NCDOT Clearcut Permitting Program Does not Protect the Public Interest

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