« Defend Allegheny Wilderness! | Main | Opportunity for public comment on proposed coker in Warren »
December 26, 2003
National Fuel subsidiary ordered to halt logging operations
*NOTE: The quotes used in this entry are taken from the Bradford Era, but the link to that site was not working, so I was forced to use the AP article in the Miami Herald...go figure. You can also view the DEP press release for more information.
The Miami Herald disclosed on Christmas Day that Seneca Resources, a subsidiary of National Fuel, was ordered by the Department of Environmental Protection to halt logging operations in McKean, Elk and Cameron Counties for "numerous environmental violations".
"Both the number and type of violations are very significant, and Seneca has acted with disregard to erosion controls, stream and wetland impacts, and our Special Protection Waters program," DEP Regional Director Robert Yowell said.
This is a troubling revelation considering this company does a lot of logging in the Allegheny National Forest and surrounding forest lands, yet, as the DEP points out, failed to apply for known necessary permits:
"This company has done business for many years in Pennsylvania and knew that DEP permits were required for the timber harvesting work," Yowell said. "They ignored their environmental responsibilities."
It's unclear yet whether Seneca Resources will be fined or not but obviously they should be. It is simple procedural operation to apply for these permits and Seneca did not and now there are serious erosion and sedimentation problems. It will be nice to see if the system works in favor of the environment.
Posted by Ryan at December 26, 2003 07:46 PM
Comments
I wonder if the DEP found the violations through routine checks, or if some watch dog reported the violations.
Posted by: RJ at December 27, 2003 08:22 AM
I'm not really sure, but the violations must be quite severe to have 21,000 acres shut down. Either way, it is clear the DEP is understaffed to effectively monitor compliance issues. My feeling is if they were adequately staffed, you would see more instances of this because I certainly do not think this is the exception to the rule.
Posted by: Ryan Talbott at December 27, 2003 01:15 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)