In the US, an EIS is simply a information document. NEPA requires the government to review the EIS, determine if sufficient aspects have been considered, and if so, allows the project to go forward. The law places no duty to implement mitigation measures, it's an option.
In California, CEQA requires that an EIR consider all the environmental factors, and actually places a duty on the government to implement mitigation measures to reduce the negative impacts.
ISO 14001 is similar to NEPA (although it's not a law), it just requires that the EMS address specific environmental aspects, including: labeling, performance evaluation, life cycle analysis, communication and auditing. It does not require implementation of any mitigation factors.
I don't know if Mexican law is more like NEPA or CEQA. But in either case, you can re-do the EIS/EIR if it is deficient.
If the NGD EIS is not deficient, but NGD is not meeting whatever mitigation measure are required, then they will have to do so. If they can't operate the mine while implementing the mitigation measures, then that's a serious problem. They will have to appeal that ruling, if they can.
Seems to me that they already knocked down the mountain, so if that was the real issue, it's moot. Destroying old mining buildings and shafts seems like a bogus issue, as you pointed out the shafts are hazards.
Not sure what else are real issues.
. |
