Comments: Look at the projected workers, do you think the local u mining may not be telling us the truth about jobs, around 400 for 1 mine, 1 mill: "Option four assumes that there would be a total of 19 mines — six small, 10 medium, two large and one very large — operating at various production rates. The total area disturbed would be 460 acres. The number of workers would range from seven to 51, depending on the size of the mine. The reclamation process for option four would involve 39 workers over the course of a peak year. Most, if not all, of the mines would be underground, with the exception of one open-pit mine."
 |
| Linda Miller, of Telluride, speaks against the U.S. Department of Energy’s Uranium Leasing Program at a public meeting Wednesday night at the Telluride High School gym. [Photo by Heather Sackett] |
By Heather Sackett
Associate Editor
Published:
For the second time in two years, Telluride residents delivered the same message to U.S. Department of Energy officials: The uranium leasing program should be disbanded and the potentially toxic element left in the ground.
Wednesday’s public meeting in the Telluride High School gym was one of four the DOE held around the region to gather public input on its draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). The leasing program was revived in 2008 in the Uravan Mineral Belt, with 31 leases awarded or renewed for mining-related activities on more than 25,000 acres in Mesa, Montrose and San Miguel counties. The DOE supports continuing the program.
A majority of the 20 people who spoke did not agree. The focus of the meeting was to gather input on the roughly 1,100-page environmental impact statement. However, many used their four minutes at the microphone to highlight what they said were the dangers of the uranium mining industry. Telluride resident Michael Saftler said he was concerned for the health and welfare of the local citizens as well as the potential effects uranium mining would have on clean air, water and soil.
“I’ve been a resident for 39 years and this is the first time I’ve considered leaving because of what is being proposed,” he said.
San Miguel County Planning Director Mike Rozycki criticized the PEIS for generalizing tracts that are very different and said it does not contain site-specific plans for each tract. The county supports option No. 1, which would terminate the leases and begin reclamation of the sites.
Twelve of the 31 tracts are sprinkled throughout San Miguel County’s West End. Seventeen are in Montrose County and two are in Mesa County. The parcels are leased by Energy Fuels, Cotter Corporation, Colorado Plateau Partners and Golden Eagle Uranium.
Angela Dye said she does not support alternative No. 4. and said the document does not account for impacts to recreation.
“We have 12 pages of mitigation measures… it’s way too extensive and vague, without measureable outcomes or parameters,” Dye said.
Option four assumes that there would be a total of 19 mines — six small, 10 medium, two large and one very large — operating at various production rates. The total area disturbed would be 460 acres. The number of workers would range from seven to 51, depending on the size of the mine.
The reclamation process for option four would involve 39 workers over the course of a peak year. Most, if not all, of the mines would be underground, with the exception of one open-pit mine.
Hilary Cooper, executive director of the Telluride-based environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance agreed with Dye.
“Translating the data into potential impacts is woefully inadequate,” she said. “If you mess it up, clean it up. We were all taught that in kindergarten.”
Many of the speakers urged the DOE to consider reclamation and focus on renewable energy on the sites, which would create jobs.
“You guys could be heroes in leading (renewable energy),” Shauna Palmer said. “Instead, we are dinosaurs.”
Wednesday’s meeting was the third in the region; the department held public hearings on Monday in Grand Junction, Tuesday in Montrose and Thursday in Naturita. The DOE will continue accepting written comments until May 31. The public comment period was extended by two weeks because of a request for more time to review the document.
Ray Plieness, DOE document manager of the environmental impact statement, told the 40-plus in attendance Wednesday that he was sincere and would prepare a response to the comments.
“We will analyze everything we’ve heard and the decision makers will know what you’ve said,” Plieness said.
