by Amanda Ballard
on October 1, 2009
Environmentalists are threatening legal action against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for using insufficient and outdated environmental analyses to approve a plan to reopen a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the BLM. They are accusing the BLM of relying on obsolete information to approve a plan for Canadian-based Denison Mine Corp. to reopen its Arizona I mine, located about 20 miles north of the Grand Canyon’s northern border. If the BLM chooses to correct its alleged violations against the Endangered Species Act within the 60-day period, the lawsuit can be prevented.
Sandy Bahr, the chapter director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, said conservationists want the BLM to address the issue and alleged environmental violations.
“In 1988, they did only an environmental assessment on the Arizona I mine,” Bahr said. “That is inadequate and outdated. They did not include any of the new data or information. They did not address issues with endangered species, the na- tional monuments or the tribes.”
The Arizona I mine is located on land included in the one million acres the U.S. Interior Department protected from new mining claims on July 20. During a two-year segregation period, the effects of mining will be evaluated to determine if the land should be protected from mining claims for an additional 20 years.
Scott Sticha, a public affairs specialist for the BLM, said although he could not address the issue directly because of legal matters, a ban was placed on new mining claims, and Denison Mine Corp. had been waiting on approval to reopen the Arizona I mine for some time.
Sticha said he encourages the public to give their opinion in the uranium mining debate. The BLM will be hosting a public forum at the High Country Conference Center on Oct. 15 so citizens can participate in the analysis of uranium mining’s impacts.
“We’ve already gotten somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 comments,” Sticha said. “This is the time [to comment]. It’s good for folks to comment early, because two years is a pretty short amount of time.”
Roger Clark, the air and energy director with the Grand Canyon Trust, said he hopes the conflict can be settled out of the courts.
“[My hopes are] to have the agency comply with these laws without our needing to sue them,” Clark said.
Bahr said environmentalists hope the threat of a lawsuit will motivate the BLM to better protect animal species and water supplies.
“We want to protect the public, the public’s lands and the public’s drinking water,” Bahr said. “The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are critical to Arizona and to the nation. We should not risk them for the short-term profits of one company.”
Mining claims have grown with the price of uranium, which now is valued at approximately $55 per pound. More than 1,100 uranium claims are staked within five miles of the Grand Canyon.Taylor McKinnon, the public lands campaign director for the Center of Biological Diversity, said the land needs to be protected from the harm potentially caused by uranium mining.
“This issue comes down to risk,” McKinnon said. “Neither the government nor the uranium industry can guarantee against water contamination. Were it to happen, that contamination could be permanent and irretrievable. These are risks that shouldn’t be taken.”
For more information on this debate please visit, http://jackcentral.com/news/2009/09/decision-to-protect-land-near-grand-canyon-stirs-debate/
on October 1, 2009
Environmentalists are threatening legal action against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for using insufficient and outdated environmental analyses to approve a plan to reopen a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the BLM. They are accusing the BLM of relying on obsolete information to approve a plan for Canadian-based Denison Mine Corp. to reopen its Arizona I mine, located about 20 miles north of the Grand Canyon’s northern border. If the BLM chooses to correct its alleged violations against the Endangered Species Act within the 60-day period, the lawsuit can be prevented.
Sandy Bahr, the chapter director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, said conservationists want the BLM to address the issue and alleged environmental violations.
“In 1988, they did only an environmental assessment on the Arizona I mine,” Bahr said. “That is inadequate and outdated. They did not include any of the new data or information. They did not address issues with endangered species, the na- tional monuments or the tribes.”
The Arizona I mine is located on land included in the one million acres the U.S. Interior Department protected from new mining claims on July 20. During a two-year segregation period, the effects of mining will be evaluated to determine if the land should be protected from mining claims for an additional 20 years.
Scott Sticha, a public affairs specialist for the BLM, said although he could not address the issue directly because of legal matters, a ban was placed on new mining claims, and Denison Mine Corp. had been waiting on approval to reopen the Arizona I mine for some time.
Sticha said he encourages the public to give their opinion in the uranium mining debate. The BLM will be hosting a public forum at the High Country Conference Center on Oct. 15 so citizens can participate in the analysis of uranium mining’s impacts.
“We’ve already gotten somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 comments,” Sticha said. “This is the time [to comment]. It’s good for folks to comment early, because two years is a pretty short amount of time.”
Roger Clark, the air and energy director with the Grand Canyon Trust, said he hopes the conflict can be settled out of the courts.
“[My hopes are] to have the agency comply with these laws without our needing to sue them,” Clark said.
Bahr said environmentalists hope the threat of a lawsuit will motivate the BLM to better protect animal species and water supplies.
“We want to protect the public, the public’s lands and the public’s drinking water,” Bahr said. “The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are critical to Arizona and to the nation. We should not risk them for the short-term profits of one company.”
Mining claims have grown with the price of uranium, which now is valued at approximately $55 per pound. More than 1,100 uranium claims are staked within five miles of the Grand Canyon.Taylor McKinnon, the public lands campaign director for the Center of Biological Diversity, said the land needs to be protected from the harm potentially caused by uranium mining.
“This issue comes down to risk,” McKinnon said. “Neither the government nor the uranium industry can guarantee against water contamination. Were it to happen, that contamination could be permanent and irretrievable. These are risks that shouldn’t be taken.”
For more information on this debate please visit, http://jackcentral.com/news/2009/09/decision-to-protect-land-near-grand-canyon-stirs-debate/
No comments:
Post a Comment