Opposition to uranium exploration near Grand Canyon has generated a lawsuit, prompted a proposed federal mining ban on 1 million acres in Arizona, and again raised the call for U.S. mining law reform.

 

RENO, NV - 

Uranium drilling exploration on the Tusayan Ranger District within two miles of the Grand Canyon National Park has prompted both federal legislation and a lawsuit seeking to ban exploration and mining on 1 million acres in Arizona.

Final plans of operation were signed this month, subject to 21 mitigation measures designed to minimize or eliminate potential impacts.

A hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Friday in Flagstaff, Arizona, drew more than 200 people Friday. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) has introduced the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2008 (HR 5583) to withdraw 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon from mineral exploration. The bill would withdraw from mining 628,886 acres in the Kanab Creek area, 112,655 acres in House Rock Valley (both of which are managed by the Bureau of Land Management), as well as 327,367 acres in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest south of the Grand Canyon.

Meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust, and the Sierra has also filed a lawsuit against the District Ranger for the Tusayan Ranger District on the Kaibab National Forest and the U.S. Forest Service, challenging the agency's decision to authorize the exploratory drilling program of Vane Minerals.

The UK-based company is comprised of former members of the international exploration team for Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that their aesthetic, recreational, scientific, educational, religious and procedural interest "have been and will continue to be adversely affected and irreparably injured if the Forest Service allows the proposed exploratory drilling for uranium to proceed in the Tusayan Ranger District." The NGOs contend the Forest Service should have required an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment for the Vale Minerals drilling project, thereby violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The suit also accuses the Forest Service of refusing to allow, review and decide administrative appeal prior to authorizing the project.

In testimony before the House subcommittee Friday, Kristopher Hefton of Vane Minerals said, "The modern exploration and mining operations of the era from 1980 to present have had no significant negative impacts to the community nor to the environment in or near Grand Canyon National Park." He estimated that Vane Minerals has spent more than $1 million in the area.

"The economic benefits of the uranium activity [in northern Arizona] are already being felt and will be substantial," he warned. "To impose closures or suspensions of these activities will negatively impact people employed by the industry and the area's economy far more than the impact the operations will have on the Grand Canyon or the groups who claim to be effective. Considering our country's current energy concerns and the concerns with consuming fossil fuels, it would be short-sighted to impose actions that would stall the development of such an ideal resource and threaten us with more dependence on foreign energy sources."

"The present call for immediate and far-reaching changes by politicians and environmental groups is without merit. ...Vane does not believe that current or future activities constitute the actions requested by Governor Napolitano and Congressman Grijvala," he concluded.

Representative Grijalva insisted, however, that the exploration programs being conducted near the Grand Canyon National Park call for the reform of the 1872 Mining Law. "While the reform effort dallies, claims in our national forests and on public lands are skyrocketing. In particular, uranium claims around the Grand Canyon National Park are spiking. There were only 10 miles within five miles of the Park in 2003; as of July 2007, there were 1,130. In 2003, there were only 35 claims within 10 miles of the Park, but as of Jan. 2007, there were 2,840. These statistics should give us pause."

Mining opponents are also fearful of discussions between Kaibab National Forest officials and Denison Mines regarding re-opening the Canyon mine and future operations.

However, geologist Karen Wenrich told the House subcommittee that "uranium mining in the region around the Grand Canyon has clearly demonstrated that it can be done with no impact on the Grand Canyon watershed. Hence, there is no mining to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from, and the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2008 is frivolous legislation."

"Mining was done for 15 years followed by a 13-year hiatus of no mining. During this hiatus no water analyses from in and around the Grand Canyon have detected any contamination with elevated radionuclides concentrations," she asserted.

Nevertheless, Carl Taylor of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors told the subcommittee that his board "supports the permanent withdrawal of lands in Coconino County from uranium development on the Tusayan Ranger District and House Rock Valley. In addition to the permanent withdrawal, Coconino County supports providing federal land managers with the authority to assess cultural and economic impacts when making decisions under mining and reclamation laws."

Kane County Commissioner Daniel Hulet, however, asserted that "a strong and stable economy does not come from the places people can see, touch, or experience; a strong and stable economy is not based on tourism and recreation. It has been proven in our region, a tourism and recreation-based economy can and will collapse in an instant through acts of terrorism, a high dollar abroad, weather conditions, passage of restrictive laws, over-inflated fuel costs, and other activities that keep the travel public at home."

"Kane County strongly supports the multiple use mandates of both the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service; we also support the current mining laws in effect at this time, and believe that access to those activities are just as important as the activities themselves," he added.

"I am aware that there currently exists in Coconino County 2,734 mining claims north and south of the Grand Canyon National Park, and 12,008 mining claims in Mohave County, north and south of Grand Canyon National Park. However, it is important to note that not one of these mining claims is located within the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park, or inside of a wilderness area, a wilderness study area of game preserve," according to Hulet.

"In fact, there are no reasons to shut down an industry which provides the region with much needed jobs and the country with a clean and economical energy source. This is indeed a unique situation where we can all benefit from the treasures that nature provides and still maintain a healthy, viable environment," he concluded.

Nevertheless, Charles Vaughn, Chairman of the Hualapai Tribe of northwestern Arizona, said his tribe does not "consider uranium as an energy alternative that we should explore to provide economic benefit to our tribe. ...We do not want to see the by-products of uranium production stored in places like Yucca Mountain for the remainder of our lifetimes and leave others with the concern of potential harm this would bring our progenitors Grandfather Water and Mother Earth."