Placeholder for comments on the F.A.S.T. program…
Here is where you will find position papers, observations, and other forms of ammunition with which to counter some of the preceptions, propaganda and outright lies being propagated by government agencies, environmentalists, and others upon the public.
FAST Program documents:
FAST Flyer
Draft Spoof of FAST Flyer
Problems with the flyer:
1. 7 deaths, not 29, occur each year as a result of exploring old mines. The 29 death count [an OSM SOSA calculation] includes drownings in lakes once rock quarries, OHV crashes, etc.
2. The FAST program is designed to expedite the elimination of legacy mine hazards, to eradicate unsafe abandoned mine land features, to eradicate unsafe mine features.
Again, the langauge is not per se noxious [except it does sound like these mines are considered pests]; the problem is that state agencies have wildly different opinions of what hazard means, what unsafe means, and what is or is not a high public safety issue. NV still fences some of their AMLs; UT prefers backfilling 80% of the time.
This Ppt .pdf discusses in overview form the FAST campaign and why it was created….[The IG Report is cited as one of the reasons, another being the Chloride, AZ fatality]
The Nevada workshop on FAST details several aspects of the NV program [which was the prototype for the National FAST campaign] that are actually encouraging–a point ranking system for determining how dangerous a mine opening is, and admission that fencing is often adequate mitigation of these hazards.
The CA BLM website on AML and public safety
Of concern to us is this paragraph:
Permanent Closures/Permanent closure methods completely close off an abandoned mine opening and eliminate access.
This option is used when the hazard is readily accessible to the public, and has no economic, biological, or historic value. Appropriate methods to permanently seal an abandoned mine include: Backfilling; and Closure through blasting.
WHO decides there are no economic, biological, or historic values? Are the documents certifying no adverse impact available for public inspection? In UTAH, they are not… CA has recently admitted that putting barbed wire around a mine feature leads to increased vandalism of the wire; using round wire fencing decreases incidents of vandalism. We applaud this type of decision analysis; even the IG Report indicates that more fencing and signage needs to be put in place. It is when a state agency like UT AMRP uses the FAST Program to backfill even more shafts without adequate and proper investigation of the cultural values that a mine opening and underground passages contain that we say….NOT SO F.A.S.T…
A rational response to the BLM initiative to rapidly seal mine shafts.
What could be more patriotic, more motherhood and apple pie, than putting on your white hat and
proclaiming that you are ready to seal dangerous hardrock mine shafts throughout the west. Well, at the risk
of being politically incorrect, I challenge the BLM’s right [and the underlying wisdom] to mitigate mines quickly.
The BLM is depending on OHV users to be their extra set of eyes to record the location and status of mine shafts encountered
while recreating on public land. The purpose of FAST is to quickly and effectively address [meaning CLOSE] dangerous mine shafts.
Sounds good at first blush, however our experience in UTAH at least has been that of zealous overkill. To those responsible for safeguarding UTAH from AML problems dangerous mine shafts are not a subset of all mineshafts, the UT lead agencies believe that ALL mine shafts are dangerous; they wish not to leave a single opening unfilled.
FAST wishes to bring together agency personnel, contractors, and industry reps to share tools, techniques and “best practices” to quickly address the complex issues associated with closing dangerous [translate ALL] hardrock mine shafts.
The history and tendency of the BLM and any government agency is to take a mile when you give them an inch [at least this is the case here in UT.] Reporting mine openings for rapid closure may seem to be a good thing, public safety and all, but once the mine is reclaimed, the road leading to it, and the road OHVers are using into the area, will next be reclaimed, and then the fear is that the entire area will be nominated as a wilderness area.
In Utah, our DOGM AMRP is of the opinion that ALL 17K mine openings in this State are physical safety hazards and those found anywhere near public acccess are scheduled for closure, with 80% of them being closed by backfilling.
The FAST program Ppts talk of a point ranking for danger, and admits that the majority of the openings are not dangerous. Such a reasoned approach, if implemented across all states, would be welcomed, as we do not believe that ALL shafts deserve to remain open, but some do, and UT’s DOGM AMRP needs to officially recognize this.
Additionally, if FAST will embrace use of fencing, gating, and signage [as opposed to backfilling as the preferred method], including interpretive signage, Adopt-A-Mine would be more than able to embrace this as we are open to cooperating with BLM in assessing and evaluating the cultural resources below ground prior to a FAST closure.
Still of concern is how the promise of NEPA and Sec 106 compliance will ensue once a mine opening is fast-tracked for closure.
It’s not enough to SAY all historic preservation rules and regs and NEPA will be fully complied with, UT in particular is desperately trying to create programmatic agreements to streamline, fastrack, and avoid the full documentation and inventory process. They believe mine openings are generally all the same, with no historic values. See UTAMRP Press Release on this assertion…
The NV Workshop Ppt is a wonderfully insightful document–Slide 8, 9, 10 outlines NDOM’s danger ranking sytem…Slide 19– the shaft in some instances IS the cultural resource to be avoided when backfilling. This slide also says that current claimholders will be encouraged to eliminate the pre-existing hazard on their unpatented claim…
Here in Utah, current claimholders are being given ultimatums to allow the backfilling to occur OR post a reclamation bond and plan of operations for BLM review, even when they only contemplate casual use.
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz
#1 by George Stone on June 25th, 2009
| Quote
Greetings!
I was the BLM’s national AML program manager for ten years until retiring on 1/2/09. I’m the founder of the FAST! campaign and the push to display AML data on the GeoCommunicator. I’d like to chat with you about these matters, as I think there is some misunderstanding about these efforts. I can be reached at 703-657-7571.
#2 by Chris Call on June 25th, 2009
| Quote
I’d be interested what you have to say, George. I think the FAST program is destructive toward US History. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Would adopt-a-mine or george fill us in here?
#3 by Russell Hartill on June 26th, 2009
| Quote
Greetings and Welcome to George and Chris. We welcome the dialogue and will schedule a telecon as soon as practical…In the meantime, please review some additional documents and comments posted above. George, the AML data on GeoCommunicator is a great step forward in transparency and in the disseminating of public-financed data on AML. I can remember years ago pre LR-2000, it was impossibly expensive to obtain mine claim information from the US Govt. Times have changed. Thanks for visiting and to jumpstart the discussion, I will admit I painted the FAST program with a pretty broad brush due to our firsthand experiences here in UT. Other states may indeed be taking a more reasoned and reasonable approach to closing truly dangerous shafts. UT’s receipt of coal royalty tax dollars, which NV does not recieve, may have spoiled our agencies into wanting to pour those dollars into backfilling.
#4 by George Stone on July 24th, 2009
| Quote
I’d be happy to discuss these matters further with any and all. Refer to my website for my contact info.