ncdot clearcut permitting program does not protect the public interest
Post on 23-Feb-2016
45 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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.”
• Objects to“a no cut zone for property if Prohibited by unidentified "State or Federal rules, statutes, or permits."
Irwin Creek SWIM Buffer -I77 Charlotte
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
Irwin Creek Cut on Both Banks
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
Slopes Eroding Already
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!
Billboard Clearcut and CERCLA Site
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 LongestCLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW
Duke University School of LawP.O. Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708-0360(919) 613-7207 (phone)
Email: longest@law.duke.edu
top related