Environmental protection activists and proponents of the mining industry have collided over the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent decision to protect nearly one million acres of land near Grand Canyon National Park from new mining claims for the next two years.

The decision, announced July 20, protects 633,547 acres of land north and south of the Grand Canyon under control of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and over 360,000 acres in the Kaibab National Forest.  

About 10,600 mining claims currently exist in the area, which is an abundant source of natural resources, such as uranium.

Ken Salazar, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, said while implementing the land protection, he will keep all perspectives in mind.

“For me, this is a fact-finding mission,” Salazar said.  “We will continue to look at how we can move forward with all of the different interests that are at stake here.” 

According to Jacqueline Banks, a public affairs officer with Kaibab National Forest, the land will be segregated for two years to examine whether further protection is needed.

“During the two-year segregation, a broad environmental impact statement will be prepared to determine if the lands should be withdrawn from mineral entry,” Banks said.  “The Secretary of Interior can withdraw the lands for up to 20 years, but a permanent withdrawal could only be implemented by Congress.”

To examine if the land should be protected from new mining claims for an additional two decades, members of the public, Native American tribes, environmental and government agencies and other influential participants will complete studies to analyze the potential impact of mining.

“The segregation prohibits new mining claims in the area,” Banks said.  “However, neither the segregation nor any full or partial withdrawal would prohibit mining operations on valid pre-existing claims.”

Bill Hedden, executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, said there is an imperative need for permanent protection.  He cited water contamination, Native American discontentment and air pollution from drilling and truck traffic as reasons land segregation is necessary.

“Uranium mining around the Grand Canyon has contaminated seeps and springs down in the canyon in the past,” Hedden said. “The pollution factors associated with uranium mining are not compatible with protection of one of the natural wonders of the world.”

This decision from the Department of the Interior has drawn support from environmentalists who aim to protect the rare plant and animal species of the Grand Canyon and the integrity of the Colorado River water supply.  

“The region only has a small fraction of our assured domestic supply of uranium,” Hedden said.  “There is no need to defile the Grand Canyon in search of relatively small amounts of uranium.”

However, members of the mining industry have said current park boundaries were designed by professional conservationists to protect the park’s natural resources and a permanent ban of new mining claims would only hurt the United States by eliminating jobs.

National Mining Association Vice President Luke Popovich disagrees with the Department of the Interior’s decision. 

“These opponents completely overlook the economy,” Popovich said.  “Mining pays an average wage that is fully one-third higher than the state’s average wage for all industries and businesses. This holds true for every mining state.”  

Popovich said the demand for clean, carbon-neutral energy sources cannot be met without disturbing the environment and regulations should seek to minimize and remediate disturbances without banning them altogether.  

“A single wind turbine requires 4.7 tons of copper,” Popovich said. “A typical hybrid vehicle on the road today needs about 100 pounds of lithium and other rare Earth metals to make its battery. A solar panel needs gold and platinum. These metals don’t fall out of the sky. Costco doesn’t sell them.”