USGS statement

Posted on January 26, 2012 by gctrust

January 26, 2012

I was asked to provide you feedback on the statement: “Nearly 40% of our nation’s uranium deposits are located in Forest Service and BLM lands in northern Arizona”. Up front, I can say that this statement is not accurate as stated; the 40% estimate is much too high a value. After conducting some research into the matter, I’m certain that the “40%” figure was derived by comparing two distinctly different types and categories of resource estimates; this was inappropriate, as I hopefully have outlined below. Let me explain….

The 40% value was based on comparing two resource assessments—(1) one conducted by the USGS that provided an estimate of the uranium resource endowment in the Grand Canyon region and (2) another compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) for the estimated uranium reserve for the entire United States. In mineral resource terminology and application, the terms endowment andreserves have distinct and important differences.  Endowment refers to the in-place mineral resource, some of which is discovered, and the remainder that is predicted to occur based on favorable geologic conditions; much of the endowment resource is not yet proven or discovered. Our uranium endowment included rock that contains as little as 0.01 percent uranium oxide (uranium-bearing rock). Not all of this endowment, whether discovered or not, will be economic at all times.

In contrast, reserves apply to ore-bearing rock that has been determined by a mining company or independent analyst as likely economic, given a multitude of factors (deposit form and grade, mining factors, economics, regulations, and many, many more considerations). The USGS does not calculate reserves. Each year the EIA receives uranium reserve estimates from the active, domestic uranium mining and exploration companies and related industries; these reserves are uranium deposits classified as economic resources within actively held properties. The reported reserves represent a small part of the uranium resource picture. Thus, the domestic uranium reserves reported by the EIA should in no way be inferred to represent the uranium resource endowment for the entire United States.

The USGS’ uranium resource endowment for the Grand Canyon region:

The estimate of an undiscovered uranium endowment in the breccia pipes is an estimate of uranium that may exist in orebodies in breccia pipes that have never been drilled and may only have limited indirect exploration by geophysics and surface geochemistry.  The methodology used to make such projections is well vetted, but it still relies upon a projection that areas poorly explored or unexplored are similar to a reasonably well explored and understood “control” area; the control area that was applied in the USGS assessment included several of the 1980s breccia pipe mines. The uncertainty inherent in this approach is handled by suggesting that the endowment may vary from some number with a 95% certainty to another number with a 5% certainty.  The uncertainty is also handled by delineating geographic areas of varying favorability that is based on the geologic criteria, then weighting them differently. The reported value for the Grand Canyon deposits—375 million pounds of uranium oxide—is the mean value of this range; hence, we use the term “mean undiscovered uranium endowment”.  No economic consideration is given to the part of this uranium endowment that may actually be mineable, whether now or in the future.

The U.S. uranium reserves:

The uranium reserves of the U.S., as reported by the EIA (http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html), are based on reported data from companies, other public sources, and expert judgment. Typically the numbers are comprised of values from ore deposits that have been drilled and estimates made of the “measured and indicated” resources, representing varying average grades and grade cutoffs. Publicly traded companies have an obligation to report such numbers to government regulatory agencies using an independent third-party analysis of their data. The EIA collects, compiles, and publishes the uranium reserves data that is provided by the companies.

The “40%” calculation:

In testimony before the Natural Resources Committee, one of the industry witnesses stated that the breccia pipe deposits of northern Arizona “comprise over 40% of the US domestic uranium reserves”. I queried this witness via email and was then able to put together the calculation of this statement. They used the USGS estimated resource endowment for the breccia pipe deposits of the Grand Canyon region, which is 375 million pounds of uranium oxide. And they used EIA’s reported 2003 uranium reserves estimate of 890 million pounds of uranium oxide for the entire U.S (the 2008 estimate was not available until late last year). Divide 375 million pounds (Grand Canyon endowment) by 890 million pounds (U.S. reserves) and you get 42%. This “about 40%” value has since developed a life of its own, although it mixes and compares endowment with reserves, which is inappropriate and misleading.

I hope that this helped. If you have any further questions, then just ask.

Brad
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bradley S. Van Gosen
U.S. Geological Survey
Central Mineral Resources Team
M.S. 973, Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-1566
(303) 236-1425 (fax)
bvangose@usgs.gov

Share
Posted in Grand Canyon Issues | Leave a comment

USGS refutes uranium industry misinformation

Posted on January 26, 2012 by gctrust

The web site of the House Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forests and Public Lands Resources, in the “did you know” list of facts, states: “Nearly 40% of our nation’s uranium deposits are located in Forest Service and BLM lands in northern Arizona.”

Brad Van Gosen at the USGS has reviewed this statement and found it to be “inappropriate and misleading” Click here for Gosen/USGS analysis.

The source of this misinformation appears to be uranium mining entrepreneur Karen Wenrich, who testified before the  House Subcommittee on Nov. 3, 2011: View her testimony here.

“This unique Arizona polymetallic-rich uranium, breccia-pipe district is known for its large reserves of high-grade uranium that have been estimated by the US Geological Survey to comprise over 40% of the US domestic uranium resources, and the highest-grade in the U.S. ..”

During the November 3rd hearing, Arizona Congressman Grijalva revealed documentation that Ms. Wenrich has a clear conflict of interest, which might explain why her testimony was so misleading.

According to a document from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, American Energy Fields, Inc., an Arizona-based uranium mining company, completed a deal that would pay Wenrich $225,000 for 61 mining claims only if the Interior Department reopened the million-acre area to new mining claims. [1]  American Energy Fields appointed Wenrich to its advisory board in May 2010.

[1] American Energy Fields, Inc., form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, February 15, 2011.  Accessed online June 8, 2011 here.

See also the accompanying news release accessed online here.

Share
Posted in Grand Canyon Issues | Leave a comment

New Forest Planning Rule Seeks to Restore Forests through Science and Collaboration

Posted on January 26, 2012 by gctrust

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2012 —Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today signaled the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s intent to issue a new planning rule for America’s 193-million acre National Forest System that seeks to deliver stronger protections for forests, water, and wildlife while supporting the economic vitality of our rural communities, by releasing online a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule. Today’s action honors the commitment made by Secretary Vilsack in his 2009 speech on forest management, and by the President in the America’s Great Outdoors Report.

USDA and the Forest Service carefully considered nearly 300,000 comments received on the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement issued last February, to develop the agency’s preferred course of action for finalizing the planning rule. This is included in the PEIS released today as USDA’s preferred alternative. A notice of availability for the PEIS will be published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2012, and the Secretary will issue a record of decision selecting a final planning rule no less than 30 days afterwards.

“The most collaborative rulemaking effort in agency history has resulted in a strong framework to restore and manage our forests and watersheds and help deliver countless benefits to the American people,” said Secretary Vilsack. “Our preferred alternative will safeguard our natural resources and provide a roadmap for getting work done on the ground that will restore our forests while providing job opportunities for local communities.”

The preferred alternative emphasizes collaboration and strengthens the role of public involvement and dialogue throughout the planning process. It also would require the use of the best available scientific information to inform decisions.

Highlights of the preferred alternative include:

  • Plans must include components that seek to restore and maintain forests and grasslands.
  • Plans would include requirements to maintain or restore watersheds, water resources, water quality including clean drinking water, and the ecological integrity of riparian areas.
  • Plans would be required to provide habitat for plant and animal diversity and species conservation. These requirements are intended to keep common native species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and protect species of conservation concern.
  • Plans would provide for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish.
  • Plans would be required to provide opportunities for sustainable recreation, and to take into account opportunities to connect people with nature.
  • Opportunities for public involvement and collaboration would be required throughout all stages of the planning process. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities for Tribal consultation and coordination with state and local governments and other federal agencies, and includes requirements for outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities.
  • Plans require the use of the best available scientific information to inform the planning process and documentation of how science was used in the plan.
  • The planning framework provides a more efficient and adaptive process for land management planning, allowing the Forest Service to respond to changing conditions.

“This approach requires plans to conserve and restore watersheds and habitats while strengthening community collaboration during the development and implementation of individual plans,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “Under our preferred alternative, plan revisions would take less time, cost less money, and provide stronger protections for our lands and water. Finalizing a new rule will move us forward in managing our forests and grasslands, and will create or sustain jobs and income for local communities around the country.”

Continuing the strong emphasis USDA and the Forest Service have placed on public engagement throughout this rule-making effort, USDA is forming a Federal Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of the final rule. The call for nominations for this committee was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2012 and will close on February 21, 2012.

“We value the input we have received from the public throughout this process,” said Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Harris Sherman. “This preferred alternative is a positive framework that will allow the Forest Service to more effectively restore our natural resources, support the economy, and adapt to changing conditions.”

The planning rule provides the framework for Forest Service land management plans for the 155 forests, 20 grasslands and 1 prairie in the National Forest System. A final rule, when selected, would update planning procedures that have been in place since 1982, creating a modern planning process that reflects the latest science and knowledge of how to create and implement effective land management plans. Revisions of the land management plans would take less time and cost less money under the preferred alternative than under the current 30-year-old procedures, while achieving better results for people and the environment.

The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to state and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world.

USDA works with state and local governments and private landowners to conserve and protect our nation’s natural resources — helping preserve our land, and clean our air and water.  President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors initiative in 2010 to foster a 21st century approach to conservation that is designed by and accomplished in partnership with the American people.  During the past two years, USDA’s conservation agencies — the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Farm Service Agency — have delivered technical assistance and implemented restoration practices on public and private lands.  We are working to better target conservation investments: embracing locally driven conservation and entering partnerships that focus on large, landscape-scale conservation.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

Click here for an AP story on the new rules

Click here for an LA Times story

Share
Posted in Arizona Issues, Utah Issues | Leave a comment

Court Overturns 42,000-acre Grazing Plan Threatening Fossil Creek, Endangered Species

Posted on January 25, 2012 by gctrust

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— Citing violations of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act, a federal district court judge on Monday overturned a U.S. Forest Service decision allowing cattle grazing across a 42,000-acre area of the Fossil Creek watershed on the Coconino National Forest in central Arizona.

“Fossil Creek is one of the Southwest’s most important river reaches,” said Taylor McKinnon, with the Center for Biological Diversity in Flagstaff. “The court’s ruling is a victory for this beautiful creek, its diverse array of native species and the public investments that have been made to recover them.”

The ruling holds that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to adequately consider the potential effects of cattle grazing on the endangered Chiricahua leopard frog when it issued a “biological opinion” authorizing the grazing plan. The court also ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to adequately quantify the amount of incidental “take,” or harm, to the leopard frog, and failed to analyze the effect of the approved plan on the frog’s chances of recovery — all violations of the Endangered Species Act.

“The court’s ruling is significant because it will help protect the last known population of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the Red Rock Ranger District,” said Todd Tucci, a senior attorney at Advocates for the West who argued the case on behalf of the Center.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the court ruled that the Forest Service had relied on inaccurate information in its environmental assessment concerning the impacts of grazing on soils in the Fossil Creek watershed. Specifically, the agency made an incorrect assumption that a two-thirds ground-cover objective would be effective across the entire allotment, when in fact it would not.

In its environmental assessment, the Forest Service documented unsatisfactory, impaired or inherently unstable soil conditions across 96 percent of the allotment, with only 4 percent of the soils in satisfactory condition. Soil loss in the allotment is currently about 35 percent above normal, causing eight tons of soil loss per hectare annually. Today, 60 percent to 87 percent of the allotment is in declining range condition.

The permit holder, J.P. Morgan-Chase & Co., which maintains interests in the historic Ward Ranch of Rimrock, Ariz., reintroduced about 290 cows in September 2009.

“In authorizing this grazing plan, the feds gave Fossil Creek and its endangered species short shrift in favor of J.P. Morgan-Chase,” said McKinnon. “We’re glad the court is demanding a course correction.”

Download a copy of the ruling here.

Background

Fossil Creek is one of Arizona’s rare perennial streams, flowing from Fossil Springs in the central Mogollon Rim country southwest to the Verde River. The surrounding landscape is rich in unique biological resources, including native fish and wildlife, cultural sites, wilderness areas, colorful wildflowers, abundant riparian vegetation and crystal-clear spring waters.

Fossil Creek and its watershed provide habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species including the desert nesting bald eagle, desert pupfish, Gila topminnow, loach minnow, spikedace, razorback sucker, southwestern willow flycatcher, headwater chub, roundtail chub, desert sucker, Chiricahua leopard frog and Mexican spotted owl.

After years of grassroots activity, legal notices and intense negotiations, the Center and coalition partners, including the Yavapai-Apache Nation, prompted a celebrated 1999 decision to lower the diversion dam and close the environmentally destructive power plants that took Fossil Creek water away from the stream. Under the terms of the coalition’s agreement, the Irving and Childs power plants were decommissioned in 2005, which began a process to restore Fossil Creek and its natural assemblage of native species.

The Center has also worked to protect the habitat of the loach minnow and spikedace, two threatened fishes that had been extirpated from Fossil Creek, and in 2007 our efforts resulted in the momentous reintroduction of the species to the area. The Center has advocated for improved management of Fossil Creek by federal agencies as visitation to the area has significantly increased, threatening the health of the river and its species.

Share
Posted in Arizona Issues | Leave a comment

UM study links climate change, decline in songbird populations

Posted on January 24, 2012 by gctrust

By CHELSI MOY of the Missoulianmissoulian.com

A decline in snow at high elevations has led to shrinking songbird populations in the mountains of northern Arizona, a new study by two University of Montana scientists found.

U.S. Geological Survey senior scientist and UM professor Thomas Martin, along with UM biology professor John Maron, recently published the findings of their six-year study on indirect effects of climate change on ecosystems.

The abundance of deciduous trees and songbird populations have declined over the past 22 years because of decreasing snowpack above 8,000 feet in northern Arizona. Because of less snow, elk remain at higher elevations for longer periods of time, browsing on plants that provide cover and nesting places for birds.

The study is available now online, Martin said, while a hard copy of the journal Nature Climate Change is due out next month.

“The indirect effects of climate on plant communities may be just as important as the effects of climate change-induced mismatches between migrating birds and food abundance, because plants, including trees, provide the habitat birds need to survive,” Martin said.

In 1982, Martin graduated with a doctorate from the University of Illinois and was immediately hired as a professor at Arizona State University. That same year, he went in search of a biodiversity test site in the mountains of Arizona, a place with a good mix of deciduous and coniferous plants, so he could study birds and their habitat use.

In the West, those places are often in riparian zones offering moisture in an otherwise dry landscape.

What he discovered was the Blue Ridge Ranger Station of the Coconino National Forest. Over time, Martin noticed the area’s habitat was slowly degrading.

The question was whether the lack of deciduous trees in the area and the subsequent decline of bird habitat were the direct result of climate change. Was there less moisture in the ground because of decreasing snowpack? Or were these ecological changes the result of natural succession, or perhaps changing migration patterns for elk?

The disappearance of low-lying woody shrubs suggested to Martin that increased elk browsing was causing the decline in vegetation, and the subsequent decline in songbirds.

For example, the MacGillivray’s warbler now is rarely seen in the northern Arizona mountains. The migratory birds still pass through the area, but the last time they nested in the drainages was 1993, Martin said. As maple trees in the area declined, so did warbler numbers.

Six years ago, to test the hypothesis, Martin and Maron constructed three 25-acre enclosed test sites using 8-foot-tall fences to keep out the elk. The sites were located in different drainages.

If a lack of moisture in the ground caused the ecological changes, the enclosed areas would look the same as the surrounding areas. If the elk were to blame, then the vegetation would grow denser inside the enclosed areas.

As expected, the deciduous trees rebounded in the test sites and the scientists saw reversals in songbird populations. In some cases, the number of songbirds inside the test sites tripled, Martin said.

The indirect effects of climate change are not well studied, but Martin’s long history with the Arizona site made it a perfect study area, Maron said.

“Tom had many years of data on this area,” Maron said. “A long history is what sets the stage for this study.”

There are other places in the western United States where climate change is having similar effects on ecosystems. Yellowstone National Park, for example, is experiencing increased ungulate browsing over longer periods of time in parts of the high country, Martin said. That has had an effect on aspen and willow populations.

Reporter Chelsi Moy can be reached at 523-5260 or atchelsi.moy@missoulian.com.

Share
Posted in Plateau-wide Issues | Leave a comment

Citizens, groups condemn approval of Green River nuclear reactor water rights

Posted on January 24, 2012 by gctrust

Citizens, Groups Condemn Approval of Green River Nuclear Reactor’s Water Rights, Pledge to Continue to Fight Proposal

SALT LAKE CITY— Utahns in and around Green River and beyond expressed serious disappointment after State Engineer Kent Jones approved the transfer on Friday of a massive amount of river water to Blue Castle Holdings, the company that hopes to build nuclear reactors on the Green River.

“This was the only opportunity for a Utah official to reject this terrible plan,” says Matt Pacenza, policy director of HEAL Utah, which has led the fight against the reactors. “Now all that stands between us and reactors at the gateway to southern Utah is a federal agency notorious for cozying up to the nuclear industry.”

“Pretending there is enough water in the Green River for the power plant is a mistake,” says Bob Quist, the owner of Moki Mac River Expeditions, which leads rafting trips on the Green River. “It’s bad for my business and bad for everyone that depends on this river.”

Blue Castle has already begun the process of applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an “early site permit” and then a “construction and operation license,” which would allow it to begin building its proposed 3,000-megawatt reactors on a site about five miles northwest of the town of Green River.

Residents and business people in Green River also condemned the state engineer’s decision. “This is going to make it harder for farmers to get the water they need out of the river,” says Tim Vetere, owner of Vetere Farms in Green River, which raises melons, sweet corn, field corn, hay and more. “Also, I’m worried that if a nuclear power plant goes in, people won’t want to buy my melons.”

More than 200 groups and individuals from across Utah and beyond filed official comments to the state engineer over the past few years urging him to reject Blue Castle’s bid to draw more than 53,000 acre-feet of water from the Green River. That’s as much water as a city of 200,000 people uses in an entire year.

Protesters argued that removing that massive amount of water for nuclear reactors would interfere with the rights of other water users, harm recreational use of the Green River (including its world-renowned rafting industry) and pose a threat to endangered fish species in the river, among a wide range of concerns.

“The Green and Colorado rivers are critical for the survival of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail and razorback sucker, all listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act — the highest level of imperilment,” said Rob Mrowka, an ecologist and conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Adding this massive water withdrawal atop climate change and regional drying will result in severe impairment of the rivers’ abilities to sustain their part of Utah’s natural heritage.”

“It’s disappointing this unpopular and unsustainable project was approved by the state engineer,” said Zach Frankel, the founding executive director of Utah Rivers Council. “Very few Utahns want to see these reactors built in their backyard, especially so a few East Coast businessmen can sell power to California.”

The individuals and groups who had protested Blue Castle’s water-rights application are now considering a formal legal appeal, which would first go to the state engineer and then to a district court judge.

“By no means are we done fighting this fight,” said Pacenza. “Nuclear power is a terrible fit for Utah’s energy future. It costs too much, uses way too much water, produces dangerous nuclear waste and poses unacceptable risks.”

Share
Posted in Utah Issues | Leave a comment