Fred- as usual, extremely well said.

Erik- thanks for the update, and please continue to post despite kirra's statements.

Kirra- I've found from multiple personal interactions with the QCC that they have been open to the input of the climbing community and have been acting in our best interests. If for the sake of strategy some of their inner discussions remain private I'm completely OK with that. I appreciate your efforts in providing useful information such as the names and addresses of legislators involved (that was great), but think your negative statements about the QCC (most recently toward Erik) are counterproductive.

Everyone else- If you have a problem with McCain's most recent efforts to forward the legistlation then FIGHT. Get in front of the computer, write to Jeff Bingaman and tell him what you think of McCain's recent correspondence. His address is above. CC it to McCain, Kirkpatrick, Kyl, etc. I will have my letters out by the end of the week, and will gladly share my text with others if that helps.

Regards,
Geir

Folks,

The topic of subsidence is a big one for some so, to give one an idea of what it might mean, I have a photo here of a subsidence pit that lies at the western end of the emergency truck ramp as you start into the Queen Creek Canyon just outside of Superior. You see this best when you're heading back down from the Pond or Oak Flat areas as you head downhill toward Superior. (I saw a motorcycle actually stuck in the deep rock that they use for that ramp the other day, didn't look like fun!)

I've been told by local miners that this particular pit was formed years ago when a cavern from a former mining operation caved in. I don't know how deep the cavern was, big, etc.

This pit is a few hundred feet wide on a steep slope but gives a person a little bit of an idea of what the Oak Flat area might end up looking like in some years if the mine goes forward as has been talked about (1 mile in diameter, 1-3,000' in height void lying some 3-4,000' below ground that caves in on itself over time).

Of course the pit area in the image is a limestone/quartzite area so it may not be exactly what things will look like but it gives you a picture of what we're talking about when it comes to "subsidence."

Fred

Subsidence Pit in Queen Creek Canyon Submitted By: Fred AmRhein on Dec 6, 2009

(Note: solely my opinions and statements)

One of the problems is that we really don't know the surface effects of the huge underground cavern that the block caving mining will create. We can speculate and look to other examples. 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. They have also represented that the surface may "subside" but that it will maintain the its surface flora and fauna and therefore won't look much different from what you see now. (form your own opinion)

We all have heard and seen the horror stories about subsidence in a lot of different situations. Subsidence locally here in Phoenix is often associated with pumping of groundwater. This has been a serious concerns because subsidence causes major public (and private) infrastructure to weaken potentially. The Army Corps of Engineers spends a fair amount of time evaluating this, as do other governmental agencies. To give one example: ground water pumping in Scottsdale has caused the CAP canal to drop and lose 1 vertical foot of capacity, a very serious impact for the largest public infrastructure in the U.S. Subsidence is very serious no matter what the surface looks like.

To some degree it probably doesn't matter whether the subsidence associated with Resolution's mine creates the ugly result Fred's picture depicts, or that perhaps it will be a gentle sinking. 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.

Nevertheless, I had some of my engineers model what 300 vertical feet of subsidence might look like across a subsidence zone one mile wide (RCM's maximum model). The graphic appears below. It produces a 11% slope if the subsidence is uniform across the area. Conceivably that could continue to support existing flora and fauna and it's not clear what slope would create rock crags with roots below ground level to tilt. And as stated above it may be moot given the unlikelihood of continued climbing on an unstable mining surface due to mining regulators.

Brainstorming, 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 never been opposed to the mine (in our formal statements of any groups). We have been opposed to the destruction of a precious recreational resource that is currently in public hands. Can we get that? Or do we need to accept the mine as proposed, subsidence and resulting loss of Oak Flat so that we can keep the most net rock climbing in the region? Tough questions. No easy answers.

Model of 300' of subsidence across a one mile impact zone Submitted By: ErikF on Dec 6, 2009

Queen Creek and Oak Flat in the news. The Access Fund Vertical Times newsletter, pg 12, Winter '09. Note the credits for the photos. The same photographer also took her time, money, and effort to make those signs and place them up and down the roads leading up the canyon and to the climbing areas for Secretary Salazar's visit in August of this year. Thanks for your efforts Kirra.

www.accessfund.org/atf/cf/%7B1F5726D5-6646-4050-AA6E-C275DF6>>>

Fred

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.

• 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?

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

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

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...

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:

www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/12/14/story5.html?a>>>

Fred