140 likes | 247 Views
NCDOT Clearcut Permitting Program Does not Protect the Public Interest. By Ryke Longest. Cutting on NC 147. Say Goodbye to Trees. Logging in Buncombe. Some ODA Objections. “ SB 183 does not guarantee that municipal comments will be given any kind of weight .”
E N D
NCDOT Clearcut Permitting Program Does not Protect the Public Interest By Ryke Longest
Some ODA Objections • “SB 183 does not guarantee that municipal comments will be given any kind of weight.” • Objects to“ano cut zone for property if Prohibited by unidentified "State or Federal rules, statutes, or permits."
Co. Clearcut All Trees • 53 trees more than four inches • Cherry, Elm, Maple, Cedar, Pear and Myrtle • Paid $1,762.50 for one “existing” tree (plus $200) • Salvage value of public’s trees not compensated by Adams=$34,200
Charlotte’s Objection • Charlotte Objected Citing City Ordinances to Prevent Erosion • “Trees proposed to be removed are growing on and protect steep embankment from erosion into creek, protecting water quality.” • Irwin Creek Flows to Catawba • NC DOT Ignored Objection
Hazardous Waste in Soil Near Billboard Site • In 1993, EPA removed: • 6,069 Drums of Waste • 13 Roll Off Containers • Tankers holding PCBs, solvents and cyanides • Four Underground Tanks • CMUD Soil Tests in 1998 and 2000 positive for barium, lead, cadmium, chromium, And mercury • Soils should not be disturbed!
Environmental Review • No record that NC DOT checked with DENR or EPA • Registered Brownfields agreement Prohibits owner from disturbing Soil • No Mention of hazards in soil • Charlotte’s objections Should be respected, instead of Ignored
Ryke Longest CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW Duke University School of Law P.O. Box 90360 Durham, NC 27708-0360 (919) 613-7207 (phone) Email: longest@law.duke.edu