & New Mexico
Post a Reply to "Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat La…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.