[Trees-executive] My talk this eve

Tue Apr 10 15:25:33 CDT 2001

Dear all here is the text of my talk.  I plan on using electronic slides.

Kyra can I have a slide screen and a power outlet availible at the 
meting tonight.  I will bring my laptop and projector.

Save Our Trees
Carl H. Malmgren
	Vice Coordinator IPCUTSOT
	malmgren at uiuc.edu
	244-6574
Overview
*	History
*	Awards
*	Requirements
*	Activism
History of IP's Vegetation Tariff
December 6, 2000: IP submits Tariff to ICC.
December 2000: Laura Huth and Bruce Hannon alert environmental 
community  about the IP vs.. trees problem.
December 2000: Champaign-Urbana residents write letter opposing the tariff.
January 9, 2001: ICC votes to stay the tariff.
January 11, 2001: IPCUTSOT organized at Strawberry Field.
January 17, 2001: Urbana city hearing where residents oppose tariff.
January 18, 2001: Champaign city hearing where residents oppose tariff.
January 24, 2001: Second IPCUTSOT General Meeting (where?)
January 25, 2001: First IPCUTSOT C meeting.
January 29, 2001: Cities file to become Intervener with the ICC
January 29, 2001: First IPCUTSOT Research & Education Comm. meeting.
February 5, 2001: IPCUTSOT Files as an Intervener with the ICC
February 7, 2001: Protest meeting at Ando house with media attendance.
February 8, 2001: Third IPCUTSOT General Meeting (at Urbana Civic Center)
February 22, 2001: Fourth IPCUTSOT General Meeting (at Champaign Library)
March 8, 2001: Fifth IPCUTSOT General Meeting (at Urbana Civic Center)
March 12, 2001: ICC Hearing at Champaign City Hall with media 
attendance and many citizens giving protest speeches.
March 16, 2001: Rutherford stink hits media fan.
March 19, 2001: IPCUTSOTS members meet with reps. Winkle and Berns.
March 21, 2001: IP announces that they will withdraw tariff and 
pledges  to meet with citizens' group(s).
March 21, 2001: IP files with the ICC Statement to Withdraw proposed 
Tariff and Motion to terminate proceedings.
March 29, 2001 : Date that all interveners MUST respond to IP's 
withdrawal notice
ICC's ruling
(Image of ICC's notice to cancel all meetings and close thier process)
Awareness
*	There is a nationwide awareness of our progress toward a more 
rationale Vegetation Tariff.  As per example, our actions were 
described on NPR this past weekend.  This was in a piece on the 
effectiveness of our group in defeating the first Vegetation Tariff. 
It was heard nationally.
*	Additionally we (IPCUTSOT) will be receiving the "World of 
Difference Award" from the Ecological Action Center based in Normal, 
IL at ISU on Earth Day April 19, 2001
Where we will go from here
Requirements for either the next tariff or "rule":
  Local control
1. Local control: vegetation management must be conducted under local 
supervision (i.e. municipal or county government entities). There 
should be oversight by local or impartial arborists or foresters to 
ensure that vegetation management is, in fact, being conducted in 
accordance with best arboricultural practices. This could be attained 
by having random inspections of at least 10% of the year's vegetation 
management work while it is in progress or within 60 days after its 
completion.
2. Vegetation management contractors should be approved by the local 
governments, not hired completely independently by IP. The Line 
Clearance Administrators employed by IP should be certified arborists 
or possess a degree in forestry.
3. Homeowners and municipalities should be consulted before new 
utility poles are placed on their property.
Where we will go from here (cont.)
Property owners
4. Property owners must be notified, by letter, 60 days in advance of 
scheduled vegetation management on their property. No work can be 
done until the property owner submits a written response. There 
should be a penalty (e.g. a fine or rebate to customers) if work 
proceeds without proper notification and a response on file.
5. Except in case of an emergency, tree removal would require consent 
of the property owner. If the property owner objects, there should be 
an appeal process with an impartial party determining if tree removal 
is necessary. Tree removal should not take place until the dispute is 
resolved.
6. If a tree is removed IP must provide adequate compensation to the 
property owner. Compensation should include at least the cost of a 
suitable replacement and the cost of stump removal. If the property 
owner has obtained an impartial appraisal value for the tree, 
compensation should cover that value in full. It should be the 
property owner, not IP, who decides if a replacement tree is 
warranted (subject to guidelines about the size of woody plants that 
should be planted in easements).
7. There needs to be a simple and local grievance procedure for 
handling any complaints about the way in which vegetation management 
has been done.
Where we will go from here (cont.)
Arboricultural Practices
8. There is much concern about the tree trimming practices currently 
employed by IP (through their contractors). The new tariff should 
state explicitly that trimming will be preferred over removal, that 
removal will not be undertaken solely on economic grounds (as would 
have been allowed under Sec. 13.4.09 of the original tariff), and 
that pruning will not be excessive. Because this is a "vegetation 
management" tariff it seems appropriate that the practices to be used 
and prohibited should be included, not just references. The 
definition of a "danger tree" should be clarified and made more 
restrictive; as originally defined (Sec. 13.4.10) it could be 
interpreted to include healthy trees as well as those that are dead 
or damaged.
9. The designation of danger and border zones caused much of the 
public's opposition to the original tariff. The danger zone seems 
unnecessarily wide and the border zone has no outer limits. This 
essentially would allow IP to conduct vegetation management anywhere 
on most homeowners' property without acquiring additional easement. 
These zones should be eliminated from the tariff. Vegetation 
management activities should be restricted to easements and to trees 
or shrubs that can be shown to pose a direct threat to utility lines 
within the current vegetation-management cycle.
Where we will go from here (cont.)
Arboricultural Practices (cont.)
10. The original tariff gave IP the authority to use chemical 
management, but did not specify what form it would take. IP needs to 
spell out the type of chemical management that it uses or wants to 
use and what safety guidelines it would follow. Then it will be 
possible to determine if those guidelines are adequate, if homeowner 
notification would be sufficient (with 10 days advance notice), if 
homeowner consent would be necessary, or if chemical management 
within municipalities is unacceptable.
11. IP should achieve a four-year tree-trimming cycle and keep 
accurate records for at least two complete cycles for local 
government entities and customers to view. The records should include 
beginning and ending work dates, descriptions of the type of work 
performed (e.g. scheduled work, storm work), disputes with property 
owners (documenting the property owners' names and the nature of 
their complaints), and IP's final actions.
12. The guidelines in Appendix C are unnecessarily restrictive and 
should be changed. Less restrictive guidelines for planting trees 
near utility lines, for example, are provided by J.W. Andersen in the 
Journal of Arboriculture (Vol. 15:150-152, 1989). The fact that 
Appendix C presents "replacement" guidelines gives the public the 
impression that trees up to 65 feet from power lines would be 
removed. Perhaps guidelines, if it is necessary to include them at 
all, should be presented in the form of "planting" guidelines.
Where we will go from here (cont.)
Heritage Trees
13. There should be a clause protecting trees that have special 
status, as identified by various organizations or local ordinances 
(e.g. National Register of Big Trees, Illinois Big Tree program, 
Champion Tree Project, Heritage Trees).
Activism- Tree Surveys
*	We have packets here that we ask you to take
*	These include:
-	A Tree survey
-	An Affidavit form
-	Brochures (5)
-	Buttons (2)
-	Ribbon (1)
Affidavits
*	Take these with you as you do the tree survey.
*	Have the home owner and family sign them.  There can be more 
than one signature per home.
*	When you have them filled then also tri-fold them, stamp them 
and mail them.
Contacting us
*	www.saveiltrees.org/
*	 lorax at saveILtrees.org
*	Snail Mail
Save Our Trees
110 South Race Suite 205
Urbana, IL 61801
*	Phone Number
(217) 384-0830

Save Our Trees
Carl H. Malmgren
	Vice Coordinator IPCUTSOT
	malmgren at uiuc.edu
	244-6574

Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 9153 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/trees-executive/attachments/20010410/0375ad64/attachment.bin