HYDRO26266 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E,_~t_tg~g 7:03PM FROA~GIHDN ASSDCIA7E5 303 436 93~ p.7 ~IHON -EFFERT P[. ~ ~ \E1~5 aT L~t1t~ Mr. Chuck Williams Page 6 June 21, 1999 contribution to the decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made."). This method also precludes any meaningful public participation in the process as required by NEPA. See id. § 1503.1. ' Furthermore, the methodology is a clear violation of the NEPA regulations. Under the NEPA regulations, if an agency, in evaluating the impacts for an EIS, has incomplete information or the information is unavailable and "the incomplete information ... is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement." Id. § 1502.22 (a) (emphasis added). By requiring American Soda to complete baseline monitoring before commencing mining, BLM acknowledged that it has incomplete information; and that such information regarding baseline is essential to determining the environmental impacts of the proposed action and to making a reasoned choice among the three alternatives. Nonetheless, the BLM has chosen to not include this information in the EIS, but to move forward with the proposed activity over the no action alternative, despite not knowing the environmental impacts). Given that the information is essential and that the cost of obtaining the data is not exorbitant (in light of BLM's requirement that American Soda obtain the data after project approval), 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 (a) requires that this information be included in the EIS. In fact, there is simply no justification whatsoever for not requiring American Soda to obtain the baseline information for inclusion in the EIS, when BLM is requiring it to obtain the information afterwards. As a result, EPA cannot rely upon an E1S, the conclusion of which is grounded in faulty methodology and analysis. E. The 11M's DEIS Does Not Meet the Reuuirements ~ecified 13v EPA Dunne SGODInQ. EPA submitted extensive comments during the E[S scoping process regarding matters drat should be covered in the EIS. See EPA Region VIII EIS Scopirtg Comments for the American Soda, LLP Piceance Creek Basin Nahcolite Solution Mining Quiy 13, 1998). The BLM essentially ignored many of these suggestions in preparing the EIS, including EPA's emphasis on the need for extensive baseline data. As a result, EPA cannot adopt the BLM's DEIS. See 40 C.F.R § 1506.3 (requiring a cooperating agency to conduct an independent review of the statement and conclude that its comrents and suggestions have been satisfied before adopting the statement). Many of these issues arc relevant to the UIC permitting process. Some of the areas of EPA concern which the DEIS failed to address include~the following: 6