U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

26–875 WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–485 

AN EXAMINATION OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY ASSETS LOCATED ON FEDERAL LANDS, AND TO RECEIVE 

TESTIMONY ON SECTION 2310 OF S. 1460 

AND H.R. 1873 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

EXAMINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY ASSETS LOCATED ON FEDERAL LANDS AND TO RECEIVE 

TESTIMONY ON SECTION 2310 OF S. 1460, THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 2017, AND H.R. 1873, THE ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND FOREST PROTECTION ACT 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

KELLIE DONNELLY, Deputy Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

BRYAN PETIT, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 

SPENCER GRAY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana .............................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 5 

Ruhs, John, Acting Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................... 9 

Hayden, Mark C., General Manager, Missoula Electric Cooperative .................. 17 

Miller, Scott, Senior Regional Director, Southwest Region, The Wilderness 

Society ................................................................................................................... 30 

Rable, Andrew, Manager of Forestry and Special Programs, Arizona Public 

Service Company, on behalf of Edison Electric Institute ................................. 38 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Casamassa, Glenn: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 58 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Hayden, Mark C.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 17 

USDA Forest Service Notice of Indebtedness Letter for the Record ............ 18 

Benton Rural Electric Association Statement for the Record ....................... 23 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 26 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 70 

LaMalfa, Hon. Doug and Hon. Kurt Schrader: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 80 

Miller, Scott: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 30 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 32 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 73 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

NorthWestern Corporation, d/b/a NorthWestern Energy: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 81 
Page

IV 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 84 

Rable, Andrew: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 38 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 40 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 76 

Ruhs, John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 9 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 11 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 64 

Western Governors’ Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 88 

Letter to Hon. Rob Bishop and Hon. Raul Grijalva ....................................... 89 

Policy Resolution 2017–10 ............................................................................... 91 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=CF13EB5F-9A33-4FF8-AD65-25AAD698A628 
(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY 

ASSETS LOCATED ON FEDERAL LANDS AND 

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON SECTION 2310 

OF S. 1460, THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 2017, AND H.R. 1873, THE 

ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND FOREST 

PROTECTION ACT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:49 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be back in order as we begin 

the full Committee hearing. 

We are here to examine how the nation’s utilities and our federal 

land managers work together to keep the lights on and to prevent 

wildfires. 

We have certainly seen a lot of the wildfires in the news, certainly coming out of the State of Montana. It has been a tough, 

tough, tough season. 

To me, this hearing represents the intersection of the energy and 

natural resources components of our Committee’s jurisdiction. We 

can see that connection with our panelists. We have representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Arizona Public Service Company, the Missoula Electric 

Cooperative and The Wilderness Society with us here this morning. 

Welcome to each of you. 

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have reminded us of the terrible 

damage that hurricanes can inflict on power lines and the very real 

hardships that people face without electricity. 

I was just reading an article a couple days ago about the debate 

as to whether or not burying our utility lines can save us if we 

have hurricanes with high winds. Yes, it might, but then what happens when you have flooding? I think it is just a clear and direct 

reminder to us that natural disasters come in various forms and 
2 

the impact on our power generation is something that we need to 

know and understand and try to do everything that we can to ensure a level of resilience. 

We have also spent considerable time examining the ever-evolving cyber threat to our nation’s grid system. But it might surprise 

many to learn that the biggest danger that we might face in keeping the lights on is basic vegetation management around electricity 

transmission and distribution lines. 

Back in August 2003, a single tree falling into a power line in 

Ohio started a cascading East Coast blackout that left 50 million 

people without power and cost billions in damages. It was this 

blackout event that led to the creation of the Electric Reliability 

Organization in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the imposition 

of mandatory reliability standards, including a vegetation management standard on the utility industry. 

Failing to keep power lines free of vegetation and so-called hazard trees can also be a cause of wildfires which, again, have burned 

millions of acres in western states this year. With contact, a power 

line’s energy can transfer to the vegetation causing sparks and potentially fire. Hundreds of wildfires have started on federal lands 

in this way. 

Out West our federal forests are overstocked and stressed by prolonged drought, leaving millions of acres of dead and dying trees. 

And many of our Western forests are tinderboxes for wildfire and 

a result, while maybe predictable, is just absolutely devastating. 

Given these public safety concerns, utilities face federal, state 

and local requirements to maintain their lines. At the federal level, 

utilities are subject to fines of up to $1 million per day for ERO 

standard violations and are strictly liable for damages that occur 

on federal lands. 

So make no mistake, this is a significant undertaking. With 

90,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines located on federal lands, utilities must cooperate with federal resource agencies 

to conduct this important work in a time-sensitive manner. Unfortunately the Federal Government is not exactly known for its time 

sensitivity, and we often find inconsistent procedures among the 

various field offices. 

Still, under strict liability, a utility and, really, its customers, 

may have to pay for damages that were preventable. 

Both chambers now have legislation, which we are considering 

today, that aim to facilitate vegetation management activities on 

federal lands in order to enhance electric reliability and reduce 

wildfires. Senator Cantwell and I have included text in our energy 

and natural resources bill. The House has passed its own bill, H.R. 

1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, with 300 

votes from members on both sides of the aisle. I should note that 

then-Representative Zinke, now our Secretary of the Interior, sponsored the House bill in the last Congress, so I think we know that 

he, too, cares about this issue. 

The House and Senate measures seek to bring greater certainty 

and timeliness to the federal process. Both provide for emergency 

situations. While not identical, S. 1460 and H.R. 1873 direct the 

agencies to consider the categorical exclusion process for routine 
3 

vegetation management work and attempt to bring fairness to the 

liability question. 

These are significant issues, touching on electric system reliability, wildfire prevention, federal land management, regulatory 

compliance, and standards of liability. So, again, I want to thank 

our witnesses that are here to share their expertise with us as we 

consider them. 

Senator Cantwell, thank you for your interest in this, and your 

comments please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am glad we are holding this hearing to discuss real problems 

of the West, including the issues of wildfires and reducing blackouts. I also want to make sure that we are recognizing that we do 

need tools to continue to help us deal with some of the most devastating fire seasons that we have had over the last several years. 

Earlier this month, when the fire season normally is coming to 

a close in Washington, most of Seattle awoke to find their cars covered with ash. So I am working with the Senators here and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, and others on what we call ‘‘fixing the 

fire-borrowing problem’’ and to proactively, under the pine pilot, 

help us do better forest management treatment. 

I also want to make sure that we are looking at smart ways to 

help when fighting fires and when dealing with blackouts, and we 

are going to hear from many experts today about that. I still remember the blackout of the Northwest in 1996, and there are many 

issues related to it and other blackouts. 

Operating our electricity grid has some inherent risks, but we 

need to make sure that these risks are minimized. 

In the energy bill that Senator Murkowski and I put together, we 

included language to encourage the Forest Service and BLM to coordinate better with utilities. Our bill encourages utilities to develop a comprehensive management plan for vegetation, to expedite 

reviews by the Forest Service and BLM, and to make clear that 

trees posing an imminent threat to power lines can be cut immediately, with no prior approval needed. We apply the same liability 

standard that oil and natural gas pipelines receive on federal lands 

to power lines. 

On the other hand, the House bill, I think, has some problems. 

For example, it waives all environmental review for major cuts in 

rights-of-way. It also waives liability for utilities in some cases, 

even when they are grossly negligent. 

These issues are incredibly important to get right. I know that 

we can get them right. I am so pleased that we just passed out of 

the Senate the Sandy bill, which was, I consider, a related issue— 

that is FEMA’s ability to get lifesaving communications up and 

running after a disaster. These communications are critical to first 

responders affected by communities during disaster recovery. We 

know that phone service, broadband and TV access are critical to 

saving lives and protecting property. This Sandy Act paves the way 

for communities to restore those communications and respond more 

quickly, certainly with the help of FEMA, and we know that this 
4 

is one of the additional challenges we see when transmission lines 

burn up during a fire and then we have no communication system. 

We need new tools to fight fires. That is clear, and we need tools 

to minimize our risk. 

I look forward to hearing from our colleagues. There are ways to 

address this, and I think my colleagues and I have worked on 

those. We would hope our House colleagues would become more serious about the recently passed Senate Energy bill and resolve 

many, many issues, including this one. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Again, a welcome to you, gentlemen. 

We have before us Mr. Glenn Casamassa, who is the Associate 

Deputy Chief for the Forest Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have Mr. John Ruhs, who is the Acting Deputy for 

the Director of Operations at the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) at the Interior. Senator Daines, would you like to introduce 

our witness from Montana, Mr. Hayden, this morning? 

STATEMENT OF STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. I would, thank you Chair Murkowski, and 

thanks for having this very important hearing on an issue that is 

very near and dear to our hearts out in the West, and particularly 

in Montana, that is providing statutory relief for more responsible 

vegetation management around power lines. 

This hearing, the legislative fixes explored today, cannot be more 

timely as wildfires in my state have burned well over a million 

acres, the equivalent the size of Delaware, and most of that has occurred on federal land. Over eight million acres across the West 

have burned this fire season. 

While active treatment could not have prevented every wildfire, 

these wildfires are big, they threaten human life and property, and 

they also threaten habitat for our iconic wildlife. 

Tragically, we have lost two brave firefighters in Montana this 

fire season and with about 18,000 miles of electric rights-of-way 

across Forest Service lands nationwide and over 70,000 miles of 

transmission distribution lines on BLM land—these fires and a 

lack of actively treating these trees also being a real risk to the reliability of electricity for Montana consumers. 

I remember we had one of our many large fires burning in Montana in August. I spoke to one of our county commissioners in 

Southwest Montana. They were not able to get firefighters near one 

of our transmission lines, a high voltage line, because there was so 

much smoke and carbon in the air it could arc from the transmission line down on the ground, posing a threat to our firefighters. Once the fire began, we could not get in there and try to 

protect the transmission lines in that particular moment because 

of the threat to our firefighters. This is why it makes so much 

sense to be proactive and preventive, and that is why we are here 

today, one of the bills. 

I am very happy to have Mark Hayden here today from Missoula. He brings firsthand expertise to this issue and will speak on 

the importance of H.R. 1873 today. 
5 

Our electric co-ops bring power to 40 percent of our state. Mark’s 

co-op alone brings power to nearly 15,000 members in Western 

Montana and Idaho. Mark is here to speak on the importance of 

H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, to 

bring much needed clarity on vegetation treatment and rights-ofway. This bill passed through the House on June 21st, as the 

Chairman mentioned, with 300 votes, including 69 House Democrats. 

I look forward to exploring the solution later on today and hearing Mark’s and other witnesses’ testimony. 

Thank you, Chair Murkowski. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you Senator Daines, and welcome 

to you, Mr. Hayden. 

The Committee is also joined this morning by Mr. Scott Miller, 

who is the Senior Regional Director of the Southwest Region for 

The Wilderness Society. Welcome. And the panel is rounded out 

with Mr. Andrew—— 

Mr. RABLE. Rable. 

The CHAIRMAN. ——Rable, who is the Manager for the Forestry 

and Special Programs at Arizona Public Service. 

We welcome each of you. 

Mr. Casamassa, if you would like to lead off. We ask that you 

try to keep your comments to about five minutes to give us plenty 

of opportunity to ask questions afterwards. Your full statements 

will be included as part of the record. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Cantwell and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the efforts of the Forest Service to reduce the threat of wildfire to and from electrical transmission and distribution facilities 

on National Forest System lands. 

Reliable delivery of electricity is essential. Fire and service disruptions resulting from contact between vegetation and power lines 

threaten public safety. Forest Service administers and authorizes 

for approximately 18,000 miles of power lines. 

I know utilities are frustrated as a result of the responses from 

maintenance approvals and inconsistencies across our field offices. 

We are focused on addressing these concerns. In the past years, 

we’ve created guidance and provided guidance to the field on developing vegetative management plans. 

We also completed a master agreement with Pacific Gas and 

Electric for the immediate removal of hazard trees within striking 

distance of their power lines. To date, Pacific Gas and Electric has 

felled 27,000 hazard trees on national forests within California. 

We are working on our policy and procedures; however, not all 

the work can be accomplished administratively which is why I support the goals of the two pieces of legislation under consideration 

in this hearing, H.R. 1873 and Section 2310 of Senate bill 1460. 

Both of these bills address environmental analysis requirements 

related to permits and liability concerns. I’d like to work with the 
6 

Committee to develop appropriate liability provisions and ensure 

that utilities can develop and implement operating and maintenance plans efficiently. 

We want to be good neighbors and work collaboratively with both 

the utility companies and the communities we both serve. That includes vegetation management agreements that allow utilities to 

provide for reliability, minimize the risk of forest fires and comply 

with applicable federal, state and local requirements with minimal 

agency consultation and approval. 

I’ll continue to look for opportunities to streamline our process 

and become more efficient. Our goal is to make decisions that authorize projects in a more timely manner, eliminate unnecessary 

process and steps, and increase the scale of our analysis, thereby 

increasing the amount of on-the-ground work covered by our analysis and decision-making. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the testimony today, 

and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT of 

GLENN CASAMASSA 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

on 

THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICITY ASSETS 

LOCATED ON FEDERAL LANDS 

SEPTEMBER 19,2017 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the 

Committee on the USDA Forest Service's work on reducing the threat of wildfires to and from electric 

transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands. We also appreciate the opportunity to address 

H.R. 1873, titled "Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act," and Section 2310 of S. 1460, titled 

"Energy and Natural Resources Act of2017." 

The Forest Service administers approximately 70,000 special use authorizations, including 2,700 

authorizations for power lines, covering about 18,000 linear miles. Those facilities serve as critical links 

in the nation's electrical grid. Fire and service disruptions resulting from contact between vegetation and 

power lines threaten public safety and resources and can place a burden on rate payers. Helping to 

ensure authorized structures and adjacent natural resources are maintained in a way that protects them 

from damage or destruction is an important and challenging part of Agency operations. 

The purpose of these bills is to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to 

enhance the reliability of the electrical grid and reduce the threat of wildfires to and from electric 

transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands by facilitating vegetation management on those 

lands. We support the goals of these bills. 

Most provisions in H.R. 1873 and Section 2310 ofS. 1460 would improve the ability of USDA's Forest 

Service to address these issues in collaboration with electricity providers. However, USDA believes 

some of the provisions duplicate existing requirements in Forest Service policies and special use 

authorizations. In addition, the Agency would like to work with you to develop appropriate liability 

provisions and ensure that utilities can do necessary forest treatments through operating and 

maintenance plans and coordination with the Forest Service. 

The Forest Service is confident that solutions to these concerns exist and that provisions can be 

established in partnership with Congress and electricity providers to better address torest health and 

hazardous fuel concerns that threaten the nation's electrical grid. 
8 

USDA is aware of the frustrations some utilities experience as a result of delayed responses for 

maintenance approvals and inconsistency across agency field offices and has been actively taking 

steps to address these concerns under existing authorities. The Forest Service has taken proactive 

measures to better address our shared concerns with management vegetation along energy corridors, 

including: 

• Renewing the federal memorandum of understanding on vegetation management for 

powerline rights-of-way with the Edison Electric Institute. 

• Completing a master agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the immediate 

removal of hazard trees within striking distance of its powerlines and replacement of 

deteriorating poles. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has felled 27,000 hazardous trees on 

National Forests within California. 

• Reaching agreement with Bonneville Power Administration on a standard power line permit 

and operating and maintenance plan for all Bonneville Power Administration facilities on 

National Forest System lands. 

• Disseminating to field units guidance on developing vegetation management plans for electric 

transmission line permits and easements. 

In summary, the Forest Service will continue to work collaboratively with federally owned and 

privately owned utilities to develop vegetation management plans that allow right-of-way 

authorization holders to provide reliable service while minimizing the risk of forest fires and 

complying with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. 

USDA would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on this legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. 

2 
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are pleased you are here. 

Mr. Ruhs, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN RUHS, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. RUHS. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. I am John Ruhs, 

BLM’s Acting Deputy Director for Operations. Thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the very important issue of vegetation management requirements for electrical transmission rights-of-way and 

the legislation before the Committee today. 

The BLM shares the sponsor’s goals of enhancing electricity reliability and avoiding fire hazards, and we support both bills. We 

would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors on a few technical recommendations. 

The BLM manages about 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres located primarily in the 12 Western states, 

including Alaska. In administering this diverse portfolio of public 

lands on behalf of the American people, the BLM is guided by its 

multiple use and sustained yield mission which is mandated by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Under FLPMA, rights-of-way are identified as one of the principle uses of the public lands. As a result, the BLM has issued 

thousands of miles of rights-of-way for electricity transmission and 

distribution. Currently, the BLM administers almost 16,000 authorizations for such rights-of-way. This infrastructure is a significant component of our nation’s interstate commerce providing 

power to communities and jobs for thousands of Americans. 

In administering electrical rights-of-way, the BLM works to meet 

its obligations for the management and protection of natural and 

cultural resources on the public lands while minimizing wildfire 

risk and ensuring the reliability of the infrastructure. 

Energy production and transmission are important sources of 

revenue and job growth in rural America, and capitalizing on opportunities to reduce permitting times is a major focus of this Administration. As directed by Secretary Zinke in Secretarial Order 

3354, the BLM is committed to improving and streamlining its permitting processes, including for rights-of-way. 

Under existing law the BLM coordinates closely with thousands 

of utility organizations and other federal agencies in its administration of electrical rights-of-way. This coordination, along with 

early and ongoing communication and planning, is essential for the 

vegetation management necessary to prevent infrastructure damage, power outages and wildfires. 

The BLM has undertaken steps to provide greater predictability 

and clarity for the utilities it works with and we believe that thorough vegetation management plans provide the best opportunity to 

streamline the approval process, but BLM acknowledges that there 

may be aspects of the approval process that can be streamlined further and we welcome efforts to work with the Committee to make 

these critical improvements. 

Given the volatile fire season impacting the West, working closely with our partners in industry to undertake appropriate vegeta-
10 

tion management in electrical rights-of-way is more important than 

ever before. The reduction of fire risk is a high priority for the Secretary, as outlined in the recent directive on wildland fire. All of 

the Department’s bureaus, including the BLM, have been tasked 

with adopting more aggressive practices to combat the spread of 

catastrophic wildfires through robust fuels reduction and pre-suppression techniques. 

The legislation being considered at this hearing would expand 

the BLM’s toolbox to help reduce the threat of catastrophic 

wildfires like those we are currently experiencing. The legislation 

under consideration today shares common goals and language for 

enhancing electric reliability, promoting public safety and avoiding 

fire hazards in electrical transmission rights-of-way. To accomplish 

these goals both pieces of legislation would amend FLPMA by adding new provisions regarding vegetation management, facility inspection and operation and maintenance activities. 

The BLM supports the bill’s goals of increasing coordination and 

efficiency regarding vegetation management and reducing wildfire 

risk. As such, we support both bills and would like to work with 

the sponsors on a few technical recommendations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

We look forward to working with Congress on the efficient protection of public safety and the reliability of infrastructure on the public lands. 

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruhs follows:] 
11 

Statement of 

John Rubs 

Acting Deputy Director for Operation 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on 

"Vegetation Management Requirements for Electricity Assets on Federal Lands" and on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act, and H.R. 1873, the 

Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

September 19,2017 

Chainnan Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss the vegetation management requirements for electrical 

transmission rights-of-way (ROWs) on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed public 

lands and Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act, and H.R. 1873, the 

Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. Both pieces oflegislation would amend the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by adding new provisions regarding 

vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance activities within 

electricity transmission and distribution facility ROWs. 

ROWs are an important part of the country's critical energy infrastructure, and the BLM 

administers them as part of its multiple use mission. The BLM coordinates closely with utility 

companies and understands that it is necessary to offer predictability and efficiency in its 

relationship with utilities in order to best serve communities, ensure grid reliability, and reduce 

wildfire risk. The Department of the Interior (Department or Interior) shares the goals common 

to the House and Senate legislation: to enhance electricity reliability, to promote public safety, 

and to avoid fire hazards. We support the legislation and would like to work with the bills' 

sponsors on some technical recommendations. 

Background 

The BLM manages about 245 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres, located 

primarily in 12 western states including Alaska. In administering this diverse portfolio of public 

lands on behalf of the American people, the BLM is guided by its multiple-use and sustained 

yield mission, which is mandated by FLPMA. Section 103 ofFLPMA includes ROWs as one of 

the principal uses of the public lands. Governed by Title V ofFLPMA, the BLM has issued 

thousands of miles of ROWs for electricity transmission and distribution, and currently 
12 

administers almost 16,000 authorizations for electricity transmission and distribution facilities on 

the nation's public lands. ROW infrastructure is a significant component of our nation's 

interstate commerce, providing power to communities and jobs for thousands of Americans. In 

administering electrical ROWs, the BLM also works to meet its obligations for the management 

and protection of natural and cultural resources on the public lands as well as protection of public 

safety, and reliability of infrastmcture. 

Energy production and transmission are important sources of revenue and job growth in mral 

America, and capitalizing on opportunities to reduce permitting times is a major focus of this 

Administration. The BLM is committed to improving and streamlining its permitting processes, 

including for rights-of-way, in the spirit of the Secretary's mandate contained in Secretarial 

Order 3354, Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and 

Federal Solid Mineral Lease Program. 

While FLPMA governs how the BLM administers many of its ROWs for electrical transmission 

and distribution, a significant number of ROWs were issued under various authorities before 

FLPMA was enacted in 1976. These pre-FLPMA ROWs were often issued for terms of 40 to 50 

years, and typically did not contain vegetation management and reliability standards. When 

FLPMA was enacted, it repealed the prior authorities, but did not invalidate existing pre-FLPMA 

ROWs. BLM reauthorizes pre-FLPMA ROWs under Title V ofFLPMA. 

The BLM coordinates closely with thousands of public, private, and cooperative utility 

organizations, as well as other Federal agencies, in its administration of ROWs for electricity 

transmission and distribution. These relationships are governed by a number of authorities in 

addition to FLPMA, including a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) order issued in 

September 2013 approving updated transmission vegetation management standards, and the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The requirements of these authorities encourage effective 

cooperation between the BLM and its partners, all of whom share the goals of enhancing the 

reliability of the electrical grid and reducing the risk of wildfires. 

The updated vegetation management standards approved by PERC in September 2013 play an 

important role in maintaining electrical distribution and transmission infrastmcture and 

preventing wildfire. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. § 824o) requires that a 

PERC-certified electric reliability organization develop mandatory and enforceable reliability 

standards, which PERC then approves. In September 2013, PERC issued an order approving 

updated reliability standards submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 

the electric reliability organization certified by PERC. The approved reliability standards, in part, 

address transmission vegetation management to improve the reliability of electricity transmission 

systems by preventing and minimizing outages from vegetation located in or near ROWs. The 

standards also address clearance between transmission lines and vegetation, and reporting 

2 
13 

vegetation-related outages to the appropriate organizations, including the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation. 

Additionally, existing authorities like the Energy Policy Act have strengthened relationships 

between the BLM and its partners. Beginning in 2005, the BLM and other Federal agencies 

increased their collaboration with utilities in order to meet the Energy Policy Act mandate that 

Federal land management agencies expedite approval of certain actions that relate to vegetation 

management, electric service restoration, or are undertaken to address any situation that 

imminently endangers the reliability or safety of the facility. 

The standards approved by FERC in 2013 fall under the purview of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, and the BLM is required to expedite approval of any actions undertaken by facility owners 

and operators to implement the 2013 standards. To accomplish this, the BLM is a party toalong with other Federal agencies and private organizations a 2016 interagency Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) that formalizes a cooperative approach to streamlining the 

management of vegetation near utility facilities. The MOU facilitates the accomplishment of a 

variety goals, including maintaining reliable electrical service, improving safety, reducing the 

likelihood of wildfires, reducing soil erosion, reducing environmental risk, streamlining 

administrative processes, and incorporating integrated vegetation management practices intended 

to protect human health and the environment. Under the MOU, all parties agree to engage in 

timely communication and consistent management practices. 

Another way the BLM streamlines its interactions with its partners is by working closely with 

utilities that hold many ROWs to establish master agreements that provide standard terms and 

conditions that can be applied to many ROW grants. This practice, in part, allows the BLM to 

engage in timely communication and consistent management as required by the MOU. These 

agreements not only enhance consistency across BLM offices, but they also create greater 

predictability and efficiency for the utility operators as they conduct business with the BLM. 

Working closely with electrical ROW grant holders is important to the BLM not just because it is 

required by FLPMA, FERC, and the Energy Policy Act, but because without close coordination 

and frequent communication, effective vegetation management is not possible, and the 

consequences can be severe. If not managed properly, vegetation can damage infrastructure, 

leading to power outages and even wildfires. When a new ROW is issued or an existing ROW is 

renewed, the BLM considers, as part of the ROW, those activities that are necessary for the 

ongoing maintenance and operation of the electrical transmission lines in compliance with 

applicable environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

3 
14 

In accordance with FLPMA and BLM's ROW regulations, the BLM also includes terms and 

conditions in ROW grants that cover the management of vegetation, which provides for 

predictability and clarity. These terms allow a utility company to conduct minor trimming, 

pruning, and weed management after notifying the BLM. The utility company can remove 

hazard trees through a streamlined process; timelines for approval vary by location and sitespecific conditions. In situations that present an imminent hazard, no BLM pre-approval is 

necessary. For actions that fall outside the scope of the ROW grant and do not present an 

imminent threat, BLM approval is needed, and additional analysis may be required. This 

includes the cutting and removal of any timber or vegetative resource that has market value. 

Early and ongoing communication with the ROW holder can lead to expedited approval in some 

instances. The BLM acknowledges that there may be aspects of the approval process that can be 

streamlined further, and we welcome efforts to work with the Committee to make appropriate 

improvements. 

Given the volatile fire season impacting the West, appropriate vegetation management of 

electrical transmission ROWs is critical because it protects vital infrastructure, and helps reduce 

wildfire risk. The BLM is committed to protecting people, infrastructure, and resources from the 

devastating effects of wildfires, as is outlined in the Secretary's recent directive on wildland 

fires. The reduction of wildfire risk is a high priority for the Secretary, who has tasked all of 

Interior's bureaus, superintendents, and land managers at all levels to adopt more aggressive 

practices, using the existing authority of the Department, to prevent and combat the spread of 

catastrophic wildfires through robust fuels reduction and pre-suppression techniques. The 

legislation being considered at this hearing would expand the BLM's toolbox to help reduce the 

threat of catastrophic wildfires like those we are currently experiencing. 

The estimated number of human- and lightning-caused wildfires for Federal, state, and local 

jurisdictions for this year already exceeds 48,000. More than 8 million acres have burned across 

the United States, which is well above the annual average according to the National Interagency 

Fire Center. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments like mechanical thinning and mowing, 

herbicide use, salvage tree removal, and prescribed burns are a critical component of the BLM's 

strategy to reduce potential wildfire risk in forest management, as well as addressing potential 

issues when administering electric transmission ROWs. Utility companies are critical partners in 

this approach. They have assets to protect and customers to serve and they know catastrophic 

wildfires disrupt their ability to provide reliable and unfettered service. Additionally, electrical 

transmission and distribution ROWs can help the Department prioritize hazardous fuels 

reduction treatments in rural communities, because the presence of critical infrastructure is one 

of the factors the Department considers in prioritizing these projects. 

4 
15 

H.R. 1873, Electricity Reliability & Forest Protection Act I Sec. 2310 of S. 1460, Energy & 

Natural Resources Act 

H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, and Section 2310 of S. 1460, the 

Energy and Natural Resources Act, share common goals and language for enhancing electric 

reliability, promoting public safety, and avoiding fire hazards in electrical transmission ROWs. 

To accomplish these goals, both pieces of legislation would amend FLPMA by adding new 

provisions regarding vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance 

activities within electric transmission and distribution facility rights-of-way. 

Both H.R. 1873 and Section 2310 ofS. 1460 require the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Agriculture to provide guidance to ROW grant holders on provisions regarding utility vegetation 

management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance activities. The guidance would 

take into account all applicable law, local reliability and fire safety requirements, and the 2016 

MOU that the BLM is a party to, and would be developed in consultation with the ROW grant 

holders. 

The bills also provide electrical ROW grant holders the option to develop and submit a 

vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan. The purpose of 

the plan is to provide a means of advance communication and streamlined interactions between 

the ROW grant holder and the BLM. Section 2310 lists what must be included in the plan, while 

H.R. 1873 refers to the plan more generally. Despite this difference, both pieces oflegislation 

require that the Secretaries undertake a coordinated review and approval process of the planswithin 90 days under H.R. 1873 and within 180 days under Section 2310. The BLM supports the 

goals of increased coordination and efficiency that these plans represent, and we welcome the 

opportunity to work with the sponsors on the efficient protection of public safety and reliability 

of infrastructure. 

H. R. 1873 and Section 2310 require the Secretaries to apply their respective categorical 

exclusion process under NEPA to any plan developed for existing ROWs. While Section 2310 

does not make specific mention of hazard trees, it does address emergency conditions in much 

the same way that H.R. 1873 does. Namely, in cases where vegetation within ROWs or hazard 

trees adjacent to ROWs have contacted or are in imminent danger of contacting electric 

transmission lines, both pieces of legislation provide authority for grant holders to prune or 

remove the vegetation as long as they notify the appropriate agency within 24 hours afterwards. 

Under H.R. 1873, in cases that are not deemed as hazardous but where vegetation within or 

adjacent to ROWs does not meet the relevant standards, grant holders may conduct vegetation 

management activities to meet those clearance requirements if the agency fails to allow such 

activities within three business days after receiving a request for authorization to undertake them 

(in order to meet this requirement, the BLM would need to develop a categorical exclusion). 

5 
16 

There is no parallel requirement in Section 2310. The BLM strongly supports efforts to reduce 

wildfire risk through vegetation management within the ROWs, particularly in emergency 

situations. 

Finally, both bills impose an annual reporting requirement and encourage training. The 

Secretaries must report on responses to emergency conditions and compliance with applicable 

reliability and safety standards on their agency's web sites. The bills also encourage both 

Secretaries to develop training programs for relevant employees regarding electric system 

reliability standards and fire safety requirements. 

The BLM supports the legislation. 

Conclusion 

The BLM administers electrical transmission and distribution ROWs under FLPMA and other 

authorities in collaborative partnership with the holders of electrical transmission and 

distribution ROW grants. Well maintained ROWs ensure a reliable electrical grid that serves the 

community and reduces wildfire risk- important outcomes that the BLM continuously works to 

achieve more efficiently. The BLM supports Section 2310 of S. 1460 and H.R. 1873, and would 

appreciate the opportunity to work with the bill's sponsors on some technical recommendations. 

6 
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ruhs. 

Mr. Hayden, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARK C. HAYDEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

MISSOULA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 

Mr. HAYDEN. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee, and thank you 

to the Senator from Montana for his earlier introduction. 

My name is Mark Hayden, and I’m the General Manager of Missoula Electric Cooperative (MEC) in Missoula, Montana. 

MEC is a consumer-owned electric utility serving the distribution 

needs of approximately 15,000 meters in Western Montana and 

Eastern Idaho. We have 41 employees and approximately 2,000 

miles of distribution line, nearly 300 miles of which cross federal 

land. MEC is a proud member of the National Rural Electric Coops Association, the Montana Electric Co-ops Association and the 

Northwest Public Power Association. 

Montana’s 2017 wildfire season has taken a devastating toll on 

our forests, our residents and our economy. More than a million 

acres have burned, lives and homes have been lost and hundreds 

of residents have been evacuated due to the threat of fire. 

All of this highlights the importance of this hearing today because, while Montana’s fires were all lightning-sparked, they serve 

as a vivid reminder of what could occur as a result of long delays 

in permit approvals and inconsistent application of policies by federal land managers. These actions place unnecessary risk on my cooperative and the entire public power community. In fact, the risk 

of fires as a result of hazardous trees is all too real across the 

West. 

I know of one member-owned electric co-op in New Mexico that 

was held responsible for firefighting costs for a massive 152,000- 

acre fire caused by just one Aspen tree that fell on the power line 

in the co-op’s Forest Service rights-of-way. The Forest Service sent 

the co-op a bill totaling more than $38.2 million; however, the coop has only $20 million of liability insurance. 

Another example of delays and inconsistencies is ongoing at Benton Rural Electric Association (BREA) in Washington State. BREA 

has waited 15 months to renew their special use permit for lines 

that have been in place for more than 70 years. Forest Service officials have now proposed nothing short of a full-blown environmental assessment which could cost the Association more than 

$100,000. In addition, BREA staff has historically been required to 

provide a list of danger trees for Forest Service inspection prior to 

their removal. Authorization can take three to six months, leaving 

an unnecessary risk of wildfire ignition while they wait. 

Madam Chairman, I would request that two documents, one related to the New Mexico fire and the second, the Benton REA challenges, be placed into the hearing record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
18 

United Status DOJIOl'llltO!ItOf 

Asl'lctdlul'O 

Fo ... t 

s ..... .. AlbllqiiOI'qiiC Sorvlco Conlel• Clalmo ManogllliHmt 1!1111 Sun AVOIIIIII NE Allmqum:qu11, NM 81109 

1.877-37%-7248 

Jemez Mountains Eleci!Jc Cooperative, Inc. 

A TIN; Ernestq A. Gotl2ll!es 

19365 S.R. 84/285 

Hemaudcz, NM 87537 

Rc: Notioo ofl'ndeblcdness to the USDA Fgrost Sm·v!AA 

lillo Codol 6570 

Dnto• Jnnuary 31, 2013 

CBRTIPl!ID MAn.. 

RETURN RBCBIPT REQUESTED 

!i~·<·:-.. ~·.;.;d .. ' l.' ,.. l :,., :' f ·~·~··,i :r.: ~- .. ··:.~." i! ·w· u·' h -\· • t~! ·•- • ·--·--,. • .._II r I 

fli {ii FEB 5 2013 ?/J;}Il !J l;. j'!l Dear Mr. GollZales: ;·' c L... ... _ 1.!.::1 

Tho Pon:st Sctvice CPS) haa determined tllnt1omez Mountaius Electrlc Cooperative (JkaC),Jilll •• Q.~ , ~ .... _____ j 

the United Sillies $38,280,469.42. Bncloaed am two coplllll of n bill for thnt lll!lount. Payment In folf, vm 

check or money qrder, must be lllllde \vitlliu 30 days of lhe date of tills letter to: 

USDA Forest Service, Albuquetquc Sruvlce Center 

Attn; Unit Colleotlon Offlcer 

WlBSunAveuueNB 

All;mqnerque, NM 87!09 

Please return orie copy ofthe bill with your payment. Thtmcoud copy is for your reconla. 

The bi!Sis of this indebted!lei!S Is the dlt'ect costs incurred by the l'S for the Las Conchoo Pire, wll!ch was 

caused by down power lines owned by JMEC. According to the Investigative report, on Julie 26, 2011, ~~~ n!pen tree fell onto power tnmsmissiun line.~ owned by JMBC causing the liues to bln·u and broak 

reaulth1g in the fire. The Las Conchns Fim burned approximately 15Z,Ol2 aeres ofNationel FO!'e:!t 

Sj'Biem (Nl'S) IMd:lnlll!r New Mex.loo State Road 4 near the Las Concbaa Trailhead loCl!ted on the Jemez 

Ranger District of the SnlltltFe Natlomd Forest. 

Federal resulalions pl'ohibit causing a fire. Speeiflcalfy, 36 C.F.R. §261.5(c) p1'0hlbits causing timber, 

tmes, slash, bmsll or grass to bum except !Ill nuthorlz.ed by perm!!. 

Tn eddltion, the tenns of JMEC's special 1!3e permit stares tlmt JMEC is llable fur damages occwring 

under the terms of the permit, including fi!llsuppi'OliSion costs. Tlrerefote, JMBC ia liable for the ooslll or 

suppressing the fire. Doumnentntlon supporting the costs Incurred by the FS iB enclosed. 

Intexest, P!lnn!!ies. and Admlulstmtiye Cos@ 

P1111mantto 3! U$.C. 3717(b), 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 7 C.F.R. § 3.17, this debtls subject to inlet'el!l, 

pemdt!ea, andarlmlulstratlve oosts lfltlsnlll pnld iu full by lite due date. 

The current intel'ellt rate for delinquent debts owed the United Stoles is 1.0 percent. lf the debt ls not pnid 

ln full wllhin 90 dnyn of the due date, ycu will also be cltarged a pennlty of one percent per AOI!Um ou the 

Cnrlll; (or !llo L!llld and Sen lug People 
19 

Mr. Ooozales Page2 

nlliQunt overdue. Interest and penalty clmrges will ba calmtlnled from !he date tile bill Wtllllssued, rmd 

will cootlnue to ncerue until it Is paid In ft1U. AdditionaUy, you wlll be c!llltged applicable adtnlnl.slllltlv~ 

CO!IIllto cover proeeBSinl! and mmdllng of tile overdue debt. 

Rcpnr!jl~g Requirement 

Pumll'\lllto 7 C.F.R. ! 3.12. tltls debt may be repmted to credit bureaus if it is over 60 day~; dcllu.quent. 

JW<IItlpl!f!l CofWolicn Metl!!um 

If you do not lake one of !he three aoliOliS described below withlu30 days !rom the date of tbls notice. tile 

FS will refer your debt to the United States Department of 1ustlcn (DOJ) plll'8Ullnt to 

7 C.P.R. § 3.21 for further collection actlon. 

Mtion Ne~tii!Y tq Awk!Lllm C!tru:ges and Rrrwtto DOJ 

To avcid l'qlortlng to credit blll'!!atlS ood rd'crml to DOJ l'or llllglltlon ym1 IUU$l do one of !he following 

within 30 days of the dme of thlll oot!ce: 

I. Pay your debt In iull, 1\S tllllvlded above. 

2. Agree to a paymc11t pJml. If you are unable to pay your debt In full. you 1ll\lSt conrnctlored!a 

Broolal11t lltc address nbove or by telephone nt SOS-563-7192, algtt a pll}'lllent plallllgn:ement 

wilh the FS.and make payments as required fn thugreement. 

3, Document an automatic silly Jn a bankruptcy pro=edtng, If you lmve filed for b!illlcruptcy nnd an atltomatlo stay b In effect, please provide a copy of !he bnnkn~y petition coolainlng the s!lmlp 

of the clerk ot the bankruptoy COtlrt Ill Loredla Brooks at the address above. · 

You ltnve a rlgllt to lllspect ll!ld copy the FS recorda t"Ciated to tills debt. Yontnust PIIY for copying e08ts. 

If you hllve lnsunt!l<:e, you may want to consider referring lhla debt to your !ns!.ll'llnce car1ier, 

cooluctl..oledia Bmoka at 50S·Stl3-7192. 

Enc!Olllll'el! 
20 

Unlled States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Servloe 

FY 2013 TR06 Summal}' Report for 

Pa!I01ol1 

01124111.1 12:30 PM 

SU!Q'nBl)'Report 

Ftra Oo Op llellll!.bqy 

LAS CONCHAS"BAER, Santa Fe National Forest, 8·26·20'11 

Acl~Qununu Monlll: vrn 

L~ol MonlflufTROB D•!alfii!IOrled fortlllft flll""l Yllll OCT-201S 

JobCode: HNF5PS11 

Job Code: HNF5PS12 

11/IFM'812 Tolol 1,445.71 1811.12 $0.00 
21 

United Slates Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

FY 2012 TROB Summary Report for 

LAS CONCHAS, Santa Fe National Forest, 8·26·2011 

Aocounlfnll Mon~1: YTI'l 

tutMalllh ot'm()B Dal• fmpGilad fotlhlollacol Yt«il 81!1' ·• 20t2 

Job Code: PNF5PS11 

Job Code: PNF5PS12 

f'll.i$1011 

10fl1211207:113111.1 

l:llliTI1IIlii'I'Repoll 

File CoOp Dt!lalf.!Jill/ 
22 

_VG JrQUfir .fiiS!Wro¥ 

&II,!, 1'011 CO~~liCTlOII 

-·--- BUt. PM'll 02/01/13 PA¢1h 01 

...,uotm A C(II'Y ., 'l'ltta BJLo mmt lllOR C!l!tt oa ,_ o!Ulllll. IIUL PMI!llll'l' '!01 

~ RO'.t ~ (!Mlf, lltt&kSB :mc'Lt/08 filL%. no~ :1\NO ~nm. CODWI: Ufll>\ rot\l!l>t' ,...yrc., ALl!V!lllllllUUl Slll!VIC!< <1f10. 

Off WIIR <:ltl!CI<. J\IJ't'R' \IHIW ~o» (ltf'l<:M 

!lAm <:!IBCl< Pl\YAUtlt 'l'Ot lOtS BUll AVllWS Uli-111!1<V- AbiUQU!Il!GUB, Ill! 8710!1 

Ol ~AY ~llllt ATllll!l,to ...... U$/JXLr.PAY 

.I'AY.Ba lWOICA'l'¥ 

'l'<h ~~tm:Dt 

Hm' ~DUS-t ~ 3u.lao_.46!'.4:t 

08l!lt11lltlll' IIUII:CIIOP l"" 

POBmtUt9 IN'ft' Em.T!h !»/01113 

~ NK .7532 alLY.. HUl!blm.t MCLI!IIl!N.n001 

PA"VU. (001-t 83009FJOfit A 

NJ~,m:Jt cmt'I'JW!'l" fl'Ot uni.OOJW ~IPU®-J. ~11 ""'--B r!RG 

l®lllltlllh I F!ti!IC:tl'JIL! f 16,21&,4l!,42 J$: l!AYSft C00$:1 8500960U A IIIW. NO• All <1f.IIGlLIISOOl 

l-'!.'t 

""""' ~'fltSI: .91!H1J Att, co-B~Ut8fKIHD~t tttQU!ItJU, DO CttJmD!: OP 1~1 AtllllNIIi'rRM'1Y!l CGS'rS1 'r(f, 

.\'!lliAtJI'f• VB ftJaU"r SJJ:flVICEt Am;l f!a\1 C'i'K 

10111 &UIIl\W Ill • <lra1HD llbU\IlliiEIIQilll, Nil 111ot --· . f "l1tf2li0.,4Q .. 42 

t77·372·724e """""" a nllldiCtt AIIOUII'l' Cftiii'Jl't!Ih 

----· t 38,UO,it!.n 

PAt:.UaB TO MUll .fA~ ar "l'lfft DUll nAD. w.tU.. RISI1~ lN 'nJs 

l\llliiUI!IIIIII'l.' 0>' rii\'S I'AUII!II' ()!WIO& ttm'Bitlm, ~~TIW.C081'J 

.otm/1lR l'I!Witll't -~ m =~• tn'llf mm ~. PJIII!It'l', 

I!OliORflll. 

M'l1!11D11!11'~.tOI!AC'l'<li'U8%, 

LATif !'Em DO ~lot API'liY 1'0lt hB 

blliLmaB aJsmn:n. IN M1/ISCX PO--AIII!- at UCIUn 

or oc:sot¥t oa BIJ\Yl'CU 

lrl:te:1 "001 oM't 0310 ilQll:f Pm'SPI11 a~ .nl!la 26, uu, =liM CllimlWIIIII!UIIIllA 'l'OTl\T. Ill' w.nu- Lnmt ooa <mol 9310 amh a.mrSPI!l.1. OP NAt'XO!Wo- l~Avn:>l Ulll>ll 011 'lllll Sloiii'A llll!ll'r:WW. -· ~ a»«mR IJlfn$CIC~. '!WI mtS MB CIIURIJ lOY UOIIJIII'Il >O!IBA Lt!IOII alm!lll BY il1iHlll l«l!1lmmlllli KLl!C'I!l\re COO!II!Mfl'llt, Jl«<, 

ll!C C.t.UHS SJ'IC'Wltn"t LOUI>IA IOUI()1<B ;os-~~-u'~ 

Mill O!IG .me 

- Ml!!l 

-.ma 

- iolllft OliO on nnn l'ln'"'IIU t l.,&76,34J,S7 00, a31a tmB•s1i ~ 7tt4fll,~S:S 

- --

Cming for tlto Laml lllld Ser'lhtg Pllllple 
23 

September 15, 2017 

RE: Benton REA Statement of Experience regarding the ownership and permitting of facilities 

on (United States Forest Service) USFS lands. 

Benton REA (BREA) has owned and operated an Electric Power Distribution and Transmission 

System on USFS land since the mid 1950's, and we currently serve 439 members through 

about 20 miles of poles and wires in a 30 foot right of way. BREA operated under a 20-year 

Special Use Permit (SUP) granted by the USFS until December 31, 2015, when the term ofthe 

permit expired. BREA has been operating under One-Year Temporary SUP's for the last two 

years as we attempt to secure a renewed long-term USFS SUP. BREA initiated a request to 

renew the SUP six months prior to its expiration, in the summer of 2015, and BREA staff has 

spent the last two years working in frustration to obtain a renewed USFS SUP. 

Initially BREA submitted an AppUcati<m (Sf299) in August of 2015 and we were told that the 

USfS would develop a Scope of Work for the SUP Reissuance, and we were also told that we 

would need an operating plan put in place as welL Benton REA staff provided a draft Operating 

plan to the USFS that had been recently approved by the same USFS group in another area for 

another Electric Cooperative. Following months of phone calls to leave voice mail messages 

for the USFS, and after many months of unanswered emails, our frustration came to a head, 

and we requested a formal meeting with the District Ranger, since the December 31, 2015 

deadline to renew the SUP was fast approaching. During this meeting with the District Ranger, 

we were assured that Benton REA would be issued a Temporary SUP for 2016 which would 

allow the USFS time to draft the above-mentioned Scope of Work. 

The next six months proved to be a re-run of the first six months of dealing with this issue, with 

no contact mede unless we made the call, and no response to our emails. Out of frustration, we 

tried a new tactic of not initiating any more contact with the USFS, and we planned to operate 

under the Temporary SUP until they contacted us and told us what they wanted in order for a 

reissuance ofthe regular SUP. After contacting the USFS again in November, and the 

requesting the Temporary SUP on December 12, 2016, they fmally sent us a new Temporary 

SUP for 2017, and again assured us that a Scope of Work for Reissuance was imminent. 

Finally, in March of 2017 Benton REA received a Draft Scope of Work for SUP Reissuance. 

We finally thought the process could get started, but after reading the Scope of Work described 

by the USFS, we requested an immediate meeting. The Scope of Work the USFS had outlined 

Benton REA Statement, Obtaining Powerline Permit to be on USfS lands Page 1 of2 
24 

was nothing short of a full blown Environmental Assessment, or EA, which would be required 

for a totally new project. Our facilities in the USFUS area have been in place there for almost 70 

years, and we weren't proposing any action or impacts other than the right to continue serving 

the Benton REA cooperative members with electrical service as we had in the past. The 

Benton REA staff then requested the assistance of an Environmental Consultant to provide a 

cost estimate of the Scope of Work (issued by the USFS) with the assumption that Benton REA 

would follow all of the outlined steps listed in the Scope of Work document. The Consultant 

estimated that the cost could exceed $100,000 for Benton REA. Benton REA again requested 

a formal meeting with the District Ranger and her staff at that point. 

During the meeting that was held with the District Ranger and her staff, they explained that it 

was their goal to include a newly described Operations and Maintenance Plan as part of the 

SUP, which they claimed would give us greater flexibility to manage the Danger Trees (dead 

trees outside of the powerline right-of-way), which we identify every two years using a certified 

Arborist. The previous USFS practice had been for them to obtain our list of Danger Trees, and 

then visit the locations of the listed trees to make a determination as to whether or not they 

should be removed, and then grant us authority to remove the trees that they felt needed to be 

removed. This process could take them three to six months to complete, leaving a high risk of 

wildfires to ignite from possible Danger Trees falling throughout the summer months. 

Benton REA staff was not comfortable with the estimated cost of $100,000 for completing the 

Reissuance Scope of Work, and is skeptical about the USFS concept that it would speed up our 

ability to remove Danger Trees, because our experience with the USFS thus far has 

demonstrated otherwise. Our primary frustration is that when we look for Danger Trees we look 

at the area 50 feet from the centerline of our powerline, which if calculated for possible impacts 

from trees would tota11 00 feet by 20 miles, equaling 242.5 acres. A typical wildfire could easily 

bum that amount of acreage within the first half hour of starting, and on average would destroy 

thousands of acres once it got started. We struggle to understand how the USFS's insistence 

that conducting rigorous Mollusk, sensitive plant, endangered species, and etc., surveys and 

studies, on land where a powerline has been located for almost 70 years, makes sense. 

Benton REA takes pride in providing reliable electrical power to those Benton REA members 

with electric accounts located within the boundaries of the USFS land, but would appreciate a 

realistic and commonsense approach being implemented that would allow Benton REA to 

acquire the required USFS Special Use Permit in a reasonable amount of time! 

Michael J. Bradshaw 

General Manager/Executive Vice President 

Benton REA Statement, Obtaining Powerline Permit to be on USFS Lands Page2of2 
25 

Mr. HAYDEN. My co-op, like so many parts of the West, has been 

adversely affected by the mountain pine beetle infestation. To 

maintain reliable service, especially to remote emergency equipment, MEC at one point had to cut, retrieve and deck, at considerable expense, a number of dead trees. MEC has never marketed a 

single log cut on Forest Service land nor would profiting from cutting trees ever be a motivating factor. 

Given our beetle kill situation, it was decided in December 2013 

to bury six miles of overhead line, and we were told by the Forest 

Service Office to expect approval in six months. As that deadline 

passed we made an appeal for help from then Congressman 

Daines, who brought our situation to the attention of House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Power and 

Oceans for later that year. 

In May 2015 I was invited to provide testimony before that same 

Subcommittee regarding our project delay. In preparation, I placed 

one final call to the local district ranger to express my frustration 

and he indicated that if I wanted to see things change I should 

take my issue up with Congress, at which point I told him I intended to do so the following week. Two days later on a Saturday 

afternoon, MEC received an unofficial notice via email to proceed 

with our project. We waited nearly 18 months for approval of a 

project that qualified for categorical exclusion. I can only imagine 

the number of months or years project approval would have taken 

had more in-depth investigations applied. 

We commend the House for recently passing H.R. 1873 that received strong, bipartisan support and this Committee for proposing 

meaningful reforms through language changes in the current energy bill. 

I also want to recognize the efforts of Senator Daines for his continued strong involvement in this issue for the benefit of consumerowned utilities across the nation. While the language may vary, 

some critical elements in the passage of any final legislation should 

include: optionality regarding vegetation management plans; firm 

deadlines on the agencies to ensure timely turnaround; categorical 

exclusion provisions must be included; liability relief should be 

granted for agency’s failure to respond in a timely manner to utility 

request for authorization; and training provisions should encourage 

consistency. 

Some have expressed concerns that legislative remedies, such as 

timelines, liability relief, are only setting our forests, our federal 

agencies, up for failure. While I’m not here today to pass judgment 

on current forest management practices, I would argue that current fuels reduction efforts, initial response plans that allow small 

fires to grow and long delays for agency approvals is only setting 

electric suppliers up for failure as well with devastating consequences to the forest and the utility. 

Thank you again for the honor of testifying before this Committee, and I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden follows:] 
26 

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Testimony of Mark C. Hayden 

General Manager, Missoula Electric Cooperative 

"Vegetation management requirements for electricity assets located on ftderallands" 

September 19, 2017 

Good Afternoon Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 

committee, my name is Mark Hayden, and I am the General Manager of Missoula Electric 

Cooperative (MEC) in Missoula, Montana. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important issue of vegetation management for 

electricity assets on federal land. Today, our hearts go out to those affected by the devastating 

hurricanes in Texas and more recently in Florida. As residents of these states work to rebuild 

their homes, businesses and communities, I want to recognize the ongoing efforts of the 

thousands of utility employees that are working around the clock to safely restore power. lt is 

during these difticult times that we are all reminded of the critical importance of our nation's 

energy infrastructure. 

MEC is a consumer-owned electric utility serving the electric distribution needs of 

approximately 15,000 meters in Western Montana and Eastern Idaho. We are governed by a 

seven-member Board of Trustees that is democratically elected from the local communities in 

which they reside. Our workforce includes 41 skilled and dedicated employees committed to 

serving the energy needs of our member-owners. The nearly 2,000 miles of distribution line that 

we maintain deliver energy to some of the most wild and scenic locations in the country- nearly 

300 miles of which cross federal land. MEC is a proud member of the National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, the Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association, and the Northwest 

Public Power Association. Simply put we exist for one reason- to enhance and improve the 

quality of life for the members we serve. 

Montana, like so many western states, has experienced its own natural disasters in recent months. 

The 2017 wildfire season has had a devastating effect on our state and local economies. More 

than one million acres have burned, lives have been lost, homes have been lost, and hundreds of 

residents have been evacuated due to the threat of fire, including my own family. Montana is not 

alone in this challenge. Last week the Forest Service reported that spending on the 2017 wildfire 

season had topped $2 billion nationally, fighting 48,607 wildfires in forest so choked with trees 

that they are at "powder keg levels" according to one Forest Service ecologist. Some Committee 

members may have similar stories from the states they represent, and it highlights the importance 

of this hearing today. 

I fully recognize that the fires burning in Montana today were all lightning sparked. But, for me, 

these fires serve as a vivid reminder and warning of what could occur as a result oflong delays 

in permit approvals and inconsistent application of policies by federal land managers. These 

actions place an unnecessary risk on my cooperative and the entire pubic power community. 
27 

That is why I believe federal refonns are needed to cut red tape and make it easier to manage 

vegetation to limit downed power lines, prevent catastrophic fires, and respond to emergencies. 

In fact, the risk of fires as a result of hazardous trees is all too real across the West. For example, 

I know of one member-owned electric cooperative in New Mexico that was held responsible for 

the costs of fighting a massive 152,012 acre fire caused by just one aspen tree that fell onto the 

power line in the co-op's Forest Service right of way. The Forest Service sent the co-op a bill 

totaling more than $38.2 million, however the co-op has only $20 million in liability insurance. 

At MEC we are constantly working to improve system reliability, and vegetation management is 

a critical component of our program, both on and off federal land. We also work diligently to 

maintain good relations and open communications with the various Forest Service Offices and 

Ranger Districts with which we interact. In most cases, those district offices and the people that 

staff them live locally and have a vested interest in the health and welfare of the forest, and it 

shows. Unfortunately, many of these positions tum over frequently and decision makers move 

within the agency before relationships can be established. 

A great example of good cooperation with federal land managers has occurred during the 

clearing of danger trees outside of our rights-of-way during routine Operations and Maintenance 

activities. Representatives from MEC and local Forest Service Officials have communicated and 

expectations are understood. As a result, managers and crews can adequately plan for the time 

and financial resources necessary to complete a project. Another positive example occurred 

during the summer of2014 when a power line river crossing was toppled during spring runoff. 

Once emergency power restoration was complete, we requested burial of the line and approval 

was granted within hours, as it should be in the case of Emergency Operations and Maintenance 

activities. 

But this positive situation is not found on all rights-of-way managed by the Forest Service. 

Other public power representatives have testified before Congress of inconsistent federal land 

management policies, long delays in approval and review times, and the unnecessary liability 

resulting from these delays. 

One such example is ongoing at Benton Rural Electric Association (BREA) in Prosser, 

Washington. BREA's Special Use Permit that allows them right-of way access through federal 

land expired in December 2015, and an application for renewal was submitted in Aus>ust of that 

same year. After waiting 15 months, Forest Service officials have now proposed nothing short 

of a full blown Environmental Assessment for which costs could exceed $100,000 for facilities 

that have been in place for more than 70 years. Reasons given include the need to implement a 

newly described Operations and Maintenance plan as part of the updated permit to manage 

Danger Trees. According to BREA, past practice has included providing the Forest Service with 

a list of Danger trees, after which a Forest Service staff member visits each site to grant authority 

for removal. This process typically takes three to six months to complete, leaving an 

unnecessarily high risk of wildfire ignition from Danger Trees toppling throughout the summer 

months. 

For my co-op in Montana, our service area, like so many parts of the West, has been adversely 

affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation and the dead and dying trees left in its wake. 

2 
28 

One of the areas hardest hit is in the Swan Valley north of Seeley Lake, Montana. During the 

winter of 2009, hazard tree failure repeatedly interrupted service to an inaccessible emergency 

911 tower location, and MEC tree crews felled numerous trees that further threatened this critical 

service, all of which were dead. When weather permitted, the agency required us to retrieve the 

downed timber using an expensive, labor intensive method to minimize impact to "flora and 

fauna" from mechanical equipment. Ironically, the Forest Service conducted a timber sale on the 

same tract later in the year using the exact mechanical forestry techniques that we were 

prohibited from employing. In essence, we were held to a higher standard than they held 

themselves. MEC cut, retrieved and decked at its own expense these dead trees, and no profit 

from the sale of any timber was ever received. In fact, to my knowledge MEC has never 

marketed a single log cut on Forest Service land. Our co-op does not yield profits from cutting 

these trees nor would it ever be a motivating factor. We are in the business of providing reliable 

electric service, and our only motivation to remove a tree is when that service is threatened. 

Obviously, one of the most effective ways to improve service reliability and mitigate fire risk is 

to bury an overhead power line. As you can imagine, each instance of tree/power line contact can 

pose significant risk of wildfire ignition under the right environmental conditions. However, 

converting overhead distribution lines to underground is an expensive proposition, especially for 

a small cooperative like MEC, so this cannot be standard practice. 

After considerable internal discussions regarding the beetle kill situation referred to above, the 

decision was made in December 2013 to request permission to bury approximately six miles of 

overhead three-phase line on Forest Service land. An application was submitted to the Forest 

Service district office having jurisdiction over the proposed project, and, just one month after 

submittal, we were notified that approval of our request was expected by June of 2014. 

However, as the months progressed our hopes dimmed. Eventually, we made an appeal for help 

from then Congressman Daines, who brought our situation to the attention of the House 

Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Power & Oceans later that year. 

In May of2015, I was invited to provide testimony before the same Subcommittee regarding the 

delay in approval of our project application. In preparation for my testimony, I placed one final 

call to the local Forest Service District Ranger to express my frustration just prior to the hearing. 

This local official indicated that ifi wanted to see things change I should take up my issue with 

Congress, at which point I told him that I intended to the following week! Two days later on 

Saturday, May 16tl' at 4:06p.m., the weekend prior to the hearing, MEC received unofficial 

notice via email that indicated all field work had been completed on our project, confirmed that 

our co-op had paid the Forest Service for all associated costs, and authorized us to begin 

construction. 

In all, MEC waited nearly 18 months for approval on the Swan Valley project. Most troubling to 

me is that the project qualified for categorical exclusion, meaning neither an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact statement was required. I can only imagine the number of 

months or years project approval would have taken had those more in-depth investigations 

applied. 
29 

For that reason, we commend the House for recently passing H.R. 1873, the "Electricity 

Reliability and Forest Protection Act" that received strong bipartisan support. Likewise, this 

committee has proposed meaningful reforms through language changes in the current Energy 

Bill. I also wish to recognize the efforts that Sen. Daines had for bringing my issue to 

Washington in 2014, and appreciate his continued strong involvement in this issue for the benefit 

of not just cooperatives in Montana, but all consumer owned utilities across the nation. While 

the language may vary slightly in each of the bills introduced to date, the critical elements in the 

passage of any final legislation would include, but not be limited to the following: 

• Optional participation provisions in the development of vegetation management plans 

must be included to ensure that small utilities that lack the resources to develop such 

plans are allowed to forgo that requirement 

• Firm deadlines must be included to ensure timely turnaround on utility request 

• Categorical Exclusion provisions must be included if time deadlines for the agencies are 

to be met 

• Liability relief must be granted for an agencies failure to respond in a timely manner to 

utility request for authorization 

• Exclusion for response to emergency conditions to eliminate fire, safety and reliability 

hazards 

• Training provisions should encourage consistency across an agency workforce that 

experiences high turnover 

As the manager ofMEC, my primary duties are to protect the safety and security of my 

employees and the public we serve, to ensure system reliability, and to manage costs to the best 

of my ability- in that order. Decisions made by the Forest Service regarding fuels and vegetation 

management, how quickly they respond to wildfire events, and how timely and efficiently they 

respond to requests for right-ofway maintenance and permit applications and amendments has a 

dramatic impact on all three. 

During conversations over the past few years on this issue, some have expressed concerns that 

legislative remedies such as firm timelines for decision making, and liability relief if those 

timelines are not met, are only setting our federal agencies up for failure. I am certainly not here 

today to pass judgement on current forest management practices, but I would argue that fuels 

reduction efforts that have created "powder keg levels" of fuel, an initial response plan that 

allows small fires to grow, and long delays for agency approvals by utilities is only setting 

electric suppliers up for failure. Current management practices dictate that a powerline sparked 

wildfire that could have been managed and controlled in the past may be allowed to grow out of 

control with devastating consequences to the forest and the utility. We must remember that if 

either of us fails in our responsibility, it is the person at the end of the line that pays the price. 

The sooner we recognize that utilities and federal agencies are not at odds, but instead partners in 

solving this challenge, the better the long-term protection of our forest resources, and the health 

and welfare of the public we both serve. 

Thank you again for the honor of testifying before this committee and I will be pleased to answer 

any questions. 

4 
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hayden. 

Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT MILLER, SENIOR REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST REGION, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

At the outset, I wanted to thank you for your comments earlier 

and Senator Heinrich about Senator Domenici. He was the Chairman for most of the time I worked for this Committee, and I wanted to express my condolences to his staff. 

The Wilderness Society supports efforts to develop needed energy 

resources, where and when appropriate and when conducted in a 

responsible manner, especially the renewable wind, solar and geothermal resources found on our public lands. 

As an aside I wanted to thank Senator Heinrich for his leadership with Senator Heller on the Public Lands Renewable Energy 

Development Act which is pending in this Committee. 

Since this Committee’s important work in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, utility vegetation management planning and practices 

have improved substantially. At the same time, the importance of 

strong utility vegetation management practices continues to grow 

as climate change is causing longer wildfire seasons; longer growing seasons; larger and more severe wildfires; changing plant species distributions; increased insect and disease activity; and more 

intense, more frequent and more longer-lasting drought, wetness, 

and weather events. These impacts and the related dynamics on 

utility vegetation management underscore the need for proactive, 

well-planned and adaptable utility vegetation management programs to ensure electric reliability and reduce wildfire risk. To do 

so, it’s necessary for the utilities and federal land managers to 

work cooperatively to ensure their stewardship obligations are met. 

The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 1873 because it would frustrate rather than facilitate sound utility vegetation management, 

and it would undermine public land stewardship and the public interest. For example, as a result of its inconsistent, broad and contradictory provisions regarding the application of state and local requirements, H.R. 1873 could leave federal land managers and utilities in the untenable position of having to comply with conflicting, 

inapplicable or inadequate state and local requirements for fire 

safety and electric system reliability. H.R. 1873 provisions on liability could leave the agencies and ultimately the taxpayers to cover 

the damages caused by the utility’s own negligence or even gross 

negligence. And the bill dramatically compounds its many problems 

by applying its provisions to all lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of the Interior, including our National Parks, National 

Wildlife Refuges and even trust and restricted-fee lands of Native 

American tribes and individuals. 

Those are just a few of the concerns summarized in our written 

testimony. The BLM and the Forest Service raises still others in 

their testimony given during a hearing in the House. 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, on the other hand, takes a much more 

thoughtful approach that corrects or avoids many of the flaws of 
31 

H.R. 1873. We would like to offer some suggestions to clarify and 

improve Section 2310. Section 2310 authorizes utilities to carry out 

certain activities if the agencies fail to respond to their requests in 

a timely manner. We agree that it’s reasonable that the utilities 

ought to be able to expect timely responses from the federal land 

managers; however, we’re concerned that the provision could have 

unintended consequences such as counterproductively resulting in 

planned schedules that result in unnecessary delays for routine approvals. Instead, we recommend that the bill impose a mandatory 

duty on the Secretaries to respond in accordance with the approved 

schedules. Consistent with points made in Mr. Rable’s testimony 

and the Forest Service’s testimony in the House, we recommend 

that the bill use hazard trees as a reference to clarify the scope of 

Section 2310’s provisions relating to vegetation management adjacent to utility rights-of-way. And finally, clarifying that the authority of the Secretary and the utilities to make modifications of approved plans or withdraw approval, if necessary, would help to ensure adaptive management and that both parties retain the ability 

to effectively and efficiently meet their obligations. 

Again, thank you for your good work on Section 2310 and the opportunity to testify on it. We’d welcome an opportunity to work 

with Committee staff on these and a few other suggestions, if the 

legislation moves forward. 

I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 
32 

Testimony of 

Scott Miller 

Senior Regional Director, Southwest Region 

The Wilderness Society 

Before 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

On 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, and H.R. 

1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. 

Thank you Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for the opportunity to 

provide testimony regarding vegetation management requirements for electricity assets 

located on federal lands. 

The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its more than 1 million members and 

supporters to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. We 

are dedicated to ensuring the conservation and sound management of our shared national 

lands. 

We support efforts to develop needed energy resources where and when appropriate, and 

when conducted in a responsible manner. This includes responsibly developing the 

renewable wind, solar, and geothermal resources found on our public lands, including 

through the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act (S. 282), sponsored by 

Senators Heller, Heinrich, Gardner, Risch, Daines, and others. The Wilderness Society 

works closely with industry, the Federal land management agencies, and others to 

advocate for appropriate siting of electrical transmission infrastructure on public lands, 

especially when necessary to make the development of renewable energy possible. As 

with any form of development on public lands, the development and maintenance of 

renewable energy and electticity transmission infrastructure must take place in a 

responsible manner that protects the ecological integrity and many other public interests 

in our public lands. 

Since this Committee's important work on utility vegetation management ("UVM") 

standards in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, UVM practices have improved substantially. 

At the same time, the importance of strong UVM practices continues to grow as climate 

change is causing longer wildfire seasons, larger and more severe wildfires, longer 

growing seasons, changing plant-species distributions, increased insect and disease 

activity, and more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting drought, wetness, and 

weather events. The impacts of these climate-related dynamics on UVM are wellestablished, and they underscore the need for pro-active, well-planned, and adaptable 

UVM programs to ensure reliability and reduce wildfire risk. 

Utilities have important obligations to meet UVM standards and ensure reliable 

electricity transmission, and it is necessary for Federal land managers to work 
33 

cooperatively and consistently with utilities to allow them to carry out UVM to meet 

those obligations. At the same time, Federal land management agencies have important 

land management and public interest obligations to meet in managing utility rights-ofway and UVM, and it is necessary for utilities to work cooperatively with the agencies to 

ensure those stewardship obligations are met. 

There are many examples of exemplary collaboration between utilities and Federal land 

managers to carry out effective UVM programs, and recent efforts by the utilities and 

agencies have expanded those efforts. At the same time, we understand that there is more 

that can be done to improve the management of rights-of way across Federal lands to 

ensure that utilities can and do meet their UVM obligations in a manner that is consistent 

with sound stewardship of our public lands. It also is important to recognize that the 

challenges in coordinating UVM between utility and landowner are not limited to Federal 

land managers; utilities often choose to site transmission lines on Federal lands because 

of the significant siting and maintenance challenges associated with private lands. 

Cooperation is essential to any effective and sustainable UVM program, and we believe it 

should be the touchstone for any legislation to advance reliability, wildfire protection, 

and public land management in the context ofUVM. We appreciate that the Federal land 

management agencies and utilities have embraced the importance of a cooperative 

approach to advancing UVM. 1 We also believe there is an important role for public 

participation in decisions affecting our public lands, and that role should be respected and 

protected in a manner that is consistent with the utilities' and agencies' ability to meet 

their UVM obligations. 

The Wilderness Society opposes HR. 1873 because it fails to appropriately recognize the 

Federal land management agencies' obligations or the public's interest in Federal land 

management and because it fails to provide for the necessary cooperation that will 

improve effective and sustainable UVM on Federal lands. H.R. 1873 would establish 

counterproductive limitations and obligations on both utilities and Federal land managers, 

1 The importance of a coopemtive approach was embraced in testimony on the version ofH.R. 1873 that 

was introduced in the !14th Congress (H.R. 2358) at a hearing in the House Nat:uml Resources 

Committee's Subcommittee on Water. Power. and Oceans on May 20.2015, by the BLM ("BLM 

appreciates any opportunity to work collaboratively with all our stakeholders and partners, including utility 

companies, and recognizes the value of advance planning for future maintenance needs when possible. 

Ongoing communication and coordination are also critical to ensuring that both the BLM a11d the utility can 

respond to vegetation management requirements in a timely manner.''), the Forest Service ("To enhance 

coopemtion a11d efficiency in maintenance of electric transmission and distribution line rights-of-way, the 

Agency encoumges utilities to meet with field persollllel, explain rcqnircd actions, and work collabomtivcly 

to develop pla11s for getting work done."). and the Missoula Electric Cooperative ("We also work diligently 

to maintain good relations and open communications with t11e various Forest Service Offices and Ranger 

Districts with which we interact. In many cases. those district offices m1d the people tl1at staff them live 

locally and have a vested interest in the health and welfare of the forest, and it shows. A great example of 

this level of coopemtion occurs regularly during the clearing of dm1ger trees outside of our rights-of-way 

during routine Operations and Maintenance activities."). 

2 
34 

inappropriately shift costs from utilities to taxpayers and agencies, and undermine the 

public interest in the management of their public lands. 

To the extent additional legislation is necessary, section 2310 of S. 1460, on the other 

hand, provides a strong foundation for improving coordination and cooperation between 

utilities and Federal land managers to ensure that utilities can effectively and 

appropriately meet their UVM obligations. While we would like to make a number of 

important suggestions-largely technical in nature-to improve section 2310, the bill 

provides a thoughtful framework for legislation to advance UVM on public lands. We 

would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on our suggestions if the 

legislation moves forward. 

H.R. 1873: Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

H.R. 1873 would amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by adding a new 

section 512 to address UVM on rights-of-way for electrical transmission and distribution 

facilities on National Forest System lands, public lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management ("BLM"), and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

Rather than foster the cooperation between utilities and Federal land managers that is 

essential for the development and implementation of sound vegetation management plans 

and practices, H.R. 1873 embraces a unilateral approach whereby utilities tell the 

agencies what they are going to do and the legislation directly authorizes the utilities to 

do it. For example, H.R. 1873 would prevent utilities and land managers from including 

activities in vegetation management plans that would require anything beyond annual 

notice, description, and certification by the utility for its planned activities. It also would 

give utilities (including those without approved plans), blanket approval to conduct 

vegetation management activities to meet clearance requirements, leaving the agencies 

with no authority but to allow such activities, and leaving the utilities with little incentive 

to cooperate or even prepare a vegetation management plan. 

As a result of its inconsistent, broad, and contradictory provisions regarding the 

application of State and local requirements, H.R. 1873 also could leave utilities and 

Federal land managers in the untenable position of having to comply with conflicting, 

inapplicable, or inadequate State and local requirements for fire safety and electric 

system reliability. The application of Federal, State, and local requirements for UVM on 

Federal lands differs depending on the nature and location of the facility and the scope of 

the requirements. H.R. 1873 fails to appropriately deal with these differences and could 

significantly complicate-rather than facilitate-UVM as a result. 

The effect ofH.R. 1873's provisions mandating the application of a categorical exclusion 

process to vegetation management plans are, at best, unclear. To the extent the bill 

authorizes or mandates a blanket exemption for vegetation management plans from the 

requirements for public participation and environmental analysis under the National 
35 

Environmental Policy Act, H.R. 1873 would undermine sound stewardship of our public 

lands. We note that both the Forest Service and BLM have already established a number 

of categorical exclusions that apply to many routine UVM activities, and those authorities 

are routinely utilized by the agencies in the context ofUVM. 

H.R. 1873's provisions on liability also are overbroad and unclear. Proposed section 

512(f) provides that utilities "shall not be held liable for wildfire damage, loss or injury, 

including the cost of fire suppression" if the Secretaries don't allow utilities to operate 

consistently with an approved vegetation management plan. But nothing in the bill states 

that the release ofliability is limited to situations where the Secretaries' decisions are an 

actual and proximate cause of the damages, potentially leaving the agencies (and 

ultimately, taxpayers) to cover the damages caused by the utilities' negligence (or even 

gross negligence), for example. This is particularly troubling given that the actions could 

be contrary to Federal law and that the legislation provides utilities with blanket authority 

to unilaterally take actions to maintain clearance requirements. 

Finally, H.R. 1873 dramatically compounds all of these problems by inappropriately 

broadening the application of its provisions. For example, the bill authorizes vegetation 

management plans to broadly apply to "adjacent" Federal lands, and the bill's liability 

and other provisions apply to preexisting vegetation management plans, regardless of 

whether those plans meet current or future standards. 

Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management only governs rights-of-way on 

public lands managed by the BLM and National Forest System lands (not including lands 

designated as Wilderness). Rights-of-way on lands administered by other agencies 

within the Department of the Interior are governed by other statutes and regulations that 

address the unique missions and obligations of those agencies. 

Nevertheless, H.R. 1873 would apply the bill's new provisions through FLPMA to all 

lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, including lands managed by 

the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation, and 

potentially to trust and restricted fee lands of Native American Tribes and individuals 

(and other lands) that are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well 2 

So, for example, given that H.R. 1873 could be read to include Tribal and individual trust 

and restricted lands within its scope, the potential application of State and local 

requirements, the lack of consideration of Tribal requirements, and the broad waiver of 

liability would contravene important principles of Federal Indian law and policy. 

For these and other reasons, The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 1873. 

'The "Background and Need" section of the House report on the bill states that the "bill deals 

specifically with electricity ROWs on U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands," but the text of the bill is explicit that it applies "to public lands 

[administered by the BLM] and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary." H.R. Rept. 115-

165 at2, 4. 

4 
36 

Section 2310 ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of2017 

The Wilderness Society appreciates the thoughtful approach reflected in section 2310 of 

S. 1460, which corrects the many flaws ofH.R. 1873. We also appreciate the opportunity 

to make some suggestions for its improvement. 

Like HK 1873, section 2310 would amend FLPMA to add a new section 512 covering 

UVM, but section 2310 would establish a process for developing and implementing 

vegetation management plans that would encourage cooperation between utilities and 

Federal land managers. The process leaves utilities and the agencies sufficient flexibility 

to develop plans to improve coordination, proactive planning, and adaptive management 

to ensure sound UVM that meets applicable requirements. 

The Wilderness Society has some suggestions to clarify and improve a few provisions in 

the bilL Proposed section 512(f)(2) authorizes utilities to carry out certain activities if the 

agencies fail to respond in timely manner to a utility request in accordance with an 

approved vegetation management plan. It is reasonable for utilities to expect a timely 

response to requests made in accordance with an approved plan. However, agency 

personnel sometimes are called away on emergency assignments such as wildfires, for 

example, that might delay a response beyond what was anticipated in a plan's schedule. 

Utilities already have authority to conduct emergency UVN1 activities without prior 

agency approval (a practice confirmed by subsection (e)), and subsection (f) may 

counterproductively result in plan schedules that result in unnecessary delays for routine 

approvals. Alternatively (or at least in addition), section 2310 should impose a 

mandatory duty on the Secretaries to respond in accordance with the approved schedules 

to ensure that Federal land managers do not routinely fail to respond to utilities' requests. 

Section 2310 contemplates that approved vegetation management plans include necessary 

activities adjacent to rights-of-way. Indeed, depending on the width of a right-of-way, it 

can be necessary to conduct UVM activities in the border zone adjacent to a right-of-way, 

particularly when hazard trees pose a risk to the facility. Given the inherent ambiguity of 

the term "adjacent", however, we suggest clarifying the intent of the relevant provisions 

by referring to hazard trees or other standard criteria used in UVM standards to define the 

scope of activities on adjacent lands that are necessary to meet applicable UVM 

standards. 

Proposed section 512(c)(3)(E) requires vegetation management plans to describe 

processes for identifying changes in conditions and for modifying plans when necessary, 

but it leaves the utilities' and agencies' authorities to withdraw from a plan if 

modifications cannot be agreed to unclear. An explicit statement that the Secretary and 

the owner/operator may withdraw their approval for a plan that proves to be unworkable 

if modifications cannot be agreed to would help clarify the provision and ensure that both 

parties retain their ability to efficiently and effectively meet their obligations. 

5 
37 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would welcome the opportunity to 

work with Committee staff on these and a few other minor suggestions if the legislation 

moves forward. 

6 
38 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Rable. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW RABLE, MANAGER OF FORESTRY 

AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE 

Mr. RABLE. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell 

and members of the Committee, my name is Andrew Rable, Manager of Forestry and Special Programs for Arizona Public Service 

(APS). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on 

the importance of vegetation management to ensure the safety and 

reliability of energy infrastructure. APS is Arizona’s largest and 

longest serving electric company and serves more than one million 

customers in 11 of the state’s 15 counties. APS administers some 

6,000 miles of transmission and 11,000 miles of distribution lines 

throughout Arizona, including federal lands managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park 

Service. I am also testifying on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the Association that represents all U.S. investor-owned 

electric companies. EEI’s members provide electricity for about 220 

million Americans and operate in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. 

Managing vegetation on electric transmission and distribution 

rights-of-way is a key part of electric company efforts to protect the 

security and reliability of the energy grid. Failure to properly manage vegetation can cause wildfires, lead to cascading power outages 

and jeopardize the physical integrity of energy infrastructure. For 

example, the August 2003 Northeast blackout was initially triggered by a contact between a power line and a tree. In response, 

Congress passed legislation in 2005 that established our current regime of mandatory and enforceable reliability standards, including 

standards for vegetation management. 

To help reduce these risks, the electric companies need timely access to public and private lands on which power line rights-of-way 

are located to perform necessary vegetation management on adjacent to the rights-of-way. Particular challenges arise when the 

rights-of-way cross federal lands, largely due to significant delays 

companies face in getting multiple approvals from different federal 

agencies to access those rights-of-way or to perform integrated 

vegetation management activities. 

These inconsistencies put utility companies in a tough position. 

Increased wildfire risk has elevated the need for companies to comprehensively address vegetation management. Courts have found 

companies liable for wildfire damages involving power line contact 

with vegetation despite their extensive, proactive vegetation management efforts offered in high hazard conditions. At the same 

time, companies are subject to significant fines or violations of 

NERC, FERC reliability standards. 

We continue to seek ways to improve the process for accessing 

federal lands to remove forest debris, decrease fuel load and obtain 

authorizations to perform routine vegetation management. For example, in 2016 EEI signed a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) with federal agencies and other stakeholders that will foster 

better cooperation and coordination between companies and federal 
39 

agencies, especially the Forest Service, to manage vegetation within and immediately adjacent to existing rights-of-way. While the 

MOU and other tools are positive steps, more needs to be done to 

ensure that federal agencies can and will act in a timely manner. 

That is why we support federal legislation in this area. 

The House has already passed H.R. 1873, the bipartisan Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, and we appreciate that 

Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell included a 

vegetation management provision when they reintroduced their 

Energy and Natural Resources Act this year as Section 1460. Both 

the House and Senate bills would provide a more streamlined and 

consistent process for vegetation management approvals. The bills 

are similar in many respects with each containing several noteworthy, beneficial features outlined in more detail in my written 

statement. 

Both bills would significantly increase efficiencies and the federal 

review process, allow companies to voluntarily develop and file 

vegetation management plans to expedite necessary activities, and 

authorize categorical exclusions under NEPAs for existing rightsof-way. The bills include different but potentially complimentary 

approaches to providing limited liability protections to help reduce 

disincentives for companies that want to develop vegetation management plans or need to take proactive measures to address 

threats to reliability or unacceptable wildfire risk. 

In conclusion, vegetation management is an important priority 

for EEI and its member companies to ensure the safety and reliability of the energy grid. We will continue to work with federal 

land management agencies to achieve effective, on-the-ground implementation of the MOU. We will also work with Congress to pass 

legislation to establish a better framework to promote federal land 

management consistency, accountability and timely decision-making, while respecting the mission of the federal management agencies to appropriately manage lands within their respective jurisdictions. 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify, and 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rable follows:] 
40 

Statement of 

Andrew Rabie 

Manager of Forestry and Special Programs 

Arizona Public Service Company 

On Behalf of 

Edison Electric Institute 

Hearing on 

"Vegetation Management Requirements for Electricity Assets located on Federal lands" 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017 

H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

September 19, 2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, my name is 

Andrew Rabie, Manager of Forestry and Special Programs for Arizona Public Service (APS). I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on the importance of vegetation 

management to ensure the safety and reliability of energy infrastructure. 

APS, Arizona's largest and longest-serving electric company, serves more than 1 million 

customers in 11 of the state's 15 counties. With headquarters in Phoenix, APSis the largest 

subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation. In my job at APS, I administer some 6,000 

miles oftransmission and 11,000 miles of distribution lines throughout Arizona. APS' power 

lines cross five national forests, four Bureau of Land Management districts, four wildlife 

refuges, eleven units managed by the National Park Service, and three National Monuments 

managed by BLM (Agua Fria, Ironwood Forest, and Sonoran Desert). 

I am also testifying on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEl), the association that 

represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. EEl's members provide electricity for 

about 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a 

whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the 

United States. 

Managing vegetation on electric transmission and distribution rights-of-way (ROWs) is a key 

part of electric company efforts to protect the security and reliability of the energy grid. Failure 

to properly manage vegetation can cause wildfires, lead to power outages, and jeopardize the 

physical integrity of energy infrastructure. For example, the August 2003 Northeast blackout 

was initially triggered by contact between a power line and a tree, eventually leading Congress 

to enact legislation in 2005 that established our current regime of mandatory and enforceable 

1 
41 

reliability standards-including vegetation management standards-for the electric power 

industry. 

Electric companies must have timely access to both public and private lands on which power 

line ROWs are located, to perform necessary vegetation management on and adjacent to the 

ROWs, thus reducing risk to electric company facilities and the lands on which they are located. 

Electric companies need to be able to use integrated vegetation management (IVM) measures, 

which include use of appropriate vegetation combined with physical pruning and selective use 

of herbicides, to ensure proper distances are maintained between electric company facilities 

and nearby vegetation. Particular challenges arise when ROWs cross federal lands because 

electric companies often face significant delays in obtaining approvals from federal land 

management agencies to access their ROWs and implement IVM. 

Transmission line ROWs crossing federal lands face multiple layers of jurisdiction and decisionmaking, which can hamper electric companies' ability to manage vegetation and reduce wildfire 

risk in a timely manner. In recent years, efforts to improve ROW access have been 

accompanied by significant burdens. For example, efforts to expedite IVM often are slowed 

down by costly and lengthy environmental studies and monitoring in order to obtain approvals 

from federal land managers. 

This puts electric companies in a bind. Courts have found companies liable for wildfire damages 

involving power line contact with vegetation despite their extensive, proactive vegetation 

management efforts, often in high hazard conditions. At the same time, companies are subject 

to significant fines for violations of the mandatory reliability standards for vegetation 

management developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and 

approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Increased wildfire risk has 

elevated the need for companies to address vegetation management proactively. Yet issues 

remain regarding how best to access federal lands cost-effectively to remove forest debris, 

obtain authorizations to perform routine vegetation management, and enhance liability 

protection. 

One way industry has responded is through development of national consensus standards 

issued by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), with participation by the U.S. Forest 

Service and National Park Service. The ANSI standards are a key component of the electric 

power industry's IVM practices to get ahead of potential fire hazards before they become 

critical. The Wildland Fire Directive issued by Interior Secretary Zinke on September 12 is also 

consistent with the IVM approach. 

Another effort involves a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Vegetation 

Management in Power Lines Rights-of-Way. Signed by EEl and federal agencies, the purpose of 

the MOU is to facilitate cooperation and coordination between the electric power industry and 

the federal land management agencies to manage vegetation within and immediately adjacent 

to existing ROWs. The MOU is designed to enable implementation of cost-effective and 

environmentally sound vegetation management plans, procedures and practices, while 

2 
42 

enhancing the ability of EEl member companies to provide safe, reliable electricity to 

customers. 

The Forest Service has been a valuable partner in implementing the MOU and integrating it into 

their Desktop Guide for Utility Vegetation Management. While the signing of the MOU clearly 

was a very positive step, more needs to be done to ensure that agencies are authorized and 

required to act in a timely manner, enabling EEl member companies to perform appropriate 

vegetation management on and near their ROWs with reasonable limits on liability for wildfires, 

especially if agencies prevent needed vegetation management measures. 

That is why EEl supports federal legislation to improve the ability of electric companies to 

perform vegetation management on federal lands in order to enhance reliability and reduce 

wildfire risks. This year, the House of Representatives has passed the bipartisan LaMalfaSchrader "Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act" (H.R. 1873), which provides for 

expedited and more consistent review processes for vegetation management on federal lands. 

It also directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop new categorical exclusions 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for existing transmission and distribution 

ROWs. Once created, these categorical exclusions will create significant efficiencies in the 

federal review process and allow electric companies to expedite their necessary vegetation 

management in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

We appreciate that Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell also included a 

vegetation management provision, Section 2310, when they re-introduced their comprehensive 

energy bill this year, the "Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017" (S. 1460). While the 

language inS. 1460 is similar to H.R. 1873 in many respects, including authority for NEPA 

categorical exclusions for existing ROWs, the House bill contains a number of noteworthy 

beneficial features, including shorter approval timelines (90 days versus 180 days), a "hazard 

tree" definition that provides additional clarity, references to current vegetation management 

technology (e.g., unmanned aircraft systems), and generally more flexible and less burdensome 

authorities. One positive feature of S. 1460 that is lacking in H.R. 1873 is a requirement that 

agency guidance take into account the EEl MOU with federal land management agencies. Both 

bills would provide a more streamlined and consistent process for vegetation management plan 

approvals. 

The House and Senate bills each contain limited liability protections that are different, but 

potentially complementary, and that together could help reduce disincentives for electric 

companies seeking to proactively develop vegetation management plans or engage in 

appropriate vegetation management activities. H.R. 1873 would protect an electric company 

from wildfire liability to the United States if an agency fails to allow activities consistent with an 

approved vegetation management plan and necessary to comply with reliability and fire safety 

standards, or appropriate vegetation management activities to deal with a hazard tree or 

imminent danger of contact. S. 1460, on the other hand, would protect against strict liability in 

case of a land agency's unreasonable delay or failure to approve or adhere to a vegetation 

management plan or an MOU. 

3 
43 

Conclusion 

Vegetation management is an important priority for EEl and its member companies to ensure 

the safety and reliability of energy infrastructure. 

We will continue to work with federal lands management agencies to achieve effective 'on-theground' implementation of the MOU and other means to improve vegetation management on 

and adjacent to ROWs across federal lands. 

In addition, Congress should enact legislation to establish a betterframework to promote 

federal land management consistency, accountability and timely decision-making as it relates to 

protecting power lines on federal lands and reducing the risk of wildfires, while respecting the 

mission of federal management agencies to appropriately manage lands within their respective 

jurisdictions. We look forward to working with this Committee and others in Congress to 

achieve this goal. 

4 
44 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rable, and thank you all for your 

comments this morning. I appreciate that each of you has indicated 

a willingness to work with us on these issues as we advance them 

and recognize the significance of it. 

I would like to ask a question, and I will throw it out to the entire panel here. It has been mentioned—the strict liability standard 

that FLPMA imposes on owners and operators of power lines that 

are located on federal lands. I have also mentioned the significant 

penalties for violating the state and federal or local requirements 

to clear the lines. I think it gets people’s attention when you say 

it could be up to $1 million per day, per violation. And then you 

have your consumers effectively paying twice; once under strict liability and again for violating the ERO vegetation management 

standard. This can come about even if the utility has been blocked 

from taking preventative steps due to, oftentimes, federal land 

management agency inaction. 

The question to each of you is whether or not strict liability is 

the appropriate standard for those utilities that are performing the 

vegetation management work, and do you agree that should be the 

case even where those damages, potential damages, might be preventable where you might have a federal agency’s inaction in allowing a utility to go on to the federal land, to an existing right-ofway, to perform the necessary work to remove, whether it is a dead 

or dying tree, but in other words, prevent that utility from clearing 

the line? If we can speak to the standard that is out there right 

now under FLPMA and whether you think that is the appropriate 

standard and whether that holds if the damages could have been 

preventable? 

I will start with you, Mr. Casamassa. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Certainly, we are willing to and are ready to work with the Committee on coming up with, perhaps, a more reasonable approach in 

certain situations for the liability and a clearer definition of what 

that would mean both within and outside of the right-of-way. 

So I think that there are opportunities for us to look at that and 

then be able to make some modifications to it as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you then whether you think it should 

be Congress or the federal agency, in this case, BLM, determining 

the appropriate standard? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well, I think that it’s, again, it’s a combination 

of the two. I think that certainly there are roles for both to provide 

some frame for it as it relates to what we can do administratively 

and then potentially to look at some adjustments being made 

through legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ruhs? 

Mr. RUHS. Chairman Murkowski, as my colleague from the Forest Service mentioned, we look forward to working with the Committee on these kinds of issues. We strongly support these bills and 

I believe that, in regards to liability, there are opportunities for us 

to work together and find solutions. 

The CHAIRMAN. The rest of the panel? Mr. Hayden? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Well Chairman Murkowski, I absolutely agree that 

there should be liability relief for utilities if there are delays in the 

approval of a vegetation management plan. I also believe there 
45 

should be liability relief if we are not allowed to work consistently 

with the plan or if we are not allowed to cut hazard trees in accordance with the plan. 

But I would take that one step further. If we are acting in accordance with the plan, not negligent in any way, I would say that 

strict liability provisions may be—there should be consideration 

given to removing that strict liability from us if we are acting in 

accordance with the plan because we can’t be out there 24/7 determining when a new hazard tree crops up. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I—— 

Mr. HAYDEN. And to your final question, I would just say that 

Congress should make that determination. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. 

As a general rule, I think that strict liability is an appropriate 

standard for right-of-way holders on public lands; but in the context of utility electricity lines, I think it’s important to recognize 

the public service that they provide, the important public service. 

And I don’t think it’s fair for Congress to impose standards that 

they must meet, and then prevent them from meeting them, and 

then impose strict liability for not meeting them. 

So, in that case, I would just reiterate that I think the House 

bill’s provisions are very troubling because they’re overbroad and 

the Senate bill takes a much more thoughtful approach to the strict 

liability issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Rable. 

Mr. RABLE. Yeah so, in agreement with Mr. Hayden and Mr. Miller, I would suggest that it would be a Congressional decision with 

input from both federal agencies and utilities. And as long as the 

provisions are being met as far as the vegetation management plan 

and we’re following our plan, then liability would indeed be considered and waived. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, thank you. Thank you each for that. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I appreciate the question, Madam Chair, because that was the 

question that I had. And I agree with you, I think this is an area 

where I am hoping the federal agencies are willing to work to address the issue of strict liability, because I do not see how we can 

mandate a standard of strict liability when the utilities are prevented from being able to follow their management plan or they 

are blocked from doing so. 

I am hoping that the federal agencies are willing to work 

through this issue and help us identify and figure out how we can 

maneuver through this issue of liability, because I think there has 

to be some liability, obviously. Somebody has to be held accountable to make sure that we are preventing any type of forest fires 

or that we are addressing and doing the cleanup that is necessary. 

But I also understand and have dealt with some of the federal 

agencies locally in the State of Nevada, and there is a frustration 

level. 
46 

And I appreciate, Mr. Hayden, your comments, because I have 

heard that from some of our similar utilities and agencies about 

asking for approval and not getting it and the delay, delay, delay 

that happens. So I am hoping there is more conversation regarding 

this issue, and that we can figure this out. I appreciate that. 

One of the other areas, though, that there has been discussion 

is categorical exclusions for NEPA. I am hoping, Mr. Hayden, if you 

would be willing, and Mr. Rable, to talk a little bit more about 

that—what do you identify as categorical exclusions that you are 

seeking? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, to address that question I would go back to— 

in my written testimony I provide an example of a six-mile plow, 

burying six miles of overhead line and converting it to underground. You know, that’s a commonsense example of how we can 

get out of the forest into road right-of-way, but that’s very expensive and we can’t do that in every case. 

The Forest Service absolutely needs a categorical exclusion to 

process these requests for vegetation management or burying a 

power line because, number one, I don’t think the resources that 

they would need to go through full-blown assessments every time 

we submit one are possible. 

And to the fact that a categorical exclusion isn’t just signing a 

piece of paper and sending that off. With our categorical exclusion, 

we were also billed $8,800 and 23 days was spent on that; 2.3 days 

for ten people, on average, at a cost of $8,800, but it took 18 

months to get that. So if we didn’t have categorical exclusion, just 

think of the consequences of that. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

And Mr. Rable and Mr. Miller as well, I’d be curious to hear your 

thoughts on it. 

Mr. RABLE. Yeah, so just to reiterate that the categorical exclusion would not limit or hold the utilities unaccountable for the 

work that we’re planning to do. What we’re trying to do with the 

categorical exclusions is create significant efficiencies, create consistencies and additional flexibilities within the agencies and how 

they react to the work plans that we have identified annually. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. 

I would just comment that, to make clear, that there are a number of categorical exclusions that the agencies already have and use 

for routine vegetation management, and I think the benefit of the 

Senate bill would be that it encourages long-term planning. And 

most of these activities can and should be planned months and 

years ahead and that could facilitate appropriate environmental review. 

Our main concern, again, is that the House bill would give a 

blanket categorical exclusion to everything and that’s unnecessary 

and, I think, could lead to significant adverse effects on the environment. 

Thank you. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. And 

thank you, Madam Chair, for this conversation. I really appreciate 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich. 
47 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Ruhs, I know we are here to discuss safe maintenance of our 

rights-of-way for electric lines today. I think it is an incredibly important issue. I want to especially thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for the work that they have put into the existing language in the Energy bill. I think we are making good progress on 

this. 

However, with yesterday’s news about the Secretary’s recommendations to the President regarding national monuments, including two BLM monuments in New Mexico, I have to take the 

opportunity to raise a couple of questions with you. 

I was incredibly concerned in reading the report summary on the 

two monuments in New Mexico. I note that there were more than 

a few simple, factual errors included. For example, there is a claim 

that roads have been closed in Rio Grande del Norte National 

Monument. I confirmed with BLM staff that that is not accurate. 

And there is a claim that ranchers have stopped ranching there because of those non-existing road closures. Also not true. 

The report says that the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument is on or abuts the U.S.-Mexico border. That is 

also not true, because on the recommendation of the U.S. Customs 

and Border Patrol, the boundary of the monument was actually established five miles north of the international border, actually 

north of New Mexico State Highway Nine. Finally, it says that 

both proclamations need to be amended to protect hunting and 

fishing rights when nothing could be further from the truth. I have 

had the opportunity, in fact, to hunt everything from Mearns’ quail 

to javelina in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. In addition, Petersen’s Hunting magazine, just last month, 

listed that monument as one of the top ten public land destination 

hunts in the nation for quail. 

As for the Rio Grande del Norte, I confirmed this morning with 

the largest membership sportsman’s organization in New Mexico 

that hunting and fishing access have actually improved post-monument designation and that the monument even hosts a bighorn 

sheep hunt that did not exist before the monument designation. 

These are some pretty basic facts to get wrong. 

So I have to ask you, were the local BLM staff, who actually 

manage these two monuments on the ground on a daily basis, consulted by the Secretary’s office regarding the facts on the ground 

in these monuments that they manage as part of that Secretarial 

process? 

Mr. RUHS. Senator, I can assure you that I, myself, and the Bureau of Land Management were not part of the writing of the reports. We did answer questions and provide data as necessary. I 

haven’t seen the report so I can’t answer the questions up front, 

but I would be willing to take those questions and concerns back 

with me to the Department and ask. 

Senator HEINRICH. I would appreciate that. 

So you were actually not asked to fact check that document before it was shared with the White House? 

Mr. RUHS. Correct, Senator. We provided information as requested and again, that’s the limit of our—— 
48 

Senator HEINRICH. The Secretary’s office might ask you a specific 

question, but you were not given an opportunity to review that document for accuracy? 

Mr. RUHS. Correct. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

So there is no way for you to know the sources of inaccurate facts 

in that report? 

Mr. RUHS. Correct, sir. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Do you have any idea if there is going to be a process to correct 

factual errors in that report and potentially change recommendations based on inaccurate information? 

Mr. RUHS. Again, Senator, I am not involved with the development of the report, but my understanding, I guess, would be that, 

you know, our Secretary is pretty thorough on things and so I’m 

sure that if we’ve identified that there are inconsistencies and I 

take that information back, why, I’m sure that there would be an 

opportunity to fix those. 

Senator HEINRICH. I look forward to putting together a fact sheet 

that is more consistent with the conditions on the ground. I will be 

happy to share that with you so that you can take it back to the 

Secretary. 

I have to say that my constituents are incredibly upset by the 

fact that the future of their monuments could be determined by 

people sitting in offices in Washington, DC, who have not been out 

on the ground in those places, and at this point, seemingly, did not 

get their basic facts right. So I look forward to working with you. 

I look forward to working with the Secretary. And I certainly hope 

that before the President acts on any of these recommendations, 

the Secretary makes sure that he can get his facts straight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I was going to ask about liability relief, but it sounds like that 

was covered. And all witnesses, especially the agencies, want to 

find a solution through legislation. So it is great to be of consensus 

here. 

I was also going to talk about categorical exclusions. It sounds 

like Mr. Hayden has also spoken to the importance of categorical 

exclusions. 

So given that those items have been covered very well prior to 

my questions, I am going to continue to move down this path of CE 

authority, though in a little more depth. 

Mr. Casamassa, I have a question for you. Our witnesses have 

attested to the importance of the use of categorical exclusions for 

environmental review. Could you speak to the value of a CE, and 

is public input incorporated in a review under a CE? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah, Senator. 

Certainly, based on the routine and minor nature of some actions 

associated with the work that is being proposed by utility providers, there’s an opportunity to potentially expand what kind of 

work they can do and work within the frame of the National Environmental Policy Act. So certainly a categorical exclusion that goes 
49 

beyond the scope of what we have right now would be advantageous for the agency. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, and I think it is an important point that 

a categorical exclusion does not mean that public input is excluded. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well certainly there is some level of notification 

and input that would be provided from communities of interest and 

constituents who are interested in that kind of work. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. I do want to point out though, that one of the 

things would be is that this would not be a categorical exclusion 

where we would exclude this from analysis. It’s just a category 

within the analysis process that we do. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. Thank you. 

Mr. Rable, could you shed some light on the penalties utilities 

face to keep the grid reliable and how the lack of vegetation treatment poses a significant financial risk that you may ultimately 

pass on to ratepayers? 

Mr. RABLE. Yeah. 

So to build on what Chairman Murkowski mentioned earlier, the 

utilities are indeed based on FAC–003–4, subject to penalties up to 

and including $1 million per day, per violation. That, of course, is 

dependent on a couple of factors: the violation severity levels and 

the violation risk factors. So depending on the magnitude of the severity and the risk that the utility has assumed, those fines could 

be up to and including $1 million per day. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

That is big money, real money, particularly thinking about the 

co-ops and so forth out in Montana that, you know, a lot of Montanans find out there is a longer month than there is a paycheck, 

and that is a very important point. 

I made this point earlier when I was introducing Mr. Hayden, 

but let me just conclude by saying when I was here that first week 

of August, in fact, right here at this dais—on that particular day, 

Montana had 30 of the top 30 fires in the nation burning in our 

state. I had just gotten off the phone with one of our county commissioners from Southwest Montana where there is a very large 

BPA transmission line running near one of the fires, and the carbon that is emitted from the fire and the particulate in the air was 

such that it presented a risk to the firefighters on the ground from 

arcing from the high voltage line to the ground. At that point we 

could not even think about vegetation management along these 

power lines. We could not even get firefighters near the power lines 

to even fight the fire. 

I think it highlights the importance that we need preventive 

measures and good, responsible, sound timber management practices here to ensure that we can keep the forest healthy and to protect these important assets that when the fire burns, it is often too 

late. That is why, I think, what we have here with this bill is good, 

commonsense forest management. 

Thank you for your thoughtful testimony today from all the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines, and thank you for 

your leadership on the forestry reform issues. 
50 

You know, you never want to have tragedy bring about the impetus to advance good policy and good legislation, but certainly the 

loss of property, the tragic loss of life that you have seen in your 

state alone this summer, has been something that reminds us all— 

there is responsibility that we can put forth from a policy perspective, that we might not be able to stop forest fires altogether, but 

hopefully working with smart initiatives, we can reduce some of 

that risk. 

You have proposed doing so much of that with your initiative, 

and we really look forward to working with you to advance those. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chair Murkowski. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you for your continued leadership on this very 

timely matter. I agree exactly with what you said and the role of 

this Committee working to advance good policy and hate to see 

tragedy at play that brings about these sorts of hearings. 

The EPW will be holding a hearing on some of the things that 

Senator Daines is proposing with his legislation next week, and I 

look forward to continuing to work with you closely on this. But 

every year this Committee grapples with forest management and 

preventing catastrophic fires like those that we have seen in Montana this year. 

While we are not necessarily here today to discuss the larger 

issue of general forest management, I think it is worth noting that 

if federal forests were in better health, we may not be facing such 

an urgent need to actively, so actively, protect our electric grid. To 

be clear, this is not just a rural issue. One downed tree, one interrupted line, one fire could cause dramatic and drastic sweeping effects across wide areas of the country. 

Mr. Ruhs, on September 12th Secretary Zinke issued a department-wide memorandum on wildland fire instructing your agency 

to ‘‘use the full range of existing authorities’’ and ‘‘use your existing 

policies more aggressively to combat the ever-growing threat of catastrophic wildfire.’’ In practical terms, what does this mean for how 

the BLM will engage more with partners, like electric co-ops, to 

manage forested lands outside of rights-of-way? 

Mr. RUHS. Senator, thank you for the question. 

The BLM and our other federal partners work pretty hand-inhand with the industry folks since the development of the Edison 

MOU in 2016. I think we’ve seen some improvements in our abilities to develop vegetative management plans and work together to 

support those. And I think that’s one of the primary things that’s 

going to carry us forward as we work together on those things. 

I believe that the items that are in these bills, both of them, provide us with additional tools that will help us permit and process 

things faster. 

So I think all those things help us to be more responsive and 

support our customer base better. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Casamassa, while Secretary Zinke’s most 

recent memo does not apply to Forest Service staff, he, as well as 

Agriculture Secretary Purdue, did issue an earlier memo in June 

outlining the need to work more collaboratively on managing forests and preventing catastrophic wildfire. 
51 

In Wyoming, rural utilities are concerned that they are unable 

to adequately manage for risks to the power lines because the 

agency has not removed potentially hazardous trees outside of the 

right-of-way. If you have a tree outside of the right-of-way that is 

taller than the distance from the right-of-way boundary to the 

power line, obviously there is a risk to that power line. 

So falling trees do pose a real risk because we have significant 

winds in Wyoming to say nothing of the risk posed by fast, hot, 

moving fires. Your agency has cited issues with disposal of these 

trees as a barrier to helping mitigate the risk. 

In your testimony you mentioned that some provisions in this 

language are duplicative, but it seems there is a need to reinforce 

some of the Forest Service’s tools. So in situations where utilities 

are under threat by conditions outside of the right-of-way, does the 

Forest Service have the tools it needs to address those conditions 

itself or to allow the utility to act in a timely manner? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah, thank you, Senator. 

We do have some tools available to us, certainly not within the 

context of what one would consider something categorically excluded. 

I know, based on the work that has been done in parts of Wyoming, that a large area associated with the Medicine Bow and the 

Routt National Forests within Colorado and other forests in Colorado, we have taken a larger look at that landscape and provided 

for an opportunity for co-ops and large-scale utility providers to 

clear inside the right-of-way and then adjacent to the right-of-way, 

those trees that have been deemed hazards. 

So there are some tools that are available and certainly there 

could be, and some additional tools that would be made available 

to the agency. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Finally for Mr. Rable and Mr. Hayden. The liability utilities face 

caused by poor vegetation management outside of the rights-of-way 

truly can be astounding. The way communities experience a blackout or other interruption in electric service, the impacts are swift. 

They are apparent. Hospitals, schools, grocery stores and homes 

lose power; loss of power in this scale can be, obviously, disruptive 

but also dangerous. 

Senator Daines asked about the real cost of outages in terms of 

the fines, but what impact does this have for your ratepayers, you 

know, on a different scale? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, in our community, fire was very nearby this 

year. And I’ll tell you one dramatic impact is the firefighters, the 

property owners that were trying to protect their own homes, if we 

have to shut off power or power is interrupted, they can’t fight fires 

with the water they need in certain cases. So that would be a direct 

impact. 

But it’s the cost of—we can’t cover enough, we can’t have enough 

insurance to cover some of these bills that have been sent out. 

So—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Rable? 

Mr. RABLE. Yeah, thank you for the question. 

To build on what Senator Daines mentioned earlier in the tracking of particulates and fires that are in and around our utility cor-
52 

ridors, we have a number of examples at Arizona Public Service 

where we have de-energized lines in order to protect firefighter 

wildland safety and the protection of our customers as well. So we 

have de-energized lines in order for them to get access to our corridor. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

There has been a fair amount of discussion about the categorical 

exclusions and to follow on that, this is directed to both Mr. 

Casamassa and Mr. Ruhs. From your perspective, are there some 

types of vegetation management activities that are routine enough, 

we just see enough of them, that they could be categorically excluded under NEPA? I guess that is the first part of the question, 

and if you can identify what those might be, why haven’t the agencies acted to specifically exclude them previously? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Madam Chair, certainly there are some, I’d say, 

vegetative community types that we think—— 

The CHAIRMAN. What does that mean, ‘‘vegetative community’’? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well, it’s just a classification of the type of trees 

or vegetation—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. ——that are at a particular location. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. So I think that there are opportunities to ensure 

that that is the kind of activity that could be—clearing that vegetative community type could be an activity that should be provided 

to the utility companies. And certainly, that’s a part of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. So if it should be and it could be, why haven’t 

you? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. And we have, up to this point, been working 

within the context of the categories that we have done administratively and also looking at the full suite of CEs that are available 

to us through other pieces of legislation. But recognizing this is, I 

think, one of the areas that, given the large scale of insect outbreaks that have been occurring, particularly in the interior West, 

and the need for active management adjacent to or within the 

rights-of-way, there’s an opportunity here to go beyond what we 

have presently, administratively, or what has been provided 

through legislation in terms of categorical exclusions. 

The CHAIRMAN. It sounds like you are saying that you do have— 

you can clearly identify those types of activities that would be routine enough. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. You just need to do it. 

What about you, Mr. Ruhs, within BLM? 

Mr. RUHS. Madam Chairwoman, I guess that I would say the 

same, kind of, holds for BLM. 

We have, I think we’ve been focused primarily on developing vegetative management plans and working together along those lines 

and trying to streamline the processes that way. 

And we do have some tools in the toolbox, categorical exclusions, 

but I don’t think they get specific enough for some of the areas that 

we have. 
53 

So I think working together we can find those things if we continue to work with industry as well as with the Committee. I think 

we can refine what our needs are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me ask the question because there has 

been some discussion brought up, primarily from Mr. Hayden and 

Mr. Rable, about inconsistent practices or procedures that lead to 

delays and planning difficulties. I guess the question—it certainly 

seems to me that from the utility side they are saying that these 

delays are real. We don’t think many of them are reasonable. How 

do you respond to that? You say you are trying to work with everybody, but do you think that more needs to be done to ensure, not 

only streamlining, but a greater consistency to allow for better 

planning to best reduce the delay? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well, Madam Chair, I agree. 

I think that there has to be a bit of—there has to be more consistency in our approach to the way that we manage the areas 

within and outside of the rights-of-way. That certainly is something 

that we are working on. 

I think it has to do not only with some of the clarity around some 

of the policy and procedures, but then also the recognition by the 

agency that a stance around leadership when it comes to these 

kinds of issues is really important that we recognize the value of 

ensuring that we’re stewarding all of the lands for all of the uses 

in and outside of these rights-of-way. We’re looking for, we want 

to look for opportunities for us to work better across this landscape. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask about that because you are saying all 

the right things. I don’t think anyone would disagree with you but 

I think what you hear is the frustration saying, well the agency is 

saying the right thing, yet we are not seeing that translate. We are 

still continuing to see the delay; we are still continuing to see a 

conflict. Is there anything going on administratively right now or 

are you waiting for Congress to, kind of, sort things out and basically to tell you to do the right thing? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Well, certainly we are taking action in some 

areas as it relates to some routine removal of vegetation inside the 

rights-of-way. And so, that is, you know, there is some active management actually going on right now across the landscape. Is it 

consistent across every single district office or forest in the agency? 

I would say, no, and they’re working toward that. But there is a 

considerable amount of work that’s being done in cooperation with 

the utility companies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask if Mr. Rable or Mr. Hayden agree? 

Are you seeing a change in relationship, a willingness to work with 

our land management, the local land managers, working with the 

federal land managers, or is it still the same old, same old? 

Mr. RABLE. It continues to be fairly inconsistent. So the short 

answer to your question is sometimes yes and sometimes no. And 

oftentimes that’s dependent on change in staff, so you may have 

staffing levels that at certain times are in agreement with routine 

vegetation management and what your prescription is that’s been 

long established on existing corridors; and then with turnover in 

staff, they may have a difference of opinion about your approach. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hayden, would you agree? 
54 

Mr. HAYDEN. I would completely agree and I would lean back to 

the Benton Rural Electric example that just hit my desk a couple 

days ago, that talks about their inconsistency. 

I’d like to add that, you know, one of the greatest strengths of 

working with the Forest Service for us is this decentralized decision-making. Local people that are in our communities, they understand our struggles, are making decisions; but one of the greatest 

weaknesses is that same decentralized decision-making because 

they may have different interpretations of the rules. They may be 

afraid to make decisions at that local level, but we have this struggle where it’s really great to be able to work locally with these people, and we struggle with that. So I would say that the inconsistency is still there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think this is important for our agency 

folks, Mr. Casamassa and Mr. Ruhs, to hear and understand that 

we have a ways to go here to gain these efficiencies that we are 

all hoping for. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I apologize 

for stepping out. We have had a couple of other hearings this morning, as you well know, and are balancing various things. 

I wanted to go back to the BLM focus because last Congress 

BLM testified that it was concerned about the then-House legislation that was sponsored by then-Congressman Zinke, now Secretary Zinke. And BLM noticed that waiving the liability might 

conflict with the standard terms and conditions of the rights-of-way 

grants. The House bill still has these same provisions. 

In your time at BLM, Mr. Ruhs, have you ever been in a situation where non-emergency issues had to wait longer than three 

days while you were dealing with a real emergency like a wildfire? 

Mr. RUHS. Ranking Member Cantwell, I would say that in my 

time with the agency, I have seen times when we haven’t been as 

efficient with our processes as we should be. I believe oftentimes 

we have competing laws and regulations, if you will, that we have 

to follow and sometimes they get in our way. 

I think one of the things that we’ve seen since the previous Congress where we’ve testified on this, on the previous bill from the 

House, since that time we have a new MOU that, I think, has 

given us some new direction. I think that our agency is also working on some updated policy that will hopefully bring better consistency across the agency. Also, we have ongoing training that we’re 

starting to do for our folks. 

So I think all those things will help us as we better understand 

the issues and streamline our processes. Are we where we need to 

be? We aren’t yet, but I believe we’re getting there. 

Senator CANTWELL. So is that a yes or no on your seeing something take longer than three days when there was a real emergency? 

Mr. RUHS. Yes, ma’am, I’ve seen things take longer than three 

days when they shouldn’t have. 

Senator CANTWELL. When it was a real emergency? 

Mr. RUHS. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, if you could get us that information I 

would so appreciate it. 
55 

Does it make sense to release utilities from liability if it takes 

BLM, for example, four days to respond to a non-emergency request? 

Mr. RUHS. Yes, and I believe that if we’re working together on 

a vegetative management plan that hopefully we won’t see those 

kind of situations as we go forward. I would like to think that as 

we work with the Committee that we can deal with those liability 

issues and certainly make them better for all concerned. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think we have over here—in the Senate bill. At least that’s my opinion, so I think we have a lot of flexibility. 

I wanted to ask about tribal issues. Obviously BLM covers a lot 

of land, but all lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 

Interior, including national parks and wildlife refuges and tribal 

lands could be eligible—the bill would require state and local governments to basically trump tribal requirements on some of those 

lands. Is that a problem, Mr. Miller or Mr. Hayden? 

Mr. MILLER. Yeah, from my perspective it would be entirely inconsistent with the United States’ trust responsibility to those 

tribes. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Hayden, any concerns there? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Currently, I think tribal entities, as well as other 

entities, are consulted on many of the projects that take place in 

any case, correct? And I don’t know how the Senate bill would influence that or impact that because as part of our categorical exclusion process today, tribal entities are consulted as it is. 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, we are talking about mostly the House 

bill. 

Mr. Ruhs or Mr. Casamassa, do your agencies want to force 

tribes to accept emergency and fire policies of the state or counties 

which they are located in? 

Mr. CASAMASSA. No. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Ruhs? 

Mr. RUHS. I would agree with that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I just have one question that was prompted by reference to the 

memorandum of understanding with EEI, the Edison Electric Institute. There was a promise that within 18 months they would emphasize laws, regulations, and policies associated with vegetation 

management for power line rights-of-way on federal lands. And the 

agency also promises to work with non-governmental parties to develop a process for coordinating management of power rights-ofway on federal lands. This 18-month deadline, I understand, is up 

February of ’18. Where are we in terms of the ability of the agencies to meet the deadline? Is this process underway? Just give me 

a quick update here. 

Mr. CASAMASSA. Yeah, Madam Chair, from the perspective of the 

Forest Service, we are making some advancements when it comes 

to working with and under that memorandum of understanding. 

And I think that in the very near future we’ll see some of those 

advancements come to fruition. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ruhs? 
56 

Mr. RUHS. Madam Chair, we also are making progress. I can’t 

tell you exactly where we’re at, but again, we’ve—are in the process 

of developing new policy that takes the information out of the MOU 

and puts it in place so that we can be consistent across the agency, 

as well as implementation training for our folks so that they know 

exactly what it is we’ve committed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you figure you are on track, insofar as meeting that deadline? 

Mr. RUHS. Yes, ma’am. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good, good. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, thank you for your appearance here this morning 

and for the work that you are doing, certainly from the utilities’ 

perspective, oversight perspective, and within our agencies. This is 

an issue that, I think, the Ranking Member and I, along with 

many of our colleagues here, particularly from the West, are trying 

to understand how we do better by our policies to ensure that we 

can move efficiently, effectively and without delay when it comes 

to things like vegetation management, keeping not only property 

better protected and safe, but also in an effort to ensure that lives 

are not at risk. Wildfires are unpredictable and we saw that play 

out certainly this last season. 

Thank you for your participation, and I thank you each for your 

willingness to work with the Committee as we work to further enhance and build on these initiatives. 

With that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(57) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
58 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electrici(v Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 231() ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electriciry Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Currently, power line owners and operators must undertake a full environmental 

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) either an Environmental Impact 

Statement or and Environmental Assessment- to undertake vegetation management work on 

federal lands. Such analyses can take several years to complete, delaying work vital to public 

safety. 

a. Please provide a list of the types of vegetation management activities that are routine 

enough that, from the agency's vantage point, they should be categorically excluded 

underNEPA. 

b. Please provide a list of any existing CEs that are available for this type of work. 

c. Will the Forest Service take administrative action to create CEs for utility vegetation 

management work on federal lands? 

Response: 

a. The Forest Service supports coordination with utility companies to balance regular and 

proactive vegetation management within transmission line rights-of-way with 

management of impacts on National Forest System resources. Routine vegetation 

management that could be categorically excluded from further review under NEPA in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances include manual or non-mechanical removal of 

trees and other vegetation, controlled burning or mechanical treatment including mowing, 

pruning, and clearing to remove trees and other vegetation, removal of invasive species 

through clearing, mowing, or other approved non-mechanical treatments, and planting of 

native shrubs and grasses for restoration within and immediately adjacent to an 

authorized transmission line right-of-way where the permit holder has an approved 

operating plan that addresses vegetation management. 

b. There is no Forest Service CE specifically addressing vegetation management within and 

immediately adjacent to transmission line rights-of-way. However, within specified 

parameters, harvest oflive trees on up to 70 acres (36 CFR 220.6 (e)(12)), salvage of 

dead or dying trees on up to 250 acres (36 CFR 220.6(e)(13)), and commercial and 

noncommercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease on up to 250 acres 

(36 CFR 220.6 (e)(14)) are categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS 

and could potentially apply to vegetation management within and adjacent to 

transmission line rights-of-way. The CE for insect and disease treatments authorized 

under the Agricultural Act of2014 also could apply in certain cases to vegetation 

management within and adjacent to transmission line rights-of-way. 
59 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electrici(v Reliabilizy and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

c. The Forest Service is currently considering the development of draft CEs to address 

routine vegetation management and other maintenance activities in existing rights-ofway. 

Question 2: We've received testimony of inconsistent practices/procedures of federal land 

managers at the local level a lack of uniformity that can lead to planning difficulties for utilities 

and delays in clearing vegetation. 

a. How do local land managers take into account a utility's regulatory reliability 

requirements? 

b. Should federal land managers be required to implement all state and local requirements 

with respect to electric reliability and fire safety? What happens if state and local 

requirements conflict with federal law? 

c. Is your agency timely responding to utility requests to enter on federal lands and maintain 

their rights of way? What do you consider timely? 

Response: 

a. Agency leadership has provided internal communication to increase awareness of 

regulatory reliability requirements and establish consistency in working with utilities 

regarding vegetation management procedures and practices to allow utilities to address 

hazard trees and other vegetation that may affect the reliability of transmission lines 

while minimizing resource impacts. The North American Electric Reliability Cooperation 

standards for utility rights-of-way are included in the agency's vegetation management 

guide and have been communicated to field staff with responsibility for administering 

transmission line authorizations. 

b. Transmission line authorizations require compliance with applicable federal, state, 

county, and municipal laws, regulations, and other legal requirements to the extent they 

do not conflict with federal law, regulation, or policy. 

c. The Forest Service strives to provide responsive service to all permit holders, contractors, 

visitors, partners, stakeholders, and state, local, and tribal governments. Due to the 

magnitude of Forest Service responsibilities, which span 193 million acres ofNational 

Forest System lands, and staffing challenges in many national forests and ranger districts, 

delays in responding to requests from utilities have occurred. The agency encourages 

administrative units and utilities to engage in early communication and planning to 

facilitate a clear understanding of proposed work and provide sufficient time to address 

2 
60 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electrici(v Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

,<,'ection 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

potential resource impacts and other legal requirements without causing delay. 

Collaboration between the agency and utilities in the development of operating plans. 

including vegetation management plans, is a key element in this approach. 

Question 3: Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal agencies and 

Edison Electric Institute, the agencies promise within 18 months to "emphasize laws, 

regulations, and policies associated with vegetation management for power line ROWs on 

Federal lands." The agencies also promise to "[w]ork with the non-governmental parties to 

develop a process for coordinating vegetation management of power line ROWs on Federal 

lands." The 18-month deadline will be in February of2018. 

a. Is the Forest Service on track to meet the deadline? What has been done to-date and what 

remains to be completed? 

b. Has the Forest Service considered entering into a similar MOU with public power 

entities? 

Response: 

a. The Forest Service recently met with Edison Electric Institute and plans to meet with 

Bureau of Land Management personnel before the end of calendar year 2017 to discuss a 

process for coordinating vegetation management. We believe we are currently on track 

to meet the February 2018 deadline. 

b. The agency is open to entering into a similar MOU with public power entities and 

cooperatives. Earlier this year, the Forest Service and Bonneville Power Administration 

executed an MOU updating existing decades-old MOUs and providing for ~:,>reater 

coordination, consistency, and efficacy in meeting both agencies' goals with regard to 

vegetation management on National Forest System lands. 

Questions from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question 1: Why does the Forest Service currently require prior approval for some right-of-way 

maintenance activities, such as major ground-disturbing actions, under a utility's approved 

vegetation management plan, as opposed to authorizing all such activity in the future upon 

approval of the vegetation management plan? 

Response: Routine activities within the scope of an authorized right-of-way that have been 

analyzed and approved in the operating plan, including vegetation management, do not require 

additional approval. However, before work begins, notification and coordination between 

3 
61 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for tbe Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

utilities and Forest Service permit administrators are required to address public safety concerns 

such as high fire danger; avoid conflict with other authorized activities such as movement of 

livestock, timber harvesting, or recreation events; and minimize impacts on National Forest 

System resources such as breeding wildlife. The agency encourages administrative units and 

utilities to engage in early communication and planning to provide sufficient time to address any 

access and operational issues in advance. 

Question 2: If (l) the Forest Service must apply a categorical exclusion to a vegetation 

management plan that is part of a proposed renewal of a long-term right-of-way authorization 

that predates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and (2) the Forest Service is prohibited from requiring a utility to seek any further 

case-by-case approval for discrete vegetation management activities contemplated under that 

plan, then at what point would the Forest Service ever conduct a thorough analysis of the 

environmental effects of various ways to maintain the right-of-way? 

Response: As stated above, there is no Forest Service CE specifically addressing vegetation 

management for transmission line rights-of-way. Forest Service CEs, including the previously 

cited CEs that may be available for this purpose and a new CE specific to vegetation 

management, apply only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed 

action. To determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist, the Forest Service reviews a list 

of resource conditions contained in 36 CFR 220.6(b ). The Forest Service considers whether 

there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed action and the potential effect on 

these resource conditions, and if so, the degree of potential effect of the proposed action on these 

resource conditions to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. If a determination is 

made that extraordinary circumstances exist, the agency prepares an EA or an EIS. 

Consequently, the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would be driven by the nature of the proposed 

action, the site-specific resources affected by the proposed action, and the degree of those 

effects. If extraordinary circumstances exist, aCE would not be available for reauthorization of 

an existing transmission line right-of-way that had never been subject to environmental analysis. 

In this context it is important to note that establishment of mandatory timeframes for review and 

acceptance of proposed vegetation management for transmission line rights-of-way on National 

Forest System lands could create tension between compliance with NEPA and other applicable 

environmental law and the understandable goal for timely review and approval. That said, the 

Forest Service is taking steps to improve the timeliness and quality of environmental analysis 

and decision-making to meet the needs and expectations of authorization holders and other 

stakeholders. 

Question 3: If the Forest Service, for good cause, prohibits a utility from conducting some type 

of vegetation management activity within a right-of-way that is otherwise consistent with the 

4 
62 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electrici(v Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

,<,'ection 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

utility's approved vegetation management plan, should the utility be released from any liability 

for damages caused by wildfires, including instances where the utility acted negligently, grossly 

negligently, or criminally? 

Response: The Forest Service strives to administer utility right-of-way authorizations in a 

manner that allows for holders to conduct vegetation management to provide for safe and reliable 

operations. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) authorizes the Forest 

Service to promulgate regulations addressing the liability of authorization holders and providing 

for liability without fault for high-risk activities like electric transmission and distribution lines. 

Consistent with FLPMA, Forest Service regulations address the liability of holders of special use 

authorizations, including authorizations for high-risk activities. 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Ouestion 1: I often hear from the utility industry in Arizona and throughout the west that they 

are subject to ongoing work delays and stoppages relating to vegetation management along their 

transmission corridors. Given that these corridors are very dynamic environments with trees 

constantly growing, dying, moving in the wind, combined with sagging and rising wires also 

moving in the wind, I am concerned that the USFS is too slow in allowing the much-needed 

work to be accomplished. What risk analysis has the USFS done to ensure the USFS is not 

causing unnecessary hazards to life, property and localized or cascading power outages? 

Response: The Forest Service has not conducted this type of risk analysis on responsiveness to 

requests for transmission line right-of-way vegetation management. The Forest Service 

acknowledges the need to maintain utility rights-of-way to provide for reliability and safety and 

continues to emphasize this need to agency personnel and utility representatives. The agency 

again stresses the importance of planning and regular communication between administrative 

units and utilities to provide sufficient time to address any access and operational issues without 

causing work delays. 

Ouestion 2: I am concerned that particular time-sensitive tasks within utility rights of ways are 

delayed by USFS actions. In one example with the Navopache Electric Cooperative (NEC), I 

understand that NEC hired a contractor to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) because 

the USFS thought the EA preparation might take nearly two years. After having a third party 

prepare the EA in just six months, the USFS reportedly took over eight months to review. 

Particularly in circumstances such as these where the corridor has already been disturbed, what 

authorities does the USFS have to speed up this process through the use of a categorical 

exclusion? 

5 
63 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electrici(v Reliabilizy and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Glenn Casamassa 

Response: The Forest Service regrets the delay in this instance. Such delays are often due to 

the limited availability of key staff and the demands of multiple priorities. Other circumstances 

such as the thoroughness of third-party analyses and the need for additional information can lead 

to delays. CEs, where applicable, allow for review and approval of actions without complex 

documentation. As discussed above, there is no Forest Service CE specific to vegetation 

management for utility rights-of-way, although other Forest Service CEs may apply in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. The agency has drafted aCE for vegetation 

management for transmission rights-of-way that is under internal review. This CE would apply 

to work within already-disturbed corridors in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

6 
64 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: Currently, power line owners and operators must undertake a full 

environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-

either an Environmental Impact Statement or and Environmental Assessment- to 

undertake vegetation management work on federal lands. Such analyses can take 

several years to complete, delaying work vital to public safety. 

a. Please provide a list of the types of vegetation management activities that are 

routine enough that, from the agency's vantage point, they should be 

categorically excluded (CE) under NEPA. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a number of CEs that it regularly 

applies to certain vegetation management activities to speed NEPA compliance 

(see the list below offered in response to the following question). 

More generally, the BLM is currently finalizing a report to the Secretary that 

identifies actionable items that would make the BLM's land use planning and 

NEPA processes faster, less costly, and more responsive to local needs. 

As codified in Section 1508.4 of Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), the BLM is unable to apply a BLM CE if "extraordinary circumstances" 

exist. For example, if the action under consideration will have a significant 

impact on an endangered or threatened species, or on historic or cultural 

resources, the BLM is precluded from applying aCE. (Section 46.215 of Chapter 

43 of the CFR provides a list of the extraordinary circumstances under which 

actions otherwise covered by aCE require NEPA analysis.) While the BLM does 

have an existing CE that allows for the sale or removal of individual or small 

groups of trees that constitute a safety hazard, this CE cannot be applied if 

extraordinary circumstances exist. 

The BLM is interested in considering the prospects of CE that can be applied to 

allow for the removal of hazard trees that threaten transmission and distribution 

lines, and are required by law or regulation to be removed by the utility, even if 

extraordinary circumstances are present. The BLM has undertaken a review of its 

NEPA process and may recommend the creation of additional CEs in the future, 

including aCE for utility vegetation management. 
65 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

b. Please provide a list of any existing CEs that are available for this type of 

work. 

A number of existing CEs in the BLM's NEPA Handbook are applicable to 

vegetation management in electrical transmission right of ways (ROW). These 

CEs are listed below. 

• Sale and removal of individual trees or small groups of trees which are 

dead, diseased, injured, or which constitute a safety hazard, and where 

access for the removal requires no more than maintenance to existing 

roads; 

• Pre-commercial thinning and brush control using small mechanical 

devices; 

• Harvesting live trees not to exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 

mile of temporary road construction, with some limitations; 

• Salvaging dead or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more 

than 0.5 mile of temporary road construction, with some limitations; and 

• Planned actions in response to wildfires, floods, weather events, 

earthquakes, or landslips that threaten public health or safety, property, 

and/or natural and cultural resources, and that are necessary to repair or 

improve lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition as 

a result of the event, with some limitations. 

c. Will .BLM take administrative action to create CEs for utility vegetation 

management work on federal lands? 

As directed in Secretarial Order 3355, the BLM has undertaken a review of its 

NEPA process and may recommend the creation of additional CEs in the future, 

including aCE for utility vegetation management. 

Question 2: We've received testimony of inconsistent practices/procedures of federal 

land managers at the local level- a lack of uniformity that can lead to planning 

difficulties for utilities and delays in clearing vegetation. 

2 
66 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19,2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

a. How do local land managers take into account a utility's regulatory 

reliability requirements? 

The ELM's authorized officer discusses these regulatory requirements with the 

utility and captures them in the ROW grant. Modifications to ROW grant 

lan~:,>uage can be made if regulatory requirements change. 

In a further effort to provide consistency, the BLM works closely with utilities 

that hold many ROWs to establish master agreements. Master agreements 

provide standard terms and conditions that can be applied to many ROW grants, 

and allow the BLM to engage in timely communication and consistent 

management as required by the various authorities that guide the BLM in its 

administration of ROWs for electrical transmission. 

b. Should federal land managers be required to implement all state and local 

requirements with respect to electric reliability and fire safety? What 

happens if state and local requirements conflict with federal law? 

Yes. Conflicts between Federal and State or local laws on Federal lands are 

identified during the grant process. If conflicts are identified, the authorized 

officer will consult his or her regional solicitor for guidance. 

c. Is your agency timely responding to utility requests to enter on federal lands 

and maintain their rights of way? What do you consider timely? 

Yes. What constitutes "timeliness" is defined in the ROW grant or the vegetation 

management plan and is determined collaboratively by the BLM and the utility. 

If for some reason timeliness is not defined in the ROW grant or vegetation 

management plan, timeliness is determined by the exigency of the situation under 

consideration. 

Question 3: Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal 

agencies and Edison Electric Institute, the agencies promise within 18 months to 

"emphasize laws, regulations, and policies associated with vegetation management 

for power line ROWs on Federal lands." The agencies also promise to "[w]ork with 

the non-governmental parties to develop a process for coordinating vegetation 

3 
67 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19,2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

management of power line ROWs on Federal lands." The 18-month deadline will 

be in February of 2018. 

• Is the Bureau on track to meet the deadline? What has been done to-date and 

what remains to be completed? 

The BLM is on track to meet the deadline. The BLM is developing policy 

guidance to field staff through an Instruction Memorandum that will be issued by 

February 2018. 

• Has the Bureau considered entering into a similar MOU with public power 

entities? 

The BLM is open to working with public power entities to develop similar 

MOUs. No efforts are currently underway, however. 

Questions from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question 1: Why does the BLM currently require prior approval for some right-ofway maintenance activities, such as major ground-disturbing actions, under a 

utility's approved vegetation management plan, as opposed to authorizing all such 

activity in the future upon approval of the vegetation management plan? 

In order to comply with NEPA and other environmental laws, the BLM must, in 

some cases, conduct an environmental analysis before a utility undertakes a major 

ground-disturbing action. Whether or not the BLM undertakes an environmental 

analysis is highly site specific, and may differ from one area of a ROW grant to 

another, depending on the environmental conditions of each site and the scale of 

the ROW grant. 

Question 2: If (1) the BLM must apply a categorical exclusion to a vegetation 

management plan that is part of a proposed renewal of a long-term right-of-way 

authorization that predates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and (2) the BLM is precluded from requiring a 

utility to seek any further case-by-case approval for discrete vegetation management 

4 
68 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19,2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

activities contemplated under that plan, then at what point would the BLM ever 

conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental effects of various ways to 

maintain the right-of-way? 

A thorough analysis of environmental effects would be performed at the initiation 

of a ROW grant request, a modification of the existing ROW grant, or upon 

expiration/renewal of the ROW grant. For those ROW grants that predate NEPA 

and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, an analysis would be 

performed for any modifications outside the scope of the original grant or upon 

renewaL 

Question 3: If the BLM, for good cause, prohibits a utility from conducting some 

type of vegetation management activity within a right-of-way that is otherwise 

consistent with the utility's approved vegetation management plan, should the 

utility be released from any liability for damages caused by wildfires, including 

instances where the utility acted negligently, grossly negligently, or criminally? 

As a general matter, a utility should not be released from liability if it has acted 

negligently, grossly negligently, or criminally. BLM is unaware of any authority 

that would allow it to impose strict liability on a utility for fire trespass. In 

general, however, the BLM works closely with prospective and current ROW 

grant holders to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Question 4: Are there instances when it has taken the BLM more than 3 days to 

review and approve (or deny) a non-emergency request to maintain a right-of-way, 

and is 3 days a realistic or reasonable timeframe for such reviews? 

Yes, there are often instances when it has taken the BLM more than three days to 

review and approve or deny a non-emergency request to undertake a maintenance 

activity in a ROW. The BLM works with the ROW grant holder to develop 

reasonable timeframes for review and approval of non-emergency requests to 

maintain the ROW, where approval is required. The length of these timeframes 

vary, but are determined and agreed upon by the BLM and the utility. 

5 
69 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19,2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. John Rubs 

Questions from Senator Martin Heinrich 

Question 1: What are the sources for the claims in the monument review report? 

The Department does not comment on leaked documents. 

Question 2: How did the secretary ensure that information he was told by 

stakeholders was accurate before he relied on it in his report? 

The Department does not comment on leaked documents. 

Question 3: Will the factual errors in the report be corrected? And will the 

recommendations that rely on those errors be withdrawn? 

The Department does not comment on leaked documents. 

6 
70 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natm·al Resources 

September 19,2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 231 ()of S. 146(), the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2() 17, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Response to Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Mr. Mark Hayden 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: As we have utility rights-of-way crisscrossing federal lands and we have tree 

contact with power lines as the cause qfhundred~ qffires, arefederal agencies 

timely responding to utility requests to enter on federal lands and maintain their 

rights i!/way? 

In some districts responses are timely and in others they are not. It is this 

inconsistency from one district to another that adds unnecessary risk and added 

costs to our cooperatives and our members. Timelines that require action by the 

agency would provide more certainty to permit holders and reduce the incidents of 

vegetation coming into contact with electric facilities. 

a. Why are we not doing a betterjob and what do you need to enable federal agencies to do 

better? 

Ultimately, utilities and federal agencies that oversee public lands are partners in 

developing consistency and balance in these efforts. By protecting forest resources 

through proactive vegetation management in utility rights of way, the public and 

electric consumers mutually benefit from increased reliability and reduced risk of 

utility involved wildfires. Federal agencies need streamlined approval processes that 

are not subject to local interpretation and are applied consistently across the 

agencies. Firm timelines must be established and if those timelines are not met a 

utility should not be held strictly liable as a result. For that reason, we support 

language that addresses the following vegetation management issues: 

• Optional participation provisions in the development of vegetation management 

plans must be included to ensure that small utilities that lack the resources to 

develop such plans are allowed to forgo that requirement 

• Firm deadlines must be included to ensure timely turnaround on utility request 

• Categorical Exclusion provisions must be included if time deadlines for the agencies 

are to be met 
71 

• Liability relief must be granted for an agencies failure to respond in a timely 

manner to utility request for authorization 

• Exclusion for response to emergency conditions to eliminate fire, safety and 

reliability hazards 

• Training provisions should encourage consistency across an agency workforce that 

experiences high turnover 

This legislation would give electric utilities more consistent procedures and a 

streamlined process in order to better manage utility rights-of-way. 

b. Has your industry assigned a high-enough priority to resolving the problem of vegetation 

management in utility rights-<?f-way acrossfederallands? 

Electric cooperative core goals vary little across the country we all strive to 

maximize safety and reliability while minimizing financial impact on the end 

consumer. A key component for driving success of reliability programs particularly 

as it relates to vegetation management, is operating on a level playing field with 

predictable expectations. Electric cooperatives and others in the public power 

community have worked tirelessly in recent years through the National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association, the Northwest Public Power Association, and our 

statewide associations to draw attention to this important issue, and have placed a 

high priority on working with senate and house staff, committee staff and the 

regional delegation to articulate how important this issue is. The past three year's 

fires in the West continue to keep this issue and that of wildfire funding in the 

forefront of safety and reliability. 

c. How involved are senior managements and boards of directors in resolving this 

problem? 

I can tell you that the entire electric cooperative and public power community is 

engaged in this issue. As public power utilities, our boards of directors are all 

democratically elected from the members that we serve, and many of them live and 

work in the communities directly impacted by the threat of wildfire and related 

system reliability issues surrounding vegetation management. In turn, these locally 

elected boards represent our interests in our state associations, the Northwest Public 

Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the 

American Public Power Association. Each of these associations, and the board of 

directors that govern them, have placed the highest priority on resolving the issue of 

vegetation management on Federally managed land. 

As a result, senior managers and board of directors from across the nation have 

worked to communicate our concerns with our ranger districts locally, agency 

headquarters in Washington D.C., directly with our congressional delegations, and 

by participating in numerous legislative hearings on the issue. 

2 
72 

Question 2: The Edison Electric Institute and the federal agencies entered into a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) in 2016 in which the agencies promise to "emphasize laws, 

regulations, and policies associated with vegetationmanagementfor power line ROWs on 

Federal lands. " The agencies also promise to "work with the non-governmental parties to 

develop a process for coordinating vegetation management of power line ROW~ on Federal 

land~. " Have public power entities attempted to enter into a similar MOU with thefederal 

agencies? 

To my knowledge public power entities have not approached, nor have they been 

approached by the federal agencies to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

regarding vegetation management activities on Federal Lands. Instead, the public power 

community has worked diligently to achieve a legislative solution to the problems relating 

to inconsistency and long delays to requests by utilities from federal land managers. This 

approach will ensure a statutory fix by establishing firm timelines and liability relief if 

those timelines are not met. 

The Northwest Public Power Association has met with the USFS regarding the MOUs as 

proposed by EEl. At that time only one investor owned utility bad actioned the MOU 

process. For most medium and small public power utilities the ability to develop the MOU 

as described would be difficult and costly at best. The legislation being proposed in the 

senate and the house are much more effective in setting timelines and consistencies than the 

MOU procedures. 

Question from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question: Are you aware of any instances in which a utility has heenfined hy the North 

American Electric Reliability Cmporationforfailing to meet clearance or other vegetation 

management standards in which the utility maintained that the failure was caused by a lack of 

permission by federal/and managers to conduct maintenance activities on a right-oj-~way across 

federal/and~.? 

A quick search of the publicly posted Notice of Penalties (NOPs) returned at least five 

violations in recent years by National Rural Electric Cooperative Association members for 

the NERC FAC-003 Vegetation Management Standard, however, I am not personally 

aware that in any of these instances that the utility maintained that the failure was caused 

by a lack of permission or timeliness by federal land managers to conduct maintenance 

activities on a right-of-way across federal lands. This does however underscore the highprofile nature of vegetation management violations, as N ERC designates this standard as 

"high risk" and it is monitored closely for the applicable entities. 

3 
73 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Miller 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: The implementing regulations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) impose strict liability on owners and operators of a power line located on federal lands 

for associated damages. At the same time, a utility can be subject to significant penalties for 

violating federal, state, or local requirements to clear those lines. The Electric Reliability 

Organization's penalty for noncompliance with its transmission standard is up to $1 million per 

violation/per day. 

An electricity consumer, then, could end up paying twice- once, under strict liability, for 

damages occurring on federal land, and again for violating the ERO vegetation management 

standard- even if the utility was blocked from taking preventive steps due to federal land 

management agency inaction. 

a. Do you believe strict liability is the appropriate standard for those utilities performing 

vegetation management work for power lines located on federal land? 

Answer: As a general rule, we believe that strict liability is the appropriate standardfor 

those utilities perjbrming vegetation management work for power lines located onfederal 

land 

b. What about in cases where the damages were preventable? That is, if a federal agency's 

inaction in allowing the utility to go onto the federal land, to an existing ROW, and 

perform the necessary work (like removing a dead or dying tree) prevented a utility from 

clearing the power line? 

Answer: {fa federal agency's inaction in allowing the utility to go onto to an existing 

ROW to perform the necessary work (like removing a dead or dying tree) prevented a 

utility fi·om clearing a power line, strict liability may or may not be the appropriate 

standard, depending on such factors as whether the utility had an approved vegetation 

management plan that covered such work, ·whether the utility had been reasonable in its 

monitoring responsibilities, and whether the utility's request for approval was timely and 

reasonable. More specifically, in those situations where damages to federal land and 

resource~> caused by owners and operators of power line~> located on federal land are the 

proximate result of federal land managers unreasonably blocking the owner or operator 

from taking reasonable preventive steps to meet federal vegetation management 

standards, strict liability does not seem appropriate. 

c. Who do you think should determine the appropriate standard, Congress or the federal 

agency? 
74 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Miller 

Answer: In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Congress delegated 

authority to the BLM and Forest Service to determine the appropriate standard~ for 

liability (-13 U.S. C. 504(h)), and the agencies have exercised that authority by 

promulgating comprehensive regulations. Congress also directed that "[s]uch 

regulations shall be regularly revised as needed" (-13 U.S. C. 504(e)). As long as the 

standard isfair (to the utilities,federalland managers, and taxpayers) and the process 

for adopting it is thorough and rransparent, The Wilderness Society believes it would be 

appropriate for either Con>,;rress or the federal agencies to determine the appropriate 

standard. 

Question 2: In your testimony, you assert that "H.R. 1873 would prevent utilities and land 

managers from including activities in vegetation management plans that would require anything 

beyond annual notice, description, and certification by the utility for its planned 

activities." Please provide a list of those activities that you would want included in a vegetation 

management plan that go beyond "notice, description, and certification." 

Answer: We believe that list is best left to be cooperatively developed by the agencies and the 

utilities based on site- and utility-specific conditions and circumstances. In some cases, such 

conditions and circumstances may most efficiently and effectively be dealt with through 

additional consultation, investigation, or analysis. For example, newly discovered resources 

(e.g. cultural or scientific resources, endangered species) or unexpected conditions (e.g. change 

in title, other project work, utility capacity or plans, or wildlife habitat or use) that could be 

adversely affected by standard vegetation management activities may call jbr additional 

investigation or alterations in the timing or techniques for vegetation management activities. 

Without the authority to include such provisions in a vegetation management plan, utilities and 

land managers likely would be forced to exclude important activities and circumstances from 

those vegetation management plans, thereby limiting the benefits the plans can provide to the 

utility and land managers. 

Question 3: Do you believe that Federal land managers should themselves pay prompt attention 

to keeping vegetation away from power lines? If so, how does placing strict liability on the 

utilities encourage those land managers to take prompt action7 

Answer: While Federal/and managers should pay attention to keeping vegetation away.from 

power lines, the utility should bear the primary responsibility/or doing so. As a general rule, it 

would not be fair for American taxpayers to bear the primary responsibility for preventing 

damages caused by a utility's power line on federal land. Imposing strict liability on utilitiesjbr 

damages caused by their power lines and activities encourages the utilities to take that 

responsibility seriously and meet a correspondingly high standard of care. However, it may be 

appropriate to provide additional incentives (such as those in section 2310 ofS. 1-160) to 

2 
75 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements 

for Electricity Assets Located on Federal Lands and to Receive Testimony on 

Section 23 J() l?(,~: 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. I 873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Miller 

Federal/and managers to work with utilities to ensure they can effectively meet their vegetation 

management responsibilities. 

Question 4: Currently, power line owners and operators must undertake a full environmental 

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) either an Environmental hnpact 

Statement or and Environmental Assessment- to undertake vegetation management work on 

federal lands. Such analyses can take several years to complete, delaying work vital to public 

safety. 

a. Please provide a list of the types of vegetation management activities that are routine 

enough that, from your vantage point, they should be categorically excluded under 

NEPA 

Answer: At the outset, it is important to note that there are a number of existing 

categorical exclusions that are routinezv applied to a variety of utility vegetation 

management activities (.~ee answer to question 4. b. below), thereby avoiding the need to 

conduct an EA or EIS to undertake vegetation management 1-vork on .federal land. 

Indeed, most utility vegetation management is already routinely carried out without delay 

or detailed analysis. 

The categories referred to in the answer below include a number of types of vegetation 

management activities that are routine enough to be categorically excluded. It may very 

well be that there are other categories of utility vegetation management activities that 

could appropriately be categorically excluded under NA"'P A; however, such categories 

should be identijied and substantiated in accordance with C1~Q guidance to ensure 

adequate public participation, the application o.f professional agency experience, 

consideration elf mitigation, and analysis of cumulative effects, for example. 

b. Please provide a list of any existing CEs that are available for this type of work. 

Answer: There are a number o.f existing CEs that are available for this type o_fwork. 

I hey are included in Appendices 3 and 4 ofBIM's National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook H-1790-1 and in the Forest Service's National Environmental Policy Act 

Handbook FSH 1909-15. 

3 
76 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natm·al Resources 

September 19, 2017 Hearing: To Examine Vegetation Management Requirements for Electricity 

Assets Located on Federal Land.s and to Receive Testinwny on 

Section 23109 ofS. 1460, tlte Energy and Natural Resources Act of2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act 

Questions fot· the Recm·d Submitted to Mr. Andrew Rabie 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Mm·kowski 

Question 1: As we have utility tights-of-way crisscrossing federal lands and we have tt·ee 

contact with power lines as the cause of hundreds of fit·es, are federal agencies timely 

t•esponding to utility t·equests to enter on federal lands and maintain theit' rights-of-way? 

As noted in my prepared statement, electric companies must have timely access to both public and 

private lands on which power line rights-of-way (ROWs) are located, to perform necessary 

vegetation management and management on and adjacent to the ROWs, thus reducing risk to electric 

company facilities, lands on which they are located, and neighboring communities. Electric 

companies need to be able to use integrated vegetation management (IVM) measures, which include 

use of appropriate vegetation, physical pruning and selective use of herbicides, to ensure proper 

distances are maintained between electric company facilities and nearby vegetation. 

The goal of timely use ofiVM is to reduce the risk of contact between electric facilities and nearby 

vegetation in order to reduce the potential for electric system outages, wildfires, and other possible 

impacts of such contact, recognizing that seasonal growth, disease, insects, and storm events increase 

the risk of contact. While the actual number of wildfires caused by such contacts is relatively small, 

the goal is to reduce that number and also to avoid the impacts wildfires can have on electric 

company facilities, communities and the environment. Particular challenges arise when ROWs cross 

federal lands because electric companies often face significant delays in obtaining approvals from 

federal land management agencies to access their ROWs and implement IVM and other maintenance 

activities. 

Transmission line ROWs crossing federal lands face multiple layers of jurisdiction and decisionmaking, which can hamper electric companies' ability to manage vegetation and reduce wildfire risk 

in a timely manner. As implementation of the EEl-federal agencies Memorandum of Understanding 

on Vegetation Management for Powerline Right-of-way (MOU) broadens, we are seeing some signs 

of improvement. However, the timeliness of responses from federal land managers still can vary 

from one federal agency to the other, as well as one regional or local office within the same federal 

agency to another. In addition, efforts to expedite IVM often are slowed down by costly and lengthy 

environmental studies, without commensurate environmental benefit, in order to obtain approvals 

from federal land managers. EEI supports legislation to bring more transparency, efficiency and 

consistency to the review and approval processes. 

a. Why at·e we not doing a better job and what do you need to enable federal agencies to 

do better? 

The barriers to obtain approval to conduct ROW vegetation management on federal lands are most 

acute at the agency field leveL Electric companies encounter inconsistent requirements from one 

field office to another within the same federal agency and between agencies, despite the fact some of 

1 
77 

this work is routine maintenance activities. Some require costly and lengthy environmental studies, 

while others do not. Field staff must have a better understanding of the need for electric companies 

to maintain ROWs to prevent outages and reduce wildfire risks. Field staff also should utilize 

categorical exclusions (CEs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) where 

appropriate. While the 2016 MOU goes a long way to improve the process, federal legislation is 

needed to provide more certainty, consistency and durability. 

b. Has your industl-y assigned a high-enough priority to resolving the problem of 

vegetation management in utility rights-of-way act·oss fedet·allands? 

EEl has played, and continues to play, a lead role in the industry push for better access to utility 

ROWs across federal lands in order to manage vegetation. For more than a decade EEl has kept the 

issue front and center as a major policy issue for its membership, relying on a core group of 

vegetation managers within the utilities called the EEl Vegetation Management Task Force (VMTF). 

Through the VMTF, EEl meets with federal land managers and advocates before Congress, the 

Administration, and other policymakers for better access to electric company ROWs on federal lands 

in order to ensure the delivery of reliable, safe, affordable and increasingly clean electricity. EEl led 

the creation of the first vegetation management MOU with federal agencies in 2006. EEl 

participated in a long MOU review and renewal process beginning in 2011. The result was a more 

comprehensive MOU signed in 2016. EEl and its member company staff are in the process of 

working with federal agencies to ensure proper and effective implementation of the renewed MOU. 

In recent years, EEI members have testified multiple times before Congress on this issue, for 

instance, in 2014 before the House Committee on Natural Resources and this year in the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Helping to support member companies testifYing at such 

hearings is one example of the many activities the VMTF has taken to educate policymakers on the 

difficulties encountered, and to support legislation that would expedite vegetation management on 

federal lands. 

c. How involved are senior managements and boat·ds of directot·s in resolving this 

problem? 

With the increase in devastating wildfires, EEl CEOs and their senior management are very aware of 

the need for federal agency cooperation and access in facilitating and executing vegetation 

management on federal lands. Especially among EEl's western members, the CEOs are engaged in 

executive level discussions on the need for improvements in the efficiency of processes for 

authorizing vegetation management in power line rights-of-way. They understand it is a safety and 

reliability issue as well as a financial risk, primarily arising from increasing wildfire risk as a result 

of drought, disease, and insect infestations affecting vegetation on federal lands, which must be 

managed. 

Question 2: Does EEl support both pieces of legislation- H.R. 1873 and section 2310 ofS. 

1460? At·e there provisions in eithet· of the bills that EEl prefers? Please explain. 

As indicated in my testimony, we appreciate the inclusion of a vegetation management provision in 

S. 1460 when it was re-introduced this year. EEl supports the goals of both pieces of legislation, 

each of which contains beneficial features. Both bills would provide owners and operators the option 

2 
78 

to develop and submit a vegetation management plan, along with a more streamlined and consistent 

process for plan approvals. 

While the language inS. 1460 is similar to HR 1873 in many respects, including authority for 

NEPA categorical exclusions for existing ROWs, the House bill contains a number of noteworthy 

beneficial features that we prefer, including generally more flexible and less burdensome authorities 

(along with more specific process-improvement goals and directives to agencies), shorter approval 

timelines (90 days versus 180 days), references to current vegetation management technology (e.g., 

unmanned aircraft systems), and a "hazard tree" definition that provides additional clarity. On at 

least the latter point there seemed to be consensus agreement among the hearing witnesses. 

One positive feature ofS. 1460 that is lacking in HR 1873 is a requirement that agency guidance 

take into account the EEl MOU with federal land management agencies. 

The House and Senate bills each contain limited liability protections that are different, but potentially 

complementary, and that together could help reduce disincentives for electric companies seeking to 

proactively develop vegetation management plans or engage in appropriate vegetation management 

activities. HR 1873 includes broader language that would protect an electric company from wildfire 

liability to the federal government if an agency fails to allow activities consistent with an approved 

vegetation management plan and necessary to comply with reliability and fire safety standards, or 

appropriate vegetation management activities to deal with a hazard tree or imminent danger of 

contact. S. 1460, on the other hand, would protect against strict liability in case of a land agency's 

unreasonable delay or failure to approve or adhere to a vegetation management plan or an MOU We 

would support combining the two concepts, to ensure that electric companies are not held liable for 

events beyond their control, in particular lack of agency approval to undertake necessary lVM on and 

adjacent to ROWs on federal lands. 

EEl would be happy to discuss the relative pros and cons of the different provisions in more detail 

with your staff 

Question 3: Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the fedeml agencies 

and Edison Electdc Institute, the agencies pt·omise within 18 months to "emphasize laws, 

regulations, and policies associated with vegetation management for power line ROWs on 

Fedemllands." The agencies also promise to "[w]ork with the non-govemmental pm·ties to 

develop a process fot• com·dinating vegetation management of power line ROWs on Federal 

lands." The 18-month deadline will he in Februat-y 2018. 

a. Are the agencies on tmck to meet the deadline? What has been done to-date and what 

remains to be completed? 

The US. Forest Service has until March 29,2018, to disseminate the MOU to federal agency field 

offices, and to emphasize the laws, regulations, and policies associated with vegetation management 

for powerline ROWs on federal lands. The Forest Service has informed EEl that it has shared the 

MOU with the Regional Special Use Managers, it has updated their Desktop Guide to Utility 

Vegetation Management to include the MOU, and it is preparing an implementation guidance letter 

to include in the next update to the Desktop Guide. 

The Forest Service also has until March 29, 2018, to work with the non-government parties to 

develop a process for coordinating vegetation management ofpowerline ROWs on federal lands; 

3 
79 

assess the effectiveness of this MOU; and document challenges, CDncems, or opportunities for 

improvement in connection with the implementation of this MOU. EEl does not know the status of 

these activities. 

The agencies may be able to provide more detailed responses to questions regarding their progress 

and activities to-date. 

b. What efforts are unde1way by EEl to promote the Memorandum of Understanding 

cited in your testimony? 

The Vegetation Management MOU is the result of collaboration between members of EEl's VMTF 

and the federal land management agencies. Many of the practices in the MOU were already being 

followed by EEI members companies. EEI has disseminated the MOO broadly among its 

membership and it is available to the public on the EEI website. EEl works with the Utility Arborists 

Association, a signatory to the MOU, to educate vegetation managers and utility contractors on the 

industry requirements enumerated in the MOU. EEI also works in conjunction with the Western 

Governors Association on the need for consistent policies around vegetation management on federal 

lands. 

Question from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Question: A1·e you awa1·e of any instances in which a utility has been fined by the North 

American Electric Reliability Corpo1·ation fo1· failing to meet clem·ance or other vegetation 

management standards in which the utility maintained that the failm·e was caused by a lack of 

permission by fede1·alland manage1·s to conduct maintenance activities on a right-of-way 

across federal lands? 

I am not personally aware of any such instances and my understanding is that the question seeks a 

level of detail that is not tracked by NERC and the Regional Entities. 

However, it is important to keep in mind that one of the primary purposes of legislation such as H.R. 

1873 or section 2310 of S. 1460 is to ensure that situations such as that described do not occur. 

4 
80 

September 18,2017 

The Honorable Lisa Markowski 

Chairman 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Markowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

As the sponsors ofH.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act of2017, we 

write to you today to oJJer our continuing support for the legislation in preparation of the Senate 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 19'h· As you know, this 

bill passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 300- 118 on June 

21,2017. A total of231 Republicans and 69 Democrats supported a measure to expedite removal 

of trees at risk offalling on power lines sparking a wildfire. 

The overwhelming support and successful passage of this bill in the House is recognition of the 

importance of grid reliability and reducing the threat of wildfires to this critical infrastructure. H.R. 

1873 provides many positive benefits to utilities, the government, and ratepayers while protecting 

wildlife habitat and ensuring human safety. Specifically, the bill has several interlocking policy 

provisions to ensure the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

make timely and consistent vegetation management decisions in coordination vrith electric utility 

companies. 

Through better coordination with federal land managers and the development of vegetative 

management plans, we can ensure greater consistency under the law and a strean1lined process so 

our electric utilities can better manage the rights of way through the reduction of dangerous delays 

that impedes their ability to remove dangerous vegetation. In addition, the liability portion of the 

bill will help federal officials better address hazardous tree removal requests while safegnarding 

federal agencies from wildfire damages not related to the federal govemment' s decision or 

indecision on vegetation management. 

We respectfully ask that the Committee give full and fair consideration to H.R. 1873 and help us 

take a proactive step toward reducing wildfires and electricity blackouts and ensuring grid 

reliability. We look forward to working with you to ensure this legislation is signed il1to law this 

Congress. 

Sincerely, 

Member of Congress Member of Congress 
81 

Oelivering o Bright Future 

Statement of NorthWestern Corporation, 

a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a NorthWestern Energy 

Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

For the September 19, 2017 Hearing 

To Examine the Vegetation Management Requirements for 

Electricity Assets Located on Federal lands and to Receive 

Testimony on Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural 

Resources Act of 2017, and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and 

Forest Protection Act. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, thank you 

for considering this Statement of NorthWestern Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a 

NorthWestern Energy {NorthWestern) on this matter. 

Introduction and Background 

NorthWestern is a public utility and provides electricity and natural gas to approximately 

709,600 customers in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. We own, operate, and maintain 

27,900 miles of electric lines in Montana and South Dakota, serving close to 421,800 electricity 

customers. In addition, we provide energy to Yellowstone National Park and its millions of 

visitors annually. 

NorthWestern owns and operates numerous electric transmission and distribution lines 

crossing the various National Parks, National Forests, BLM lands, and other federally managed 

land in Montana. Much of Montana is forested and with that comes the need to manage the 

vegetation {trees and brush) located along electric transmission and distribution line rights-ofway. Because of this, NorthWestern is concerned about vegetation management issues as they 

impact its electric transmission and distribution lines located on these federal lands. 

In particular, NorthWestern's concerns focus on vegetation management on federal lands 

adjoining, but outside the utility's rights-of-way for its electric transmission and distribution 

lines. The basis of our concerns is the condition of forests in Montana. Over the last ten to 

fifteen years, Montana forests have experienced an infestation of Mountain Pine Beetles, along 

with other beetle species. These beetles lay their eggs under the bark of pine trees, introducing 

208 N. Montan3 Ave., ; Helena, MT 5960i 
82 

a fungus which prevents the tree from transporting water and nutrients needed to survive. The 

trees die quickly after infestation. The dead trees remain in the forest, their needles turn red, 

fall off, and the trees are left to decay in place. The beetle infestation in Montana peaked in 

2009, and by 2016 had killed trees covering over six million acres of land. While the peak of the 

infestation may have passed, the risk posed by the accumulation of standing, dead trees over 

the last decade or more is increasing, as the dead trees continue to decay, becoming more and 

more susceptible to falling. Many of these dead and decaying trees have become hazard trees 

-defined as a structurally defective tree that has a target, in this case a power line, when it 

eventually falls. 

Because of the size of this beetle infestation, the sheer number of hazard trees located outside 

of NorthWestern's rights-of-way on federal land have increased over one-hundred fold, When 

ten years ago NorthWestern might clear thirty hazard trees per lineal mile of right-of-way, now 

over three thousand hazard trees per mile might require removaL What used to take a week to 

dear now takes a month and a half, due in part to the sheer number of hazard trees and in part 

to U.S. Forest Service requirements associated with removing them. 

While over the last five to seven years NorthWestern's experience working with the Forest 

Service to obtain permits allowing NorthWestern to conduct vegetation management has been 

positive, requirements imposed by the Forest Service make NorthWestern's work take longer 

and cost more. In particular, the Forest Service requires that all hazard trees cleared by 

NorthWestern from outside the rights-of-way either be removed from the site, chipped and 

spread over the site, or gathered in slash piles and burned when conditions permit. In 

comparison, when beetle killed trees fall on their own, the Forest Service allows them to 

remain where they felL These requirements hold NorthWestern to a higher standard than the 

standard to which the Forest Service holds itself. Nearly 70 percent of NorthWestern's costs 

result from these cleanup requirements in areas outside of its rights-of-way. 

Economic Considerations 

This unprecedented increase in the number of hazard trees and requirement to clear the areas 

from which hazard trees are removed increases the cost Incurred by NorthWestern in 

conducting its vegetation management. NorthWestern Is a regulated public utility, and for its 

Montana operations must obtain authorization from the Montana Public Service Commission to 

recover its expenses in rates through a rate case. Thus, before NorthWestern can recover the 

increased (and Increasing) costs of clearing hazard trees from areas outside its rights-of-way, it 

must file a tlme-consuming and expensive rate case, and seek approval of these costs from the 

Montana Public Service Commission. Whether all, some, or any of these costs are approved is 

never a certainty, 

Beetle infestation and the effect on forest health did not occur as the result ofany act or 

omission of NorthWestern or its customers. Yet NorthWestern and its customers are asked to 
83 

shoulder the resulting economic burden, This is a societal problem, and not one NorthWestern 

or our customers should be asked to bear. 

Liability Exposure 

At the same time it is being asked to bear the increased economic burden of managing the 

forests outside of its rights-of-way, NorthWestern also bears the liability risk that, if a tree falls 

into its power line, the federal agency in charge of the land will look to NorthWestern to 

recover fire suppression costs, Fire suppression costs can be staggering, As of August 28, 2017, 

the estimated cost to fight the lolo Peak Fire in Montana was $32 million, a full two weeks 

before cool, rainy weather helped slow the fire's growth. The Lolo Peak Fire was only one of 

sixty-four wildfires in Montana reported on the lnciWeb website (https:ljinciweb,nwcg.gov/), 

It goes without saying that an increase in the number of dead trees along power line rights-ofway increases the risk of such incidents occurring. Whatever legislation is finally enacted 

should not increase a utility's liability risk, Rather, a utility that prudently carries out a 

federally-approved vegetation management plan should not be liable for any fires that might 

occur- particularly for fires resulting from a tree located outside its right-of-way falling into its 

lines. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit this statement and your thoughtful consideration of 

NorthWestern's concerns, We look forward to working with you both and the Committee on 

this legislation. 
84 

September 19, 2017 

The Honorable lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Melissa A.lavinson 

Vice President 

Fecrernl & Policy and 

Chief SuslainabiHiy Officer 

oon ~'~ Street, NW 

Suile950 

Washinglon, DC 20001 

Tel: 202.638-1958 

Fax: 202.638.3526 

meF!SsaJavinson@pge-COtp.com 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) writes to thank you for holding a hearing to "Examine 

the vegetation management requirements for electricity assets located on federal lands and to 

receive testimony on Section 2310 ofS. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, 

and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act." We respectfully request 

that these remarks be included as part of the hearing record. 

PG&E appreciates the time and consideration the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources and the U.S. House of Representatives are giving to promote healthy public lands, 

especially in light of the aggressive and catastrophic wildfires and related tree mortality we are 

experiencing today. We are encouraged by your efforts and believe this hearing is an important 

step forward to further bolster wildfire risk management, ensure reliability and safety of 

electric operations assets, and protect the community, environment and natural and cultural 

resources in the impacted area. 

PG&E is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. 

Based in California, with more than 23,000 employees, the company delivers some of the 

nation's cleanest energy to nearly 16 million people- or one in 20 Americans -throughout a 

70,000-square-mile service area in Northern and Central California. 

As one of California's largest land owners, PG&E owns and operates approximately 106,000 

circuit miles of electric distribution lines and approximately 18,400 circuit miles of electric 

transmission lines that traverse unique and sensitive habitat on private lands and public lands, 

including areas within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department ofthe Interior and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), among others. 
85 

Page2 

PG&E also manages more than 147 million trees on two-million properties in its service area. In 

2016, due to unprecedented drought and the bark beetle epidemic, PG&E removed more than 

236,000 hazard trees, a staggering increase over pre-drought levels ranging from 20,000 to 

30,000 hazard tree removals-per-year. This work is in addition to pruning or removing 

approximately 1.2 million trees to prevent contact with power lines. On any given day, contract 

tree crews are working in PG&E's service area to prune limbs or remove trees that could come 

into contact with overhead power lines, including assets that are located in our national forests 

and parks1 as well as on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. 

Such work is necessary and important, as trees that come into contact with wires can cause 

fires and ultimately pose a risk to the public and lead to power outages. PG&E is required by 

law to keep the lines clear. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC's) 

Standard FAC-003-4 applies to bulk transmission lines and is intended to prevent a large scale 

transmission outage, such as the 2003 blackout on the east coast that affected 50 million 

people across eight states and a Canadian province. 

Towards that end, PG&E actively manages its electric operations system to ensure the safety of 

the public and our workforce, modernize and improve the integrity of our core electric 

infrastructure, build a smarter grid, and protect natural resources. 

As it stands today, however, it can take months for utilities to receive approval from federal 

agencies to conduct many routine maintenance activities. Examples of such work include: 

hazard tree removal for transmission and distribution lines rights-of-way access; and the ability 

to access road maintenance and pole replacements- in a timely manner- necessary to prevent 

wildfires and ensure public safety and reliability. 

To overcome the existing inefficiencies within the federal agencies, PG&E is actively working 

with Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service on the development of a regional operation and 

maintenance (O&M) plan. To address the more urgent and immediate requirements, the 

Region 5 office partnered with utility industry in 2016-2017 to authorize a one year termed 

regional emergency O&M plan for hazard tree wood pole replacement activities in response to 

the severe drought conditions, 

Meanwhile, at the national level, PG&E supported the development of Edison Electric 

Institute's Memorandum of Understanding with several agencies, including the BLM, USDA 

Forest Service, and others, to establish vegetation management plans with the utilities. Since 

this memorandum was initially established in 2006, and renewed in 2016, PG&E has 

successfully developed an O&M plan with one of the eleven national forests in its service area; 

however, no O&M plans have been established in the twelve BLM field offices where PG&E's 

facilities are located. 

While some of these efforts mentioned above have been encouraging, the federal regulatory 

approval and integrated vegetation management processes still remain a significant challenge. 
86 

Page3 

As such, immediate action at the federal level is necessary to reduce the risk of wildfires and 

maintain a safe and reliable electric grid for our customers. 

PG&E appreciates all the efforts made to date by Congress and the federal government to 

reduce wildfire risk and advance electricity reliability through common sense hazard tree 

removal for transmission and distribution lines along rights-of-way. We applaud the 

incorporation of Section 2310 into bipartisan energy legislation (S. 1460, the Energy and Natural 

Resources Act of 2017), as well as the efforts of the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 1873, 

the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, by a bipartisan vote of 300-118. Such 

actions affirm Congress' overall commitment to the critical issue of responsibly addressing 

vegetation management for electric transmission and distribution line along rights-of-way on 

federal lands. 

As a next step, we remain hopeful the Senate and House can take decisive action during the 

115'h Congress by negotiating a final, bipartisan vegetation management bill that can be 

presented to the president for his signature this calendar year. PG&E fully supports this process 

and will remain an active voice in the sharing of our experiences related to prioritizing and 

accelerating the federal rights-of-way permitting and renewal processes in an effective and 

environmentally sound manner. 

To achieve these basic improvements, we encourage Congress to pass meaningful policy 

reforms based on the following four principles: 

• Rights-of-Way Permit Renewals: Accelerate renewals of existing energy corridor rightsof-way, and incorporate integrated vegetation management practices and guidance for 

protection and conservation of the natural resources that balance benefits of pest 

control, cost, public health, environmental quality, and regulatory compliance. 

• Regional Operations and Maintenance Plans: Promote coordination and cooperation 

by adopting regionally based templates for O&M plans, which establish consistent work 

practices with clear expectations of the federal land agencies and utilities. At the same 

time, it is important to clarify work-streams that can be performed with notifications 

and those which require prior agency review and approval. To the extent possible, steps 

should be taken to promote joint preparation of National Environmental Policy Act 

documents among federal agencies for routine maintenance activities to maximize 

efficiency and coordination, while ensuring consistency with applicable land 

management plans and policies, and applicable law. 

• Partnership Opportunities: Identify and pilot-test public-private partnerships to 

maximize utilities' efforts and capabilities with the federal government that balance 

public and workforce safety, compliance, emergency preparedness, reliability, customer 

satisfaction and efficiency. Under this arrangement, utilities could foster a collaborative 
87 

Page4 

approach and leverage resources to accomplish work across land ownership boundaries 

onto National Forest System lands and other public lands. 

• liability Protection and Funding Support: local counties, USDA Forest Service, Caltrans, 

CAL FIRE, PG&E, and Southern California Edison are spending millions of dollars to 

remove dead or dying trees to prevent wildfires, property damage and personal injury, 

and traffic obstructions. According to the California Tree Mortality Task Force, in the 

last year, more than 51,600 miles of roads and power lines have been inspected and 

cleared of dead trees. There is more work on the horizon, but permitting, insurance 

liabiHty, funding, and workforce availability present challenges. In order to accelerate 

additional job-creating and safety-enhancing activities, the federal government should 

consider repurposing existing funding for prevention and forest-thinning related 

activities, simplifying and accelerating permitting, and better dispersing liability and risk. 

Thank you for convening the hearing and for the opportunity to submit this letter for the 

record. We look forward to working with Congress as you address these issues. 

Sincerely, 
88 

September 19, 2017 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Western Governors appreciate the attention you have brought to the issue of vegetation 

management requirements for electricity assets located on federal lands, and your full Committee 

hearing today to receive testimony on Section 2310 of S. 1460, the Energy and Natural Resources 

Act of 2017, and H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. 

To assist the Committee's consideration of this matter, I request that the following attachments be 

included in the permanent record oftoday's hearing: 

First, a copy ofanApril3, 2017letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House 

Natural Resources Committee requesting their expedited consideration of legislation 

supporting responsible vegetation management practices; and 

Second, a copy of Western Governors' Association Policy Resolution 2017-10, National 

Forest and Rangeland Management, which addresses vegetation management in section B, 

paragraph 9. 

Thank you for your attention and consideration. With best wishes for success, I am 

Respectfully, 

.~ .. ,eH xecutive Director 

Attachments 
89 

Steve Bullock 

(Jovern(W <llv1\mtana 

Choir 

Vice Chair 

1600 Broadwcry 

Suitt' ! 700 

Denvt't\ CO 80202 

303-623-9378 

Fax }l)J.53+ 7 3lW 

Dakom 

400 N. Capitul Street, N.\V. 

Suire 376 

\Vashington, 20001 

April3,2017 

Honorable Rob Bishop 

Chainnan 

House Natural Rcsomccs Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Honorable Raul Grijalva 

Ranking Member 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1329 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: 

We understand there are plans to reintroduce bipartisan legislation- the 

Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act- that would, if enacted, 

help ensure reliable electricity service and reduce the risk of fires and fire 

hazards that result from inadequate vegetation management on power line 

rights-of-way. Western Governors supported such legislation in the 114"• 

Congress (H.R. 23..'iB.). and urge the Committee to give such legislation 

expedited review upon its reintroducti<m. 

Western Governors recognize the importance of appropriate fire 

managctncnt and proactive wildfire mitigation. Additionally, we arc 

committed to safeguarding and enhancing the reliability of the region's 

electric transmission grid. Western Governors' Association (WGA) Policy 

Resolution 2016-06, Wildland Fire Management and Resilient Landscapes, and 

the 2013 WGA Ten-Y<'ar Enert:v Vision further elaborate on these priorities. 

Legislation such as that advanced by the House last year can play an 

important role in realizing these imperatives. 

Governors support legislation that recognizes the need for efficient crossjurisdictional coordination and enables utilities to take necessary actions to 

enhance grid reliability and reduce the threat of wildfires to and from 

electric transmission and distribution rights-of-way. We suggest that the 

legislation include the following key elements: 

Provide electric utilities defined authority to remove dangerous 

trees even if they exist outside a designated right-of-way and allow 

pruning or removal of trees; 

Require that rights-of-way be developed in coordination with the 

right-of-way holder; 
90 

Honorable Rob Bishop 

Honorable Raul Grijalva 

April 3, 2017 

Page2 

Minimize the need for case-by-case or annual agency approval for routine vegetation 

management activities to facilitate inspection, operation and maintenance of the right-ofway and for a<..i:ivities necessary to control so-called "hazard trees" within or adjacent to 

the right-of-way; 

Require prompt review of vegetation management, facility inspection and operation and 

maintenance plans; and 

Require the relevant federal agency to apply National Environmental Policy Act 

categorical exclusion to plans developed in line with the legislation and on existing 

transmission and distribution rights-of-way. 

Thank you for your leadership in advancing this important legislation, which seeks to provide 

another important tool for improving forest health across the West. 

Respectfully, 

Governor of Montana 

Chair, WGA 

cc: House Natural Resources Committee Members 
91 

A. BACKGROUND 

Western Governors' Association 

Policy Resolution 2017-10 

National Forest and Rangeland 

Management 

1. The American West encompasses a huge landmass representing 2.4 million square miles 

or over two-thirds of the entire country. Over 112 million people live in these states and 

they reside in large, densely populated cities, smaller cities and towns <md in rural areas. 

2. Perhaps more than any other region, terrain, forces of nature, and land ownership 

patterns in the West underscore the purpose and vital need for a more active federal role 

in forest management. Western states include more than 75 percent of our national 

forest and grassland system. These public lands serve as critical economic drivers, and 

they provide numerous conservation benefits, water supply, and recreational 

opportunities for Western communities and the nation. 

3. States have a particular interest in improving the active management of federal forest 

lands. State governments have trust authority over water, wildlife and forest resources, 

along with primary authority and expertise to protect community health and safety. 

Poorly managed forests can have significant and broad impacts on the landscapes and 

communities of the West, including negative impacts to air quality and public health, 

degradation of rivers and streams and associated water quality (including drinking 

water), reduced forage for domestic livestock, impaired habitats for wildlife and fish, 

and the loss of forest products and associated jobs. 

4. Relative to decades past and other forest landowners, forest managers today operate 

under a constrained decision space as they work to address contemporary issues such as 

climate cl1ange, invasive pests and diseases, habitat diversity, fuel build-ups and fire 

risk, and legacy impacts. Adding to this cl1allengc arc concerns about the economic and 

social vitality of rural communities that experience impacts from reduced timber supply 

and compromised forest health. Displaced workers, declines in scl1ool enrollment, aging 

demographics, property loss, business closures and revenue impacts due to wildfire, 

and high unemployment are not tmcommon to these communities. 

5. States arc managers as well, and many Western states own extensive public land 

holdings that require forest products infrastructure to achieve community vitality and 

land management goals, including ecological restoration objectives and healthy and 

resilient forests. 

Western Governors' Association Page 1 ofl Policy Resolution2017-10 
92 

6. The U.S. Forest Service business model has historically been based on a combination of 

federal appropriations that were supplemented with revenue from resource sales and 

fees. Until the early 1990s, the Forest Service was a net contributor to the Federal 

Treasury. Over the past 20 years, timber sales have dramatically declined. 

7. In addition, the last decade has seen several large, very expensive wildfires, which have 

increased the U.S. Forest Service wildfire suppression costs from 13 percent of the 

agency's FY 1991 budget to nearly 50 percent over the last several fiscal years. 

Consequently, under the current agency budgeting framework, forest management, 

hazardous fuels reduction, habitat improvement, and outdoor recreation programs have 

been negatively impacted across national forests and Department of Interior lands. 

8. An Apri12015 study by the U.S. Forest Service, the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program 5-Year Report, FY 2010-2014, found that the past century of wildfire 

suppression and legacy management practices have contributed to forests being 

overstocked and primed for larger and more intense blazes, and that changes in land use 

and increasing social pressures make it difficult for the agency to let fire play its natural 

role of clearing the forest understory in certain forest types. Active forest management 

has historically played a pivotal role in the growth and mortality cycle of forests to 

manage fuel loading, which in turn can reduce fire-fighting costs and improve habitat 

resilience. Today, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that roughly 90,625 square miles- an 

area larger than Utah- is at high or very high risk of severe wildfire and in need of 

treatment. 

9. Insect infestation and disease have damaged many of the forests throughout the West. 

Severe drought conditions that arc impacting western states, particularly California, 

have only exacerbated insect infestations and tree mortality. The impacts go well 

beyond fire risk, and timber and fiber production are negatively impacted, threatening 

the viability of the surviving forest product infrastructure. The significant decline in 

forest health has also created serious threats and challenges to watershed integrity, 

wild life and fisheries habitats, recreational uses, businesses and tourism. All of these 

impacts present substantial challenges for forest-dependent communities across the 

West. 

10. The dire forest conditions, unmet management needs, and the failure to provide lasting 

protections for some landscapes have brought diverse stakeholders together to find 

solutions. Community collaboration on forest health projects is robust in numerous 

places across the West forging broad agreements among diverse stakeholders on 

projects that encompass fuels reduction, fiber production, habitat restoration, long-term 

protection for critical areas, and other community objectives. It is not tmcommon to find 

mill owners, hLmtcrs and anglers, loggers, small business owners, conservationists, and 

local elected leaders working together around the table. 

Western Governors' Association Page 2 ofl Policy Resolution 2017-10 
93 

11. Collaborative planning and project implementation across National Forests and state 

and private forest lands on a larger scale allows for more diverse interests to address 

their particular needs for a landscape or a watershed. Taking a broad look at a 

landscape for planning purposes minimizes the challenges associated with managing 

lands for the benefit of a particular species or to address a specific need. Well-planned 

projects that are strategically placed across a landscape can result in a higher level of 

benefits than those that are more randomly or opportunistically placed. Processes 

associated with planning and implementing a project have become so time consuming 

and expensive for National Forests in particular that a disincentive often exists for their 

managers to proceed with management actions that are needed to attain desired 

ecological, social, and economic objectives. 

12. Collaborative efforts have shown initial successes in reaching consensus, but there is a 

shortage of formal mechanisms that encourage their creation in areas with conflict or 

reward their success within the context of public process. Further, there is little to no 

formal incentive for the management agencies and collaboratives to ensure collaborative 

work happens in a timely and efficient manner that achieves a pace and scale of 

management that matches the ecological, social, or economic needs of public and private 

forestlands and surrounding communities. 

13. Despite this good work the full benefits of these collaborative efforts have not been 

realized on the land. Working constructively with collaborators requires resources to be 

productive and the federal agencies often lack the necessary staff and funding. ln 

addition, the federal agencies have sometimes been reluctant to embrace collaboration, 

because they either have unclear legal authority to favor collaborative efforts or don't 

welcome the input. 

14. Further, and even when collaborative forest health projects enjoy broad support from 

diverse stakeholders and the agencies, administrative objections and litigation remain a 

too frequent outcome. One result is that community collaborative efforts become 

fatigued, and future opportunities are lost. Another outcome is that Forest Service 

restoration projects often go through exhaustive, time-consuming analysis, driving up 

costs and preventing the agency from scaling up management to meet the scope of the 

problem. 

15. Today the costs associated with planning and implementing a management project on 

National Forest lands are significantly more than those of the private sector. This cost, 

along with the time associated with drafting, analyzing, incorporating public 

involvement, and responding to appeals and/or litigation at the project level, lead many 

federal managers to focus their limited staff, funds and time on projects with the least 

likelihood to be challenged. This approach does not adequately address the larger socioeconomic and ecological needs of our National Forests and dependent communities. 

Western Governors' Association Page 3 of7 Policy Resolution 2017-10 
94 

16. The 2014 Farm Bill provided the Forest Service with several new tools to accelerate 

forest restoration. A Governor could nominate landscapes substantially affected or 

threatened_by insects and disease to the Secretary of Agriculture for designation as 

Priority Areas for expedited NEPA and administrative process and judicial review. 16 

Western Governors nominated areas for this designation, the vast majority of which 

were approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

17. In addition, the new Farm Bill authorities provided for a categorical exclusion (CE) for 

insect and disease projects on areas as large as 3,000 acres that are the product of a 

collaborative effort. The new CE has the potential to greatly magnify the role of 

collaboration and strengthen the results of those efforts, and to reduce the time and cost 

for forest health projects, resulting in on-the-ground restoration work that is 

accomplished more quickly and across a larger landscape. Not yet in wide use, the 

Farm Bill also added expanded "Good Neighbor" authority that enhances the ability of 

states to partner with the Forest Service and implement projects on federal land. 

18. The shortcomings of federal forest management have also impacted local governments 

directly. In 1908, when Congress created the National Forest System, it also passed the 

National Forest Revenue Act in 1908 directing the Forest Service to share 25 percent of 

gross revenues with local governments. Then in 1976, Congress passed "Payments in 

Lieu of Taxes" (PILT) legislation providing federal payments to local governments 

regardless of gross revenues that result from timber harvest and other forest 

management activities. After revenues from the sale of timber dropped substantially, 

Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act (SRS) in 2000, 

allowing cotmties to choose between a payment based on historical average and the 25 

percent revenue share. SRS has expired several times, and PIL T has been subject to 

ftmding uncertainty as well. Western Governors support efforts to ensure counties and 

states continue to receive payments under the Secure Rural Schools program, and that 

these payments should be based upon historic federal land management receipts. These 

payments are vital to providing state and county public goods and services, such as 

roads, emergency response, and wildlife and natural resources protection in 

communities adjacent to federal lands. 

19. There have been several efforts in Congress to reform federal forest management, and 

recent legislation reflects the continued frustration of Congress as it attempts to find a 

path forward to address this issue in a productive, bipartisan manner. 

B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT 

1. Western Governors support sound forest management policies that maintain and 

promote ecologic, economic and social balance and sustainability. 

Western Governors' Association Page4 ofl Policy Resolution 2017·10 
95 

2. Today, the Forest Service's forest management program is primarily a byproduct of 

restoration projects intended to reduce wildfire risk and/or improve forest resilience, 

water quality, watershed health, key wildlife habitat, and/or intrinsic value. Western 

Governors recognize and support these forest values, but also believe it is reasonable to 

expect that some portion of the federal landscape will be focused on long-term, 

ecologically-sound forest management where jobs, forest products, and revenues are 

priorities and generated through sound stewardship. 

3. Western Governors encourage the Forest Service to develop and help ftmd new 

technologies and wood based markets for some non-traditional products. USDA's 

Forest Products Laboratory is a hub for research and innovation. We should continue to 

encourage the application of their knowledge and experience in a practical way in the 

western United States so that some of the federally funded infrastructure that develops 

from such efforts could first be demonstrated on private lands. Also, since federal 

forests are now more focused on large landscape forest health projects, there is a good 

opportunity to ensure we have a broader suite of outlets, in addition to traditional 

sawmills and existing biomass facilities. 

4. We can achieve sustainable forest management across every acre of our federal and 

nonfederal forestlands while including an equitable mix of uses to meet many 

ecological, social, and economic needs. 

5. Western Governors believe that our citizens are capable of rolling up their sleeves and 

working together with the federal agencies to address difficult issues such as forest 

management, and that not enough is done to incent and reward the current collaborative 

work that is occurring across the West. 

6. It is important to retain citizens' rights to question governmental decisions through 

administrative and legal means. However, there are situations where the threat of 

litigation is a key factor resulting in either delay of agency activity and progress or the 

stifling of productive collaborative work. The lack of funding and resources for federal 

agencies is also a significant factor. Western Governors believe an effort needs to be 

made to better understand the scope and scale of this problem. There may be an 

opportunity to further streamline appeals and litigation associated with National Forest 

decision making in association with other changes designed to incent collaboration and 

provide more certainty as to outcomes. 

7. The 2014 Farm Bill authorities arc significant expansions of Forest Service authority and 

arc powerful new tools to boost forest management, promote collaboration, and limit 

the impacts of administrative objections and litigation. Western Governors encourage 

federal agencies to fully implement the tools provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. 

Western Governors' Association Page 5 of7 Policy Resolution 201n0 
96 

8. Western Governors are on record as strong supporters of ending the practice of fire 

borrowing, and Con~:,>Tess should pass legislation to fund federal wildfires off-budget as 

many states already do, and ensure the Forest Service budget for forest restoration, 

recreation, road maintenance, hazardous fuels reduction, and wildlife/watershed 

protection is fully restored. 

9. Western Governors believe clear, coordinated and consistent application of federal 

vegetation management practices is integral to maintaining the health of western forests, 

preventing dangerous and damaging fires, and maintaining !:,>Tid reliability. The 

Governors support effective and efficient cross-jurisdictional coordination that enables 

utilities to undertake necessary vegetation management actions on federal transmission 

rights-of-way- and to do so without fear of strict liability imposition for necessary 

vegetation management actions taken adjacent to transmission rights-of-way. 

10. Western Governors are well-suited to engage in a productive and bipartisan dialogue on 

the broader topic of federal forest management reform, engaging westerners and 

examining on the ground realities across western landscapes. Western states are land 

owners and managers and well understand the challenges associated with forest 

management under changing social, economic and environmental conditions. 

11. A meaningful and successful discussion of forestry reform in the West will require a 

transparent and inclusive process that engages those diverse interests who have a direct 

stake in forest management outcomes. The impacts of forest management are felt most 

directly by those who live, work and recreate in and adjacent to those forests, so the 

discussion needs to begin there. This is perhaps where Western Governors can provide 

the most productive bipartisan contribution to this national discussion. Our nation's 

forests belong to all Americans, and in the end and through their elected representation 

all Americans will determine the scope and success of any efforts to reform forest 

management. 

12. There is significant dissatisfaction in the West among many stakeholders with the 

current level of National Forest management. There is a general sense that the current 

level of forest management is not meeting anyone's needs, whether it's putting logs on 

trucks, protecting water quality, addressing fire risk, protecting key habitats and 

landscapes, providing for recreation, or other important community needs. Successful 

forest management reform will achieve a balance among all of these important 

objectives, and provide the opportunity for certainty such that diverse interests will be 

encouraged to work together to achieve shared outcomes. 

13. It is time to reconsider the business model of the U.S. Forest Service. Western Governors 

believe it may be possible to reform the Forest Service business model in a manner that 

reduces project planning costs, sources funds from non-federal partners and recognizes 

that the agency no longer generates large revenues from commodity programs. 

Western Governors' Association Page 6 of7 Policy Resolution 2017-10 
97 

14. Any discussion of forest management reform must include consideration of the financial 

relationship between the Federal and local governments, the existence of PILT, and the 

limited tax base for counties with significant federal ownership. 

15. Western Governors support the recommendations identified over the course of the 

WGA National Forest and Rangeland Management Initiative, and incorporate the 

recommendations into this resolution by reference. 

C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. The Governors direct the WGA staff, where appropriate, to work with Congressional 

committees of jurisdiction and the Executive Branch to achieve the objectives of this 

resolution including funding, subject to the appropriation process, based on a 

prioritization of needs. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to develop, as appropriate and timely, 

detailed annual work plans to advance the policy positions and goals contained in this 

resolution. Those work plans shall be presented to, and approved by, Western 

Governors prior to implementation. WGA staff shall keep the Governors informed, on a 

regular basis, of their progress in implementing approved annual work plans. 

Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. 

Please consult http://www.westqov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a resolution and a list of 

all current WGA policy resolutions. 

Western Governors' Association Page 7 of7 Policy Resolution 2017-10 

0