Home - Destinations - iPhone/Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Saving Oak Flat- does anyone care? -C&M throwdown-
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 5.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By Red
From Arizona
May 21, 2013
Cobra Kai

kirra wrote:
I encourage all to write/call your local state representatives ASAP to insure a "No" vote prevails on H.R.687. Current contact info is listed here in this thread. sincere thanks!

bump


FLAG
By kirra
May 24, 2013

reprint of flyer courtesy of Roy Chavez..

Oak Flat Religious Awareness & Educational Event -Friday, May 24, 2013
Oak Flat Campground—Big Oaks

Hosted by the San Carlos Apache Tribe
Assisted by Concerned Citizens & Retired Miners Coalition—Superior, AZ

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

The program will begin at 10 am and continue throughout the day, ending with a sacred prayer from 6 to 9 pm. Tribal leaders/speakers, clergy, civil/human rights advocates, NAACP members, activists and others will be making presentations, listening to concerns and speaking on behalf of the religious and sacred significance of the Oak Flat campground and surrounding areas. The program is open to the public and will include a traditional lunch of acorn stew (at noon).

Presentations will address Native American legacy to the land, history of the area, hiking venues of significance (petroglyphs), medicinal plants/herbs, food sources and a general better understanding of Oak Flat, Gaan Canyon and the entire area as it relates to all people of the region.

Seating and shading may be limited, so you might want to bring your own, (including water and snacks).

For further info & contact: Roy C. Chavez, (520) 827-9133
email: rcchavez53@yahoo.com. (program schedule subject to change)

~ Come join us for this informative and educational program!!! ~


FLAG
By kirra
May 25, 2013

Testimony has been posted from the Hearing on H.R. 687

Council Member, Superior Town Council: Soyla “Kiki” Peralta - 6 pgs

Water & the Environment remain a concern for the Town:...

"We know, without a doubt, that subsidence will occur and that it will adversely affect our community. We don’t have any information regarding RCC’s proposed disposition of the massive amounts of tailings that will be produced and where they will reside. We are terrified that downstream pollution will affect the Town of Superior and everyone who depends upon the nearby aquifers for drinking water.

Our local water supplier recently imposed an additional “arsenic surcharge.” While The Magma Mine was operational, local residents were told that there was no pollution or effects on the water supply. Now, 20 plus years later, we find that there was—and continues to be—a price to pay for giving a foreign-owned mining company carte blanche because we trusted the mine explicitly.

We are also worried that a mine would dry up not only the Town of Superior’s water supply, but a portion of the water supply for the Phoenix metropolitan area. We also have good reason to believe that mining at Oak Flat will destroy the riparian habitat not only at Oak Flat, but the nearby Devil’s Canyon which is one of Arizona’s great undiscovered riparian treasures.

It is for these reasons and many more that we oppose the enactment of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act prior to proper NEPA reviews..."


--x--x----x--x----x--x----x--x----x--x----x--x----x--x----x--x--

Terry Rambler; Chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe - 22 pgs

Mary Wagner; Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture - 5 pgs

Jennifer Krill; Executive Director, Earthworks - See pg 6-7

All documents & Testimony


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 12, 2013

Canadian Aboriginal group will not back down
against Rio Tinto's Iron Ore Company of Canada (IOC) -July 9, 2013


On March 18, 2013, the Innu First Nation of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam along with another aboriginal group, the Innu First Nation of Matimekush-Lac John, filed a motion to obtain an injunction against IOC for the harm & damages estimated at CAD $900 million -article. IOC's majority shareholder is Rio Tinto.

.."While Rio Tinto is anxious to uphold its image as a model corporate citizen, boasting of its commitment to aboriginal peoples around the world, the Uashaunnuat and MLJ can attest that in their own experience these are nothing but empty words. IOC has undertaken all of its projects without the consent of the Uashaunnuat and MLJ, in violation of our rights. IOC and now Rio Tinto are the companies that have inflicted the most harm on the Uashaunnuat and MLJ and caused the most damage to our Nitassinan" said Vice-Chief Mike McKenzie of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam..

.."In spite of the attempts we have made at reconciliation, IOC and Rio Tinto continue to act in an irresponsible and disrespectful manner. While we are not opposed to any and all mining development - it must not violate our rights, must respect our values, traditions and way of life, and must be environmentally sustainable. A balance must be achieved, but regrettably, IOC's practices are of a bygone era. This must stop," said Chief Réal McKenzie of Matimekush-Lac John..

..IOC is the most important producer of iron ore in Canada. Since beginning its massive mining operations in Nitassinan in 1954, the company has extracted and profited from the sale of nearly one million tonnes of ore. IOC is now looking towards an expansion project that will only result in increased harm to the Uashaunnuat and to MLJ, who have yet to receive any revenue, compensation, indemnity or royalties whatsoever from the company.."

---.---.---.---.---.---.---

continued from prior article-

IOC's operations on the traditional territory of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam and their Innu brothers and sisters of Matimekush-Lac John have scarred the land as well as people's lives for more than 60 years now. The Innu are well past their breaking point and in addition the legal action, IOC can expect further acts of opposition in the coming months.

Meanwhile, Rio Tinto continues to seek to sell its majority stake in IOC. And while it is clear that Rio Tinto is looking to offload assets, the Innu First Nation of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam cannot help but feel that Rio Tinto is also seeking to offload the "Innu problem."

"We simply wish to make clear that any purchaser of Rio Tinto's stake in IOC will run up against the same fierce opposition that is currently underway against IOC. The conflict will not end until the more than 60 years of injustice we have endured at the hands of IOC comes to an end," stated Mike McKenzie, Chief of the Innu First Nation of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam.

"While Rio Tinto is looking to move on, our people are not going anywhere. We will still be here, occupying our traditional territory like we always have and unfortunately living with all the negative impacts IOC's projects have caused and continue to cause," added Chief McKenzie.

In fact, the Innu First Nation of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam would like to take this opportunity to remind any potential investors that they will defend to the end the principle that any project on their traditional territory (covering much of northeastern Quebec and Labrador) requires their consent."




FLAG
By kirra
Jul 14, 2013

just sayin'..

via FB posted July 7 2013
"Saving OAK FLAT Campground" -Roy Chavez

..."Resolution Copper Co. is having trouble acquiring approximately 15 sq miles (Superior is 4 sq. mi.) of public land to locate their mine waste (1.5 billion tons) tailings dump site. For those of you that don't know they're looking at the area from Gonzales Pass to Florence Jct. however they've run in to some resistance, Queen Valley & Gold Canyon. The real problem for Superior, is that now they're seriously considering all this waste to be dumped in and around OUR community--from the existing Magma tailings waste site to out past Happy Camp/Hewitt Station. If this new info doesn't shake/wake you up, it should.

This project could now literally be the end of Superior as we know it (ie., Sonora, Barcelona & Ray). Some real serious consideration and thought must be addressed by all citizens of the U.S. regarding this mine project and the future of Superior and surrounding communities.

Since 1998, this project (per Rio Tinto) has been "non-negotiable". I say today (as I said then as Mayor) B.S. Why should the US Govt and those elected officials that support the mine project as is, bend over backwards for these foreign companies that propose this devious and destructive land legislation to take out Oak Flat, thereby resulting in the complete demise of the Town of Superior.

Superior is a very unique community in the mining region--our beautiful surroundings & landmarks, our history, our clean air & water, our proximity to the Valley, our potential for a diversified economy, our people, etc... It would be a shame to lose all this for the true benefit of foreign companies and their faceless shareholders. There needs to be a mutual understanding of all circumstances and issues regarding this project, both short and long term....Whether you agree or disagree, I invite you to contact me for further information and check out azminingreform.org and "Saving Oak Flat Campground" on facebook. Peace Out! "Si Se Puede"!!! ..."


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 14, 2013

San Carlos Apache Tribe has organized a petetion -plz forward to all comcerned many thanks!

PETITION TO OPPOSE THE SOUTHEAST LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT

*April 2013, Letter to Congress: Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar
regarding H.R.687 by Terry Rambler, San Carlos Tribal Chairman


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 17, 2013

Can we loose Oak Flat without due process ?


Resolution Copper project could go forward without Congressional action on land exchange
Arizona Geology: May 2013

..."Resolution Copper is facing a raft of challenges in its goal to develop one of the world's largest copper mines outside Superior, Arizona, but may go ahead with the project even if the controversial federal land exchange is not approved by Congress.

Parent company Rio Tinto cut the project budget substantially last year as part of a global belt-tightening and lack of progress in the land exchange the company wants to ensure the can go forward. Resolution's other parent, BHP, just sold the Pinto Valley mine which had been the presumed site for the millsite and tailings. Public support in the Superior area is waning as a result of these actions so Resolution staff are out on the road telling their story and answering questions.

Vicky Peacey, senior manager of environmental and external affairs for Resolution provided an update to a crowd of about 150 yesterday in Tucson at the monthly Arizona Mining Alliance meeting. She explained that regardless of the land ownership status the mine proposal would have to do National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies on the full project and environmental impacts.

She also indicated the possibility that the project could go forward without the federal land exchange, although that is not their preferred route. Vicki noted that many mines are developed on federal lands but doing so would mean a large reduction in economic benefits to local and state governments..."

-----------------------

While RCM cuts it's budget from $200 million (2012) to $50 mil (2013) it still insists it needs this Land Exchange, has anything changed? -Rampdown News Release-

Is another dog & pony headed for Superior? -Community Meeting: Lessons on NEPA -July 26 2013

RCM commissioned Tetra Tech, Inc. a global environmental consulting firm providing strategic direction & oversight for NEPA for the mining industry and who also cleans up after Rio Tinto.


FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Jul 17, 2013

RCM continues to flat out lie about the applicability of NEPA to their project. There is really no kinder way to put it. The presentation by Patty McGrath of Tetra Tech was excellent, but pertained only to how NEPA is supposed to work--absent conveying our public land into private ownership before doing the environmental analysis. And, that is exactly what the RCM land exchange bill does--it gives them the land at Oak Flat before requiring a NEPA analysis. Once Oak Flat is private land, very little of NEPA applies to what RCM might want to do at that location, so most of NEPA is effectively bypassed by the legislation. This is a simple fact, no matter how much RCM continues to claim otherwise.

You don't need to take our word for this. The Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack has said exactly the same thing, as has the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, in Congressional testimony.


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 17, 2013

thanks CCA

any idea as to why Ms.Peacey is stating that 'the project' could go forward w/o the land exchange? Would RCM attempt to mine around Oak Flat -is this possible?


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jul 18, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

Kirra, that is exactly what the QCC was told when I was a member; that RCM owned enough of the area outside the Oak Flat campground that they could mine those parcels instead.

I think it was a threat to push their way forward. That doesn't mean it isn't true, they would have to do all sorts of tricks to get around Oak Flat though.


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 18, 2013


I wonder how much land is required to be left intact for Oak Flat to remain geologically stable? -95 acres(?) + attachment to Forest Service land..

thanks Manny


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jul 19, 2013

kirra wrote:
I wonder how much land is required to be left intact for Oak Flat to remain geologically stable? -95 acres(?) + attachment to Forest Service land.. thanks Manny


As I read things, PLO 1229, the document that sets Oak Flat aside from mining activities, referred to 760 acres as comprising the Oak Flat Campground and Picnic area.

To me, discussing a parsing of the area down to only certain areas such as the campground itself or some other "historical" region as RCM has done at times as part of its PR campaign to privatize Oak Flat only helps them in their efforts to take it away from the public.

As to any effect on the land, a true NEPA process would probably bring any potential damage to light and they would probably have to mine in such a manner that ALL 760 acres remain intact. Then again, mining companies are pretty adept at uttering "oops" and opening their wallets or taking other evasive business actions in the event of pressures such as damage to adjacent, downstream, etc., properties.

Just my view.

Fred


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jul 19, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

True Fred, but I recall RCM stating they could mine outside the area and using it as a "we can do what we want anyway" kind of statement. I don't think they should be allowed to disturb any of the protected area. As you probably noticed, they have been awful busy creating roads through National Forest to gain access to "their" claims. Maybe we should stake claims too!

I should have written "Oak Flat protected area" instead of "Oak Flat campground" (which is how I usually refer to the protected area since most can identify this part of it).

Still, I'm sure Kirra nor anyone else with any sense is even considering parsing the area for RCM's benefit.


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 19, 2013

manuel rangel wrote:
"...As you probably noticed, they have been awful busy creating roads through National Forest to gain access to "their" claims"..."Still, I'm sure Kirra nor anyone else with any sense is even considering parsing the area for RCM's benefit.

many roads seem to have led to RCM lying about being able to "give" us the Pond. Give in exchange for what?

TEMPORARY USE???? -then end up talking it ALL away anyway someday

nothing > than 1/2 ass*d attempt of carrotonastick. All so RCM can put on a good "show" to try to say "Climbers support their POS legislation" -liers grrr-arr


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 20, 2013

more concerns.. quoted from reliable source FB July 12, 2013:

.."I am sitting here and can't stop thinking about the forum Resolution Copper held this past Wednesday.

RCM has told us subsidence will be 1000 ft. deep x 2 miles. They have also told us that there will be tension in the "Intact Zone" which is just outside of the "Fracture Zone". The tension being like you are pulling on your finger, but it's not being pulled hard enough to make it move to one side or the other. Well, it looks good when you think of it as Ian illustrated, but it doesn't work so well when you put it in practical terms.

Why? Because ground has movement (all the time) and when those plates start moving there is no stopping them. The weak ground, which as I see it is the subsidence hole, is not strong enough to keep the ground from continuing to move in a serious way.

Ian also stated that they would be monitoring the ground movement very closely and that if they see it is getting to close to Apache Leap they will stop BUT what good will stopping do if ground movement will continue due to their ongoing operations? They won't be halting their operations...they are just shifting their operation to go in a different direction.

In my research (but I don't claim to be an expert) GROUND MOVEMENT CAN CONTINUE UP TO 15 YEARS FROM THE TIME MINING STOPS. So what does this mean? That long after Rio Tinto/ BHP/China leaves the area the destruction will continue?..."


FLAG
By kirra
Jul 23, 2013

In time for the hearing in the House (OAK FLAT CAMPGROUND LAND TITLE FACTS MAY 16, 2013)
RCM published a brief history outlining the status of the Oak Flat area (760 acres thanks Fred!); .."a fee title land owned by the U.S. Government/Tonto National Forest based on the current official records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and actions of record in the Federal Register."

Obviously there was a reason for this release but: Does this really matter?
Is the fact that Oak Flat was withdrawn by a PLO, less significant now (as a continuing argument) since 1971 (see below) when the Forest Service appears to have "updated it's status"?

--------------------

"RESERVING LANDS WITHIN NATIONAL FORESTS FOR USE OF THE FOREST SERVICE AS CAMPGROUNDS, RECREATION AREAS AND FOR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES”.

The lands were - “withdrawn…from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining but not the mineral leasing laws, and reserved for use of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, as camp grounds, recreation areas, and for other public purposes, as indicated“.

Part of routine withdrawal package -

The Oak Flat withdrawal was part of a package of 24 campground, fire lookout, picnic and recreation area withdrawals in the Tonto and Coconino National Forests in Arizona. It was accompanied by 19 similar withdrawals for campgrounds, lookout sites, and other purposes in the Apache National Forest in New Mexico.

Reason for withdrawal -

In response to a question about the Oak Flat withdrawal asked by Congressman Grijalva at the November 1, 2007 hearing on H.R. 3301 (a predecessor bill to the current H.R. 687 and S.B. 339, Deputy Forest Service Chief, Joel Holtrop, indicated: Mr. HOLTROP: “The mineral withdrawal at that time was done to protect the Federal Government’s interest in the capital improvement of the campground that exists there.”

Withdrawal reason reiterated:

At the November 1, 2007 hearing, Congressman Rob Bishop also asked about the Oak Flat withdrawal. Mr. Holtrop gave the same answer. Namely, that where the Forest Service makes improvements in facilities such as campgrounds, recreation sites, etc., “it is not uncommon” to protect those investments by withdrawing them from the operation of the mining laws.

1971 withdrawal modification:

On September 20, 1971, the “Oak Flat Picnic and Campground” withdrawal was modified by Public Land Order 5132 signed by Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Harrison Loesch. The new order stated that the 1955 Public Land Order 1229 was: “hereby modified to the extent necessary to open the following described lands to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws applicable to national forest lands, except under the U.S. mining laws….the lands described in paragraph 1 will be open to such forms of disposal as may by law be made of national forest lands except appropriation under the U.S. mining laws.”

Current status of Oak Flat withdrawal:

Since 1971, the 760-acre “Oak Flat Picnic and Camp Ground” area has been eligible for disposal by land exchange and other disposal authorities of the Forest Service.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jul 25, 2013

kirra wrote:
Since 1971, the 760-acre “Oak Flat Picnic and Camp Ground” area has been eligible for disposal by land exchange and other disposal authorities of the Forest Service.


And the Forest Service has emphatically said "no" whenever a mining company has tried to privatize Oak Flat for mining purposes in the past from what I understand . . . and they continue to testify before Congress that Oak Flat is just as valuable as a public space as it was when it was set aside in 1955 and as reaffirmed in 1971.

Personally, with the growing metropolitan areas in Arizona I kind of think that Oak Flat's value as a unique and revered area has only increased; people want to recreate more not less. The loss of such an accessible close-in area in that part of the state means that people will have to drive much farther, etc., for an out of doors experience.

Just my view,

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 28, 2013

Why did you change threads?


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 28, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
As I read things, PLO 1229, the document that sets Oak Flat aside from mining activities, referred to 760 acres as comprising the Oak Flat Campground and Picnic area. To me, discussing a parsing of the area down to only certain areas such as the campground itself or some other "historical" region as RCM has done at times as part of its PR campaign to privatize Oak Flat only helps them in their efforts to take it away from the public. As to any effect on the land, a true NEPA process would probably bring any potential damage to light and they would probably have to mine in such a manner that ALL 760 acres remain intact. Then again, mining companies are pretty adept at uttering "oops" and opening their wallets or taking other evasive business actions in the event of pressures such as damage to adjacent, downstream, etc., properties. Just my view. Fred


Can you point out a recent concrete example of this in the US?


FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Jul 29, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Can you point out a recent concrete example of this in the US?


According to the US Environmental Protection Agency:

"Hard rock mining is no longer the “pick and shovel” enterprise of a century ago. Modern mines operate on a massive scale, and release more toxics to the environment than any other industry -- 1.9 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in 2011, the most recent data available..."

For the "concrete examples" please refer to:

1) The actual EPA report: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventory, 2011

or

2) This 2013 Earthworks study

www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/PollutingTheFutu>>>


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jul 29, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Why did you change threads?


I guess when the discussion of yours on the other thread veered off into ad hominem attack by you it seemed pointless to continue.

If you care to stick to a topic and not attack a person I'm sure that people will continue to engage.

There have been myriad threads related to Oak Flat over the years and they often overlap.

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 29, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
I guess when the discussion of yours on the other thread veered off into ad hominem attack by you it seemed pointless to continue. If you care to stick to a topic and not attack a person I'm sure that people will continue to engage. There have been myriad threads related to Oak Flat over the years and they often overlap. Fred


What attack? I state facts and give examples. Y'all never did answer when i asked what you were talking about.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 29, 2013

Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency: "Hard rock mining is no longer the “pick and shovel” enterprise of a century ago. Modern mines operate on a massive scale, and release more toxics to the environment than any other industry -- 1.9 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in 2011, the most recent data available..." For the "concrete examples" please refer to: 1) The actual EPA report: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventory, 2011 or 2) This 2013 Earthworks study www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/PollutingTheFutu>>>


TRI is a count of metals moved from one place to another, nothing more. If you move a ton of rock, in your backyard to your front yard, and that rock contains a pound of lead, the EPA would count that pound of lead as a "toxic chemical" under TRI if you were an industry that had to report.

The fact is modern mines have lined waste dumps that are capped and sealed when they are done with so, "released" under TRI is a stretch to say the least.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 29, 2013

Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency: "Hard rock mining is no longer the “pick and shovel” enterprise of a century ago. Modern mines operate on a massive scale, and release more toxics to the environment than any other industry -- 1.9 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in 2011, the most recent data available..." For the "concrete examples" please refer to: 1) The actual EPA report: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventory, 2011 or 2) This 2013 Earthworks study www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/PollutingTheFutu>>>


You do realize that more than half of the mines and tunnels quoted in that earthworks study are historic (pre-EPA/NEPA) mines, like the Yak tunnel in Leadville and the Argo tunnel in Idaho Springs, Colorado that were developed in the 1800s. Others quoted are owned by large mining companies - like Climax Mine, where Freeport is currently building a new water treatment plant in the Blue river basin so discharge will meet new Colorado water quality standards.

That list shows that someone doesn't know much about the real underlying issues, what is being done to address them, and likely doesn't care.

The Nelson tunnel near Creede DOES discharge nasty stuff. Again, from mining in the 1800s and early 1900s. There are potential solutions to the problem, through working with a company with prospects in the area. By working TOGETHER instead of against each other, problems like this could be solved. But by chasing out development, it lands on the taxpayer, so in the current environment nothing gets done. Good work.


FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Jul 30, 2013

A very predictable response. When the data conclusively shows how bad mining is for the environment, simply claim the study is flawed.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 3 of 5.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>