PERMFILE127404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Larry Shults USDI Bureau of Land Management White River Resource Area Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry 501 Hess Ave., Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 526-1405 Fax: (303) 526-2678 Internet: remoran®aol.com 73544 Highway 64 Meeker, CO 81641 June 3, 1999 Re: Yankee Gulch Project (American Soda) Dear Mr. Shults: During April and May of this year, 1 prepared an independent technical review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for American Soda's Yankee Gulch Project. This review was prepared to assist several environmental groups in evaluating the potential impacts of the project. As you know, my report details numerous inadequacies, with the most glaring being a total lack ofsite-specific baseline water quality data. This report was prepared after visits to your offices in Meeker, discussions with you and other staff, and review of what I thought were all of the pertinent and non-proprietary documents. I also conducted a site visit as pan of my review. Since submitting copies of my report to these environmental groups, you, the DE1S preparer (URS), and General Chemical on May, 19. 1999, I have subsequently seen copies of American Soda's Ground Water and Surface Water Monitoring Plan for the Yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project (Apr. 22,1999. by Agapito Associates), and EPA's Draft Statement of Basis for the Class 3 Solution Mining Wells al the site (EPA Area Permit No.: CO 3858-00000). In addition, I have subsequently seen an April 26,1999 letter from John Mehloff, Area Manager (or the BLM to K. Nielsen, American Soda, stating that the BLM had reviewed and approved the Monitoring Plan, since it addressed all of the BLM's previous concerns. Unfortunately, these documents were not available to me during my visit to the BLM office on April 6, 1999. These three documents make clear that both the EPA and the BLM had already accepted the stipulation that the baseline monitoring would commence by September 1999. This approach is totally counter to that intended in the NEPA process. The DEIS presented to the public contained essentially no baseline water quality information, no monitoring plan, and the public was not made aware of fhe fact that the regulatory agencies had already agreed that no baseline would be required prior to approval of the EIS. In addition, the Monitoring Plan approved by the BLM, which was not available during the DEIS review process, has numerous serious Flaws (see later discussion). An important issue here is, that my report did not oppose this project, nor is that my stance in writing you today. More importantly, by following this approach, the regulatory agencies have violated the NEPA regulations and abused the NEPA process. According to my understanding of these regulations, the BLM is not pertnilted to issue an insufficient DEiS with the intent of later addressing those deficiencies in a final EIS. The public was not allowed to see in the DEIS what was actually being proposed, nor were they made aware that baseline data would not be required prior to project approval. This approach prevents the public from actually having the ability to review the potential impacts of a project. Apparently the BLM is about to issue a final EiS containing the Monitoring Plan (which was not shown in the DEIS) as an appendix. The present Monitoring Plan has numerous serious Flaws that should be corrected. This Plan, together with adequate baseline data, should have been included in the original DE[S. Unfortunately, during the present piloU test activities, American Soda has been allowed to reinject brine solutions into the local formations, yet no data on the possible impacts of such reinjection were included in the DEIS. Clearly such activities would impact the water quality baseline, and data on these activities should have been presented to the public in the DEiS.