The US government has banned new mining claims close to Yellowstone National Park as the Obama administration steps up efforts to keep the extractive industry out of environmentally sensitive areas before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.
Temporary ban affects new claims on a 30,000-acres area north of Yellowstone.
New mining claims will now be prohibited on about 30,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land near the park’s northern entrance. The exclusion will be in place for two years while the Departments of Interior and Agriculture evaluate whether to withdraw the land from new mining claims for another 20 years, the US Department of the Interior said in a statement.
“There are good places to mine for gold, but the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park is not one of them,” Secretary Sally Jewell said in the release.
The move comes after two applications for gold and copper projects near Yellowstone recently sparked some heated discussion, drawing hostility from local business owners, environmentalists and Montana elected officials.
One of them is Canada’s Lucky Minerals (CVE:LJ), which wants to explore for copper, gold and silver on the western flank of the Absaroka Mountains. The other one is an application by Spokane, Washington-based Crevice Mining Group, which wants to explore for gold near Jardine, just north of the Yellowstone National Park border.
The temporary ban on new mining claims will not directly affect those two applications.
5 Comments
Conodo Mose
This project is 16 miles north of the boundary of Yellowstone Park. Has the US Government changed the park boundary based on the political wind? This project area is not visible from Yellowstone Park. Its hidden from any tourist’s or state highway view and drainages run north away from the park. Such anti-business dictatorial governing is what the Obama Administration represents. Its not America. People responsible for this sort of monarchy at Interior and Agriculture will be running for the exits after Trump takes office.
Nick Arndt
,Secretary Sally Jewell’s response reflects the notion, common among environmentalists and the general public, that the choice of where to mine is made on the whim of mining companies. An environmentalist group recommended that a Spanish Ni mine should not be sited on the deposit but 60 km to the south, in order to protect a rare fern.
That said, Trump’s trampling on all environmental legislation will do no good in the long run.
RockHopper
Remember the New World Mine? Clinton banned mining there in 1996 and litigation “takings” ensued. Taxpayers forked over $80+ million plus countless litigation costs to stop mining in a district that has had mining off and on since the 1860s. This was the work of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition who also deliberately had the Yellowstone River on their ads running north to south from “bad” mining into the park, when in fact it runs south to north. Sad. This is just more of the same. You can say TEMPORARY all you want, but the effect is permanent. What’s more is you can’t even see any of these potential operations from the park.
Walter H. Eason, Jr.
Yep this is the same administration that months ago the Oregon court decided that a person can operate a profitable mining operation with a pan. Like to see that judge have to mine and exist buying food just using a pan.
Mark Harder
Is prospecting for minerals also banned, or is the decision a ban restricted to mining alone?