HYDRO26266 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F-21-199 i:OOPM FEiOM~GIHON ASSOCIATES 303 436 93~ P:3 ~l GIHON -EFFERT rr,. ,q 'KE'YS AT L:UC Mr. Chuck Williams Page 2 June 21,1999 Considering the shortcomings of the BLM's NEPA compliance, EPA should have prepared its own environmental impact statement ("EIS"), or supplemental EIS ("SEIS") to remedy the BLM's deficiencies. We request that EPA withhold the issuance of the area permit pendittg its compliance with NEPA. Without ground water baseline data, it is simply impossible for EPA to comply with its obligations under either the Safc Drinking Water Act or NEPA. As noted in the attached comment letters on the BLM's DEIS, and later in this letter, the approval process for the proposed mine suffers from a fundamental flaw: the almost complete lack of baseline data. Particularly weak are the baseline data for ground water in the vicinity of the proposed mine. This flaw in the DEIS dooms the UIC permitting process because EPA, without further data, cannot make the required judgment under the Safe Drinking Water Act that the underground injection will not degrade underground sources of drinking water. I. THE DRAFT UIC AREA PERMIT DOES NOT COMPLY WI'I7I NEPA. A. EPA Must Comnly with NEPA Itself, and Mav Not Rely On the BLM's DEIS. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impaces of their actions before they undertake them, and [o allow public participation in the consideration of enviro~rmental impacts. See 42 U.S.C. $ 4332 (EIS providing, among other [kings, a "detailed statement" regarding the environmental impacts and the adverse effects is required for any "major federal action" significantly affecting the quality of the human environment); 40 C.F,R. § 1501.7 (public to be given early and substantial opportunity to participate in the NEPA process). EPA has not fulfilled either of these requirements. The issuance of UIC permits is a "federal action" and is not exempt from the requirements of NEPA. See 40 C,F.R. § 1508.18(6) (4) (defining federal actions to include "[a]pproval of specific projects, ... includ [it[g] actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision");Davis v. Morton, 469 F.2d 593, 597 (10'h Cir. 1972) (holding chat the approval of leases on federal lands is major federal action and noting that the federal government conceded That where a federal licrnse or permit is involved, ...federal approval constitutes major federal action"). It is beyond dispute that the permit issuance is a "major federal action." As noted in the Draft Statement of Basis for the Draft Area Permit ("DSOB"), the Yankee Gulch mine will utilize 550 wells during the first 30 years of a project that will extend indefinitely into the fitttire. Sec DSOB at 3. 2