Five conservation groups had sued to halt the leasing program, charging the DOE with failing both to adequately protect the environment and to analyze the full impacts of renewed uranium mining on public lands.
The Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, Rocky Mountain Wild, Center for Biological Diversity and Sheep Mountain Alliance sued the DOE (and Bureau of Land Management) in July 2008 for approving the program without having analyzed the full environmental impacts from individual uranium-mining leases spread over 20,000 acres, and for failing to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species prior to authorizing the program.
The DOE declined to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement analysis in 2008, instead issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact, which was also struck down as part of the court ruling.
“We are pleased that Judge Martinez agreed with the groups, as well as local governments, who have been requesting the federal government take responsible steps to disclose the full range of impacts of mining uranium on public lands in combination with the impacts from Energy Fuels’ proposed uranium mill,” said Hilary White, executive director of the Sheep Mountain Alliance.
The 53-page ruling invalidates the DOE’s approval of the program; suspends each of the program’s 31 existing leases; enjoins the DOE from issuing any new leases; and enjoins any further exploration, drilling or mining activity at all 43 mines approved under the leasing program, pending satisfactory completion of new environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
“This is a huge victory for public lands, rivers and wildlife in southwestern Colorado and a major setback for the uranium industry’s efforts to industrialize and pollute the Colorado Plateau,” said Taylor McKinnon, public-lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Department of Energy has thumbed its nose at environmental laws for too long; today’s ruling is a big course correction.”
Uranium mining and milling resulting from the lease program would, the plaintiffs contended, deplete Colorado River basin water and threaten to pollute rivers with uranium, selenium, ammonia, arsenic, molybdenum, aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, vanadium and zinc. Selenium and arsenic contamination in the Colorado River basin from abandoned uranium-mining operations has been implicated in the decline of four endangered Colorado River fish species.
“Even small amounts of some of these pollutants, like selenium, can poison fish, accumulate in the food chain and cause deformities and reproductive problems for endangered fish, ducks, river otters and eagles,” said Josh Pollock of Rocky Mountain Wild. “It is irresponsible for the Department of Energy to put fish and wildlife at risk by allowing uranium leases without adequate analysis of necessary protections to prevent pollution.”
“This is an important ruling that will help ensure that any uranium mining and milling that may take place in the Dolores River watershed is protective of the environment and human health,” said White. “We look forward to the Environmental Protection Agency’s leadership in disclosing the full impacts of uranium activity in this important watershed.”
Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center, Jeff Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project and Amy Atwood of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Thanks for the primer on EIS.
I got that. Know about it.
I also know about two other things...the extreme poverty in this area - as bad as it gets. The extreme hypocrisy in our little mountain town as we stand up top of the mountain, polluting like the hypocrites we are, and squash this end of our county.
Does the EIS measure the economic impact on the human inhabitants when denial occurs? Also, can we get an EIS on our ski town and our global warming footprint?
Thanks.
NEPA, the law which requires an EIS for certain projects, governs procedure not substance. Although requiring the EIS will certainly delay the project and open the door for future litigation, it alone will not stop it.
I haven't read the briefing or the opinion but common sense alone suggests that the potential consequence of 42 sq. mi. of uranium leases should be thoroughly reviewed as required by an EIS. The only thing shocking about this story is that DOE proceeded under a FONSI to begin with.
Ignoring the decision itself, your post repeats a myopic characterization of this dispute as between the hypocrites in Telluride and economically deprived West-enders. First, while Hilary White got the quote, the legal coalition includes leading national environmental groups—and it should. Increased uranium mining has national and even global consequences. Second, some uranium boom years (or even decades) may not be worth the long-term environmental damage. The purpose of the EIS is to figure that out before more permanent damage is done to those west-end communities whose cause you seem to champion.
It’s easy to point to out that people often act hypocritically but it doesn’t get us any closer to determining within the framework of our national environmental laws whether these leases should be allowed. An EIS does.
The plaintiffs, from their comfortable stations in Telluride, communicating with each other on rare mineral/metal powered computers, have stopped yet another reasonable endeavor!
YES!
AS WE THRIVE HERE IN TELLURIDE FROM THE FRUIT OF CARBON BASED GLOBAL WARMING TRAVEL (JET TRAVEL)USING ALL OF THE PRODUCTS WE CONDEMN. WE HAVE SENTENCED THE POOR PEOPLE IN THIS AREA TO CONTINUED POVERTY! WE HAVE ENRICHED THE CHINESE WHO NOW SUPPLY US WITH MANY OF THESE RARE METALS/MINERALS!
TELLURIDE, WE ARE HYPOCRITES OF THE FIRST ORDER!
CAN WE JUST ADMIT IT?
WE SHOULD...AND LET US DROP THE CHARADE THAT WE ARE A BENEVOLENT TRIBE.
WE ARE HYPOCRITES WHO KNOW NO END TO FORCING OUR WILL ON POOR PEOPLE LIKE THESE WEST ENDERS..