You are here

Federal Judge Okays Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon National Park

Share

Published Date

April 11, 2015

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

"Nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded."

                                   John Muir, 1910

 


A conservative LDS appointee of George W. Bush.


A conservative LDS appointee of George W. Bush.

Yes, he is so radical he was confirmed by a vote of 92-0.  Or is it his religion you aren't tolerant of?

What is interesting is that while Jim's discussion - and probably the plaintiffs' publicity-  focuses on the environmental and cultural issues the actual court case made no rulings on those.  The court case focuses on procedural issues. 


Thank you Afred Runte and Rick B, a terrible decision.  I hope it is appealed. By the way Alfred Runte,  the Sierra Club California/ Nevada Desert Committee March issue has a very interesting discussion on "Desert Solar Sacrifice Zones, Who decides"? Author, Patrick Donnelly, Executive Director of the Amargosa Conservancy. 


a terrible decision.

Why? Because it followed the law?  The judge ruled on whether the NFS followed the right procedures.  The decision they (the NFS) made was irrelevant to the case. 


EC, I am not a lawyer, perhaps others can comment. In my own limited experience, I agree that process is important. In NEPA lawsuits, the plaintiffs can only sue on process, the decision by the agency is final if the process is followed correctly. Unfortunately, process often times becomes an end unto itself. The larger issues are lost in the process. It has been my experience in other litigation efforts that courts will sometimes see through the process, often it is because the range of alternatives or the environmental effects need further study and mitigation. I think, with my limited knowledge of the case, that is what happened.  


I am with ec on this.It is too bad that there is no expiration on the 1986 approval. If there had been a sunset clause of some sort it would not be going forward. What someone should be pushing for is a reason for a new review.


Consider the irony here. Three years ago, a 65-turbine wind farm went in north of Williams with hardly a peep from environmentalists. Rmackie, I am glad to hear that the Sierra Club may be coming to its senses, although the local members don't control the Washington office. Now comes this uranium mine and everyone is aghast. Why? You can't pick your fights and expect credibility. You have to give all development equal weight if it somehow threatens the national parks.

I support limited green energy, that is, in the right places. And within sight of Grand Canyon is not that place. But no, we have to save the earth from global warming, so even Grand Canyon has to "take one for the team."

Don't get mad at the Forest Service if that is the logic here. Procedurally they got it right, all the way back to the Mining Act of 1872.

It's just that the procedure stinks, but then, it stinks for every development. The Sierra Club, et al., need to remember that the next time they pick their winners and losers--what is "appropriate" development and what is not. The Devil hopes we will bargain the parks away on the presumption of a greater good. Forget the uranium mine. The lesson here is that development is about to encircle all of our national parks if we accept that the greater good IS development.


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.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.