What do you want to see for amenities at the proposed Tam O'Shanter climbing area?

re: I suppose with this depth (4-7,000' below surface level) and heat (~175 deg F) for the operation there would be a lot of unknowns and future challenges for the engineers, etc.

But this what RCC does, they are not new to this. I'm sure they are more likely to think the details don't need to be 'exacto' when explaining to us ~vs~ them not knowing what they're in for in our many earth's core layers.
right?

Not trying to be negative, just keeping it simple for me.

L

Curt Shannon wrote: While that's technically true, Mike, there will be absolutely no access to lower Devil's Canyon unless RCC agrees to let a substitute road be put in across their property. I'm not saying that's impossible, but you sort of make it sound like the closure of the existing road is no big deal. Curt

It is a huge deal, I was just trying to answer the question of that was asked concerning Devils Canyon being closed or not. While the potential of losing the road IMO is a huge deal, it isn't as huge as losing the road and Devils Canyon.

Mike Covington wrote: It is a huge deal, I was just trying to answer the question of that was asked concerning Devils Canyon being closed or not. While the potential of losing the road IMO is a huge deal, it isn't as huge as losing the road and Devils Canyon.

The difference is moot. If you can not access a climbing area it is, for all practical purposes, lost. Troon Mountain is an excellent example.

Curt

Mike wrote "It was an open door meeting and much was discussed, many things that both sides (climbers and RC)needed to hear and say."

If it was by invitation only meeting, I don't understand how you consider it to be 'open door'? I am not saying that all sides were not represented at the meeting, since I wasn't there. But, don't pass it off as an open meeting.

I don't see why we have to trade Queen Creek for Tamo. Queen Creek is 45 minutes from Phoenix and Tamo is 2 hours away. I am in favor of opening Tamo to climbing but feel that trading Queen Creek is a bad idea. The 2 deals should be separate. Very few people have even been to Tamo, and most, like myself, have only seen the photo's from a website. I, for one, would feel better about the deal if Tamo was open to the public prior to the land swap. Trading a beautiful area like Queen Creek for another place, site unseen, seems abserd to me.

Queen Creek is not lost yet, regardless of what some people want you to believe. Write your Senators and Congressmen and let them know how you feel (regardless of which side of the issue you are on).

There is a meeting at the Phoenix Rock Gym on Sunday Oct. 14th @ 7:00pm. Come one, come all.

Curt Shannon wrote: The difference is moot. If you can not access a climbing area it is, for all practical purposes, lost. Troon Mountain is an excellent example. Curt

That is why we should be dealing with these issues now. To gain the access needed.

I remember troon, the developers were not interested in the least in considering climbers access. If they (the developers) would have come to the table and said were developing this land, but we intend to help you to keep as much climbing as possible and also help create access to more climbing, would/should climbers have been interested?

I believe the difference between Troon & Oak Flat to be that OF is public land, managed by Tonto National Forest and has been protected for 50+ years.

I don't think Troon needed a Congressional override to build a few more McMansions

Curt - maybe we can negotiate for a regular 'heli-lift-schedule' into Lower Devils and skip the road altogether... (:

Regardless of who had to do what, they did it and the end result to climbers was the same.

Here's something that I really started thinking about after the meeting last Monday when I finally had a clearer view of the path for the proposed road access into Tamo (Alt 2) and there was more discussion on road type and costs.

In the federal legislation that details the land privatizations and exchanges, a 2 WD dirt road is specified for access (along with the necessary easements).

Firstly, I'm a bit perplexed that such a road would be proposed for such a unique, world class, Arizona State Park climbing venue (as the developers envision it). Not to mention that most all other state parks in Arizona have a paved road to the entrance if not paved roads throughout their facilities. (I contacted a lot of them by phone and have visited many also, but maybe I missed a couple and they have dirt road access?) It's difficult to imagine that the state would really want such a road?

Secondly, the terrain out there at Tamo is such that it slopes gently to the cliff line base and then rises quickly in elevation to the higher, flatter climbing areas. One particular area, see T4S R15E NE part of section 19, SE part of section 18, and NW part of section 17, seems to show the road going from approximately 3,000 ft in elevation to around 3,800 ft in just about 1 mile. That's an almost 15% average grade if you go as the road shows. (Perhaps they'll switch back it up the steep slope but the detail of the road path doesn't show this)

As a comparison, the paved highway 60 road going through Queen Creek Canyon goes from about 2,900 ft to about 4,100 ft in elevation in just under 4 miles (bridge at Hwy 177/60 intersection at the mouth of the canyon in Superior to the Oak Flat turnoff, 3.7 miles). That's an average 5.7% grade or so and as most of you know who've been there, pretty steep, winding, and slippery in a snow storm and quite the flowing stream in a thunderstorm even with the drainage culverts, road crowning, etc.

When you take into account that there is an expectation for 165,000 visitors this leads to about 41,000 cars per year. That's an average of about 800 cars/week on a 2WD, steep, dirt road. (Probably more if you skew things toward the cooler months and then even more density of traffic on weekend days) That could potentially be hundreds of cars on a weekend day and that'll be dusty, washboarded, etc. rather quickly.

This might work out to be a car either going up or down every couple of minutes or so. (I don't necessarily think this many people will visit the place, but that's their number and that's how it works in averages and that's what the road designers will have to account for)

It doesn't seem like this type of road would really allow for the type of access and success that a well marketed Arizona State Park needs?

I don't necessarily think a lower sloped, paved road is necessary for the new climbing area, but I'm just a bit surprised that a 21st century Arizona State Park is proposed with such a 19th century access road to it. Whether it becomes a state park or not, one really has to wonder how that access road would fare over the long term and how it will be maintained (who will own the maintenance for this road?)

Could we end up like we are now with Tamo, it's there, but we can't really get there to climb/camp/RV/bike/etc. due to road/access issues?

I just was surfin' and found this.
I find it interesting how RCC is putting their money in a lot different piles in Superior area. Hmmm....
resolutioncopper.com/res/me…

I picked up the local 'Superior Sun,' and noticed that RCC has received an award for Environmental exellence for renovating the former Magma Hospital. I thought thats an oxi-moron, EEA (award) and going to pollute the waters of the queen creek canyon. Does anyone else see this an a manipulation tactic?

Maybe I think too much...

http://www.silverbelt.com/articles/2007/10/24/news/news03.txt

The above link to the silverbelt web page announces today that hearings on the privatization for mining purposes of Oak Flat (set aside by Executive Order from mining acquisition in 1955) in Congress are planned in just a short week or two.

Linda White wrote:Does anyone else see this an a manipulation tactic? Maybe I think too much...

You're not alone in seeing this Linda. There are actually MANY things RCC has done to the Town of Superior, the State Parks Board, (etc..etc) to "manipulate". When you dig, you will find sooo much moooore... You don't think too much and more folks need to be thinking a bit more like you if they want to preserve public lands and climbing areas from developers like Troon and foreign companies like Rio Tinto (Resolution Copper aka RCC).

This "Working-Group" of Mike's is actually a "Work-Around-Group" created by RCC to control and manipulate the climbers. By avoiding sitting down with the FOQC and the Access Fund directly, they continue their political game by announcing this little meeting they held to all of the politicians involved. A meeting where nothing was acomplished and never will be with the best interest of the climbers at stake. Sorry Mike, the RCC pres. called you out. Join the FOQC, the AMC or the Access Fund if you want to help the community.

THIS IS NOT AN "UNFORTUNATE SITUATION" as RCC's 'fear-tactic' would have you all believe. The climbers & people of AZ have lost nothing at this point. The land (Tamo & Oak Flat) is ours and should remain as such. The hearing of the Land Exchange Bill mentioned by Fred above is the beginning of hopefully the end of RCC destroying Oak Flat and QC. If the link does not work, HERE IS A COPY.

Sources say this Bill wil NOT PASS this year. Hopefully with it's demise, Tamo will be freed somehow and a realistic discussion can begin about building a road that is free from the smoke&mirror-dog&pony show that RCC has dragged us to.

Thanks to everyone for all of your letters and support..!

Rock-on Kirra!

I can appreciate a good dog & pony show as much as the next climber. Er, should I say Dvr pony show..

I'd have to say that I think Dem's do more trad. Take more risk. Less conservative.
L

What does this cartoon have to do with Tamo?

Rick,

It is a good metaphor for RCC's SOP for controlling the agenda -"divide and conquer". Get factions within a group (climbers) bashing on each other then have your way.

BTW, that particular cartoon gives my browser a runtime error.

BGB

I posted a copy of RCC's reply to my email over in the "Queen Creek - Friends Meeting" thread. The "working group" mentioned in RCC's letter is as far as I can tell is an attempt to "work around" the Friends of Queen Creek and anybody else who wants to preserve the existing climbing areas. I was invited to Mike's meeting via email but I was aleady scheduled to work out of town so I could not attend. The email said nothing about a "working group". My email response to the invite was bounced back with with an "invalid email address" (twice) and my two phone messges left for Mike have gone unanswered. So Kirra's cartoon is right on the mark.

Let me just say. MIKE CONVINGTON, If you are to represent me as a climber of Queen Creek, then DAMN IT, represent me not any hidden agenda and don't get side tracked. (FOCUS) Tamo doesn't mean a F%ing thing to me. It can happen or not, that is not the issue we climbers are concerned about.
I want access to Devil's Canyon and I want access to the Road Areas. That is a simple as it gets!
I've never met you Mike, but I know this. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the plate. BUT only if you have our best interest regarding access issues.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT TAMO AS OF YET. WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH QUEEN CREEK!

I believe I speak for everyone at the meeting 10/14 @ PRG and others that I climb with.
Please hear our voice or step down.
Linda White
(Just a little loud this morning!)

Please notice the spelling of my name if you are going to us it.

To set the record straight, I do not claim to speak for anybody but myself. In fact it is that very reason I organized the meeting on Oct 1. So actual dialogue between key people could take place. Key people were invited, those who could attend did, those who chose not to did not, people that did not happen to get invited attended.

My only agenda is for the climbing community to know all the facts concerned.

My position is very clear. To lose Oak Flat would be a tragedy. To loose Oak Flat, without any return would be an even bigger tragedy.

The focus should have always been to secure all access to as much climbing as possible, including the road areas, devils canyon, apache leap, etc. Now it is. All this focusing on quaranteeing access means working with RCC in case of worst case sccenario. Why should working on access just be limited to that at QC. What is wrong with access to QC and access to Tamo?

This working group is not meant to circumvent, but rather compliment the efforts, so the local community can participate.

IMPORTANT ALERT...!!!

This is the most critical time for Oak Flat/Queen Creek. House Hearings on the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2007 are scheduled for THIS Thursday, Nov 1, 10am EDT in Washington, DC.

The AMC has requested that ALL folks concerned, Call and/or Fax against this Land Exchange -- for details, please review this document. Thanks to all for your continued support on this..!

amcaz.org/AMC-CallTOCall-No…

IMPORTANT ALERT...!!!

This is the most critical time for Oak Flat/Queen Creek. House Hearings on the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2007 are scheduled for THIS Thursday, Nov 1, 10am EDT in Washington, DC.

The AMC has requested that ALL folks concerned, Call and/or Fax against this Land Exchange -- for details, please review this document. Thanks to all for your continued support on this..!

amcaz.org/AMC-CallTOCall-No…