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, http://www.queencreekcoalition.com.

Fred

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

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 ~

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

Fred

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 . . .

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearing>>>>>

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/18/18greenwire-obama-ad>>>>>

Fred

I heard the rebroadcast & read this article *sigh* ~what drama

McCain diverted the attention of *facts* and turned this into a dog-and-pony-partisan food-fight by consistently taking prior testimony out-of-context. What a rude person...continually interrupting National Forest Deputy Chief, Mr. Holtrop. McCain -- "The people of Arizona, the country and the world will suffer."..."Without the administration's support, passing the bill would be virtually impossible..." ~ oh the humanity of it all --blame it on Obama and the Democrats

Mr. Holtrop said clearly, "NEPA should be completed prior to the land exchange" - that is his position, why do you keep asking Mr. McInterupt..? Holtrop importantly points out the current bill "supports (or suggests) NEPA to be done on the surrounding land - and it does not demand NEPA be performed on the land that is being traded (Oak Flat)... tricky-tricky RCC

In the article mentioned above..."Sen. Jon Kyl...was also critical of the administration's position. Kyl blocked an Obama Energy Department nominee in order to force the Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee to hold the hearing on S. 409." - OMG can he do that..? heh-heh- somebody got a big donation

Other highlights, Sen Rish (banging his fist.??) proclaimed loudly, "NOBODY HERE CARES ABOUT NEPA" - (betcha he doesn't know what nepa stands for)

Rosemary Shearer (SALT) spoke for THE CLIMBERS in her group and said her organization supports the bill. She referred to the distant parcel of "Dripping Springs" & "The Pond" (received for the trade) as both "Surpurb & Spectacular climbing locations" - who the hell is this woman..???

Sen. Kyle stated, "Peripheral Issues between the parties have been worked out" and RCC President, Salisbury said he agreed to the climbing communities requests before he played bob-&-weave 'round Chairman Wyden's final question (asked 3x)

Fred --The 'powers-that-be' seems to be saying that the 'climbers are satisfied'. I thought the QCC didn't support the bill due to the fact that RCC will not guarantee they won't blow a huge hole in the middle of Oak Flat & Queen Creek...wasn't that their #1 request..?

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 http://www.resolutioncopper.com/res/mediacenter/salt.pdf

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 http://www.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,

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

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

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: www.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,

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

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

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

Thanks, Fred. PM sent.

For those that would like to attend the Town Hall Meeting in Superior Friday at 11:30am, Superior High School is located at 100 Mary Drive, Superior, AZ

Google maps: Superior High School

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...

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

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