Replanting is one of three options billboard companies have as reimbursement for cutting down trees. Companies also can remove two billboards anywhere in the state that are not in compliance, or they can reimburse the state financially.

Not only will billboard companies be able to cut down many more trees than they could before a new law loosened restrictions, under newly approved rules taking effect in March they won’t have to replace them, either.

Environmentalists and others fear thousands of roadside trees that are decades old will be lost as a result. “We don’t think the state legislature should give away the public’s trees, particularly when the public is not getting anything in return,” Molly Diggins, executive director of the state chapter of the Sierra Club, said Tuesday. “This is being done in the name of regulatory reform, but the legislature has gone too far. This is a giveaway to the billboard industry.”

The General Assembly approved a bill expanding the clear-cutting zone around billboards in June. It went into effect in October but, like many laws, it required the appropriate state agency to come up with rules to implement it. The state Rules Review Commission approved temporary rules last week. Permanent rules take as long as a year to go into effect so that broad interests can be considered. But the General Assembly, in passing the law last summer, required the state Department of Transportation to develop temporary rules on billboards that would go into effect much quicker.

That was just fine with the billboard industry, which helped write the legislation, steered it through the General Assembly and guided it through the rules process. But when the Department of Transportation proposed a rule requiring companies replant if they clear-cut 60 percent or more of the area they’re permitted to cut, the industry cried foul.

“This became law over three months ago,” Robert Sykes of Capital Outdoor Advertising, said at a public hearing in December. “As simple as the process was when this was passed, it continues to be massaged into an over-complicated train wreck for all involved.”

Sykes was one of several industry representatives who spoke adamantly at the hearing. Ultimately, they persuaded state staff that DOT didn’t have the authority under the new law to impose a mandatory replanting requirement.

The legislation received little public attention after its most controversial provision – allowing electronic billboards regardless of whether local communities wanted to ban them – was dropped after city and county officials objected.

Opponents riled up

But now that the industry has quashed the replanting regulation and trees could begin to fall in March, opponents have sounded alarms.

“Scenic North Carolina is at a complete loss to see what the hurry is to issue permits,” said Ryke Longest, director of the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Duke University, which agreed to represent the beautification organization before the rules commission. “We’re considering all our options, including litigation.”

The billboard law was one of several regulatory reform issues the Republican legislature approved last year, often rescuing bills that the Democrats had kept from succeeding for many years. But the bill encountered turbulence, not just over the digital billboard provision and not just from Democrats.

Rep. Chuck McGrady, a Republican from the mountain county of Henderson, amended the bill to give local governments the authority to regulate the signs and provide more protection for trees . The House overwhelmingly voted to approve McGrady’s version. But the bill went to a conference committee of House and Senate members because the Senate didn’t go along with the changes. There, most of his language was stripped out.

“I got about 20 percent of what I had in my original bill,” McGrady said.

McGrady voted for the conference report, saying at least some of his concerns were addressed, but he voted against the bill on the floor. Now, McGrady says he is wary of what’s to come.

He said he has seen trees already marked for removal around billboards on Interstate 26 in Henderson County.

No one can say for certain how many more trees will end up being cut down as a result of the new law. There are about 8,000 billboards in the state now and an average of 240 permits issued each year.

‘Hard to predict’

The Department of Transportation calculated the potential economic impact at $12 million to $15 million for the loss of 200,000 trees over a five-year period, but says that is based on the market value of trees and how many removal permits have been issued in the past.

Jon Nance, DOT’s chief engineer, said that has no relation to how many trees billboard owners will cut under new rules.

“It’s hard to predict how many signs, how quickly, how big the tree sizes,” Nance said. “We do know that trees will be cut that have not been cut since the ’80s.”

Diggins of the Sierra Club hopes the industry can be restrained through the permanent rule process. In the meantime, she isn’t optimistic about the fate of roadside trees.

“Whatever the real number is, we are assuming that the cutting will occur very quickly, both due to pent-up demand from the industry, but also a need to stay ahead of the regulatory process.”

Neither Sen. Harry Brown, a Republican from Onslow County who sponsored the bill, nor an industry representative could be reached for comment this week. But the concerns they expressed in the December public hearing said the law, before the Department of Transportation began tweaking the rules, helped small businesses and promoted tourism.

Craig Justus, an attorney for the billboard industry association, said forcing companies to replant trees would be ludicrous in places were trees are sparse or nonexistent, such as along stretches of Interstate 40 between Raleigh and Wilmington.

Tony Adams, executive director of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, said he and Justus helped when the bill was drafted and they were certain that Brown intended for replanting to be an option not a requirement.

BY CRAIG JARVIS – [email protected]
Published Wed, Jan 25, 2012 05:01 AM
Modified Wed, Jan 25, 2012 08:42 AM

Revisions to a state law passed last year regarding tree-cutting around roadside billboards has environmental groups and the outdoor advertising industry at odds once again, and motorists traveling Interstate 26 in Henderson County can now see evidence of where the controversy exists.

Last week the state’s Rules Review Commission approved by a 5-3 vote “temporary rules” related to Senate Bill 183 that could result in a significant increase in tree-cutting along North Carolina’s highways to make billboards more visible. The rules also limit local municipalities’ control over such signage.

Jon Nance, chief engineer for DOT, said the temporary rules — which will become permanent and take effect March 1 — increase the cut zone around billboards on interstate land outside of incorporated limits from 250 feet to 380 feet; allows all trees in the cut area, even those not directly blocking the billboard, to come down; and permits trees to be cut down to the ground.

Along eastbound I-26 between Four Seasons Boulevard and Upward Road in Henderson County, flags had already been erected last week marking the potential cut zone around the billboards in that stretch.

The RRC is an executive agency created by the General Assembly and charged with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies — in this case, the Department of Transportation.

State Rep. Chuck McGrady of Hendersonville, a former national president of the Sierra Club and a noted environmental advocate going back to his days in local government, said he was not pleased with the final version of Senate Bill 183.

The bill was pushed by the billboard industry, he said, after he introduced amendments to restore more control by municipalities, reduce the expanded clear-cut area around outdoor ads and allow for better DOT enforcement against illegal clear-cutting. McGrady’s amendments overwhelmingly passed the House, but most of them were not included by a Conference Committee in the final version of the bill.

“The bill that passed is ultimately going to pave the way for a lot more tree-cutting and a lot more billboards,” McGrady said, “and I’m now disappointed that the billboard industry that got about 80 percent of what it wanted in the original bill is now apparently trying to get the remaining 20 percent in the regulatory process” with the temporary rules.

McGrady called the markings placed in Henderson County “inexplicable” since they had been put up before the new rules were adopted, but Nance said his understanding is that billboard owners simply went out to identify what the new limits would look like on the roadway to help make decisions about possible needed cuts.

Nance said his department has heard concerns from environmental groups, municipalities and the public about “the potential here for a very stark difference” in roadside appearance.

Nance added, however, that under the former rules, DOT received permit requests to conduct clear-cutting for only about 3 percent of the state’s 8,000-plus billboards.

Tony Adams, executive director of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, said new rules were needed after funding cuts in recent years prevented DOT from continuing to clear right-of-way areas of vegetation to ensure safety for motorists.

A bill similar to SB 183 failed in 2007 despite overwhelming initial support from both the House and Senate, according to Adams, and another attempt was made last year because of the “outcry” from advertisers and small businesses.

“They were constantly complaining about their ads being blocked by trees where you couldn’t see them very well,” Adams said, “so a bill was filed and passed in response to the thousands of advertisers throughout the state that depend on outdoor advertising to keep jobs in their community. Outdoor advertising wouldn’t exist if it were not for the thousands of businesses in the state that depend on it for their existence.”

Adams insisted the new rules will help the economy, “without destroying the environment,” and said the billboard industry is sensitive to environmental impacts. He added that environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Scenic America and Scenic North Carolina use “scare tactics” to “inflame emotions” and “alter facts.”

“The main thing they exist for is to try to destroy the outdoor advertising industry; they always have,” Adams said. “It’s as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning — anything to do with outdoor advertising, Scenic America will oppose it. They want to wipe the industry out of existence, and I don’t think the majority of North Carolinians think that is very fair.”

Ryke Longest, a Duke University attorney representing Scenic North Carolina, countered the charge about altering facts by saying he obtained documents through public records requests that show DOT itself estimated the new rules could cost the state many millions of dollars, including $15 million in vegetation assets.

McGrady said he doesn’t see a legislative fix for the new measures in the near-term, and that it remains to be seen whether anyone — perhaps a major municipality like Charlotte or Durham — will try to try to appeal them.

He added that the upcoming short legislative session in May will be about regulatory reform, and “I think some people will look at this and say, ‘This is sort of regulatory reform run amok. If this is regulatory reform, we don’t need anymore of it.'”

Count David Weintraub among them.

“Two hundred million dollars comes into Henderson County from tourism, and guess what? If (these areas) all look like wastelands, they all look like Wal-Mart lots, how inviting is that going to be for folks coming in this direction?” said Weintraub, who is executive director of the Hendersonville-based Environmental and Conservation Organization.

“We were already seeing this practice way before these bills were passed … anyone who has driven down (Interstate) 26 in the last year has seen all the stumps all around us.”

According to Weintraub, the temporary rules adopted last week take an already poorly conceived law to another level.

“This is supposed to be making billboards more visible?” he asked. “I guess I’m just kind of green under the gills, but I think the best advertisement for this community is the trees, not the billboards.”

Reach Glancy at 828-694-7860 or [email protected].

By Gary Glancy
Times-News Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 11:32 p.m.

RALEIGH – Among the factors inhibiting economic recovery in major areas of North Carolina is a lack of adequate, uncongested highway service. If policymakers could free up the traffic flow in these areas, they’d be more attractive places to create, relocate, or expand businesses.

But adding lanes, fixing bridges, and building new highways will cost money. There are really only three ways of obtaining the necessary funds: 1) redirect current highway revenues to higher-priority uses, 2) collect additional revenues by direct user fees (tolls), or 3) collect additional revenues by indirect user fees (higher gas and car taxes).

North Carolina’s transportation challenges are obvious and broadly understood. According to the latest comparative study of state highway systems, North Carolina ranks about average (24th) in the pavement condition of its urban institutes, worse than average (35th) in the pavement condition of its rural interstates, and horrendous in the condition of its bridges (41st), the number of narrow lanes (41st), and traffic congestion on its urban interstates (42nd).

On that last point, all you have to do is take a drive on I-77, I-40, I-85, or I-95 near North Carolina’s major metropolitan areas during rush hour to grasp the significance of the problem. Congestion chews up valuable time, decreases traffic safety, and deters many kinds of businesses – from store-front retailers to manufacturers reliant on trucking – from locating or expanding in a congested area. A 2010 JLF study estimated that relieving traffic congestion in North Carolina would have annual economic benefits of approximately $850 million.

Now, to say that North Carolina households and businesses would benefit from greater investment in highway capacity is not necessarily to say that all the new investment must be financed with new revenues. For decades, state policymakers have let other considerations – pork-barrel politics, partisan bias, personal cronyism – trump the goals of safety and efficiency when it came to divvying up transportation dollars.

That’s how we ended up with well-paved but lightly traveled roads in the rural districts of powerful politicians. That’s how we ended up with state subsidies for local transit systems and intercity passenger rail that attract relatively trivial ridership.

And that’s why future policymakers need to exhaust the first option, redirecting current revenues from state gas and car taxes, before considering either of the other two. Past JLF studies estimate that North Carolina could increase valuable highway investment by tens of millions of dollars a year, if not more, by transferring current highway revenues from low-priority projects to high-priority ones.

Still, in my estimation Option 1 is a necessary but insufficient response to North Carolina’s transportation needs. The truth is that our state gas tax, while high by regional and national standards, is somewhat offset by the fact that North Carolina, unlike most other states, has very little local (i.e. property tax) funding for basic highway and road networks. If you combine state and local highway budgets together, which is the proper statistic for comparison across states, you will find that North Carolina collects and spends less on highways (1.3 percent of GDP in 2009) than the national average (1.7 percent). On a per-mile basis, North Carolina is in the bottom five states in the nation in funding for highway construction and maintenance.

Over time, jurisdictions like North Carolina that are heavily reliant on per-gallon motor fuels taxes to fund roads have seen their tax collections per mile driven fall, not rise. Both personal and business vehicles have become more fuel-efficient, so motorists are paying less for every mile of North Carolina roadway they drive than they did 20 years ago, even at a higher per-gallon tax rate.

To some politicians, this trend justifies further increases in the tax rate. I disagree. I like Option 2 better, at least for the new lanes and interstate mileage we desperately need. That is, those who will benefit from the new capacity should pay as they use it – through electronic toll collection, preferably with private-sector involvement and strong protections against having toll revenues swiped by politicians for use elsewhere in the state.

So to those North Carolinians who are up in arms about the possibility of new toll lanes on I-95, I-77, and other corridors, I ask: Would you rather see the gas tax go up for everyone? Or do you think our current interstates are adequate to today’s needs?

I say no and no. That’s why I say yes to tolls.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.

CREEDMOOR, N.C. — As state officials study the impact of oil and natural gas exploration in North Carolina, some area cities and towns are adopting ordinances to get ahead of the issue.

The Creedmoor City Council recently unanimously passed an ordinance to ban a controversial method of gas drilling known as hydraulic fracturing within the city limits, and Cary is considering a similar measure.

The drilling, which also is referred to as “fracking,” involves pumping a mix of water and chemicals into a drilled well to break apart deposits of underground shale and release natural gas.

Creedmoor Mayor Darryl Moss said Wednesday that he and other council members are concerned about water contamination from fracking. Some homeowners in Pennsylvania, where gas wells are common, have seen increasing levels of methane in their well water.

“We wanted to get out in front on this particular issue and let our local legislators know this is not something we want for our community,” Moss said.

Because Creedmoor sits at the headwaters of Falls Lake, which is the primary source of drinking water for Raleigh and several Wake County towns, he said the town needs to take steps to ensure that reservoir is protected.

City officials also are concerned about heavy trucks tearing up Creedmoor’s streets and a drop in nearby property values, Moss said.

“Our roads are already strained now and this will add more stress than is needed,” he said.
Each well brings an increase in truck traffic, as drilling equipment, water, sand and chemicals are brought in and gas is piped out.

Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht said he doesn’t think gas drilling would impact drinking water in the town, but it could affect residents who use well water. The Town Council asked staff last month to look at the pros and cons of fracking and report back.

Moss acknowledged that the ordinance is primarily symbolic, since any state law allowing fracking would trump local regulations.

Lawmakers approved Senate Bill 709 in June, which asks state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study oil and gas exploration in North Carolina.

Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed the measure. The Senate voted to override the veto, but the House hasn’t yet taken up the measure.

Moss said cities and towns hold the power to allow or not allow companies to locate within their boundaries.
“We can control the above-ground infrastructure in our community from a zoning perspective,” he said, noting the Creedmoor City Council would likely deny the needed permits for a gas company to operate in town.

“We are responsible locally for our citizens’ quality of life,” he said.

Posted: 6:06 p.m. 1-4-12