HYDRO26266 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6-21-7999 7:05PM ~IHON EFFERT ~,: n new at Lnn• FRO~IHON Mr. Chuck Williams Page 11 June 21, 1999 ASSOCIATES 303 d36 93 the DEIS: "[D]ata appear to have been selectively retrieved from the database and past reports to imply that existing water quality conditions do not meet Colorado groundwater standards, even when the bulk of the data, from the site and elsewhere, do not suppott these conclusions." Though EPA has had this letter for months, it apparently has done nothing to investigate the allegations and concerns it contains. In particular, nothing in the record suggests that EPA looked behind the allegation that data were selectively retrieved and employed, either by reviewing the larger database of by collecting its own data. The allegation itself is new information at which EPA must take a "hard look," see Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, to determine if it constitutes significan[ new information chat requires EPA to prepare an SEIS. See Hughes Riuer Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 443 (4's Cit. 1996). If the allegation is true, EPA must determine whether American Soda's selective retrieval and employment of the data misrepresented the actual quality of the gr~~und water in the project area. If it did, this is certainly new information that requires the preG~aration of an SEIS. B. The Commercial Mine Plan. The DElS is so short on details about the mine project that the poso-~~omment period release of the Commercial Mine Plan is per se significant new information requiring the preparation of an SEIS, if for no other reason, so that the public has the opportunity to review the proposed action during the NEPA process. C. The Subsidence Monitorine Plan. P. 7 2 7'he Subsidence Plan included in American Soda's application for the UIC permit acknowledges that "[mJ easurable subsidence may not be e~ldent unti130 to 100 years after the start of operations." Class III Solution Mining Well Underground Injection Control Area Permit Application for the Yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project at 3-1 (Aug. 1998). The same plan also asserts that "[s]everal studies were performed ... to determine effects of solution mining on subsidence" and these studies establish that "no surface subsidence is expected sis a result of the first 30 years of commercial mining operations." Id. Nevertheless, the plan su~;ests that, to monitor subsidence, "[sjeveral benchmarks will be established outside the mining area, and their elevations will he measured and recorded priot• to commencement of commercial operation" and these will be compared once every six months with brass markers installed on well pads of a "representative number' of solution mining wells. Id. 3.1 to 3-2. Interestingly, iif the plan's first statement that rneasurable subsidence may not be evident for 30 to 100 years is correct, it is possible that significant subsidence could occur within the first 100 years without such subsidence being evident from comparing the rnarkers• 11