Environmental Groups Sue to Protect Grand Canyon From Mining
A planned Canadian-owned uranium mine near the Grand Canyon is being targeted in a lawsuit launched by three U.S. environmental groups that claim the project threatens four at-risk species of fish and an endangered songbird that inhabit the iconic Arizona park.
The president of Toronto-based Denison Mines told Canwest News Service that the legal action has the company "looking at what the potential ramifications might be," but insists the mine poses no harm to the famed natural wonder or its animal residents.
"We're within 10 or 15 miles (16 to 24 kilometres) of the north rim of the Grand Canyon," said Ron Hochstein. "We're in that general district. But geologically and everything, it's so separate that some of the allegations they are making are not even feasible."
The Sierra Club, U.S. Center for Biological Diversity and Grand Canyon Trust have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over alleged violations of endangered species legislation in approving Denison's "Arizona 1" mine, near the northern boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park.
The Canadian company is not being sued.
The groups argue that the U.S. agency has applied outdated regulations and ignored new scientific data in permitting Denison's mine, which is located within a 400,000-hectare buffer zone declared off-limits to new mining operations in a July order issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees the land bureau.
Denison's mine is exempt from the order because it received initial vetting decades ago. But the Sierra Club and its allies argue the land bureau has followed an "illegal course" of approvals and must now revisit a 1988 environmental assessment because the southwestern willow flycatcher and the four types of fish — all native to the Colorado River that cuts through the canyon — have since been added to the U.S. endangered species list or had new critical habitat identified in the region.
"The Grand Canyon and its endangered species deserve complete protection from the uranium industry," said Taylor McKinnon, the Center for Biological Diversity's public lands advocate. "And relying on outdated and incomplete reviews falls far short of that standard."
Roger Clark, the Grand Canyon Trust's air and energy campaigner, said "experience has shown that uranium development can permanently poison land and water in this arid region."
The groups also argue that new hydrology studies, increased traffic hazards due to a uranium-mining boom and other factors should have been considered before giving Denison the final OK to start its operation.
Hochstein said the idea that Arizona 1 threatens the Grand Canyon ecosystem can't be justified "by any stretch of the imagination" because the mine site is a safe distance from the park.
"This mine was originally permitted in the late '80s. This is not a case of a new mine," he said. "All we really needed to move forward from the position we were in was an air-quality permit, which we received last week from the State of Arizona."
He added: "As far as Denison is concerned, we have all the permits necessary to put this mine into operation."
Hochstein said all of the site preparation — including the digging of shafts and placing of equipment underground — was completed years ago and is now being readied for operation.
"This is a mine that was very close to being put into production, but uranium prices collapsed and as a result the mine wasn't fully developed and put into operation," he said. "Once we got the permit, we mobilized people from our local office — to do shaft inspections, start the vent fans operating — so that we're ready to go underground as soon as we can. The infrastructure is all in place. We are essentially ready to go."
In the lawsuit papers filed this week, the environmental groups quote U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's effusive remarks about the Grand Canyon and the potential threats posed by uranium mining when he announced the moratorium on new mines in July.
"I am calling a two-year 'time-out' from all new mining claims in the Arizona Strip near the Grand Canyon because we have a responsibility to ensure we are developing our nation's resources in a way that protects local communities, treasured landscapes and our watersheds," Salazar said at the time.
The announcement described the Grand Canyon as a "home to numerous rare, endemic and specially protected plant and animal species" and noted that "the Colorado River and its tributaries flow through the watersheds" of the park to supply water to several major U.S. cities, including Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego.
The threatened fish species identified in the planned lawsuit are the razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub and bonytail chub.
Salazar's announcement also emphasized that the lands encompassed in the moratorium "contain significant environmental and cultural resources" — including numerous archeological sites — "as well as substantial uranium deposits."
He stipulated, however, that the new measures would not "prohibit ongoing or future mining exploration or extraction operations on valid pre-existing claims."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllWe need electric power plants. What is better a nuclear power station or a coal power station? For the next fifty years we need a base power supply, to back up and smooth out the power grids. How many tons of earth needs to be mined to power a nuclear power plant for a year and how many tons of earth needs to be mined for a coal burning plant? In the past few years so many coal burners have been built in the States. That a lot of coal to mind and move, then you have the air pollution. Sometimes I wonder if the coal mine owners are discouraging nuclear power plants. I doubt that conservation and new technologies can do it alone.
Colorado River water gets so extensively pumped through California farms and cities that often it never reaches the Gulf of California.
A lot of that's drinking water.
Most of it's agricultural, but that does not mean people won't be standing in it, handling it, swimming in it, or drinking it.
It runs by homes all down through Needles, and when it does cross the border, it gets used for drinking water as well as everything else in Mexico.
Uranium mining?
Leave it in the ground.
these animals are more important then us. hopefully after
we get done killing each other in some way shape or form
these animals will have this planet to themselves free of
interference from human beings! gaia will say enough and
shake us off like the gnats we are. if ken salazar that
sleazy weasel was forced to drink the water this would end
in less then a nyc micro second. money money money its
always about the fing money. gw north that's always how it works right? private profits public clean up.
Coal tailings are bad enough but uranium dust? I have a good friend who graduated from the U of Arizona in nuclear engineering before Three Mile Island. He said the safest place for uranium is in the ground un-mined. Once above ground, it's a handling nightmare. (What about nuclear recycling the nuke industry keeps snowing us with?) And even if this mine is some 16 miles from the GC, the possibility of uranium polluting groundwater is not worth the risk. There's nothing worse than radio-active pollution and Colorado River water is scarce enough already.
And the Navajos get screwed... again. Years ago before environmentalists forced scrubbers to be used at the Four Corners (coal-gasification) power plant, just east of the Navajo Reservation near Farmington, NM, the daily air pollution from the plant was worse than LA and NYC combined. This, next to a tribe that already suffered inordinately from respiratory diseases like TB and asthma.
And a Canadian company would be doing the mining? WTF! It's just more proof that reality is stranger than fiction.
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
Yup... Canadians... such good people and so polite. Whatch out for politeness, it can bite you in the a**.
It does not matter WHAT country a Corporation is based in. They all have the same agenda. Profits at any cost with some other entity baring the true costs.
Mine the Grand Canyon. Put a sunset in a jar.
Joe
Don't get me wrong, I am a longtime environmentalist. But... in this case, the heck with the fish and birds!
Uranium in any form is BAD for people! All forms and uses of uranium are devastation for Humans - whether bombs, nuclear fuel rods, tailings from mining, or DU in munitions. This should be the basis of the suit. Tell it like it is.
What effects fish and birds effects us. Or haven't you heard. But you are right. Ask the Navajos what Unanium mining does to people.
But you can sue under the endangered species act. There are no such straightforward protections for the species homo sapiens. For the most part, we are the endangering species, not the endangered. It would be good to have an act to protect endangered human groups like the Navajos. Or progressives.
Bravo Ken Salazar.
Joe