GENERAL42600 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ~ ~~ p.ege._ten. Unfortunately, compliance with and enforcement of the cultural and historic preservation provisions of NEFA have been »regmvnted, lackadaisical,, and uncoordinated. As ono ecologist has otraervod, "There is no EPR for culture" (David Cooper, 1990). In fact, numerous federal and state government agenciec have boon charged v,1th cultural conservation (for e.q., The American Folkllfe Center, Library of Congress and the National Park Service) and hictariC preservation (e.g., National Truct for Historic Preservation). However, the evolution of NEPA has seen an emphasis on the refinement of the Environmental Impact Statement (EI8) process and the neglect of review procedures dealing with the protection of cultural and htctoric resourcve. Our concern in thin easy is to extend protection not only to local natural reaaurcea but the unique cultural and historic resources of the area es well. In the area of mining regulstion, enforcement of NEPA, and especially 'itle One Sections ]US and 102, has boon lax at bust. 'Iet, if the EPA ono other federal agencies are to compl'~ with the spirit of UEFA, then the impactc of mining on cultural and historic resources must become part of the EI8 protest. Our arguments in favor of such a "scoping" process in the case of the HMR San Luia F'ro~ect are sufficient to justify widening and deepening the review process. OTHER RELEVANT ISeUES The Clean Water Act, under section 404, requires that the Army Corps of Engineers regulate impacts on wetlands duo to filling and dredging activities associated with development. However, the purview of the Corps review process is inadequate in this case. Many of the more Serious, long-term impacts from the 8MR project are indirect effects not covered by aaetion 404. Th^ EPA. however, and in particular its water Management Division, can expand the purview of the review procBSa to include indirect effects such asp la) wetland and wildlife impacts associated with the dewaterinq Cr' ore-bsarinq strata: (b) wetland artd wildlife impacts essacinted ~+ith increased sedimentation and turbidity of the 41to Seco aquifer; and (c7 wetland and wildlife impacte associated with flaws in PMF's proposed augmentation and reclamation plans. None of the state or federal agvnciec with juri9diction in this case have complied with the review procedures aatebliahed t.+nr~ier• MEF'A. the EFA has discharged its regulatory powers in Colorado i:o the Mined Land Reclamation Hoard (MLRH). The National Trust For Historic F•'recervation has failed to comply wlth NEPA ,t , Title One, SECtien 1~!Z <~) (A} I , -- Nev~r-theless, dtsrretianary administrative law ellowe the EPA eo ret~ppr'ppriatE• its .iuricdietion Sn matters relatetl to ean:•ironme~ntel impacts of mine regulation. This in particularly aanrr,:.~ntNCf if the state-levei agency n-•a performed inadequately in thc- rc•vi~w process. MarEOVer, the f1Li•<l.+, as a subunit of the