Clear Cutting in Missouri

Q

Our place along this road before clear cutting

IT’S OPEN SEASON ON TREES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IN MISSOURI! 

Rather than trim as they used to do, electric cooperatives are in the process of clearing out massive numbers of trees along scenic corridors and on private properties across the state, at far greater distances than ever before--and they don’t need your permission!



Unfortunately, this is legal. In 2008, the utilities apparently convinced legislators that clearing trees at greatly expanded distances is what is necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of their distribution system.



Section 537.340.2 of the Missouri Revised Statutes allows the utilities to take out a shocking number of trees--our private property--for 30, 50, or 75 OR EVEN MORE feet deep on both sides of power lines, resulting in the wholesale destruction of one of Missouri’s most precious resources—its beautiful landscapes.



Making matters worse, there seems to be no agency or authority with the power to reign in or oversee coops that won’t produce an easement or verifiable proof that the trees they plan to cut actually pose a threat to power lines.



And there is a constitutional concern, because this law allows the utilities to take your private property, without your consent and without providing just compensation or due process.

Property owners don’t want to lose their trees when it’s not really necessary and especially when it’s excessive. We consider expanded clear cutting by utilities to be just that, and it’s at the expense of property rights, property values, thousands of trees and the benefits they provide, and the aesthetics of our beautiful state. The damage done could already be in the millions.

We are also concerned whether this law now makes it legal to take down trees beyond the right of way on private property, and whether utilities can assume control over the owners’ full enjoyment of their property/property rights and what they are able do with it after the vegetation is removed.

This booklet explains the excuses behind this escalation of clear cutting and how it puts property values and Missouri’s wooded and scenic landscapes at risk, because utilities have been granted powers to do much more than just trim your trees.

THEY CAN NOW REMOVE 30, 50, 75 FEET DEEP OR EVEN MORE OF YOUR TREES ON BOTH SIDES OF A POWER LINE Page 2

SUMMARY/ANALYSIS OF THE LAW BEING USED IN MISSOURI Summary of Section 537.340 of the Missouri Revised Statutes The 2008 legislature repealed the previous version of this section and replaced it with a new version, based on the bill sponsored by Senator Jack Goodman. The provisions of this section are summarized below by Erika Jaques, Missouri Senate Staff, on the following website: http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=35300 “This act authorizes any rural electric cooperative and certain electrical corporations that operate on the not-for-profit cooperative business plan to trim trees and control vegetation within the legal description in a recorded easement, or when no easement exists, within the following areas: 1) within 10 feet of electric lines located in a city and potentially energized at or below 34.5 kilovolts; 2) within 30 feet of electric lines located outside of a city and potentially energized at or below 34.5 kilovolts; 3) within 50 feet of electric lines potentially energized between 34.5 and 100 kilovolts; and 4) within 75 feet or within a federally required clearance for electric lines potentially energized at 100 kilovolts or more. In claims for property damage, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the electric utility acted with reasonable care and within its rights when controlling vegetation in these areas.

Electric cooperatives may control vegetation in excess of these areas if needed to maintain safe and reliable electric service. If an electric cooperative must remove certain trees outside of the authorized areas, it must notify the owner of the trees at least fourteen days prior to their removal, except in emergency situations.”

Full Text of Law: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5370000340.HTM

Analysis of Section 537.340 of the Missouri Revised Statutes How many trees can the power companies remove? “Supposedly” it depends on what’s stated in the legal description of the recorded easement--Section 537.340.2 (2). But if there is no recorded easement, the electric suppliers are given a very broad authority: For lines “potentially” energized at or below For lines “potentially energized For lines “potentially” energized at 100 kilovolts 34.5 kilovolts: between 34.5 and 100 kilovolts: or more:  and in a city, the power company can  Power company can remove  Power company can remove trees 75 feet remove trees 10 feet (plus half the length trees 50 feet on both sides of on both sides of the centerline-- Section of any attached cross arm) on both sides the centerline -- Section 537.340.2 (2)(d)a; or any distance adopted of the centerline-- Section 537.340.2 537.340.2 (2)(c) by the Federal Energy Regulatory (2)(a) Commission or an Electric Reliability Organization authorized by the Energy  Outside city limits, they can cut three Policy Act of 2005, 16 U.S.C. Section 824o-times as much, or 30 feet on either side Section 537.340.2 (2)(d)b of the centerline-- Section 537.340.2 (2)(b) But the next section (537.340.3) goes on to throw out the provisions of 537.340.2 by saying that the power company can trim, remove, and control as much vegetation as it considers necessary to maintain the safe and reliable operation of its electric lines.

So in answer to this question, this law seems to say they can cut down as many trees on your property as they deem necessary.

Compare to U.S. and Missouri Bill of Rights US Bill of Rights Fifth Amendment states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

MO Bill of Rights Section 26......Compensation for property taken by eminent domain---condemnation juries--payment--railroad property. That private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. Such compensation shall be ascertained by a jury or board of commissioners of not less than three freeholders, in such a manner as may be provided by law; and until the same shall be paid to the owner, or into a court for the owner, the property shall not be disturbed or the proprietary rights of the owner therein divested. The fee of land taken for railroad purposes without consent of the owner thereof shall remain in such owner subject to the use for which it is taken.

MO Bill of Rights Section 28. Limitation on taking of private property for private use ----exceptions---public use a judicial question. That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

Page 3

HERE’S WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG WITH THIS LAW: Utilities Have Been Given a Privileged Position and Unchecked Powers The law sanctions clearing trees that pose a threat--but what constitutes a threat? The law doesn’t say. Many utilities are removing anything of a set height, i.e. 12’, or anything that could become that tall. That’s why many trees which do not pose a threat are being cleared now. We think that’s because the law allows cooperatives to take as much as they want and clear in any manner they see fit, and “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the electric utility acted with reasonable care and within its rights when controlling vegetation in these areas.”

It seems there is no limit to the size of cutting clearances and the control of rights of way that the cooperatives can take. Power companies are removing trees and other vegetation that have existed for years and never posed a threat to the utility’s distribution system, and in certain locations, asserting greater control after removing the vegetation in order to ensure that former woodland right-of-way environments, now, broad, unproductive meadows, stay that way forever.

Based on what we have learned, the expanded powers and cutting clearances exceed nationallyaccepted tree-trimming standards and safety clearances as well as requirements established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) through its enforcement arm, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and its regional reliability organizations (RROs). According to national standards and experts, taking out the same distance for everyone on a road, irrespective of tree growth rates, is a very poor approach.

Does the government make them cut your trees?

Utilities are telling customers and legislators that the federal government requires more aggressive clear cutting. FERC does not endorse clear cutting, and federal mandates apply to electric transmission lines greater than 200,000 volts, rather than the more numerous lesser-voltage distribution lines found in most neighborhoods. The director of the Page 4

division of compliance for FERC’S Office of Electrical Reliability has been trying to uncover why utilities are misleading property owners with an implied mandate that “FERC made us do it.”

Why this happened to us and why it is going to happen to others in Missouri Wholesale clear cutting of everything in a right of way or easement, rather than just trimming enables utilities to implement longer cutting cycles, and doing so reduces their greatest expense: vegetation management. Utilities can also use this law to clear at far greater distances rather than purchase expanded easements from property owners.

Finding ways to cut costs, even at the expense of property owners, has been the driving force behind utility practices across America. When utilities talk about cutting their costs, it’s at the expense of the millions of dollars worth of property and property value that property owners and communities are losing for which they are not being compensated.

So where is the oversight for the electric coops?

How can we reign in these utilities? Without effective oversight, the utilities are not held accountable. We could find no agency with the authority to oversee coops, and trying to get resolution from a coop’s board has been akin to having the fox guard the hen house. We think it is unfair to lose thousands of dollars in property value without an appeal process if the property owner has a problem with a coop.

Do these trees look like they are threatening the power line? Yet they are on the chopping block.

HERE’S WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG WITH THIS LAW: Property Rights, Property Values and the Environment are at Risk The trees they are taking are private property.

Trimming trees is one thing, but cutting them, removing them and not allowing you to keep them after they are cut is taking private property. Trees and vegetation on private property remain the property of the landowner (even after they are cut).

Here’s why we think the power company didn’t produce an easement to back up its claim to our trees. So far we have asked the power company six times to provide the easement. Because Section 537.340 of the Missouri Revised Statutes is so generous to electric coops, it’s probably in their best interest to use it rather than produce an easement. In one state the utilities want to use massive prescriptive easements to assume control by adverse possession of the properties they plan to clear. In the same state, a utility upgraded hundreds of miles of low-voltage 13kV-138kV lines without any prior approval or the purchase of expanded easements, taking hundreds of trees without compensation or consent. It estimated that if it were required to purchase easements to cover expanded cutting distances, it would have cost the utility over $100 million. So it is much less costly for the utilities to just take the land.

We feel strongly that the law puts the property and due process rights of citizens at risk. Section 537.340 authorizes taking private property from landowners, and this appears to violate the Missouri and U.S. constitutions in that due process and just compensation have been ignored by the utilities and because there is the absence of a judicial ruling confirming that the extensive clear cutting by the utilities represents a necessary public use. By creating extensive one-size-fits-all cutting distances, the law allows the taking of enormous amounts of private property from Missouri landowners, without their consent, without utilities having to secure or follow an easement, and without providing compensation or due process.

Massive clear cutting in Missouri has significant environmental and property value impacts. With no effective limit to the size of cutting clearances, trees that do not pose a threat are in jeopardy, and scenic and endangered woodland right-of-ways are becoming broad, unproductive meadows.

Expanded clear cutting and spraying with herbicides are short-sighted and destructive policies. At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to natural environments, scenic corridors, property values, and the loss of wooded areas all across Missouri that will never return.

An easement “might” protect your property rights, but can you find it? Unless otherwise stated in the easement, trees and vegetation on private property remain the property of the landowner. Property easements represent a partnership between homeowners and utilities. Easements give rights to utility companies but they also protect the property rights of homeowners by stating exactly what is being granted and what is the degree of restriction.

Unlike an easement, we find little in this law to protect property owner or property value interests.

Because the county and title company could find no recorded easement for our property, we have no idea what is in it or even if one exists. We have since learned that this is not unusual, and that tens of thousands of restrictions have never been recorded.

Property owners, communities, and the state have lost quality-of-life benefits that living trees provide Trees are a valuable asset, vital to our wellbeing. Trees preserve the environment that preserves us. According to current research, the larger and the lusher the trees, (those most likely to be targeted for clear cutting) the greater the benefits. Property owners are not receiving appropriate compensation for losing the substantial benefits provided by trees.

Page 5

OUR EXPERIENCE We had a truly unique property in one of the few wooded locations in our area. It was surrounded by trees that provided privacy and seclusion in a pretty setting with mature oak and hickory trees. The road was lined with cedars that blocked the wind and filtered the road dust, a concern for my asthmatic husband. While small, the place satisfied our lifelong desire to find a place with an abundance of trees and the enjoyment and benefits they provide. We would not have bought the place if we knew we would lose those benefits in just a few short years.

We assert (and power company employees said as much) that few of our trees actually posed a current threat to their lines, but they were to be removed because the utility told us that vegetation management was costly and it didn’t want to have to trim again for another 10 years and sometime between now and then these trees might pose a threat.

 Trees on our property were cut from 15 to 25 feet deep, while cedar trees within five feet of or directly under the wire on a neighboring road were left alone.

We don’t know exactly how many of our trees were removed because right after they were whacked, and against are stated wishes, they were dragged to a burn pile on a property across the road. According to our plat, our only documentation of a right of way, most if not all of the trees that were cut were located east of where it ends. What is left now is a narrow and porous band of trees for 1,000 feet along the west/southwest border of our property.

Our Unresolved Concerns 

In our situation, the county recorder and the title company could find no recorded utility easement for our property. We never gave our consent to cut our trees, and we repeatedly asked the power company to provide the easement that they claimed gave it the authority to remove a shocking and excessive number of trees. Since it did not provide the easement it claimed, we asked the utility to honor the platted right of way. That is when the utility’s attorney told us about Section 537.340 and further informed us that if we followed through on our plan to plant trees or install a fence on our property just west of the platted right of way, we would be encroaching on the coop’s use and enjoyment of its “easement.”



We think they took out more trees than they were entitled to if it were not for Section 537.340 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. We justly concerned as to whether this law now makes it legal to take down trees beyond the right of way on private property, and whether utilities can assume control over property owners’ full enjoyment of their property and what they are able do with it after the vegetation is removed.



Under property law, there is the matter of whether taking this many trees is reasonable and necessary.

We truly believe that what is apparently statesanctioned clear cutting exceeded what was reasonable and that our trees, our property, and our woodland subdivision were disfigured and devalued as a result.

We presented a compromise to only trim or take out the few trees that were within five feet of the wire now. Meanwhile we would plant cedars on the other side. This would allow us to live with our trees for as long as possible while the cedars were growing.

When a compromise was rejected, we asked the power company to mark the trees that would be cut and trimmed. That was done I now believe only to appease us. The power company’s plan was to cut the same straight line run along the entire road and take out anything within that line. We were told that if they cut less on our property, other property owners on the road would take exception. In the end the power company took out scores and scores of trees, including those that had not been marked to be cut or which were only to have been trimmed or face cut, like these: These red dots indicate trees that were only supposed to be trimmed . . . With Section 537.340.2 coops are not accountable for such mistakes.

We found several like this..

Page 6



What the main road through our “wooded” subdivision looks like now after clear-cutting 30 to 60 feet deep on east side of road, where we live. (Compare to west side.)

A closer look

Our property along the road before clear cutting

 Page 7

WHERE ELSE IS THIS HAPPENING?



“Homeowners, who under Indiana law have the right to use a gun to prevent a home invasion, are miffed that utility crews can come into their yards and cut down their trees.”1 

New Jersey has lost 150-year old beeches, old cherries, vegetation around environmentallysensitive waterways, and clusters of trees in a woodland supposedly protected by a state grant, leaving the area looking like a war zone and impacting water quality and storm water runoff.



According to a city attorney in Michigan, "They seem to be on a path of wanting to cut down any trees under their power lines even if the trees presently can't interfere with the lines. We don't feel that's appropriate."



A utility In Massachusetts is taking advantage of its "perpetual and exclusive right and easement to clear and keep cleared a strip of land 30 feet in width.”



In Westchester, New York, “most homeowners had no prior knowledge of the extent of the utility’s tree-trimming program, nor were they afforded the opportunity to express their concerns or opinions about the impact of this plan on their properties, until the damage had already been done.”

We found similar accounts from California, Colorado, Maryland, and Kansas, which are summarized in the SOURCES section.

In Missouri, scenic highways and treed regions are a precious economic and natural resource, and often the main reason people choose to live in or visit an area. This recent photo shows the result of clear-cutting countless numbers of trees in the “scenic” Pomme de Terre lake region.

There are 47 rural electric cooperatives throughout the state who can use Section 537.340 of the Missouri Revised Statutes to make trees and woodlands an endangered species along Missouri roads and properties.

Property owners don’t want to lose trees when it’s not really necessary or when it’s excessive. Across the country, power companies are being challenged for excessive, overaggressive clear cutting, taking private property without compensation, and using practices that don’t comply with national standards.

1

http://newsandtribune.com/local/x541067011/HAYDEN-Charlie-Goodman-still-has-some-fight-in-him Charlie Goodman still has some fight in him.

Page 8

WHAT CAN BE DONE?



The law needs to be amended to protect the rights of landowners and the benefits provided by trees The law should define what poses a threat based on industry-appropriate vegetation management schedules, clearances, and practices. Trimming or removal should be based on the conditions of each tree not a fixed clearance distance that applies to all trees, as reflected in the current law.

The law should incorporate and quantify protections for trees as valuable assets with many benefits, and require utilities to compensate property owners fairly for private property taken and the loss of benefits provided by woodlands.

Require electric cooperatives to follow the newly-adopted FERC rules and ANSI standard A300 (Part 9) on tree risk assessment based on standards, best management practices, and input from over 75 reviewers in 13 countries.

Require utility companies to produce evidence of the authority (be it an easement or state law) that allows them to take landowners’ property against their will and stop their continued enjoyment or use of their private property. In addition, the utilities should not confuse property owners by claiming they have an easement when they are using this law as their authority.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, a typical tree, over a 50year lifetime, generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion. While some trees may contribute more and others less, a combined average benefit of $ 3,240 per year per tree represents a significant reason why we need to preserve our environment.

A more detailed listing of tree benefits follows in the next section.

Provide due process protection for owners If the character of an entire neighborhood or of wooded properties by establishing an subdivision could be adversely changed, an oversight agency for electric cooperatives. environmental impact statement should be required, exceptions made, or the utility should be expected to bury its line(s).

“The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights.” (Sir William Blackstone) Page 9

Missouri Forest Facts     

One of our most important assets Beautiful and rich in biodiversity Backbone of recreation and tourism industries Covers almost a third of the state But was once much vaster!

Missouri’s trees—They are important and they benefit us more than most of us know People who don’t understand the strong ties between people and trees derisively call those who do “treehuggers.” They might realize there is a deforestation problem in South America, but not in their own backyards.

At best, we take them for granted, or act as if trees are in unlimited supply, as once they were when our nation was young. Most of the lush deciduous forest the first settlers encountered has been razed to clear land for farms or for wood to make cabins or provide fuel. What’s left today is being cleared in favor of wider utility rights of ways in many states.

Trees were important as resources for the economic benefits they provided when they were cut down. But this understanding and valuation is outdated and superficial, compared with what we know about trees today.

In recent decades, many studies have been done that show how vital trees are to our continued well-being for the greater and ongoing benefits provided by live trees and afforestation.

Unfortunately, many of us in the public, as well as busy decision-makers, have not been well informed about these benefits or their $ value $.

What follows then is an overview from these studies about how trees benefit us--benefits being lost to clear cutting.

We need to look at trees as a resource in a new and informed way, not for the value we derive when they are removed, but for the substantial benefits provided by living trees.

Page 10

HOW MISSOURI TREES IMPROVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE These Benefits Make a Strong Case against Massive Clear Cutting “People turn to trees for something they cannot get in a built environment . . . The quality of human life depends on an ecologically sustainable and aesthetically pleasing physical environment.” (www.arborilogical.com)



Trees add value and beauty to our life. Trees add aesthetic features that make a property more beautiful. Trees also separate us from development and integrate nature with built environments.



Health and healing. Besides being a food source (a variety of fruits and nuts), trees have a therapeutic value and hospital rooms with a view of trees improve recovery times.



Psychological benefits. Trees relax us and offer stress reduction, peace and quiet, happiness, and emotional well-being.



Safety. Less crime and domestic violence in treed neighborhoods/housing developments.



Sociable neighborhoods and stronger community relationships. Treed places get more use than treeless places.



Privacy screening. Dense trees, especially evergreens, serve as natural visual barriers



Noise control. Trees provide a sound barrier that reduces noise from roads and overhead.



Property values. Trees increase curb appeal, and studies show that property/resale values increase from 3%-20%. Conversely, the lack of trees lowers property values.



Business and economic development. Trees add to our standard of living. More jobs, improved worker productivity, higher incomes, greater tax revenue. More time spent shopping and more often, with more customers, and increased spending (12%) in treed/tree-lined commercial developments.

Wooded locations enhance tourism.



Erosion control and soil health. Over a 50year lifetime, a tree provides $31,250 in erosion control. Trees help remove toxic materials in soil.



Climate control (lowers home energy costs up to 40%). Tree-created micro-climates moderate the effects of rain, wind and sun.

Leaves absorb and reflect sunlight, and shade reduces our exposure to UV radiation.



Wind control. Densely-planted tall trees form a windbreak, or barrier, to reduce wind speed and block the infiltration of the summer’s hot, dry winds, blowing dust or snow, reducing energy costs and weathering damage to buildings in the protected zone on the other side of the windbreak.



Summer cooling. Trees reduce summer temperatures, lowering cooling costs. The shade created by the trees’ canopy cools the ground and buildings under it. The air is cooled when leaves absorb heat and release water vapor. A Sacramento utility found that as thousands of trees were planted and their canopies grew, the shade reduced the amount of electricity it needed to supply by $1.2 million/year. Conversely, the removal of trees results in the “heat island” effect, which increases cooling costs.

“The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day” (U.S. Department of Agriculture).



Page 11

Winter warming. Densely-planted trees, especially evergreens, offer a barrier to the infiltration of cold winter winds. Deciduous trees drop their leaves, so that sunlight is not reflected, allowing more of the free solar energy to be absorbed by the home.

HOW MISSOURI TREES IMPROVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE (CONTINUED ) 

Snow control. Highway departments use rows of tall, densely-planted evergreens to form a “living snow fence” barrier to trap snow, control drifting and improve road aesthetics



Flood control and water quality. Trees slow and reduce surface water runoff, and their roots help purify groundwater. Every year, 100 mature trees capture 216,200 gallons of rainwater, and then release it through their leaves into the atmosphere as vapor, an essential part of the water cycle. A single tree, over 50-years, recycles $37,500 worth of water. But when there are fewer trees, there’s less of the precipitation we need.



Air quality. Trees purify the air we breathe.

Pollution control. The average tree removes 10 pounds of pollutants annually (Center for Urban Forest Research) and provides $62,000 in pollution control over a 50-year lifetime.

One hundred large trees (which absorb much more pollution than small trees) can remove 259 pounds of pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, airborne particles, and other toxic compounds.

Trees filter dust and particulates. Groups or rows of trees and evergreens offer the best protection.

Trees provide oxygen valued at $31,250 per tree over a 50-year lifetime, or enough oxygen for 18 humans from an acre of trees.

Trees absorb tons of carbon dioxide. Every year, 100 big trees, the very trees most likely to be cleared, remove 37 tons of carbon dioxide, destroying one of the best and cheapest ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Trees remove carbon. A single tree can remove anywhere from 25-330 pounds of carbon per year. 

Research indicates that the larger and lusher the trees, the greater the benefits and protection, especially for climate control, air quality, cooling, and perceived community attractiveness. Yet aren’t these the trees most likely to be targeted for clear cutting?

“A big tree that lives for decades or even a century or two can sequester a thousand times more carbon than, say, a crab apple with a life span of 10 or 20 years.” (What Is a Tree Worth? by Jonnes).



How to find out the monetary value of these benefits. Property owners can use a tree benefit calculator (i.e. www.itreetools.org) to learn about the monetary value of their trees.

“A 25-year-old backyard pin oak provided the following benefits: It intercepted and absorbed 7,669 gallons of rainwater ($75.92), raised property value ($75.67), saved 229 kilowatts of electricity ($17.36), and improved air quality and stored carbon ($17.58).”

(What Is a Tree Worth? by Jonnes)



According to the US Forest Service, the average value of a tree is $3,240/year.

Living trees preserve the planet that preserves us The forest is home to 70% of the planet’s land plants and animals (National Geographic). Clear cutting results in the loss of essential habitat and biodiversity, upsetting the delicate balance of our ecosystems.

“Considerable scientific progress has been made in the past several decades in understanding the complex interactions both within ecosystems and between ecosystems, human activities, and human well being . . . Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems.”

(Ecosystems and Human Well Being: A Framework for Assessment (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment).

Page 12

WHAT ARE THE NATIONAL MANDATES/GUIDELINES FOR TREE TRIMMING? Does the federal government require more aggressive tree trimming policies? In some places the utilities are telling customers and legislators that the federal government requires the excessive clear cutting. This is misleading. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reliability standards “do not mandate or prohibit clear cutting or any other particular method of vegetation management, nor do they apply to the smaller distribution lines that deliver power directly to your home.” (FERC FAQ) Based on our research, Missouri’s vegetation management standards exceed what’s required in federal regulations and what’s recommended in nationally-accepted guidelines.

What is FERC’s role on local tree trimming policies and practices? From FERC FAQ: “FERC has no direct role in electric utility plans for tree trimming and vegetation management. FERC only approves reliability standards that apply to electric transmission facilities-generally lines above 200,000 volts (200kV). Among these standards is one that requires sufficient clearance be maintained between trees and transmission lines for service reliability and safety purposes. Lower voltage distribution facilities (generally lines below 200kV) are usually regulated by the utility regulatory commissions within each state. Individual state regulatory commissions have the authority to set vegetation management standards for distribution lines”--the lines that generally bring power to your home.

Who decides whether an electric utility can cut down a tree near a power line? From FERC FAQ: “The choice of how to trim trees and manage vegetation growth near a power line is primarily made by the electric utility, subject to state and local requirements and laws, applicable safety codes, and any limitations or obligations specified in right of way agreements.” Utility easements legally acquired and properly recorded have additional constraints on both parties. Nationally-accepted tree trimming guidelines created by consensus should guide the tree trimming crews in proper tree-trimming techniques. Proper distances from energized conductors should be 1 established by qualified utility personnel based upon line voltage, the species of trees, and appropriate cutting cycles.

What are the nationally-accepted guidelines for tree trimming distances? American National Standards Institute (ANSI) rules, OSHA regulations, and best management practices are the leading guidelines across the United States. For example, ANSI Z133 defines “line clearance” as “The pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, removing, treating or clearing of trees or cutting of brush (vegetation management) that is within 10 feet (3.05 m) of electrical supply lines and equipment.” The newly-adopted ANSI standard A300 (Part 9) on tree risk assessment was designed for use by utilities, property owners, government agencies, and others, and is a consensus document based on standards, best management practices, and input from over 75 reviewers in 13 countries.

How should tree-trimming distances be determined? The following example shows the correct method for how tree trimming distances should be determined versus clear cutting to a specific distance such as 30 or 50 or 75 feet.  The current federal safety clearance for a 115,000 volt transmission line (115kV) is just under 3 feet to prevent arcing from the energized line to nearby objects.  In addition to the safety clearance, additional distance is based upon how often the utility manages their tree trimming practices, with four to five years being the usual practice. This is known as the cutting cycle.  The next factor is the growth rate of each tree that needs trimming and the best spot on the tree to make the cut to preserve the trees health. A silver maple grows at approximately five feet per year so the necessary distance should be 3 feet plus 5 feet times 5 years plus say 4 feet, which is the nearest lateral or location on the tree that preserves the tree’s health. That makes 3+ 5x5+ 4=32 feet for that specific tree. The next tree has a growth rate of 1 foot per year, so here we would have 3 feet plus 1 foot x 5 years plus 4 feet or 3+5+4= 12 feet that needs to be trimmed.  Additional considerations include diseased trees, trees which are leaning too far, and trees whose height exceeds the height of the lines.  Trimming or removal must be based on the conditions of each tree not a fixed clearance distance as reflected in Missouri’s current law.  When a utility chooses to clear cut to a fixed distance hundreds perhaps thousands of valuable trees are lost which provide a continuous and economic benefit to the community . According to the U.S. Forest Service, “a typical tree, over a 50-year lifetime, generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion. While some trees may contribute more and others less, a combined average benefit of $ 3,240 per year per tree represents a significant reason why we need to preserve our environment.”

1

Because lines above 200 kV have the greatest risk potential for major outages, federal regulation FAC-003-1 came about to prevent the kind of widespread power outage that affected 50 million people in the United States and Canada in 2003, the result, supposedly, of a sagging transmission line making contact with tree limbs. According to certified internal auditor David Barnes, trees make contact with electric lines every day without catastrophe. The Northeast power outage stemmed from inadequate human response to massive equipment failure with no adequate back-up plan.

Page 13

SOURCES Federal Regulations and Industry Standards 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tree Trimming and Vegetation Management Landowners Frequently Asked Questions http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indusact/reliability/vegetation-mgt/landowner-vm-faq.pdf



Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program http://www.nerc.com/files/FAC003-1.pdf



ANSI A300 (Part 9) - 2011 Tree Risk Assessment http://www.utilityarborist.org/images/Other%20Docume nts/A300Part9Drft2-V2.pdf



http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/BPU_ petition.doc Position of New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club



http://nycapitolnews.com/wordpress/2010/06/utilitycompanies-clear-cutting-of-trees-threatens-communitylandscape/ In New York, Andrea Stewart-Cousins introduced S7962B (June, 2010). “Since late last year, residents across Westchester County have witnessed, with disbelief, the disappearance of the natural landscape that has shielded homes and properties from exposure for decades. Most homeowners impacted by this planning had no prior knowledge of the extent of this tree-trimming program, nor were they afforded the opportunity to express their concerns or opinions about the impact of this plan on their properties, until the damage had already been done. This local-option bill ensures that utility companies are accountable to the public by requiring a public briefing prior to the commencement of vegetation management activities. This also provides a forum for homeowners to ask their questions and voice their concerns, and provides a critical component for mitigating future damages that might occur if the result of the activities do not mirror the plan that is presented by the utility company.”

Woodland Benefits and the Value of Trees  

         



What Is a tree worth? by Jill Jonnes http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/ USDA Forest Service research helps quantify the value of trees in communities across the nation http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2010/releases/11/trees.sht ml Trees pay us back in the Midwest region http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products /18/808uesd_uep_tpub_Midwest.pdf Benefits of trees http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits/Identified%20Ben efits%20of%20Community%20Trees.pdf Benefits of trees (International Society of Arboriculture) http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/tree_benefits.asp x The big benefits of trees. http://www.idiggreenacres.com/tipstrends_bigbenefits.ht ml Benefits of trees http://www.fuf.net/resources/treeBenefits.html Benefits of trees http://www.ag.purdue.edu/fnr/urbanforestry/Pages/Be nefitsofTrees.aspx Facts about trees http://carbonday.com/teacherseducation/facts-abouttrees/ "The power of trees " By Tina Prow. The Illinois Steward, Volume 7 Issue 4. Winter 1999.

The case for large trees vs small trees. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products /cufr_419.pdf MAPS: History of deforestation in the United States (The Conservation Report) http://conservationreport.com/2012/01/09/mapshistory-of-deforestation-in-the-united-states/ Missouri Forests in the Past, a history of Missouri's forests (Missouri Department of Conservation).

In reviewing these experiences, take note of how many times a utility misled property owners with a so-called federal mandate that requires wholesale clear cutting instead of trimming. Notice also how property owners described the attitudes of the utilities and how their properties looked after clearing.

When the utilities talk about cost-savings, it’s at the expense of the millions, maybe billions, of dollars worth of property and property value that property owners and communities are losing for which they are not being compensated.

2012 Knox County, Tennessee (March and April) http://www.wbir.com/rss/article/209631/2/Knoxville-mantaking-on-TVA-to-save-his-trees Knoxville man taking on TVA to save his trees (March 7) http://theknoxvillejournal.com/tva-clear-cutters-bullyproperty-owners/ TVA clear cutters bully property owners (March 23)

Challenges around the Nation 

http://www.indianatreealliance.com The Indiana Tree Alliance, founded and led by Charles Goodman, has worked tirelessly “for rules and laws that would give state regulators more authority in tree-trimming disputes and empower property owners with more rights.”

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/apr/03/federallawsuit-filed-to-stop-tva-tree-cutting/ W. Knox County homeowners sue to stop TVA tree cutting (April 3)



http://tribstar.com/local/x1443110624/IURC-seeks-tochange-tree-trimming-practices IURC seeks to change tree-trimming practices: Recent ruling gives homeowners more say in how utilities handle “vegetation management.” (August, 2011)

Power company plan: TVA is taking a more aggressive approach to power line maintenance across a seven-state area, planning to cut, not trim, any vegetation capable of growing more than 15’ high along the full width of the right of way easement.

Page 14

Power company position: Implemented new policy to ensure a safe and reliable power distribution system and meet what it claims are strict federal guidelines to keep rights of way clear so that vegetation will not grow into high power lines, and avoid penalties of up to $1 million a day. Additionally, expanded clear cutting will keep the lights on for everyone and keep the costs of right-of-way maintenance low, thus saving money for the ratepayers. If trees are trimmed back, it will cost more in the long run because they will have to come back more often, and do more oversight.

Property owner/county commissioners position: TVA tactics described as bullying, lying, arbitrary, unreasonable, destructive, and running roughshod over property owners to clear vegetation along rights of ways and adjacent private property, beyond its easements.

“They regularly without notice clear-cut, and use herbicides to destroy vegetation along property lines of 16,000 miles of TVA transmission lines. TVA should stop the unreasonable destruction of trees, in excess of their easements,” exclaimed Commissioner Jeff Ownby.

An area property owner spent $1,000 for professional pruning to keep her property cleared, neat and under 15 feet tall.

“They made an agreement. She spent $1,000 that she cannot ever get back to have good shade to lower her cooling bills in the summer. They took down a tree within 12-feet of her house that was not close enough to interfere. Now she will be paying higher bills this summer.”

The same property owner cited a Tennessee State Law that prohibits destruction of animal habitations. Tennessee State Law 70-4-114 Destruction of Dens or Nests which states, ”It is unlawful to disturb, mutilate, or destroy the home, nest, or den of any protected wild animals or birds.”

County actions: Commissioner Ownby said he felt the county should attempt to engage in a dialogue with TVA in an attempt to come to a reasonable solution about TVA encroaching on property owners’ property rights. Resolution was passed requesting and encouraging TVA officials to reconsider and revise its existing policies regarding the clear cutting removal of all trees and other vegetation 15-feet and higher, within the length and width of its property easements containing transmission lines.

Property owner actions: TVA’s plan to remove 135 trees in one neighborhood is on hold after homeowners filed a lawsuit in federal district court on April 3 seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

2011 http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=2467 PG&E’s Latest Attack on the Foothills: Massive Tree Removal Watts Valley, California (February, 2011) Power company position: Grid reliability requires removing trees to prevent power outages caused by trees that grow or fall into transmission lines. Previous state regulations mandated a minimum 10 foot clearance for 230 kilovolt transmission lines.

Property owner position: The power company has too much power, and it is difficult to get answers from them. Power company dismissed our contention that the slow-growing blue oaks, whose limbs were at least 20 feet away, pose no risk to the transmission lines. Vegetation management should not be based on treating all trees the same with a one size fits all policy. As a result, hundreds of slow-growing trees are slated for destruction.

Disposition: Although FERC Rule FAC-003-1 is being reviewed, tree cutting has not been suspended.  http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17816012 Centennial residents may go to court over Xcel plan to clear trees Centennial, Colorado (April, 2011) Power company plan/position: Xcel plans to clear cut 400 trees around regional transmission lines, based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission mandates. Even trees that will not grow as tall as the line concern the utility, because an outage can result if limbs break off and hit lines during a windstorm. The utility claims it has easement rights surrounding lines that existed before houses were built. The utility gave homeowners notice in advance so they could transplant younger trees, and said it would work with residents to find appropriate replacement trees.

Property owners: Residents who view the plan to remove every tree in their yards as a heavy-handed policy and “extreme vegetation removal tactic,” and who received no response from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, have hired an attorney. “FERC is reviewing tree-cutting policies and does not prescribe any policy that involves clear-cutting trees, allowing utilities to adopt their own "best practices.” Xcel previously gave out guidelines for trees under the distribution lines that the company now seems to fail to follow and ignores in discussions. I understand it's a money thing--it's expensive to trim trees.”

 http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story_print.aspx?i d=727094&type=story Man goes up in the air to save trees Jefferson City, Missouri (March, 2012)



Power company plan/position: To maintain its right of way, an electric coop is targeting every tree in its easement within 100 feet of transmission lines that is 12’ tall or could become 12’ tall.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/lexington/news/x2108624521/ Neighbors-upset-over-tree-cutting-along-power-lines-inLexington#axzz1cbTpxWey Neighbors upset over tree cutting along power lines in Lexington Burlington’s Landlocked Forest in Lexington, Massachusetts (June, 2011)

Property owner position: Because his catalpa trees, 30 feet from the line, are not encroaching on the power lines or causing a safety or reliability problem, he claims they would not cause an issue and do not need to be removed; however, coop refused to change its policy or compromise by trimming the trees.

Power company (NSTAR) position/goals: escalation of tree cutting is part of a larger goal to manage vegetation along the right of way; trees that grew there for years will no longer be tolerated and right of way environments will be turned into meadowlands. This change of vegetation maintenance is required by federal (FERC) regulations.

Property owners: Power company policy of complete clearcutting has gone too far; environment looks like a demolition zone. Believe the utility could be more environmentally sensitive and neighborly.

Page 15

 http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2 0111012/NEWS/110120317 Homeowners slam NStar clear-cutting Cummaquid, Massachusetts (October, 2011) Power company position: To meet stricter federal right-ofway requirements, the NStar is taking advantage of its "perpetual and exclusive right and easement to clear and keep cleared a strip of land 30 feet in width, of trees and underbrush by mechanical or other means, except chemical, and to remove building or other structures therefrom." FERC mandates a minimum clearance between trees and transmission lines and huge zero-tolerance penalties for violations that result in outages.

Property owner position: "I don't think they take aesthetics into account at all." Since previously the power company only trimmed area trees, residents were not aware of the new policy and were shocked to learn how much the areas would be deforested and look like a war zone. Homes that were hid behind oaks and pines were now surrounded by stumps, dirt, and a view of transmission poles. Had they known this was possible, they probably would have purchased property elsewhere. Homeowners did not agree with the power company attitude that "As you let trees grow they become more of a problem.” The GreenCAPE organization believes the power companies can use methods other than clear-cutting and using herbicides, and advocates that they be more selective in how they cut in front yards and plant native low-growing plants in areas they deforested.

Clear Cutting 101:

Property owner’s position: Many homeowners claimed that the aggressive tree cutting was unnecessary and hired an attorney. They feared the loss of shade, wildlife, air filtering, privacy, and property value that would result from removing the trees. Residents did not feel that their concerns and compromise plans were heard by the power company. (“They were just cold.”) The power company did not care about aesthetics or environmental impact. Removing the trees destroyed the ecosystem under the lines and robbed the neighborhood of its beauty.  http://www.theolathenews.com/2010/05/08/727650/residen ts-unhappy-about-utility.html Residents unhappy about utility companies cutting trees Olathe, Overland Park and Lenexa, Kansas (May 8, 2010) Power company plan: While KCPL is only trimming limbs in Olathe, Overland Park, and Lenexa, Westar plans to cut trees flush to the ground under lower-voltage neighborhood distribution lines in Olathe because it is expensive to trim fastgrowing trees every few years. Grounding can result when tree limbs touch power lines and a short takes out power affecting several neighborhoods. KCPL claims that federal rules demand more extreme measures under extra-high voltage transmission lines, or the utility will face stiff fines should an outage occur.

More than 1,000 trees that could be an immediate or future problem will be removed from under these lines. Because highvoltage lines can sag as much as 10 feet when demand for electricity is high, KCPL “requires at least 21 feet between the maximum sag on a 161-kilovolt line and the ground and that no vegetation grows more than 14 feet from the ground, leaving a 7-foot clearance.” KCPL claims they will work with unhappy residents and will try to resolve complaints before cutting any tree.

Property owner positions: “Even if KCP&L has the legal right to do what they say they are about to do, we’re questioning the rational of it.” Homeowners love the abundance of trees, many of which they planted and paid for in a city known as Tree City USA. Nearby neighborhoods, where trees have been cut, look as if a tornado went through. Some intend to plant new trees of the kind that won’t pose a threat to the lines.

The trees come down quickly when this blade slides under the base of the trunk.

City staff expressed the city council’s unhappiness with how the power companies were dealing with property owners and whether communications could improve before trees were removed or trimmed the next time. When asked if they would help with the cost of replacing trees with ones that don’t grow as tall, Westar said no, and KCPL said it will help residents find appropriate replacement trees. “We have very little power in this situation.”

Then they apply a chemical to make sure the tree will never try to grow back.

2010 http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2010/01/25/news/d oc4b5a29069c063522949579.txt?viewmode=fullstory Woodhaven: Utility Company’s Tree Cutting Upsets Residents Woodhaven, Michigan (January, 2010) Power company position: Federal regulations mandate that the power company eliminate any outage that could result from vegetation interference to certain high-voltage power lines. “To meet this stringent federal mandate, ITC and its subsidiaries have adopted an approach that calls for tree removal to maintain the safety and reliability of the transmission grid.” In addition, vegetation management is authorized by easements between the power company and homeowners for land beneath the wires and 10 feet beyond the outermost wire. As a result, “all trees in the ITC easement that pose a threat to the power lines will be removed. Trees growing outside and adjacent to ITC rights of way, and posing a safety or reliability threat, will be pruned to the edge of our rights of way. Shrubs and hedges that do not threaten the lines are not being removed at this time, but might be in the future.”

2009 http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/04/06/news/sr v0000005058838.txt?viewmode=fullstory Tree-cutting spat goes to court Clinton Township, Michigan (April, 2009) Power company position: Claimed that cutting 355 trees on properties belonging to 70 homeowners is more cost effective than just trimming them, and that federal mandates require them to manage vegetation that could cause power outages and subject them to fines as much as $1 million. The company actually thought it was making concessions to the city by offering them $10,000 to purchase of replacement trees and using an approved chemical to prevent stumps from growing back.

Township’s position/action: According to township treasurer Bill Sowerby: "We feel this company is not being a good steward of the land. They can and should do so much more."

Township attorney John Dolan said: "They seem to be on a

Page 16

path of wanting to cut down any trees under their power lines even if the trees presently can't interfere with the lines. We don't feel that's appropriate." Because the power company refused to consider alternatives, the city decided to file suit to block the utility company’s plan. While trees have been targeted and removed in neighboring communities, this is a city’s first attempt to use the courts to block the clearcutting that will harm the aesthetics of the Edison Corridor.  http://www.hometownbowie.com/content/aggressive-treetrimming-intolerable-utility-poles-bge-still-concern-residents Aggressive tree trimming, intolerable utility poles by BGE still a concern for residents Bowie, Maryland (April, 2009)

2008 http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/record.htm l Trees lose in power play Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (January, 2008) Power company position: Federal guidelines require power companies to clear all trees/vegetation that can potentially grow taller than 15 feet below and alongside high voltage transmission lines (requirement does not pertain to vegetation below distribution lines).

Property owners: Anguish over the loss of decades-old trees.

Believe that power lines can be protected without removing all the trees. 

2007 http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/courier_ne ws.html Bridgewater residents tell state: Stay away from trees Bridgewater, New Jersey (June, 2007) Power company (PSE&G) position: The ability to deliver safe and reliable service depends on proper clearance in transmission right-of-ways. The more power that surges thru a line, the more the line can sag, some as much as 18 feet, and contact trees, which contributes to blackouts. Mandated by Board of Public Utilities to remove trees under high voltage lines that can potentially grow taller than 3 feet and those along the edge of the power company’s right of way that could grow taller than 15 feet.

Property owner concerns/effects: All trees were removed so that backyard is destroyed, looks like tornado went through.

These trees were not doing anything to the wires, so why are they being cut?  http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/hunderdon _review.html Readington concerned about clear-cutting by utility company: Utility company says it must abide by stricter regulations Readington Township, New Jersey (June, 2007) Power company action/rationale: Large trees that had previously just been cut back under the previous regulations have been removed to increase the width of clear-cut areas in easements and comply with stricter regulations. Because of line sag that results from ice, wind or high temperatures, vegetation that could grow to within 15 feet of the line is removed. In actuality, large-scale clear cutting ranged from 90 feet to 180 feet, and nearly 300 feet in certain areas.

Township position: Committee members and police tried unsuccessfully to stop the clear-cutting and devastation that resulted by clear-cutting a wooded area.

http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/record_508.html BPU will rethink tree-felling rules near power lines May, 2008



The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities will revisit its vegetation management policy and hold public hearings, but warned that not all trees could be saved because of FERC mandates on utility companies. Its current plan came under fire throughout New Jersey as residents tried to save hundreds of trees in the Rockland Electric Co. transmission corridor.

http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/star_ledger .html As utility crews wield their saws, tree-loving residents make a stand Bridgewater, New Jersey (September, 2007) Power company action/position: PSE&G was emboldened by a newly-adopted Board of Public Utilities policy based on FERC right-of-way standards to clear cut trees to keep them from making contact with electric lines. "They used to just trim the trees. Then one day, they just came and took everything."

 http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/raritanvalley/bpu/record_603.html Neighbors angry after PSE&G fells dozens of trees Little Falls, New Jersey (June, 2008) Power company position: PSE&G has the responsibility to provide safe, reliable service and comply with state and federal regulations. The power company’s interpretation of these regulations was to remove any vegetation below the wires that might grow taller than 3 feet and any tree along the edge of the lines that might grow taller than 15 feet.

Property owners: Properties have changed from a canopy of trees to stumps and sawdust, resulting in about 144 complains to the state BPU since 2007. "Every time I look over there, I could cry." The mayor claimed that the town can do nothing because of the state/federal regulations. "There is nothing we can do."

Property owners: Acting in a haphazard, unreasonable way rows of trees that once sheltered homes were cleared with disastrous results. Gone now are 150-year old beeches, old cherries, vegetation around environmentally-sensitive waterways, and clusters of trees in a woodland supposedly protected by a state grant. Woodland removal has left the area looking like a war zone and impacted water quality and storm water runoff.

Residents and local officials claim the utility is going overboard, and that vegetation management "does not require absolute clearing or clear-cutting that leaves the area blighted." While appearing amenable towards their concerns, the BPU’s basic attitude was “We do anything we want.”

2011-2012 Missouri Trees Matter / Missouri Trees Alliance Page 17



"They used to just trim the trees. Then one day, they just came and took everything."

CLEAR-CUTTING IN MISSOURI CONTENTS 1. It’s open season on trees and property rights in rural Missouri—They can now remove 30, 50, 75 feet or even more of your trees on both sides of a power line.

(Read this page if you read nothing else.) [pg 2]

2. Summary/analysis of the clear-cutting law being used in Missouri [pg 3]

3. Here’s what we think is wrong with this law:  Utilities have been given unchecked powers [pg 4]  Property rights, property values, and the environment are at risk [pg 5]

4. Our experience (with photos) [pg 6-7]

5. Where else is this happening? [pg 8]

6. What can be done? [pg 9]

7. How Missouri’s trees improve our quality-of-life (according to the research) [pg 1112]

8. What are the national mandates and guidelines for tree-trimming? [pg 13]

9. Sources, summaries/analyses of tree benefits and clear cutting around the nation [pg 14-17]