Commentary: Joan McCarter
BLM Defies Congress, Authorizes Grand Canyon Uranium Exploration
Will Salazar approve this threat to a beloved national park?By Joan McCarter, 5-08-09
National Park Service photo.
The action comes in response to the news that the BLM, under Sec. of Interior Salazar, is moving ahead with granting permits despite a Congressional ban.
The Bureau of Land Management has authorized several new uranium exploration permits near the Grand Canyon despite a congressional resolution last year barring new claims near the national park.
According to documents (pdf) released yesterday by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Grand Canyon Trust, BLM on April 27 authorized Quaterra Alaska Inc. to conduct eight uranium mine exploration operations at five separate projects north of Grand Canyon National Park and west of the Kaibab Plateau....
All of the projects are within the 1 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land that the House Natural Resources Committee ordered to be withdrawn from new uranium mining claims in June 2008, according to the groups.
We need to go back to last summer to sort this out. Mining on public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park is permitted under the 1872 mining law. Last June, in response to vast increases in claims-staking near the Grand Canyon, the House Natural Resources Committee passed a controversial, but valid, committee resolution which pulled 1 million acres of public lands from new mining claims for up to three years. Democrats on the committee used a rarely invoked provision in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that allows the committee to withdraw public lands from various uses in emergency situations.
The Bush Interior Department, run by Dirk Kempthorne, refused to comply with the House panel’s resolution. Current Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, has not yet agreed to comply. However, the BLM’s quiet authorization of these permits seems like a pretty clear clue of what he intends to do. While it’s possible that regional BLM officials did this one on their own, it doesn’t seem too likely.
A number of environmental organizations, and local and regional politicians, have been working to block further uranium exploration and mining in the area. One of those groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, released this statement today:
“The Bureau’s continuing defiance of Congress on behalf of the uranium industry threatens one of our nation’s most beloved national parks,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s time the Bureau of Land Management received the leadership it needs to put the Grand Canyon uranium rush to bed.”
Spikes in the price of uranium during the past two years have caused thousands of new uranium claims, dozens of exploratory drilling projects, and movement to open several uranium mines on public lands immediately north and south of Grand Canyon. Concerns about damage to wildlife habitat as well as surface- and groundwater contamination of Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River have been expressed by previous Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; the Southern Nevada Water Authority; the Arizona Game and Fish Department; the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, and Kaibab Paiute nations; and the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
Note that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is on that list. Some 25 million people downriver from the Grand Canyon drink that water. A number of these groups banded together last year to sue Kempthorne for ignoring Congress. That suit is still pending, nonetheless, the plaintiffs did not receive notice of the BLM’s new authorizations. As of today, the groups are amendin their existing court case to challenge these new projects.
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club today amended their lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior to challenge newly authorized uranium exploration near Grand Canyon National Park. The new uranium projects are located within a 1-million acre area that was required to be immediately withdrawn from mining by a June 25, 2008 emergency resolution of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources. Today’s amendment challenges new uranium projects authorized by the Bureau of Land Management on April 23 and April 27, 2009. While the Bureau initially denied that new uranium exploration activities had been authorized, it has since acknowledged that exploration on the lands in question could begin whenever the companies wish.
“The Bureau’s new uranium exploration runs afoul of both the law and a congressional resolution protecting Grand Canyon,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This is an agency in dire need of leadership from the new administration — the Grand Canyon deserves it.”
...
The suit cites violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws. Today’s amendment incorporates the Bureau’s new uranium-drilling authorizations based on the same violations.
Meanwhile, Rep. Raul Grijalva introduced the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act in March of 2008 and again in 2009, legislation that would permanently withdraw from mineral extraction the same 1 million acres encompassed by the Committee resolution. Congress needs to take quick action on that legislation, and pressure Salazar to rescind these authorizations.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
First, Grijalva is on the advisory board for CBD, not exactly unsympathetic to CBD's extremism.
Second, Nicky Joe Rahall probably has several motives in this. First is pure Sacrifice Zone politics, score attaboys at home while sticking it to someone else's constituents...a la NREPA.
Nick Joe not only scores greenie points, but also sticks it to competing energy production methods, keeping his miners busy in West Virginia. Making Western coal, oil and gas, and now uranium hard to get keeps West Virginia miners busy, busy busy.
I think it is a good thing to keep WV miners busy, too. But its also good to keep Western energy producers busy so we can all be warm and dry.
Joan, what is Nick Joe's stance on mountaintop removal?
Thanks for this interesting article. I think that Secretary Salazar needs to address these issues. Thus far, we have a continuation of the status quo, but the American people voted overwhelmingly last November for change. When will this promised change arrive?
With regard to Croak's efforts to play the issue to his advantage, he is just another rightwinger unethically flying a false flag, lacing his posts with feigned pragmatism this time, while luring the reader close enough to enable him to spread misinformation and confusion. One of the key objectives of people like Croak and his friends is to use disinformation to confuse, discourage, divide, and demoralize any and all progressive discussion. People like Croak are the political and rhetorical equivalents of grifters, carnival shills, con-artists, and the like; just ignore them.
By the way, Croak, I checked the map. I've been on TDY and other temporary assignments all over; but, the furthest west I've actually had residence is a bit northeast of Spokane and the furthest east was an internship stationed on the gulf coast of Texas, from which I hurriedly left and returned west as soon as it was concluded. Unlike you, I've always been able to find employment in the region where I grew up.
One of the requirements of a complete notice is that the proposed operations must prevent undue or unnecesarry degradation of public land. The regulations provide that one prevents undue or unnecessary degradation by complying with the Performance Standards at 3809.420. Those performance standards require compliance with all applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations such as the Clean Water act, Enangered Species Act, etc.
BLM's professional land managers are merely doing the job they have been trained to do. They are following the laws and regulations that apply to notice of intent exploration on public land open to mineral entry. The area in question has not been withdrawn. Most legal scholars believe the section of FLPMA that purports to authorize a single committee of congress to declare an emergency and order the Secretary to withdraw land from mineral entry is unconstitutional. This is one of the issues in the CBD lawsuit. As long as the land remains open to mineral entry, BLM has no discretion not to accept notices of intent and review them to determine if they are complete.
BLM should be applauded for being professionals and following the law, not accused of "defying Congress."
This area was left open to mineral entry as part of a compromise in 1984 when the Arizona Wilderness Act was passed and signed. Mo Udall, Barry Goldwater, Dennis DeConcini, representatives of industry and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club were involved in reaching the compromise. The Arizona Strip was left open to mineral entry because the parties recognized that it was the United States premier source of uranium for nuclear energy. If we lock this source of uranium (more than 40% of known U.S. reserves) then we are guaranteeing that Russia will be called on to supply the uranium we need (currently Russia supplies most of the uranium we use). Do we really want to trade reliance on Mid East oil for Russion uranium?
By the way, whatever uranium is in the Colorado River watershed is naturally occuring, not the result of uranium exploration and mining on the AZ Strip.