0
   

As decision on Grand Canyon mining nears, sides line up

 
 
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2011 04:51 pm
June 6, 2011
As decision on Grand Canyon mining nears, sides line up
By Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A moratorium on new uranium mining around the Grand Canyon expires in six weeks, and the Interior Department is under pressure from conservation groups and mining companies over what to do about it.

Conservation groups want to stop more uranium mining near the majestic Grand Canyon, a part of the American landscape that's been protected since the late 19th century and is known worldwide for its stunning vistas. Uranium mining companies already have rights on public lands in the area that the decision wouldn't affect. They're eager to expand to feed a growing demand for fuel for nuclear power in many parts of the world.

The decision will come just after Germany announced plans to close its nuclear plants and shift to more renewable energy sources. Elsewhere, however, the use of nuclear power is growing, and the price of uranium has risen in recent years. Opponents of expanded mining say the uranium wouldn't necessarily boost American energy independence because an expansion of the nuclear industry has been blocked by high prices and because many of the companies that want to mine near the canyon are foreign companies that would export the uranium.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has a July 21 deadline, when the two-year moratorium he imposed on new uranium mining on 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park expires. He must decide whether to ban new uranium mining there for 20 years or open up new mining on all or part of it. If he does nothing, the whole area would open again to new claims. Under an 1872 law, companies that can show valid claims have a right to mine on public land.

Conservation groups are pressing the administration to halt the mining. Mining companies are pushing it to lift the moratorium, arguing that there's no proof of environmental damage from uranium contamination.

At stake are dozens of claims that could be validated and grandfathered in, said Roger Clark, the air and energy director of the Grand Canyon Trust. Under the 1872 law, "once they have valid claims, that's private property and really there's no stopping it," he said.

An advertisement titled "Don't undermine the Grand Canyon" is scheduled this week in The New York Times that includes a letter from 50 public figures, including actors Robert Redford and Edward Norton, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who drew attention to tropical deforestation in the 1970s and has advised U.S. administrations since Ronald Reagan's.

The letter, addressed to President Barack Obama, urges him to extend the moratorium on the entire area for 20 years. The ad was paid for by the Pew Environment Group.

Pew recently reported that the number of claims increased by 2,000 percent from 2005 to 2010 and that hundreds of those claims are controlled by foreign interests, including Russia's state-owned nuclear energy company and a state-owned South Korean utility.

"What hangs in the balance is not just the Grand Canyon's splendor for future generations, but important wildlife habitat and the health of the Colorado River, which provides drinking water to millions," the newspaper ad says.

One concern of Pew and other groups that oppose expanded uranium claims is the possibility that the Interior Department could try a stopgap measure, such as offering a new short-term moratorium with a new rationale.

"If there's any environmental protection the administration should stand for, it's protecting the Grand Canyon," said Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of U.S. public lands policy.

Others said they'd heard rumors that the administration somehow would postpone a decision.

Ron Hochstein, the CEO of Denison Mines, a Canadian company with three operations near the Grand Canyon that already have permits and wouldn't be affected by the decision, said an environmental impact statement showed there'd be no impact from mining and therefore the government should open the area to new claims. Denison mines uranium in Arizona and Utah.

The National Mining Association opposes any moratorium on new mining claims near the Grand Canyon. In official comments, it said that making the lands around the park off limits to new claims would be an "overreaching effort to protect the (Grand Canyon National Park) from vague and unsubstantiated threats outside the park boundaries."

Conservation groups, however, challenge the conclusions of the draft environmental impact statement, saying that, among other things, it failed to calculate a worst-case scenario.

Hochstein said he didn't expect a decision soon. He said it was possible that the Interior Department might try to get another temporary moratorium because it hadn't finished the final version of the environmental impact statement.

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman at the department's Bureau of Land Management office in Arizona, said his agency had to evaluate 294,000 comments and wasn't finished yet. He said he didn't know when a decision was likely.

Of particular concern to environmental groups are the underground aquifers that feed seeps and springs in the Grand Canyon.

There's no way to guarantee that uranium mining wouldn't contaminate the aquifers, and if that happened it would be impossible to clean up, said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director for the Center for Biological Diversity, another group that's pushing to stop new uranium claims.

"The question at hand is really one of risk," McKinnon said. "Are we willing to risk the aquifers that provide the vast majority of the Grand Canyon's surface water?"

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/06/115348/as-decision-on-grand-canyon-mining.html#ixzz1XsMDZqA6
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 931 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2011 04:55 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
PEW Report:

New Mining Claims Plus an Old Law Put National Parks and Forests at Risk
Report: Ten Treasures at Stake (PDF)
Interactive Map: Grand Canyon Mining

As the Obama administration develops its final proposal to protect the Grand Canyon from hardrock mining, other national parks, monuments, forests and historic sites are also under threat from thousands of mining claims, many of them staked during the past five years. These incomparable places could be at risk because of the outdated 1872 Mining Law that puts prospecting ahead of other activities on most of America’s public lands.

Congress has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to modernize this statute, despite the fact that even industry experts say it should be updated. But until the law is brought up-to-date, few good options exist for protecting such places as the Grand Canyon from hardrock mining, except for a time-limited “withdrawal process,” which the Obama administration is currently considering. This report provides 10 examples of the lands at risk if Congress and the administration fail to act.

Complete: http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/ten-treasures-at-stake-85899358611
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:54 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Jan. 09, 2012
Interior Dept. bans new uranium mining near Grand Canyon
Emily Seagrave Kennedy | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: January 09, 2012 06:57:03 PM

WASHINGTON — In a controversial decision, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on Monday made official a 20-year ban on uranium and other hard-rock mining claims on more than 1 million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon.

Salazar's decision to withdraw from areas around the Grand Canyon came after two years of evaluation by the Bureau of Land Management, extending an expiring 2009 interim ban on new sites.

The ban will allow more than 3,000 existing mines and claims made before 2009 to continue, but it could prevent up to 30 new mines from being established, according to an estimate from the environmental impact statement that the Bureau of Land Management released late in October.

"A withdrawal is the right approach for this priceless American landscape," said Salazar, who announced the decision Monday at the National Geographic Museum. "People from all over the country and around the world come to visit the Grand Canyon, numerous American Indian tribes regard this magnificent icon as a sacred place and millions of people in the Colorado River Basin depend on the river for drinking water, irrigation, industrial and environmental use."

Under the nation's 139-year-old mining law, companies have automatic access to most public land in the West and are allowed to mine for uranium, gold and other minerals without paying royalties.

Bob Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said Monday that the two-decade ban on new claims in the protected area would give the department the chance to monitor the impacts of existing mining operations.

Environmental groups praised the decision. But not everyone favored the ban, particularly members of the energy industry and some Republican lawmakers.

"It is deeply unfortunate that certain environmental groups have chosen to break faith with a 30-year-old compromise with environmentalists that successfully balanced conservation with mining and other commercial activities," GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona said in a news release. "The administration has shown that it is either careless enough to break this historic agreement or foolish enough to fall for these groups' alarmist arguments."

In a statement, Hal Quinn, the president and chief executive officer of the National Mining Association, cited the decision as ignorant of "the obvious need for high-wage employment and energy security," saying it could be highly detrimental to the community.

But Salazar said the ban was a much-needed step to curb the environmental impact of the energy industry.

"Every generation of Americans has moments when we must choose between the pressures of the now, and the protection of the timeless," Salazar said.

Final Environmental Impact Statement on mining withdrawal

http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout.html/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Favor - Discussion by Montana
 
  1. Forums
  2. » As decision on Grand Canyon mining nears, sides line up
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.14 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 09:45:50