[Trees-executive] counterproposal

[Joyce Hofmann]

One approach to developing a counterproposal would be to go through the
original IP tariff and state our objections (and proposed alternatives) to
specific sections.  However, I don't know if IP will follow the same format
or if their new version will look quite different.  Therefore I'm listing
the points that we want to see incorporated into the new tariff.  If we
really talk to IP about the revised tariff on April 9 we will need to flesh
out at least some of the details by then.  I'll be out of town until
Monday, but you can start working on these ideas.  Joyce

1. Reestablish local control; vegetation management should be conducted
under local supervision.  (This should work in the municipalities, but we
may need to think about how it would apply in rural areas)

2.  Vegetation management contractors should be approved by the
municipalities, not just independently hired by IP.  (Again, what about
rural areas?)

3.  There is much concern about the tree trimming practices currently
employed by IP (through their contractors).  Some of these concerns are
listed in the Bloomington-Normal chapter's talking points.  Trimming should
be preferred over removal (without the economic loophole -- that
externalized the cost of removal anyway because they weren't offering
adequate compensation) and trimming should not be excessive.   Because this
is a "vegetation management" tariff the actual practices to be used (and
prohibited) should be included, not just a reference to Shigo.  If we don't
like Shigo, we need to decide on an alternative source for "best
arboricultural practices."

4.  There needs to be some form of oversight to ensure that the contractors
are abiding by these best arboricultural practices.  (Work is typically
done when the homeowners may not be there to watch what the contractors are
doing, e.g. are they really cleaning their blades between trees?)

5.  Homeowners should be notified 60 days in advance of vegetation
management on their property.  (Perhaps we could back down to 30 days for
trimming, 60 days for removal)  No work can be done until the homeowner
submits a written response. (I didn't send back my consent form last year
out of curiosity, but it appeared that IP trimmed my trees anyway).  There
should be a penalty (e.g. a fine or rebate to customers) if work proceeds
without proper the notification and a response on file.

6.  Actual tree removal should not be done without homeowner consent
(perhaps with an exception for actual emergencies).  In some cases the
homeowner may be glad to have IP remove a tree, so no problem.  If the
homeowner objects, there should be an appeal process with an impartial
party deciding if tree removal is necessary.  No tree removal should take
place until the dispute is resolved.  We should refer to the statements
made by IP representatives on March 12.

7.  There should be a clause protecting trees that have special status,
e.g. National Register of Big Trees, Champion Tree Project, etc.  (Then we
need to get a Heritage Tree Program enacted locally)

8.  The original tariff gave IP authority to use chemical management, but
did not specify what that would involve.  IP needs to spell out the type of
chemical management that it uses or wants to use and what guidelines it
would follow.  Then we can determine if the guidelines are adequate, if
homeowner notification is sufficient, if homeowner consent is necessary, or
if chemical management within municipalities is unacceptable.

9.  If a tree is removed IP must provide adequate compensation.
Unfortunately having individual trees appraised could be costly and
time-consuming, but compensation should include at least the cost of a
suitable replacement (with the homeowner, not IP, deciding if the
homeowner's property needs a new tree)  and the cost of stump removal.

10.  There needs to be a simple and local grievance procedure for handling
any complaints after vegetation management has been done.  (The original
tariff "forgot" to mention that customers could complain to the ICC, but
that is too cumbersome anyway)

11.  The designation of danger and border zones caused a lot 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 gives IP the right to conduct its vegetation management
anywhere on most homeowners' property.  This situation needs to be changed.
Vegetation management activities should be restricted to easements (I'm
still not sure if easements exist within municipalities).  Again, we can
refer to IP's statement on March 12.  If IP feels the need to increase the
width of its easements, those rights must be purchased (or whatever the
correct terminology is) from the property owners.

12.  The replacement guidelines in Appendix C should be changed (or
scrapped?).  I found an earlier version in the Journal of Arboriculture
that says taller trees can be closer to power lines.  How is a 45 foot tall
tree 60 feet away from a powerline a threat?  The fact that these are
"replacement" not "planting" guidelines certainly gives the impression that
trees up to 65 feet away from the lines could be removed.

13.   Homeowners and municipalities should be consulted before new poles
are placed on their property. (a minor point, but it was one of B-N's)

14.  IP should achieve a four-year tree-trimming cycle and keep accurate
records for at least two complete cycles for cities and customers to view.
(details in B-N's talking point 13)

Two other issues (perhaps not specifically part of a vegetation management
plan) are:

1.  We want a moratorium on tree trimming (except in cases of an immediate
threat to a powerline) and removal until the new tariff is in place.  IP
could voluntarily agree to a moratorium. (otherwise we need to work with
the cities and counties for moratorium ordinances).

2.  We want IP to commit to a process of moving the low/medium voltage
powerlines underground.  There have been some e-mails distributed about the
length of time that would be needed for the transition and we have plenty
of information to support the wisdom of such a plan.  There are some
further details about this in the B-N talking points.


Dr. Joyce E. Hofmann
Research Scientist
Curator, Illinois Natural History Survey Mammal Collection
Co-curator, University of Illinois Museum of Natural History Mammal
Collection Center for Biodiversity
Illinois Natural History Survey
607 E. Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
jhofmann at mail.inhs.uiuc.edu