Taking on the White Hats: Interest Group Opposition to Reclamation1

J. Chris Rohrer Senior Reclamation Specialist

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining 1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210

P.O. Box 145801 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801

801-538-5322 chrisrohrer@utah.gov

Abstract

SMCRA-based abandoned mine land programs have generally enjoyed a

positive image and public support. The programs are nonregulatory and reclamation projects are public works that improve public safety, benefit the environment, and provide jobs and an economic boost to communities. In Utah, recreational user groups originally founded to promote exploration of abandoned mines have begun targeting reclamation projects in recent years. Their grassroots activist campaigns have adopted a political stance in opposition to reclamation, citing concerns for historic preservation and loss of recreational access to mines. The campaigns use a variety of tools, largely web-based, to solicit support and influence project planning. This paper examines this phenomenon. It profiles the interest groups and their methods and the Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program’s response to a new challenge to its mission.

1 Presented at the 31st annual National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Conference, September 27 – 30, 2009; Rogers, Arkansas.

Taking on the White Hats: Interest Group Opposition to Reclamation1

J. Chris Rohrer Senior Reclamation Specialist

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining 1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210

P.O. Box 145801 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801

801-538-5322 chrisrohrer@utah.gov

Introduction

Abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation projects have generally enjoyed

good reputations and favorable public opinion. AML projects are beneficial public works that mitigate hazards and restore degraded environments. They cycle money through local economies by employing engineers, archeologists, hydrologists, heavy equipment operators, and laborers. For the AML professionals attending this conference, the benefits of reclamation are self-evident. The benefits are generally readily apparent to the communities affected by mining. AML projects do not tend to generate controversy. We like to see ourselves as the good guys in white hats. That is why it is news when there is public pushback against an AML project proposal. That is what has happened in Utah, where AML projects have recently been targets of organized public criticism.

For the Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (UAMRP), organized political opposition is unfamiliar territory. I canvassed several other AML programs in the West to see how their experiences compared. Five state programs responded and reported situations mirroring Utah’s. Public comments and input during project planning and environmental assessment preparation for noncoal mine closure projects are infrequent. Comments generally come from constituencies and stakeholders directly affected by a project (landowners, agricultural users, mining industry, local governments, law enforcement, historic preservation) and tend to be supportive or neutral. Organized opposition is rare. Several of the programs surveyed never hear at all from some interest groups, such as traditional environmental groups, hunters and fishers, nongame wildlife fans, offroad vehicle groups, nonmotorized outdoor recreationists, and spelunkers. (Rohrer, 2009)

In the 1980s, the UAMRP had two situations that prompted notable public criticism. In 1985, plans to raze a picturesque historic coal mine bathhouse were opposed by a local newspaper editor, who used his forum to air his complaints (see, for example, Zehnder, 1985). The following year a contractor severely

1 Presented at the 31st annual National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Conference, September 27 – 30, 2009; Rogers, Arkansas.

damaged a beloved National Register-eligible headframe while installing a shaft closure. (Rohrer, 1990) A local resident described the event as, “comparable to swinging the wrecking ball at the angel Moroni atop the Salt Lake temple.” (Peterson, 1987) He began a campaign of letters to the editors and to the UAMRP criticizing the program. In both of these cases, the opposition to the UAMRP was conducted by individuals and was focused on a specific reclamation action. Neither critic gained much traction in public opinion. Both eventually were mollified when the UAMRP responded to their concerns.

Since the 1980s, the public relations landscape of the UAMRP has mostly been smooth, with no major hitches. That has changed in the past few years with the formation of two groups in Utah that have taken an active stance opposed to mine reclamation. They have attacked specific project proposals as well as the overall program mission. The opposition is grounded in concerns about loss of recreational access to underground mines and about historic preservation. These groups formed to promote exploration of abandoned mines. Unlike ghost town enthusiasts and other history buffs, who can be satisfied with preservation of surface features, the activities of these groups are directly threatened by the UAMRP’s mine closure projects and they have pushed back. This is a new phenomenon. The other western AML programs surveyed do not report similar organizations activism in their states. (Rohrer, 2009) The closest are mineral collectors and ghost towners who may write the occasional complaint letter.

Underground Mine Exploration Groups

People have been exploring abandoned mines for years as individuals or in loosely knit groups. The advent of the Internet has facilitated people of like interests coming together and publicizing what they do. Mine explorers, like woodworkers and knitters, have taken advantage of the Web to share their hobby with the world. Underground mine exploration got a significant publicity boost last year with an article (Farnham and Greenburg, 2008) in Forbes, the glossy international business magazine. This lifestyle feature gave a glowing account of the thrills and wonders to be found underground. It gave prominent coverage to two organizations, AbandonedMines.net in the East and Mojave Underground in the West.

A number of abandoned mine exploration groups in the United States are listed in the Appendix (the United Kingdom also has several groups). They tend to be regional; the mid-Atlantic (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York), California, the Pacific Northwest, and the Southwest are well represented. It is difficult to infer group structure from the websites, but they range from formally organized, incorporated groups to loose affiliations of friends to individuals. Motivations vary; many of the groups formed out of a passion for and appreciation of mining history while others seem primarily interested in the recreation and sport of exploring. Both themes run through some groups. Most of the groups explicitly acknowledge the hazards in abandoned mines. Many

adopt a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude regarding safety, admonishing visitors to their websites to stay out of the mines that they themselves visit and portray online.

The boundaries around abandoned mine exploration groups can be fuzzy. Mine enthusiasts share interests with ghost towners, offroad vehicle riders, mineral collectors, and others. Websites and discussion forums for these other interests may occasionally touch on mine exploration. There is a substantial overlap with cavers; both groups have a passion for underground adventure and use similar equipment. But cavers can be ardent environmental preservationists, which can put them at odds with some mine explorers (see “Political Philosophy” below), making for a sometimes uneasy relationship. One Utah mine exploration group is, at this writing, embroiled in a heated debate with cavers over its attempt to sell an unpatented mining claim containing a natural cave with significant geological and paleontological resources.

Utah Mine Exploration Groups

There are two organized groups in Utah that engage in abandoned mine exploration. Like the other groups listed in the Appendix, they have an online presence and have websites with photo galleries, trip reports, and discussion forums. However, they stand apart in three ways from the similar groups elsewhere in the country. First, they have formal legal structure, being incorporated. They are more than just some guy posting his vacation photos on a blog. Second, they actively encourage the public to explore mines. Most of the other groups have prominent disclaimers discouraging mine exploration, even if presented with a wink and a nudge. The Utah groups actively recruit new participants in the sport. Safety hazards are acknowledged, but an attitude that common sense and preparedness are sufficient prevails. Third, the Utah groups have an overt point of view and a clear advocacy position regarding reclamation. Most of the non-Utah groups have no clear point of view and are relatively silent when it comes to reclamation, except perhaps for a passing reference to the losses of mine ruins to time. The Utah groups leave no question where they stand and are vocally against reclamation. It might be added that the Utah groups are arguably more successful in branding themselves than groups elsewhere, with logos, merchandise, and a broad range of outreach activities.

The two leading Utah mine exploration groups are Gold Rush Expeditions (GRE) and Mojave Underground (MU). Both are incorporated as nonprofit organizations. Because of their shared interests, they cooperate with each other on some ventures and have overlapping membership. However, they each have distinct identities and organizational cultures.

Any self-selected organization, while united by common ideals and purposes, will consist of a variety of individuals with an array of motivations, opinions, enthusiasm, and agendas. It is foolish to make categorical statements

about the character any organization. My observations and conclusions are qualified by this fact. My conclusions about GRE and MU are generalizations that may not apply to any particular individual member of the groups, but should be representative of the core leadership. They are based on public statements, personal meetings, correspondence by members of the groups with the UAMRP and other agencies, and information provided on their websites. I have not registered as a member of either group and thus am not privy to “members only” information that may exist. Gold Rush Expeditions

GRE was established in 1999 as a for-profit commercial venture and incorporated in 2004 as Gold Rush Expeditions, Inc. It outfitted and guided trips to ghost towns and abandoned mines, with underground mine tours part of the services provided. It reconfigured in 2006 and incorporated as a non-profit entity under the name GRE, Inc. GRE has considered qualifying for 501(c)3 status, but has not done so. GRE is “dedicated to the documentation and preservation of Utah Ghost towns and Mining Heritage.” (GRE 7/6/05) It claims to have over 1,000 members, up substantially from “over 60” two years ago. (GRE 3/14/07, 4/21/09)

GRE formerly organized and led tours of abandoned mines, but more recently has shifted focus and reduced its public outings to two events per year. It cites annual expenditures of around $50,000 for the past four years for travel, repairs, collection of documents and other memorabilia, and research. (GRE 7/6/09) Some of the funding has come from the practice of staking and selling unpatented mining claims. This practice also gives the group, as claimholder, legal access to the mines for exploration and creates a situation where GRE (or the sympathetic parties it sells the claims to) can deny consent for reclamation.

While it has explored abandoned mines in the past and continues to do so, GRE prefers to identify primarily as a historic preservation organization. It dismisses other exploration groups as dilettantes in history, boasting, “when it comes down to historical interest and historic knowledge the other groups are not even on the same hemisphere as GRE.” (GRE 7/6/09)

GRE has actively opposed UAMRP reclamation projects through various means. It uses mass media well and has garnered favorable newspaper and television coverage. Not shy about generating controversy or publicity, its style can be brash and combative at times. Correspondence with the UAMRP and other agencies occasionally carries threats of lawsuits. (GRE 3/14/07, 6/8/09, 6/10/09) GRE correspondence is often cc’ed to media outlets (e.g. GRE 3/23/09).

An offshoot of GRE is the Utah Ghost Town and Mine Preservation Group, an organization that existed online through Google Groups but also held meetings in the real world. The description at its Google Groups website

(http://groups.google.com/group/UGTMPG/about) reads, “This group is dedicated to preserving the remaining mines and ghost towns that are located around the state. Rallies and important information will be posted here. All interested parties are invited.” The group has 40 members. It is currently seeing a sustained lull in activity. Its peak activity occurred in 2004-2006 with 148 postings; it has only had 12 postings in 2007-2009 (as of 8/4/09). The drop in activity corresponds to the change of GRE to non-profit status, so presumably the political functions of the Utah Ghost Town and Mine Preservation Group were shifted to the GRE website, rendering the UGTMPG redundant. Mojave Underground

Billing itself as the “Abandoned Mine Explorers of the American West,” MU is a young organization. It was established and incorporated as a non-profit on August 8, 2008. (MU 7/2/09) The website dates back to September, 2007. The first part of the group’s name is something of a misnomer, as most of its activities occur in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, and Colorado Plateau and not the Mojave Desert. The latter part is a double entendre, referring not just to subterranean exploration of mines, but also to what they call “urban speleology” (basically, sneaking into abandoned industrial facilities and similar locations), with connotations of rogue activities under the legal radar. However, the majority of the group’s attention is now focused on mines.

The group claims 364 members, 208 registered members at their online discussion forum and 156 members at their Meetup.com site. (MU 7/2/09) They do not say how much overlap there is between the two membership categories, but it is likely to be substantial. MU has three main areas of activity: exploration, preservation, and documentation. (Capps & Burgess, 2009) They have logged over 2500 hours of exploration at over 400 mines. MU promotes mine exploration through a series of public events. They sponsor underground mine tours and give presentations. Several members are talented photographers who produce remarkable photographs; they teach classes in underground photography techniques. Most MU sponsored groups activities take place in a single mine, the Ophir Hill mine in the town of Ophir. They have developed a relationship with the private landowner, who consents to their activities. In return, they have performed service projects for the owner such as retrieving machinery from the mine. MU was once consulted as a technical advisor for scenes of a feature film shot in the mine.

If GRE is feisty, MU is more reserved in its public face. Its activism against reclamation has mostly been confined to letter writing and meetings to influence UAMRP project plans.

Adopt a Mine

Adopt a Mine is an independent entity collaboratively founded and sponsored by GRE and MU, along with an attorney and a website catering to four-wheel-drive vehicle enthusiasts. The Adopt a Mine website debuted on June 25, 2009. It has not yet been incorporated, but the long term objective of the founders is to incorporate as a 501(c)3 non-profit. (MU 7/2/09) The name is a subtle jab at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s “Fix a Shaft Today!” (FAST!) campaign to promote mine closures. (MU 3/2/09) The Adopt a Mine initiative encourages the public to take moral and emotional (if not legal) ownership of a mine, to research and document its history, and defend it from reclamation.

Both GRE and MU identify themselves as dedicated to mine exploration and historic preservation, with documentation of mine sites a major part of their missions. Many GRE and MU members are avocational historians with a keen interest in mining history. Several appear to be avid collectors of historical documents, maps, and other mining memorabilia; copies of some of these are posted online. While some members say they are working on books, the public output of documentary materials to date is limited, consisting primarily of extensive galleries of photos with minimal commentary or metadata. Narrative histories produced by members are cursory, general interest items culled from secondary sources (e.g. MU 11/9/07). The three notable exceptions are Vredenburgh, et al. (1981) and Wray (2006a, 2006b), scholarly original research works by GRE or MU members, although these were all written for other organizations and predate the authors’ involvement with GRE or MU. MU members have presented to a history conference (Burgess & Capps, 2009, B. Hartill, 2009, R. Hartill, 2009), but the presentations had little historical content and were primarily criticisms of the UAMRP and promotions of mine exploration.

Online Activities

GRE and MU are both technologically savvy and have embraced the Internet to a high degree to get their message out. Besides using e-mail extensively and having their own websites, they have used social networking sites, online auctions, and other online resources to their advantage. For people enamored of the technology of the nineteenth century, they are fluent in the technology of the twenty-first.

GRE has provided annual statistics for its website (Table 1).

MU cites 275,584 webpage hits with 7,046 unique new visitors for the month of May, 2009 and describes this as “a fairly average month.” This is a roughly double the 153,000 hits and 2,500 unique visitors reported a year earlier. (MU 7/18/08, 7/2/09)

Year Page Loads

Unique Visitors

First Time Visitors

Returning Visitors

2004 13,398 2,304 1,939 365 2005 46,601 9,841 8,233 1,608 2006 106,227 22,266 17,944 4,322 2007 62,687 16,354 13,701 2,653 2008 91,333 17,993 15,996 3,277 2009 21,449 9,901 11,706 3,195

Table 1. Website Statistics for www.goldrushexpeditions.com. (data from GRE 7/6/09)

Both GRE and MU have PayPal buttons on their websites to collect credit

card contributions.

As noted above, GRE has used the Google Groups discussion forum to disseminate news, share opinions, and plan activities. GRE mine site documentation has evolved from galleries of static photographs to animated slideshows posted on YouTube. The GRE website has an “Action Items” page where visitors can send a canned protest letter via e-mail to a number of elected officials and agency heads with a mouse click. GRE uses the eBay online auction site to raise funds to run its operations by marketing unpatented mining claims it has staked. GRE is also on Facebook (57 fans on 9/1/09).

MU posts information about abandoned mines (locations, descriptions, etc.) on a wiki site it maintains. It uses Meetup.com to schedule group events. They have designed a set of screensaver images so members can promote the group at their offices. Sometimes MU Internet ventures pop up in odd places. MU has written an entry for “mine exploration” at Google knol (unit of knowledge; http://knol.google.com/k/mike/mine-exploration/2obtzuz2d3cmf/2#). Someone (presumably MU) edited the Wikipedia entry for the historic mining town of Eureka, Utah by adding this poke at the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM), the agency in which the UAMRP is located:

The town of Eureka hold heavy amounts of lead in its top soil. Under the close direction of the EPA, Shaw, a construction company, has been contracted out to cover the mining tailings. The EPA has been careful to leave mining history intact. Projected now by the DOGM is to have all mines backfilled and shut forever. A few historical organizations, such as Mojave Underground and Gold Rush Expeditions, have been actively against the closing of these sites for some time now. (sic, Wikipedia, 2009)

The statement stood for ten months before being removed by a subsequent Wikipedia editor as an “advocacy bit.”

Political Philosophy

Keeping in mind the caveat that the groups consist of a variety of individuals of all stripes, there are some consistent themes running through statements by the Utah mine exploration community that allow some general, if qualified, observations.

The membership of the Utah groups tends to be politically conservative. This is not surprising, as Utah is one of the reddest states in the country, with a Republican supermajority in the legislature and most statewide and local elected offices (outside of Salt Lake City) held by Republicans. The Democratic candidate placed third in the 1996 presidential election. Consistent with this, they tend to be aligned with the modern descendants of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s-80s: anti-environmentalist, opposed to federal wilderness designation, in favor of opening up federal lands to development and motor vehicle access. They are allied with off-road vehicle activists on land use issues and are solidly pro-Second Amendment. In this regard they are fairly representative of the Utah populace at large.

Running through the general conservatism is a strong libertarian streak that values personal freedom and responsibility and distrusts government intervention. Writing on the MU forum, one member explained her reasoning regarding installation of mine closures to protect public safety:

Our society is inexorably moving towards a Nanny State where the government assumes responsibility for protecting the citizens in all aspects of their lives. No activity is immune from the rules and regulations that are implemented by the various agencies that that hold authority over public property and our personal activities. Laws and regulations are enacted to restrict our activities to those that faceless bureaucrats feel are acceptable to participate in. No law or regulation is too draconian if it can “save even one life”. There seems to be no understanding of the concepts of freedom, personal responsibility, and assumption of risk. The current obsession of various government agencies to permanently seal old mines is a prime example of the zeal that these agencies show in protecting every person from their own poor judgment. Certainly I understand the argument made for putting a fence around an open shaft so someone doesn’t accidentally fall in. But closing every entrance into the earth in the name of “safety” is an intellectually lazy argument. (MU 7/27/09)

Members and supporters of GRE and MU have argued that the fatalities

that have occurred at abandoned mines are the fault of the victim’s own carelessness, bad choices, and bad parenting. The ATV rider who died falling into a shaft “[s]hould have watched the road,” the teen who fell to his death down a winze was a “kid whose mother hung out in all the bars and did who knows what,” and “[u]se common sense and you will be fine.” (online comments at Miley, 2008) In response to a comparison of legal liability for abandoned mine hazards to a homeowner’s liability for more familiar residential hazards, a Utah proponent of mine exploration retorted, “I leave my trunk open and freezers in my

yard just to bait little kids whose parents havent educated them and expect the public to police them.” (sic, online comment at Dana, 2008) They seem to favor a Darwinian laissez faire world where the proper role of government is not to protect people from themselves.

This attitude extends to mine explorers beyond Utah. It may even be a requisite, or at least a common, personality trait for anyone who finds adventure in high risk activity. Following a double fatality in a California mine, one veteran explorer there had this to say, “America is about freedom. If you want to take your chances, you should be able to do it. I don’t believe in over-regulation.” (quoted in Anton & McKibben, 2002)

With this worldview prevalent among the mine exploration groups, there will undoubtedly be a philosophical gulf between mine explorers and the government agency with a statutory mission to protect public safety. Some level of conflict in purpose is inevitable.

Opposition Efforts

The methods used by GRE and MU in opposition to reclamation have been relatively tame. They are largely the same methods used by small grassroots activists nationwide to effect change—write persuasive letters to the parties in charge and harness mass media to spread your message to gain public support. They are simply citizens exercising their right to express their opinion to achieve an end, and their expressions so far have been relatively quiet. There have been no pickets or sit-ins or civil disobedience. Were it not for the fact that the opposition is organized and directed at an agency that rarely sees any public controversy, it would barely merit discussion at all. Certainly, a few dozen letters protesting mine closures pale in comparison to the battles fought over wars, health care reform, the environment, abortion, or a host of other hot button issues. But for the UAMRP, the headline reads “Man Bites Dog.” The opposition got our attention. When the governor’s office wants to know what that complaint letter is about, you snap to it.

GRE first became known to the UAMRP as an interested organization during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for its Vernon Sheeprocks and Gold Hill projects in 2005 and 2006. Representatives of GRE attended a public meeting for the former project and, when they could not attend the Gold Hill public meeting, the UAMRP scheduled a second meeting especially for them. At this time, they were new to the NEPA process. They voiced general concerns about the projects, but did not submit formal comments during the NEPA comment period.

By the following year, GRE was better versed in NEPA and UAMRP procedures. It contributed to several of the “learning opportunities” encountered by the UAMRP in planning and executing its Star District project in Beaver

County. (Gallegos, 2008) GRE appeared before the city council in Milford, the nearest city to the project, and objected to the project. The city passed a resolution opposing the project, citing economic impacts to the mining industry (loss of potential ore when mine dumps are used for backfill, loss of opportunity for mineral exploration) and tourism, damage to historic resources, construction disturbance, etc. Beaver County also objected on similar grounds. How much influence GRE had with the locals is hard to assess, as there were already local concerns about the project before their involvement, but they certainly helped to keep the concerns alive. They garnered a quote in a wire service news story (Anonymous, 2007) as spokespeople for the opposition. GRE submitted the first comment letter on an environmental assessment ever received by the UAMRP not from another government agency on this project.

In 2008, GRE again worked local opinion to oppose a UAMRP project. In this case the project was in Kane County in far southern Utah and the flash point was the so-called Montezuma’s Tunnels. These were rumored to contain gold treasure hidden by the Aztecs fleeing Montezuma. In the 1920s, Kane County residents went into a flurry of digging searching for the gold. The tunnels were legendary and local landmarks. It did not help that the tunnels were located inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and that the BLM was the impetus behind the tunnel closure proposal. The monument has engendered strong local resentment since it was designated in 1996. Kane County has engaged in a long running feud with the BLM over public lands access and road closures.

It was in this context that GRE entered the picture. The tunnel closures were one small part of a larger project proposal encompassing more than twenty mines in two counties. County officials had been notified of the project through routine channels, but apparently had not grasped the import of the proposal until GRE brought it to their attention. The issue tapped into the ongoing antagonism between the county and the BLM. The county commission, in its NEPA comments, formally objected to many of the proposed mine closures on historic preservation and tourism grounds (it wanted to develop some mines as heritage tourist destinations). In response, the UAMRP dropped the Montezuma’s Tunnels from the project (pending resolution of legal and engineering questions) and went through a long series of meetings to work out closure designs acceptable to the county. The project eventually proceeded as redesigned, but was delayed by a number of months.

Previous GRE efforts used letters and leverage with local officials to oppose reclamation projects. In 2009 they tried a different tack, one bordering on direct intervention. The Lakeside project on the southwest shore of the Great Salt Lake in Tooele County consisted of 36 hardrock metal mine openings. The area has its own harsh beauty, but would not generally be considered a scenic destination. The mines are small and have few structures or artifacts remaining. They are more likely to inspire public indifference than passion. GRE staked five

unpatented claims taking in five of the mine openings scheduled for closure. As claimants, they can deny the UAMRP consent for closure. They are also testing their legal theory regarding the definition of “abandoned” as applied by the BLM and the UAMRP. The BLM requires active mining operations to file a notice of operations and file a reclamation bond. GRE maintains that owners of valid unpatented claims subjected to casual use do not require such notices or reclamation by the claimant and that reclamation by the BLM or its agents (UAMRP, in this case) would constitute an unlawful taking. (GRE 6/8/09) The UAMRP went ahead with the other closures in the project and is waiting for the legal questions to be resolved before returning to finish the remaining work on the contested claims.

In February of 2009, GRE revamped its website. The redesigned site had the activist features described previously: PayPal buttons for easy online donations and the “Action Items” page with alerts and canned letters to a broad assortment of public officials. In 2009, GRE also continued its customary strategy of letters and engagement with local officials in its opposition to reclamation projects in Emery County. (GRE 3/23/09)

MU is a younger organization and does not have the same opposition track record as GRE. They started making their presence known in early 2008 reporting on the Montezuma’s Tunnels issue. Members began submitting comments to departmental and state level online feedback forms and writing letters to the division director in the summer of 2008, shortly before MU was incorporated. The UAMRP Mammoth project in the historic mining town of Eureka drew early MU attention. Members attended the contractor’s prebid site meeting on July 1. The group was identified by name and was quoted in opposition to the project in a newspaper story on August 10. (Dana, 2008)

Since then, MU members have attended public scoping meetings for three other projects. They have corresponded and met with the upper management of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. They visited and documented several of the Emery County mines proposed for closure and submitted comments in a report (Capps, 2009) with their own recommendations.

Surprisingly, for groups opposing reclamation for historic preservation reasons, there has not been much visible engagement of the groups within the traditional historic preservation establishment. They have been rebuffed by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, which has repeatedly determined that the UAMRP properly complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. They have met with some local historical societies (e.g. Fruhwirth 2005) and presented papers to the Mining History Association (Burgess & Capps, 2009; B. Hartill, 2009, R. Hartill, 2009), but there have been few apparent overtures to professional archeologists, academic historians, historic land trusts, or similar potential allies on preservation issues. Action alert messages are

typically posted on offroad vehicle online discussion boards (e.g. GRE 4/5/08, 2/16/09), not to historic preservation websites.

UAMRP Response

The UAMRP understands and values highly the public involvement requirements of NEPA and other laws. Soliciting public input has long been part of the UAMRP organizational culture. In fact, the current UAMRP administrator co-authored a guide (Harris & Malin, 1981) for public involvement in the NEPA process decades ago. For the UAMRP, a long absence of controversy may have fostered complacency. Years of lackluster attendance at public meetings and the absence of comments contributed to a sense that the public was apathetic and indifferent, which led to an over-reliance on routine notification channels and consultation with other government agencies, shortchanging the general public.

The criticism, when it arrived, while unaccustomed, came in small enough doses that it was easy to engage constructively with the critics. From the outset, the UAMRP maintained an open door policy and tried to respond individually to comments as they were received, as much as possible. In comparison, the federal land management agencies the UAMRP often partners with routinely receive criticism, protests, and appeals of their actions from all sides, from environmentalists for timber sales, oil and gas leases, mine permits, etc. and from anti-environmentalists for road closures, lease withdrawals, land use restrictions, etc. If they responded individually to every complaint letter, their offices would grind to a halt. They understandably put up the Teflon shields. The response by our federal counterparts to GRE or MU criticism during these projects was often perfunctory and strictly procedural.

Because of the small scale of the criticism, the UAMRP could choose engagement over retrenchment. Many comments were received in context of NEPA planning. This was appropriate and a sign that the system worked as intended. Public comment during the NEPA process is what we desire and what we want to encourage. The input was welcome, although the content was not always useful.

The initial responses by the UAMRP were reactive and consisted of damage control for specific projects that were under attack. The UAMRP held additional meetings with local officials and ran op-eds in newspapers to present its side and counteract factually erroneous claims that were being made. Support and involvement by upper management (division director) lent added authority. The UAMRP administrator submitted an invited column to the GRE newsletter. An effort was made to educate the groups about UAMRP operations and effective input.

Later responses became more proactive and took a longer perspective. As it became apparent the local government notification through routine procedures

was not enough, the UAMRP improved its efforts by contacting county commissions earlier in the project calendar and getting on meeting agendas to present project proposals. The UAMRP has taken measures to step up its educational outreach on abandoned mine safety. In addition to the ongoing annual distribution of educational workbooks for the Utah public school fourth grade curriculum, the UAMRP has distributed calendars and temporary tattoos to advance the “Stay Out, Stay Alive” message. We have passed out literature at fairs and other public events, particularly those for the off-road vehicle community. This year, the UAMRP entered a contingent in Salt Lake City’s annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. All of these have had the side effect of increasing its public visibility and awareness.

It is wearisome emotionally for UAMRP staff as individuals to have their careers attacked, their motives questioned, and be accused of misconduct. It is easy to dismiss the critics as a fringe minority, especially when they make demonstrably false claims. However annoying and off-putting the criticism can be at times, it has also stimulated a self-examination within the program, a reflective re-evaluation of the program’s mission, procedures, and how to serve public interest best. The UAMRP believes that the opponents need to be taken seriously. They deserve to be treated with respect and empathy. By doing so, the UAMRP can improve its benefits to society. As John Kretzman, New Mexico’s AML program manager put it, in reference to mine exploration interest group criticism, “My point of view is that the states and tribes need to engage in a dialogue with these people – often our worst critics have the most to teach us.” (Rohrer, 2009) The UAMRP is trying to take this to heart, to respect differences and find common ground.

In response to a policy of engagement, there has been a noticeable change in the tone of the discussion, particularly from MU. There will always be some snark and sarcasm hiding in the anonymity of online comments, but communications from the group leadership has been more measured, civil, and cooperative. The groups act less like gadflies attacking from outside and seem more willing to work within the system. While they will always be opposed to reclamation, the comments received are becoming more constructive and specific and less emotional. Instead of blanket condemnations like “you are destroying our cultural heritage,” comments are now more like, “the Murphy adit is driven in competent rock and does not constitute a hazard and should not be closed.” The MU report on the San Rafael Project (Capps, 2009) is an example of the more useful kind of comments that are starting to be submitted.

This progress suggests that the groups may unwittingly be following the advice of Harris and Malin (1981). Harris and Malin recommended that constituencies interested in effectively influencing agency actions through the NEPA process do six things: join or form a group (i.e. organize), make contacts within the relevant agencies, learn about the process, be aware of the time frame for participation, get on the right mailing lists, and attend public meetings. They

also recommended how to craft comment letters with usable comments rather than emotional rants that an agency cannot work with. They are common sense guidelines, but could be the playbook MU is following, based on their actions.

Conclusion

What does the future hold? There are positive signs. The tenor some of the opposition rhetoric has toned down and some have shown a willingness to work with the UAMRP. Some of the polarized fervor early on has mellowed through experience and better understanding of administrative process to become more realistic. The antagonism and conflict in organizational missions remain, but the conflict is more restrained. It may be that some particular reclamation proposal in the future will become a flashpoint that reignites a more confrontational style, but for now there is detente.

It will be interesting to see if the groups can sustain themselves over time. Volunteer grassroots organizations face burnout, mission fatigue, frustration, and membership turnover in addition to budget worries. The key leadership of both GRE and MU is relatively young and may have their activist energies competing with demands of careers and family obligations as they age.

In an introspective essay posted on the MU forum, one member saw a parallel in another risky sport, scuba diving, and recounted how the dive industry, striving for mainstream respectability, pushed for safety and condemned the more extreme elements. Yet over time, the industry gradually adopted the technical advancements the early risk takers had pioneered and what had been “extreme” became acceptable.

The current reputation of mine explorers is quite similar to that of the early technical divers. Those on the outside see us as being reckless daredevils that are taking our lives in our hands every time that we get near a mine. Of course it doesn’t help that any Bubba with a flashlight (or worse, a candle) can go get himself killed and generate a lot of negative press in the process. In the mean time, what does responsible participation in mine exploration look like? Should there be any guidelines or best practices that help new participants avoid a tragic learning curve? Would it make sense to take a basic course in caving, canyoneering, or climbing before heading underground? Are there lessons to be learned from the technical diving community? So where does this leave the mine exploration community? Are we at the forefront of gaining legitimacy for mine exploration? Or are we just a renegade band of explorers who will remain “underground”? Do we simply go about our sport under the pressure of increasing mine closures? Do we try to have a voice with the decision makers in government? (MU 7/27/09)

It is a small sign, but it may be indicative of a trend towards respectability: the avatars used by the members posting on the MU forum have gotten tamer. In the early days many of them had a cultivated outlaw, even paramilitary, image, with

anonymous faces shrouded in hoods and gas masks or hidden behind assault rifles. More recently, the avatars have been replaced with pictures showing faces (sometimes cleverly PhotoShopped as heroic figures) and mining images.

The UAMRP considers underground abandoned mine exploration an inherently dangerous activity that should not be encouraged. The problem is that there are few, if any, legitimate outlets to channel the exploration urge into a safe and controlled setting. There are several mining museums in Utah, but no operating tourist mines where people can go underground (there was one in Park City in the 1990s, but it proved unprofitable). As it is, “any Bubba with a flashlight” will scratch the itch to explore by going to the nearest mine without regard to safety. The existence of mine exploration groups shows a need and potential market for a tourist mine; whether one could be economically viable is unknown.

As the groups mature, the mine explorers could follow the example of spelunking grottoes in establishing codes of ethics for their activity, policing participants in the sport, and working with land managers to develop management plans for specific mines. Management plans could regulate the required skill level of visitors, specify required equipment, limit party size and frequency of visits, control access with locked gates, etc. to manage risk and protect the cultural and natural resources in the mine. The MU activities at the privately owned Ophir Hill mine could evolve into a managed situation and possibly even into a tourist mine. The groups could follow the example of the land trusts and take a free market approach to historic preservation by acquiring title or rights to mine properties. Then they could have complete legal control of (and responsibility for) the mine. The effort by GRE to stake unpatented claims is a conscious step in this direction. If such actions are done responsibly, the UAMRP could support them.

The UAMRP is bound by statute to a particular mission of protecting the public and enhancing the environment by reclaiming abandoned mines. As a public service agency, we must be responsive to the public to keep our white hats white, even if a small subset of the public has a contrary mission. The UAMRP cannot capitulate to its opponents and abandon its core mission of reclamation; it has an obligation to the public trust to keep. But it must, and will, listen to its critics—that is another obligation to the public trust. There may be room to accommodate responsible exploration in reclamation planning and design without abandoning its commitment to public safety.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the leadership of GRE and MU, who graciously responded to my requests for information and consented to the use of their copyrighted images for the conference presentation.

Literature Cited

For the sake of brevity in the text, unpublished information obtained from UAMRP files is not cited. Personal communications (printed or electronic correspondence) from GRE or MU members and MU forum postings are cited as the organization and the date in mm/dd/yy format. Full citations for these are available on request from the author. I have chosen not to name individual members in personal communications to protect their privacy. Information on the other mine exploration groups listed in the Appendix was obtained from their websites (accessed August 2009). Anonymous. 2007. Utah Town Wants Local Abandoned Mines Accessible.

Associated Press report, May 1, 2007. Available online at: http://kutv.com/southernutah/local_story_121190228.html. Accessed July 10, 2007.

Anton, Mike and Dave McKibben. 2002. Heeding the call to mine the unknown.

Los Angeles Times. June 30, 2002, page B-2. Available online at: http://www.etogen.com/ue/lat-mine.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2009.

Capps, K. Michael. 2009. San Rafael Swell AMRP Inventory Abandoned Mine

Safety Report. Unpublished report prepared by Mojave Underground and submitted to the Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program. March 23, 2009. 8 pp.

Capps, Mike and Stuart Burgess. 2009. Opening the Books: Exploring the

History and Underground Passages of Ophir Hill Mine. Presented at the 2009 Annual Conference of the Mining History Association, Creede Colorado, June 3-7, 2009. Microsoft PowerPoint file “MU_Slideshow.pptx” downloaded and extracted from the file “MU_Presentation_DVD.iso” available online for download at: http://www.mojaveunderground.com/media/MU_Presentation_DVD.iso. Accessed June 8, 2009.

Dana, Jens. 2008. Groups oppose plans to close abandoned mines. Deseret

News (Salt Lake City, UT), August 10, 2008, page B1. Available online at: http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700249611. Accessed August 19, 2008.

Farnham, Alan and Zack O'Malley Greenburg. 2008. Forbes Life: Abandoned

Mines. Forbes Magazine, Nov. 10, 2008. pp. 156-160. Available online at: http://www.forbes.com/magazines/forbes/2008/1110/156.html. Accessed October 23, 2008.

Fruhwirth , Jesse . 2005. Mine enthusiast critical of plans to ‘bury history’. Tooele Transcript (Tooele, UT), Thursday, December 15, 2005. Available online at: http://www2.tooeletranscript.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=9354. Accessed December 20, 2005.

Gallegos, Anthony A. 2008. How Much Experience Can You Get From One

Project? Presented at the 30th annual National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Conference, October 26 – 29, 2008, Durango Colorado

Harris, Tiffin D. and Luci Malin. 1981. Citizens’ Guide to Environmental

Impact Statements. Oregon State University Extension Service, Special Report 624. July 1981. 19 pp.

Hartill, Brannan. 2009. The Future of Mining Books. Presented at the 2009

Annual Conference of the Mining History Association, Creede Colorado, June 3-7, 2009. Microsoft PowerPoint file “BRH_MHA_2009.ppt” downloaded and extracted from the file “MU_Presentation_DVD.iso” available online for download at: http://www.mojaveunderground.com/media/MU_Presentation_DVD.iso. Accessed June 8, 2009.

Hartill, Russell. 2009. Backfilling the Books: A Look at Utah's Abandoned

Mine Reclamation Program and Its Impact on Mine Heritage. Presented at the 2009 Annual Conference of the Mining History Association, Creede Colorado, June 3-7, 2009. Microsoft PowerPoint file “RDH_MHA_2009.ppt” downloaded and extracted from the file “MU_Presentation_DVD.iso” available online for download at: http://www.mojaveunderground.com/media/MU_Presentation_DVD.iso. Accessed June 8, 2009.

Miley, Sarah. 2008. Dangerous mines remain in county. Tooele Transcript

(Tooele, UT). August 15, 2008. Available online at: http://tooeletranscript.com/printer_friendly/180122. Accessed August 8, 2008.

Peterson, Gary B. 1987. Down The Shaft, Or Up?: Silver and Heritage in the

Tintic Mining District. In: Making Money Out Of Dirt, Proceedings of the Utah Mining Symposium, sponsored by the Utah Centennial Foundation, Utah State Historical Society, Utah Mining Association, and Utah Endowment For The Humanities. pp. 1-8.

Rohrer, J. Chris. 2009. Personal communications. Exchange of e-mail and fax

communications (survey and responses) with western AML program administrators (AK, CO, MT, NM, NV, WY). July, 2009.

Rohrer, J. Chris. 1990. Bullion Beck Headframe Fire Damage Mitigation. pp. 85-87 in Barker, Leo R. and Ann E. Huston, ed. 1990. Death Valley to Deadwood; Kennecott to Cripple Creek: Proceedings of the Historic Mining Conference, January 23-27, 1989, Death Valley National Monument. National Park Service Western Regional Office, San Francisco. 219 pp.

Wikipedia. 2009. Entry for Eureka, Utah. See the 7/24/08 and 5/12/09 edits on

the History tab. Available online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka,_Ut. Vredenburgh, Larry M., Gary L Shumway, and Russell D. Hartill. 1981. Desert

Fever. The Living West Press. Wray, William B. 2006a. Mines and Geology of the Rocky and Beaver Lake

Districts, Beaver County, Utah. In: Bon, R.L., Gloyn, R.W., and Park, G.M., editors. Mining Districts of Utah. Utah Geological Association Publication 32, pp. 183-285.

Wray, William B. 2006b. Mines and Geology of the San Francisco District,

Beaver County, Utah. In: Bon, R.L., Gloyn, R.W., and Park, G.M., editors. Mining Districts of Utah. Utah Geological Association Publication 32, pp. 286-457.

Zehnder, Chuck. 1985. Chuck’s Waggin’: Don’t need reclamation bureau.

Price Sun Advocate (Price, UT), Sept. 4, 1985.

Appendix Abandoned Mine Exploration Groups/Websites 2DrX Explorations http://www.2drx.com/

This group focuses on mines in the Pacific Northwest, the Cascades, and Washington state. It has been online since 2001. The website has trip reports with photos. The emphasis is on mine exploration as recreation; there is not much history on the site. There is a page discussing mine safety. A disclaimer statement on the website cautions others against visiting mines because of the hazards (“Disclaimer: Exploring old mines. . . could kill you, or worse. We do not recommend that you follow our examples. Individuals attempting some of the activities found on this website must accept and assume all risk of damage, injury and death which probably will result. . . This website is intended for entertainment purposes only.”) Abandoned Mine Research, Inc. http://www.undergroundminers.com/

This group is affiliated with IronMiners.com (see below). It bills itself as “Specializing In Mine Equipment Restoration and Underground Photography.” It focuses on the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania with a strong interest in mining history and equipment restoration. The website has photo galleries with brief historical notes on the mines. Nine people, some of whom have active coal mining experience, are listed as the core of the organization, which was founded in 2002. The website has a strong safety disclaimer and supports “Stay Out, Stay Alive” campaigns. Members will lead aboveground public tours, but will not lead underground tours out of concerns for liability and safety. Abandonedmines.net http://www.abandonedmines.net/

This group was profiled in the Forbes article. It focuses on abandoned mines in New York and New Jersey. The website has photo galleries with brief historical notes on the mines. A disclaimer statement posted on each page cautions others against visiting mines because of the hazards. The group has pages at Myspace and Facebook (146 friends on 8/26/09) and an online discussion forum (129 registered users on 8/4/09). Adopt a Mine http://www.adoptamine.org/ See main text. Arizona Mine Exploration http://minexplorationaz.tripod.com/index.html

This group focuses on mines in Arizona. The website has photo galleries with mine locations and brief descriptions of the mine workings. The emphasis is

on mine exploration as recreation; there is no historical information on the site. There is no safety information. A disclaimer statement on the website cautions others against visiting mines because of the hazards. ATV Explorers http://www.atvexplorers.com

This group covers a broad range of ATV-based exploration activities in the West. The website has 399 registered members. The website has a discussion forum with a section for “Ghost Towns and Mines” which includes two subtopic forums, “Mines” and “Mine Exploration and Safety.” However, activity in this forum is limited; there have only been a total of 18 discussion threads in these topics and the most recent posting was in 2004. California Association of Mine and Cave Exploring http://www.camce.org/CAMCE/

This group focuses on mines in California. It is incorporated and has bylaws and membership dues. The website features mining-related news, trip reports, photo galleries, videos, and a forum for members. There is an emphasis on safety, with specified gear required for trip participants. Mine site location information held by the group is kept private to prevent vandalism. California Mine Explorers http://mineexplorers.tripod.com/californiamineexplorers/

This group focuses on mines in California. The website has trip reports with photos. It appears to be the work of a single individual. It has a brief mention of safety extolling common sense. DesertMines.com http://desertmines.com/

This group is self-described as “Dedicated to Preserving California’s Mining History Through Research and Exploration.” The website consists of a single home page plus a Legal Notice page. It has not been updated since 2006 and appears to be defunct. Gold Rush Expeditions http://www.goldrushexpeditions.com/ See main text. Intrepid Explorers http://intrepidexplorers.org/

This is a general interest group with focus on the backcountry of the western U.S., including ghost towns, offroad vehicles, petroglyphs, canyon exploration, antiquing, and mines. The website has a discussion forum with sections for mines and mining camps. Photo galleries have pictures of underground mine exploration.

IronMiners.com http://www.ironminers.com/index.htm

This group focuses on abandoned mines of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. The website has photo galleries with brief historical notes on the mines. Ten people are listed as the core of the organization. A disclaimer statement posted on each page cautions others against visiting mines because of the hazards. The group has an online discussion forum (482 registered users on 8/4/09). Mojave Underground http://www.mojaveunderground.com/ See main text. Nevada Mine Explorers http://www.nevadamineexplorers.com/ Dead link. Northwest Underground Explorations http://www.nwue.org/

This group focuses on mines in Washington state and the Pacific Northwest. It describes itself as “a very loosely organized, practically disconnected, group of individuals who really like crawling around in holes in the ground.” The website has trip reports with photos and also “mine reports,” more thorough versions of trip reports that are researched and footnoted. The emphasis is on history and geology; it is one of the more scholarly of the sites reviewed. There is a safety statement. The group has a discussion forum at Yahoo Groups (NWUNDERGROUND), that was founded 11/21/03 (262 members on 8/27/09). The Yahoo Groups page also has a safety disclaimer. Starbuck’s Exploring http://starbuck.org/exploring/

This is a general interest website with a focus on mining and prehistoric Native American sites in the western U.S. (California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado). It appears to be the work of a single individual, despite the “.org” domain. The site has photo galleries, including photos of underground mine explorations. Tri-State Mine Explorers http://tri-statemineexplorers.org

This group focuses on mines in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The website has photo galleries with trip reports. Two people are identified as constituting the group. The website has a page on safety with the disclaimer, “This type of activity is inherently dangerous and should not be done by anyone. If it was safe, why would there be a ‘Stay Out, Stay Alive’ program?”

Underground Explorers http://www.undergroundexplorers.com

This group focuses on mines in California. The website has photo galleries. Five people are identified as constituting the group. The website has a safety disclaimer and a page on mine safety. Unseen California Adventures http://www.socalfunplaces.com/topic_desert.htm

This group focuses on mines in southern California. The website has trip reports with photos. It appears to be work of a single individual. The emphasis is on mine exploration as recreation. There is a brief safety disclaimer. Utah Ghost Town and Mine Preservation Group http://groups-beta.google.com/group/UGTMPG See main text. Sizing Up the Mine Exploration Community

How many people engage in abandoned mine exploration? The question is relevant because GRE and MU have both pointed to the relatively few fatalities in abandoned mines compared to other forms of outdoor recreation such as skiing and rock climbing as evidence that the hazards of abandoned mines are vastly overstated. (GRE 2/8/06, MU 7/18/08, online comments at Miley, 2008) It is also relevant as a measure of the potency of what may be an emerging political force. There are no reliable figures on numbers of mine explorers or rates of visitation. No entity tracks them or publishes statistics. Any estimates must necessarily rely on self-reporting and be qualified as anecdotal and speculative.

In defense of a making a high estimate, a founding member of MU has cited “an adit on my property that I know sees well over a thousand visitors a year” and claimed that “[o]ther large mines see over 10,000 visitors a year.” (MU 7/18/08) GRE has suggested that the entire offroad vehicle community be considered as mine explorers, because “I have NEVER come across a hunter or 4wd driver who have not seen or explored a mine, its part of the allure that this state holds for those who venture out.” (sic, online comment at Miley, 2008) A distinction needs to be made here between surface visitation and underground exploration. A great many (uncounted) people visit mines to admire structures and old machinery, appreciate history, take pictures, or rockhound on the mine dumps. Far fewer actually venture underground.

Membership figures for the groups give some idea of the size of the mine exploration community. Several of the websites listed above are clearly the work of small (fewer than ten), defined groups of individuals without a larger membership (e.g. 2DrX Explorations, California Mine Explorers, Starbuck’s Exploring, Tri-State Mine Explorers, and Underground Explorers). Other online groups have memberships numbering in the low hundreds, based on posted

figures of registered users for online discussion forums and Facebook or Myspace friends (IronMiners.com is highest with 482). GRE claims over a thousand registered members, but registration is required to access portions of their website, so some of these can be discounted as casual websurfers. Adding all of these groups together gives a few thousand people nationwide who are serious enough about mine exploration to actively participate in online groups.

Participation numbers from their own events suggest that actual mine exploration numbers may be lower than stated. According to figures at their Meetup.com site, MU averages about one organized underground tour event per month and about 17 people per event. Their most popular events (Introduction to Abandoned Mine Exploration, Underground Photography) have drawn 28-37 participants; all other events had fewer than 20 attendees. GRE’s annual Spring Safari, its premier public event, draws a few dozen people; other trips shown in its photo galleries usually show only a handful of people.

A perusal of trip reports and photo galleries for groups outside of Utah shows similar results. Trips are infrequent and groups tend to be small, usually in the 3-12 person range. Northwest Underground Explorations lists only 25 mine trips in five years, Underground Explorers lists nine trips in just over a year (with some repeat trips to the same mines), and 2DrX Explorations lists 50 trips over ten years. This admittedly crude analysis is biased towards websites that present trip reports in dated lists, and misses trip reports buried in discussion forums or in “members only” areas of a site, but it does not support claims of thousands of visitors per year for a mine.

For another crude gauge of the level of organized interest and participation in abandoned mine exploration relative to other recreational activities, I tabulated hits on the Google search engine for various terms (Table 2). This is tenuous, as Google is sensitive to search term word choice, but it gives a rough sense of comparative interest in different outdoor recreational activities, at least as reflected by online activity.

Subjective field evidence suggests that some skepticism of claims of high numbers of participants in mine exploration is warranted. While it is common to find vehicle tracks, fire rings, and litter indicating occasional visitation at mines statewide, the UAMRP rarely encounters the type of wear and tear at mines consistent with the sustained regular visitation needed to amass hundreds or thousands of visits per year. Unsubstantiated reports of extremely high visitation to a mine, at least in Utah, do not hold up under scrutiny.

Search Term Number of Hits "abandoned mine exploration" organizations 191 "mine exploring" organizations 388 "mine exploring" groups 2,960 "mine exploration" organizations 22,800 "abandoned mine exploration" groups 35,600 "cave exploration" groups 38,800 "mine exploration" groups 38,900 "spelunking" groups 66,700 "model rocketry" groups 72,500 "gold panning" groups 94,300 "four wheeling" groups 102,000 "abandoned mine" organizations * 109,000 "skeet shooting" groups 115,000 "tree climbing" groups 122,000 "alpine skiing" groups 155,000 "abandoned mine" groups * 179,000 "whitewater rafting" organizations 273,000 "hang gliding" groups 355,000 "off road vehicles" groups 463,000 "sky diving" groups 474,000 "trout fishing" groups 491,000 "caving" groups 508,000 "ghost towns" groups 578,000 "cross-country skiing" groups 662,000 "bass fishing" groups 818,000 "whitewater rafting" groups 956,000 "bird watching" groups 2,400,000 "mountain biking" groups 4,030,000 "rock climbing" groups 4,910,000

Table 2. Results Of Google Searches For Various Search Terms. Searches performed on August 4, 2009.

* These two “abandoned mine” searches without the word “exploration” returned numerous sites for AML reclamation organizations, including many attendees at this conference.