Uranium

 by Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director

After six years, there's a speck of light at the end of the tunnel for a legal case challenging Daneros uranium mine, a controversial uranium mine on public lands near Bears Ears National Monument. 

Perched below the towering walls of Wingate Mesa above Red Canyon and Fry Canyon, the Daneros Mine site and lands around it were proposed for inclusion in Bears Ears National Monument by the five tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition in 2015. When Bears Ears was designated in 2016, Daneros ended up outside the monument’s boundaries, but only by about three miles. 

Approval of Daneros Mine expansion plan violated law

On October 25, 2024, two administrative judges ruled that the federal government's approval of a plan to expand Daneros Mine had violated the law. The judges ordered the attorneys in the case to provide more information so that the judges can determine what the remedy should be.

To refresh your memory, back in 2018 the Grand Canyon Trust and our partners at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance finished up briefing an appeal we'd filed before an administrative body called the Interior Board of Land Appeals. We were challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's approval of the mine owner's plan to expand the size of the mine.

A plan to truck uranium ore through Bears Ears

The expansion plan called for increasing the mine's surface area tenfold, from 4.5 acres to 46 acres, and for trucking nearly half a million tons of uranium ore through Bears Ears and Natural Bridges national monuments to the White Mesa Mill, near the White Mesa Ute tribal community.

Uranium-ore hauling raises concerns about the risk of accidents and contamination. And uranium mining itself has a history of contaminating water, air, and land.

Threat of water contamination

In its October 25, 2024 decision, the board ruled in our favor, agreeing with us that the mine's plan to expand violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by failing to include an adequate monitoring and response plan to detect and manage groundwater from a perched aquifer above the mine.

Water from the aquifer could potentially infiltrate the underground mine and become contaminated through contact with uranium ore or other harmful materials exposed by mining. The mine site sits above Red Canyon, fewer than 25 miles upstream from the Colorado River on whose water 40 million people depend.   

It wouldn't be the first time something like this happened at a uranium mine. Water problems continue to be an ongoing issue at the Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly Canyon Mine), near the Grand Canyon.

Back in 2018, Daneros Mine was owned by Energy Fuels Resources, the same company that owns Pinyon Plain Mine (then known as Canyon Mine) and the White Mesa Mill, but Daneros Mine has changed hands several times over the last six years.

Currently, Daneros Mine owned by IsoEnergy Ltd., a Canadian corporation. However, Energy Fuels continues to act as operator of the mine, and it has a milling agreement with IsoEnergy for the ore dug up at Daneros Mine to be milled at White Mesa. 

Daneros Mine operated from 2009 to 2012, producing about 100,000 tons of uranium ore, but with low uranium prices the mine has been on standby since 2012.

In 2023, the mine's owner drilled five exploration holes at the site. According to the company, the core holes "encountered significant uranium mineralization."  Earlier this year, IsoEnergy conducted seismic surveys at the site, and says that "results from the geophysical surveys, sedimentological mapping and historic exploration data are expected to be integrated to define new exploration targets for subsequent drill testing.” IsoEnergy appears to see some potential at the mine.

What happens now?

While the board ruled in our favor, it didn't throw out the mine's expansion plan. Instead, it ruled that all parties to the case must file supplemental briefings addressing, among other things, the status of the mine expansion and the practical consequences of vacating the approved mine plan. Our attorneys are hard at work preparing to make our case.

Once the supplemental briefs are done, the board will decide whether or not to throw out the expansion plan. If the board throws out part of the plan, that would mean that certain portions of the project could move forward, but others would be halted, at least temporarily. Or the board could cancel the whole mine plan, which would mean the company could not mine at Daneros and would instead have to go through additional steps to propose a new plan.

As you know, our work to defend national monuments often moves slowly and it's important to celebrate our wins. While this is a small victory, we're happy to be able to share a little bit of good news this holiday season. We'll keep you posted as the case progresses and thank you for sticking with national monuments for the long haul.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In 1986, the U.S. Forest Service approved a plan to operate a private uranium mine on the Kaibab National Forest, near Grand Canyon National Park. Based on the science available at the time, the Forest Service determined Canyon Mine (which would later be renamed Pinyon Plain Mine) did not threaten groundwater in the Grand Canyon region, including the deep Redwall-Muav Aquifer that feeds springs in the Grand Canyon which flow into the Colorado River.

In 2012, the Forest Service reviewed its 1986 findings and determined there was no reason to reevaluate the potential effects of uranium mining at Canyon Mine, reasoning that the science and the facts on the ground had not changed. 

Outdated science

But in the intervening decade, things have changed. In 2016, miners developing the mine hit groundwater and the company has been pumping it out of the mine shaft ever since.

The science the mine’s approval was based on nearly four decades ago is outdated and needs review. Arizona’s attorney general has called for a new supplement to the outdated 1986 environmental impact statement that originally evaluated the risks the mine poses to groundwater.

Scientists have learned a lot about groundwater in the Grand Canyon region since 2012. Studies indicate that Canyon Mine, renamed Pinyon Plain Mine in 2020, potentially puts groundwater and associated springs and ecosystems in Grand Canyon National Park at risk. It’s time for the Forest Service to take a hard look at the mine and consider the science.

Since 2016, more than 66 million gallons of water have had to be pumped out of the mine shaft .

We recently caught up with groundwater scientists Dr. Laura Crossey, Dr. Karl Karlstrom, and Dr. David Kreamer, who study groundwater in the Grand Canyon region. We asked them about some of the Forest Service’s scientific conclusions from 1986 and 2012 considering the science available today. 

Can you talk about the ideas that contamination from the mine cannot reach the deep Redwall-Muav Aquifer, which feeds Grand Canyon springs, because there are thousands of feet of rock and clay acting as a barrier, and that the Coconino Aquifer (C Aquifer) sits above and is not connected to the Redwall-Muav Aquifer (R-M Aquifer)?

1986 and 2012 claims: The Redwall-Muav Aquifer is at least 2,500 feet below the surface of the mine. 

The deep Redwall-Muav Aquifer feeds many springs in the Grand Canyon. AMY S. MARTIN

Crossey, Karlstrom, and Kreamer: Actually the mine is permitted to allow operation just a couple of hundred feet above the deeper Redwall-Muav Aquifer. Faults and fractures are known to connect the upper C Aquifer and the lower R-M Aquifer — although we still don’t know how well connected the aquifers are at a given site, including the Pinyon Plain Mine site, and this is the key question for the new environmental impact statement (EIS).

Additionally, other nearby breccia pipes next to the Pinyon Plain Mine have not been tested for vertical hydraulic conductivity. Such connections are not restricted to be strictly vertical in nature. Many recent studies demonstrate simultaneous downward and lateral (sideways) migration in short (months to years) timeframes across thousands of feet vertically and tens of kilometers laterally.

Is it true that water doesn’t flow from the Coconino Aquifer into the deeper Redwall-Muav Aquifer?

1986 and 2012 claims: Due to parallel-bedded layer cake stratigraphy, groundwater flow in the local perched aquifers should be to the southwest toward Havasu Drainage and Cataract Creek.

Crossey, Karlstrom, and Kreamer: The term 'perched aquifer' is often used to refer to the C aquifer, but we now know it to be incorrect at worst, and incomplete at best. Stable isotopic values for the C and R-M aquifers overlap in values on both rims of Grand Canyon showing that water moves down across the bedding from the C to R-M aquifers along faults and fractures (gravity).

This was proven for the North Rim by the national park’s dye tracer study, but the rate of downward flow at the Pinyon Plain Mine site is not known and needs to be studied. This site is being massively perturbed by pumping of the C Aquifer, creating a cone of depression and additional water quantity concerns such that now is the time to quantify the rate of downward flow in a new EIS study.

What about the claim that the mine was unlikely to hit much or any groundwater?

1986 and 2012 claims: The C Aquifer is generally not saturated as far west as the mine and thus should be unaffected. 

The mine mists water into the air to speed up evaporation. BLAKE MICCORD

Crossey, Karlstrom, and Kreamer: This assertion has now been proven to be untrue. The mine (and many hydrologists) were surprised when the mine began taking on water in 2013 and more significantly in 2016. The mine continues to have to pump 8-9 million gallons per year to be able to dewater the shaft and continue mine operations. This is drawing down all four of the shallow observation wells around the mine site, creating a cone of depression which proves both lateral connectivity and vertical fluid connectivity across the Hermit Shale, which was thought to be the confining layer below the upper aquifer.

The important long-term question that needs answering now is the extent to which this vertical flow is following natural faults and fractures versus following the 'Swiss cheese' of exploratory drill holes (more than 17.5 linear miles) that perforate the mine area, with some extending from the surface to the lower Redwall-Muav Aquifer. In either case, for a future remediation strategy, a new EIS that recognizes well-established science is needed to figure out the direction of flow and the fast-versus-slow water pathways in the C Aquifer and between the C Aquifer and the lower R-M Aquifer.

Our figures of the mine show that saturated zones likely exist in the upper Supai Group as well as the Coconino Sandstone, and the present configuration of four wells drilled only to the top of the Hermit Formation, and one deep well into the R-M Aquifer are inadequate to establish the direction of horizonal flow in either aquifer, the extent of saturated zones between the aquifers, and the vertical pathways (faults, fractures, the breccia pipe itself) that likely convey water between them. Bills et al. (2007) showed that the C Aquifer includes the upper five formations, that all can be variably saturated, not just the Coconino Sandstone.    

Do you agree with claims that the groundwater the mine has struck can be defined as “small” or “unsuitable as a long-term water supply?” 

1986 and 2012 claims: Perched zones are generally small and unsuitable as long-term water supplies. 

Crossey, Karlstrom, and Kreamer: This has been disproven by the mine itself as they have had to pump millions of gallons of water from the main shaft for the past eight years.

Additional water is pumped from interception rings in the upper aquifer and used in part for surface dust control.  If the groundwater the mine struck was truly insignificant, the flow would have stopped after a short period of pumping. The mine is presently dewatering an important regional aquifer with no sign of stopping. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when and in which directions this dewatering may affect Grand Canyon springs and nearby wells.

Similarly, we do not know the level of contamination this is causing in the shallow or deep groundwater and this needs monitoring. The timescale of water transport is now known to involve both fast and slow pathways, so the question of long-term versus short-term effects needs reevaluation.

How many monitoring wells are needed to adequately test for contamination?

1986 and 2012 claims: The single monitoring well at the mine site should be adequate for evaluating any potential perched aquifer impacts. 

Crossey, Karlstrom, and Kreamer: This is incorrect. It has been long known that a minimum of three wells, strategically placed in even the simplest groundwater system, are needed to determine the flow direction in each aquifer. The deeper R-M aquifer is in a very complex (Karst) system and more than the minimum may be needed. 

In his book, Notable Springs of the United States (2024), Dr. Neven Kresic of the Karst Waters Institute said of similar claims by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) seeking to justify only a single deep well, 'Based on my professional judgment, this statement by ADEQ is nonsensical from a hydrogeologic standpoint and contrary to the entire professional and academic practice of groundwater science and engineering in any porous media and type of aquifer, not just in karst.'

The four existing wells in the shallow aquifer are too shallow to evaluate at the level of the upper ore body. There are no data available to evaluate the flow direction and degree of contamination in the units of the lower Supai Group, above which the C-Aquifer is asserted to be perched. To say it another way, the mine has no data or comprehensive fracture analysis to show any barrier to vertical fluid movement between the C and R-M aquifers. The one well in the R-M Aquifer is not adequate to determine flow direction and degree of any contamination in the R-M Aquifer.

The very complex passages and compartmentalization known to occur in the R-M karst aquifer is such that more frequent sampling of water level and changes in contamination of this one hole is needed now (currently only annual sample analysis is occurring), as well as a new plan to drill at least three to four more deep wells to establish a valid monitoring program for future remediation. 

The bottom line

In short, the science is clear. Things have changed since 2012. It’s time to supplement the 1986 environmental review and take a hard look at what scientists have learned in the nearly 40 years since the Canyon Mine was first approved.

 by Tim Peterson, Cultural Landscapes Director

October 2024 was a busy month for community leaders from White Mesa, Utah. In addition to the White Mesa Concerned Community and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s annual spiritual walk and protest, leaders held a rally on Utah’s Capitol steps to speak out against the injustice of the White Mesa Mill, America’s last licensed operating conventional uranium mill. 

Located near the White Mesa Ute community and Bears Ears National Monument, the mill was supposed to have closed and cleaned up decades ago. But it’s still in operation, and community leaders are concerned for the health of their people, plants, animals, land, and water. 

White Mesa rally draws attention

White Mesa Concerned Community members rally at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on October 4, 2024. TIM PETERSON

On October 4, as the mercury topped 90 degrees in Salt Lake City, leaders from White Mesa met with Utah regulators to discuss their concerns, then made their way to the Capitol steps.

White Mesa Concerned Community leader Thelma Whiskers told the assembled crowd: "…it hurts when the mill is close to a reservation. It is, it hurts. And I care for my people, my relatives, my children, my grandchildren, my friends… I care for them, and I don't want them to get sick. And a lot of my elderly told me, 'Don't forget. Don't forget. Fight for your people, fight for your tribe… I'm proud of you Thelma, that you're living here on White Mesa even though you are close to the mill.'"

The White Mesa uranium mill, north of the Ute community of White Mesa. TIM PETERSON

The White Mesa Mill accepts radioactive wastes from across the nation and around the world for processing, something the mill’s owner characterizes as "recycling," but that could, in many cases, also be characterized as waste disposal for a fee. A company executive told investors that the corporation makes $5-15 million a year accepting, processing, and disposing of these wastes at the White Mesa Mill. 

To date, more than 700 million pounds of the material have been disposed of at the mill.  According to Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Councilman Malcolm Lehi, "We want the government to understand…It's not about the money, it's about the lands and the people who live in this area."  

The mill’s owner is also seeking to acquire more radioactive materials form the nearby Navajo Nation. Coupled with a push to mine uranium at the company’s Pinyon Plain (formerly Canyon) and La Sal Complex mines, there are plans to dig even more waste pits, increasing the mill’s footprint and prolonging the life of the mill. 

"“I'm really, really concerned about a lot of our sacred sites that were destroyed [when] the mill [was built]," said Yolanda Badback of White Mesa Concerned Community. "I don't want [the mill] to expand either, so that's why I'm fighting. I want my community to have good air quality, good water resource, our native herbs that are grown in the area."

Spiritual walk draws a crowd

White Mesa community members lead the spiritual walk to protest the White Mesa Mill on October 12, 2024. TIM PETERSON

A week after the Capitol rally, the community’s October 12 spiritual walk and protest broke attendance records. More than 100 people joined the five-mile trek from the community center in White Mesa to the entrance of the White Mesa Mill.  

Speaking before the rally, PANDOS co-founder Carl Moore said, "…the uranium mill is on Indigenous land. It might be not on the political boundaries designated of Indigenous land, but it is Indigenous land. ... And in that, it's a responsibility that this government has to protect the people's rights to life."

The front walkers in the White Mesa Concerned Community's spiritual walk from White Mesa to the uranium mill. TIM PETERSON

Though the mill’s presence so close to the White Mesa community is deeply troubling, participants in the walk were joyful as the miles passed beneath their feet. Radio host Dave John broadcast songs of healing by Native artists at the head of the procession, keeping the group prayerful.

Near the mill entrance, speakers and singing closed out the walk. 

Anferny Cly sings near the mill entrance, at the close of the White Mesa Concerned Community's 2024 spiritual walk. TIM PETERSON

"I'm doing [this] for my community, because I love my community and I care for our people …I will always do this spiritual walk annually until I get my goal achieved by cleaning up the mill or closing the mill down," said Yolanda Badback. 

"What we're doing here is making history even though it seems so little. This is a never-ending battle and a never-ending fight," added Yolanda’s son Anferny Cly. 

As Councilman Lehi wrote in an op-ed published in the Salt Lake Tribune:  "When the mill was built, religious places, sacred sites and burials of our ancestors were destroyed. If the mill expands, as its owners want it to, it will surely destroy more…we grow more concerned for the health of our people and our young ones each day." 

The day of the walk, Lehi told the crowd: "It's always an honor to be here with Yolanda's family and see what's going on and be a part of it — a tribal community sticking together to the end is what it's all about."

We hope you will join the walk next fall; all are welcome. 

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

Arizona's governor, Katie Hobbs, is the latest elected official to call for an environmental review of Pinyon Plain Mine, a contested uranium mine near the Grand Canyon. In August 2024, Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, also called for a new environmental review of the mine.

Pinyon Plain Mine, formerly known as Canyon Mine, is located on national forest land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The mine sits inside the boundaries of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument fewer than 10 miles from the south rim of Grand Canyon National Park.

In 2012, the Forest Service determined that the mine was allowed to operate despite a 2009 mining ban around the national park. That determination was upheld in federal court, and the Forest Service has not chosen to reexamine the issue, which is why the mine has been allowed to operate to date.

Governor Hobbs calls on feds to respect tribal concerns

On September 20, 2024, Governor Hobbs sent a letter to Randy Moore, head of the Forest Service, urging the agency to conduct a supplemental review of the mine, noting that "nearly 40 years have passed" since the agency's original 1986 review of the mine's expected environmental impact. Hobbs noted that "at least two major changes in circumstances have occurred," making a review necessary.

In the letter, Hobbs points out that "Pinyon Plain uranium mine is located upon the ancestral lands of numerous Tribes including the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Havasupai Tribe" and acknowledges the harm past uranium mining has caused to Native communities.

Hobbs shares that the Havasupai Tribe has informed her that many tribal members no longer visit their sacred mountain, Red Butte, located near the mine, out of fear of contamination from mining activities. 

Why Pinyon Plain Mine needs review

Tribal leaders celebrate the designation of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni national monument with Red Butte in the background. Red Butte also figures prominently on the monument sign. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Hobbs emphasized that the Forest Service has not done enough to consider the effects of the mine on nearby Red Butte, which is sacred to Indigenous peoples, including the Havasupai, and sits just a few miles away. The governor also cites tribal concerns about groundwater beneath the mine, especially considering that water flows into the mine, a persistent issue since the mine struck water in 2016.

Finally, the governor calls on the Forest Service to hear and respect tribal concerns. Hobbs specifically requests a supplemental review of the 1986 environmental impact statement and plan of operations for the mine, which described the mine’s anticipated operations and evaluated how they would affect the environment. 

Tribes oppose Pinyon Plain Mine

The Havasupai Tribe has opposed the mine since it was first proposed in the 1980s. Approved in 1986, the Forest Service took another look at the mine in 2012, but decided it could move ahead. The mine only began commercially extracting uranium ore in December 2023. Controversy erupted when the mine's owner began trucking uranium ore from the mine, across Navajo Nation land, to the White Mesa uranium mill in 2024, against the wishes of the Navajo Nation and without providing promised notice to local communities.

Tribes, including the Havasupai, remain concerned about the possibility of contamination from the mine entering groundwater, and Western science's understanding of groundwater in the complex geology of fractured rock beneath the mine continues to develop.

The forest service responds to Arizona attorney general

On September 20, 2024, the same day Governor Hobbs sent her letter to the Forest Service, the Forest Service responded to Attorney General Mayes's request for an environmental review of the mine. Although it stopped short of saying it would conduct the review the attorney general and the governor are asking for, the agency did commit to take a look at recent scientific publications cited by the attorney general and said it would compile a report and communicate its findings.

The Grand Canyon Trust supports the governor's call to listen to and respect tribes, on whose ancestral lands the mine is built. It's time for the Forest Service to take a better and more informed look at Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly Canyon Mine) and its impact on tribal communities, water, plants and animals, and the land. 

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In August 2024, amid community uproar and protests against both the operation of Pinyon Plain uranium mine (formerly Canyon Mine) and the start of ore hauling from the mine across the Navajo Nation to the White Mesa uranium mill, Arizona’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service.

The letter asked the Forest Service to complete an environmental review called a "supplemental environmental impact statement" for the Pinyon Plain Mine on the grounds that the mine’s original 1986 review was "based on an outdated, inaccurate understanding of the risks posed by the Mine to groundwater supplies across the Grand Canyon region."

That’s because, up until the mine began commercial operation in December 2023 for the first time since it was approved nearly 38 years earlier, its mining equipment wasn’t the only thing that had been gathering dust. The federal government’s assessment of the mine’s environmental risks and impacts is also nearly four decades old and scientific research, particularly in the realm of groundwater science, has evolved.

What the law says

Before federal agencies undertake a "major action," like approving a plan for mining on public lands, the National Environmental Policy Act requires them to prepare an environmental analysis to aid them in deciding how to act. Under some conditions, agencies must supplement their earlier analyses when "[t]here are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis." And agencies also may choose to update a prior analysis whenever it will serve the National Environmental Policy Act’s purposes.

New information, new review

Essentially, the attorney general and hydrologists believe the Forest Service’s 1986 conclusions about groundwater impacts from the mine might have been different knowing what we know now. They assert that the Forest Service must consider this new information.

While the attorney general says the environmental analysis of the risks the mine poses needs to be updated, the mine’s owner — Energy Fuels Resources — insists there is no need to revisit the original 1986 review because, the company claims, it was reaffirmed by the Forest Service in 2012 and upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022. But the truth is more complex.

What’s true here?

What Energy Fuels says is only partially true. While the mine’s 1986 environmental impact statement has been reviewed, it hasn’t been reviewed in light of the latest developments in groundwater science.

"With scientific advancements in the 21st century and new insights into aquifer connectivity, it is critical that the U.S. Forest Service conduct a supplemental study for the Pinyon Plain Mine," Attorney General Mayes explains.

While it’s true that the 1986 environmental analysis was reviewed by the Forest Service in 2012 and was at issue in a lawsuit that concluded in February 2022, in neither forum was there any consideration of scientific research published in the past 12 years.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered the need for a new environmental impact statement through a different lens and did not examine scientific advancements since 1986. The court looked only at whether a "validity determination" the Forest Service completed to deem the mine exempt from a 2012 mining ban constituted "a major federal action" — a precondition that the National Environmental Policy Act sets out for requiring an environmental review.

Scientists have learned a lot in 12 years

The 2012 Forest Service review considered groundwater science in less than a page. Citing only one 2005 U.S. Geological Survey study, the Forest Service concluded: "There does not seem to be any reason to reevaluate the groundwater conditions or mining effects to them, as there is no new information or changed circumstance related to ground water that would indicate the original analysis is insufficient." Today, this is a much different story.

What does more recent science show?

Long-time Grand Canyon groundwater scientists Dr. Laura Crossey and Dr. Karl Karlstrom say that more recent scientific studies paint a different picture than the one the Forest Service saw in 1986 and reaffirmed in 2012.

The 2012 Forest Service review highlights several key scientific conclusions as unchanged from the original analysis, but today scientists say it’s just not that simple.

Crossey and Karlstrom have done groundwater research in the region for years and are co-authors of a 2024 peer-reviewed paper that got the attention of Attorney General Mayes. 

Their research and review of other studies in the region determined that Pinyon Plain Mine could potentially contaminate springs and wells on the south rim of Grand Canyon National Park, and endanger Havasu Springs, near Havasupai Village.

At a minimum, the study calls for additional monitoring at the mine to test for contaminants.

In the words of Crossey and Karlstrom: "In our view, the protection of spring ecosystems and tribal water sources and sacred sites requires cessation of all uranium mining activities at Pinyon Plain Mine…"

Even without the legal triggers that mandate an updated review, under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest Service can, at its discretion, decide to supplement an environmental impact statement, if it chooses.

When it comes to the potential risks Pinyon Plain Mine poses, we hope the Forest Service, at a minimum, will use its discretionary power to take a hard look at the science and consider what scientists have learned about groundwater in the region since 2012.

See a timeline history of Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly Canyon Mine) › 

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

A recent analysis of fatal vehicle accidents along the haul route uranium trucks travel between Canyon Mine (renamed Pinyon Plain Mine), a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon, and the White Mesa uranium mill in southeastern Utah shows an elevated risk along long stretches of the more than 300-mile route, especially on the Navajo Nation.

The most risky segments of the route are between 240% and 700% more dangerous than an average stretch of road in the United States in terms of vehicle accident fatalities per mile driven.

That means that any vehicles traveling in these sections face an elevated risk of fatal accidents. Energy Fuels Resources, which owns the controversial Pinyon Plain Mine, has said it intends to send six to eight large trucks loaded with uranium ore from the Grand Canyon area mine to its Utah mill every day.

Fatal accidents common along uranium haul route

Many communities along the haul route, which passes through towns in Arizona, the Hopi Reservation, the Navajo Nation, Utah, and the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, oppose uranium hauling, fearing contamination and the risk of accidents on notoriously twisty, mostly two-lane roads. Hazards along the haul route range from flash floods to sink holes to icy road conditions, poor visibility, narrow canyons and steep dropoffs along cliff-edges, as well as wandering horses, cows, sheep, and wild animals.

Response times for emergency services along rural and remote sections of the route are also notoriously long. That means that, whether it's an ambulance or a crew sent to clean up spilled radioactive uranium ore, first responders may need hours to reach the scene of an accident.

But how risky are the roads the uranium haul trucks travel, statistically? According to analysis by the Grand Canyon Trust's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) team, the perception that the haul route is hazardous is well founded.

"We looked at fatal accident data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, covering nine years, from 2014 to 2022," explained Grand Canyon Trust Senior GIS Analyst Josh O'Brien. "Then we crosswalked that data with average daily traffic counts collected by the Arizona and Utah state departments of transportation."

Basically, the analysis looked at how many accidents you would expect along the haul route, statistically, compared to how many there actually were.

"Across the nation, the fatal accident rate for passenger vehicles was about 1.2 per 100 million miles traveled in 2022," O'Brien noted. "Along some segments of the haul route, actual fatal accident rates were 2.4 to 7 times that."

Most dangerous sections near Doney Park, Tuba City, Kayenta, and Dennehotso, conservative analysis shows

u.s. Highway 160 along the haul route, near mile marker 429, east of Dennehotso. TIM PETERSON

Statistically, the most dangerous sections of the Pinyon Plain Mine uranium truck haul route have been:

1. East of the Mexican Water Trading Post, on Highway 160, near the Highway 191 junction
2. In Doney Park, along Highway 89, east of Flagstaff
3. East of Tuba City along Highway 160
4. East of Dennehotso along Highway 160
5. In the area around Tsegi Canyon along Highway 160, west of Kayenta

Four of the five most dangerous sections of the route are on the Navajo Nation.

See a photo gallery of the haul route, with photos and videos available for media and educational use ›

The analysis is conservative, in that it only looks at fatal accidents, not at all accident data. Of course, a uranium haul truck accident doesn't have to be fatal to cause an environmental hazard. There were 113 fatal accidents along the haul route between 2014 and 2022, but anyone who regularly drives this route knows there are far more non-fatal accidents along these roadways. There were 1.05 billion total vehicle miles traveled along the haul route in 2022.

In 1987, two separate accidents involving haul trucks resulted in uranium ore spilling across highways on the Navajo Nation and in 1997, a uranium haul truck jackknifed in Colorado Springs, spreading ore across Interstate 25 and closing the highway.

"We would have liked to look at accident data along the haul route, not only fatal accidents, but that data just isn't publicly available at a national level." O'Brien said. "There are tons of records of vehicle accidents, police reports, things like that, but there's no single dataset you can download of vehicle accidents across the country that contains their specific point locations."

Even within the fatal accident data, O'Brien was conservative. He removed fatal accidents along highway on and off ramps from the analysis, since uranium haul trucks should not frequently be using these ramps. O'Brien also excluded fatal accidents in lanes traveling the opposite direction trucks will travel to the uranium mill when there was a significant physical space between the opposing lanes and it was unlikely that an accident would impact loaded vehicles traveling toward the mill. 

"The statistical analysis is very clear," O'Brien said. "Segments of the haul route are dangerous compared to the average for roads in the United States."

With trucking paused, protests of uranium mine and mill continue

Members of the Havasupai Tribe and supporters protest Pinyon Plain Mine on August 24, 2024. RAYMOND CHEE

Trucking is currently paused while discussions between the Navajo Nation and Energy Fuels continue. Arizona's attorney general continues to call for a new environmental review of the Pinyon Plain Mine, and advocates from the Havasupai Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and their supporters continue to call for the mine to close. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the haul route, the White Mesa Ute community is organizing a spiritual walk to protest the White Mesa uranium mill, where the uranium ore is sent for processing. The grassroots group White Mesa Concerned Community invites supporters to join them in White Mesa on October 12, 2024.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

Canyon Mine (renamed Pinyon Plain Mine) faces questions and opposition on multiple fronts. Most recently, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes called on the U.S. Forest Service to take a new look at the risks the controversial uranium mine poses to the Grand Canyon region.

Additionally, the mine’s only approved haul routes to the White Mesa Mill cross the Navajo Nation, which has vowed to stop uranium ore trucks. Revisiting a 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture financial analysis indicates that altering the mine's haul route to bypass the Navajo Nation — which generally opposes and regulates uranium transport on its lands — would significantly increase the company’s costs. 

And community organizers across the Colorado Plateau continue to protest against the operation of the mine, ore hauling, and operation of the White Mesa Mill, next to the White Mesa Ute community, where Canyon Mine ore and radioactive waste shipments from around the world are sent.

Arizona attorney general warns of "devastating" impacts

In an August 13, 2024 letter, Mayes wrote that the original 1986 environmental impact study for the mine relied on an "outdated, inaccurate understanding" of risks the mine poses to groundwater.

Referring to more recent published science, Mayes warns that if the aquifers below the mine become contaminated, it could have devastating effects, especially on the Havasupai Tribe, which relies on the deep Redwall-Muav Aquifer for drinking water.

Scientists' understanding of groundwater in the Grand Canyon area has changed over the last 38 years, yet regulator reviews and approvals have continued to look to the original analysis. The flow of groundwater in the region is notoriously complex, given the landscape's many layers of fractured rock. Mayes is asking the Forest Service to take new knowledge into account when determining whether it's worth the risk to continue to allow uranium mining on national forest lands that are now protected as part of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni national monument.

The attorney general's call comes fewer than two weeks after uranium hauling from the mine across the Navajo Nation to the White Mesa Mill in southern Utah sparked protests. A few days after uranium transport began, mine owner Energy Fuels Resources agreed to pause trucking to have discussions with Navajo Nation leadership. Those discussions are ongoing.

Pinyon Plain Mine and risks to groundwater

Mayes points to recent peer-reviewed research that suggests that groundwater systems in the Grand Canyon region are far more interconnected than the 1986 environmental review suggested, making it "highly likely" that contaminants would travel between aquifers below the mine. Research shows that aquifers in the region act as "fluid superhighways," allowing heavy metals and other contaminants to move between aquifers. Read an interview with the study's lead author, Dr. Laura Crossey ›

In 2016, miners digging the mine shaft pierced groundwater. As of December 2023, more than 66 million gallons of water had been pumped out of the mine shaft and into an open-air evaporation pond where birds are often observed drinking and bathing. In the last quarter of 2023, when the mine began extracting uranium ore commercially for the first time, levels of uranium, arsenic, and lead in the floodwater pumped out of the mine shaft spiked.

How much would it cost to go around the Navajo Nation?

For now, we still don’t know what will come of ongoing discussions between the Navajo Nation and Energy Fuels, though the Navajo Nation has vowed to stop uranium transport from the mine across its lands, given the devastating legacy the uranium industry has left. 

Could haul trucks go around? In theory, they could, though it may require another environmental analysis and it would likely be expensive. The current haul route, from the mine to the White Mesa uranium mill near the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's community of White Mesa, is about 300 miles long. Bypassing the Navajo Nation — which is roughly the size of West Virginia — would likely more than double the hauling distance, significantly increasing the company’s hauling costs. 

According to a 2012 Forest Service report on the economic feasibility of the mine, called a validity examination, uranium hauling using the current haul route was projected to cost $66 per ton (about $91.59 per ton in today's dollars), or about 18% of the mine's total operating costs. The Forest Service has not updated the validity examination in over a decade. But the 2012 cost estimates, even if inexact, leave no doubt that a significant increase in transportation costs would cut into the company's bottom line significantly. 

So, if the Navajo Nation succeeds in halting ore transportation across its lands, it might not only address the Navajo Nation’s objection to uranium hauling, but also diminish Energy Fuels’ resolve to keep mining. Yet if the company is willing to detour around the Navajo Nation, the environmental, spiritual, cultural, and economic risks the mine poses to the Havasupai people, to the Grand Canyon region's water, land, plants and animals, and to the state's tourism economy would remain. As do the concerns of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the White Mesa Ute community, whose members live just a few miles down the road from the White Mesa Mill, where the ore is processed, and who are also working to protect their groundwater from the risks of contamination from uranium milling and radioactive-waste processing.

Protests continue, with calls for the mine to shut down

Meanwhile, calls for Canyon Mine/Pinyon Plain Mine and Energy Fuels’ White Mesa uranium mill to close and opposition to ore hauling continue. Community protests are currently being organized for August 24, 2024 against the mine and haul route and October 12, 2024 against the White Mesa Mill.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

On July 30, 2024, two trucks loaded with uranium ore left a mine near the Grand Canyon headed for the White Mesa uranium mill in southern Utah. The news prompted widespread outcry, spurring a rapid response from the Navajo Nation, Havasupai Tribe, tribal members, and grassroots groups across Arizona, the Navajo Nation, and beyond. 

The trucks marked the first loads of uranium ore from Canyon Mine (also known as Pinyon Plain Mine) — a controversial uranium mine located south of Grand Canyon National Park and inside the boundaries of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument — to be hauled offsite for processing since the mine began extracting ore in December 2023. 

Native American nations had asked to be notified when uranium hauling from the mine began, given ongoing uranium-related health impacts and longstanding concerns about public and environmental safety from communities along the roughly 300-mile haul route. But the news took many in the region by surprise.

Navajo Nation, Havasupai Tribe condemn hauling

"They snuck through the Navajo Nation," Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said in a press release. "[T]hey operated covertly to travel the Navajo Nation illegally...they smuggled uranium across our Nation which is very inappropriate."

Navajo Nation law bans uranium mining and generally opposes and regulates uranium transport on Navajo lands. President Nygren promised to set up roadblocks to stop uranium haul trucks until the Navajo Nation finishes setting up regulations governing the trucks. 

"Our Navajo people have suffered for many years, and many lost their lives due to uranium mining on our homelands. The Navajo Nation will continue to oppose and fight against the transportation of uranium ore through our lands for the health and safety of our people," vowed Navajo Nation Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley.

The Navajo Nation is still grappling with the legacy of more than 500 abandoned uranium mines, which have contaminated land and water and harmed human health.

The Havasupai Tribe also issued a scathing statement condemning the hauling as an "attack on the sovereignty of the Havasupai Tribe and neighboring Tribes" and asserting that, by "blatantly disregarding" its promise to notify the tribe when hauling began, mine owner Energy Fuels Resources "has confirmed by its actions today that it cannot be trusted."

The Havasupai Tribe also reiterated its opposition to the mine, located on the tribe's aboriginal territory near its sacred mountain, Red Butte, "for the protection of our drinking water and the health and safety of our Tribal members and tourists who visit our reservation." The tribe said the company's actions indicate that Energy Fuels Resources is "willing to risk the health and safety of Havasupai Tribal members, Navajo tribal members, and citizens of the State of Arizona."

The Havasupai Tribe's world-famous blue-green waterfalls are fed by the Redwall-Muav Aquifer, which lies deep below the mine. The Havasupai Tribe worries that activities at the mine, which has punctured a shallower groundwater aquifer, could contaminate their water supply. At least one recent scientific study has determined uranium mining in the region is too risky.

Protests along the haul route, Arizona governor negotiates temporary pause

On August 2, 2024, Navajo Nation First Lady Jasmine Blackwater-Nygren held a rally in Cameron, followed by a march along U.S. Highway 89, along the haul route.

"I, too, have grandparents who passed from cancer from uranium exposure," Blackwater-Nygren said. "We are all deeply affected by uranium...Today we're standing up and saying, 'Respect our tribal sovereignty, respect our laws.'"

The same day, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs negotiated a temporary pause to the hauling. Energy Fuels had planned to send six to eight trucks a day from the mine to its Utah mill.

Despite the halted trucks, protests continued over the weekend, calling for the mine to close.

Arizona attorney general weighs in

Meanwhile, Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, has expressed concern about the mine. "Hauling radioactive materials through rural Arizona, including across the Navajo Nation, without providing notice or transparency and without providing an emergency plan is unacceptable," Mayes said in a statement.

"I also remain concerned about the potential risks to Arizona’s groundwater associated with the activities of this mine, including the risks posed to the only source of drinking water for the Havasupai Tribe," Mayes said.

According to Navajo Nation President Nygren, "hauling exposes our Diné people to toxic uranium, a substance that has devastated our community for decades. As president, I do not approve of this transport and will continue to fight to ensure our people are protected from the actions of Energy Fuels," Nygren promised.

Native nations impacted from mine to mill

Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine) impacts tribes at every step of the process, from the mining itself, which places water resources and tribes' traditional homelands at risk, to uranium hauling across tribal lands, to the White Mesa Mill, just up the road from part of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, where concerns about water contamination and other long-term health and environmental effects loom over the White Mesa Ute community.

With the situation continuing to evolve, we expect protests will continue as Native nations assert their sovereignty and work to protect their land, water, and people from the devastating effects of uranium mining.

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In June 2024, the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences published "Hydrotectonics of Grand Canyon Groundwater," a review of recent groundwater studies in the Grand Canyon that points to a more complex and at-risk system than we’d previously envisioned. We sat down with one of the paper’s authors, Dr. Laura Crossey, who has more than 20 years of experience studying groundwater activity in the Grand Canyon region. Her extensive research suggests that some activities near the Grand Canyon, like mining for uranium, are just too risky.

In the paper, you explain that classic geology uses a "sandbox-type" analogy of distinct, physically separated layers to model aquifers and geologic layers but in the case of the Grand Canyon, this analogy is inadequate. What do you mean by that?

Dr. Laura Crossey: The Grand Canyon is like a layer cake and some of the layers are these beautiful "confined" aquifers. People tend to think the water will stay in that one layer. But all you have to do is look at the mile-deep natural cut through the rock sequence — the Grand Canyon — to realize that those layers have many places where they are cross-cut by faults and fractures. There's no question the water moves down vertically from the upper Kaibab and Coconino aquifers down into the regional karst aquifer, the Redwall-Muav Aquifer, which hosts a lot of big springs in the Grand Canyon region.

The importance of the faults is that they provide a vertical pathway for water to move to seek a lower level because ultimately, water is searching for sea level. But these faults are an exceptional challenge to model, particularly because there aren’t a lot of wells in the area. 

The Redwall-Muav Aquifer is a world-class karst aquifer. The springs that emerge from the Redwall-Muav Aquifer have sustained people through droughts. Karst springs also have significance to cultures all over the world. It's no surprise that the people who call the Grand Canyon region home — the 11 associated tribes of the Grand Canyon region — have traditional knowledge keepers who certainly recognized different types of springs as being in a pretty important class of cultural features. 

So the idea that the water flow from the surface of the Grand Canyon is somehow going to stay confined up in an upper unit is just not realistic when you look at the complex hydrology and the three-dimensional picture. This has bearing on activities like mining. The groundwater hydrology of the Colorado Plateau is so complicated that you can't just make simple assumptions and hang your hat on the scientific data and approaches that are decades and decades old.

How are tracers used to follow water flow paths on the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon?

Dr. Laura Crossey: The work that I've been doing for 20-plus years in the Grand Canyon region has focused on what I would refer to as natural tracers. These are geochemical aspects of the water, like solutes or the water molecules themselves, that help us identify aspects of where that water has been on its flow path. Where did it come from? What pathways did it take? What rocks did it encounter? Imagine it like the water is on a trip and the water chemistry is an evolving diary of the trip. We're trying to read that diary at the other end.

Think of the confluence of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River, where you can watch the blue, calcium carbonate-laden waters of the Little Colorado River mix with the green waters of the Colorado River that hail from the high Rockies. The water downstream of the confluence now carries the markers of both rivers. That’s essentially what I’m looking for in tracer studies but translated to the three-dimensional Tetris structure of the Grand Canyon. Its wonderful layers of rock are cut by faults, some of which might be barriers to flow and others of which might be conduits for flow. And it turns out, those faults are fast paths for water to move. Recent tracer studies that were spearheaded by Grand Canyon National Park and park hydrologists offer dramatic evidence of this.

They literally went onto the North Rim and poured dye into the recharge holes in the Kaibab Aquifer. They were trying to trace the dye to Roaring Springs to understand the sustainability of the aquifer that serves as a source of water for Grand Canyon National Park. But when they poured it in up there, that water went both upstream and downstream. In other words, the dyed water took the "fault expressway" and in just two seasons had traveled 40 kilometers at complete right angles. It also dropped from the Kaibab Aquifer through the Coconino Aquifer and eventually reached the Redwall-Muav Aquifer, emerging at springs deep in the Grand Canyon.

What evidence of human influences do we see in aquifers and springs in the Grand Canyon?

Dr. Laura Crossey: We compiled data from many other studies and hundreds of data points and the results indicated that when you look at the use of North Rim water on the South Rim at Grand Canyon Village and the surrounding area, it is significant enough over the decades that we essentially have a natural tracer experiment to learn from. Where we've taken North Rim water and essentially dumped it on the South Rim, there’s a surprising indicator of recharge based on evidence of North Rim water on the South Rim. North Rim water that we’ve piped across the river, flushed down toilets, put through washing machines, and watered landscaping with is now a tracer to study flow paths.

Based on your research, what do you think needs to be further studied at the Grand Canyon?

Dr. Laura Crossey: There are geochemical methods that people are beginning to apply to the region that can distinguish between uranium that's been disturbed or recently mined versus uranium that's been naturally mineralized. So we're going to have more studies that'll help us determine if disturbed uranium is traveling from point A to point B. 

What recommendations do you have for land managers when it comes to activities around the Grand Canyon that can impact groundwater, like mining for example?

I don't think that a reasonable response is to say, "let's wait and see," because cleaning up an aquifer that's kilometers deep in the earth is simply not going to happen. It's a one-way street. What we should do is prevent the possibility that those precious places become contaminated. 

Dr. Laura Crossey is a distinguished professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico.

 by Amanda Podmore, Grand Canyon Director

On April 30, 2024, the Navajo Nation Council and Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren signed legislation calling on U.S. President Joe Biden and federal authorities to stop the transport of uranium ore across Navajo Nation lands immediately.

The move comes after the controversial Canyon Mine (renamed Pinyon Plain Mine) began mining uranium near Grand Canyon National Park and inside the boundaries of Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in December 2023, as uranium prices spiked.

Six trucks a day

According to its owner, Energy Fuels Resources, Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine) expects to send about six trucks of uranium ore a day roughly 300 miles along local roads and state highways, through cities and towns in Arizona, the Navajo Nation, and Utah, to the company's White Mesa uranium mill for processing. The highways the haul trucks will travel are mostly two lanes (one lane each direction), winding, and unlit.

The Navajo Nation bans uranium mining and generally opposes and regulates the transport of uranium ore across Navajo lands, but the state of Arizona allows uranium to be transported over highways 89 and 160 across the Navajo Nation.

The uranium company has said it will inform the Navajo Nation when hauling begins, but discussions at recent meetings with federal, tribal, city, and county officials about the mine’s transportation and emergency response plans have cast doubt on the notification process and readiness of emergency responders along the haul route.

If the company moves ahead as planned, tourists headed for Grand Canyon National Park's main south rim entrance will soon pass large uranium haul trucks covered only in canvas tarps.

Uranium haul truck near Kanab, Utah, June 2015. Trucks like this are expected to begin hauling uranium ore from Canyon Mine near the Grand Canyon later this year. BLAKE MCCORD

Communities along the haul route oppose uranium transport 

The proposed haul route passes through the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, through Cameron, Tuba City, and Kayenta on the Navajo Nation, and through Bluff, Utah. Many communities along the haul route aren't happy about this and worry about the risks uranium mining and hauling pose to public health and safety, especially in light of possible accidents.

"[W]e’re not messing around when it comes to uranium being transported across the Navajo Nation," said President Nygren in a statement. 

"With Highway 191 being the only road through town, we are deeply concerned about the lack of transparency about the transportation plan," said Bluff, Utah Mayor Ann Leppanen. "How can we ensure our first responders are adequately prepared and community members are safe in the event of an incident?" 

 
The city of Flagstaff has long opposed the transport of uranium through the city and across Indigenous lands. And as recently as February 2024, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors — the second largest county in the United States by land area — passed a resolution opposing uranium transport through Flagstaff and tribal lands and urging the mine to close.

"Even setting aside potential concerns regarding geology, cultural significance, sacredness of the land, the potential environmental impacts, and possible water contamination, what part of a uranium mine next to the Grand Canyon, one of the natural wonders of the world, makes any sense?” asked Coconino County Supervisor Patrice Horstman.

The mine's owner hasn't taken kindly to this opposition, demanding that the county retract its resolution.

Many Native American tribes, including the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, and the Navajo Nation strongly oppose uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region. The Havasupai Tribe has led opposition to Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine) since the 1980s, citing concerns about possible groundwater contamination, since the mine sits above the Havasupai Tribe's only source of water.

Native-led grassroots groups like Haul No also strongly oppose uranium transport across tribal lands.

A legacy of accidents and contamination

Abandoned uranium mines litter the Navajo Nation, where they have contaminated land and water and harmed human health. Over 500 of these mines have yet to be cleaned up. And there have been accidents involving uranium haul trucks in the region.

In 1987, two separate accidents involving haul trucks resulted in uranium ore spilling across highways on the Navajo Nation and in 1997, a uranium haul truck jackknifed in Colorado Springs, spreading ore across Interstate 25 and closing the highway.

More recently in 2015 and 2016, trucks hauling waste from in-situ leaching uranium mines in Wyoming to the White Mesa Mill have leaked radioactive sludge along Utah's highways, including near the entrance to the White Mesa Mill, where residents of nearby White Mesa have been among the last to know. This underscores the need to notify potentially impacted communities as quickly as possible when there is an accident.

Canyon Mine (also known as Pinyon Plain Mine) with the Grand Canyon in the background. ECOFLIGHT

The Navajo Nation emphasizes the need to "protect Navajo highways from the transportation of hazardous materials that can harm businesses, students, residents, and livestock" from the potential environmental and health hazards posed by uranium transport.

And the Havasupai Tribe wrote in a statement shortly after mining began at Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine): "A whole set of unknown and new problems will exist when the company begins transporting uranium over the land."

Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine) is expected to operate for 28 months and produce 1.57 million pounds of uranium — that’s once it’s milled from raw ore at the company’s White Mesa Mill — a drop in the bucket when it comes to U.S. uranium demand.

State regulators and the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the national forest land inside Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni National Monument where the mine sits, claim there's nothing they can do to stop the mine.

Last month, conservation groups including the Grand Canyon Trust sent a letter to the Kaibab National Forest asking for information about how emergency responders, local governments, and residents will be notified when ore hauling from Canyon Mine (Pinyon Plain Mine) begins, how trucks will be marked, and who will be responsible for responding to any emergencies along the haul route. The Forest Service responded that it would notify "Tribes and other interested parties" when transportation begins.

The Navajo Nation's call on President Biden to stop the transport of uranium ore from Canyon Mine through the Navajo Nation still awaits a response.