| Place a Classified | Subscribe today | July 10, 2009 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Simplot decision upheld
joconnell@journalnet.com
OGDEN, Utah — A U.S. Forest Service official has upheld a prior decision by her agency allowing J.R. Simplot Co. to build access roads and power lines outside of existing lease boundaries for its planned Smoky Canyon Mine expansion. In a filing made public Wednesday morning, Deputy Regional Forester Cathy Beaty, based in Ogden, Utah, rejected appeals filed by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor Larry Timchak ruled in June that the phosphate mining company could build two haul roads and power transmission lines outside of its leases to access them. The haul roads pass through portions of the Sage Creek and Meade Peak inventoried roadless areas. Furthermore, Timchak allowed Simplot to temporarily stockpile topsoil outside of its leases.
The Smoky Canyon Mine is located near the Wyoming border in Caribou County. Phosphate ore from the open-pit mine is piped in slurry form to the company’s Don Plant in Pocatello to be made into fertilizer. The mine was opened in the early 1980s and is predicted to be depleted within the next two years. Company officials have said the expansion would provide a supply for another 15 years. “This was a critical decision for Simplot ... that enables us to keep the ore going to the Don Plant, which continues to provide an essential nutrient to American agriculture,” said Simplot spokesman Rick Phillips.
Timchak said litigation is now likely, and if that happens, it’s possible a federal judge will issue a temporary restraining order or an injunction on the expansion. “There are substantive issues obviously with water quality and how you interpret the Roadless Rule,” Timchak said.
Indeed, officials with one appellant, the GYC, have already indicated their plans to sue. The environmental organization has waged an extensive campaign against the mine expansion, arguing it would exacerbate selenium contamination in the Blackfoot River drainage. John Hart, of the GYC, said his members “fully expected” the Forest Service would affirm its decision.
“We believe there are several legal issues they have ignored as they have made this decision and upheld this decision,” Hart said. “Those need to be heard by a federal judge. We are going to push forward with that next phase and let a judge decide.” Bill Bacon, general counsel for the tribes, hadn’t had a chance to review the decision on Wednesday afternoon. He plans to consult with tribal leaders soon to see if they want to file a motion to intervene in the GYC lawsuit or file their own complaint in federal court.
Bacon said the mine expansion could interfere with tribal treaty rights to off-reservation hunting and fishing opportunities. “That’s a historical use area for the tribes. There are cultural issues that are impacted, as well as hunting and fishing issues,” Bacon said.
Bacon said the tribes are also concerned that Simplot is being allowed to “enlarge their area of impact before they clean up the mess they’ve already made” at the current mine. According to a Forest Service press release, Beaty said it was clear based on her review that Timchak complied with applicable laws and regulations.
“I believe this decision has been reached through careful environmental analysis and thorough consideration of the public’s concerns,” Beaty said in the press release. Simplot has built a pipe through the tailings pile at the current mine, intended to prevent water from becoming exposed to seleniferous rock. For the expansion, the company would be required to backfill waste rock in pits and cover it with an impervious layer. Simplot will also have to employ a strict water-quality monitoring program.
Phillips said he likes his company’s odds in federal court and argues concerns voiced by the tribes and GYC have already been addressed during the lengthy permitting process. “It’s taken longer than we’ve ever taken to get a permit before, but we feel very good that it’s been very publicly vetted at this point,” Phillips said. “We agree with the Forest Service who said in their response that all of those things have been considered. All of those were part of the decision making process, and at this point, all of those things should not be an impediment to the decision making process.” Click here to read the letter from the U.S. Forest Service By John O’Connell
Article RatingReader CommentsSubmit a CommentCommenting RulesWe encourage your feedback and dialog. All comments are subject to deletion by our Web staff.
|
|
Comment
Rate
Report a Comment
