U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–774 PDF 2015

H.R. 2358, ‘‘ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND 

FOREST PROTECTION ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015 

Serial No. 114–9 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Vacancy 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Vacancy 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Zinke, Hon. Ryan K., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Montana ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Benevento, Doug, Director of Public Policy Development, Xcel Energy, 

Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Hayden, Mark, General Manager, Missoula Electric Cooperative, 

Missoula, Montana ........................................................................................ 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Markham, Dave, President/CEO, Central Electric Cooperative, Redmond, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Mouritsen, Karen E., Deputy Assistant Director, Energy, Minerals and 

Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Washington, DC .................................................................. 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Smith, Gregory, Director, Lands and Realty Management, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ..................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

American Public Power Association, Arlington, Virginia, Susan N. Kelly, 

President & CEO, May 19, 2015, Letter in support of H.R. 2358 ............ 4 

Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC, Thomas R. Kuhn, President, 

May 19, 2015, Letter in support of H.R. 2358 ............................................ 5 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, Virginia, 

Jo Ann Emerson, CEO, May 20, 2015, Letter in support of H.R. 2358 ... 4 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2358, TO 

AMEND THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 TO ENHANCE 

THE RELIABILITY OF THE ELECTRICITY 

GRID AND REDUCE THE THREAT OF 

WILDFIRES TO AND FROM ELECTRIC 

TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ON FEDERAL LANDS BY FACILITATING 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ON SUCH 

LANDS, ‘‘ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND 

FOREST PROTECTION ACT’’ 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:17 p.m., in room 

1324, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, McClintock, Lummis, Gosar, 

LaMalfa, Newhouse, MacArthur, Huffman and Torres. 

Also Present: Representative Zinke. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

will come to order. 

The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets today to hear 

testimony on a discussion draft entitled, the ‘‘Electricity Reliability 

and Forest Protection Act.’’ 

Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent to allow the sponsor 

of the bill, Congressman Zinke from Montana, to participate in our 

hearing today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

We will begin 5-minute opening statements by myself and the 

Ranking Member, Congressman Huffman of California. And I yield 

myself 2 minutes for my part of the opening statement. 

Our hearing today is on bipartisan, common-sense legislation offered by Mr. Zinke of Montana and Mr. Schrader of Oregon that 

promotes Federal agency consistency and timely decisionmaking. 

The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act is simply 

about helping two Federal agencies collaborate with electric utilities in order to avoid blackouts and forest fires on Federal lands. 

While the bill’s sponsors are from the West, this bill is national in 

2 

scope since the U.S. Forest Service has 155 national forests 

throughout our country. 

In my home state of Louisiana, for example, the Kisatchie 

National Forest includes over 15,000 acres of electricity right-ofways maintained by seven utilities. And as we learned from the 

1996 and 2003 tree-caused blackouts, electricity outages have far 

greater geographic impacts than an instigating tree. 

As a result, I am going to go ahead and yield the remainder of 

my time to Mr. Zinke. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Our hearing today is on bipartisan, common-sense legislation offered by Mr. Zinke 

of Montana and Mr. Schrader of Oregon that promotes Federal agency consistency 

and timely decisionmaking. 

The ‘‘Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act’’ is simply about helping two 

Federal agencies collaborate with electric utilities in order to avoid blackouts and 

forest fires on Federal lands. 

While the bill’s sponsors are from the West, this bill is national in scope since 

the U.S. Forest Service has 155 national forests throughout our country. In my 

home state of Louisiana, for example, the Kisatchie National Forest includes over 

1,500 acres of electricity rights-of-way maintained by seven utilities. And as we 

learned from the 1996 and 2003 tree-caused blackouts, electricity outages have far 

greater geographic impacts than an instigating tree. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave Federal land agencies the authority to allow 

electric utilities managing vegetation on a right-of-way to comply with Federal reliability standards. Yet, since then, this committee has held two hearings—in 2006 

and 2014—where witnesses criticized both Republican and Democrat administrations, respectively, for not allowing vegetative management policies to be carried out 

on a consistent and timely basis. 

Electric transmission lines represent a critical part of our national infrastructure, 

and while there have been instances of cooperation between Federal land agencies 

and utilities, the inability of the agencies to be consistent is compromising electricity 

reliability and affordability and our forest health. This is an avoidable problem and 

this bill will help promote common sense and Federal accountability. I look forward 

to moving this bill and now yield the rest of my time to the bill sponsor and our 

committee colleague, Mr. Zinke. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN K. ZINKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. ZINKE. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, and thank you for the 

opportunity to speak about House Resolution 2358, the Electricity 

Reliability and Forest Protection Act. This bill is a win/win for 

Montana, for the co-ops, for the collaborative effort, and it is bipartisan. In Montana, our co-ops service about 40 percent of the state. 

And it corrects, as was pointed out, a Federal inconsistency and indecision that governs the way our local power companies can provide and cannot service their lines. 

Currently, if a tree falls down on a power line that is on Federal 

land, even though it is through a prescribed easement, the crews 

have to go through a regulatory labyrinth that in some cases can 

take months, if not years. Multiple testimony throughout the last 

few months has identified that the West, and the rest of the country, has an enormous problem with forest fires; and it is a publicsafety issue. Already in Montana, we have had about 38,000 acres 

burned, which has cost about $1.8 million and has put in jeopardy 

homes and public safety. 

3 

Chairman Fleming, as you noted, this bill doesn’t just help out 

those of us in the West. It is an issue of forest safety and national 

safety and security for our entire country. A lot of the power lines 

go through Federal land and we need to reduce the bureaucracy. 

And certainly, we should not hold our co-ops hostage over what has 

been a Washington problem in negligence and gridlock. I think this 

is a meaningful bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to introduce Mark Hayden from 

the Missoula Electric Cooperative. Before I yield back my time, I 

would just like to point out that Mr. Hayden was the general manager at Missoula Electric Cooperative, which provides electric service to nearly 15,000 meters in western Montana and eastern Idaho. 

He is an expert in this field and, Mark, I appreciate you being 

here. It is a long way from Montana both culturally and distance, 

and I hope you find your stay worthy. 

And last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the record 

letters of support from the NRECA, the APPA, and the EEA, as 

delivered. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zinke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN K. ZINKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Thank you, Chairman Fleming, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about 

H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. 

This bill is a win for Montana and our co-ops, who service 40 percent of the state. 

It corrects Federal inconsistency and indecision that governs the way our local 

power providers can, and cannot, service their lines on federally owned land. Currently, if a tree falls on a power line that is on Federal land, utility crews must 

go through regulatory back flips just to remove the tree. This can take months and 

in some cases more than a year, as Mr. Mark Hayden from Missoula notes in his 

testimony. It should not take an Act of Congress to remove a tree. Conditions in 

our forests are already dangerous. Inaction means disaster. 

Already this wildfire season, Montana has seen over 38,000 acres burned, costing 

more than $1.8 million. Montanans deserve reliable electric service to keep their 

lights on and an accountable and consistent Federal Government that will reduce 

power-line caused fires. 

As Chairman Fleming noted, this bill doesn’t just help those of us out West. It’s 

an issue of forest safety and national security for our entire country when a hazardous tree falls onto power lines. When the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land 

Management doesn’t let them address the problem, our entire power grid is jeopardized. We should be doing whatever we can to empower our co-ops, not blame them 

for government negligence. H.R. 2358 helps to meaningfully address these issues. 

Before I yield back my time, I’d like to briefly welcome a fellow Montanan, Mark 

Hayden, who is here to testify this afternoon. 

Mr. Hayden is the General Manager at the Missoula Electric Cooperative (MEC), 

which provides electric service to nearly 15,000 members in western Montana and 

eastern Idaho. Prior to joining the MEC, he was the Assistant General Manager of 

Dunn Energy Cooperative in Menomonie, Wisconsin, and the General Manager for 

its propane subsidiary DEC Energy, Inc. 

Mark, I appreciate you being here today. You, along with other members of the 

Montana Electric Cooperatives Association, know best why this bill is an important 

step forward for our state and country. 

4 

[Letters submitted by Mr. Zinke follow:] 

NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, 

ARLINGTON, VA, 

MAY 20, 2015. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP: 

I write in support of H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection 

Act of 2015, introduced by Representatives Ryan Zinke and Kurt Schrader. This 

common-sense legislation provides opportunities for electric cooperatives to better 

enhance safety and ensure the delivery of affordable, reliable electricity to their 

members. 

As you know, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is the national 

service organization that represents the nation’s more than 900 private, not-forprofit, consumer-owned electric cooperatives, which provide service to 42 million 

people in 47 states. Rural electric cooperatives across the country are often located 

in areas on or near public lands. Therefore, moving electricity from generation facilities to customers frequently requires transmission lines to cross land that is 

federally managed. Access to these lines is essential to perform routine maintenance, upgrades, and equipment replacement. Further, vegetation management is 

of utmost importance to meet state and federal safety requirements and to ensure 

electric reliability for our member-owners. 

The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act would give electric utilities 

more consistent procedures and a streamlined process in order to better manage 

utility rights of way. The bill allows sensible procedures that would cut through federal bureaucratic red tape and reduce delays that currently impede our ability to 

adequately manage dangerous vegetative overgrowth in existing utility rights of 

way. Such delays not only add to the costs our electric consumers pay for their electricity, but present a major threat to human safety, wildlife habitat, and the reliable 

delivery of electricity. 

In short, the Zinke-Schrader bill would be a useful tool for allowing prompt, critical access to utility rights of way and responding to emergency conditions to help 

prevent wildfire, power outages, and threats to the electric grid. We urge the 

committee to swiftly move forward on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

JO ANN EMERSON, 

Chief Executive Officer. 

AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION (APPA), 

ARLINGTON, VA, 

MAY 19, 2015. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP: 

On behalf of the American Public Power Association (APPA), I am writing in support of H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act introduced 

by Congressmen Ryan Zinke (R-MT) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR). H.R. 2358 would 

amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to enhance the reliability of the electricity grid and reduce the threat of wildfires to and from electric 

transmission and distribution facilities on federal lands by facilitating vegetation 

management on such lands. This legislation is extremely important to ensuring 

transmission- and, in some cases, distribution-system reliability and security. As the 

trade association representing over 2,000 not-for-profit, community owned electric 

utilities in 49 states, whose purpose is to provide affordable, reliable electricity with 

5 

the appropriate environmental stewardship, this legislation is particularly welcome 

to us. 

As noted in the Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), 

investigations following the August 14, 2003, Northeast blackout revealed that a 

primary cause of the blackout was flashover caused by inadequate vegetation management (tree pruning and removal). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) found that vegetation management approvals on federally managed rightsof-way are particularly problematic due to permitting and environmental requirements that are inconsistent and time-consuming. In the case of federal lands, the 

inability of utilities to remove vegetation beyond their easement presents a major 

obstacle in protecting the electrical infrastructure. Not only must long-reaching tree 

branches be pruned to avoid contacts with transmission lines, but brush and other 

ground vegetation must be periodically cleared from the base of transmission towers 

to minimize the effects of fires. 

H.R. 2358 will provide the consistency and flexibility needed by APPA’s members 

to treat danger trees and facilitate access to and clearance of these transmission 

lines and associated facilities, while also protecting our members from liability when 

the appropriate federal government agencies fail to allow our members the ability 

to manage the vegetation in and around the electricity rights-of-way. Additionally, 

the legislation will seek to develop a program to train the appropriate federal employees in vegetation management practices and procedures to prevent the problems 

laid out by FERC. 

We understand that you, along with Reps. Zinke and Schrader are committed to 

seeing this legislation reach President Obama’s desk to be signed into law. Thank 

you for your efforts and we look forward to continuing our work together on this 

legislation as you move through the legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

SUSAN N. KELLY, 

President & CEO. 

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

MAY 19, 2015. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. JOHN FLEMING, Chairman, 

Hon. JARED HUFFMAN, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMEN BISHOP AND FLEMING AND RANKING MEMBERS GRIJALVA

AND HUFFMAN: 

On behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), I am writing in support of 

H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, introduced by 

Representatives Zinke and Schrader. We applaud you for proceeding quickly to a 

legislative hearing and your intent to advance H.R. 2358 to the floor this year. 

EEI is the association of U.S. investor-owned electric utilities, international affiliates and industry associates worldwide. Our members provide electricity for 220 

million Americans, directly and indirectly employ more than one million American 

workers, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With more than 

$90 billion in annual capital expenditures, the electric utility industry is responsible 

for providing reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean electricity that powers the 

economy and enhances the lives of all Americans. 

Managing and clearing vegetation within or near rights-of-way (ROWs) presents 

difficult challenges, especially where such ROWs are located on federal land. While 

integrated vegetation management (IVM) and utility vegetation management (UVM) 

requirements impact ‘‘less than a fraction of a percent’’ of overall federal lands, the 

consequences of not effectively managing the ROWs and power line corridors can be 

significant and catastrophic. Failure to manage vegetation can cause wildfires, 

spark outages, and jeopardize the transmission facilities themselves. As a conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:19 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-20-15\94774.TXT DARLEN
6 

sequence, electric utilities are required under North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) reliability standard FAC–003–3 to prevent vegetation from 

growing into and falling onto transmission lines, and there are state and local safety 

and fire requirements as well. 

Even so, obtaining timely approvals from the federal land management agencies 

to perform IVM and conduct the operation and maintenance work necessary to meet 

reliability standards, assure a proper functioning of the grid, and reduce the potential risk of catastrophic fire is a constant challenge. This not only includes management within the ROW, but extends to ‘‘hazard trees’’ growing outside the permitted 

ROW. In most cases, a federal permit for vegetation management does not cover offROW trees, even if such trees pose a risk to the power lines, human life or other 

property. In spite of this, utilities are often held liable for fire suppression costs and 

damages when the off-ROW hazard trees cause a wildfire. In recent years, utilities 

have literally paid out millions of dollars to cover these costs. 

We believe that H.R. 2358 will provide an avenue for electric utilities to obtain 

more timely approvals while respecting the needs of the federal land agencies to appropriately manage their respective lands. The bill provides direction to the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to expedite permit reviews; move, where 

possible, away from case-by-case approvals; and support the long-term, costeffective, and timely management of facilities and vegetation within and adjacent 

to the ROW. IVM is an important tool for the sustainable management of vegetation 

and the provision of quality habitat for pollinators and wildlife. 

We appreciate that H.R. 2358 recognizes the inequities of imposing strict liability 

on utilities for the consequences of decisions made elsewhere. We would like to work 

with the Committee to address liability issues associated with off-ROW work that 

is the responsibility of the land agencies, but which prevent utilities from partnering 

with the land agencies to complete that work to their mutual benefit. 

EEI believes that H.R. 2358 can work to the benefit of the federal land agencies 

and electric utilities to assure the timely completion of work critical to maintaining 

a reliable grid and catastrophic wildfire risk reduction, and in manner that is 

efficient for all parties. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS R. KUHN, 

President. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 

minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 

witnesses joining us today, and thanks for calling this hearing. 

Forest health and reliable power transmission are two areas where 

I think there is substantial room for bipartisan agreement and I 

appreciate very much all of us devoting some time to this important issue. Now for the most part, I think trees and power lines 

have been good neighbors, you might say. Electric utilities and 

rural cooperatives have been installing and maintaining thousands 

of miles of power distribution lines for decades through National 

Forest lands, BLM lands, but as we have seen over the years, 

sometimes trees and brush can cause serious hazards when they 

come into contact with power lines. We, obviously, need to prevent 

that to the greatest degree that we can. 

It has been mentioned that there are some tremendous blackouts 

that have occurred because of this. Back in the 1990s on a hot 

August day, a power line came into contact with a high power load 

line—came into contact with a tree because an orchard tree had 

grown too high. The result of that was millions of people throughVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:19 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-20-15\94774.TXT DARLEN
7 

out Canada and 10 western states without power; 7 million people 

to be precise. In 2003, we had a similar blackout in the Northeast 

that affected 50 million people without power, cost billions of dollars in lost productivity and in both cases, again, investigators 

found that it was a tree coming into contact with high-voltage 

lines. 

And these problems aren’t even counting forest fires that often 

result from these kinds of contacts, and the extreme damage and 

public safety problems that that presents. So it is in everyone’s interest to prevent that kind of harm that can happen from inadequate vegetation management along these utility corridors. 

The question is, what can we do to address the problem to improve vegetation management on these rights-of-way? And I think 

the first thing we need to be clear about is addressing the inadequate funding for Federal land management agencies that is 

absolutely a part of this problem. We keep talking a lot about the 

symptoms of this situation. We had a hearing earlier today that 

talked about the problem of the deferred maintenance backlog on 

BLM and Forest Service lands, again, caused by underfunding 

these agencies. Today we are talking about some risks and liabilities and problems that are also manifestations of this chronic 

underfunding, and fire borrowing is really the poster child of this 

problem. 

This is the practice of transferring funds away from resource 

management accounts to fight wildfire. This is the root cause of the 

problem of our Federal agencies being unable to do the many additional things we are asking of them. In Fiscal Year 2015 wildfire 

funding was 52 percent of the Forest Service’s budget. Just back 

in 1990 that amount was only 13 percent of the Agency’s budget. 

So the trend is completely unsustainable. When you are spending 

more than half of your budget on wildfire management, you are obviously squeezing out other critical programs and needs. It has left 

the Forest Service’s field offices without adequate resources and 

manpower to carry out all kinds of management activities, but that 

certainly includes processing right-of-way-related requests with 

neighbors and partners such as the utilities that we are going to 

hear from today. 

That is why I, and several of my colleagues, support legislation 

to allow responses to large forest fires to be funded like other 

national disasters. This is a bipartisan solution that we are putting 

forward. Doing this would free up resources to help us address this 

problem. 

Now, the second part of this is that I think moving from a caseby-case special use permitting situation to a more systemic 

planning approach could absolutely improve coordination and consistency. So that could be a good thing. But this draft legislation, 

we believe, is not quite ready for prime time. One of the problems 

is that some of its provisions could have unintended consequences 

that could damage natural resources on public lands and not improve consistency in coordination. 

For example, a provision allows utilities the option to develop 

and submit plans to Federal agencies, but it doesn’t require that. 

So you could have the challenging situation of some utilities having 

plans, others not having plans, and that is not the kind of coordinaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:19 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-20-15\94774.TXT DARLEN
8 

tion and consistency that we need. The draft also includes a 

provision that would dramatically redefine danger tree to the point 

that it would potentially include a large swath of land and trees 

outside of a narrow right-of-way, and I think we need to be very 

careful with unintended consequences for that provision, among 

others. There is a provision that transfers liability for wildfire damage, loss, or injury from utilities to the taxpayer. We are going to 

need to look very closely at that. 

But the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is I think we have lots of 

room to work together on this important issue. I hope we can address that fire borrowing issue where there is so much bipartisan 

support. And I look forward to the hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. Forest health and reliable 

power transmission are two areas where there is substantial room for bipartisan 

agreement, and I appreciate you devoting time to this important issue. 

For the most part, trees and power lines have been good neighbors. Electric utilities and rural cooperatives have been installing and maintaining thousands of miles 

of power distribution lines for decades through National Forest and BLM lands. But, 

as we have seen over the years, sometimes trees and brush can cause serious hazards when they come into contact with power lines. 

Back in the mid-1990s during a very hot August day, a power line with a high 

power load sagged into an orchard tree that grew too high. The line blew, causing 

an outage that extended to Canada and 10 western states. Seven million people and 

businesses lost power. In 2003, a similar blackout in the Northeast left 50 million 

people without power and cost billions of dollars in lost productivity. In both cases, 

investigators found that the outages were caused by trees coming into contact with 

high-voltage lines. Trees making contact with power lines have also sparked numerous forest fires, causing the destruction of thousands of acres and endangering many 

lives. 

Clearly it is in everyone’s interest to prevent the harm that can be caused by inadequate vegetation management along our utility corridors. Everybody loses when 

there is a power failure or forest fire. When forest fires are sparked or when the 

power is out, people’s lives are endangered and we lose control of the technology 

that makes our society function. So, what can we do to improve vegetation management on rights-of-way? 

First, I think it’s clear we must do something to address the inadequate funding 

for Federal land management agencies. ‘Fire borrowing’, the practice of transferring 

funds away from resource management accounts to fight wildfires, is the root cause 

of this funding deficiency. In Fiscal Year 2015, wildfire funding was 52 percent of 

the Forest Service’s budget. In the 1990s, wildfire funding accounted for approximately 13 percent of the agency’s budget. It is clear this trend is unsustainable. 

Spending more than half of the Forest Service’s budget on wildfire management 

squeezes out funds needed for other critical Forest Service programs and has left 

field offices without adequate resources and manpower to carry out many management activities, including processing right-of-way-related requests. 

That is why I and several of my colleagues support legislation to allow responses 

to large forest fires to be funded like other national disasters. Doing this would free 

up resources and help expedite approval of right-of-way maintenance, while also ensuring that national forestry funding can be used to fulfill its original purpose— 

ensuring our Nation practices good stewardship of our national forests for the 

health and benefit of all Americans. 

Second, I think moving from case-by-case special use permitting to a more systematic process that considers rights-of-way across all U.S. public lands and requires 

upfront planning could do a great deal to improve coordination and consistency in 

vegetation management and other right-of-way maintenance. However, the draft 

legislation we are discussing today takes a different approach, and some of its provisions could have unintended consequences that could damage natural resources on 

U.S. public lands and not improve coordination and consistency. 

For instance, the discussion draft gives utilities the option to develop and submit 

plans to U.S. public land management agencies for right-of-way maintenance activiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:19 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-20-15\94774.TXT DARLEN
9 

ties, but does not require the plans, creating a situation in which inconsistencies 

are likely to persist. Further, land managers would not be able to modify a requirement in the bill that these plans meet local and state electricity reliability and fire 

safety standards—effectively giving control over rights-of-way on U.S. public lands 

to the states and localities. 

The discussion draft also contains a provision that allows utilities to remove 

‘‘danger trees’’—trees that could damage infrastructure or cause fires if they fall. 

The bill defines a danger tree as any tree inside or outside the right-of-way that 

would come within 10 feet of a power line or related infrastructure if it fell. This 

is a significant expansion of current authority, which defines a danger tree as one 

that is in imminent danger of falling onto a line. This new authority would technically allow for the removal of wide swaths of forest on either side of a right-ofway, regardless of potential environmental damage. 

The bill also transfers liability for wildfire damage, loss, or injury—including the 

costs of fire suppression—from the utilities to the U.S. Government. This would further stress agency resources and make the right-of-way management process even 

less efficient. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important that U.S. public land managers work with utilities 

to ensure that each right-of-way is cleared of debris and there is sufficient clearance 

space for falling trees. I also believe there are things we can do to improve coordination and expedite approval of right-of-way maintenance. I hope this hearing can 

help elucidate where Federal agencies, utilities, and co-ops are succeeding and 

where improvement is needed. There are common-sense solutions to many of these 

challenges and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of 

the committee on solutions that improve public safety, transmission reliability, and 

the health of our forests. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. Great. I thank the Ranking Member. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Gosar, Vice Chair of the 

Subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My home state of Arizona 

is on the frontline of the issues being discussed today. The hearing 

on the bill before us couldn’t be better timed. I thank the committee—my committee’s colleagues Mr. Zinke and Mr. Schrader for 

their leadership on this bill. 

The Arizona Public Service Company testified before this committee last year on the very need for the legislation being considered today. The company which serves 11 of Arizona’s 15 counties, 

has power lines crossing 5 national forests, 4 Bureau of Land 

Management districts, 4 wildlife refuges, 11 National Park Service 

units, and 3 national monuments administered by the BLM. 

It is abundantly clear they are at the forefront of these issues. 

The company’s witness, Mr. Mike Neal, who manages forestry and 

special programs, had the unique opportunity to testify both during 

the second Bush administration and the current administration on 

the same topic with the same concerns. Little had changed in between his testimonies, prompting Mr. Neal to conclude that the legislation was necessary to, ‘‘ensure that electric utilities are able to 

manage power line right-of-ways on Federal land efficiently and in 

a timely manner.’’ I couldn’t agree more. 

This is common-sense legislation designed to bring consistency, 

accountability, and fairness to a system that is none of the above. 

Last year’s testimony and this hearing’s witness examples are 

replete with examples that resemble something out of a top 10 

10 

David Letterman’s list of government red tape, endless delays, and 

inconsistencies. As opposed to being funny, though, this is a serious 

matter. This is as real as it gets. 

On one hand, we had Federal reliability standards that can lead 

a utility to be fined up to $1 million a day. But on the other hand, 

we have Federal land agencies that are circumventing utilities for 

meeting those standards. In the meantime, the risks of catastrophic fires increases from such government inaction. A witness 

from Wyoming said last year that it was simply luck that beetlekilled trees didn’t fall on power lines during years of bureaucratic 

delay. 

As we have noticed in Arizona, our forests are not so lucky when 

it comes to catastrophic fires. To make matters worse, the Federal 

land agencies are constantly putting rate pairs at risk by having 

them be liable for hazardous and dangerous trees outside of the 

right-of-way that threaten power lines in the forests around them. 

As APS Mike Neal had said, ‘‘In recent years utilities have literally paid out millions of dollars to cover fire suppression and 

damage cost. Utilities believe the Federal agencies as the official 

land managers have the responsibility and obligation to manage 

these outside of right-of-way hazardous trees. This is no different 

than protecting the public from hazardous trees in camp grounds.’’ 

The legislation before us protects rate pairs from such Federal 

schemes by allowing them to immediately prune a tree in imminent danger, or falling on a line, and by changing the liability 

standard that the Federal Government blocks them from pruning 

dangerous trees. This is a simple, straightforward bill aimed at improving the way the Federal Government operates. It is what everybody wants, but it changes the failed status quo by allowing 

utilities to do their jobs and make Federal neighbors and landlords 

more accountable. 

It is good for human safety, for rate payers, for protecting forest 

and wildlife, and for protecting power lines that deliver renewable 

energy to the market. I commend the gentlemen from Montana and 

Oregon, and the witnesses who face this issue on the frontline 

every day for being there. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, VICE-CHAIRMAN, WATER, 

POWER AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITTEE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My home state of Arizona is on the front line of the issues being discussed today. 

The hearing and the bill before us couldn’t be better-timed. I thank our committee 

colleague, Mr. Zinke, and Mr. Schrader for their leadership on this bill. 

The Arizona Public Service Company testified before this committee last year on 

the very need for the legislation being considered today. The company, which serves 

11 of Arizona’s 15 counties, has power lines crossing 5 national forests, 4 Bureau 

of Land Management districts, 4 wildlife refuges, 11 National Parks Service units 

and 3 national monuments administered by the BLM. It’s abundantly clear they are 

at the forefront of these issues. 

The company’s witness, Mr. Mike Neal, who manages forestry and special 

programs, had the unique opportunity to testify both during the second Bush 

administration and the current administration on the same topic with the same 

concerns. Little had changed in between his testimonies, prompting Mr. Neal to conclude that legislation was necessary to ‘‘ensure that electric utilities are able to 

manage power lines right-of-ways on Federal land efficiently and in a timely 

manner.’’ I couldn’t agree more. 

11 

This is common-sense legislation designed to bring consistency, accountability and 

fairness to a system that is none of the above. Last year’s testimony and this 

hearing’s witness examples are replete with examples that resemble something out 

of a Top 10 David Letterman list of government red-tape and endless delays and 

inconsistencies. 

As opposed to being funny, though, this is a serious matter that is as real as it 

gets. On one hand, we have Federal reliability standards that can lead a utility to 

be fined up to $1 million a day, but on the other hand, we have Federal land 

agencies that are circumventing utilities from meeting those standards. In the 

meantime, the risk of catastrophic fires increases from such government inaction. 

A witness from Wyoming said last year that it was simply luck that beetle-killed 

trees didn’t fall on power lines during years of bureaucratic delay. As we have 

noticed in Arizona, the forests are not so lucky from catastrophic fires. 

To make matters worse, the Federal land agencies are constantly putting ratepayers at risk by having them be liable for hazardous and dangerous trees outside 

of the right-of-way that threaten power lines and the forests around them. As APS’s 

Mike Neal said, ‘‘In recent years, utilities have literally paid out millions of dollars 

to cover fire suppression and damage costs. The utilities believe that the Federal 

agencies, as the official land managers, have the responsibility and obligation to 

manage these outside the right-of-way hazard trees. This is no different than protecting the public from hazardous trees in a campground.’’ The legislation before us 

protects ratepayers from such Federal schemes by allowing them to immediately 

prune a tree in imminent danger of falling on a line and by changing the liability 

standard if the Federal Government blocks them from pruning dangerous trees. 

This is a simple, straightforward bill aimed at improving the way the Federal 

Government operates. It’s not everything everyone wants, but it changes the failed 

status quo by allowing utilities to do their jobs and to make Federal neighbors and 

landlords more accountable. It’s good for human safety, good for ratepayers, good 

for protecting forests and wildlife and good for protecting power lines that deliver 

renewable energy to the market. 

I commend the gentlemen from Montana and Oregon and the witnesses who face 

this issue on the front-lines every day for being here today. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Thank you for our opening statements. And now we will hear 

from our panel. Each witness’ written testimony will appear in full 

in the hearing record, so I ask that witnesses keep their oral statements to 5 minutes as outlined in the invitation letter to you under 

Committee Rule 4(a). If for some reason you haven’t gotten your 

full testimony out, we will accept it for the record. So there is no 

need to try to jam the rest of it in if you are not quite done with 

it. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. Very simply, 

you are under a 5-minute light. It will be green for 4 minutes, then 

yellow for the final minute. If it turns red, then we want you, if 

you haven’t already, to quickly conclude your remarks. 

Before we begin the testimony, I want to ask for unanimous consent that Congressman Greg Walden’s statement on this bill and 

his introduction of our first witness be entered into the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Now, I recognize Mr. Dave Markham, President and CEO of the 

Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., in Redmond, Oregon to testify. 

Sir, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE MARKHAM, PRESIDENT/CEO, CENTRAL 

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, REDMOND, OREGON 

Mr. MARKHAM. Good afternoon, Chairman Fleming and members 

of the subcommittee. As introduced, I am Dave Markham. I am the 

President and CEO of Central Electric Cooperative, and we are 

12 

headquartered in Redmond, Oregon. In Central Electric we are a 

distribution cooperative and we serve 32,500 meters, and that is 

over a 5,300-square mile service territory in central Oregon. And 

I also serve as the President of the Oregon Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the 

Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act and I commend 

Congressman Zinke and one of my state’s Congressmen, Kurt 

Schrader, for their leadership with introducing this bill. 

It was just 1 year ago when I was here and testified before the 

full House Committee on Natural Resources. At that time when I 

testified, I went into the problems that our electric cooperatives are 

encountering when working with the BLM and the Forest Service 

when it comes to things such as doing routine maintenance of our 

facilities, upgrading, or replacing our aging infrastructure that 

crosses federally managed lands. 

And I shared several stories about the frustrating delays that we 

experienced, the lack of consistency, and also the lack of customer 

service I think that we experience when dealing with BLM and the 

Forest Service. I sit here today wishing that I could report to you 

that there has been significant improvement over the past year, 

but unfortunately that is not going to be the case. 

It is with a lot of reluctance that I say that as far as the BLM 

and the Forest Service are concerned, we continue to see significant 

falling short of what I believe are acceptable cooperatives to ensure 

safe, reliable, and affordable electricity to our members. And I 

want to explain why this legislation is so important to fulfilling our 

mission of providing safe, reliable, and affordable electricity to 

rural Oregonians. 

The first reason is consistency. We have experienced differing interpretations and applications of standards, and this isn’t just between the Forest Service and the BLM. This is within the same 

districts, the same land agencies, and also even from ranger to 

ranger we experience it. This legislation is going to provide that 

much needed uniformity and standards. I believe it will improve 

consistency and give us some efficiency. 

The second reason is accountability. This one is important to me. 

I will tell you, we could stay here all day and I could tell you stories about the lengthy delays that we experienced with the Forest 

Service and the BLM. But I am just going to give you one story 

because I am limited to 5 minutes. 

Now my co-op, we have been waiting for nearly 2 years now to 

replace a short 1.2 mile section of underground cable that has been 

in place for 45 years. It is in deteriorating condition. Now, waiting 

2 years on top of that, we have also been experiencing additional 

delays because we were recently informed that we would have to 

have an archeological study done on this and that could end up 

costing our co-op an extra $87,000. If you take a look at it comparatively, our utility, we can construct a similar-type project on nonfederally managed lands, we can do that within a month. 

So I truly believe that this kind of service is unacceptable, and 

I believe that our government can and must do better. 

The third reason that I believe the legislation is so important is 

the need for sound forest management. Now, I want to acknowlVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:19 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\05-20-15\94774.TXT DARLEN
13 

edge the provisions in this legislation regarding the removal of 

danger trees that are within or near the right-of-ways. And years 

ago, our neighboring utility to the south, Midstate Electric 

Cooperative headquartered in La Pine, Oregon, they requested approval from the Forest Service to remove some danger trees near 

a right-of-way and that request was denied. 

I can probably let you finish the story right here and you will 

probably guess what happened, right; and, predictably what happened was, the tree came down, it took down a line and it started 

a major wildfire. And because the co-op was held liable, they ended 

up having to reimburse firefighting costs that were in the hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. In this legislation, the provision that shifts 

the liability away from the utility if the Federal land agencies deny 

permission to manage the vegetation, this provision is needed and 

is long overdue. 

The safety, reliability, and affordability—you have heard me say 

it three times now in less than 5 minutes. It is a pretty important 

topic and I have been back here in Washington, DC enough to hear 

how important that is when you are talking about the electric grid. 

While I would love to see this legislation go much further than the 

language in this bill, I understand how the system works and I understand it takes time. H.R. 2358 is significant progress in the 

right direction. I am excited about what we could have here and 

I really urge the subcommittee to support this. I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVE MARKHAM, PRESIDENT/CEO OF CENTRAL ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE, INC. AND PRESIDENT OF OREGON RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon Chairman Fleming and members of the subcommittee. I am Dave 

Markham, President and CEO of Central Electric Cooperative, headquartered in 

Redmond, Oregon. Central Electric is a distribution cooperative serving more than 

32,500 meters across a 5,300 square mile service territory in central Oregon. I also 

serve as the President of the Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the organization that represents Oregon’s 18 member-owned not-for-profit electric 

cooperatives. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the Electricity Reliability and 

Forest Protection Act (H.R. 2358). I commend Congressman Zinke and one of my 

state’s Congressmen, Kurt Schrader, for their leadership introducing this bill. One 

year ago, I testified before the full House Committee on Natural Resources on the 

issues Oregon electric cooperatives have experienced when attempting to secure approval for routine maintenance, upgrades or replacement of our power lines with the 

United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

I outlined several stories about frustrating delays, wildly varying standards and a 

lack of a customer service ethic among our Federal land management agencies. I 

am here again today to report while incremental progress has been made, it continues to fall significantly short of what I believe is acceptable to ensure the safety, 

reliability and affordability of electricity we provide to our members. 

With 56 percent of the land in Central Electric’s service territory federally managed, it is vitally important the USFS and BLM work cooperatively with us as we 

fulfill our mission providing safe, reliable and affordable electricity to rural 

Oregonians. Oftentimes, we believe this mission is threatened due to the actions of 

these agencies. We have found huge variations and approaches not only between the 

USFS and the BLM, but within the land management agency districts, and even 

ranger to ranger. We continue to experience a complete lack of uniform standards. 

This legislation will bring much needed consistency and accountability. 

I want to provide a few examples of the issues we face when working with the 

USFS and BLM. More than 38 percent of Central Electric’s distribution lines are 

14 

underground. Some of these underground lines are reaching the end of their life expectancy and are in the process of being replaced. We have been waiting for nearly 

2 years to receive USFS approval to replace a short 1.3 mile section of deteriorating 

underground line that has been in place for more than 45 years. Adding to this 

lengthy delay, we were recently informed this approval process will now require an 

archeological study which could cost the cooperative an additional $87,000—not an 

insignificant amount of money for our member-owners. If these delays continue, our 

construction opportunity will again be missed due to weather conditions that prevent accessibility in this location of our service territory. Comparatively, our utility 

can construct a similar project on non-federally managed land within 1 month. The 

protracted length of time it requires to receive approval to complete routine maintenance, upgrades or replacement of our power lines on federally managed lands is 

having an impact on the safety and reliability of the electricity we provide to our 

members. 

As I noted last year, Central Electric’s experience with our land management 

agencies is not an isolated incident. Another Oregon electric cooperative is in a 2- 

year holding pattern over needed upgrades to transmission lines that will ensure 

reliability for 15,000 members. As one electric co-op manager told me, ‘‘there are so 

many studies, so many processes, and so many hoops to jump through’’ the agencies 

seem paralyzed to act. 

Nor is this experience isolated only to electric service. Many electric co-ops are 

involved in the deployment of broadband to rural areas. Douglas Electric Cooperative in Roseburg, Oregon, informed me they were forced to wait 18 months to attach 

fiber optic cable to six existing power poles, depriving their members of broadband 

services. I believe the provisions in the legislation calling for the establishment of 

timelines and benchmarks will go a long way toward expediting these important 

projects. 

I also want to applaud the provisions in this legislation regarding the removal of 

‘‘danger trees’’ within rights-of-way. In central Oregon, forest fires are a common occurrence due to lightning strikes and we are often at the mercy of Mother Nature. 

However, Mother Nature is not always to blame. Oregon electric co-ops have seen 

the impact when we are not allowed to properly maintain the rights-of-way. 

Years ago, Midstate Electric Cooperative in La Pine, Oregon, requested the trimming of selective trees along the rights-of-way on USFS land for fear the trees were 

a hazard. This request was denied. Predictably, a tree fell into a power line, sparking a wildfire. Because the electric cooperative was held strictly liable, they had to 

pay firefighting costs of $326,850. This legislation’s provision shifting the liability 

away from the utility if the agency denies permission to manage the vegetation is 

needed and long overdue. 

I am not here to denigrate the land management professionals at the USFS and 

the BLM although I am aware in certain instances, there has been a lack of customer service ethic by the agencies as well as excessive employee turnover that 

results in inconsistencies and the lack of accountability. Not all of this can be legislated, but I am hopeful the training and guidance language in the bill will help alleviate some of these issues and ensure agency personnel understand our priority 

of safety requirements and electrical system reliability. 

I will reiterate my comments from last year’s testimony. It is beyond time our 

Federal land managers work collaboratively with electric co-ops to develop commonsense reforms of their current practices. These operational and cultural problems 

will not be resolved overnight and must involve long-term solutions, such as this 

legislation. We need a streamlined process that will provide some consistency and 

accountability. H.R. 2358 is significant progress in the right direction and I urge 

the subcommittee to support it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Markham. 

I now recognize Mr. Doug Benevento, Director of Public Policy 

Development for Xcel Energy in Denver, Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG BENEVENTO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT, XCEL ENERGY, DENVER COLORADO 

Mr. BENEVENTO. Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and providing an opportunity to 

15 

comment on the Electrical Liability and Forest Protection Act. Xcel 

Energy is a Midwest and Western electric and gas utility with 

operations in Minnesota, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Wisconsin, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Michigan. Our combined operations have just over 3 million customers on the electric side, and 

just fewer than 2 million gas customers. We are also the largest 

wind provider in the United States and the 10th largest solar provider in the United States. 

We have 19,000 miles of transmission, including several hundred 

miles of hi-voltage transmission, as well as distribution on land 

managed by the Federal Government. And while Colorado has had 

multiple fires in recent years, we have been fortunate in that damage to our infrastructure has been minimal. However, we believe 

in being proactive with respect to protecting our customer’s 

reliability. 

That is why we have not only spent millions of dollars to protect 

our infrastructure on public lands, but we have also invested in sophisticated mapping systems that allow us to specifically identify 

trees which pose a risk to our transmission, or buildup of vegetation that could increase the intensity of a fire. 

We believe the principles outlined in the Electricity Reliability 

and Forest Protection Act would provide additional, useful tools, 

some here today, to support this legislation. While we understand 

that this legislation has miles to go before its ultimate approval, 

we believe that the principles outlined in the proposal strike a balance between protecting our public lands and our need to protect 

our transmission that rests upon it. We think this legislation captures appropriately an approach that is productive. It establishes 

uniform procedures and practices for management, but does not 

micromanage the Agency. 

The legislation does, however, establish standards for when a 

utility can act that are appropriate. We support the language in 

the legislation which allows for the immediate removal of vegetation that would pose an imminent threat to transmission. We also 

believe the use of integrated vegetation management for planning 

is appropriate from both a forest health and utility infrastructure 

perspective. 

While this legislation addresses management on the right-of-way 

and the management adjacent to the right-of-way, we have also 

been concerned about management issues off of the right-of-way. 

Management of vegetation off of our right-of-way, particularly in 

remote areas where our transmission lines are located, is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but it is often not being 

done because of constrained budgets and the fact that this work is 

done in remote areas which are not priority areas for the Forest 

Service. Because we don’t have responsibilities for these areas, we 

have not dealt with vegetation management in off right-of-way 

areas. 

But we are concerned about fuel buildup in these areas resulting 

in a risk to our infrastructure in the event of a fire. Targeted and 

discrete treatment of these areas near our infrastructure would significantly reduce the risk to our facilities. The work that needs to 

be performed is limited, often less than a quarter of an acre, and 

is essentially clearing out fuel on the ground, or thinning trees to 

16 

reduce crowding. It should be the exact work that the Federal land 

management agencies would do absent other priorities. 

We are willing to help treat these very limited areas to reduce 

the fire threat and are willing to do so at our cost and at the direction of the Forest Service. The issue is that if we were to perform 

such voluntary work, we would need greater clarification as to 

what standard of liability would apply to us. Because this is voluntary work, work for which we otherwise are not responsible, we 

would need assurance that we would be held at most to a gross 

negligence standard in the unlikely event that a fire broke out 

during off-right-of-way restoration work. 

In contrast to on-right-of-way work where a strict liability standard is in place, at least for the first $1 million worth of damages 

regarding the transmission corridor, we cannot undertake similar 

liability responsibilities off the right-of-ways. We believe this helpful clarification will encourage utilities to partner with the agencies 

in both dollars and workforce to address such off-right-of-way fire 

concerns. 

While we certainly don’t anticipate any problems and haven’t 

had any in recent memory, we believe that changing the level of 

liability appropriately reflects the voluntary nature of this activity. 

I am going to be clear. This off-right-of-way work would be absolutely no commercial value to us. And we are adamant that any 

work would have to be discussed, reviewed, and ultimately approved by the Federal Land Management Agency. Thank you for 

your time and I am happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Benevento follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG BENEVENTO, ON BEHALF OF XCEL ENERGY

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

Xcel Energy is testifying in support of the principles outlined in the Electric 

Reliability and Forest Protection Act and to recommend to the subcommittee an 

additional approach that will help to protect our public lands and utility 

infrastructure. 

Xcel Energy has electric and gas infrastructure in remote areas of public lands 

throughout our service territory in Colorado. In a time of constrained budgets and 

a focus on the wildland urban interface (‘‘WUI’’) Federal land managers have not 

been able to fully prioritize management off the right-of-way (‘‘ROW’’) in these more 

remote areas. While we understand the focus on the WUI we are concerned that 

a fire in a more remote area could result in damage to our infrastructure. 

In Colorado there are areas off our ROW and adjacent to electric transmission 

structures where we and the Forest Service believe selective clearing would reduce 

the risk to our infrastructure in the event of a passing wildfire. 

We have proposed to our Federal partners that we would be willing to perform 

off ROW work either on a cost-share basis, or at our own expense. Performing the 

work with existing contracted resources would require an additional Special Use 

Permit (‘‘SUP’’), which would include unacceptable liability provisions. 

The existing liability standard for work on our ROW is strict liability up to 

$1 million in damages. After that first $1 million is reached there is a new standard 

for any additional damages. 

Because this off ROW work is proactive, voluntary and would assist in the management of public lands, we believe that there should be a different liability standard for work performed off the ROW if that work is done at the direction and with 

the approval of the relevant Federal land manager. 

We respectfully suggest that the subcommittee examine whether a public-private 

partnership could be incentivized if the standard of liability for a private entity performing work off its ROW were gross negligence instead of strict liability or 

comparative liability. 

17 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing and providing the opportunity to comment on the 

draft legislation. 

My name is Doug Benevento and I’m here representing Xcel Energy, a vertically 

integrated investor-owned gas and electric utility that provides service to just under 

31⁄2 million electric customers and just under 2 million gas customers in eight 

states: Minnesota, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Wisconsin, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 

Throughout its service territory, Xcel Energy has nearly 19,000 miles of transmission lines. Included in that number are several hundred miles of high voltage 

transmission facilities in Colorado on land managed by the Federal Government. 

In order to ensure reliability for our customers, we are committed to using the 

most progressive technology available to reduce the risk of damage or destruction 

to our infrastructure from wildfire. 

Along with spending millions of dollars to reduce wildfire risk on public lands in 

Colorado we have also: 

• Deployed remote sensing technology including Light Detection and Ranging 

(LiDAR) and high resolution imagery from a helicopter which enables Xcel 

Energy to surgically identify hazard trees and areas around transmission 

structures that are high risk for wildfire damage due to fuel load on the 

ground and forest densities off the ROW that need to be thinned. 

• Leveraged the output from remote sensing combined with geospatial risk 

analysis which has identified approximately 1,600 transmission structures 

that we’ve identified as ‘‘high risk’’ for damage should a wildfire pass through 

these structure sites. Approximately 450 of these high risk structures are 

located on Federal lands. At this time, there is no plan from the U.S. Forest 

Service to address over 100 of these high risk structures. 

Xcel Energy is also committed to ensuring electric service reliability for its customers by working with our Federal partners to reduce the risk from fires to our 

infrastructure on public land. To this end, Xcel Energy and the U.S. Forest Service 

entered into a memorandum of understanding, allowing us to pay the USFS to perform necessary off ROW wildfire protection work adjacent to high and medium risk 

transmission structures. 

ELECTRIC RELIABILITY AND FOREST PROTECTION ACT

We believe that passage of legislation like the Electric Reliability and Forest 

Protection Act could help both us and Federal land managers (‘‘FLM’’) protect utility 

infrastructure. 

In particular, we believe that the legislation appropriately gives discretion to utilities to respond to emergency conditions. We also believe that the unified vegetation 

management plan, facility inspection plan, and operation and maintenance plan will 

be useful planning documents for both utilities and Federal land managers. 

If the unified management plan is designed properly, approved in a timely manner and implemented correctly it would provide guidance to utilities on how to proceed with work on or adjacent to existing ROW. Additionally it will provide 

certainty to the utilities and a useful management tool for the FLM. 

We understand that this legislation is just beginning its journey through the legislative process. However, as it progresses we hope that this subcommittee and your 

colleagues on both sides of Capitol Hill continue to focus on the issue of balancing 

the important oversight role played by the Federal land managers with our equally 

important job of ensuring reliability for our customers. 

LIABILITY FOR OFF-ROW WORK

Today I want to raise an additional issue not addressed in the bill that we hope 

the committee will consider. While this is an important issue for Xcel Energy, we 

think it is applicable to other utilities as they consider the need to perform work 

off existing ROW. 

Our concern pertains to off-ROW vegetation management that is occasionally necessary to protect transmission lines from wildfire threats originating outside of the 

ROW. 

Our concern focuses on dense forests adjacent to our transmission structures that 

can pose an enormous threat to our facilities survivability from a passing wildfire. 

We are under no obligation to manage vegetation off of our ROW. It is the responsibility of the Federal land management agency to manage it to protect our 

18 

facilities. However, lack of resources and a focus on the WUI areas by Federal land 

managers has led to a decline in management in more remote areas where we have 

important infrastructure. 

We routinely manage our ROW and could easily turn our attention to these small 

(∼1⁄4 acre per structure), but highly critical off-ROW work areas. 

There is no debate on whether this work should and can be done in a fashion that 

minimizes impacts to the surrounding environment, wildlife and the surrounding 

ecosystem. In fact, it can also help develop pollinator habitat. 

While, Xcel Energy is willing to contribute field crew and financial resources to 

these off-ROW management efforts, we are concerned that if we do so we take on 

unrestricted liability. 

That is a standard we are not willing to expose our company and ratepayers to 

in order to perform work that is not our responsibility. Xcel Energy is hopeful 

Congress will consider legislation clarifying that a utility doing off-ROW vegetation 

management work pursuant to an agency-approved vegetation plan may do so without the fear of a taking on strict or comparative liability. In these cases we believe 

a gross negligence standard with a potential cap on our overall liability is an appropriate approach for our voluntary efforts to solve these wildfire threats. In addition 

to or as an alternative we believe a cap on liability could also address our concerns. 

We believe what we’re proposing can be successful at both improving the health 

of public lands and protecting our infrastructure if we can agree on the following 

principles: 

• All work must be timely reviewed and approved by the relevant FLM before 

it is undertaken; 

• There can be no commercial value from the management activity to the 

utility; and 

• The liability standard for performing such work should be gross negligence 

and/or capped at a set amount. 

We are open to discussing other principles and would certainly welcome the input 

of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior on such a proposal. We want to be 

clear about our goal, improving the ability of our infrastructure to survive a wildfire 

in the remote areas where it is located. We are not seeking a larger opening in the 

management of public land that could lead to larger applications of this language. 

What we are suggesting is not unique. In many parts of the country under state 

law, private landowners are encouraged to engage in prescribed fire activity to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. When performing this work, if the fire were to 

spread, actions would be measured by a gross negligence standard. 

In other situations, fire fighters from adjacent districts are urged to be good 

neighbors and help suppress fires with the assurance that they will be held 

harmless. 

Similarly here, utilities cannot risk partnering with the Forest Service on offROW fuel reduction activities without accompanying protections. We are not asking 

for a complete waiver of liability but the standard should be one of gross negligence. 

Xcel Energy would welcome a dialog with Committee staff and the agencies in the 

coming weeks to see how best this partnership could be expanded and the necessary 

protections could be incorporated. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Benevento. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gregory Smith, Director of Lands 

at the U.S. Forest Service in Washington, DC. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY SMITH, DIRECTOR, LANDS AND 

REALTY MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for giving 

us the opportunity to present the Department of Agriculture’s 

views on the discussion draft to enhance electric reliability by 

facilitating vegetation among the Federal land managers. 

The Department recognizes the reliability of delivery of electricity is essential to the Nation’s welfare and economy and that 

fire service disruptions that result from contact between vegetation 

19 

and power lines threaten safety, resources, and places a burden on 

rate payers. The Forest Service works collaboratively with holders 

of electric transmission and distribution line authorizations to develop appropriate vegetation management plans that increase reliability, minimize the risk of forest fires, and directs compliance 

with the applicable forest, Federal, state, and local requirements. 

These plans should include procedures that allow for routine emergency removal of vegetation. 

The Agency’s 2013 vegetation management guide specifies for 

field staff the procedures and practices that should be included in 

operation and maintenance for power lines. This plan states that 

where vegetation conditions inside or outside the authorized rightof-way pose an imminent threat to the power line facilities, utility 

companies may remove those threats immediately without prior approval from the Forest Service. 

This guide provides for all other vegetation management activities to be planned and coordinated with the Agency to ensure utilities and their contractors are aware of any existing conditions that 

could present a threat to them or the public and to ensure that requisite environmental review, if there is any, is conducted. 

Members of my staff communicate regularly with utilities to address specific issues and to discuss programmatic effects to improve 

Agency responsiveness. At many locations, utility managers and 

Forest Service field personnel are successful in timely management 

of vegetation in corridors. In other places, we have had some problems. Response times can take longer than we would like as program staff managers have approximately 70,000 special use 

permits and 6,000 new special use permits each year. 

Regarding the discussion draft, the Forest Service is eager to 

work with the subcommittee on this legislation. However, some of 

the draft provisions we think are unnecessary and are duplicative 

of existing law and regulation in the Forest Service’s policy. 

In addition, the Agency cannot support some provisions as 

currently written. 

Number one, unduly restrictive requirements that restrict the 

Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing National Forest System 

regulations. 

Two, impose regulations and reviews that approve deadlines 

which would be unreasonable for many staffs to meet under the 

current resource constraints and would impose a liability if these 

conditions are not met. 

Three, eliminate the FLPMA strict liability for electric transmission and distribution facilities which are a high-risk use and 

occupancy of Federal land. 

And four, allow utilities without involvement of the Agency to cut 

trees on National Forest System lands that do not pose an imminent threat to the electric transmission or distribution facilities. 

To enhance cooperation and efficiency in maintenance of electric 

transmission and distribution line right-of-ways, the Agency encourages utilities to meet with field personnel, explain the required 

actions, and work collaboratively with others to develop plans for 

getting the work done. We look forward to assisting the subcommittee with the legislation and future discussions on the 

Agency efforts to improve reliability. 

20 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY SMITH, DIRECTOR, LANDS AND REALTY

MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s views regarding the discussion draft 

to enhance the reliability of the Nation’s electricity grid by facilitating vegetation 

management on Federal lands. 

THE DISCUSSION DRAFT

The discussion draft would add a new section 512 to the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976. Section 512(a) would require Federal land managers to 

provide direction to ensure that all existing and future rights-of-way for electric 

transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands include provisions for utility vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance 

activities that: 

• Are developed in consultation with the holders of the right-of-way; 

• Enable the holder to operate and maintain these facilities in good working 

order and comply with Federal, state and local electric system reliability and 

fire safety requirements; 

• Minimize the need for case-by-case or annual approvals for routine and 

emergency vegetation management activities; and 

• When review is required, provide for expedited review and approval. 

Section 512(b)(2)(A)(i) and 512(b)(4) would require Federal land managers to review and approve vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and 

maintenance plans within 30 days, and would require that the Secretary use the 

agency’s categorical exclusion process under National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 to exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement any vegetation management plans developed for existing 

rights-of-way. Under Section 512(b)(1), plans would not have to cover the entire 

right-of-way. 

Section 512(b)(5) would provide that once the vegetation management plan is approved, the holders of the right-of-way would have to provide the Federal land manager with only notification of anticipated activities in the coming year, a description 

of those activities, and certification that the activities are in accordance with the 

plan. If vegetation on or adjacent to a right-of-way does not meet clearance requirements under Federal, state , or local standards, the affected Federal land manager 

would have only 3 business days, even in non-emergency situations, to approve the 

holder’s request to conduct vegetation management activities to meet those requirements. If approval is not given within that time frame, the holder may take action 

after providing notice to the Federal land manager. 

Under section 512(f) holders of a right-of-way would be shielded from liability if 

the affected Federal land manager failed to authorize vegetation management activities that are required to comply with Federal, state, or local system reliability 

and fire safety requirements. Section 512(g) would encourage development of training for employees and section 512(h) would mandate implementing regulations. 

The Department recognizes that reliable delivery of electricity is essential to the 

America’s welfare and economy, and that fire and service disruptions that result 

from contact between vegetation and power lines threaten public safety and resources and place a potential burden on rate payers. The Forest Service is eager 

to work with the subcommittee on this legislation. However, some of the discussion 

draft’s provisions are unnecessary to the extent they duplicate existing requirements 

in Forest Service policies and special use authorizations. In addition, the Agency 

cannot support provisions that, as currently written, would: 

• Unduly restrict the Secretary’s ability to exercise appropriate management 

authority over the National Forest System; 

21 

• Impose review and approval deadlines, which would be unreasonable for 

many field staffs to meet under current resource constraints, and which 

would expose the Agency to liability if unmet; and 

• Eliminates strict liability for electric transmission and distribution facilities, 

which are a high-risk use and occupancy of Federal land, and eliminates 

liability for negligence. 

The Forest Service also cannot support provisions that would allow utilities without Agency involvement to cut trees on National Forest System lands that do not 

pose an imminent threat to electric transmission and distribution facilities, particularly when those trees are outside of authorized rights-of-way. 

THE CURRENT PROGRAM

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 national electricity grid. Helping to ensure 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. Program staff manages approximately 70,000 special use authorizations and processes nearly 6,000 proposals for new uses annually. This makes it 

imperative for utilities planning maintenance work to contact the responsible field 

office as far in advance as possible. The Agency’s response time varies depending 

on the capabilities of each field office, the level of work planned, and conditions in 

the planned area. 

The Forest Service works collaboratively with holders of electric transmission and 

distribution line rights-of-way to develop appropriate vegetation management plans 

that allow holders to provide for reliability, minimize the risk of forest fires, and 

comply with applicable Federal, state, and local requirements. These plans should 

include procedures that allow for emergency removal of trees that pose an imminent 

threat without prior approval from the Forest Service. The Agency’s 2013 vegetation 

management guide specifies for field staffs the procedures and practices that should 

be included in operation and maintenance plans for power lines. This guide states 

that where vegetation conditions inside or outside the authorized right-of-way pose 

an imminent threat to power line facilities, utility companies may remove those 

threats immediately without prior approval from the Forest Service. The guide provides for all other vegetation management activities to be planned and coordinated 

with the Agency to ensure utilities and their contractors are aware of any existing 

conditions that could present a threat to them or to the public and to ensure that 

the requisite environmental review, if any is conducted. 

The Agency is well aware of the frustrations experienced by some utilities due to 

delayed responses for maintenance approvals and inconsistency across field offices, 

and is taking steps to address these concerns. Members of my staff communicate 

regularly with utilities to address specific issues and to discuss programmatic efforts 

to improve agency responsiveness. Staff members attended the Western Utilities 

Group meeting this month in Washington, DC and discussed the Agency’s efforts 

to improve procedures for transmission line maintenance, including enhancing vegetation management directives and permit clauses, completing review of the Federal 

vegetation management MOU with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), developing 

web-based special uses training, conducting reviews of special uses business practices, and holding an Agency executive energy forum, scheduled for June of this 

year. 

To enhance cooperation and efficiency in maintenance of electric transmission and 

distribution line rights-of-way, the Agency encourages utilities to meet with field 

personnel, explain required actions, and work collaboratively to develop plans for 

getting work done. The Department recently embarked on an initiative to look at 

reducing fire risk beyond the right-of-way limits. The Secretary of Agriculture 

convened the Western Utilities Summit in 2013 with power company executives to 

explore partnership opportunities for increasing the pace and scale of forest 

restoration and fire mitigation work. Pilot projects where utilities are contributing 

to reducing their risk and the fire risk within fire-derived ecosystems have begun. 

As an example, Xcel Energy, in partnership with national forests of the Colorado 

Front Range, has provided funding for treating the live and dead fuel component 

of stands outside of the corridor. A 5-year operating plan was completed and signed 

in June 2014 for a 5-year investment of $1.2 million. The 5-year plan outlines reducing hazardous fuels on 3,350 acres and addresses 326 of 400 high priority structures 

across three national forests. In addition, a fire science analysis by USFS and Xcel 

22 

scientists has been published. The document discusses the joint science to guide 

vegetation clearance standards and vegetation treatments for prevention of damage 

to lines and other infrastructure. 

We look forward to assisting the subcommittee with the legislation and future 

discussions on Agency efforts to improve reliability. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Karen Mouritsen, Deputy 

Assistant Director for Energy, Minerals, and Realty Management 

at the Bureau of Land Management in Washington, DC. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN E. MOURITSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, ENERGY, MINERALS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT, 

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

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MOURITSEN. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s 

views on H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest 

Protection Act. This bill amends the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, or FLPMA, by adding new provisions regarding 

vegetation management and electric transmission rights-of-way. 

The Department supports the bill’s vision of early and frequent 

communication with the holders of these rights-of-way to plan for 

and address their needs, including the development of plans for 

management of vegetation. The Department opposes, however, the 

bill’s automatic authorizations and extremely constrained review 

time frames for these plans. 

The BLM works closely with thousands of utility organizations to 

manage rights-of-way for the transmission and distribution of electrical power. We always appreciate the opportunity to work collaboratively with our stakeholders and partners and in managing 

rights-of-way, we believe that advanced planning is critical to ensuring that both the BLM and the utilities can respond to vegetation management requirements in a timely and effective manner. 

The BLM also recognizes that the approval of thoughtfully cited 

rights-of-way is crucial to the economic vitality of our Nation. Currently, the BLM administers over 15,000 authorizations for electric 

transmission and distribution facilities. 

To support the efforts needed to improve transmission reliability 

and increase capacity in this country, the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2016 budget for the BLM includes a $5 million increase to 

allow the BLM to continue to work to identify and designate energy 

corridors in the areas of low conflict which should expedite future 

permitting processes for new lines. 

As currently written, the bill would apply to thousands of existing rights-of-way, some of which were approved decades ago and 

will soon expire. Before the enactment of FLPMA in 1976, the BLM 

issued a significant number of rights-of-way under various authorities, often for terms of 40 to 50 years, and these rights-of-way 

typically do not contain vegetation management or reliability 

23 

standards which are standard provisions of the post-FLPMA rightsof-way. 

In addition, the BLM is aware that the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission recently issued an order designed to improve the reliability of electric transmission systems by preventing 

or minimizing outages from vegetation located on or near the 

transmission rights-of-way. 

BLM supports these standards and appreciates and supports the 

work of the utility companies to comply with these standards. BLM 

currently provides opportunities for right-of-way grant holders to 

establish plans of operation that address vegetation management 

and other operating procedures. Routine vegetation management 

activities generally do not require separate BLM approvals, nor do 

true emergency actions. Most of the right-of-way grants issued in 

the past 20 years include such plans of operations. 

The Department believes that the bill’s mandatory approval time 

frame of 30 days for new vegetation management plans is not realistic given the potential scope of such plans and the number of 

rights-of-way they could cover. Additionally, the bill does not provide any flexibility for the BLM to work with the utility to address 

inadequate or incomplete plans, nor would it allow time for the 

BLM and the utility to coordinate with local communities. 

Likewise, the Department believes that the time frame of 3 business days to respond to requests for treatments is problematic as 

it would preclude the BLM’s ability to work with utility companies 

to modify requests when and where appropriate, to ensure treatments satisfy the BLM resource management responsibilities, and 

also address utility needs in a manner that is safe given current 

on-the-ground conditions. 

The BLM values our partnerships with the holders of the electrical transmission and distribution rights-of-way, and we will continue to work toward further collaboration to meet our shared 

goals. We appreciate the subcommittee’s attention to this issue, 

and thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mouritsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN E. MOURITSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY, MINERALS, AND REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior’s views 

on H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, which amends 

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

regarding vegetation management, facility inspection and operation, and maintenance of electric transmission and distribution facility rights-of-way (ROWs). The 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) works closely with thousands of public, private, 

and cooperative utility organizations to manage ROWs for the transmission and distribution of electrical power. The Department values these partnerships and the 

vital services that electric utilities provide for local communities and the Nation. We 

also value our shared relationships and responsibilities with our Federal utility 

partners, the Federal Power Marketing Administrations. 

The Department notes that the draft legislation was provided to us about 1 week 

before the hearing date and the bill was introduced late last week, less than a week 

prior to the hearing, leaving little time for analysis of the introduced bill’s provisions. We will provide preliminary views on the bill in this statement, but the 

Department reserves the right to submit additional comments about the introduced 

bill to assist in developing the Administration’s position if necessary. We also would 

be glad to engage in further discussion with the sponsor and the subcommittee on 

24 

the bill. As it is currently written, however, the Department opposes the bill’s 

automatic authorizations and extremely constrained review time frames. 

The BLM manages roughly 245 million acres of Federal land consistent with its 

mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands 

for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. As part of that mission, the BLM has issued thousands of miles of ROWs for electricity transmission 

and distribution under FLPMA and other applicable authorities. The BLM recognizes that the approval of ROWs that are thoughtfully sited are crucial to the economic vitality of our Nation. Congress reinforced this in Section 103 of FLPMA 

which defines ROWs as one of the principal or major uses of the public lands. Currently, the BLM administers over 15,000 authorizations for electric transmission 

and distribution facilities, ranging from low-voltage 12 kilovolt (kV) lines to highvoltage 500 kV lines and related infrastructure. 

The BLM is committed to ensuring public safety and reliability with respect to 

the electricity transmission ROWs it administers. The BLM takes its responsibility 

for the administration of these ROWs seriously, values the opportunity to work with 

utility companies to serve our communities, and works simultaneously to meet its 

obligations for the management and protection of natural and cultural resources on 

the public lands as well as protection of public health and safety. To support the 

necessary upgrades needed to improve reliability and increase capacity, the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget includes a program increase of $5.0 million in 

the Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program to enhance the BLM’s ability to identify and designate energy corridors in low conflict areas and to site highvoltage transmission lines, substations, and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner. 

Before the enactment of FLPMA in 1976, the BLM issued a significant number 

of ROWs under various authorities. These earlier ROWs were often issued for terms 

of 40 to 50 years and typically do not contain vegetation management and reliability 

standards. Because FLPMA repealed the prior authorities, the BLM can only address reauthorization under Title V of FLPMA. Reauthorization generally requires 

analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws that 

were not in existence when the original authorizations were granted. This process 

represents a substantial workload for the BLM, but ultimately leads to the issuance 

of ROWs with clear and consistent terms and conditions that address, among other 

topics, maintenance issues such as vegetation management. 

In addition, the BLM is aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) issued an order in September 2013 approving updated transmission vegetation management standards. Those standards, which became enforceable for transmission owners in July 2014, were implemented to improve the reliability of electric 

transmission systems by preventing outages from vegetation located on transmission ROWs and minimizing outages from vegetation located adjacent to ROWs. 

The standards also address maintaining clearances between transmission lines and 

vegetation on and along transmission ROWs and reporting vegetation-related outages to the Regional Reliability Organizations (RRO) and the North American 

Electric Reliability Council (NERC). The BLM appreciates FERC’s issuance of these 

standards and their emphasis on improving transmission safety and reliability. The 

BLM also appreciates the work of utilities which have increasingly sought to conduct vegetation management treatments within and adjacent to ROWs on BLMadministered public lands to comply with these new standards. In some situations, 

the current ROW authorizations may not be consistent with the updated NERC 

standards; in those situations the BLM works with the individual ROW holders to 

address their concerns. 

COOPERATIVE APPROACH

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which directed Federal land managing agencies to expedite approvals necessary to allow the owners or operators of electric 

transmission or distribution facilities to comply with standards for vegetation management that imminently endanger the reliability or safety of the facilities, the BLM 

and other Federal agencies work to increase their collaboration with utilities. The 

BLM is a party, along with other Departmental agencies, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Edison Electric Institute (an association of shareholder-owned electric companies), to an interagency Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that formalizes a cooperative approach to streamline the 

management of vegetation near utility facilities. The MOU facilitates a variety of 

mutually accepted goals, including maintaining reliable electric service, improving 

safety, reducing the likelihood of wildfires, reducing soil erosion, reducing environmental risk, streamlining administrative processes, and incorporating integrated 

25 

vegetation management (IVM) where appropriate. Under the MOU, the parties 

agreed to a set of IVM practices intended to protect human health and the environment and also agreed to the principles of cooperation, timely communication, and 

consistent management. The current MOU has expired, but its operational principles are still in use and the parties are currently working toward approving a new 

MOU. 

The BLM works closely with utilities that hold many BLM ROWs, such as 

Arizona Public Service, NV Energy, and Idaho Power, to establish master agreements that provide standard terms and conditions that can be applied to multiple 

ROW grants. These agreements enhance consistency across BLM offices and create 

greater predictability and efficiency for the utility operators as they conduct business with the BLM. In Idaho, this cooperation has led to increased efficiency approving operations and maintenance proposals for transmission ROWs and associated 

infrastructure. Another way the BLM collaborates with utilities is through offering 

training to BLM employees with the assistance of industry experts. 

The 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 and the utility 

can respond to vegetation management requirements in a timely manner. 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN RIGHTS-OF-WAY

The growth of vegetation within utility ROWs can, in some cases, pose risks to 

the infrastructure needed to provide a continuous supply of electrical power. Trees 

can fall or otherwise make contact with overhead power lines, resulting in power 

outages or fires, which pose threats to public safety, private property, and natural 

resources. Ground fires can create heat damage to facilities or burn wooden power 

poles. Thus, to provide a dependable supply of electricity, utilities must manage 

vegetation near their transmission and distribution lines to prevent blackouts and 

wildfires; a goal shared by the BLM. Plans of development incorporate various information elements, including health and safety standards and maintenance actions 

needed to ensure that the ROW grant holders and the BLM know what to expect 

when vegetation management is undertaken. Advance planning is critical for the 

BLM to expedite any approvals necessary to allow ROW grant holders to conduct 

vegetation management activities. 

When issuing or renewing a ROW grant to a utility company, the BLM completes 

an analysis required by NEPA and other statutes, including consideration of activities necessary for the ongoing maintenance and operation of those lines. The analysis may also consider other resources or activities appropriate for the location or 

management needs of a particular ROW. The BLM includes standard terms and 

conditions for the management of vegetation, agreed upon by both the agency and 

the ROW grant holder, when issuing the ROW grant. Under the terms and conditions typically included in ROW grants, a utility company may conduct minor trimming, pruning, and weed management to maintain the ROW or facility after simply 

notifying the BLM. Further BLM authorization is typically not required. 

In some cases, BLM approval is needed prior to ground disturbance and the cutting and removal of any timber or vegetative resources that have market value. The 

utility company can often obtain BLM approval for the removal of hazard trees 

through a streamlined process (e.g., utilizing categorical exclusions). For an emergency situation causing an imminent hazard, no BLM pre-approval would be necessary. For other actions within the ROW, but beyond its scope, BLM approval is 

needed. These actions may require additional environmental analysis. In general, 

the degree of analysis required for a specific vegetation removal action depends on 

the resources affected, the scope of the action to be taken, and the environmental 

analysis that had been previously completed. To facilitate efficiency, the BLM 

encourages early and ongoing communication with our utility partners regarding 

vegetation management needs and concerns. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS MANAGEMENT

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy represents a collaborative approach to restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fireadapted communities, and managing wildfire response in a complex environment. 

The BLM is committed to protecting people, property, and resources from wildland 

fire, and uses a proactive approach to treat hazardous fuels. The BLM regularly 

completes hazardous fuels reduction treatments, including thinning, salvage, and 

prescribed burns. 

26 

The BLM routinely works with partner organizations to engage in land and 

watershed restoration, community preparedness, and hazardous fuels reduction activities. Departmental agencies employ an integrated approach to wildland fire management, including the prioritization of hazardous fuels treatments to mitigate the 

potential risk of wildfires. Utilities that hold ROW grants are an important partner 

in this approach. Hazardous fuels reduction projects that protect vital infrastructure 

can also help the Department of the Interior to protect rural communities from 

wildland fire, and the presence of important infrastructure is one of the factors that 

the Department considers in prioritizing hazardous fuels projects. 

Electrical transmission ROWs can often provide significant potential for the establishment of fuel breaks and for linking hazardous fuels reduction projects ultimately 

creating a stronger network of fuel breaks, which contributes to landscapes that are 

more resilient to fire. Such projects help the BLM to protect communities and 

natural resources from wildland fire, and the utilities to ensure protection of their 

electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. The Cohesive Strategy highlights the importance of working with communities to identify community values 

and infrastructure, including electricity transmission facilities, to be prioritized for 

proactive mitigation of wildfire risk. 

H.R. 2358, ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND FOREST PROTECTION ACT

H.R. 2358 amends FLPMA by adding new provisions regarding vegetation management, facility inspection and operation, and maintenance of electric transmission 

and distribution facility ROWs. Specifically, it requires the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide ROW grant holders the option of developing plans to conduct such activities to comply with applicable system reliability 

and fire safety requirements. The bill specifies that the Secretaries would not have 

the authority to modify the reliability and safety requirements, and that the 

Secretaries must jointly develop a process to review and approve within 30 days the 

vegetation management plans and any amendments to them. The review and approval process would have to include a way for the agencies to notify ROW grant 

holders of any changed conditions that warrant modifications to the plans, provide 

grant holders with the opportunity to submit proposed plan amendments to address 

the changed conditions, and allow the grant holders to continue implementing the 

portions of approved plans that do not adversely affect the conditions causing the 

need for modifications. 

The bill mandates that the Secretaries apply the categorical exclusion process 

under NEPA to the vegetation management plans. The plans, which could cover one 

or more ROWs, would become part of the authorizations governing the covered 

ROWs and danger trees adjacent to the ROWs. Danger trees are defined as any 

trees inside the ROWs or trees outside the ROWs that would come within 10 feet 

of power lines or related structures if they fell. Once a plan is approved, the ROW 

grant holder would notify the granting agency of vegetation management activities 

it anticipates undertaking in the coming year, describe the activities, and certify 

that the activities conform to the plan. 

In cases where vegetation within ROWs or danger trees adjacent to ROWs have 

contacted or are in imminent danger of contacting electric transmission lines, 

H.R. 2358 provides authority for grant holders to prune or remove the vegetation 

as long as they notify the appropriate agency within 24 hours afterwards. Similarly, 

in cases that are not deemed as hazardous but where vegetation within or adjacent 

to ROWs does not meet NERC, state, or local standards, grant holders may conduct 

vegetation management activities to meet those clearance requirements if the agency fails to allow such activities within 3 business days after receiving a request for 

authorization to undertake them. The bill requires the Secretaries to annually report on requests and actions under both of these situations. If either Secretary fails 

to allow ROW grant holders to conduct vegetation management in order to comply 

with Federal, state, or local reliability and fire safety requirements, the bill relieves 

the ROW grant holders of liability if the vegetation causes or contributes to wildfire 

damage, loss, or injury. 

Finally, H.R. 2358 requires the Secretaries to take additional steps regarding implementation. The bill encourages both Secretaries to develop training programs for 

relevant employees regarding electric system reliability standards and fire safety requirements. It also directs the Secretaries to propose implementing regulations 

within 1 year of enactment and finalize them within 2 years. 

ANALYSIS

As currently written, H.R. 2358 would apply to thousands of existing ROWs, 

some of which were approved decades ago and will soon expire. The Department 

27 

supports early and frequent communication with the holders of these ROWs to plan 

for and address their needs, including the incorporation of plans for maintenance 

and vegetation management. The Department opposes, however, the bills’s automatic authorizations and extremely constrained review time frames. The BLM already provides opportunities for ROW grant holders to establish plans of operation 

that address vegetation management, and routine activities generally do not require 

separate BLM approvals. Most of the ROW grants issued within the past 20 years 

include such plans of operation, which address vegetation management. The bill’s 

mandatory approval time frame of 30 days for vegetation management plans is not 

realistic given the potential scope of such plans and the number of ROWs they could 

cover. Additionally, H.R. 2358 does not provide any flexibility for the agencies to address inadequate or incomplete plans, including such matters as cultural and natural resource needs, emergency or routine maintenance procedures, or procedures 

for treatment of vegetation adjacent to the ROW. The Department also notes that 

such a time frame would not allow time for important coordination with local 

communities. 

Likewise, the Department believes that the time frame of 3 business days to respond to requests for treatments is problematic. The mandatory approval required 

under this provision would preclude the BLM’s ability to work with utility companies to modify requests when and where appropriate to ensure treatments satisfy 

BLM resource management responsibilities and address utility needs in a manner 

that is safe given current conditions. Furthermore, the Department believes the language in the bill should be clarified in several other ways. For example, the term 

‘‘adjacent’’ is not adequately defined. 

The Department defers to the Department of Justice regarding the waiver of liability, but notes that this provision may conflict with the Department’s existing 

regulatory authority regarding strict liability, which is a standard term and condition of numerous existing ROW grants. The Department also notes that FLPMA and 

existing regulations provide the BLM with significant latitude to administer ROWs, 

and new regulations may not be necessary. 

CONCLUSION

The BLM values our partnerships with the holders of electrical transmission and 

distribution ROWs, and we will continue to work toward further collaboration to accomplish our shared goals. We believe that early and coordinated planning and 

communication are essential to ensure that vegetation management can occur expeditiously and that ROW holders can comply with standards for vegetation management. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work closely with ROW holders, 

and the committee’s attention to this issue. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Mouritsen. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mark Hayden, the General 

Manager of the Missoula Electric Cooperative in Missoula, 

Montana. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HAYDEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

MISSOULA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, MISSOULA, MONTANA 

Mr. HAYDEN. Good afternoon, Chairman Fleming and members 

of the subcommittee, and thank Congressman Zinke for his earlier 

introduction. Thank you also for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2358, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection 

Act of 2015. MEC is a member of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association and of the Northwest Public Power Association 

and my comments here today are representative of their views as 

well. 

By way of background, MEC serves the electric distribution 

needs of approximately 15,000 meters in western Montana and 

eastern Idaho. 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, over 280 miles of which cross Federal land. 

28 

At MEC we are consistently working to improve safety and system 

reliability, and vegetation management is a critical component of 

our program. We strive continually to keep our rights-of-way clear 

and the adjacent property free from danger trees. 

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 many cases those 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. 

But this positive situation is not found on all of our rights-of-way 

managed by the Forest Service. In some cases it can take months 

and even a year or more to obtain approval on major operations 

and maintenance activities. These inconsistencies and delays adversely impact our ability to make good, timely decisions locally 

and place our co-op at unnecessary risk. 

In fact, the risk of forest fires as a result of hazard trees is all 

too real for the West. For example, I know of one member-owned 

electric cooperative in New Mexico that today faces the very real 

prospect of bankruptcy as a result of a massive 152,000 acre fire. 

This fire was caused by just one Aspen tree that fell onto the coop’s Forest Service right-of-way. The Forest Service held this co-op 

responsible for the cost of fighting the fire, sending the co-op a bill 

totaling more than $38.2 million. The co-op has $20 million in 

liability coverage. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission to have two documents 

related to this fire entered into the hearing record. 

Dr. FLEMING. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HAYDEN. Our service area in Montana, 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 their wake. One 

of the areas hardest hit is in the Swan Valley, north of Seeley 

Lake, Montana. In fact, during 2012, 94 percent of the outage minutes at this delivery point were caused by tree failure outside of 

the right-of-way and contact with overhead lines. Obviously, one of 

the most effective ways to improve service reliability and mitigate 

fire risk is to bury that line. 

However, converting overhead distribution lines to underground 

is an expensive prospect, and especially for a small co-op like MEC. 

So this cannot be standard practice. 

After considerable discussion, an application was submitted to 

the appropriate Forest Service district to bury just over 6 miles of 

distribution line. However, as the months progressed, our hopes 

dimmed. Eventually we made an appeal for help from thenCongressman Steve Daines, who brought our situation to the attention of this subcommittee. 

As of last week, our request was still not approved, and I called 

the local Forest Service office to express my frustration. These local 

officials indicated that the hold up in processing our request was 

getting a bill to us for cost recovery; and if I wanted to see things 

change, I should take up my issue with Congress. Two days later, 

on Saturday, May 16, we received unofficial notice via email that 

our project was approved and we were authorized to begin 

construction. 

29 

The system is broken. H.R. 2358, as introduced by Congressman 

Zinke and Congressman Schrader, is a meaningful step toward 

fixing the problem. The legislation addresses some of my concerns 

and the concerns of others in Montana about inconsistent Federal 

agency actions, lengthy delays in response to applications by electric utilities, and accountability for delays relating to eliminating 

hazard trees and other vegetation and utility rights-of-way. 

This is a tremendous first step. I hope that one day the same 

level of consistency, flexibility, and accountability can be incorporated into the process to amend existing special use permits on 

Forest Service rights-of-way, especially when system reliability and 

fire protection are driving factors. 

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

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK C. HAYDEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

MISSOULA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

Good Afternoon Chairman Fleming and members of the subcommittee, 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 in support of H.R. 2358, the Electricity 

Reliability and Forest Protection Act of 2015. Missoula Electric Cooperative is a 

member of the Montana Electric Cooperatives’ Association, and the Northwest 

Public Power Association and my comments are representative of their positions as 

well. 

By way of background, MEC serves the electric distribution needs to approximately 15,000 meters in western Montana and eastern Idaho. 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—286 miles of which cross Federal land. 

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 strive constantly to keep our rights-of-way clear and the adjacent property free 

from danger trees. The cornerstone of this effort is our System Maintenance and 

Reliability Taskforce or SMART. The SMART program is an integrated maintenance 

program focused on proactive vegetation management, system-wide installation of 

wildlife protection wherever possible, and routine equipment inspection and 

maintenance. 

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 

many 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. 

A great example of this level of cooperation occurs regularly 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 

communicate periodically 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 of 2014 

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 our rights-of-way managed by the 

Forest Service. 

In some cases, it can take months or a year or more to obtain approval on Major 

Operation and Maintenance activities. Such approvals are necessary to assuring 

electricity service is not jeopardized as a result of work needed on rights-of-way. It 

is this inconsistency and the unnecessary financial risk placed on my cooperative 

and other cooperatives that causes me and other co-op managers in the state of 

Montana significant concern. 

30 

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 today faces the very real prospect of bankruptcy as a result of a massive 

152,000-acre fire. This fire was 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 held this 

co-op responsible for the costs of fighting this fire, sending the co-op a bill totaling 

more than $38.2 million. The co-op has $20 million in liability insurance coverage. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission to have two government documents 

related to this fire entered into the hearing record. 

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. One of the areas hardest hit is in the Swan Valley north 

of Seeley Lake, Montana. In fact, during 2012 the substation serving this remote 

country recorded the worst performance of all our delivery points and, according to 

our records, 94 percent of our outage minutes were caused by tree failure from outside of our rights-of-way and contact with overhead lines. In 2013, that total was 

86 percent when excluding severe storms. 

One complicating factor for our lines on Federal land in this area is that the 

Forest Service has required that many of them be constructed out of view using vegetative screening, and thus far off the road when originally installed. This means 

lack of visibility, inaccessibility, and heavily forested rights-of-way are the norm. 

Obviously, one of the most effective ways to improve service reliability and 

mitigate fire risk is to bury the 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. But after considerable internal discussions regarding our situation in the Swan Valley, the decision was made to be proactive by requesting permission to bury approximately 6.1 miles of overhead line on Forest 

Service land. 

In addition to reliability, a major contributing factor in our decision to bury this 

line was a 2011 Montana Supreme Court decision relating to fire damages. In that 

ruling the court indicated that a utility could be held liable for restoring unimproved 

property to its pre-fire condition, including the replacement of mature trees. This 

ruling had the potential to bankrupt any utility and solidified our decision to move 

forward. 

On December 2, 2013, an application was submitted to the Forest Service district 

office having jurisdiction over the proposed project, and, just 1 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 Steve Daines, who brought our situation to 

the attention of this subcommittee last year. In preparation for my testimony here 

today, I spoke with the local Forest Service office regarding my frustration. These 

local officials indicated that the hold-up in processing our request was getting us 

a bill for cost recovery, and if I wanted to see things change I should take up my 

issue with Congress! This comment was made even though they were unaware of 

my pending testimony on this very issue. 

Two days later, on Saturday, May 16, at 4:06 p.m. we received unofficial notice 

via email that all associated field work has been completed on our project, that our 

co-op has paid the Forest Service for all associated costs, and that we were authorized to begin construction. 

The system is broken, and H.R. 2358 as introduced by Congressman Zinke and 

Congressman Schrader is a meaningful step toward fixing the problem. The legislation addresses some of my concerns and the concerns of others in Montana about 

inconsistent Federal agency actions, lengthy delays in response to applications by 

electric utilities, and accountability for delays related to eliminating problems with 

hazardous trees and other vegetation on utility rights-of-way. 

I hope that one day the same level of consistency, flexibility, and accountability 

can be incorporated into our process to amend existing special use permits on existing rights-of-way, especially when system reliability and fire prevention are driving 

factors. 

Thank you again for the honor of testifying before this subcommittee and I will 

be pleased to answer any questions. 

31 

The following documents were submitted for the record by Mr. Hayden and are 

being retained in the Committee’s official files: 

—Confidential Report by Unified Investigations & Sciences, Inc. prepared for 

Jemez Mountain Electric Cooperative, Espanola, New Mexico regarding a fire 

that occurred on June 26, 2011 

—Letter to Jemez Mountain Electric Cooperative on January 31, 2013 from the 

U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico regarding a notice of indebtedness for a fire that occurred on June 26, 2011 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. 

At this point we will begin our questions for witnesses. To allow 

our Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from all of 

our witnesses today, Members are limited to 5 minutes for their 

questions. 

However, if Members have additional questions, we can always 

have additional rounds. I now yield myself the first 5 minutes. 

This question is to Mr. Markham, Mr. Benevento, and Mr. 

Hayden. We hear today, and we often hear this from the other side 

of the aisle, sort of this reflexive response that if there is a problem 

with the Federal Government, it is because we are not funding the 

government enough. Of course, we all know that in the last 6 to 

7 years the budget deficit has accelerated to the fastest pace in the 

history of this Nation. So it is not like we have a lot of extra money 

in order to throw at problems. 

I, on the other hand, believe that the problem is more often poor 

management and poor accountability. I think we see in the VA a 

recent example of exactly what I am talking about. We passed a 

huge bill increasing the funding after all of the scandals at the VA, 

only to find out virtually nothing has been fixed, and virtually nobody has been fired. So I just simply don’t believe that throwing 

money at the problem is ever, or rarely if ever, the solution. 

So my question is this: the Federal agencies before us today discussed their view that inadequate funding is part of the problem. 

Yet the Forest Service discussed its funding agreement with Xcel. 

Aren’t there also things called cost recovery agreements where the 

utilities pay up front, or reimburse the agencies for clearing trees? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Chairman Fleming, I will address that question. 

With our application for burial of that line, the response that we 

received was that getting us the bill for cost recovery was the hold 

up. Now, we are paying those costs, and my argument to them was 

get us the bill. We will gladly, not gladly, but we will pay those 

costs that we owe you to get the job done. That is all we were asking for. 

There is inconsistency between that application and the one prior 

to that that was processed in a relatively efficient fashion. So this 

notion of cost recovery, yes, it is there. We will pay that bill. The 

problem was getting us the bill, and that just didn’t make sense 

to me. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, again, I think that makes my point. That underlines and underscores my point that the Federal bureaucracy 

seems to feel that it is being underfunded, but it doesn’t have any 

problem allowing its inefficiency to run costs up for the private enterprise, or private businesses, or private utilities in this case. So, 

32 

better management and faster response would have saved you a lot 

of time, effort, headaches, and money, would it not? 

Mr. HAYDEN. That is exactly correct and so that was after about 

9 or 10 months, and much of the field work on our project had actually been completed before the cost recovery agreement was even 

sent to us, and I guess what troubled me even more was the fact 

that upon getting that cost recovery agreement and paying the bill, 

my call last week indicated that they hadn’t received the money or 

it had gotten parked on somebody’s desk, apparently, because they 

had the check for 40 days. Somebody looked for it, found it, and 

gave us a call and said, you are good to go. So—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, perhaps we should fund the Agency more 

money so that they have more desks for the check to get stuck on. 

Mr. HAYDEN. Right. 

Dr. FLEMING. How about the other two members? 

Mr. MARKHAM. I would like to respond to that, Chairman. There 

are two parts of that. First one, the cost recovery agreement, and 

you heard my testimony where I talked about an archeological 

study that we are paying for that we expect could be around 

$87,000. We have to cut a check for that and it has to be done before any approvals for our project are done. 

The other thing, years ago with the BLM, we never had to pay 

for renewing our permits. Just in the last 2 years, we renewed 31 

permits with the BLM and we have cut a check for $40,000 for 

that. So we are paying a lot of money to have our infrastructure 

on the property. 

The other thing, going into your question about, is funding part 

of the problem, I guess my biggest concern about that is that we 

are talking about infrastructure that has been in place for 40, 50, 

60 years. We just want to take care of it. 

If it was a new line going in, we can understand the hoops that 

you have to jump through for that, but this is existing, existing facilities that need maintaining. They are getting outdated, and so 

from that standpoint, that shouldn’t cost anything just to let us 

maintain our infrastructure. 

Dr. FLEMING. A great point. Mr. Benevento, do you have 

anything to add? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I would echo their statements and just say we 

have a cost recovery agreement with our Federal partners and 

often there are issues about whether paying up front or paying 

after the work is done, and checking to make sure that the work 

is done correctly, which causes us some time and difficulty, and I 

think causes them some issues as well. So—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. My time is up. I yield to the Ranking 

Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respectfully push back a little bit on this idea that because we have had 

a deficit over the past decade, there must be plenty of money to go 

around the Federal Government, so that can’t be part of the discussion or part of the solution. These agencies we are talking about 

now were not part of what landed us in a $17 trillion national debt, 

or the deficits we have been dealing with. I think if you asked them 

about their non-fire-related budgets over the last 7 years, decade 

or so, you would find that it has been pretty tight. 

33 

What did land us in this problem, of course, is that we launched 

a couple of wars, and for the first time in our country’s history, the 

good folks here in Congress decided instead of raising taxes to pay 

for the wars that they authorized, we would for the first time cut 

taxes while going to war, turning any semblance of fiscal conservatism or fiscal responsibility on its head. That is why we are here 

today, not because these agencies have had plenty or too much 

money to spend. 

But I do want to ask you, Mr. Smith, with respect to your agency, what are the impacts of fire borrowing on your resources and 

how has that impacted your ability to put people in the field to 

process right-of-way maintenance requests? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, I think that you hit a sensitive point 

there. Certainly, we want to appreciate all of the money that 

Congress appropriates to us, but, certainly, we have to make decisions in terms of when we are fighting fires it certainly affects resource budgets. If we are called upon to transfer funds, certainly, 

that is going to affect projects that we might have been doing, 

whether it is a fuels treatment or something else. So it has a tremendous effect on us when we have to pull those resources from 

stuff that we have already planned. And that certainly affects staffing capacity as well as having enough authority to get those cost 

recoveries that we have been talking about here later. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would ask you also, Mr. Smith, about the danger 

tree provision in this bill. Do you have concerns that that definition 

of danger tree, the new definition as proposed, would be broad and 

could lead to unnecessary removal of valuable vegetation and potentially have unintended consequences? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we think that if a tree is imminent, or what we 

call an imminent danger, we allow them to cut that down even 

without prior approval and then they can come back and tell us 

later that that has been done. The danger tree provision—we want 

to make sure that the utilities are talking to us so that we can 

make a determination as to whether there are some problems that 

we are having with that tree, whether there are some public safety 

concerns, or whether there is some type of sensitivity in that area. 

We would like a little more flexibility so that we can manage 

that. If it is certainly a danger tree, we will certainly give them the 

opportunity to make those corrections and remove those trees. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. I know you have expressed some concern as well about the liability shift as proposed in this legislation. 

But I believe I heard Mr. Benevento say something that caught my 

attention. I found it potentially very significant. I think I heard you 

say that at the very least you should have a gross negligence 

standard for these projects that you might do on your own dime in 

coordination with the Forest Service. 

Did I hear you correctly that you could accept a gross negligence 

standard as opposed to a straight shift of liability? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. For off-right-of-way work is what I was 

discussing. So when we are doing—the off-right-of-way work is a 

responsibility of the Federal land managers to clear and manage, 

because for a variety of reasons that is not occurring. 

So we are willing to volunteer—it is like a Good Samaritan Law, 

Senator Udall had a Good Samaritan Law several years ago. This 

34 

is sort of similar to that in the sense that we would be willing to 

do it. We would be willing to pay for it. We would be willing to take 

direction and get approval from the Federal land managers, but the 

liability standard, in order to incent us to do that would have to 

be a gross negligence standard. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Understand. Thank you. I found that to be significant and very productive and maybe something folks can work on 

as this goes forward. But I just want to ask my last question of Ms. 

Mouritsen. You spoke to the lack of flexibility in your agency’s 

ability to collaborate and work with utilities once they submit a 

plan to you under this bill. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? 

Do you feel like some improvements are needed in that regard? 

Ms. MOURITSEN. Yes, we agree with the intent of this bill to develop these plans. We were just afraid when we read this, where 

it said they would turn the plan in and we would have to approve 

it in 30 days—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Right. 

Mr. MOURITSEN [continuing]. That there wouldn’t be time. We 

might have some really good comments that we would like to discuss with the company and we—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You might be able to make the plan better. 

Ms. MOURITSEN. Make the plan better, and that is what we 

would be afraid wouldn’t be able to happen. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. In my 5 seconds left—from the two government 

officials here, we currently handle rights-of-way and special use 

permitting in that manner, which does create inconsistencies. Will 

both of you agree that if we can get this right, some programmatic 

approaches to managing these issues might be beneficial for 

everyone? 

Mr. SMITH. We would agree with that. 

Ms. MOURITSEN. Sure, yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, thank you, and thank you Mr. Chair. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. McClintock is recognized. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been observed that one of the many differences between the private and 

public sectors is that the private sector attracts capital by becoming more efficient and more innovative. The more productive they 

become, the more capital they attract. 

The public sector works exactly the opposite. They attract capital 

by being less efficient, less innovative, and then coming here and 

demanding more money to cure these inefficiencies. 

My observation has been, particularly with respect to the 

National Forest Service, that as the staff and spending keep going 

up, and up, and up, the performance and efficiency keeps going 

down, and down, and down. It seems that the more bureaucrats we 

add, the more cumbersome the bureaucracy becomes. I would like 

to ask Mr. Markham, Mr. Benevento, and Mr. Hayden for their observations on this phenomenon. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, I will go ahead and jump in first. I think 

what is important for us, or what has happened with us is, again, 

our infrastructure is aging. Infrastructure across the country is 

aging, and so—— 

35 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Are you finding the bureaucracy becoming 

more responsive or less responsive to the need for removal of these 

trees? 

Mr. MARKHAM. It is definitely, the bureaucracy has gotten worse 

here. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Benevento, better or worse? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I hesitate to over-generalize. I would go with 

about the same. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Hayden? 

Mr. HAYDEN. I would qualify it by saying I am concerned that 

there isn’t turnover at so many levels at our local staffing positions 

that I am worried about the lack of consistency as we move forward. And one other—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do you think that the bureaucracy behavior 

would change if we went for a pay-for-performance system—— 

Mr. HAYDEN. I can tell you this—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. Or whether they are paid based 

upon the applications they process? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Production might go up not—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Benevento? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. Well, that is the way we do it at Xcel, and it 

works for me. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Markham? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We were just told that, hey, no big deal, you 

can get rid of the danger trees. Just come back and tell us later. 

Is that so, Mr. Markham? 

Mr. MARKHAM. I am sorry, I didn’t catch the question. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Forest Service just testified, that you can 

get rid of the danger trees. Just come back and tell us later. Is that 

the way it works? 

Mr. MARKHAM. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Benevento? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I think I am going to show you why there is inconsistency. We actually have an arrangement where we can get 

rid of our danger trees and then notify them afterwards, but apparently that is not the case nationally. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. How about Mr. Hayden? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. During the last 30 years, we have seen an 80 

percent decline in the timber harvests from the National Forest 

Service lands. Those are public assets that the National Forest 

Service, by the way, under the Department of Agriculture is responsible for managing for the good of the American people, as well 

as the good of our national forests. 

As we have seen that decline in timber harvest, we have seen a 

concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by catastrophic fire. I 

wonder if we returned to sustainable yields that we had 30 years 

ago, where we were removing excess timber from the public lands 

before it burned in catastrophic fires, and we are generating revenues from those sales, I would like to know from the National 

Forest Service, how much money would that mean to the Service 

to manage our public lands better? 

36 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, I am not sure I have a definite answer 

for that, but we would be willing to look at it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, you are responsible for the management 

of these resources. I would hope that you would know how much 

those resources were worth. I mean, we were harvesting at sustainable levels 30 years ago. We had a steady stream of revenue as a 

result of those activities. The Forest Service was a net income generator for the U.S. Treasury, and we had much healthier forests as 

a result. 

Mr. SMITH. I agree with that. I will certainly look into that and 

get back to you. I don’t have those figures. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I would like to ask one final question of the 

utilities representatives. You work with the public land; on the 

Federal Lands Subcommittee, we have received reams of testimony 

over the deterioration of the health of our national forests over the 

past 30 years, not coincidentally the same 30 years that the environmental left has dominated our policy, our laws, and our litigation on this subject. 

Would you say our national lands are healthier or less healthier 

than they were 30 years ago? One word answer from each of the 

utilities. 

Mr. MARKHAM. I will answer less. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Benevento? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I don’t know what shape they were in 30 years 

ago, but we know that in Colorado, we have a lot of issues with 

respect to the health of our forest. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Hayden? 

Mr. HAYDEN. Less. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mrs. 

Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayden, Mr. 

Markham, and Mr. Benevento, a question for you. Can you describe 

the differences between the Federal Government and state or local 

governments with regard to how well they handle vegetation 

management? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, I believe we have a much quicker response 

from the local level or the state level on something like this than 

working with the Federal level. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And why is that, do you think? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, it is my opinion that we can get in contact 

and have better communication, and if something is not going good 

with my people that handle this, they could come to me and I can 

make some contacts with the people I know at the local or the state 

level. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Benevento, what has your experience been? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I think the local level is where we get the best 

response. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Let me ask Mr. Benevento while I have you. Are 

there instances where Federal land management agency partners 

with a utility to assist in vegetation management off of rights-ofway on Federal land? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. We do. We have been talking with our Federal 

partners about doing that and one of the arrangements we have 

37 

discussed is paying them, again, to do the work, or what we prefer 

is have them do the work and then we reimburse them for it, 

which is a partial solution to it. 

But it is more efficient, we think, if we do it. We have crews out 

there. We have crews working. We can do the work more efficiently. And there is also a question of payment. One of the issues 

we have had is they want to be paid up front, and we would prefer 

to pay them after the work is done and then reimburse them. 

So again, we would prefer to do the work and we are willing to 

accept some level of liability for it in order to try and get it done 

more effectively. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Would you choose to pay them to do it because of 

the liability standard? Is that the main driver? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. At this point, yes. At this point what we believe 

is strict liability if we go off the right-of-way and it is a little unclear—the law is a little unclear in this area, but we are unwilling 

to go off the right-of-way based upon what we believe is a strict liability standard if we do so. If that were to change, we would be 

willing to do the work at our cost. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So is it fair for me to assume that the liability 

standard may in some instances at least, deter utilities from assisting Federal land management agencies in clearing fire hazards? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. Off of the right-of-way, it certainly acts as a 

disincentive for us to do it, yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Again, for Mr. Markham, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. 

Benevento: under current law, even if the Forest Service or the 

BLM negligently failed to do their job by not allowing utilities to 

eliminate hazard trees and something goes wrong, do you or your 

customers have to pick up the tab for it if it is actually the Federal 

agency that is negligent? 

Mr. MARKHAM. Any costs like that come right back into our rate 

base and, ultimately, they are paid for those costs by our members. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So you do assume those costs, even if the Federal 

agency is negligent. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Right now, and I cited the example with Midstate 

Electric Cooperative. It requested removal of a danger tree that 

was near the right-of-way, and the tree caused a forest fire and 

they were denied a request from the Forest Service. They ended up 

having to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Hayden, can you jump in on this? Do you have 

an opinion about this line of questioning? 

Mr. HAYDEN. I don’t know that I can, I assume that we would 

be held liable. In Montana, we are especially concerned. The 

Montana State Supreme Court has issued a ruling in 2011 that 

stated that utilities would have to replace the forest as it was, so 

put mature trees to replace the forest. So obviously, we are very, 

very concerned about that. It has had the effect of possibly bankrupting one of our co-ops in the state of Montana. 

In the legislative session that just ended in the state of Montana, 

we were successful in getting language in a bill that said that the 

value could not exceed the pre-fire fair market value of unimproved 

property. So the question of liability is huge to us in the state of 

Montana, especially given the fact that they were requiring the replacement of mature trees, not small trees. 

38 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. If we have 

another line of questioning, I do want to ask about the fairness of 

this and what might be a better system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Newhouse. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to everybody on the panel for being in this discussion. It seems like we are 

legislating common sense. I would think that everybody here would 

be in agreement that no one wants to see fires, no one wants to 

see power interruptions and we have a common goal. And I hope 

that is a goal of everybody that is shared. 

For Mr. Smith and Ms. Mouritsen, excuse me if I butcher your 

name, both of you testified that each of your agencies have field 

guides or handbooks for government employees to follow when it 

comes to the electricity rights-of-way on Federal land. But just in 

the last couple of discussions, we have heard that there seems to 

be a little inconsistency between existing agencies. 

So will you tell me about these documents? Are they discretionary? Are they hard and fast? Could you talk, both of you, a 

little bit about that. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, with the desk guide for the Forest 

Service, we recently have that out, that is the guideline telling the 

field how to deal with utilities, how to deal with right-of-ways. It 

is simply a guide right now. It will eventually be put into an interim directive for permanent manual direction, but right now it is 

a guide. 

But we certainly work with the field. And we think everybody 

has a good idea what this is about. My staff has certainly been 

working with the staff around the regions, in the forests, to help 

them understand what that guide is about and what that is. We 

have done extensive training working with the utility companies as 

well as the Forest Service itself. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So there is some discretion allowed within that? 

Mr. SMITH. It is a guide right now, yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Ms. MOURITSEN. We have a similar situation. We have policies 

and guidance, and they contain procedures for working with the 

right-of-way holders. But there is some room for discretion and exactly how to craft, say, the vegetation management plan because 

conditions are different in each area. So it depends a little bit on 

the local situation. 

We also do a lot of training. We partner with the industry in 

training and with the Forest Service and try to train our people 

and bring as much consistency as we can. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. So, Mr. Markham, Hayden, and 

Benevento—— 

Mr. BENEVENTO. Benevento. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Benevento, excuse me. The Administration is insinuating that the policies in these field guides—I forget the term 

you called them, Mr. Smith—are in place, both agencies have 

guidelines available. So, my take is that the position is that this 

bill is a duplication, and is not necessary. Could you describe or 

help me understand what positive things that this bill would provide you and what kinds of consistency that could be brought about 

by passing this legislation? 

39 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I think you have used the word that is most appropriate which is consistency. You know, we were just talking 

here about the ability to take down a danger tree that could potentially come into contact or arc with a power line. And we can do 

that right now. We can immediately go in and get that tree down. 

Then we just have to inform the Forest Service afterwards. I don’t 

think that is true of all of us on the panel. 

So I think one of the things it would do is establish policies and 

procedures that could be undertaken and that would make them 

sort of common-sense policies and procedures that are nationally 

applicable. 

Mr. HAYDEN. I would just add to that that this turnover that I 

talk about at the local level at Forest Service offices, the training 

requirement within the bill is very important because that will 

allow for consistency across all offices and not just certain areas. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good point. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Yes, that was my similar answer. The training is 

what is really critical there, so that we have the consistency. There 

are a lot of different interpretations of the standards. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will 

yield back my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. I have a couple more 

questions. Would you like to do another round? It may only be you 

and I. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. As you wish. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Sure. Again, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Markham, Benevento, and Hayden, the Forest Service and 

BLM say that parts of this bill are redundant with actions already 

going on at the local Forest Service and BLM levels. Then why is 

this bill necessary? 

Mr. BENEVENTO. I think to bring about the consistency in the 

management of the forest and to take some of the good practices, 

as I have talked about, our ability to deal with, for example, danger 

trees. I think that the potential use of integrative vegetation management also provides some benefit that could be legislated that 

could be productive. 

Mr. MARKHAM. Well, the way I would answer this is, again, consistency, we have to have consistency. I talked about the differing 

interpretations and application of the standards; this legislation 

gives us consistency. It gives us accountability also, and that is 

pretty significant. 

The other thing is that we deal with different areas across the 

state. They deal with different standards. In one area they can do 

things one way, and then you come down into our area and it is 

done completely different. So that is why I support and believe this 

legislation is really needed. 

Mr. HAYDEN. In my opening comments, I mentioned that I think 

this is a great first step. We have been looking to modify our special use permit to bury some line. I should have brought this up 

from the earlier question about this transfer of liability. If the 

Forest Service hasn’t acted upon our request, I know of nothing 

that eliminates liability from us. So we have submitted an application for a modification to our special use permit. 

40 

I think this is one of those things that if there are inefficiencies, 

if there is lack of responsiveness, it is not meshing with what they 

are saying is happening within their respective departments. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. I yield my time to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. For my final thoughts or 

questions, I guess my takeaway here is that I definitely am hearing 

the elements of a consensus. They are all here in this conversation. 

Some of them are in this bill, and there are some pieces in this bill 

that I think need more work and are perhaps needlessly controversial and not necessarily even essential to getting us to this possible 

solution. The idea of the programmatic approach to what is currently being done on a case-by-case, patchwork basis makes a lot 

of sense. That ought to be something we can work on together. 

So my hope is that we can go forward from here, take these 

elements of consensus and build something that could be a strong 

bipartisan product and not let the wedge issues and, just frankly, 

some of the ideological crossfire that you, unfortunately, were subjected to get in our way. 

We are going to have to address the fact that at some point when 

we direct the government to do things, even coming up with a programmatic new solution, it costs money. In fact, programmatic approaches cost more money up front than the case-by-case type of 

approach. So we have to start giving these public agencies the 

funding they need to do the many things we ask of them, instead 

of letting wildfires consume not only their trees but their budgets. 

My hope is we can continue to draw the connection between the 

fire borrowing solution and all these other things that we would 

like to see happening on the ground. 

Thank you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 

witnesses. 

Dr. FLEMING. I would like to thank our witnesses for their valuable testimony. Members of the subcommittee may have additional 

questions for our witnesses. We would ask you to respond to these 

in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days to 

receive these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the 

subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ