APS clearcutting the dessert... (1 Viewer)

Joined
May 13, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Greg's place
 
 
 
 
Well... mabye not. Seems that they dont have much of a choice. This is a hard line to stand on either way... While I agree that it sux, I can also see the APS side of it, in that it is the most cost effective way to follow the FED guidlines with the least amount of cost being passed on to the end user. Hmmm... I must go ponder for a while...


http://www.nerc.com/files/F...
Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program
Adopted by NERC Board of Trustees: February 7, 2006 1 of 5
Effective Date: April 7, 2006
A. Introduction
1. Title: Transmission Vegetation Management Program
2. Number: FAC-003-1
3. Purpose: To improve the reliability of the electric transmission systems by preventing
outages from vegetation located on transmission rights-of-way (ROW) and minimizing
outages from vegetation located adjacent to ROW, maintaining clearances between
transmission lines and vegetation on and along transmission ROW, and reporting vegetationrelated
outages of the transmission systems to the respective Regional Reliability
Organizations (RRO) and the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).
4. Applicability:
4.1. Transmission Owner.
4.2. Regional Reliability Organization.
4.3. This standard shall apply to all transmission lines operated at 200 kV and above and to
any lower voltage lines designated by the RRO as critical to the reliability of the
electric system in the region.
5. Effective Dates:
5.1. One calendar year from the date of adoption by the NERC Board of Trustees for
Requirements 1 and 2.
5.2. Sixty calendar days from the date of adoption by the NERC Board of Trustees for
Requirements 3 and 4.
B. Requirements
R1. The Transmission Owner shall prepare, and keep current, a formal transmission vegetation
management program (TVMP). The TVMP shall include the Transmission Owner’s
objectives, practices, approved procedures, and work specifications1.
R1.1. The TVMP shall define a schedule for and the type (aerial, ground) of ROW vegetation
inspections. This schedule should be flexible enough to adjust for changing
conditions. The inspection schedule shall be based on the anticipated growth of
vegetation and any other environmental or operational factors that could impact the
relationship of vegetation to the Transmission Owner’s transmission lines.
R1.2. The Transmission Owner, in the TVMP, shall identify and document clearances
between vegetation and any overhead, ungrounded supply conductors, taking into
consideration transmission line voltage, the effects of ambient temperature on
conductor sag under maximum design loading, and the effects of wind velocities on
conductor sway. Specifically, the Transmission Owner shall establish clearances to be
achieved at the time of vegetation management work identified herein as Clearance 1,
and shall also establish and maintain a set of clearances identified herein as Clearance
2 to prevent flashover between vegetation and overhead ungrounded supply
conductors.
R1.2.1. Clearance 1 — The Transmission Owner shall determine and document
appropriate clearance distances to be achieved at the time of transmission
vegetation management work based upon local conditions and the expected
time frame in which the Transmission Owner plans to return for future
1 ANSI A300, Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices, while
not a requirement of this standard, is considered to be an industry best practice.
Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program
Adopted by NERC Board of Trustees: February 7, 2006 2 of 5
Effective Date: April 7, 2006
vegetation management work. Local conditions may include, but are not
limited to: operating voltage, appropriate vegetation management techniques,
fire risk, reasonably anticipated tree and conductor movement, species types
and growth rates, species failure characteristics, local climate and rainfall
patterns, line terrain and elevation, location of the vegetation within the span,
and worker approach distance requirements. Clearance 1 distances shall be
greater than those defined by Clearance 2 below.
R1.2.2. Clearance 2 — The Transmission Owner shall determine and document
specific radial clearances to be maintained between vegetation and conductors
under all rated electrical operating conditions. These minimum clearance
distances are necessary to prevent flashover between vegetation and
conductors and will vary due to such factors as altitude and operating voltage.
These Transmission Owner-specific minimum clearance distances shall be no
less than those set forth in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 516-2003 (Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energized
Power Lines) and as specified in its Section 4.2.2.3, Minimum Air Insulation
Distances without Tools in the Air Gap.
R1.2.2.1 Where transmission system transient overvoltage factors are not
known, clearances shall be derived from Table 5, IEEE 516-2003,
phase-to-ground distances, with appropriate altitude correction
factors applied.
R1.2.2.2 Where transmission system transient overvoltage factors are
known, clearances shall be derived from Table 7, IEEE 516-2003,
phase-to-phase voltages, with appropriate altitude correction
factors applied.
R1.3. All personnel directly involved in the design and implementation of the TVMP shall
hold appropriate qualifications and training, as defined by the Transmission Owner, to
perform their duties.
R1.4. Each Transmission Owner shall develop mitigation measures to achieve sufficient
clearances for the protection of the transmission facilities when it identifies locations
on the ROW where the Transmission Owner is restricted from attaining the clearances
specified in Requirement 1.2.1.
R1.5. Each Transmission Owner shall establish and document a process for the immediate
communication of vegetation conditions that present an imminent threat of a
transmission line outage. This is so that action (temporary reduction in line rating,
switching line out of service, etc.) may be taken until the threat is relieved.
R2. The Transmission Owner shall create and implement an annual plan for vegetation
management work to ensure the reliability of the system. The plan shall describe the methods
used, such as manual clearing, mechanical clearing, herbicide treatment, or other actions. The
plan should be flexible enough to adjust to changing conditions, taking into consideration
anticipated growth of vegetation and all other environmental factors that may have an impact
on the reliability of the transmission systems. Adjustments to the plan shall be documented as
they occur. The plan should take into consideration the time required to obtain permissions or
permits from landowners or regulatory authorities. Each Transmission Owner shall have
systems and procedures for documenting and tracking the planned vegetation management
work and ensuring that the vegetation management work was completed according to work
specifications.
Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program
Adopted by NERC Board of Trustees: February 7, 2006 3 of 5
Effective Date: April 7, 2006
R3. The Transmission Owner shall report quarterly to its RRO, or the RRO’s designee, sustained
transmission line outages determined by the Transmission Owner to have been caused by
vegetation.
R3.1. Multiple sustained outages on an individual line, if caused by the same vegetation,
shall be reported as one outage regardless of the actual number of outages within a 24-
hour period.
R3.2. The Transmission Owner is not required to report to the RRO, or the RRO’s designee,
certain sustained transmission line outages caused by vegetation: (1) Vegetationrelated
outages that result from vegetation falling into lines from outside the ROW that
result from natural disasters shall not be considered reportable (examples of disasters
that could create non-reportable outages include, but are not limited to, earthquakes,
fires, tornados, hurricanes, landslides, wind shear, major storms as defined either by
the Transmission Owner or an applicable regulatory body, ice storms, and floods), and
(2) Vegetation-related outages due to human or animal activity shall not be considered
reportable (examples of human or animal activity that could cause a non-reportable
outage include, but are not limited to, logging, animal severing tree, vehicle contact
with tree, arboricultural activities or horticultural or agricultural activities, or removal
or digging of vegetation).
R3.3. The outage information provided by the Transmission Owner to the RRO, or the
RRO’s designee, shall include at a minimum: the name of the circuit(s) outaged, the
date, time and duration of the outage; a description of the cause of the outage; other
pertinent comments; and any countermeasures taken by the Transmission Owner.
R3.4. An outage shall be categorized as one of the following:
R3.4.1. Category 1 — Grow-ins: Outages caused by vegetation growing into lines
from vegetation inside and/or outside of the ROW;
R3.4.2. Category 2 — Fall-ins: Outages caused by vegetation falling into lines from
inside the ROW;
R3.4.3. Category 3 — Fall-ins: Outages caused by vegetation falling into lines from
outside the ROW.
R4. The RRO shall report the outage information provided to it by Transmission Owner’s, as
required by Requirement 3, quarterly to NERC, as well as any actions taken by the RRO as a
result of any of the reported outages.
C. Measures
M1. The Transmission Owner has a documented TVMP, as identified in Requirement 1.
M1.1. The Transmission Owner has documentation that the Transmission Owner performed
the vegetation inspections as identified in Requirement 1.1.
M1.2. The Transmission Owner has documentation that describes the clearances identified in
Requirement 1.2.
M1.3. The Transmission Owner has documentation that the personnel directly involved in the
design and implementation of the Transmission Owner’s TVMP hold the qualifications
identified by the Transmission Owner as required in Requirement 1.3.
M1.4. The Transmission Owner has documentation that it has identified any areas not
meeting the Transmission Owner’s standard for vegetation management and any
mitigating measures the Transmission Owner has taken to address these deficiencies as
identified in Requirement 1.4.
Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program
Adopted by NERC Board of Trustees: February 7, 2006 4 of 5
Effective Date: April 7, 2006
M1.5. The Transmission Owner has a documented process for the immediate communication
of imminent threats by vegetation as identified in Requirement 1.5.
M2. The Transmission Owner has documentation that the Transmission Owner implemented the
work plan identified in Requirement 2.
M3. The Transmission Owner has documentation that it has supplied quarterly outage reports to
the RRO, or the RRO’s designee, as identified in Requirement 3.
M4. The RRO has documentation that it provided quarterly outage reports to NERC as identified in
Requirement 4.
D. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Monitoring Responsibility
RRO
NERC
1.2. Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset
One calendar Year
1.3. Data Retention
Five Years
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
The Transmission Owner shall demonstrate compliance through self-certification
submitted to the compliance monitor (RRO) annually that it meets the requirements of
NERC Reliability Standard FAC-003-1. The compliance monitor shall conduct an onsite
audit every five years or more frequently as deemed appropriate by the compliance
monitor to review documentation related to Reliability Standard FAC-003-1. Field
audits of ROW vegetation conditions may be conducted if determined to be necessary
by the compliance monitor.
2. Levels of Non-Compliance
2.1. Level 1:
2.1.1. The TVMP was incomplete in one of the requirements specified in any
subpart of Requirement 1, or;
2.1.2. Documentation of the annual work plan, as specified in Requirement 2, was
incomplete when presented to the Compliance Monitor during an on-site
audit, or;
2.1.3. The RRO provided an outage report to NERC that was incomplete and did not
contain the information required in Requirement 4.
2.2. Level 2:
2.2.1. The TVMP was incomplete in two of the requirements specified in any
subpart of Requirement 1, or;
2.2.2. The Transmission Owner was unable to certify during its annual selfcertification
that it fully implemented its annual work plan, or documented
deviations from, as specified in Requirement 2.
2.2.3. The Transmission Owner reported one Category 2 transmission vegetationrelated
outage in a calendar year.
Standard FAC-003-1 — Transmission Vegetation Management Program
Adopted by NERC Board of Trustees: February 7, 2006 5 of 5
Effective Date: April 7, 2006
2.3. Level 3:
2.3.1. The Transmission Owner reported one Category 1 or multiple Category 2
transmission vegetation-related outages in a calendar year, or;
2.3.2. The Transmission Owner did not maintain a set of clearances (Clearance 2),
as defined in Requirement 1.2.2, to prevent flashover between vegetation
and overhead ungrounded supply conductors, or;
2.3.3. The TVMP was incomplete in three of the requirements specified in any
subpart of Requirement 1.
2.4. Level 4:
2.4.1. The Transmission Owner reported more than one Category 1 transmission
vegetation-related outage in a calendar year, or;
2.4.2. The TVMP was incomplete in four or more of the requirements specified in
any subpart of Requirement 1.
E. Regional Differences
None Identified.
Version History
Version Date Action Change Tracking
Version 1 TBA 1. Added “Standard Development
Roadmap.”
2. Changed “60” to “Sixty” in section A,
5.2.
3. Added “Proposed Effective Date: April
7, 2006” to footer.
4. Added “Draft 3: November 17, 2005” to
footer.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,130
 
 
This is long enough to hide anything behind rules, and also long enough to contain enough possibilities to lobby for exemptions if anyone wanted... :D

Just outta curiosity: Anyone ever seen how a Saguaro looks like after one of those presumed shorts? Is it still a Saguaro?
 
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,870
Location
Phoenix
 
 
 
The ones we saw looked like saguaros chopped off. We didn't see the ones they shredded- presumably because there was nothing left to see. We did see a lot of shredded trees and bushes.

-Spike
 
Joined
May 13, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Greg's place
 
 
 
 
It's just an assumption but I would assume it would look alot like a Saguaro that was struck by lightning a few times. At that point, the issue becomes the stability of the power grid. Again, I'm torn with my feelings about this practice, now that Im learning more about why it happens.
 

splitshot

Head cook, Bottle washer, and Peace keeper.
SILVER Star
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
7,579
Location
Rodent Central, Az
 
 
The survival rate on transplanting the large ones is low. I remember the one they moved 30 feet in Oro Valley that cost thousands of taxpayer dollars. It was struck buy lightning about 6 months later and died.
 
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,870
Location
Phoenix
 
 
 
i know its expensive and hard to move those giant saguaros cactus but it would have been nice if they tried
I just hope they take this into account when they build new power lines. Budget transplantation into the job.

-Spike
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
4,372
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
 
 
Most of those saguaros were there long before the powerlines. They have grown maybe two feet since. Now they are suddenly a problem? WTF:mad:
 

splitshot

Head cook, Bottle washer, and Peace keeper.
SILVER Star
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
7,579
Location
Rodent Central, Az
 
 
That stretch of highway 77 between Winkleman and Dripping springs is trashing alot of saguaros on the road widening project. Apparently, these salvage permits aren't being picked up. What really torques one's shorts, if you were to go load one up, if you got caught, you'd pay a hefty fine. But the state lets the contractor mow them down.:frown:
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
4,372
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
 
 
I don't necessarily have a problem with saguaros being sacrificed when its warranted. In this case, they have coexisted peacefully for years. If they were a problem, they should have been removed when the powerlines were installed. Now they have to roll heavy construction equipment into relatively virgin desert to eliminate the "risk."

I smell a rat. Either there is some new jacked up regulations, or someone is making big money, somehow. Either way, I doubt it has anything to do with saguaros.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
617
Location
Clarkdale/flagstaff
at the bottom of camp creek wash (11mile wash near needle rock) under the power lines 100feet down from the bottom of tower the bushes are mowed down bet it was a sub contractor getting paid by the foot
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,219
Location
Prescott Valley, AZ
I love to clearcut dessert. With a high-speed metabolism, I love chocolate cake most! With ice cream!Clearing dessert is my best talent! I have yet to find a calorie in any food group. Don't hate me for that!

When it comes to clearing a stand of saguaros, I have some problems. It takes 100 years to grow a decent cactus. We won't be here to see these trees replaced, if they ever will be.
Last I heard, people were in line to transplant these cacti. Developers will pay top dollar to put them in front yards. The standing saguaro is the pillar of Arizona.
Are we in such a state of beauracracy that we cannot find buyers for at least some of these plants? When we ran the natural gas pipe to the Prescott area, we disturbed thousands of acres of desert, (not dessert). Most of the saguaros were either moved to housing areas as landscape, or replaced as re-foliage. Huge acreage was re-planted. It is not that hard. We did it! The pipeline is not even completed yet the desert has begun to reclaim the disturbed land. It can be done. By the time that the pipe is usable, much of the disturbed land will be well on the way to recovery.
What is the difference with power lines? They need to be above the plants. The highest plants in the lower elevations are 100 feet. Main power lines are higher. Where is the problem?
 

Cantinero

Yo soy un pirata!
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
712
Location
A Third World Cantina
 
 
 
I saw this story reported on the CH 12 news before the Super Bowl coverage started. "APS has suspended this practice and is reviewing these proceedures", according to their spokesman. In other words we're gonna take a break from this until everyone's focus turns to other environmental issues and then we're gonna go right back to doing what we were doing before the tree huggers got involved.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,219
Location
Prescott Valley, AZ
Screw the tree huggers. I can accept the sacrifice of a tree here and there. But it takes 100 years to grow a decent cactus. Desert fauna recovers much more slowly than does fauna in wetter areas. In New England, a destroyed area will recover in 20-30 years. But in the desert, the same level of recovery will take 100 years. Desert plants just grow that much slower. When we disturb the desert, we have a responsibility to help the process along as best as we can. It is the least that we can do.
 
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,385
Location
Chandler, AZ
 
Screw the tree huggers. I can accept the sacrifice of a tree here and there. But it takes 100 years to grow a decent cactus. Desert fauna recovers much more slowly than does fauna in wetter areas. In New England, a destroyed area will recover in 20-30 years. But in the desert, the same level of recovery will take 100 years. Desert plants just grow that much slower. When we disturb the desert, we have a responsibility to help the process along as best as we can. It is the least that we can do.
What about the Flora?:D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom