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
Alfred Runte, at the grass roots level, the Club activists have been very much against these massive solar and wind farms. Here in California, the effort has been to go to rooftop solar. As you know, it is a heavy lift, fossil feul and other energy companies, both private and public, carry much clout. It is an uphill fight right now. I think you would enjoy the Desert Committee article, and you are right, just like the fight by John Muir to save Hetch Hetchy Valley, the leadership of the Club is divided. Generally speaking, the Sierra Club local chapters still have clout nationally, but it requires local activists with no pay, for the most part, all volunteer. Here in the Tehipite Chapter, we have brought a suit all the way to the California Supreme, 60,000 dollars so far, much of the legal work donated, you know all this. It is an urban sprawl, public transportation issue with the county of Fresno and the developers involved as the defendants. Its tough to raise the money, will be interesting to see how the State Supreme Court rules.
Ron - how are fossil fuel and other energy companies hampering the efforts of people to install rooftop solar?
One way is to oppose selling power back to the grid--or to pay minimally for it. Another way is to attempt saddling NATIONAL taxpayers for "improvements" distributed locally. It's all been reported in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. The big boys fear that rooftop solar will be the death knell of large-scale utilities. However, I am not holding my breath. When I priced it two years ago, it would have taken me 20 years to amortize--assuming no maintenance issues. Hah! Is that not always the fly in the ointment? What do things cost to maintain? Only when we separate out the maintenance do most of these projects "work." And that goes especially for wind farms and solar-thermal projects, as one Midwestern utility president just put it, easy victims of tornado alley.
Alfred, you seem to be financially aware. That makes absolutely no sense unless the cost of the solar power is more than their cost to generate with fossil fuels (which it is). Of course they would fight it then because it would be uneconomic. It also is uneconomic to build infrastructure to transport power and not get paid for it. If you want to put solar on your roof, go ahead, the power companies are doing absolutely nothing to stop you. The fact they don't want to subsidize you too doesn't make them a villian
The grid already exists. If Power Company X is charging me 14 cents per kilowatt hour, why not buy back my "excess" power if I put solar on my roof? Other readers doing this probably know some actual rates. The common complaint I hear is that the power companies want to lowball the buyback rates. Again, I don't know this personally, since I am not an investor in solar myself.
However, you do have a point. Why should I get a "free ride" on the grid if I am not buying off the grid in the first place? Why should Power Company X reimburse me the full 14 cents, since they have to maintain the grid?
In the case of major wind and solar installations, some truly crazy things seem to be happening, but again, I don't any of this personally. I do know that some people in California are calling for 100 plus desalination plants, which require enormous amounts of energy. So, how will rooftop solar be supporting that? These "visionaries" point again to developing wind farms and solar installations in the Mojave Desert--and Oregon--and Arizona--and now even in Washington State. We used to send them our "spare" hydroelectric power, but now they are gobbling everything in sight.
"We can never do merely one thing." But there it is--betting the farm on one thing. Push a little here, push a little there, and we can still have all of the growth we want. And, oh, yes, save the planet from global warming, because all of the growth will be green! It wasn't what I taught my students, but yes, it's far easier than teaching limits.
On second thought, perhaps I had better call that solar contractor before I also start losing out.
Alfred, you are smarter than this. The grid already exists using substantial debt assuming they will make x charging for electricity. Why not buy your excess power? Because it cost more than what they can generate power for.
Example. I decide I will grow my own vegetables. If I have more than I need, the local grocery store must buy them from me for more than they pay their wholesaler. Worse yet, they must have a truck parked outside my house to transport those vegetables to the store. If my crop fails, they must have a truck to deliver the vegatables to my house. Of course that is absurd but that is what you want the power companies to do.
{edit} I was right you are smarter. I didn't read this far before responding.
Exactly
Aha! I caught you not reading the whole assignment, but yes, we agree that the "subsidy" in these things is huge. The one I like is the gas-fired power plant "backing up" the solar and/or wind arrays. Unfortunately, if the gas plant is constantly "cooking" steam--just in case the wind subsides in a rush--where is the savings in having wind? Not to worry, Google says. They are "working on" a better battery. How about they invent it first? But no, that would be too practical. Meanwhile, the battery the public utility recently installed in Snohomish County lasts for just an hour--but "technically" serves 400 people for 24 hours, so long as you don't question the math. And for this we are sacrificing the American wilderness? We have to be out of our minds.
Yep, but only because you started on a false premise. We are on the same page on this one Alfred. Now if only Ron would answer the question.
Not sure I can do the raft trip, but would like to meet up with you some time in a park.