"For greed all nature is too little."
-- Lucius Seneca
With uranium at record high prices , mining companies have been pressuring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to open lands surrounding the Grand Canyon National Monument to mining. In July 2009, Interior Secretary Salazar withdrew approximately one million acres from mining development until further review. It looks like judgment day for the Grand Canyon and Colorado River watershed is fast approaching . The BLM has just released four alternatives for public comment. Final decision is expected after a 45-day comment period.
Here are the four alternatives:
As a result of this process, four alternatives have been developed for detailed analysis to address the significant relevant issues identified during scoping. Note that the preferred alternative to be identified in the Final EIS could be any one of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS, or some combination or minor variation of the alternatives presented (see Section 2.6).
• Alternative A, the No Action Alternative: the proposed withdrawal would not be implemented and the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry under the Mining Law. New mining claims could be located and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the BLM or the Forest Service.
• Alternative B, the Proposed Action: the proposed withdrawal would be implemented and the entire 1,010,776 acres of federal locatable mineral estate within the three parcels would be withdrawn for 20 years from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. On mining claims where valid existing rights determined to exist, drilling and mining activities would continue to be processed by the BLM or the Forest Service.
• Alternative C, Partial Withdrawal: 652,986 acres of federal locatable mineral estate within the three parcels would be withdrawn for 20 years from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. This alternative would withdraw the largest contiguous area identified on the resource overlays with concentrations of cultural, hydrologic, recreational, visual, and biological resources that could be adversely affected by locatable mineral exploration and development (see also Figures 2.4-2 through 2.4-4 in Section 2.4.4). Alternative C would leave the remaining portion of the proposed withdrawal area with isolated or low concentrations of these resources open to operation of the Mining Law. The mitigation of potential effects from exploration or development would continue under the applicable surface managing agency regulations.
• Alternative D, Partial Withdrawal: 300,681 acres of federal locatable mineral estate within the three parcels would be withdrawn for 20 years from operation of the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. This alternative would withdraw the contiguous area identified on the resources overlays where there is a high concentration of cultural, hydrologic, recreational, visual, and biological resources that could be adversely affected by locatable mineral exploration and development (see also Figures 2.4-5 through 2.4-7 in Section 2.4.5). Alternative D would leave the remaining portion of the proposed withdrawal area with isolated or low concentrations of these resources open to operation of the Mining Law. The mitigation of potential effects from exploration or development would continue under the applicable surface managing agency regulations.
Your choices are to allow strip mining for uranium in one million acres around Grand Canyon (Alternative A), in 650,000 acres (Alternative D), in 300,000 acres (Alternative C), or prohibit mining in the entire area for 20 years (Alternative B). At this point, there are no preliminary indications which way the BLM might be leaning in the decision.
As Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, put it, the decision should be a " no brainer ."
“The Grand Canyon is our most iconic national treasure, and it’s critical that the Canyon and important ecological areas around it be protected from uranium mining. There are many other special places and Western waterways that need protection from the devastation of uranium mining, but the Grand Canyon is a no-brainer.”
There are any things that should be no-brainers like rapidly transitioning to a low carbon energy economy to limit the impact of climate and peak fossil fuels energy crises, investing in clean energy infrastructure for job creation, careful management of increasingly scarce freshwater supplies, and protecting irreplaceable natural resources. Yet, politicians go wobbly whenever the US Chamber of Commerce, National Mining Association, or other big pockets organization comes calling.
Here are a few points to keep in mind.
(1) This is serious.
The pressure on the BLM to lease these areas is intense. There are more than 10,000 hard-rock mining claims around the Grand Canyon and Colorado River basin. The one million acre area has received over 2500 uranium mining claims, most from foreign mining companies. At least 1,100 of the uranium mining claims are within several miles of the boundaries of the national park.
The incentives for mining are large:
But fast-paced nuclear power programmes in countries such as China and Korea are fuelling a new rush for "hard rock", and have sent uranium prices soaring from $7.10 a pound in 2001, to $63.88 a pound in 2011.
The uranium deposits in the area are rated best in the nation. From the draft Environmental Impact Statement:
All the lands in the proposed withdrawal area are rated as having a high potential for uranium resources, lying within what USGS terms Favorable Area A (USGS 2010b). While certain specific areas within the proposed withdrawal area have attracted greater industry interest than others (the North and South parcels in particular), all of the lands involved in the proposed withdrawal are considered to be lands with some of the highest uranium potential in the country. Another factor affecting the feasibility of this alternative is that much of the uranium exploration and development activity to date tends to coincide with many of the areas that have the highest concentration of nonmineral resource values.
By the way, the nonmineral resource values means the area is stunningly beautiful and popular for recreational use.
2. Public input is essential.
The BLM has not indicated a preferred alternative, but makes it crystal clear that the choice will depend on public input .
BLM has not identified a preferred alternative in this DEIS and is soliciting public comments and input with respect to the identification of a preferred alternative. Based on a review of public comments, BLM will identify a preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
The mining industry is promising to oppose anything short of opening the entire one million acres to plunder.
"We are secure in our knowledge we know how to do it right and have been doing it right," said Pam Hill, executive director of the American Clean Energy Resources Trust. "We've got a battle."
3. The statutes governing these mining claims are outdated.
The General Mining Act of 1872 govern mining claims and access to minerals on federal lands. Amendments have been made to update regulations for some minerals, such as coal. No such governance exists for uranium.
The southwest is littered with over 15000 abandoned uranium mines, many with large toxic tailing ponds. Many of these mines are on or near Native American reservations (e.g. Church Rock ). Northern Arizona tribes have banned mining on reservation lands due water and soil contamination.
Although the industry promises to limit contamination and reclaim mines, the Republican assault on government regulatory agencies means that inspections and enforcement of violations will be nonexistent. The EPA, the primary target of Republicans for defunding, is responsible for much of the regulation of uranium mining .
Another quirk in the regulations allows foreign mining companies to mine on federal lands. In fact, most of the uranium mining claims around the Grand Canyon are held by Vane Mineral Group (a UK company) and Denison Mines (a Canadian company). What we have here is an interesting paradox. Most of the benefits of the uranium mining around the Grand Canyon will go to foreign companies and the ore will be sold to other countries. Given the BLM's long history of failure to collect royalties on market value of minerals mines, the benefits to the American people will be trivial. We will, however, shoulder all the risks and costs.
4. Water consumption and contamination
All of the mining activities, particularly processing, consume water in a region with limited supply and prolonged drought conditions. The BLM estimates the probability of impaired aquifers at over 10% for Alternatives A and D. Estimates for contaminated mine waste drainage impacting streams at 80%. Given the long-term toxicity and the fact that all streams in the targeted area drain into the Colorado River, the primary source of water for 18 million Americans, the potential consequences can be wide reaching.
Take Action:
Comments must be in writing and either mailed to Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip District, 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790, or sent as an email to NAZproposedwithdrawal@azblm.org.
Information can be found at http://www.blm.gov/... or by calling (435) 688-3200. Public Meetings will be held in all of the following locations from 6:00pm to 8:30pm:
March 7, 2011 National Training Center, 9828 North 31st Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85051. The National Training Center (NTC), a federal building, requires non-government personnel to show drivers license, state identification or passport.
March 8, 2011 High Country Conference Center, Agassiz & Fremont Rooms, 201 West Bulter Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
March 9, 2011 Fredonia High School, Media Center, 221 East Hortt Street, Fredonia, AZ 86022.
March 10, 2011 Homewood Suites, Santa Fe and Rio Grande Conference Rooms, 423 West 300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101.