www.citizensrooted.com

treelooker

Treehouser
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,013
Location
NC
While watching the news I heard about two trees, a willow and a dawn redwood, at 1514 and 1516 Brooks Avenue in Raleigh. The trees grew near the electric wires, so the utility claimed the right to remove them. The willow’s owner resisted, and the utility failed to make their case for removal in Superior Court. I visited the site, just up the road from Kilgore Hall at NC State University, where from 1986-1996 I studied tree care under JC Raulston. The owners hired me to prune both trees.
I consulted statutes, standards, and protocols, including those mentioned by the utility, to ensure that my work would comply. References are numbered in superscript and listed in Appendix A. Utilities often cite the NERC standard, so I followed this guidance:
NERC Standard FAC-003-2 Technical Reference…”Methods to Control Vegetation
1.1 The transmission vegetation management program shall specify the methods that
the Transmission Owner may use to control vegetation. ANSI A300, Tree Care Operations — Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices, while not a
requirement of this standard, is considered to be an industry best practice… methods must be applied in a sound biological manner…”

Side Pruning — Prune trees adjacent to the Active Transmission Line Right of Way that have grown to an extent that they have encroached upon or will soon encroach upon the clearances listed in the specification. In cases where specified clearances can not be achieved due to Active Transmission Line Right of Way width restrictions,..remove branches to prevent entry into the Active Transmission Line Right of Way.

ANSI A300 – Best Management Practices for Tree Care Operations
Transmission Owners have the option of adopting the procedures and practices contained in an industry-recognized ANSI Standard known as A300 for use as a central component of its vegetation management program. The following is a description of A300.
Introduction
Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) is a best management practice conveyed in the
American National Standard for Tree Care Operations, Part 7 (ANSI 2006) and the International Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management Practices: Integrated Vegetation Management (Miller 2007). IVM is consistent with the requirements in NERC FAC-003-02, and it provides practitioners with what industry experts consider to be the most appropriate techniques to apply to electric right of way projects in order to exceed those requirements.
 

Attachments

  • 437.jpg
    437.jpg
    277.8 KB · Views: 37
  • 432.jpg
    432.jpg
    142.7 KB · Views: 37
Yeah, following that one on facebook...I hope the HO's and you really stick it to the power company. I can't believe their arrogance in the face of the HO wanting and requesting to manage the tree at their own expense to the power company's specs, yet they disregard it and still want to chop the tree down...AND sic their team of lawyers on them! Unbelievable.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
part 2
As presented in ANSI A300 part 7 and the ISA best management practices, IVM consists of 6 elements:
1) Set Objectives
2) Evaluate the Site
3) Define Action Thresholds
4) Evaluate and Select Control Methods
5) Implement IVM
6) Monitor Treatment and Quality Assurance”

1) I set the job objective as “…promoting safety, preventing outages caused by vegetation growing into electric facilities and minimizing them from trees growing outside the right of way, maintaining regulatory compliance, …maintaining access and clear lines of sight, protecting the environment, and facilitating cost effectiveness.” I applied the stated DEP objective of avoiding tree-wire contact if the wires sagged 10’ down under a heavy load and swayed 5’ in a strong wind. I wrote specifications to maintain this clearance for at least 5 years.

2) I evaluated the site and followed ANSI A300 Tree Care Standard 83.3, Trunk, flare and root inspection, looking at “Stem tissue connecting the crown and the roots;…Tree association with pathogenic and beneficial microorganisms (e.g. mycorrhizae);…the tree’s response to wounds;…Mulch, soil and other materials should be removed as needed…”I concluded that the structure of the willow was very good. Its health was good, and might become very good after it responds to the root management done per owner request. After pulling out some Liriope sp., we could see that the health and structure of the dawn redwood are excellent.

3) Action thresholds are defined as the trees getting too close to the wires, per utility criteria. Both owners agreed to have me return every 5 years to maintain clearance by pruning the trees.

4) I evaluated tree removal as a control method and found it biologically and economically unsound. Willow trees have a high ecosystem value, supporting more associated organisms than any other genus. I am often assigned to appraise trees that were being taken for other utility projects, such as road widening and pipeline installation. The dawn redwood has a landscape value of $9,100, according to formulas described in the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guidebook 9th ed. Both trees have a good prognosis for increasing this value.
I selected the tree growth regulator Paclobutrazol: “Tree Growth Regulator and Herbicide Control Methods Tree growth regulators and herbicides are essential for effective vegetation management. Tree growth regulators (TGRs) are designed to reduce growth rates by interfering with natural plant processes. “
 
Excellent work and report, Guy. I appreciate you taking the time to share what is happening with this and how you are involved. Just reading your reports is an education in itself.

It is amazing that when the home-owner wants to take on the burden of preserving/maintaining the trees the power company won't just step down and go concentrate on something else. May be some personalities/egos getting involved.

If you have the time, please keep this thread updated...or at least direct us to the Facebook page if that is easier.
 
It is amazing that when the home-owner wants to take on the burden of preserving/maintaining the trees the power company won't just step down and go concentrate on something else. May be some personalities/egos getting involved.

.

Having done my share of power line clearing, I know you can't trust a home-owner to do what they say they'll do.
I expect the power company has learned the same lesson.
 
Yep, I thought about that, too. But that strays into the area of being declared guilty up front without a chance to do it right...if the custy reneges the power co. can always fire up their Stihl. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
 
Interesting story and details. Used to be up here is if you didn't want your tree butchered, make sure you trim if before hydro does. This applies for trees on your property, not municipal trees within 10 or so feet of the road, can't touch those. Now a days, hydro contracts out tree work, meh, if a branch is broken on a primary line, ehhh, we'll get to it one day. I pass one like that daily, been layin' on a wire since December. Rarely any serious line clearing is done, they'll stick on a chaff guard before trimming a tree, at least where I'm at.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Interesting story and details. Used to be up here is if you didn't want your tree butchered, make sure you trim if before hydro does.

Self-help is a time-honored principle. Call an arborist!
 
Back
Top