September, 08 2009, 04:34pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity,
(928) 310-6712, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust,
(928) 774-7488, rclark@grandcanyontrust.org
Stacey Hamburg,
Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter,
(928) 774-6514, stacey.hamburg@sierraclub.org
Uranium Mine Threatens Grand Canyon's Endangered Species, Meets With Legal Challenge
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club
today filed a 60-day notice
of intent to sue the Bureau of Land Management
over Endangered Species Act violations connected to Grand Canyon uranium
mining. The Bureau has failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on the potential impacts of the Arizona
1 uranium mine, located just north of Grand Canyon National
Park, to threatened and endangered species.
The Bureau has been relying on old information and an outdated,
inadequate environmental analysis, which violates the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency failed to supplement its 1988 environmental
assessment for the mine and prepare a new environmental impact statement in
light of new science and circumstances relevant to the mine's
potential impacts.
The Arizona
1 mine is located within the 1 million acres of land that were temporarily
protected from mining via a segregation order enacted by the Department of
the Interior on July 20. The segregation prohibits new mining claims and
subjects the exploration and mining of existing claims to valid existing
rights. That means the Bureau must not allow mining to begin until valid
existing rights are established for the Arizona 1 mine's claims.
Because the mine has been closed for more than a decade, a new
"plan of operations" is legally required, since Bureau of Land
Management regulations hold that those plans are only in effect while mines
are in operation. Mining officials have stated in the media that mining
could resume at the Arizona
1 mine as early as this fall.
"Today's notice affords the Bureau of Land Management
both the opportunity and justification to correct its illegal
course," said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological
Diversity. "The Grand Canyon and its
endangered species deserve complete protection from the uranium industry.
And relying on outdated and incomplete reviews falls far short of that
standard."
In 1984, a flash flood swept four tons of high-grade uranium ore
from a uranium mine near Arizona 1 through
Hack Canyon
and Kanab Creek into the Colorado River and Grand Canyon National
Park. The 1988 environmental assessment
states that the Arizona
1 mine, which is constructed in the bottom of a wash, is prone to unplanned
releases that would follow the same water course. Since 1988, four species
of fish native to the Colorado River, as
well as southwestern willow flycatchers, have been added to the endangered
species list, and critical habitat has been designated for their recovery.
"Experience has shown that uranium development can permanently
poison land and water in this arid region," said Roger Clark with the
Grand Canyon Trust. "Prohibiting uranium mining in Grand
Canyon watersheds is essential to prevent further
contamination of our nation's irreplaceable resources."
Spikes in uranium prices have caused thousands of new uranium
claims, dozens of proposed exploration drilling projects, and proposals to
reopen old uranium mines adjacent to Grand Canyon.
Renewed uranium development threatens to degrade wildlife habitat and
industrialize now-wild and iconic landscapes bordering the park; it also
threatens to contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand
Canyon National Park
and the Colorado River. The Park Service warns
against drinking from several creeks in the
Canyon exhibiting elevated uranium levels in the wake of past uranium
mining.
"Uranium mining has great potential to contaminate water that
flows into the Colorado River via various
seeps, springs, and streams," said Stacey
Hamburg with the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon
Chapter. "Our drinking water and all of the Grand
Canyon's wildlife is just too important to risk for the
short-term profits of this mining company."
Proposed uranium development has provoked litigation, public
protests, and
statements of concern and opposition from scientists, city officials,
county officials, former Governor Janet Napolitano, the Navajo, Kaibab
Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority,
among others. Statewide polling conducted by Public Opinion Strategies
shows overwhelming public support for withdrawing from mineral entry the
lands near Grand Canyon; Arizonans support protecting the Grand
Canyon area from uranium mining by a two-to-one margin.
The Bureau of Land Management has 60 days to correct its
violations of the Endangered Species Act before being sued. Conservation
groups may file suit sooner on claims relating to the National
Environmental Policy Act and Mining Law of 1872 should the Bureau allow
mining to start before that 60-day period expires.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular