HYDRO22380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

YIOI,C nurnallL ueulO la. m,. wn.wcnau~ Mr. Uury Shults April 15, 1999 Page 3 Second, the report raises the question why American Soda did not acquire adequate baseline data before moving forward with the project. Establishing baseline is admittedly a rigorous, time-consuming process, but that doesn't mean American Soda or the BLM are absolved from doing ii right. "Third, the report emphasizes that American Soda is willing now', after the E1S has been disclosed to the public, to go to the trouble and expense to establish baseline. While 1 applaud this willingness, the tuning is fatal. American Soda should have done this months and years ago, before the EIS wars written, not after it was published. By doing it wrong the first time, and then pressuring the BLM to hurry project approval, American Soda puts the Agency in an untenable position. Unfortunately, the BLM must now withdraw the draft EIS, wait for the ground water baseline data and other key missing information, and publish a rewritten EIS tltat complies with NEPA. Furthermore, the baseline plan, even if laudable, must be submitted to ~~ublic review and must overcome the problems inherent in attempting to collect baseline data during operations. Unlawful Withholdine of Information 1 earlier wrote to you on March 8, ] 999, requesting a copy of the project's "Ccxnmercial Mine Plan," which I understand you have refused to disclose to the public. You declined my request. I also pointed out in my March 8 comments on the DEIS that thew is a great deal of information missing from the DEIS, such as baseline information, and monitoring and contingency plans that are crucial to making an evaluation of significant environmental impacts. By failing to include these documents in the information disclosed to the public, your EIS falls far short of the minimum amount of infxmation necessary to comply with NEPA. The EIS is legally vulnerable on many gor~nds, but on these grounds it is indefensible. While some aspects ofthe Commercial Mining Plan maybe propriela~y, that is no defense for the exclusion from the DEIS ofunderlying data that is essential to the public comment process. As noted earlier, I learn at the meeting on Monday, April 12, that American Soda submitted a monitoring plan dated April 8, 1999, and marked "Confidential," to the Rio Blanco Board of County Commissioners as part of its effort to obtain special use permits from the County. I assume the BLM has received the same plan, and perhaps. other plans as well, since the publication of the DEIS. is this the same additional information giveat to the EPA to remedy deficiencies in the DEIS that would otherwise preclude: the issue of a UIC penmit? I have no way of knowing if the same story is being told to al!I the agencies or just enough information is being provided to meet each agencies objections. I cannot think of a single legitimate reason that an environmental maritoring plan would be marked confidential and withheld from the public. The Rio Blanco County Attorney agreed with me that the plan should not 6e withheld and authorized the