|
r to Clearinghouse
<br />{ March, 16, 2009
<br />Page 6
<br />environmental- document-, presumably -'with more complete ,arid accurate L r
<br />x 4n formation, should .lam put hack through the co m m nt, proc R
<br />• SIG N I ICA T E i 1 1 ENIA. .
<br />4 This project does not satisfy a F I =fi rid ' of no significant impact TO
<br />4
<br />4 .. the contrary,, this EA considered b long with these corer menu evidence. a project. r
<br />r that will-have Profound onvr ronm ntal impacts., Th1 ro � � ill ern masses ,of k
<br />p j � r
<br />human arha' to a location that has not previously experienced it This project.
<br />r
<br />will brin'' clearing. lo in `, radih F trucks aid cohstru� ion t ' a .Tito that haS
<br />not experienced it before and to a comet u it rt hat has,ne'ver experienced it on
<br />this ca ��; i�ortrtl rfhirot it tanforrr► that rural beautiful f
<br />5 }
<br />,community into. an ,industrial and commercial area =-- transforming an• area. known,
<br />for wildlife, bicycling, historic farms, dark might skies, is nd peace into just a ndther r y
<br />r
<br />noisy,, dirty, smelly commercial and industrial a(r * This i on it h i r�tal impact
<br />of to -most- si`hiflat and important kind., _ `
<br />For these -reasons, a full Envy ron mental Impact analysis should be
<br />required for this project. clearly, the planfiers of this -p rol oct have a door fi
<br />r
<br />Understanding both of -the o ro � and community into W hich they wish to Osort S
<br />t
<br />this project and of the potential - environment•1 rmpacts of the frojioctL • The' 3
<br />r cif is { ur ' ' of the RE, EnYironmental Policy Act i to %'on ut that
<br />government �,a encias- seriou l ` consider the en ironrnental effods of each 'of the • r
<br />reasonable and roallstic alternatives available to thern N,C Gen. tat.• 1 - *
<br />ti
<br />Depattment of lan poltatio Blue., 556 &E. 2d 609 (RoCe Q. App, 200-1). The . ,
<br />more complete and thorough analysis of an- US i k 11 aired to fulfill this mandate*
<br />� -
<br />- l
<br />r _ Put another Way, a Finding, of No Significant Impact is not. justified here.,
<br />? for two reasons lrrt,, the entice ated rm a� f this project era urte s
<br />4
<br />significant. Second, the information presented in the EA is far too - inadequate, ,
<br />erroneous, -,and untrue to form any. basis, fora f i ndi n of- no significant im pact,, .
<br />Therefore, pursuant to , 01 NCAC 25 0 (2 ). "[b)tised on the comments,
<br />r , z
<br />subm* ted thin .ilea ern hour shrall ad�rr� the . [county] a.. follows. r' + .� ' w �, the —
<br />documont does not satisfy a finding of no ' ig nif icant impact and -an EIS should
<br />, 5
<br />be pro 'paredf," t L r
<br />r Y
<br />r t r
<br />r r 4
<br />R r
<br />r r
<br />
|