Please don't disturb our Grand Canyon region:
Nankoweap Ruins, Grand Canyon Used with Permission of Dan Laffel
An opportunity to save the Grand Canyon region from uranium mining—
Please send comments to BLM on withdrawal of 1,000,000 acres from mining at the Grand Canyon
The BLM is proposing to withdraw 1,000,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service lands from mining at the Grand Canyon for 20 years. Why 20 years? This is as far as their authority extends. The underlying purpose of the Proposed Action is to protect the natural, cultural, and social resources in the Grand Canyon watershed from possible adverse effects of reasonably foreseeable future. This proposed withdrawal would prohibit the location of new mining claims.
The key point is that the withdrawal is a proposal, and they are asking for comments. I am going to give your some easy points for your comment, and an option of some more technical points because some of you have worked for the Forest Service. Please use your own words and do not limit yourselves to my suggestions, these suggestions are for people who do not have the knowledge to write a comment to the BLM. Your personal experience with mining or the Grand Canyon is best. Please send this e-mail to all of your friends anywhere because this is a Federal issue and anyone who has visited the Grand Canyon or wants to visit the Grand Canyon has an interest in its protection.
Map of vultures who want to destroy Grand Canyon region because they get free land and minerals:
Environmental Working Group map
For information on making comments and public meetings in the Phoenix and Flagstaff area (also Salt Lake City): www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/withdraw.Par.15542.File.dat/Newsletter-2.pdf
Link to entire proposal: www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout/deis.html
Link to other relevant info: www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout.htm
Comments may be submitted electronically to: NAZproposedwithdrawal@azblm.org
Comments may also be submitted by mail to: Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal Project, ATTN: Scott Florence, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strip District Office, 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790-6714.
Note: We have 30 more days to make comments—so think about it and make relevant comments whenever possible.
If you don't know what mining does and want a clear picture, here it is: www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info/Photos.htm
Easy points to mention:
1) I support total withdrawal of the one million acres from mining, especially uranium mining, because I like to visit the Grand Canyon and with the helicopter noise and the dust, it's not what it used to be. I live in a region where there is copper mining and I can assure you, dust from the mine is a serious problem in the region.
2) I support total withdrawal of the one million acres from mining, especially uranium mining, because much of that area was created as a wildlife refuge by President Roosevelt. Even EPA has put out a report that uranium mining is hazardous to human health, so certainly it's hazardous to the wildlife and birds in the region. www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2.pdf See page 7. 1
3) Most of northern Arizona is wasteland with no trees at all. We have to preserve these special places with trees, wildlife and water. The mining companies can find uranium and other metals in the wastelands. (Include a satellite map from Google Earth.)
More technical comment points:
1) I support total withdrawal of the one million acres from mining, especially uranium mining, because residues from uranium mining have been shown to be hazardous to human health.
Please note that if uranium mines can be easily reclaimed, why do thousands remain un-remediated after some 40 to 50 years? There are not even clear records of how many old uranium mines exist—with estimates from 4,000 to 10,000; the majority (up to 7,000) on federal lands with the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service the two primary land management agencies.
www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2.pdf See Table 2-4, Page 2-7
2) The national policy for energy has not been agreed upon. Although some are calling nuclear energy “green,” there is a lot of evidence that it will continue to cause environmental problems that will make it non-cost effective in the long term.
Thanks for your time and attention to this matter! It's a great opportunity!