WASHINGTON, DC, October 22, 2008 (ENS) – Two conservation groups are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force the federal agency to clean up emissions that cloud the air over national parks and wilderness areas.

The National Parks Conservation Association and Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Tuesday against EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Family memories of our national parks shouldn’t be clouded by polluted haze,” said Mark Wenzler, director of clean air and climate programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. “EPA needs to take seriously its obligation to ensure clear skies for all Americans who seek out our national parks for healthy vacations.”

Sunlight illuminates the haze over
Grand Canyon National Park.
(Photo by Erik Pronske)

The groups want the court to order the EPA to determine whether states have submitted complete plans required by the Clean Air Act to prevent and remedy haze air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas.

The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require the EPA to determine by June 17, 2008 whether each state had submitted haze plans, but the groups allege that the federal environmental agency has failed to do so. They say only a small handful of states have submitted haze plans.

Much of the pollution problem that creates haze over national parks comes from old power plants and factories with outdated pollution controls. Emissions from these plants can travel hundreds of miles, contributing to regional haze that obscures scenic vistas over large areas, the groups complain.

“Enforcing the nation’s clean air laws will help clear the air for the millions of Americans who treasure our national parks,” said Kevin Lynch, attorney for Environmental Defense Fund based in Colorado.

“Cleaning up industrial smokestack pollution is one of the single most important steps EPA can take to protect America’s health and our national parks,” he said.

In May, the National Parks Conservation Association issued a report entitled “Dark Horizons” [www.npca.org] identifying the 10 national parks most at risk from pollution from new coal-fired power plants.

They are Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina, Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, Theodore Roosevelt in North Dakota, Mesa Verde in Colorado, Great Basin in Nevada, and Capitol Reef and Zion national parks in Utah, as well as Wind Cave and Badlands national parks in South Dakota.

In addition to their lawsuit, the groups are calling on the Bush administration to halt its efforts to weaken clean air protections for national parks.

Twenty-eight coal-fired power plants are proposed within the air sheds of these 10 national parks, defined as a radius of 185 miles around each park.

Haze hangs over Shenandoah National Park
in Virginia. (Photo credit unknown)

Despite objections from its own scientists, the National Park Service, and Congressman Henry Waxman of California, the EPA has proposed a rule that weakens pollution standards and makes it easier to build new coal-fired power plants near national parks.

The change is in the new source review regulations under the Clean Air Act. Currently, these regulations require new and modified large stationary sources of air pollution that increase their emissions to install up-to-date pollution control technology.

EPA’s revisions to these regulations would change the test for determining whether a power plant that is modified will increase its emissions of air pollutants and therefore whether it will be required to install pollution controls.

Under the current regulations, EPA evaluates whether the total amount of pollution emitted by the plant each year would increase.

The EPA is now proposing that even if the plant ran more hours and annual pollution increased, this would not matter as long as there was no increase in the amount of pollution emitted by the plant on an hourly basis.

National Parks Conservation Association warns that if this rule is finalized, the air over national parks would be more polluted, and wildlife and scenic views in national parks such as Great Basin, which is largely unaffected by air pollution, would be harmed.

According to the National Park Service, human-caused air pollution reduces visibility in most national parks throughout the country.

The farthest a person can see on a given day in parks across most of the western United States is now about 140 miles – just one-half to two-thirds of what it would be without air pollution caused by human activities.

In most of the eastern national parks, the average visual range is about about 90 miles – just one-fifth of what it would be under natural conditions.

“Millions of Americans visit national parks each year to breathe clean, fresh air and enjoy the majestic vistas,” said Earthjustice attorney Jennifer Chavez, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the conservation groups. “When you can’t see the mountains and canyons under all the filthy haze, it’s time for EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

FLAGSTAFF, Arizona, August 18, 2008 (ENS) – Officers, deputies and rescuers from eight public safety agencies worked today and Sunday to evacuate more than 400 campers and residents from Supai Canyon after heavy rainfall and the breach of an earthen dam flooded the area. No injuries were immediately reported.

On Saturday afternoon and evening, the Northern Arizona high country received heavy rainfall that resulted in partial flooding of Supai Canyon, a popular destination for hikers and campers famed for its majestic desert waterfalls. Supai Canyon is located 75 air miles west of the Grand Canyon Village on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park.

Early Sunday morning, Coconino County officials learned that the Redlands earthen dam broke, allowing a high volume of water to rush down Cataract Canyon in a westerly direction, eventually feeding into Supai Canyon. The small dam, about 45 miles upstream from the Havasupai village of Supai, had formed a pond to provide water for livestock.

Rescuers located visitors who were staying at the Supai campground above Havasu Falls and escorted them to a safe landing zone in Supai Village.

About 170 campers and residents were flown Sunday to Hilltop in Arizona Department of Public Safety and Arizona National Guard helicopters.

Then the evacuees were bused to an American Red Cross shelter located at the Hualapai Tribal Gymnasium in Peach Springs Arizona.

Helicopters resumed the evacuation of about 120 more tourists and residents today.

Search and rescue crews on the ground and in the air are searching for about 11 campers and tourists who remained unaccounted for today, said Gerry Blair, a spokesman for the Coconino County Sheriff’s Department. Blair says it is important to remove them from the canyon as there still is the potential for additional flooding.

The road into Havasupai is closed at Route 66 and Indian Road 18 leading into Hualapai Hilltop. Residents and campers will not be able to access Supai Village and the Havasupai Indian Reservation at this time.

One of the stranded rafters is taken off
the ledge by helicopter on Sunday.
(Photo courtesy NPS)

On Saturday, the Grand Canyon Regional Communications Center received information from Western Rivers Adventures that five unmanned rafts were observed floating down the Colorado River with personal floatation devices and other supplies still onboard.

National Park Service employees believed the rafts belonged to a private boating party of 16 people. The entire party was located uninjured but stranded on a ledge at the confluence of Havasu Creek and the Colorado River. The group was out of reach of rescuers and vulnerable to rising waters fed by more rainfall overnight.

On Sunday, the 16 stranded visitors were flown one at a time to the other side of the Colorado River where they boarded a helicopter to be flown to the Hualapai Hilltop. Those evacuees also were bused to the American Red Cross shelter in Peach Springs, Arizona.

Not everyone chose the evacuation route. Many residents and campers chose to stay in Supai, which is on high ground, Blair said.

National Park Service employees are in the process of contacting members of rafting parties who have not yet reached the confluence, which is located at about river mile 157, to inform them of the flooding that has occurred in that area.

The heavy rainfall in this arid area is a characteristic of the Arizona monsoon season from June 15 through September 30 – a time of high temperatures, high winds, and high moisture.

Supai Canyon is an oasis in the middle of desert country on the Havasupai Nation reservation in Arizona. Supai Village is the home of the Havasupai Tribe, which has inhabited the Grand Canyon for centuries.

Public safety agencies that are responding to this emergency include – Grand Canyon National Park, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office, Coconino County Sheriff’s Search and Rescue, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Coconino County Emergency Services, the Arizona National Guard and American Red Cross.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

FLAGSTAFF, Arizona, March 13, 2008 (ENS) – One of the great natural wonders of the world – the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River – is threatened by uranium exploration.Three conservation groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the approval of up to 39 new uranium drilling sites within a few miles of Grand Canyon National Park.

In December, the Kaibab National Forest granted British firm Vane Minerals approval to conduct exploratory uranium drilling on national forest lands along the park’s southern boundary with no public hearing and no environmental review. It is the first of five such projects slated for the area.

“Grand Canyon simply isn’t the place for uranium development,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiff groups. “Our national treasures deserve better than the calamity of an adjacent industrial zone.”

Filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Trust, the lawsuit claims that the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and two other laws when it approved the uranium exploration using a “categorical exclusion,” the least rigorous analysis available to the agency.

Vane Minerals has already begun to
drill for uranium near the Grand
Canyon in northern Arizona.
(Photo courtesy Vane Minerals)

The lawsuit claims that the Forest Service failed to consider the controversy surrounding uranium development, the significance of its proximity to the Grand Canyon, the overall cumulative impacts of four other future uranium exploration projects and the potential opening of Denison Corporation’s Canyon Mine – all located in the same area.

The lawsuit follows a letter sent by the same three groups outlining legal problems with the approval and requesting that the Forest Service withdraw its decision.

The Forest Service claims it has little power to deny uranium development under the 1872 Mining Law. But the mining law does not go against the agency’s separate obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act to carry out in-depth public and environmental reviews of such proposals.

“The Grand Canyon is facing a massive uranium build-up at its southern boundary,” said Sandy Bahr of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “The mining law doesn’t negate the Forest Service’s duty to conduct detailed environmental and public reviews for new uranium development – and the Grand Canyon deserves at least that much.”

On February 5, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution opposing uranium development on lands in the proximity of the Grand Canyon National Park and its watersheds.

The resolution requests the Arizona Congressional Delegation to initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining, mineral exploration, and mineral entry all federal lands in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in House Rock Valley.

Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has made no direct statement about uranium exploration at the Grand Canyon, but he has called for greater emphasis on nuclear energy in the United States along with increased production of domestic oil and continued development of alternative energy sources.

Congressman Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who chairs the House Subcommittee of National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, told the “Tucson Citizen” newspaper in February that he has asked committee staff to explore how best to eradicate the provision for use of categorical exclusions. In the meantime, he asked, “If they find a vein of uranium to explore, how do we stop it?”

Grand Canyon National Park is one of the world’s great natural wonders whose protection for future generations has long been a priority for the citizens of Coconino County, the resolution says.

The Grand Canyon National Park also is an economic engine that now draws five million visitors per year who contribute to the economy of Coconino County, it says.

More than 2,000 uranium mining claims have been filed since 2003 in the Tusayan Ranger district alone, the majority of them within 10 miles of Grand Canyon National Park, says the Board of Supervisors.

Fueled by a 15-fold increase in uranium prices during the last eight years, planned uranium development has increased on federal lands immediately south of the Grand Canyon, where in addition to the 2,000 claims, there are five uranium exploration projects, and the possible opening of one mine.

“Some places should be off-limits to noise, heavy equipment traffic, drilling, and potential contamination from uranium exploration and drilling; the rim of the Grand Canyon is one of those places,” said Dave Gowdey of the Grand Canyon Trust. “Congress should act now to protect the park and its surrounding public lands.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

PAGE, Arizona, March 6, 2008 (ENS) – More than 300,000 gallons of water per second is now gushing through the Grand Canyon, released from Lake Powell near the Arizona-Utah border in an effort to restore sandbars needed by native plants and fish.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne Wednesday pulled a lever at Glen Canyon Dam to release the water for a 60-hour “high flow test.” The flood of water is expected to push sand built up at the bottom of the river’s channel into a series of sandbars and camping beaches along the river, replenishing the sediment that has been held back behind the dam.

“The water will be released at a rate that would fill the Empire State Building within 20 minutes,” Kempthorne said. “It will transport enough sediment to cover a football field 100 feet deep with silt and sand.”

Water is released from Glen
Canyon Dam. (Photo
courtesy DOI)

The experiment is an inter-agency research effort conducted by three Department of the Interior bureaus – the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS; the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River; and the National Park Service, which manages Grand Canyon National Park.

High flows also create areas of low-velocity flow, or backwaters, used by young native fishes, particularly endangered humpback chub, one of four remaining native fish in the Grand Canyon.

USGS scientists will be monitoring how the high-flow releases affect the survival of a population of young humpback chub.

Researchers will collect data on the changes in sandbars before, during, and after the high flow. This data will be used to improve the predictive capabilities of the existing sediment model and determine the optimal peak flows of future high-flow experiments.

But a conflict over future high-flow experiments has caused a rift within the Department of the Interior.

The fight pits the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which is pushing a plan supported by water and power interests, against the National Park Service which says the plan will harm wildlife and habitat in Grand Canyon National Park, according to a national organization of government employees in natural resource agencies.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, released documents last week that illuminate the intra-agency conflict.

The Bureau of Reclamation released its plan’s Environmental Assessment, EA, in early February, allowing only 15 days of public comment, and concluded that its experiment would have “no significant environmental impact,” eliminating the need for further review.

The Grand Canyon of the Colorado
River (Photo courtesy USGS)

The National Park Service, which was excluded from the plan’s development, is objecting because the plan does not permit any further high flows during the five-year experimental period so that power generation can be maximized.

Instead, the plan calls for a two-month regime of steady flows during September and October over a five-year period.

In a February 19, 2008 comment letter to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Regional Environmental Manager Randall Peterson, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Steve Martin pointed to the lack of scientific basis for the “steady flow periods” and for conducting only one high-flow event in a five-year span.

“It is not apparent where the 80 million dollars in research, conducted over the last 10 years has been used in this decision-making process,” wrote Martin. “Our analysis shows that this document is not consistent with current best information.”

Martin wrote, “Based on current scientific information, lack of inclusion of additional high flows could lead to impairment of the resources of Grand Canyon National Park.”

Martin says high flows should be staged every year or two, whenever enough sediment builds up behind the dam.

Further, the Grand Canyon Trust, a nonprofit group based in Flagstaff, Arizona is suing the Interior Department to get it to honor commitments made in 1996 to seasonally adjust flows and stage more high-flow events.

“The water released during the test will not change the amount of water to be released over the course of the 2008 water year,” said Larry Walkoviak, Regional Director of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Region.

“The current plan of operations calls for releasing 8.23 million acre-feet of water from Glen Canyon Dam. That water flows downriver to Lake Mead for use by the Lower Colorado River Basin States and Mexico,” he said. “The experimental flows are included within this annual volume. Monthly releases later in the year will be adjusted downward to account for the water released during the experiment.”

The high-flow test period ends Friday when the gush of water will be shut off and the Colorado River will return to its usual clear, slow flow.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.