Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

episteme wrote:Curt is part of a tiny minority of Queen Creek climbers whose use of the canyon is limited to bouldering at Oak Flat.

Rick,

Personally, I have always thought it unwise to marginalize the various "minority" constituencies that make up the bulk of the climbing public. In my view that's a slippery slope, pitting "Oak Flat boulderers" against "Lower Gaan Canyon" new routers for instance is indeed a dangerous thing; you'll be left with very little to help support the greater cause in the long run. My friends and I partake of both roped and unroped climbing on and off the Oak Flat parcel out there and quite often see others doing the same sort of mix.

My preference is to assess the potential risk to the recreational resource since it is this that those in the present and the future will seek moving forward.

Accordingly, based on the "Queen Creek Canyon" guide by Marty Karabin published over 14 years ago (1996), I find that the following at-risk routes are located in and near the immediate subsidence, fracture, and safety zones as defined by RCM in various documents:

Oak Flat West: 375 Bouldering Problems
Oak Flat East: 420 Bouldering Problems
The Mine Area: 145 Routes, 41 Bouldering Problems
Euro Dog Area: 34 Routes, 293 Bouldering Problems

This totals to approximately 179 Roped Routes and 1129 Bouldering Problems and is arguably a very conservative number since this data is quite dated. The actual number of routes, a total of just over 1,300 based on that guide book, is probably greater at this point.

A more recent survey indicated approximately 1,500 to 2,000 total routes are at risk, ensuing new route activity and impacted area definition dependent. Pretty much all of these lie on federal public lands.

Also, it should be noted that this data does not include those adjacent areas at risk due to continuing and future mining company activity based on potential road closures or expanded impact that might occur due to unexpected and undisclosed mining discoveries, plans, etc.

I hope this helps focus the extent of the impact of the proposed mining activity on the recreational climbing resource.

Fred

Fred,

Points well taken, and well argued.

I do have a couple of honest questions (not intended to be confrontational):

1) Who are you referring to when stating "Lower Gaan Canyon new routers"? Presently I know of only five people developing new routes in Lower Devils (Gaan) Canyon, myself and Marcy included. Are you referring to us? If so, could you clarify what you mean in the quoted passage below?

Fred Amrhein wrote:pitting "Oak Flat boulderers" against "Lower Gaan Canyon" new routers for instance is indeed a dangerous thing

2) I do agree that the number of routes you have detailed in Oak Flat is very high. It appears to me that the only way to prevent these climbs from being lost is to either

a) stop the legislation entirely, or
b) convince RCC to mine the area in some manner that does not cause subsidence and allow climbers to climb above the active mine.

Which of the two actions above are you suggesting we pursue? (or, if there is an option "c" that I haven't thought of, please advise.

regards,
Geir

Option C is to have another plan if A &B don't work and the mine and land exchange become a reality. That plan is Tamo. At least we get something in return for the lost climbing resources.

Geir Hundal wrote:Who are you referring to when stating "Lower Gaan Canyon new routers"? . . . Which of the two actions above are you suggesting we pursue?

Geir,

I simply picked a specific example based on the logic of Rick's post. I suppose one could alternatively insert "Euro Dog Topropers" like the large groups I saw there recently, the "Mine Area Lead Climbers" that I see quite often, or the "Upper Gaan Canyon" college classes.

The point is that he pitted Curt up against all other factions of the local climbing community and his divisiveness has little to no upside for all of us in the long run in my view. No offense was meant by choosing LGC users in my hypothetical.

On the other topic, I've always worked hard to advocate for a fairer balance between the quality of life opportunities and issues at Oak Flat and surrounding areas with the profit driven desires and the effects thereof by those who seek to extract the copper, molybdenum, gold, etc., from below.

As such, I think it wise to have all options open including legislatively (input on legislation), administratively (input per public hearings and directly to the BLM, FS, etc.), and privately (working with private, local, state, etc., land holders).

These are all fronts that have direct impact on the climbing in the region and all of them should be open to being addressed, at least in my view.

Fred

thanks for the clarification with regards to the various user groups in QC. in light of this i understand your remark much better.

with regards to rick's comment, i didn't feel particularly pitted against any other groups. rather i felt that rick was highlighting that climbing in queen creek included more than just oak flat, and that he felt curt was treating queen creek climbing and oak flat synonymously.

^^^^^^

CJD wrote:But go ahead and keep it up so I will get what I want. Tamo will remain forever wild and I won't have to worry about the crowds spoiling my wilderness experience. Go ahead. Make my day.

or

CJD wrote:Option C is to have another plan if A &B don't work and the mine and land exchange become a reality. That plan is Tamo. At least we get something in return for the lost climbing resources.

You are one conflicted fellow. Which do you really want?

Geir Hundal wrote:with regards to rick's comment, i didn't feel particularly pitted against any other groups. rather i felt that rick was highlighting that climbing in queen creek included more than just oak flat, and that he felt curt was treating queen creek climbing and oak flat synonymously.

Huh? Say what?

CJD wrote:At least we get something in return for the lost climbing resources.

We've already "got" Tamo.

It's BLM land and there's a passable road there from what Erik and you and others have posted up here recently.

ErikF wrote:The road in wasn't nearly as bad as I had heard, and I think any short wheel based 4-wheel drive could probably make it.

CJD wrote:The drive up takes between 20-40 minutes depending upon your rig and skill. The reason the road is not so bad now is because of all of the hand work we did moving rocks and fixing washouts.

You guys have made it pretty clear that you can get there and that it's fair game for going.

What is it that you don't have that you would like at Tamo in exchange for Oak Flat and other adjacent FS lands?

Fred

Geir Hundal wrote:with regards to rick's comment, i didn't feel particularly pitted against any other groups. rather i felt that rick was highlighting that climbing in queen creek included more than just oak flat, and that he felt curt was treating queen creek climbing and oak flat synonymously.

Geir,

I may sometimes use the terms synonymously, but I know quite well what climbing exists in the Queen Creek/Oak Flat area--and ALL OF IT is threatened if RCM builds the type of mine that they currently have in mind.

Curt

Curt,

"ALL OF IT" only stands for the area surrounding Oak Flat. Queen Creek Climbing is not threatened at all. Devils Canyon is not threatened. Apache Leap will be okay if we can enter from the West. You continually give the audience this wonderful view of how the climbing will be saved in Oak Flat if we force the mine to use a different mining method to extract the minerals. You just don't see the point!!!!!!
Once the mine has the land they can do whatever they want to it. IT WILL BE THEIR PRIVATE MINING LAND!!!!You can stop the subsidence, but you cant stop them from turning the surface into a parking lot. Were do you get this idea that you are going to have this wonderful climbing relationship with the mine especially since you are presently fighting them?

There is nothing in the paperwork stating that climbers will get this land back after the mining is completed. So figure once the mine has the land, the climbers will go away forever! Many people applaud you for your efforts on fighting this monster, including myself, but I am looking for continual climbing to go on in this area for a long time. I want to obtain something in trade for the loss we are going to have with Oak Flat. Standing on highway 60 in the future looking at the mines new parking lot does not serve a trade for me. Yeah we saved it from subsiding but they destroyed the surface anyway. What I see is that the mine already owns land in the area, they are just asking to expand it. You are not stopping a mine from coming in, they are already there no matter how they are going to mine it. Drive out to Oak Flat and look up on the hill at the new monster shaft the mine is installing. They seem to be right on schedule with their operations regardless of the fight going on. The mine also just recently got the rights to drill under the Oak Flat campground to see what is there under the surface. So even though this issue is not even close to being resolved and NEPA has not been started yet, the mine sure looks like they are moving along in style.

The QCC was formed to look over climbing issues regarding the mine. When did we suddenly become environmental professionals knowing everything, I thought we were just climbers working to obtain as much climbing as we can get for now climbers and future climbers.

Marty

karabin museum wrote:Curt, "ALL OF IT" only stands for the area surrounding Oak Flat. Queen Creek Climbing is not threatened at all. Devils Canyon is not threatened. Apache Leap will be okay if we can enter from the West. You continually give the audience this wonderful view of how the climbing will be saved in Oak Flat if we force the mine to use a different mining method to extract the minerals. You just don't see the point!!!!!! Once the mine has the land they can do whatever they want to it. IT WILL BE THEIR PRIVATE MINING LAND!!!!You can stop the subsidence, but you cant stop them from turning the surface into a parking lot. Were do you get this idea that you are going to have this wonderful climbing relationship with the mine especially since you are presently fighting them? There is nothing in the paperwork stating that climbers will get this land back after the mining is completed. So figure once the mine has the land, the climbers will go away forever! Many people applaud you for your efforts on fighting this monster, including myself, but I am looking for continual climbing to go on in this area for a long time. I want to obtain something in trade for the loss we are going to have with Oak Flat. Standing on highway 60 in the future looking at the mines new parking lot does not serve a trade for me. Yeah we saved it from subsiding but they destroyed the surface anyway. What I see is that the mine already owns land in the area, they are just asking to expand it. You are not stopping a mine from coming in, they are already there no matter how they are going to mine it. Drive out to Oak Flat and look up on the hill at the new monster shaft the mine is installing. They seem to be right on schedule with their operations regardless of the fight going on. The mine also just recently got the rights to drill under the Oak Flat campground to see what is there under the surface. So even though this issue is not even close to being resolved and NEPA has not been started yet, the mine sure looks like they are moving along in style. The QCC was formed to look over climbing issues regarding the mine. When did we suddenly become environmental professionals knowing everything, I thought we were just climbers working to obtain as much climbing as we can get for now climbers and future climbers. Marty

Thanks, Marty. I had thought that the subsidence projections did not include all of Queen Creek. I agree that it does not seem likely that the mine will be particularly helpful to us if we continue to oppose the legislation. Negotiating with the mine and utilizing the possibility of endorsement as a bargaining tool seems to be the best way to preserve as much climbing as possible.

Is it correct that the QCC will continue to pursue the items in the matrix as well as establishing a positive working relationship with the mine to address future concerns?

Fred AmRhein wrote:What is it that you don't have that you would like at Tamo in exchange for Oak Flat and other adjacent FS lands? Fred

Hey Fred,

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge regarding Tamo as most of its history occurred before I became involved with this.

As I understand from some of the posts I've read here, one of the major issues for Tamo is a good road. What would it take to get a 2wd road into that place? Is there any other issues (other than its distance from phoenix) that would prevent climbers from utilizing it regularly?

karabin museum wrote:The mine also just recently got the rights to drill under the Oak Flat campground to see what is there under the surface.Marty

Whoa Marty,

You are getting some facts cross-wise and incorrect on this very important matter.

The latest exploration plan that was recently approved explicitly prohibits the mining company from exploring under Oak Flat.

I posted up about this a week or two ago and provided a link to the document when I pointed out that climbers were successful at having a drill rig moved from the Campground Boulder area. (The drill rig would have made access into Euro Dog Canyon very problematic)

From my post on May 24th:

fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/news/201…

Fred AmRhein wrote:Also, the plan calls for a feedback system to ensure that there is no violation of Oak Flat by the directional drilling efforts of the mining company.

Please note that the FS explicitly referred to the withdrawal on several occasions as a rational and reasoned argument to continue to substantially restrict the mining company from entering the 760 acre Oak Flat parcel that is set aside for your recreational use.

Fred

Geir Hundal wrote: As I understand from some of the posts I've read here, one of the major issues for Tamo is a good road. What would it take to get a 2wd road into that place? Is there any other issues (other than its distance from phoenix) that would prevent climbers from utilizing it regularly?

Geir,

Interesting question.

The state and others have estimated that for a gravel, 2WD culverted and well graded road that would allow for all-weather access for most vehicles (meaning that it is designed to withstand most of the gully washers that can be anticipated and is not so steep that passenger cars would be spinning out on it), the cost is somewhere between $4 and $10M, route, road base, road quality/width/weatherization, and grade, etc., dependent.

I've not had an updated estimate done for me, but I'd guess that costs have probably pretty much only gone up since I originally obtained this cost range.

Most road engineers that I've spoken to or have listened to all indicate that it's not wise to just plow a dirt road to the place, you already have this anyway so I'm assuming that by "good" you don't mean what you already have?

Other issues that come into play are maintenance costs (who will "own" the road), management issues and costs (land managers and law enforcement officials tend to find difficulties with nice roads to nowhere in lightly inhabited desert areas for the obvious reasons), and the environmental impact of such a new road in an otherwise undisturbed area, etc.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: What is it that you don't have that you would like at Tamo in exchange for Oak Flat and other adjacent FS lands? Fred

Correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the first dirt road off the 177 is "owned" by another mine company, I believe ASARCO. They plan to pick up operations sooner than later and when they do they will no longer allow private vehicles to travel on this road. Thus no way to get to Tamo.

Again, this is just my understanding. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Thanks,
Luke

Red wrote: It is my understanding that the first dirt road off the 177 is "owned" by another mine company, I believe ASARCO.

Luke,

I believe that the mine company (ASARCO) owns a strip of land that the road crosses just after you get off the highway.

They have the road gated well before the Chilito site just after the uphill turnoff for the current 4WD road to Tamo starts. As I understand it, this 4WD road goes primarily across public land, though it may meander here and there onto private land also. Much of the area is claimed for mining purposes so of course would be under threat of future mining activity.

Certainly an all public "good" road would be better, but there has yet to be a proposal that takes into account the full cost of such and nobody to step up to pay for it.

Regardless, is the call for Tamo simply the call for a new "good" road?

Fred

Fred,

Thank you for the detailed reply. It sounds like there are a couple of big considerations for a road to Tamo.

I would be happy with simply a maintained road to Tamo (assuming that nothing else limits access). It would be interesting to see if RCC is willing to pay for it/build it - there is a pretty big margin between the $1 million we appear to get for Tamo in exchange for an endorsement and what the actual road cost may be.

Edited:

Fred AmRhein wrote: Regardless, is the call for Tamo simply the call for a new "good" road? Fred

• *My Guess* is yes.

My personal call isn't for just Tamo either. I want it all! If they are going to take away and destroy Oak Flats and possibly more, then (IMO) we need to push for everything within an hours drive from QC. I want El Cap(all of it), I want the Drip, I want a good road into Tamo, the inconceivables, etc, etc... They(a foreign owned mining company) are trying to overturn an Executive order in the USA. We should get a WHOLE LOT in return. I also think we should find a way to change the unsafe rule about bolting in the Soups. Yeah, I would love for climbers to be allowed to bolt new lines in the Soups. But if we can't get that, then at least lets find a way to be able to replace to old dangerous 1/4 inch bolts out there now. That would make things a lot safer for many years to come and the Soups are half the drive that QC is from PHX.

So, I would also guess that the answer to your earlier question of; "What is it that you don't have that you would like at Tamo in exchange for Oak Flat and other adjacent FS lands?" would be a permanent access road. I don't think that anyone is pushing for anything new at Tamo, just a good Permanent access road to get to it. I personally am glad the state park idea is gone. I prefer my climbing areas more primitive, like Tamo. The place is awesome as is! It just has questionable access for the long run.

Luke

Geir Hundal wrote:It would be interesting to see if RCC is willing to pay for it/build it - there is a pretty big margin between the $1 million we appear to get for Tamo in exchange for an endorsement and what the actual road cost may be.

This has been a major point of contention with Tamo all these long years, going back to about 2004 or so. You obviously are not familiar with the long arguments made on rc.com about this very topic or about the finger pointing that ensued between the state and the mining company over this very same topic when the state park deal, etc., fell apart.(the state finally realized that the mine company should pick up more of the costs instead of taxpayers picking up the tab, the mining company and its supporters accused the state of "extortion" over some of the details).

In a nutshell, even with the endorsement of the old Tamo containing legislation years ago (see Rick's reference in his post) they would not pay for a "good" road to Tamo.

However, John Rickus, former President of RCM, leaned over to me in a meeting way back in late 2007, and said that his "contractor" could bulldoze a road into Tamo pretty cheaply, a few "hundred thousand" I think he whispered. I took this as his "offer" for a road into Tamo.

Astonishingly, he was dead serious.

So, no, they have not been willing to pay for the road as you've described even with endorsement.

They've always limited their commitment and suggested that others pick up the tab for any balance left unpaid (that's me and you as taxpayers more than likely)

Fred