You are here

Federal Judge Okays Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon National Park

Share

This map shows uranium mines and claims in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. A larger version is available at this link. Map courtesy Grand Canyon Trust.  

A federal judge has denied a request by a coalition of conservation groups and the Havasupai Tribe to halt uranium mining at a site near the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. The legal action had challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to allow the mine to be reopened without updating a federal environmental review that was originally prepared in 1986.

The uranium mine, known as the Canyon Mine, is located on U. S. Forest Service property, and is being developed by Energy Fuels. According to the company website, the site is located approximately 6 miles southeast of Tusayan, Arizona; that small community is immediately south of the main entrance to the park. 

“We are very disappointed with the ruling by Judge Campbell in the Canyon Mine case,” said Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi. “We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties. The Havasupai Tribal Council will meet this week to talk about appealing this ruling.”

Concerns Raised About Possible Impacts on Groundwater

“This is bad news for protecting Grand Canyon and tribal sacred sites,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust. “Over the last two decades, we’ve learned how uranium mining can pollute aquifers that feed canyon springs and Havasu Falls. But the Forest Service has ignored that information and failed to require Energy Fuels to take reasonable steps to prevent contamination of water, sacred sites and public lands.”

According to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), "the Forest Service first approved the Canyon mining plan in 1986, despite a challenge from the Havasupai tribe. Uranium prices plummeted shortly thereafter and the mine closed in 1990 before producing any uranium."

"The Forest Service allowed the Canyon Mine to reopen in 2012 without a plan update or environmental assessment to reflect the extensive changed circumstances since the original review and approval. These changes include the 2010 designation of the Red Butte traditional cultural property, reintroduction of the endangered California condor in the vicinity of the Canyon Mine, and the 2012 decision to ban new uranium mining across 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon."

“This uranium project could haunt the Grand Canyon region for decades to come,” said Katie Davis with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Uranium mining leaves a highly toxic legacy that endangers human health, wildlife and the streams and aquifers that feed the Grand Canyon. It’s disappointing to see the Forest Service prioritizing the extraction industry over the long-term protection of a place as iconic as the Grand Canyon.”

Mine's Original Approval Dates to 1986

The mine’s original approval in 1986 was the subject of protests and lawsuits by the Havasupai Tribe and others objecting to potential uranium mining impacts on regional groundwater, springs, creeks, ecosystems and cultural values associated with Red Butte. Aboveground infrastructure was built in the early 1990s, but a crash in uranium prices caused the mine’s closure before the shaft or ore bodies could be excavated.

According to the CBD, "Pre-mining exploratory drilling drained groundwater beneath the mine site, eliminating an estimated 1.3 million gallons per year from the region’s springs that are fed by groundwater."

"A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey report noted that past samples of groundwater beneath the mine exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of EPA drinking water standards. Groundwater threatened by the mine feeds municipal wells and seeps and springs in Grand Canyon, including Havasu Springs and Havasu Creek."

Mine opponents express concerns that "Aquifer Protection Permits issued for the mine by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality do not require monitoring of deep aquifers and do not include remediation plans or bonding to correct deep aquifer contamination."

"Geologists have warned that uranium mining could deplete and contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon and that cleaning them up would be next to impossible," says the CBD.

"A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study found elevated uranium levels in soil and water sources associated with past uranium mining," a CBD spokesperson noted. "Groundwater connectivity studies of the Grand Canyon that were published subsequent to the Canyon Mine’s 1986 approval indicate the potential for uranium contamination to infiltrate perched and deep aquifers and regional creeks and springs, including Havasu Falls."

Colorado River at Grand Canyon Recently Named "America's Most Endangered River"

The Colorado River at Grand Canyon National Park was recently named the "Most Endangered River in the Nation" by the conservation group American Rivers. The potential for renewed uranium mining was cited as one of three major issues in that designation.

A press release by Energy Fuels says the company is "currently America’s largest conventional uranium producer," and noted the company "recently announced that it was preparing to resume development at this project. At the current time, surface development at the Canyon mine, including a headframe, evaporation pond, hoist, environmental controls, and an office/maintenance facility, is in place. To complete the mine, the Company expects to sink an additional 1,200 feet of shaft, install a ventilation shaft and complete underground development."

Opponents of the mine are discussing the possibility of an appeal of this week's court order. A copy of the decision by U. S. District Judge David Campbell, which was issued on April 7, 2015, is available at this link. 

Comments

Bottom line Ron, you can put solar on your roof all you want.  Your complaint is that others won't subsidize it. 


Oil and coal are heavily subsidized, why not alternatives?

Besides, why worry about a little radioactive material finding its way to the Grand Canyon.  Just think of the possibilities when the Canyon begins to glow in the dark.  I'm sure someone will be able to figure out a way to market that and reap some hefty profits from the glow.


Oil and coal are heavily subsidized

Total myth -as has been demonstrated here before.


From Wikipedia. A simple search lists numerous examples besides these from many sources.

Types of energy subsidies are:

  • Direct financial transfers – grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.
  • Preferential tax treatments – rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.
  • Trade restrictions – quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.
  • Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost – direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.
  • Regulation of the energy sector – demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.
  • Failure to impose external costs – environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[5]
  • Depletion Allowance – allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil, gas, minerals).

You're lying and know it. Not even the Alaskan Tea Partiers bother denying that one now.

 

Lying and you know it.


From Wikipedia.

You need a better source Roger.  Embargos?  Yes the US companies can't export the oil.  That is a subsidy?  Preferential treatments?  You mean the same all other companies get?  Try the companies' financial statements.  For example Exxon Mobile, the largest US oil comany paid $82 billion in taxes in 2014, and had $32 billion in net income.  How is that "subsidized"?  Would you feel subsidized if you paid 2 1/2 times what you took home in taxes.

Sorry Kurt, won't post on this again.  Just had to respond to the absurd accusations.  Don't know if it is ignorance or willful deceit but I couldn't let it go. 

 


I might be bad at reading an income statement because I did not work on Wall Street, but I see income for Exon Mobile of $51.6B and total income taxes listed as $18.02B which breaks down to showing $14B as foreign taxes for a net profit of $32B. I was just curious where you get $82B in taxes?

 http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/xom/financials


If you don't believe in taxes then a tax break is not a subsidy I guess. Hopefully EC will respond to David Crowls comment.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.