WRITING SAMPLE David Moyer

SPRING 2014 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

College Station, TX

This was part of a report done for one of my grad school

courses. I summarize two studies of disused uranium mines in

the Southwest, in an attempt to see if the decision to put a

moratorium on new mining activities on federal lands in

Arizona was scientifically justified. The focus of the two studies

was water contamination from mine shafts, tailings, etc.

Part One: Introduction

Figure 1: Map of the Colorado River watershed. The area through which the tributaries flow is mostly

mountainous and unfit for farming, but central and eastern Colorado (across the Rocky Mountains) as

well as southern California, are well suited for farms, so several diverting canals were constructed to

move water into regions where it does not flow naturally.i

The Colorado River runs the western United States, bringing water to millions of people. It is

used for hydroelectric generation, drinking water, recreational activities, industrial processes,

traditional electrical generation as cooling water, watering thirsty livestock, and irrigating crops. Then

it crosses into Mexico, where it once met the Pacific Ocean at the Gulf of California. Historically, it has

been the most important waterway west of the Mississippi River. Since the United States took over

control of the majority of the river and its water from the Spanish, it has been dammed and diverted in

several places to control floods, generate electricity, and irrigate farms in places that would otherwise

be dry. Because of the numerous reservoirs created behind dams, which have larger surface area than

the original river, today it is estimated that the amount of evaporation from the river is equal to all

other withdrawals combined. The river no longer reaches the Gulf of California. Every drop has been

budgeted and is used by someone or evaporates. Some experts are evaluating a proposal to bring

water from the Missouri River into the Colorado River basin. This would require constructing a pipeline

as long as the entire state of Texas from El Paso to Beaufort.ii Because the water budget for the river is

so tight, water quantity and rights to access the water is a hot topic in the West right now. The river

serves millions of people and one of its primary functions is municipal drinking water, so the volume of

water is not the only issue in the watershed. Water quality is also important. So is the environmental

quality in general, since a lot of the river runs through national parks and other scenic areas where

much of the economy depends on tourism from hikers, kayakers, campers, and road-trippers.

Land use changes can have a profound impact on water quality. Changing land from natural

forest to cropland to livestock operations can drastically affect the concentration, distribution, and

transport mechanisms for organic matter, nutrients, and sediments in a watershed. Increasing

urbanization can alter distribution patterns for nutrients, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, poly-chlorinated

biphenyls, sediments, and a number of other contaminants. Mining operations are notorious for acid

drainage and metal contamination in regional soils and surface waters.

For decades, much of the land along the Colorado River has been protected as part of various

national parks, national forests, and other similar plots. Even near the Grand Canyon National Park,

where uranium mining was once popular, the land has been mostly undisturbed for nearly twenty

years. Since the alteration of the land in the Colorado River basin from pristine wilderness to uranium

mines is likely to affect both the scenic quality and the water quality in Utah and Arizona where there

are some high-uranium ore deposits, the federal government’s decision on a proposed moratorium

against new mines in the region could have a huge impact on people who live near or visit the

Colorado River and the surrounding area.

In the 1950’s, when nuclear power was first introduced, there was a great demand for uranium

to fuel the reactors and public opinion was that in the future everything would be nuclear. Uranium

mining was a highly profitable industry at that time, right up to the mid-1980’s when the bottom

dropped out of the uranium market. At that point, many uranium mines were closed. Some have

since been reclaimed and treated to minimize environmental damage, but others were left with

exposed ore and waste piles.iii

A few mines remained active but many have been dormant for about 20 years. In 2006, the

price of uranium started to rise again. This prompted thousands of requests to claim uranium mining

rights in northern Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management approved a few of the requests to re-

occupy existing mines, hoping to decrease America’s reliance on Russian uranium, but the Canadian

company running those mines quickly decided to sell the uranium to France and South Korea, where

they could make a better profit.iii Since then, there has been a loud call from environmental activists to

deny all new uranium permits in and around the Grand Canyon National Park. Supporters of this

action claim that the mining activity will degrade the area’s scenic and environmental quality.

Opponents claim that the mines will free America from dependence on foreign energy, create

permanent jobs, and stimulate the economy without significantly impacting the region. They claim

that the newly developed mining techniques combined with the unique geology of the region will allow

for less invasive mining practices. There is evidence to support both parties. Even so, in 2012 the

Department of the Interior issued a moratorium on all new mining operations (explorations and active

mining) on federal lands within the region surrounding the Grand Canyon National Park (see Figure 4).

We will summarize the USGS studies on uranium mines in the area in an attempt to illuminate the logic

behind this controversial decision.

Part Two: Case study from Fry Canyon, UT

(From SIR 2010-5075)iv

Figure 2: Map showing location of mine studied by USGS in 2007.

In 2007, the USGS was commissioned to study a derelict uranium mine in Fry Canyon, Utah. Its

location is shown in Figure 2. This mine had been abandoned in the 1980’s and no environmental

mitigation or site reclamation was performed. The tailings piles were left exposed to seasonal floods,

which washed uranium, arsenic, and other contaminants downstream along the existing creek as well

as an underlying paleo-channel. Since the Fry Creek runs from south-east to north-west, this stream’s

quality is of particular concern to the ranch that lies directly downstream from the old mine.

Therefore, the USGS took samples from wells, springs, the stream channel, and the tailings piles.

Sampling locations are shown in Figure 3. At the time of sampling, April 2007, the creek bed was dry.

The water chemistry from the sampling sites is shown in Table 1. From these results, it is clear

that the waters at and downstream from the mine are contaminated with high levels of dissolved

solids, calcium, magnesium, acid, manganese, zinc, nickel, and uranium. Upstream waters have higher

concentrations of vanadium, arsenic, and barium, but only slightly so.

Plotting the downstream distance vs. uranium concentration, as in Figure 4, shows that there is

a definite spike in uranium levels as a result of metals leaching from the mine’s tailings. The

contamination persists for over 4 km downstream, which makes it a threat to the health of residents,

livestock, workers, and guests at the neighboring ranch property. High levels of radiation were found

in the canyon as well as the indicated chemical contaminants. The radiation had spread up the nearby

road to the ranch driveway. The sediment sample results, shown in Table 2, did not show a

comparable increase in contaminant levels with proximity to the mine, but the data indicates that the

sediments measured at a single location downstream from and immediately adjacent to the tailings are

enriched with copper, uranium, zinc, and other metals. The tailings had considerably higher

contaminant levels than the stream-bed sediments, and the sediments had much higher contamination

than the upstream groundwater samples.

The source document goes into further detail about the location’s geology for those readers

who are interested. The conclusions to be drawn here are that the tailings piles are exposed to floods,

so tailings are contaminating the downstream groundwater. This puts the ranch property as well as

other people downstream at risk. Based on this study, it seems that uranium mining can create

environmental problems even decades after the mines are closed.

Figure 3: Fry Canyon, Utah. Sites for USGS sampling are shown; water samples are shown in

the main map, while soil samples are shown in the inset.

Table 1: Water chemistry for well and spring analysis at Fry Canyon, Utah.

Table 2: Fry Creek, Utah’s sediment chemistry near the old uranium mine.

Figure 4: Uranium as a function of downstream distance from Fry Spring.

Part Three: Case study from Northern Arizona

(From SIR 2010-5025)v

Figure 4: Map of the uranium mine exclusion zones in northern AZ. “NRA” = National Recreation Area.

Just a few dozen miles south of the Fry Canyon mine in Utah, the land in northern Arizona is loaded with

national monuments, national forests, national recreation areas, national parks, and tribal reservations. The

Colorado River runs through Grand Canyon National Park in this region, as shown on Figure 4. The majority of

this region has already been set aside for the Native American tribes, or designated as recreational use zones.

However, this land is rich in uranium thanks to the geologic formations known as breccia pipes, which are

concentrated veins of uranium. With the exception of the Kaibab Forest, which sees up to 30 inches per year,

most of the area receives less than 15 inches of precipitation annually. The entire region experiences between

50 and 70 inches of evaporation per year.

Thanks to the low precipitation and high evaporation rates, there are few sources of water in the region.

This makes it extremely important to residents and tourists that what little water there is (in the Colorado River

and groundwater) does not become contaminated from mining operations. Thus, the USGS was commissioned

to study the local waters, soils, and sediments to see if the mining effects are as visible here as in the Utah site.

Water samples were taken from throughout the region. Soil and sediment samples were taken at a handful of

sites, shown in Figure 6, where the mines are in various stages of activity.

Figure 5: Pigeon Mine complex. Left: active mine. Right: after reclamation project.

Figure 6: Locations of mining sites where the USGS studied soil and sediment chemistry to determine

the effects of previously existing mines in northern Arizona on soil chemistry.

The Jumpup Spring site was “pristine;” it had not been explored or mined yet. Kanab South had been

explored but not yet mined. The other sites had all been actively mined for various periods of time, with some

level of reclamation efforts made. Typical reclamation efforts basically include burial of mining products and

using construction equipment to grade the land to a slope that matches the surrounding area, followed by re-

vegetation efforts. Figure 5 shows a before and after view of the Pigeon Mine site, while Figure 7 shows a site

plan for the reclamation process. At the Pigeon mine, a few soil samples showed elevated levels of uranium,

arsenic, cobalt, cadmium, lead, molybdenum, zinc, and copper. In general, the samples from the processing

area had higher levels than the mining area. Only a few samples showed elevated metal concentrations, and the

ones that were contaminated with one metal were contaminated with all of them. This is typical of all the

mining sites studied: the only contamination detected in the soils was directly positioned at the mine sites.

Figure 7: Pigeon mine site, plan for reclamation after closing the mine.

Figure 8: Hydrology of the study area.

Figure 9-A (preceding page, top): Water samples North of the Grand Canyon; uranium concentrations are

shown. Red indicates uranium levels above the EPA drinking water standard (30 ppb).

Figure 9-B (preceding page, bottom): Water samples South of the Grand Canyon; uranium

concentrations are shown. Red indicates uranium levels above the EPA drinking water standard (30 ppb).

Water chemistry studies were also performed throughout the northern part of Arizona. Several

contaminant tests were performed. Figure 9 shows the results of the uranium tests. Arsenic tests were

geographically similar. Very few points were sampled that showed any elevated levels of metals associated with

uranium mining operations. The source document provides a thorough description of the water chemistry,

which is far too lengthy to reproduce here. In general, all of the contamination except at those few sites directly

associated with mining shafts or sumps was attributed to natural weathering processes. The study found no

justification to support the theory that uranium mining degrades regional water quality.

Part Four: Conclusions

The two USGS studies had opposite results. The Utah study determined that the old mine was causing

heavy metals and radiation to spread downstream, creating a human and environmental health hazard. The

Arizona sites showed some elevated contaminant levels in soils at (within about 400 m of) the mine sites, but

the local waters showed no evidence of anthropogenic contamination except at those sites where the water was

in direct contact with mining waste rock. The difference is most likely due to the management practices in place

for closing the mines. In Utah, no reclamation was performed; waste rock and ore were left exposed to the

environment for 20 years and allowed to be washed away by seasonal floods. In Arizona, the mines were

“reclaimed” by burying the exposed mining products and re-vegetating the surface. Therefore, with proper

management techniques, it may be possible to operate and close a uranium mine without significant impacts to

soil and water quality.

With that said, the fact remains that the Arizona mines had been closed for approximately twenty years,

so the study does not present a good measurement of the effects of active mines. Also, this study was done

with only a handful of mines in the area. There are thousands of mining claims awaiting approval. If enough

receive approval to operate, the sheer volume of mining operations may overwhelm the natural systems that

buffer the local environment from the mines.

So it may be a logical conclusion to deny all new mining claims in the region for now, allow existing

mines to operate for a few years, study the effects of active mines, and then revisit the policy when more data is

available. Even though the existing data does not justify the environmentalists’ claim that the mines would

destroy the natural beauty and water quality of the region, with contaminants like radiation, lead, and arsenic it

is best to err on the side of caution rather than make a rash decision in the hopes of boosting the regional

economy.

Suggested readings for those interested in the history of mining and the recent moratorium in Arizona:

Laurel Morales. NPR, 1/9/2012, “Interior Announces Grand Canyon Mining Moratorium”

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/09/144923156/mining-industry-contests-grand-canyon-moratorium

Doug Ramsey. “Arizonans Call for Canyon Mining Moratorium.” Public News Service. 5/5/2011

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/19909-1

Flagstaff Sedona Business News. “Moratorium on Uranium Mining Extended.” 6/21/2011

http://www.flagstaffbusinessnews.com/moratorium-on-uranium-mining-extended/

“Grand Canyon: Uranium Issues.” Grand Canyon Trust.

http://grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon/uranium_issues.php

References

i http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~tbw/ncc/Notes/chapter12.humans.env/pros.cons.of.large.dams.html, accessed 4/3/2013 ii http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/37607110859/first-chinas-great-south-north-water-transfer, accessed 4/3/2013 iii “Grand Canyon: Uranium Issues.” Grand Canyon Trust. http://grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon/uranium_issues.php, accessed 4/3/2013 iv James K. Otton, Robert A. Zielinski, and Robert J. Horton. “Scientific Investigations Report 2010−5075: Geology, Geochemistry, and Geophysics of the Fry Canyon Uranium/Copper Project Site, Southeastern Utah—Indications of Contaminant Migration.” USGS, US Dept of Interior; 2010. v Andrea E. Alpine, editor. “Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5025: Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona.” USGS, US Dept of Interior; 2010.