[CANUFNET] Hydro topping

Wed May 13 19:39:43 EDT 2015

Hi Shelley,
Sorry to hear the utility is less than cooperative.

1) In my experience there is a document called the "Municipal Access Agreement" between the Municipality and the Utility that spells out certain conditions and responsibilities. If, in the agreement there is a standards or accepted practice on tree matters or, if there is a clause that refers to a pruning policy by the municipality, it could guide the discussion. These are usually reviewed every 5 to 10 years and updated by both parties. Public Utilities Coordinating Committee, PUCC or Engineering Section administer this usually or refer to it.

2) If the trees are on the Municipal ROW, it does cause some concern respecting the liability that they introduce by potentially damaging the trees to a point of mortality. .....at the cost to the municipality to deal with. As a good corporate citizen exempt from any municipal bylaws, they should still meet the spirit of the bylaw and pruning policies of the Municipality according to good Arboricultural practices which can be presented from many sources.

3) Are the new screen plantings we are talking about, on private lands at the owners cost and not the utilities?

4) Respecting the liability of kids climbing the trees...if the trees are limbed up and there is more than 7 feet of clearance between the exposed conductor and the top of the tree...it should not be an issue.

5) Yes, conifers planted under hydro lines on municipal property by the owners contravenes common sense and maybe the municipal bylaw. If the owners are approached by the utility to see if there are amiable to removal on municipal lands and replanting  on private property now..it could help reduce the unsightly and detrimental pruning, increase compliance and resolve on going maintenance issues. Also, in certain circumstances it can improve visibility for road users. This then puts the onus on the good corporate citizen utility to reduce negative attention to this issue and educate the homeowners at the same time possibly in conjunction with municipal staff on appropriate planting locations.

Ontario Hydro ran a similar tree replacement program, if I remember in the early 1990's to remove trees under wires and replanting at the utility cost with collaboration with the property owner.

The experience related to Spruce was very limited when I was in the municipal field and we usually in the urban setting found the Spruces  under wires to be liability in the urban road allowance for site lines and safety. Generally if the owner agreed and the condition of the tree was fair to poor we would remove and replant elsewhere on the ROW with other species. 
In some cases our traffic staff would find these situations on occasion for Forestry follow-up.

Hope this helps from my past municipal experience.
Regards,
Peter Wynnyczuk

From: SVescio at thunderbay.ca
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 18:03:48 +0000
Subject: [CANUFNET] Hydro topping

Good morning,
There are two issues that I am currently dealing with and would dearly appreciate help/advice with.  They are a bit complicated so I will send them out in two separate e-mails because they are a bit lengthy, I’m afraid.

We are in a struggle with our local hydro utility over the issue of topping.  It was a practice they stopped many years ago when a forester with an urban forestry appreciation was hired to run their line clearing operations
 but was initiated again when a new forester took over recently.  The rationale for returning to the practice is that it allows homeowners (generally in the rural areas) time to plant trees on their own properties which will grow large enough to provide screening
 by the time the utility returns to remove the topped ones in 7-10 years.  The trees involved are generally conifers and we are opposed to this practice for the obvious arboricultural reasons but for a number of other reasons as well.  There are hundreds of
 these trees on municipal ROW’s that were planted by homeowners and allowing them to be topped would give the impression that the City condones this practice.  It took us years to educate the public as to why topping is bad and this would set us back a couple
 of decades.  Another reason is that if a 7-10 year line clearing cycle cannot be attained, this opens the City up to liability for trees that are dying or growing limbs that can be climbed by kids which are within proximity to the wires. 

We have instructed Hydro to not top trees on City-owned property but one of our city councilors has put forward a resolution to allow them to do so.   I can understand why homeowners are upset about the removal of their
 screens but we feel that we cannot condone this practice, even in the short term.  I now have to write a report to Council explaining the rationale of why we expect trees to be removed rather than topped.

Has anyone gone through a similar situation?  I welcome any advice you can provide, even if you disagree with our position. Thanks.

My apologizes to members of both the SMA and Canufnet discussions groups for duplication of this request for information.

Shelley

Shelley Vescio RPF
City Forester
City of Thunder Bay Parks Division
111 Syndicate Ave. South
Thunder Bay, ON
P7E 6S4
work (807) 625-2473
fax (807) 625-3258
www.thunderbay.ca/urbanforestry

The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
 message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20150513/b631956c/attachment.html>