Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Stop massive and possibly illegal statewide tree cutting by PG&E!
Today the Valley Women's Club of San Lorenzo Valley issued a new call to action to stop Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) from unnecessarily destroying 12 to 24-foot-wide swaths of trees and shrubs along over 6,000 miles of pressured gas pipeline in California, such as the area along Graham Hill Road in Santa Cruz County. After creating their first petition in June, the VWC Environmental Committee has created a new petition on Change.org, stating, "Please help circulate this to as many folks as quickly as possible - this will only get the attention of the state reps if we can get into the thousands (or hopefully tens of thousands!) of signatures." Sign the new petition here: https://www.change.org/p/bill-monning-stop-devastating-and-unmonitored-tree-cutting-by-pg-e-in-california
Full text of the petition:
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is unnecessarily destroying 12 to 24-foot-wide swaths of trees and shrubs along over 6,000 miles of pressured gas pipeline. Please add your voice to stop their ill-conceived and potentially illegal project, already in progress!
PG&E has begun known as their “Community Pipeline Safety Initiative” an extensive undertaking already destroying thousands of trees along with other vegetation, and promising the destruction of many thousands more along its 6,750-mile high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline in California -- to allegedly "improve emergency access and safety”.
PG&E has only done only internal analyses to justify this on-going destruction of thousands of trees statewide in California. Significantly, PG&E has started this work without any outside environmental impact assessments and/or environmental impact reports made available for public comment, that would be required of any other entity undertaking such a project.
We already have evidence in Santa Cruz County that PG&E's internal analysis, identifying the trees and shrubs to be eliminated, has significant errors including mis-identifying targeted trees, and failing to note rare species to be destroyed, such as Shreve Oak and the unique low-elevation Ponderosa Pines of Santa Cruz County’s protected Sand Hills.
Research indicates that the only substantiated reason for this mass destruction is likely merely for PG&E’s “convenience”, to facilitate PG&E using questionable and possibly illegal methods of repairing pipeline leaks. PG&E claims that digging through living tree roots slows down access to leaking pipelines, which affects PG&E’s preferred (and probably much more dangerous) method of making repairs while gas is still leaking under pressure (a process, that in most instances is illegal since Federal regulations [49 CFR 192.615] requires, if there is danger to life or property, that gas be shut off; a practice which if adhered to would permit plenty of time to access pipes for repairs making tree-removal unnecessary.)
It would be catastrophic for the State to continue to permit this massive destruction of miles of trees, lining city streets and going through rural and remote areas, to proceed based solely on PG&E’s flawed internal data and analysis. Even worse, this is occurring at a time when California is losing untold number of trees due to the drought. This is not a time when we can afford to be reckless in cutting trees that add to property values, provide oxygen and shade, remove pollutants and provide important habitat.
While we appreciate that PG&E needs the ability to maintain, inspect and operate its system safely, the measures PG&E takes must also abide by the State’s existing environmental laws and be transparent to the public. Moreover, its measures must take into account ALL aspects of public safety to prevent unintended consequences from erosion to soil destabilization, undermining pipelines and exacerbating leaks and breaks, that will occur from such massive tree destruction.
There are valid reasons to question the rationale that PG&E has used in concluding the trees are even a significant threat at all to the transmission lines. Research indicates that living tree roots perform a beneficial role along gas transmission lines, stabilizing and protecting the pipeline, especially in erosive soils and along earthquake faults and surrounding areas.
This is a Statewide issue and that is why we urgently need your assistance to intervene at the State level.
PG&E has already started cutting the trees. There is absolutely NO reason for them to be allowed to continue.
This petition requests that the our State representatives demand that the CPUC put an immediate stop to any and all tree cutting by PG&E until this initiative can be further assessed and proper oversight can be established!
Sign the new petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/bill-monning-stop-devastating-and-unmonitored-tree-cutting-by-pg-e-in-california
In May, PG&E gave a public presentation on the tree removal project in Santa Cruz County, which was facilitated by Supervisor McPherson. View videos of the presentation:
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 1
https://youtu.be/lXPea75yYnQ
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 2
https://youtu.be/LowXIxW2djc
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 3
https://youtu.be/bkpLadyFIgc
Valley Women's Club of San Lorenzo Valley
http://www.valleywomensclub.com/
https://www.facebook.com/valleywomensclub/
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is unnecessarily destroying 12 to 24-foot-wide swaths of trees and shrubs along over 6,000 miles of pressured gas pipeline. Please add your voice to stop their ill-conceived and potentially illegal project, already in progress!
PG&E has begun known as their “Community Pipeline Safety Initiative” an extensive undertaking already destroying thousands of trees along with other vegetation, and promising the destruction of many thousands more along its 6,750-mile high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline in California -- to allegedly "improve emergency access and safety”.
PG&E has only done only internal analyses to justify this on-going destruction of thousands of trees statewide in California. Significantly, PG&E has started this work without any outside environmental impact assessments and/or environmental impact reports made available for public comment, that would be required of any other entity undertaking such a project.
We already have evidence in Santa Cruz County that PG&E's internal analysis, identifying the trees and shrubs to be eliminated, has significant errors including mis-identifying targeted trees, and failing to note rare species to be destroyed, such as Shreve Oak and the unique low-elevation Ponderosa Pines of Santa Cruz County’s protected Sand Hills.
Research indicates that the only substantiated reason for this mass destruction is likely merely for PG&E’s “convenience”, to facilitate PG&E using questionable and possibly illegal methods of repairing pipeline leaks. PG&E claims that digging through living tree roots slows down access to leaking pipelines, which affects PG&E’s preferred (and probably much more dangerous) method of making repairs while gas is still leaking under pressure (a process, that in most instances is illegal since Federal regulations [49 CFR 192.615] requires, if there is danger to life or property, that gas be shut off; a practice which if adhered to would permit plenty of time to access pipes for repairs making tree-removal unnecessary.)
It would be catastrophic for the State to continue to permit this massive destruction of miles of trees, lining city streets and going through rural and remote areas, to proceed based solely on PG&E’s flawed internal data and analysis. Even worse, this is occurring at a time when California is losing untold number of trees due to the drought. This is not a time when we can afford to be reckless in cutting trees that add to property values, provide oxygen and shade, remove pollutants and provide important habitat.
While we appreciate that PG&E needs the ability to maintain, inspect and operate its system safely, the measures PG&E takes must also abide by the State’s existing environmental laws and be transparent to the public. Moreover, its measures must take into account ALL aspects of public safety to prevent unintended consequences from erosion to soil destabilization, undermining pipelines and exacerbating leaks and breaks, that will occur from such massive tree destruction.
There are valid reasons to question the rationale that PG&E has used in concluding the trees are even a significant threat at all to the transmission lines. Research indicates that living tree roots perform a beneficial role along gas transmission lines, stabilizing and protecting the pipeline, especially in erosive soils and along earthquake faults and surrounding areas.
This is a Statewide issue and that is why we urgently need your assistance to intervene at the State level.
PG&E has already started cutting the trees. There is absolutely NO reason for them to be allowed to continue.
This petition requests that the our State representatives demand that the CPUC put an immediate stop to any and all tree cutting by PG&E until this initiative can be further assessed and proper oversight can be established!
Sign the new petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/bill-monning-stop-devastating-and-unmonitored-tree-cutting-by-pg-e-in-california
In May, PG&E gave a public presentation on the tree removal project in Santa Cruz County, which was facilitated by Supervisor McPherson. View videos of the presentation:
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 1
https://youtu.be/lXPea75yYnQ
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 2
https://youtu.be/LowXIxW2djc
PG&E Graham Hill Road Tree Plan - Part 3
https://youtu.be/bkpLadyFIgc
Valley Women's Club of San Lorenzo Valley
http://www.valleywomensclub.com/
https://www.facebook.com/valleywomensclub/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Last October, Governor Brown issued an emergency order due to the continuing drought and the huge number of dead or dying trees in California's forests. One clause in the order statutorily exempted tree removal from CEQA and all associated state laws and regulations.
PG&E and the other utilities have been partnering with other state agencies (the lead being Cal Fire) and federal land holders such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The counties have been leading this effort in most if not all cases.
PG&E and the other utilities have been partnering with other state agencies (the lead being Cal Fire) and federal land holders such as the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The counties have been leading this effort in most if not all cases.
Here's Gov. Brown's order regarding tree removal and a couple of relevant paragraphs:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/10.30.15_Tree_Mortality_State_of_Emergency.pdf
"2. State agencies, utilities [like PG&E], and local governments to the extent required by their existing responsibilities to protect the public health and safety, shall undertake efforts to remove dead or dying trees in these high hazard zones that threaten power lines, roads and other evacuation corridors, critical community infrastructure [like gas pipelines], and other existing structures. Incidental vegetation such as shrubs [not healthy trees] that restrict access for safe and efficient removal of the dead and dying trees also may be removed...
"15. For purposes of carrying out directives 1, 2 [quoted above], and 5 through 8, Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [CEQA] and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division are hereby suspended."
The order doesn't say CEQA is suspended for the purpose of removal of healthy trees.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/10.30.15_Tree_Mortality_State_of_Emergency.pdf
"2. State agencies, utilities [like PG&E], and local governments to the extent required by their existing responsibilities to protect the public health and safety, shall undertake efforts to remove dead or dying trees in these high hazard zones that threaten power lines, roads and other evacuation corridors, critical community infrastructure [like gas pipelines], and other existing structures. Incidental vegetation such as shrubs [not healthy trees] that restrict access for safe and efficient removal of the dead and dying trees also may be removed...
"15. For purposes of carrying out directives 1, 2 [quoted above], and 5 through 8, Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [CEQA] and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division are hereby suspended."
The order doesn't say CEQA is suspended for the purpose of removal of healthy trees.
James, how do you define healthy? Before my retirement, I was handling the environmental side of tree removal by Caltrans under the emergency order. Our landscape maintenance supervisors were reporting that each time they traveled into the mountains they saw more dead/dying trees. Our landscape architects concluded that if trees weren't diseased quite yet, they soon would be.
The order has been interpreted to authorize the removal of all trees within 200 feet of the roadway if they may pose a hazard. The counties and Cal Fire have been proceeding on that basis around the state.
As I mentioned in my initial comment, the public utilities have been cooperating in this statewide effort to reduce fire danger to infrastructure. They seem to be interpreting the emergency order the same way other agencies have. Literally millions of trees will be removed in California by this effort.
The order has been interpreted to authorize the removal of all trees within 200 feet of the roadway if they may pose a hazard. The counties and Cal Fire have been proceeding on that basis around the state.
As I mentioned in my initial comment, the public utilities have been cooperating in this statewide effort to reduce fire danger to infrastructure. They seem to be interpreting the emergency order the same way other agencies have. Literally millions of trees will be removed in California by this effort.
So how are the PG&E crews supposed to get at the pipes to do maintenance so you can have a washer and dryer in each an every home in the SLV like a chicken in every yuppie pot?
Also consider that PG&E uses any excuse to not maintain their infrastructure ... until it breaks, which brings two words to mind "San Bruno".
Listen. You live in an URBAN environment, with an URBAN lifestyle. Topo maps for the SLV., drawn in 19 fucking 65 show the SLV as an URBAN area because there people everyfuckingwhere in the valley. Even in 1965. It just LOOKS LIKE 'country'. Live with it. You're going to have cuts where the maintenance people who keep you in living a luxury lifestyle surrounded by the rest of the trees need to work.
Or you COULD go back to hand washing your clothes... and cooking over wood fires. Like REAL country people do even to this day.
Also consider that PG&E uses any excuse to not maintain their infrastructure ... until it breaks, which brings two words to mind "San Bruno".
Listen. You live in an URBAN environment, with an URBAN lifestyle. Topo maps for the SLV., drawn in 19 fucking 65 show the SLV as an URBAN area because there people everyfuckingwhere in the valley. Even in 1965. It just LOOKS LIKE 'country'. Live with it. You're going to have cuts where the maintenance people who keep you in living a luxury lifestyle surrounded by the rest of the trees need to work.
Or you COULD go back to hand washing your clothes... and cooking over wood fires. Like REAL country people do even to this day.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network