<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27377.wais]
NEED FOR PROPER FOREST MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO ENSURE
RELIABLE ELECTRICITY SERVICE
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-377 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
Ken Calvert, California Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon George Miller, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Vacancy
Cathy McMorris, Washington Vacancy
Vice Chair Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Louie Gohmert, Texas ex officio
Vacancy
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
GREG WALDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Chris Cannon, Utah Dan Boren, Oklahoma
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Vice Chair Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis Cardoza, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Rick Renzi, Arizona Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina ex officio
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 3, 2006........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 8
Herseth, Hon. Stephanie, a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Dakota.................................. 7
McMorris, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Udall. Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico, Prepared statement of....................... 5
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Albrecht, Carl, CEO, Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc., Loa,
Utah....................................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Blair, Bobby, Chief Executive Officer, San Miguel Power
Association, Ridgeway, Colorado (also representing Tri-
State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.)....... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Eldrige, Steven, General Manager and CEO, Umatilla Electric
Cooperative, Hermiston, Oregon............................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Hutt, Dan, General Manager and Executive Vice President,
Black Hills Electric Cooperative, Inc., Custer, South
Dakota..................................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Neal, Michael, Manager of Forestry and Special Programs,
Arizona Public Service, Glendale, Arizona (also
representing the Edison Electric Institute)................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE NEED FOR PROPER FOREST MANAGEMENT ON
FEDERAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO ENSURE RELIABLE ELECTRICITY SERVICE''
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power, joint with the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Walden, Napolitano,
McMorris, Tom Udall, Grijalva, Herseth and Cannon.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittees
on Water and Power and Forests and Forest Health.
We are meeting here today to hear testimony on the need for
proper forest management on Federal rights-of-way to ensure
reliable electricity service.
Today the Water and Power Subcommittee joins the Forests
and Forest Health Subcommittee to examine how we can ensure
forest health and provide electricity reliability. Those
matters may seem unrelated to each other if you do live on the
Atlantic coast, but for those of us who have Federal forests in
our western backyards, they go hand in hand.
For too long many of us throughout the West have watched
our forests deteriorate into a gas can waiting to explode.
Improperly maintained electricity rights-of-way on our Federal
lands is a prime example of what is going wrong. In fact, twice
in 1996, Federal trees fell on power lines, causing fires and
electricity outages for almost 10 million people in the West.
The picture here, which we have right there, taken in the
Black Hills National Forest is a clear example of why we need
to improve our electricity rights-of-way. Many of you may not
be able to see that picture, but if you can, you still can't
see the power pole that is in that right-of-way because it is
so clogged by growing trees within the right-of-way. There it
is; thank you, sir.
Ten years later, rural communities still live in fear
because of potential forest fires caused by inadequately
maintained rights-of-way. At the same time electricity
consumers have asked for and deserve reliable power supplies,
especially after the 2003 Northeast Blackout.
As the Water and Power Subcommittee has witnessed, our
electricity supply and delivery system hangs in a precarious
balance that is only exacerbated by improperly maintained
rights-of-way.
As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can
also tell you how susceptible our national electricity grid is
to mishaps. While the situation is not acceptable, it is
getting better.
Last year Congress passed long-awaited national reliability
provisions that included expedited vegetative management. In
addition, the Forest Service and other Federal agencies are
beginning to see why it is important to have uniform,
consistent and timely management policies on our rights-of-way.
But the agencies have a long way to go.
Time will only tell if they follow the right course to
enhance our electricity reliability, reduce fire hazards, and
protect the public from unacceptable risks and liabilities.
This hearing is a step toward those win-win solutions.
In closing, I want to thank very much the Forests and
Forest Health Subcommittee Chairman Walden for his leadership
on this issue. And I also want to welcome today's witnesses and
audience members who are representing the rural electric
cooperatives. You have all traveled great distances to be here
and participate in this important hearing, and I do appreciate
that.
I thank you for being here. I look forward to working with
you and my colleagues on this issue.
I now recognize Representative Walden, the Chairman of the
Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, for his opening
statement. Greg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee joins the Forests and
Forest Health Subcommittee to examine how we can ensure forest health
and provide electricity reliability. Those matters may seem unrelated
to each other if you live on the Atlantic Coast. But, for those who
have federal forests in our western backyards, they go hand-in- hand.
For too long, many of us throughout the West have watched our
forests deteriorate into a gas can waiting to explode. Improperly
maintained electricity rights-of- way on our federal lands is a prime
example of what's gone wrong. In fact, twice in 1996, federal trees
fell on power lines, causing fires and electricity outages for almost
ten million people in the West. This picture, taken in the Black Hills
National Forest is a clear example of why we need to improve our
electricity. Ten years later, rural communities live in fear because of
potential forest fires caused by inadequately maintained rights-of-way.
At the same time, electricity consumers have asked for and deserve
reliable power supplies, especially after the 2003 Northeast Blackout.
As the Water and Power Subcommittee has witnessed, our electricity
supply and delivery system hangs in a precarious balance that's only
exacerbated by improperly maintained rights-of-way. As a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, I can also tell you how susceptible our
national electricity grid is to mishaps.
While the situation is not acceptable, it's getting better. Last
year, Congress passed long-awaited national reliability provisions that
include expedited vegetative management. In addition, the Forest
Service and other federal agencies are beginning to see why it's
important to have uniform, consistent and timely management policies on
our rights-of-way. But, the agencies have a long way to go. Time will
only tell if they follow the right course to enhance our electricity
reliability, reduce fire hazards and protect the public from
unacceptable risks and liabilities. This hearing is a step towards
those win-win solutions.
In closing, I want to thank Forests and Forest Health Chairman
Walden for his leadership on this issue. I also want to welcome today's
witnesses and audience members representing the rural electric
cooperatives. You have all traveled great distances to be here and to
participate in this important hearing. I thank you for being here and
look forward to working with you and my colleagues on this issue.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The basic
issue at hand today is one of simple fairness. Those utility
operators that follow the rules, that comply with their
contractual obligations, that do the allowed and appropriate
vegetative management within the rights-of-way should not be
held responsible for firefighting costs incurred through no
fault of their own.
In cases where utility operators are actually prevented
from doing necessary maintenance, where they are not allowed to
remove trees and snags that can ignite fires, liability should
not even be a consideration.
Yet the fact that we are having this hearing today shows
the basic issues of fairness are often not reflected in actual
practice and policy.
One example, the problem incurred near my home when, in
2003, a tree on Federal land fell on the City of Cascade Locks'
power line, creating a 360-acre wildfire, and leading to a
subsequent bill for $312,000 being charged to the City for
firefighting costs.
Had the City not done appropriate and agreed-to vegetative
management, one could argue the Forest Service should have held
the City liable, but this wasn't the case. All parties agreed
the City regularly trimmed trees and limbs adequately and
properly within the right-of-way. That case is still pending.
If it is not resolved equitably, city residents will have to
foot the bill for a fire they did not cause and cannot afford,
and this is simply unfair.
This case and numerous others demonstrate a clear need to
develop uniform and consistent policies concerning the proper
management of electricity rights-of-way so that vegetation can
be managed in a timely manner, and liability can be shared
fairly and equitably.
I am glad to report that some progress is being made in
this regard with a national memorandum of understanding being
developed between the Forest Service and trade associations
representing electric utilities. In addition, I have had
personal discussions with representatives of the Forest Service
who have expressed their commitment to working with Congress
and the utilities in finding resolution to these important
issues.
I look forward to the hearing today and hearing from all of
our witnesses. I appreciate your coming today to help us better
understand these issues. And I would like to thank the Water
and Power Chairman, Mr. Radanovich, for his time and work on
these crucial issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to your witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
The basic issue at hand today is one of simple fairness. Those
utility operators that follow the rules, that comply with their
contractual obligations and that do the allowed and appropriate
vegetative management within right-of-way corridors, should not be held
responsible for fire fighting costs incurred through no fault of their
own. In cases where utility operators are actually prevented from doing
necessary maintenance, where they're not allowed to remove trees and
snags that can ignite fires, liability should not even be a
consideration---yet, the fact that we're having this hearing today,
shows that basic issues of fairness are often not reflected in actual
practice and policy.
One example of the problem occurred near my home, when in 2003, a
tree on federal land fell on the City of Cascade Locks' power line,
creating a 360 acre wildfire and leading to a subsequent bill for
$312,000 being charged to the City for fire fighting. Had the City not
done appropriate and agreed vegetative management, one can argue that
the Forest Service should have held the City liable--but this was not
the case; all parties agreed that the City regularly trimmed trees and
limbs adequately and properly within their right-of-way. This case is
still pending. If it is not resolved equitably, city residents will
have to foot the bill for a fire they did not cause and cannot afford--
this is simply unfair.
This case and numerous others demonstrate a clear need to develop
uniform and consistent policies concerning the proper management of
electricity right-of-ways, so that vegetation can be managed in a
timely manner and liability can be shared fairly and equitably. I'm
glad to report that some progress is being made in this regard, with a
national memorandum of understanding being developed between the Forest
Service and trade associations representing electric utilities. In
addition, I've had personal discussions with representatives of the
Forest Service who have expressed their commitment to working with
Congress and the utilities in finding resolution to these important
issues.
I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today, in hope
that we can work together to effectively address this topic in a
positive way. And I'd like to thank Water and Power Chairman,
Radanovich, for his time and work on these crucial matters.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you so much, Greg. I will now turn to
the Ranking Members of the two subcommittees for their opening
statements.
I first recognize the Ranking Member of our Water and Power
Subcommittee, Mrs. Grace Napolitano. Grace.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich and Chairman
Walden. And I was just thinking of what you were saying about
the clear need to develop uniform, consistent policies. But
what about the budget to be able to carry them out, Greg? I
mean, when you said that, that was something that really
triggered in my mind, because it isn't just getting a total,
consistent policy development across the nation, but the
ability for the Forest Service to have the funding to be able
to carry it through. I am sorry, it is just one of those things
that hit me as I was listening to you.
Mr. Chairman, both Chairmen, thank you so very much for
holding this hearing. But as I was reading the testimony
presented to us, and as I prepared for this morning's hearing,
I was not only frustrated, but I was wondering why this hearing
is needed. After all, electric utilities and rural cooperatives
have been installing and maintaining many thousands of miles of
power distribution lines for decades.
Can it be true that the Forest Service and other agencies
make it so difficult and expensive to maintain these critical
power lines? Everybody loses when there is a power failure.
When the power is out, people's lives are in danger. We
lose control of the technology that makes our society function.
And we also try to protect our cities with expensive flood
control systems, we spend billions to secure airports with
fancy scanners and other technology, yet our critical electric
grid is threatened by dead trees.
I very much look forward to hearing more about the
vegetation management along these utility corridors, and how we
can make them work better, and possibly to explore additional
information to create better use of discarded dead trees. I
certainly am looking forward to the testimony, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Udall is delayed. He will submit his statement for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tom Udall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome witnesses from the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, who are in Washington,
DC for their Annual Legislative Conference this week. I also note that
this is the fifth hearing this Congress held in conjunction with a
lobby week for the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee.
For many electric cooperatives and utilities, tree contact with
power lines is a leading cause of power outages and can cause wildland
fire. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concluded
that the August, 14, 2003 blackout in the Northeastern United States
was due to overgrown trees interfering with power lines.
I look forward to hearing more from the Forest Service about their
communication with the electric cooperatives and utilities, and where
there is room for improvement in communication systems. Some of the
concerns that we hear on this issue have to do with inconsistency and
vagueness of regulation. It appears that the Forest Service needs to
improve communication and provide for consistent guidelines dealing
with rights-of-way.
Furthermore, I note that this is in large part a budgetary issue,
and a question of priorities of this Administration. There is much that
can be said about this year's Forest Service budget--from selling our
public lands to dramatic cuts in important programs. Yet, this
Subcommittee did not hold an oversight hearing on the Forest Service
budget this year.
Several witnesses raise concerns about the threat of wildland fire
from power lines. While the Forest Service claims thinning forests to
prevent wildland fire is a key priority, this Administration
continually funds hazardous fuels reduction far below what was
Congressionally authorized. This year's combined Agency request for
hazardous fuels reduction is roughly 491 million, far below the 760
million that was authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003.
Many of these power lines are connected not only through our
Federal lands, but also through state and private lands. Unfortunately,
this Administration has also underfunded important Forest Service
programs intended to encourage cooperation with state and private
entities. This year's budget request includes a significant cut to
State and Private Forestry, including the budget for State Fire
Assistance. I commend Ranking Member Rahall for his request for
increased funding of State Fire Assistance.
Thank you, Chairman Walden. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. And next I
recognize Ms. McMorris for any opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CATHY McMORRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. McMorris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join my colleagues
in welcoming today's witnesses and members of the rural
electric cooperatives here with us today.
Today's focus on bringing Federal government's vegetation
management policies into the 21st century is much-needed. Rural
communities in my district live in fear if devastating
wildfires because their Federal neighbors haven't done their
part to remove the dead and dying trees and brush that feed
catastrophic wildfires. This literally adds fuel to the fire.
For example, last year's School fire in my district burned
nearly 52,000 acres in eastern Washington, over half of which
is managed by the Umatilla National Forest. The fire was
started by a dead pine tree falling over 14,000-volt power
lines on Department of Natural Resources land protected lands,
causing the lines to arc and sending sparks to the ground,
igniting grasses.
Meanwhile, the promise of low-cost hydropower and reliable
transmission in the Pacific Northwest is constantly being
compromised because of misguided notions from the
Administration's Office of Management and Budget and Federal
land management agencies. The problem is clear. In many areas
there hasn't been proper maintenance of electric utility right-
of-ways. This threatens our forests, and it threatens our
communities.
We all recognize the problem, but the red tape and
bureaucratic process that is currently attempting to deal with
the problem is currently not working. The time for improving
the situation is now.
Chairman Radanovich was right when he said that the
agencies are getting better, but we can do more, and faster.
Faced with the need for a safe community and reliable grid, the
agencies can either be a part of the problem or a part of the
solution. They can either really empower utilities to clear
rights-of-way, or they can be a deterrent that ultimately leads
to more environmental destruction and electricity blackouts.
I am convinced that the agencies are taking steps, but they
must take bigger and bolder steps to seize the moment in this
time of need. That is what this hearing is about.
We are joined by distinguished witnesses who have a direct
understanding of why this hearing is being held, and know
first-hand of the changes that need to take place. They are
true leaders in the field.
I commend Chairmen Radanovich and Walden for holding this
important hearing and look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McMorris follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Cathy McMorris, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
I join my colleagues in welcoming today's witnesses and members of
the rural electric cooperatives here with us today. Your participation
and attendance in today's hearing is true democracy in action.
Today's focus on bringing the federal government's vegetative
management policies into the 21st century is much-needed. Rural
communities in my district live in fear of devastating wildfires
because their federal neighbors haven't done their part to remove the
dead and dying trees and brush that feed catastrophic wildfires--this
literally adds fuel to the fire.
Meanwhile, the promise of low-cost hydropower and reliable
transmission in the Pacific Northwest is constantly being compromised
because of misguided notions from the Administration's Office of
Management and Budget and federal land management agencies. The problem
is clear: in many areas there hasn't been proper maintenance of
electric utility right of ways. This threatens our forests and it
threatens our communities. We all recognize the problem, but the red-
tape and bureaucratic process that is currently attempting to deal with
the problem is clearly not working.
The time for improving this situation is now. Chairman Radanovich
was right when he said that the agencies are getting better, but we can
do more--and faster. Faced with the need for a safe community and a
reliable grid, the agencies can either be part of the problem or part
of the solution. They can either really empower utilities to clear
rights-of-way or they can be the deterrent that ultimately leads to
more environmental destruction and electricity blackouts. I'm convinced
that the agencies are taking steps, but they must take bigger and
bolder steps to seize the moment in this time of need. That's what this
hearing is all about.
We are joined by distinguished witnesses who have a direct
understanding of why this hearing is being held and know firsthand of
the changes that need to take place. They are true leaders in their
fields. I commend Chairman Radanovich and Walden for holding this
important hearing and look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. McMorris. We are now joined
by the Ranking Member of the Forests and Forest Health
Subcommittee, Mr. Udall. Good morning, Tom.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to
be with you this morning.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. And I understand, Mr. Grijalva,
you have no opening statement, OK?
Mr. Grijalva. Right.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Herseth?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Ms. Herseth. Yes, just a brief opening statement. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and to Chairman Walden, as well as to our
Ranking Members, Grace Napolitano and Tom Udall, for holding
this hearing on a very important topic.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the insight of
having a South Dakotan on our panel today. I know you have
family in the southern hills, and I am sure that they have
brought up a number of these issues with you. I also want to
thank you for sharing some of the photos here of the beautiful
Black Hills National Forest.
We can talk about this issue throughout the day, and we
will be hearing from our witnesses shortly. But I think that
when you look at the images we have here are, for part of the
record today I mean it clearly illustrates the problem that we
are here to discuss.
First let me say that it is my great pleasure to welcome
and introduce a particular member on our witness panel today,
Dan Hutt. Dan has been an active member in the cooperative
community in rural electricity issues in South Dakota for his
entire professional career. He has been the Manager of the
Black Hills Electric Cooperative in Custer, South Dakota for
the past 11 years, and he has been employed with that
cooperative for more than 27 years.
He began his career there as a work order clerk, and has
worked his way to his current position through hard work and
leadership. Dan truly has a lifetime of experience on these
issues, and I know he will provide invaluable insight on the
issues we are discussing today.
Dan attended the Forestry Subcommittee hearing that Mr.
Walden and I hosted in South Dakota last August, and he raised
this particular issue with us then. And we used that
opportunity to seek a meeting for Dan and other similarly
situated co-ops with the supervisor of the Black Hills National
Forest. I know that that meeting occurred, and I am anxious to
hear the latest on the interaction with the Forest Service
personnel in the Black Hills.
The Black Hills Electric Cooperative operates extensively
throughout the Black Hills National Forest, a national forest
with some of the most extensive private holdings of any in the
national forest system. As such, Black Hills Electric has a
long history of dealing with the Forest Service on right-of-way
matters. In fact, as Dan will tell you in his testimony, his
cooperative has over 1,000 miles of transmission and
distribution lines in the Black Hills National Forest.
Because of his tremendous experience on this issue, I am
looking forward to his testimony, and commit it to my
colleagues. I feel these issues that we are here to discuss
need to be addressed for a variety of reasons, not the least of
which is public safety. So I thank you again for holding the
hearing, and yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you so much, Ms. Herseth.
Mr. Cannon joins us from Utah. Mr. Cannon, did you have any
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing, and I would like to just extend my thanks
to Carl Albrecht for being out there with us today. Carl has
been a good friend for a long time and is faced now with a
problem of a relatively short right-of-way that goes over
several forms of Federal land and also public and state land
and is being held up by the very difficult process that we are
addressing. So I want to thank Carl for being here, and thank
you for holding this hearing. And I yield back.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
welcome a witness: Steve Eldrige from Umatilla Electric Co-op.
Steve has been a real leader throughout the Northwest on energy
issues, and I think you are going to be intrigued by his
testimony today on this one, as well. We appreciate Steve
making the trek out here.
So thank you for being here, Steve.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Walden. With that I will
introduce our first panel.
Mr. Steve Eldrige, General Manager of the Umatilla Electric
Cooperative; Mr. Bobby Blair, Chief Executive Officer of the
San Miguel Power Association, Ridgeway, Colorado; Mr. Dan Hutt,
General Manager of the Black Hills Electric Cooperative in
Custer, South Dakota; and Mr. Carl Albrecht, the General
Manager of the Garkane Energy Cooperative in Loa, Utah. And
also Mr. Michael Neal, the Manager of Forestry and Special
Programs in the Arizona Public Service in Glendale, Arizona.
Gentleman, welcome to the Subcommittee. And the way this
works is you have all got five minutes to give your testimony.
Feel free to be extemporaneous because your full written
testimony is in the record already. And if you would abide by
the five-minute rule, that would be great. These clocks are set
to show that at five minutes. So after that we will open up for
questions from Members on the dais here.
So Mr. Eldrige, welcome to the Subcommittee. And why don't
you begin, and we will go right down the line.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELDRIGE, GENERAL MANAGER, UMATILLA ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, HERMISTON, OREGON
Mr. Eldrige. Umatilla Electric Cooperative is located about
100 miles up the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon. We have
2,500 square miles of service area, a little over 9,000
members, 2,100 miles of power line, mostly overhead lines,
about 500 miles of underground line. We average six customers
per mile of line.
The portion of our service area that we want to address
specifically today is in the Umatilla National Forest, in the
Blue Mountains. In this area is where a lot of co-ops ended up
serving because no one else would; very difficult terrain,
extreme weather conditions, scattered electric customers, and
Federal land, both U.S. Forest Service and Tribal lands.
And in these mountainous areas, we have four customers per
mile, about $4,200 a year in annual revenue per mile of line,
and about an $8 million investment in today's dollars.
We have 141 miles on the Confederated Tribes Umatilla
Indian Reservation. And with the Confederated Tribes, we have a
very good relationship with them. We pay a fee that is very
reasonable to cross their lands. Many of the tribal members are
long-time members of Umatilla Electric, and we just seem to be
able to work through the issues that come up.
When the Bureau of Indian Affairs are involved, it gets
much more complicated and takes a much longer time. But if it
is an issue that local people can deal with, we invariably will
settle it.
Now, as I said, we have Umatilla National Forest to deal
with, too. And in our experience there, as well, when the
District Ranger has the authority to deal with the issues as
they come up, we have pretty good success. I visited with him,
and I sensed that he was quite frustrated with not having the
latitude that he felt was reasonable. And he expressed some of
the issues that are coming our way. And we have a great concern
about new processes that are being done without our input, and
also the issue of strict liability.
So let us begin with the current regulations. Any ground-
disturbing activity is subject to an environmental review, and
ground disturbance can be a shovel full of dirt on. The
required environmental review determines if the action is
allowed or if there is an adverse effect to the environment or
habitat. If the latter is found, then you have to comply with
the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Historical Preservation Act, and other Federal
statutes.
And I looked at the NEPA law, I hadn't looked at it for a
long time. If you wanted to, you could read that it was an
environmental event if you walked in the forest. And I think
one of the problems we have is that there is not enough
definition to what is actually required, or are the goals clear
of what the Forest Service wants.
So if you would have an environmental effect, you have to
have an approval by a botanist, a fish biologist, and a
wildlife biologist from known fisheries and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Compliance with the Historical Preservation
Act requires approval by an archaeologist. And if it is on
tribal land or a potential tribal impact, then tribal
representation is required.
And then if we are in a visually sensitive area, the Forest
Service can require virtually whatever they wish to if they
make that designation.
So each quarter the U.S. Forest Service lists all of the
proposed activities on U.S. Forest ground. It also is listed
publicly, but it also is sent out to an extensive list of
interested parties.
Anybody can comment on the scheduled activities. They can
request public hearings, they can recommend specific actions.
And as we speak, I will give some examples of things.
In Central Oregon, which some of you may know is the new
urban area in Oregon--a lot of very wealthy people live there,
it is very scenic and so on--Mid-State Electric Co-op has an
approved U.S. Forest Service trim line on a piece of land. A
developer requested that they straighten this line and move it
a quarter of a mile from its current location. They have been
two years waiting for that approval. Straightening the line
would actually lessen the impact on forest land because dies
and so on would be lessened.
In Central Oregon you have to give three- to five-year
notice. In Western Oregon, a timber sale was arranged with
local officials. People from Washington, D.C. canceled the sale
after everything was arranged.
The U.S. Forest Service developed a forest watershed plan
on Ditch Creek and recommended that the only road in this area
be closed, and it was a road that Consumers Power used to
maintain a line that had been there since 1948. Consumers
contacted the Forest Service, requested an appointment, sent in
comments. They were assured they would have a meeting. Then
they got a letter that the plan had been implemented because
the U.S. Forest Service had determined that in consumers
permit, they were not prevented from closing the road, so it
just went and did so.
In our own case, on Weston Mountain, we had to move a pole
because it was interfering with a ski lift. And we were told
that this would be a significant event. And we couldn't
understand why digging a pole hole 18 inches wide and six feet
deep was a significant environmental event.
And they said the reason is that a mile down the hill is
Looking Glass Creek which runs 11 miles into the Ground Round
River, and in the Ground Round River are listed salmon.
Therefore, it is a significant environmental event. And after a
year of effort, the local ranger finally allowed us to do it,
and of course, with equipment, we disturbed the ground at about
a 100-foot radius. But we stabilized it, we planted it. No dirt
left the area.
Any of you who have been in the forest know there is a lot
of bare ground, and not just digging pole holes will cause
that. So Representative Walden, Chairman Walden covered the
strict liability, and he is right on the mark. We have a danger
pole that we told the U.S. Forest Service about in July. We
still don't have permission to remove it. It could hit a line
if it fell on its own in the prevailing winds.
So we don't have an ability to limit our exposure, but we
are strictly liable up to $1 million. And then beyond that,
normal negligence applies. What I think is needed is open
dialogue and collaboration with utilities, the U.S. Forest
Service to help us to understand what they are trying to
achieve, and then put actual standards in the agreement.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eldrige follows:]
Statement of The Honorable M. Steven Eldrige, General Manager
and CEO, Umatilla Electric Cooperative
Introduction:
Steve Eldrige has been the General Manager and CEO of Umatilla
Electric Cooperative (UEC) since December of 1990 and has over 34 years
of electric utility experience. Steve is currently Chairman of the
Governor's Oregon Rural Policy Advisory Committee, Eastern Oregon
Telecom, LLC, and the Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Government Affairs Committee. He serves on the Boards of Pacific
Northwest Generating Cooperative and the Good Shepherd Hospital Board
of Trustees. Steve also represents UEC on the Bonneville Power
Administration Power Function Review Committee and the Tri-Cities/
Hermiston Group.
Testimony:
Umatilla Electric Cooperative's (UEC) service area is in North
Eastern Oregon, approximately 200 miles east of Portland, Oregon along
the Columbia River. Our service area continues East, around the towns
of Hermiston and Pendleton into the Blue Mountains towards La Grande
and Union. UEC serves about 2,500 square miles, has 9,500 members along
2,100 miles of power lines--mostly overhead lines, but also 540 miles
of buried power lines.
The portion of our service area we wish to address today resides in
the Blue Mountains. This area epitomizes areas in which electric
cooperatives were created to serve--very difficult terrain, extreme
weather conditions, scattered electric customers, and Federal land
lines both U.S. Forest Service and Tribal. In UEC's case, there are
approximately four year-round customers per mile of line who provide
$4,200 per mile in annual revenue, with an investment of $8,000,000 in
today's dollars.
UEC has 141 miles of primary line on the Confederated Tribe of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation near Pendleton, Oregon. We have a very good
relationship with the Confederated Tribes. We pay annual fees to serve
on their lands and have been able to work through land use issues
satisfactorily. Many of the Tribal members are also long time members
of UEC. It just seems when a problem arises between local people and
local people have the authority to resolve the issue, we usually
quickly resolve the matter.
On the other hand, we have the U.S. Forest Service for Umatilla
National Forests. In our experience, when the District Ranger is given
sufficient authority to resolve issues, we usually are able to within a
reasonable amount of time. We have growing concern over existing and
planned regulations and great concern over the Strict Liability clause
in U.S. Forest Service rights-of-way permits.
Let's begin with current regulations. Any ``ground disturbing''
activity is subject to an environmental review--ground disturbance is a
shovel full of dirt or more. The required environmental review
determines if the action is allowed or if there is ``adverse effect to
the environment or habitat''. If the latter is found, then provisions
of the Endangered Species Act and Historical Preservation Act among
other federal statutes must be met. Compliance with the Endangered
Species Act requires approval by a botanist, and both a fish biologist
and a wildlife biologist from both the NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife. Compliance with the Historical Preservation Act requires
approval by an archeologist which can include Tribal representation.
Additionally, if the activity is in a ``visually sensitive'' area,
accommodation as determined by the U.S. Forest Service will be
required.
Each quarter the U.S. Forest Service publishes all proposed
activities scheduled to take place in the U.S. Forest Service. This
list of proposed activities is also sent to a substantial list of
interested parties. Anyone can comment on scheduled activities; request
pubic hearings; or recommend specific actions. As we speak, a
transmission line in Central Oregon is being upgraded with a requested
move < mile from its current location. The current location has a valid
U.S. Forest Service easement. The proposed move has been two years in
process. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management require
three to five years advance notice for proposed activities. In Western
Oregon a timber sales project was arranged with local U.S. Forest
Service to clear rights-of-way along a power line, but just before the
sale took place, out of region U.S. Forest Service officials
unilaterally cancelled the sale. This action places the power line in
jeopardy and reduces public safety.
In our own service area, UEC had to move a single power pole to
remove a potential hazard to skiers on Weston Mountain--the process
took over a year to complete. The explanation we were given is that
digging a hole in the ground for a power pole may have an adverse
affect on the environment and habitat. We asked how removal of less
than four cubic feet of dirt could be significant. The response was
that Looking Glass Creek was down hill from this proposed power pole;
Looking Glass Creek drains into the Grande Ronde River; and the Grande
Ronde has endangered salmon. Although the District Ranger finally
allowed the pole to be moved, it took over a year to get the approval
simply because there was a remote possibility that the dirt from a hole
six feet deep and 18'' wide might travel one mile down hill into
Looking Glass Creek then eleven miles down stream into the Grande Ronde
River which does contain listed salmon.
UEC has a Special U.S.E. Permit with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service which expires December 31, 2006. This permit
specifies that UEC is strictly liable for up to $1M and liable under
the general laws of negligence for amounts greater than $1M. Our permit
specifies what we are authorized to maintain, a right of way ten feet
for buried lines and a right way of thirty feet wide for overhead
lines. Any activities beyond this must be pre-approved in writing from
the U.S. Forest Service unless an emergency exists, which can be dealt
with, then, within 48 hours we are required to notify the U.S. Forest
Service and hope for forgiveness.
Recently, we identified a dead danger tree more than 30 feet from
our overhead power line with a request for permission to fall the tree
because if it falls on its own with the prevailing winds it can, and
probably will, contact our power line. We've been waiting since last
July, 2005, for permission to remove this danger tree. (When a tree
contacts a power line, sparks can result). So, we are subject to strict
liability, but cannot limit sufficiently our exposure because we cannot
act unless such action is pre-approved, in writing, by the U.S. Forest
Service.
What is to be done? First of all, the Forest Service Special USE
Permit must be re-written in consultation with the affected utility
companies. If the U.S. Forest Service will be transparent about its
goal and accommodating with utility owners, the public we both were
created to serve will benefit.
Why is strict liability contained in our Special SE Permit? Unless
there is a certainty that UEC will refuse to cover acts or omissions
for which it is liable, the strict liability clause must be removed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to testify
on an issue of such importance to the member-owners of Umatilla
Electric Cooperative. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Eldrige, for your testimony.
Now, next is Mr. Bobby Blair of the San Miguel Power
Association.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY BLAIR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAN MIGUEL
POWER ASSOCIATION, RIDGEWAY, COLORADO
Mr. Blair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bobby Blair;
I am the CEO of San Miguel Power Association Rural Electric
Cooperative in the Rocky Mountains of Southwest Colorado. I
also represent Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association. Tri-State is a generation of transmission
cooperative owned and serving 44 rural electric cooperatives in
Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and New Mexico. I am also on the
Executive Committee for Colorado Rural Electric Managers'
Association.
San Miguel Power Association serves approximately 12,000
meters, with a customer density of 6.6 consumers per mile of
line. Included in the seven counties that we serve in the San
Juan, the Uncompahgre, the Rio Grande, the Gunnison National
Forests also are thousands of acres of BLM land.
Our biggest problem that we have in dealing with the
Federal agencies, being the BLM and the Forest Service
primarily, are the inconsistencies that we deal with in the
field. They seem to be understaffed. Before we can clear our
right-of-ways, we have to have approval and identify trees to
clear. These trees, when we are allowed to go in and do
trimming, they are very narrow in scope. They want pruning done
instead of tree removal done. Many of the trees are large pines
that, if they do fall, they are going to fall on the power
line.
We have had several instances in the past several years
where we have actually started forest fires. Thankfully, they
have been controlled with small burns and were seen. But
obviously in our area, it can happen in areas where we would
not be as fortunate, and a fire would have a large head start
before it is even identified.
We have a beetle-kill problem in that area. It has been
estimated that we will lose 80 percent of the pines in our
forests to this beetle kill if something isn't done about it.
These are all becoming tender. And when trees die, they do
fall. And when they fall, they are going to fall on our power
lines, because we are not allowed adequate right-of-way
clearance.
My colleague was speaking of the botanists and the
biologists, and we deal with that, as well. And unfortunately,
our situation is that many times information that we are
getting is contradictory. It is very expensive to a small, not-
for-profit cooperative that is owned by its consumers.
In my written testimony you see a couple of examples where
we get one story from one, and another from another. And
probably the most prevalent is we were removing an overhead
power line approximately a mile and a half up the side of a
mountain to some communication sites that we had not been
allowed to maintain adequate clearance in that right-of-way
over the year, and so there was a lot of growth that had
occurred in that right-of-way.
We replaced that power line with one that was placed
underground. We spend approximately $200,000 a year on tree-
trimming alone in our service territory, and we trim trees 12
months out of the year. So we have a crew in removing the trees
so that we can place the new power line.
Part of our requirement in the field, the individual in the
field required that we remove the timber, and then we pull it
back into the right-of-way, and place it so that it looks as if
it had fallen naturally.
As this is happening, and it took us approximately three
weeks and I am going to guess somewhere around $30,000 to
achieve, while this is happening I get a letter from her boss
asking this for our input as to the best way to remove the
timber to mitigate the fire danger. And obviously the answer
was it was out once, let us just keep it out.
But these are the situations that we run into in the field,
and they are getting to be more and more common.
Now, that being said, I do not want to leave the Committee
with the impression that we have not had favorable dealing with
any of these agencies, as well. We deal with several. There
seems to be a tremendous rotation of employees. We may be
dealing with one person one year who is not there the nest
year, and that has been an ongoing problem.
But we do have one particular district that seems to take
the approach that they want to help us achieve our objective
within their guidelines.
And that is a refreshing view when you are dealing with the
Forest Service, and they come out, and they look for every way
possible to help you achieve your success and theirs, as well.
Because it is not the case we seem to run into in a lot of
areas: personal agendas, personal political views, or personal
environmental views.
And I think that the cooperatives as a whole have a very
good environmental record. We are very conscious about that. We
are not asking for permission to do what we want, when we want,
wherever we want; we just need a little bit of process and some
consistency in dealing. When you go from one managed district
to another with the same job, because our power lines don't
end, it requires two permits.
It is the same project, it is the same forest, but it may
be a different district, forest district. And so again, you
start the process, and deal with different people on both
sides, and start all over again.
These are some of the frustrations that we deal with, and
of course the rest is in the written testimony. But I do
appreciate the opportunity to come and be heard.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blair follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bobby Blair,
Chief Executive Officer, San Miguel Power Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me the
opportunity to testify on an issue of great importance to rural
Coloradans. I am Bobby Blair, the CEO of San Miguel Power Association,
a rural electric cooperative in the Rocky Mountains of Southwest
Colorado. I also represent Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association. Tri-State is a Generation and Transmission Cooperative
owned by and serving 44 rural electric cooperatives in Colorado,
Wyoming, Nebraska, and New Mexico. I am also privileged to serve on the
executive committee of the Colorado Rural Electric Manager's
Association
San Miguel serves about 12,000 meters with a customer density of
6.6 per mile of line. Included in the 7 counties we serve are the San
Juan, Uncompahgre, Rio Grande, and Gunnison National Forests. Also
included are many thousands of acres of federal property belonging to
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
There are very few locations within our service territory that a
mile of line can be extended without breaching the boundaries of one of
these agencies. We deal with three United States Forest Service (USFS)
and two BLM districts. The permitting process for placing or upgrading
power line has become a political game in which the rules change at the
whim of their representative in the field. Many seem to be hard-line
environmentalists whose personal and political views dictate how our
job will go. There is little consistency from agency to agency,
district to district, or even within the same offices. There seems to
be no standard operating procedure.
In 2004 we were removing 1.5 miles of old overhead distribution
line that crossed BLM land and replacing it with an underground line.
We had never been allowed to properly maintain safe clearances in our
right-of-way for the overhead line so quite a few trees had grown up
and had to be removed. After completing the underground job, the BLM
representative insisted that we place the removed timber back into the
right-of-way. She wanted it ``placed as though it had fallen
naturally''. Hauling and arranging timber onto 1.5 miles of freshly
disturbed wet dirt on the side of a mountain is no easy task. We lost
weeks and many thousands of dollars to the process. Then came the salt
in the wound. Just as we were putting the finishing touches on placing
the timber, I received a letter from the supervisor in her office
asking for our input on the best way to remove the timber to mitigate
the fire danger.
During the winter of 2004 an avalanche knocked down a portion of a
transmission line that was built in the 1950's in wetlands on USFS
property. We are relocating the line outside of the wetlands and
avalanche chute to a service road. This relocation will also greatly
reduce the visual impact of the line. Obviously we were using the
service road for access while removing the necessary trees to
accommodate the new line. A small portion of the road has water flowing
over it. Over the years people have driven around the source of the
water which created another segment of road around it. In the field,
the representative of the Forest Service prohibited us from using the
loop and ordered that we mitigate the water on the original road
segment. After spending three weeks and tens of thousands of dollars on
hauling gravel and dirt and placing a culvert under the road, another
Forest Service representative visited the site. She said: ``that's a
natural spring in a bottomless peat bog. Just leave it alone and use
the loop.'' Shortly after the road situation was dealt with another
arose. Progress was again stopped by USFS personnel. We were told we
couldn't continue until a timber sale was held. This came as a surprise
to us as we had spent months in the permitting process and nothing had
been mentioned about a timber sale. It was estimated that it would take
close to 6 weeks to complete the process. Someone would have to come
and inventory and appraise the timber before it could be marketed. Then
a sale would be held. When I asked her how much the timber might sell
for, she replied ``it could go for as much as $2,000''. We were able to
negotiate to purchase the timber ourselves for $2,400 and our guarantee
that the timber would be used and not disposed of. The weather in the
mountains always dictates a limited construction season and this job
site is at an elevation of approximately 10,000 feet. Our construction
season was lost to the permitting process and the personal preferences
of an individual in the field.
It has been estimated that the forests within our service territory
will lose up to 80% of the trees to the devastating pine beetle. This
combined with several years of drought conditions has left the area
very susceptible to forest fires. Properly cleared and maintained
rights-of-way can act as natural fire barriers as well as provide
access for firefighters. Trees contacting power lines in poorly
maintained rights-of-way will actually become the cause of forest fires
as we have experienced several times in recent years. The forest
service does not allow us to trim trees until they have been identified
by their personnel. Because they are understaffed this process usually
takes several months to achieve. Once they have been identified our
tree crews trim as directed by the agencies. Usually the allowed
trimming is very minimal which causes us to trim each area more
frequently. San Miguel Power spends in excess of $200,000 a year on
tree trimming alone. I am not aware of a single location in a heavily
forested area where we have been allowed proper adequate clearance for
a power line. The Forest Service and BLM have participated in meetings
and symposiums to deal with a variety of fire mitigation measures. I
find attendance very frustrating when the most logical measure would be
to keep the fuel away from the ignition source.
To say that we have no favorable dealing with these agencies would
be misleading. In my opinion one USFS district in particular could
serve as a model for all others. The Norwood district seems to look for
ways to help us achieve our objectives while remaining in compliance
with their rules and regulations. They take a common sense approach to
their duties and keep their personal preferences and politics out of
the process.
The Bush Administration and Congress have been preaching
reliability and infrastructure to deal with the nations growing energy
needs. However, it is these same agencies of the federal government
that are providing the greatest deterrent to achieving their stated
goals.
We are not asking for a free pass to build whatever we want
wherever we want it. We are asking for a streamlined process with
consistent procedures and requirements. This would go a long way toward
removing the expensive personal preferences and political views of
under qualified personnel in the field. It would also relieve some of
the staffing shortfalls that these agencies are experiencing.
Thank you, again for holding this hearing of great importance to
the member-owners of my electric cooperative. I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Blair. Next is Mr. Dan Hutt
of the Black Hills Electric Co-op. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
You may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAN HUTT, GENERAL MANAGER, BLACK HILLS ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, CUSTER, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Hutt. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich and Chairman
Walden, Members of the Subcommittee, and a special thank you to
Representative Herseth for that nice introduction.
Chairman Walden, I would like to also thank you for
visiting the Black Hills of South Dakota last August, and for
holding a Subcommittee hearing there. You have first-hand
knowledge of the area and some of the challenges we face.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Subcommittees
on Forest Management Practices as they relate to electric
service. I am a native of the Black Hills with a degree in
biology and 27 years of experience with electric cooperatives
serving the area. I have also served on the Bureau of Land
Management, the Dakotas' Resource Council, and I am currently
an alternate member of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory
Board.
Black Hills Electric Cooperative has approximately 1,000
miles of transmission and distribution power lines within the
boundaries of the national forest, with 250 miles of that on
Black Hills National Forest special-use permits.
The cooperative provides permanent electric service to
dozens of national park, national forest, U.S. geological
survey, and state game, fish, parks facilities. We also provide
service to fire departments and other emergency responders,
communications facilities, and fire suppression camps.
Through the management practices of the past few decades,
much of the Black Hills National Forest is overpopulated with
unnaturally dense and unhealthy stands of Ponderosa Pine trees.
The overcrowded forest conditions and the severe drought of
recent years have created ideal conditions for unprecedented
infestations of the mountain pine beetle. The millions of dead
and dying beetle-infested trees have contributed to the
already-excessive fuel loads, creating dangerous conditions
that support large, intensely hot unmanageable wildfires.
Please refer to the testimony at the Subcommittee's hearing in
Hill City, South Dakota, in August of 2005 for details of the
forest conditions.
The forest conditions have a major impact on the cost and
reliability of electric service in the cooperative service
territory. Since 2000, almost 200,000 acres have burned in
intense wildfires. Black Hills Electric Cooperative sustained
greater losses in those fires than any other private property
owner. Miles of power line were completely destroyed, and a
substation was permanently disabled.
Falling trees and wildfires have been the single-largest
cause of power interruptions on the cooperative system over the
past five years. The cooperative has spent extensive resources
to combat the danger of beetle-infested trees and other trees
weakened by decades of forest management practices.
The cooperative is discouraged from adequate clearing by
requirements of advance payment at market price for totally
unmarketable trees cut during right-of-way maintenance. The
cooperative has a legal obligation to serve all within its
service territory. With the present forest conditions, the risk
to provide that service is astronomical. One spark from a
falling tree, severe winds, or an equipment failure could
ignite an inferno that would be devastating to Black Hills
communities and for the cooperative.
My cooperative has enjoyed a good working relationship with
Black Hills National Forest for many years. From the Forest
Supervisor to the men and women in the field, there is a
universal dedication to the mission of the Forest Service. The
deplorable condition of the forest is not the result of bad
people doing a lousy job, or the result of the management
practices these talented people would have preferred. It is the
consequence of a system that is broken and needs to be fixed or
replaced.
In the little time I have left, I offer the following
suggestions for improvement of Federal lands. My written
statement addresses them in greater detail.
One. Include forest health as a major objective in all
forest planning.
Two. Review, reform, and streamline the planning process.
Three. Include utilities in timber sales, forest
improvement projects, and planning processes.
Four. Review and improve fire suppression management
practices to enhance effectiveness and lower costs.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for inviting me to
testify today. Forest health is vitally important to this
nation's health, and to the reliability of this electric power
system.
I am encouraged by the Subcommittee's interest in the
topic. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutt follows:]
Statement of Dan Hutt, General Manager and Executive Vice President,
Black Hills Electric Cooperative, Custer, South Dakota
Thank you Chairman Radanovich and Chairman Walden, Members of the
Subcommittees, and a special thank you to Representative Herseth from
my home state. Chairman Walden, thank you for visiting the Black Hills
of South Dakota last August and for holding a subcommittee hearing
there. You have first-hand knowledge of the area and some of the
challenges we face.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittees on forest
management practices as they relate to electric service. My name is Dan
Hutt. I am a native of the Black Hills with a degree in biology and
twenty-seven years of experience with the electric cooperative serving
the area. I have also served on the Bureau of Land Management Dakotas
Resource Council and am currently an alternate member of the Black
Hills National Forest Advisory Board.
Black Hills Electric Cooperative has approximately 1,000 miles of
transmission and distribution power lines within the boundaries of the
national forest with 250 miles of that on Black Hills National Forest
special use permits. The cooperative provides permanent electrical
service to dozens of national park, national forest, U.S. Geological
Survey, and state game, fish, and parks facilities. We also provide
service to fire departments and other emergency responders,
communications facilities, and fire suppression camps.
Due to the management practices of the past few decades, much of
the Black Hills National Forest is overpopulated with unnaturally dense
and unhealthy stands of Ponderosa Pine trees. The overcrowded forest
conditions and the severe drought of recent years have created ideal
conditions for unprecedented infestations of the mountain pine beetle.
The millions of dead and dying beetle-infested trees have contributed
to the already excessive fuel loads creating dangerous conditions that
support large, intensely hot, unmanageable wildfires. Please refer to
the testimony at the subcommittee's hearing in Hill City, South Dakota
in August of 2005 for details of the forest conditions.
The forest conditions have had a major impact on cost and
reliability of electric service in the cooperative's service territory.
Since 2000 almost 200,000 acres have burned in intense wildfires. Black
Hills Electric Cooperative sustained greater losses in those fires than
any other private property owner. Miles of power line were completely
destroyed and a substation was permanently disabled. Thousands of
families and businesses were without power.
Falling trees and wildfires have been the single largest cause of
power interruptions on the cooperative's system over the past five
years. The cooperative has had to expend extensive resources to combat
the danger of beetle-infested trees and other trees weakened by decades
of forest management practices. The cooperative is discouraged from
adequate clearing by requirements of advance payment at market price
for unmarketable trees cut during right-of-way (ROW) maintenance.
The cooperative has a legal obligation to serve all within its
service territory. With the present forest conditions the risk to
provide that service is astronomical. One spark from a falling tree,
severe winds, or an equipment failure could ignite an inferno that
would be devastating to Black Hills' communities and to the
cooperative.
My cooperative has enjoyed a good working relationship with the
Black Hills National Forest for many years. From the Forest Supervisor
to the men and women in the field there is a universal dedication to
the mission of the forest service. The deplorable condition of the
forest is not the result of bad people doing a lousy job or the result
of the management practices these talented people would have preferred.
It is the consequence of a system that is broken and needs to be fixed
or replaced.
In the little time I have left, I offer the following suggestions
for improvement in the management of federal lands. My written
statement addresses them in greater detail.
1. Include forest health as a major objective in all forest
planning.
2. Review, reform, and streamline planning processes. Provide for
the use of categorical exclusions or similar management tools for most
projects. Review the effectiveness and advisability of all
environmental requirements. Limit appeals and litigation of forest
management decisions. Allow local forest managers more flexibility and
place more weight on local comments received during the hearing
process.
3. Include utilities in timber sales, forest improvement projects,
and planning processes. Strengthen stewardship programs for fuel
reduction on forest areas adjacent to private lands and utility ROWs.
Plan timber sales so that they enhance utility ROWs. Remove barriers to
utility ROW maintenance including prior notification, limited access,
and fees for unmarketable trees. Remove beetle-infested trees from
wildland/urban interfaces and areas adjacent to utility ROWs. Promote
negotiation between federal agencies and utilities in the development
or extension of special use permits. Encourage agency personnel to
participate in free safety training provided by utilities.
4. Review and improve fire suppression management practices to
enhance effectiveness and lower costs. Include utility structures in
fire protection assignments. Remove the risk of strict liability from
special use contracts and assess damages only in the case of proven
negligence.
5. Amend or repeal 36 CFR 251 so that it does not encourage
excessive analysis at the expense of special use permit holders.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify
today. Forest health is vitally important to this nation's health and
to the reliability of its electric power system. I am encouraged by the
subcommittees' interest in the topic. Thank you, and I'd be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hutt. Next is Mr. Albrecht.
Thank you, sir, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARL ALBRECHT, GENERAL MANAGER,
GARKANE ENERGY COOPERATIVE, INC., LOA, UTAH
Mr. Albrecht. Chairman Radanovich and committee members,
thank you for the opportunity to make comments today. There
will be a couple of attachments to my testimony. First of all,
a letter, my letter to DOE concerning section 368 of the Energy
Policy Act, and an email I received from Congressman Matheson's
office concerning section 368 as well.
I am Carl Albrecht, CEO of Garkane Energy, a rural electric
co-op that serves electricity to areas of south-central Utah
and north-central Arizona. We serve approximately 12,000
customers over 2,000 miles of line, 16,000-square-mile service
territory from central Utah to the north rim of the Grand
Canyon.
We serve four national parks: Zions, Bryce Canyon, Capitol
Reef, and Grand Canyon, I think more than any utility in the
country. Private landownership in these three major counties
that we serve is only 5 percent to 10 percent. We also serve
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the Pipe
Springs National Monument, the Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area, three different national forests--the Kaibab in Arizona,
the Dixie and Fishlake in Utah--considerable Indian lands, or
considerable BLM lands and two Indian tribes.
We are presently working on a new transmission line near
Bryce Canyon which involves four Federal agencies. We have been
asked to study eight different routes for this line, which in
my mind, under section 368 of the new Energy Policy Act, the
agencies themselves should decide which route they prefer, and
then let us know.
We realize we will have to pay the EA on the selected
route, but we should not have to study eight different routes.
We filed with the Department of Energy for a corridor
designation on this line in November of 2005, after the Energy
Policy Act was passed last August. I don't see that it was
included in the preliminary November 7, 2005 report to Congress
on corridors and rights-of-way on Federal lands, and only one
of our transmission lines was recognized.
It appears to me that the agencies themselves are lost and
vague at best on the administration of section 368 of the
Energy Policy Act.
We have a small hydro plant which we are in the process of
relicensing with FERC. We just recently signed a settlement
agreement with the Forest Service and the State of Utah, which
has now been sent to FERC for their review and hopeful approval
on the relicensing process.
We started this process in 2002, and to date have spent
over $800,000 completing 29 separate studies for the various
government agencies. We will spend over $1 million to renew
this license when it is completed. I do want to thank the
Forest Service for their efforts in helping us reach the
settlement agreement.
During the winter of 2004 and 2005 the Northern Arizona
region of our service area received record snowfalls. These
snows took down over 100 trees along our power line which
serves the north rim of the Grand Canyon. We had to hire heavy
equipment to go in and clear access to 16 structures which were
broken by fallen trees, at a cost of over $100,000.
We have asked the Park Service in the Kaibab Forest to
allow us to clear more trees and eliminate dangerous leaning
trees, but have been unsuccessful because of the rules and
regulations concerning the Goshawk and the Mexican Spotted Owl
Habitat. The Forest Service has admitted to us there are no
Mexican Spotted Owls on the forest, and they don't know if
there ever has been. Unfortunately, the majority of the line is
located in Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat.
Not only does this situation provide problems in the
winter, but it is extremely hazardous for potential forest
fires in the summer, because, as this gentleman has mentioned,
we have the same problem with beetle kill. And it is killing
all the forests in the Southwest and throughout the West.
Concerning Garkane's and Utah Power's transmission lines
through the Grand Staircase National Monument, both companies
signed a non-impact plan for the two parallel lines in November
of 2001. We were told at the time, in a letter by the monument
manager, that the plan is not in full force until the surveys
and the maps are completed. The surveys were to be completed by
December of 2001 by the monument.
In July of 2003 we met with officials to discuss the
status. They indicated portions had been completed, but we
would have to hire an archaeologist to complete it if we wanted
it done sooner. We have not heard from them since, which leaves
both companies in a questionable position when it comes to
maintenance on these lines.
The NEPA process, in my opinion, has become more of a
political process than an environmental process. Land use plans
are almost always challenged on procedural grounds, rather than
on substance. When it takes these organizations eight years to
develop a 10-year plan, there is a problem. There is ``process
paralysis'' within these various agencies.
If I were king for a day, things would move along a little
more expediently. There would be more reasonable procedures,
and the personnel in the local agency offices would have an
ongoing dialogue with us. We are not the enemy; we are just
trying to operate a small utility and provide reliable service
to our little part of the world in a prudent manner.
I have been hopeful and remained optimistic about securing
these rights-of-way and solving these problems, but my
retirement may come sooner than any decision on these issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment today, and I will
be happy to answer questions when we are all completed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albrecht follows:]
Statement of Carl Albrecht, General Manager,
Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc., Loa, Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your giving me this opportunity to
testify on an issue of such importance to the member-owners of my rural
electric cooperative. I am Carl Albrecht, the CEO of Garkane Energy
Cooperative, Inc., a rural electric cooperative which serves
electricity to the rural areas of South Central Utah and North Central
Arizona.
Garkane serves approximately 11,000 customers over 2,000 miles of
transmission and distribution line, or about 5 1/2 customers per mile
of line. It is a unique electric utility in that we serve Zions, Bryce
Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Grand Canyon National Parks
We also serve the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and three different National
Forests--Kaibab in Arizona and Dixie & Fishlake in Utah. We also serve
considerable BLM administered lands and several state parks.
As you can imagine, we have many lines which traverse and serve
these governmental entities and the rural communities surrounding them.
Over the years, Garkane has experienced difficult and lengthy time
periods in securing new rights-of-way for new and upgraded power line
facilities.
For example, we are presently working on a new transmission line
from our Tropic, Utah, Substation east of Bryce Canyon, to our Hatch
Substation west of Bryce Canyon, which involves four federal agencies--
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Dixie National Forest,
Bryce Canyon National Park, and the BLM. We have been asked to study
eight different routes for this line. From my perspective, under the
Energy Policy Act, the agencies should decide themselves which route
they prefer and let us know their preference. We realize we will have
to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the selected
route, but we should not have to study eight different routes.
We filed a corridor designation for this line with the Department
of Energy in November of 2005 after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was
signed into law by President Bush in August. (Copies of my comments to
DOE are attached.) It was not recognized in the preliminary November 7,
2005 Report to Congress on corridors and right-of-way on federal lands.
In fact, only one of Garkane's transmission lines was recognized.
We are also working with the Dixie National Forest on a new line to
serve the rapidly growing area of Cedar Mountain, which is north of
Zion National Park. We are told that a decision on this line will be
made by this fall
During the winter of 2004 and 2005, the Northern Arizona Region of
our service area received record heavy snowfall. The heavy wet snows
took down over 100 trees over our power line which serves the North Rim
of the Grand Canyon. We had to hire heavy equipment to clear access to
16 structures which were broken or taken down by falling trees, at a
cost of over $100,000. We have asked the Grand Canyon Park Service and
the Kaibab National Forest to provide us a wider right-of-way to clear
more trees and eliminate dangerous leaning trees, but have been
unsuccessful in obtaining that right-of-way because of the rules and
regulations concerning the Goshawk and the Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat.
The Forest Service admits there are no Mexican Spotted Owls on the
forest and don't know if there ever has been. Apparently things have
changed. Previously, the Forest Service dealt only with the owl and
habitat related to the owl. Now, habitat has equal standing to a
species with an endangered listing. Unfortunately the majority of the
line is located in Mexican Spotted Owl habitat. To work on the right-
of-way or line from March 1 through August 31 (the time most conducive
to work) surveys would need to be completed for two consecutive years
prior to any activity. Once the survey is completed, a consultation
with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife as necessary. Garkane would have to pay
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the survey and consultation.
We are authorized to complete maintenance from September 1 through
February 28 (usually a very short window due to snow) in the Mexican
Spotted Owl habitat without the survey and consultation. The Forest
Service is very reluctant to let any bulldozer work be done or have any
ground disturbance.
In Capitol Reef National Park, our right-of-way requires us to give
them seven days written notice before entering for maintenance or
repairs, with daily notification before initiating any work. During
emergencies, we notify them as soon as possible.
Concerning Garkane's and Utah Power's transmission lines through
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), both companies
signed a joint O&M Plan for the two parallel lines in November 2001. We
were told in a cover letter signed by the Monument Manager, that the
``plan is not in full force'', until the surveys and maps have been
completed. The maps and surveys were supposed to have been completed by
December 31, 2001. In July of 2003, we met with Monument officials to
discuss the status. They indicated portions had been completed, but we
would have to hire an archeologist to complete it, if we wanted it done
sooner. We have not heard from them since.
There is an old saying that the world is run by those who show up.
Well, we have shown up to all the meetings, we have made comments to
the agencies, but we do not get timely responses or action.
The NEPA Process, in my opinion, has become more of a ``political
process'', than an ``environmental process''. Land Use Plans are almost
always challenged on procedural grounds, rather than on substance. When
it takes these agencies eight years to develop a 10-Year Plan, there is
a problem with the process. There is ``process paralysis'' within these
organizations.
I have met with my Congressional Representatives, Representative
Matheson and Representative Cannon, and have worked with Senator
Hatch's Office, all of whom have been helpful; however, it seems the
word never trickles from the top to the local office on the ground.
Representative Matheson's staff member's e-mail to me dated April 5,
2006, is also attached, outlining their perspective on how Section 368,
Energy Right-of-Way Corridors of the EPAct, will flow through the
various agencies. It appears the agencies themselves are lost and vague
at best on this issue.
I have been hopeful and have remained optimistic about securing
those rights-of-way and solving these problems, but my retirement may
come sooner than any decision on these issues.
Again, thank you for inviting me to testify on this important issue
to the 11,000 member-owners of Garkane Energy Cooperative. I would be
happy to take any questions you might have.
______
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. We appreciate your
testimony.
Next is Mr. Michael Neal with the Arizona Public Service.
Mr. Neal, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEAL, MANAGER OF FORESTRY AND SPECIAL
PROGRAMS, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE, GLENDALE, ARIZONA
Mr. Neal. Good morning. My name is Michael Neal, and I am
the Manager of Forestry and Special Programs for Arizona Public
Service, where I manage over 18,000 miles of distribution and
transmission lines in Arizona.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of APS and
the Edison Electric Institute. A year ago APS and EEI met with
Members of the House and Senate, as well as FERC commissioners,
about right-of-way management problems on Federal lands. We
were concerned that the inability to properly manage vegetation
on rights-of-ways on Federal lands posed a risk to grid
reliability and public safety, and could cause utilities to
violate reliability standards which, under the then-pending
energy legislation, would become mandatory.
You acted and included the right-of-way management
provision in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. Thank you
for that, and for your continuing oversight activities.
I would like to report that we are beginning to make some
progress, particularly in Arizona's national forests. There is,
however, a long way to go in other parts of the country.
Managing clean vegetation on or near rights-of-way has
often been very difficult, regardless of whether the right-of-
way is located on private or Federal lands. While integrated
vegetation management and utility vegetation management
requirements only impact less than a fraction of a percent of
overall Federal lands, the consequences of not effectively
managing the rights-of-way and powerline corridors can be
monumentally damaging to the rest of the land; for example,
forest fires, as you mentioned earlier. It can also jeopardize
reliable electric service.
The three most recent major power outages in the United
States were triggered by electric transmission lines
interacting with trees, leaving as many as 60 million Americans
in the dark. The intense public review that followed the last
U.S. blackout yielded two significant conclusions. First,
existing laws and requirements governing vegetation management
activities were not adequate to reduce the incidence of
vegetation-related blackouts. Second, the decentralized process
and variable procedures for approving utility vegetation
management activities for rights-of-way across Federal lands
are an obstacle to timely and scientifically based management.
In general, the problems of managing rights-of-way on
Federal lands are several. It takes too long to approve
vegetation management activities, even routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance left undone can quickly create emergency
dangerous situations that increase the risk of fire and the
loss of power, as trees continue to grow toward the power lines
without regard to manmade decision timelines.
Federal land managers frequently change their minds about
accepted practices, even when pre-approved vegetation
management plans are in place, and there is no common view
among the different forests regarding accepted practices.
Redundancy and repetition and reviews and work requirements add
delay without corresponding benefits.
Utilities often cannot remove dead and dying trees located
within or adjacent to a right-of-way that pose immediate threat
to transmission facilities. Federal land managers are not
adequately trained to understand and appreciate the technical
requirements for power line reliability and safe operation.
Finally, while integrated vegetation management is widely
accepted as scientifically sound, environmentally beneficial,
and a cost effective approach to right-of-way management, the
techniques are not well understood by land managers.
APS has experienced all these problems at one time or
another in its efforts to carry out essential activities on its
rights-of-way within the five national forests crossed by our
power lines. The situation came to a head in one of our
national forests last year, when no clearance of vegetation had
been allowed for 18 months, even though we were able to clear
to our standards on other national forests.
We had to take a 500-kV line out of service when the line
tripped from interaction with five overgrown trees we had been
unable to get permission to remove. This ignited a fire in
overgrown brush under the wires. Had wind conditions been
different, we would not have been able to extinguish the fire.
Another 500-kV line parallel to this line would have been
affected.
The line was out of service for over 18 hours until the
problem was found. We had to compensate by bringing more
expensive peaking units on line. There have been other
incidents and also we have also lost distribution lines from
fire where vegetation management activities were blocked, in
one case leaving a community without power for 12 hours.
I tell you these stories to underscore the critical need
for Federal land managers and utilities to work together to
revamp the current approach to managing rights-of-way of the
lands.
In 1997, I approached the forest officials about the
developing a memorandum of understanding to provide a more
effective and consistent process for managing their rights-of-
way, including accepted practices. When our efforts stalled,
EEI began pursuing a national MOU in 2001, eventually aided by
the new EPAct 2005 requirement that Federal land managers
expedite approvals for UVM activities required to comply with
mandatory reliability standards.
The MOU is now being signed by the U.S. Forest Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, and
EEI on behalf of its member companies. EES is a first step
toward implementation of section 1211[c] of the EPAct, and
toward ensuring the management of rights-of-way on Federal
lands is not an impediment to maintaining reliable electric
service.
In conclusion, I would like to briefly summarize a
practical day-to-day effect of our progress in Arizona. We have
a hazard tree process in place that uses email to transmit
information on trees, GPS location and maps, approval response
time has been reduced to a day or two. In the past there was no
consistent process, and those tree removals took a couple of
weeks to get processed, with little cooperation from the Forest
Service.
We are now able to schedule and work based on biological
assessments we prepare subject to U.S. Forest Service approval.
The lead time required has been reduced to weeks in all but one
national forest, instead of months and years previously
required, when you had to wait for overburdened Forest Service
personnel to prepare the assessment.
APS and the Forest Service put together a UVM working group
to develop an MOU for IVM work practices. Included in the IVM
plan to address is the bark beetle issue as well. The draft MOU
was completed and presented to the forest supervisors on April
27, 2006 for their review.
If approved, this will provide a consistent approach to all
vegetation management activities within all the national
forests in Arizona. This process will make all utilities in
forests accountable to a standard format process of doing
business. No longer will individuals within a certain forest
dictate their own personal agendas to the work we need to get
accomplished. A forest supervisor will appoint a central point
of contact for each forest to act as a liaison for Arizona
utilities.
Despite these promising developments, we still have a long
way to go in Arizona and certainly elsewhere in the country to
assure the reliability of facilities on Federal land. The
character of the electrical grid has changed considerably since
the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The 2005 Act will accelerate
these changes.
As a result, where power lines cross Federal lands, these
lands should be considered, first and foremost, as a central
part of the nation's critical infrastructure. I encourage you
to be vigorous in your oversight, and to step in when it is
productive to do so.
Thank you for holding this hearing. APS and EEI look
forward to working with you on these issues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neal follows:]
Statement of Mike Neal, on behalf of Arizona Public Service and
The Edison Electric Institute
My name is Mike Neal, and I am the Manager of Forestry and Special
Programs for Arizona Public Service (APS), where I administer 5,000
miles of transmission and 15,000 miles of distribution lines throughout
Arizona. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this joint
subcommittee hearing on behalf of APS and the Edison Electric Institute
(EEI).
APS, Arizona's largest and longest-serving electricity utility,
serves more than 1 million customers in 11 of the state's 15 counties.
With headquarters in Phoenix, APS is the largest subsidiary of Pinnacle
West Capital Corporation (NYSE: PNW).
EEI is the premier trade association for U.S. shareholder-owned
electric companies and serves international affiliates and industry
associates worldwide. Our U.S. members serve 97 percent of the ultimate
customers in the shareholder-owned segment of the industry and 71
percent of all electric utility ultimate customers in the nation.
It has been one year since APS and EEI first spoke with members of
the House and Senate about problems associated with managing rights-of-
way on federal lands. At the time, the August 2003 blackout that left
50 million Americans without electricity was a recent memory, and
Congress was close to enacting a comprehensive energy bill that would
make reliability standards mandatory, including standards for
vegetation management. We came to Congress out of concern--based on our
own direct experience and those of other utilities--that the inability
to manage vegetation related to rights-of-way on federal land poses a
risk to grid reliability and public safety and could lead utilities to
violate mandatory reliability standards. We also talked to former
Chairman Wood and Commissioner Brownell at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) about the issue, that they both might
understand and support effective and aggressive utility vegetation
management (UVM) efforts to prevent future blackouts and ensure the
integrity of the nation's electric grid.
I am here to thank you for including a provision in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 that begins to address this issue and for your
continuing oversight interest. I am also here to report progress in
Arizona towards resolving some of our concerns, while recognizing that
similar progress needs to be made elsewhere in the country.
Managing and clearing vegetation on or near rights-of-way has often
been very difficult, regardless of whether the right-of-way is located
on private or federal land. While Integrated Vegetation Management
(IVM) and UVM requirements only impact--less than a fraction of a
percent--of overall federal lands, the consequences of not effectively
managing the rights-of-way (ROW) and powerline corridors can be
monumentally damaging to the rest of the land (massive forest fires,
etc). It can also jeopardize reliable electric service. The three most
recent major power outages in the United States were triggered by
electric transmission line interaction with trees. The blackouts of
July 2, 1996, August 10, 1996, and August 14, 2003, resulted in the
loss of power to 2 million, 4 million, and 50 million customers
respectively. In 2003, a tree-caused blackout in Italy left 55 million
Europeans in the dark.
The last major U.S. blackout led to intense review by utilities,
the FERC, the North American Reliability Council (NERC) and the
National Association of State Regulatory Commissions (NARUC). Among the
most significant conclusions reached during this review was that
existing laws and requirements governing UVM activities were inadequate
to assure a low probability of future vegetation related blackouts.
Also, the decentralized process and variable procedures for approving
utility vegetation management activities for rights-of-way across
federal lands are an obstacle to timely and scientifically-based
vegetation management.
The first conclusion has been and is being addressed by a revision
of existing standards for utility vegetation management that will
ultimately become a FERC-approved mandatory reliability standard.
Violation of the new standard could result in penalties of up to $1
million a day. Addressing the second conclusion is still a work in
progress.
In general, the problems of managing rights-of-way on federal land
are several:
<bullet> Vegetation management decisions are not timely, even for
required routine maintenance. The inability to carry out routine
maintenance can quickly lead to an emergency danger situation,
increasing the risk of fire and the loss of power. Trees continue to
grow towards the powerlines regardless of a decision timeline.
<bullet> Decisions regarding acceptable practices are inconsistent
across districts, and sometimes even from year to year within the same
districts. The presence of pre-approved vegetation management plans has
not always insulated utilities from inconsistent decisions.
<bullet> Redundancy and repetition in reviews and work
requirements add delay without a corresponding benefit.
<bullet> The inability to remove dead and dying trees or other
vegetation poses an immediate threat to transmission facilities,
whether located within or adjacent to a right-of-way.
<bullet> Federal land managers often do not adequately appreciate
or understand the technical requirements for managing rights-of-way to
assure reliability and public safety, including reducing fire hazards.
<bullet> Finally, federal land managers often do not accept or
recognize the environmentally beneficial, technically sound, and cost
effective techniques of IVM, which is the utility standard. In fact,
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has recently approved
a new standard for IVM under the A-300 standard. This is a consensus
standard developed and approved with representation from the
arborcultural industry, the Department of Labor, the Forest Service and
the National Park Service.
Arizona Public Service has experienced all of these problems at one
time or another in our efforts to carry out essential activities on our
rights-of-way within 5 of the 6 national forests crossed by our
powerlines in Arizona. For almost a decade, we were stymied in our
efforts to obtain a consistent approach to vegetation management, which
came to a head in one forest when no clearance of vegetation was
allowed for 18 months even thou we were able to clear to our standards
on the 4 other national forests. Last June, we had to take a 500 kV
line out of service when the line tripped from interaction with 5
overgrown trees we had been unable to get permission to remove. This
ignited a fire in overgrown brush under the wires. Had wind conditions
been different, we would not have been able to extinguish the fire and
another 500 kV line parallel to this line would have been affected. Our
line was out of service for over 18 hours until the problem was found.
We had to bring online peaking units to compensate. These units are
much more expensive to run.
Also in about the same time frame, in the same forest, a lightening
strike started a fire in overly dense brush under a 500 kV transmission
line. The heavy black smoke from the fire tripped the circuit five
times. We've also lost distribution lines to fire where vegetation
management activities were blocked, in one case leaving a community
without power for 12 hours.
I tell you these stories to underscore the critical need for
federal land managers and utilities to work together to revamp the
current approach to managing rights-of-way on federal lands. In 1997, I
approached our forest officials about developing a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to provide a more effective and consistent process
for managing our rights-of-way, including accepted practices. When our
effort stalled, EEI stepped in around 2001, with the support of APS and
other member utilities, to seek such an MOU at the national level.
Negotiations on this MOU intensified following the August 2003 blackout
and during the oversight conducted by Congress in 2005. In the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Congress requires federal land managers to
expedite approvals necessary to assure that companies can comply with
mandatory reliability standards approved by FERC for vegetation
management.
I am pleased to report that that Memorandum of Understanding is now
in the process of being signed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Park Service, and EEI on behalf of its
member companies. We view this as a first step towards implementation
of Section 1211(c) of EPAct and towards assuring that management of
rights-of-way on federal lands is not an impediment to maintaining
reliable electric service. The MOU recognizes the technical standards
and requirements for maintaining reliability and signals to all federal
land managers that meeting them is a priority.
I am also pleased to report that we have made significant progress
as well within our national forests in Arizona. We have agreed upon a
clear and technically sound definition of a ``hazard tree,'' which will
facilitate the identification and removal of hazard trees. The Regional
Forester has initiated a Section 7 Emergency Endangered Species Act
Consultation for hazard tree removal that embodies a comprehensive
programmatic approach to power line maintenance activities. Phase I
requires the individual forests to initiate an emergency Section 7
consultation on hazard tree removal. Phase II will develop a biological
opinion covering hazardous tree removal for a period of 18 months, and
Phase III will be preparation of a comprehensive programmatic
biological assessment and opinion covering hazardous tree removal and
routine right-of-way maintenance.
In addition, we are again moving towards completion of an MOU with
all 6 national forests in Arizona, which will recognize the technical
requirements and accepted practices for managing a transmission and
distribution right-of-way for reliability. Nevertheless, we have a long
way to go in Arizona, and certainly elsewhere in the country, to assure
the reliability of facilities on federal land. I encourage you to be
vigorous in your oversight and to step in when it is productive to do
so.
In conclusion, I would like to briefly summarize the practical day-
to-day effect of the progress that we have made with the Forest Service
in Arizona since APS and EEI initiated discussions with the Committee a
year ago.
<bullet> Past history--Notifications of hazard tree removals were
done by a phone call with no consistent process in place. In fact, most
removals took at least a couple of weeks to get processed with little
cooperation from the Forest Service. In some cases we had to go over
the District Rangers authority to the Forest Supervisor to get
approval.
<bullet> Present--We have a hazard tree process in place that
sends information on trees, GPS locations, and maps attached to an
email that is responded to within a day or two for removal.
<bullet> Past history--We used to wait for months to years for
biological assessments to be completed by the Forest Service for our
work in the forests. They said it wasn't a priority and they were
overloaded with work.
<bullet> Present--We now do our own biological assessments and
have them sent in for approval before we are scheduled to do the work.
This is a much simpler process and lets us schedule our work instead of
the Forest Service. It has reduced the time to weeks instead of months
or years in all national forests except for one.
<bullet> Past history--There was not a programmatic approach to
combining numerous projects together for the Forest Service or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS) and it would take over 120 days for
work to be approved thru the USFWS.
<bullet> Present--We are in the process of developing a
programmatic agreement with all Arizona Forests and USFWS that will
eliminate the 120-day waiting period and streamline our work
tremendously. Once this project is completed in 2008 the utilities will
contact the Forest Service in the beginning of the year for its annual
work plan and file a report at the end of the year on the
accomplishments.
<bullet> Past history--Our integrated vegetation management
program wasn't accepted by all the national forests for managing
rights-of-way, even though this approach is based on over 50 years of
university research. In one case we haven't been able to perform this
function for over 4 years.
<bullet> Present--APS and the Forest Service have put together a
UVM working group to develop an MOU for IVM work practices. This was
completed and presented to the Forest Supervisors on April 27, 2006 and
we are now waiting for their decision. If approved this will provide a
consistent approach to all vegetation maintenance activities within all
6 National Forests in Arizona. This process will make all utilities and
forests accountable to a standard format and process of doing business.
No longer will individuals within a certain forest dictate their own
personal agendas to the work we need to accomplish. Forest Supervisors
will appoint a central point of contact for each forest to act as a
liaison for Arizona utilities.
<bullet> Past history--Emergency consultations (EC) were used on
trees infested by the bark beetle, but the trees did not fit the
initial requirements of the existing hazard tree definition. This
always led to a lot of discussion and disagreement between utilities,
Forests, and USFWS which delayed our ability to remove the trees.
<bullet> Present--EC are now being built into the programmatic
document and hazard trees will be addressed with a process for their
identification and removal throughout the State. Once this process is
approved the utility will identify the hazard trees and remove them
without intervention from the Forest Service as long as the utility
follows the programmatic agreement. At the end of the year the
utilities will file a report on the hazard tree program which will
include number, location and species.
Finally, the character of the electric grid has changed
considerably since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. EPAct 2005 will
accelerate those changes. As a result, where powerlines cross federal
lands, these lands should be considered first and foremost as an
essential part of the nation's critical infrastructure. Thank you for
holding this hearing. APS and EEI look forward to working with you on
these issues.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I appreciate your
testimony.
I would like to recognize the Chairman of the Forests and
Forest Health Subcommittee for questions. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
that.
Mr. Eldrige, I am going to go to you first. This notion
about a single tree that your folks have identified as a danger
that could fall onto power lines, you reference that in your
testimony. That was identified, and the Forest Service was
notified in July of 2005?
Mr. Eldrige. Correct.
Mr. Walden. And that tree is still standing?
Mr. Eldrige. It was before I left town, yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Nine months ago you sought approval to remove
one tree that you folks, in their professional opinion, thought
could pose a jeopardy to the power lines, and perhaps fall and
start a fire for which you would be liable, correct?
Mr. Eldrige. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. What does the Forest Service say? Why does it
take nine months to get an answer on removing one tree?
Mr. Eldrige. He was very apologetic, and said ``I just
forgot it.''
Mr. Walden. You know, it strikes me that maybe we need to
change the law so that if you make that request, in 30 to 60
days, some such figure, if you haven't gotten an answer, then
the liability shifts.
Mr. Eldrige. Well, you know, I think that we should only be
liable for things that we are shown to be negligent for. That
is the way the rest of the world works, and that is what you
can get insurance coverage for, easily.
I also think, as you are alluding to, there ought to be a
timeframe. I think, also, that we are allowed a 30-foot right-
of-way distribution line.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Eldrige. That is really inadequate.
Mr. Walden. Why shouldn't you be allowed to manage within
that right-of-way, though?
Mr. Eldrige. Well, this tree was just outside the right-of-
way.
Mr. Walden. But it is taller than 30 feet, right?
Mr. Eldrige. Yes, exactly.
Mr. Walden. So, I mean, OK, you have a 30-foot right-of-
way. But if something taller than that can fall in and still
hit the line, shouldn't you have the ability, in some expedited
process?
Mr. Eldrige. That is exactly the answer, but we have been
unable to get to that point.
Mr. Walden. You know, I referenced in my comments the
problems in Cascade Locks. If you look up at this painting on
the right here on the wall, Cascade Locks is about 20 miles on
up the gorge. I live another 17 miles from that.
It is like a blowtorch condition in the summer, if you get
a fire, and it almost burned up the City of Cascade Locks when
that fire started.
Mr. Eldrige. Closed the freeway, too.
Mr. Walden. They actually dropped borate on the freeway to
try and stop the fire. And it is a wonder, it is a miracle,
frankly, it didn't burn up the whole town. And in the
discussions I have had with the city, because it is a municipal
power system there, they are very frustrated with their
limitations to be able to do what their professionals thought
should be done to protect the safety of the lines and prevent
this sort of fire from breaking out in the first place.
And now we are in this dispute with the Forest Service
about who is really liable. And frankly, the odd thing is the
line supplies power down to Multnomah Falls Lodge, not to the
City of Cascade Locks. And so they have actually said they will
just cut the power off to Multnomah Falls Lodge, and then we
won't have to worry about it, which makes no sense, but I
understand their frustration.
This issue you raised about moving one pole?
Mr. Eldrige. Yes?
Mr. Walden. How long did that take you to get approval?
Mr. Eldrige. Over a year.
Mr. Walden. And it is how far from the nearest stream?
Mr. Eldrige. It is a mile from the nearest creek, and 12
miles from the nearest stream that has a listed species in it.
Mr. Walden. Twelve miles from the nearest stream with a
listed species.
Mr. Eldrige. Correct.
Mr. Walden. How much do you think it cost the Forest
Service and your utility to go through this process for moving
one pole or cutting one tree?
Mr. Eldrige. Well, fortunately they didn't require us to
have a bunch of public hearings, and go through the kind of
assessment, written assessment and study that I think they
could have.
I think what happened is the member up there on the ski
lodge was so upset that he was on their doorstep every day, and
just wore them down, or it still wouldn't be done today.
Mr. Walden. So the Forest Service, they incurred costs to
process this? Or what took so long?
Mr. Eldrige. I don't think anything was done. I think it
just sat there. And it was unclear to us how to move forward.
Mr. Walden. Let us go to this issue in Central Oregon then,
and the moving of the line that you referenced, a quarter-mile
move into a right-of-way that was approved. How many years was
involved in that?
Mr. Eldrige. They are two years into it, and it is still
not done.
Mr. Walden. And they had to give how many years' notice in
advance?
Mr. Eldrige. The planning now for BLM and U.S. Forest
Service is three to five years' notice, written notice, before
you can do anything.
Mr. Walden. And then they have to go through the process
you described.
Mr. Eldrige. Well, that is possibly true. I mean, you would
hope if you were given five years' notice, at the end of that
five years you would have approval or rejection.
Mr. Walden. And I guess I understand, if we are going to
put a new right-of-way in, why you would do perhaps a full
NEPA, so you recognize all the process.
Mr. Eldrige. Sure.
Mr. Walden. But once that right-of-way is there, it seems
to me there ought to be an expedited and simplified system to
maintain the safety of the forest and your lines, so we don't
have interruptions in power distribution, and we don't create
forest fires that do far more damage than cutting one tree or
moving one pole.
And my time has expired. But before I give up the mic, I
want to thank especially Mr. Hutt, all of you for your
testimony, but Mr. Hutt, it is good to see you again. I
certainly enjoyed being in South Dakota, and appreciated your
testimony then and here.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Walden. Mrs. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
questions that were raised in video testimony listening to you.
And I would like to have any one of you respond to this
question.
What would be a reasonable timeframe for the approval of
vegetative management plan, understanding that Forest Service
obligation to comply with the NEPA, and the NEPA to adequately
ensure analysis and public participation?
Mr. Neal. My understanding is, from the Forest Service and
Fish and Wildlife Service, is if you are doing routine
maintenance, you don't have to go through the NEPA process
again. They already, in some cases, have been through that
process.
The things that you need to do is biological assessments to
make sure you work around timing issues for the Goshawk or
Eagle, whatever the case may be, that you can't do any clearing
activities during the breeding season. So those things need to
be identified.
As far as building new lines, as mentioned, we have to go
through the whole NEPA process. But some particular districts
will tend to throw the NEPA process in place where they don't
have to. And again, it is analysis paralysis for some of the
Federal agencies that we work for. In my mind, I think they
just try to cover their bases from losses in a lot of cases.
Ms. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Albrecht. We understand that there is another group
that is putting pressure on the Forest Service and other
government agencies, as well, and that only takes a postage
stamp to do that. Frivolous lawsuits against the government
agencies. And I feel for them in that regard.
But somehow, somewhere reasonableness and sanity and common
sense has to enter into this when you have areas that are
growing, and new developments, and so forth, and lines that are
under capacity. You know, it seems to me that if good planning
takes forth, and we hire the consultant to do the study for
them, they ought to could make a decision in two years, to me.
Mr. Blair. Many times we are forced to go back and do
additional studies. If you have a right-of-way and you are
replacing an older line that was approved in the past, you
start back at step one to simply replace it, to upgrade that
power line.
There are other issues between just the planning stages of
acquiring a right-of-way and maintaining that right-of-way. It
doesn't require necessarily the NEPA process or anything like
that to maintain it; you just have to have their blessing, and
they have to identify what you can and can't trim. And it is
very narrow in the scope.
They want you to take as little as possible, which is
understandable. But we are spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars and making multiple trips because we are not able to
take an adequate right-of-way in the beginning, or maintain an
adequate right-of-way throughout the process.
We also have situations in my territory where you go to
make minor changes, and you do start the process all over again
because they have introduced something differently since the
power line was built. We have the Gunnison Sage Grouse Habitat.
They introduced, for some reason, the Lynx into the Gunnison
Sage Grouse Habitat, and now we have to study both of those
before we can make changes to our power line that has been
there for 50 years.
Mr. Neal. I would like to follow up with one comment that
we are working on with the Arizona national forests and the
utilities, is the MOU.
With this MOU we are working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. And they are going to
do the biological assessments and a programmatic approach to
all the national forests. And so once this is approved, it is
going to have what our clear standards are, what we are going
to clear, all those timing restrictions we have to work around.
And then at the beginning of the year, all we have to do is
submit a plan of what we are planning to do that coming year.
And at the end of the year, following and explaining to them
what we have done and accomplished along those lines that we
scheduled to work.
Once that is put in place, and this will basically take two
years for them to do a review of all the power lines in
Arizona, we don't have to worry about timing restrictions any
more, them slowing up the process. Once it is in place, we can
just go ahead and do the work. And I think that is really a
process that the rest of the country needs to look at. I think
it is a win-win for everyone.
Ms. Napolitano. But it is a plan that you are working on
just specific to Arizona.
Mr. Neal. That is correct.
Ms. Napolitano. I will yield to the next round, Mr. Chair,
because I have several other questions of the panel.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Duncan, did
you have any questions?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
questions. But you know, when I hear things like Chairman
Walden's example of $312,000 being charged to the small City of
Cascade Locks, and I hear these examples of hundreds of
thousands of dollars in expenditures to do things, and take
many months or years to do things that could be done in a day
or two, the arrogance of the leaders and people in some of
these extreme environmental groups never ceases to amaze me.
And when they put these hundreds of thousands of dollars of
extra charges on small utilities, like Mr. Albrecht's and
others, who it ends up hurting are the poor and the lower-
income and the working people, because those costs have to be
passed on to people who have difficulty paying them.
And I have noticed that most of these environmental
extremists always come from very wealthy and very upper-income
families, and they are not hurt by it. But there is a lot of
people that I represent, and that most of us represent, who are
hurt by things like that.
And we have to get this NEPA process and some of these
other things under control. They are out of control now. There
are also some people, it is not just environmental groups,
there are some people in the Federal bureaucracy who aid and
abet these groups, and I suppose think they are doing good
things. But they are hurting a lot of people in this country in
the process, and that is all I would say.
And I hear example and example and example of this, day
after day after day, and read about it. And it is just really a
shame. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Ms. Herseth.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before posing a few
questions for Mr. Hutt, as Mr. Walden and the others have done
to get at some specific examples of what is happening as it
relates to access to rights-of-way, I would like to just point
out for Members of the committee, because we have a few other
folks from South Dakota in the audience today, over the past
five months in South Dakota our rural electric cooperatives
have suffered tremendous damage because of winter storms.
A winter ice storm that hit the central and eastern part of
South Dakota, but after Thanksgiving, and just a couple of
weeks ago, which you may have heard about, Chairman,
Radanovich, we had six feet of snow in certain areas in the
Black Hills of South Dakota just a couple of weeks ago, where
Mr. Hutt's cooperative as well as other power agencies suffered
significant damage in the western part of the state.
And that leads me to a question of looking at emergency
situations like post-winter storms, where we have downed lines,
areas that are particularly affected by a severe drought that
we have had, that we hope some of this moisture will help us
out with, serious bug infestations in certain areas and other
circumstances that are more emergent, versus your routine
access.
So could you talk a little bit with the committee about
accessing your rights-of-way during emergency situations versus
routine access? Have your dealings with the Forest Service been
different in light of certain circumstances? And perhaps share
with us some of the delays that I know you have had as it
relates to routine access and maintenance and brush-clearing to
deal with the threats that are posed, including a threat to the
City of Deadwood. Whether it is Cascade Locks or the subject of
an HBO series, all of the threats to any of our communities is
a very serious matter of public safety.
And you have heard already the frustration about being able
to get in to maintain rights-of-way that, when you have a
forest like the Black Hills National Forest with the Ponderosa
Pine reproducing itself at such a dramatic rate, it might be
helpful to the committee to understand what delays you faced,
if you have seen any improvement, and how that might change in
an emergency situation.
Mr. Hutt. Thank you. Thanks to your committee meeting that
Chairman Walden held and your interaction on our behalf with
the Black Hills National Forest, we have had some meaningful
dialogue with them, and they have been responsive.
On routine maintenance, we have made arrangements so that
we can go in. And if there are just a few trees to cut, we can
cut them, and we can notify the Forest Service afterwards.
If we have substantial cutting to do, then we have to go
through the NEPA process. And one of the problems in the Black
Hills is that for many decades, we weren't allowed to do
routine tree-trimming, and so we got a substantial undergrowth,
which you can see in some of these pictures. In fact, at one
point about 20 years ago, a previous CEO of my company was
cited because our crews cut Christmas trees without a permit.
That is what they classified the clearing of the trees in the
right-of-way. They had violated that law.
Things are better, thanks again to your input. It still
takes a long time to do anything. In our work with the Forest
Service, they agreed that we should change one provision, one
sentence in our special use permit. We both agreed that we
needed that change. And we were informed that it could take as
much as a year and a half to get that one sentence changed in
our special use permit, through the review process.
Ms. Herseth. Could you visit a little bit about some of
what we discussed as the Black Hills National Forest has
suffered under drought conditions for a number of years? At one
point you were denied access--well, you were granted access,
but only on horseback, I believe, because of the threat that
the Forest Service felt to give you access in other manners,
because of the drought conditions. And yet it was precisely the
drought conditions that you were trying to address in the
right-of-way because of some of the lines that had trees close,
impinging in the right-of-way.
Mr. Hutt. We aren't routinely denied access. But during
drought conditions, why, the use of motorized vehicles or
chainsaws is not allowed, either. So when there are drought
conditions, why, we are forced to live with these
restrictions--travel curtailment and use of equipment.
Ms. Herseth. May I ask one follow-up question?
Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How have the delays
in some instances that you have experienced, understanding that
the situation has improved with the new supervisor and some of
the dialogue that you have initiated, what impact does that
have on your rate-payers as it relates to the liability that
you face, as well as the increased costs once you do get in
after certain delays, and the substantial undergrowth that you
mentioned?
Mr. Hutt. There are a number of issues there. Of course,
paying for the trees that we can't market is one of them.
The other is the liability that we face. And these
gentlemen have talked about strict liability, where we are
forced to pay for fire suppression charges if a tree falling
across our lines should ignite a fire. We have had to increase
our liability coverage 30fold just for the potential of a fire
from a tree.
We are limited to 10 feet on either side of the line,
except endangered trees which we can identify. So in a dry
situation, where you have a forest in the condition of the
Black Hills, the liability out there is extreme because we have
thousands of trees--millions, actually--we estimated 4 million
trees within falling distance of our lines. And any one of them
in a storm could fall across a line, and it could be 100 feet
from our right-of-way.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you much. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Before I recognize Mr. Cannon, I do have a
question. Because during the Black Hills fires a number of
years ago, didn't Senator Daschle put a provision in that
allowed agencies to go in proactively and cut sooner in the
threat of fire danger? And did that have any impact on what you
do, then, in South Dakota?
Mr. Hutt. It was a narrowly focused right for a specific
area of the Hills, and it did not apply in general.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth. Just to reiterate the point, it was very
narrowly defined, and it was right on the wildland/urban
interface. That has been cited at different times for some of
the discussion of the full committee, but it was very narrow,
and it didn't specifically address right-of-way issues.
Mr. Radanovich. We need to widen that narrow exception, I
think. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That exception was a
limitation on the jurisdiction of Federal Courts to review
decisions by Forest Service folks. In the need to incorporate
some of those in the healthy forest world, Chairman Walden
ushered through, with great effort over a long period of time,
that these limitation jurisdictions are, you build this
monster, and then we have to restrain it. There is something
wrong with that.
In fact, frankly I just wanted to, first of all, associate
myself with Congressman Duncan, who pointed out who bears the
cost of these huge bureaucracies that interfere with what we
are doing.
And second, I would like to express to all of our panel,
thank you for being here, and congratulate you for your very
restrained presentations. I know it has to drive you absolutely
nuts.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. Particularly my friend, Carl Albrecht, for whom
this is, I know, not a great passion. And in fact, Mr.
Albrecht, you do a pretty significant thing. You service, you
provide the electricity for all of the northern end of the
Grand Canyon, which services millions of people every year,
isn't that right?
Mr. Albrecht. That is correct.
Mr. Cannon. Can I just ask in that context, how much it
costs for you to do an EIS on eight different power line routes
that various groups have suggested, as opposed to an EA on a
single route?
Mr. Albrecht. Well, your question on the north rim, let me
just make a comment there. And I think all these gentlemen will
agree, it depends on which forest you are dealing with, and
which district ranger office within that forest of how the
rules are interpreted, and what you are allowed to do. And it
varies greatly, let me tell you.
Somehow, somewhere, sometime that needs to be consistent
across the board with the Forest Service, and they all need to
get the same message.
Now, concerning the eight rights-of-way through Bryce
Canyon National Park, we went out and got estimates, because we
thought we would have to study, do an EIS and study two routes.
They ranged from $150,000 to $550,000. Now, if we are to study
eight routes, you can probably do the math.
My feeling is that section 368 of the Energy Policy Act,
those agencies need to declare which agency is going to be the
lead agency. They need to get their working routes together.
They need to decide, tell us which right-of-way they want us to
do. We will go hire the consultant to do the EA or the EIS, and
we will pay for it, and we will get the line built.
But these agencies, it is incumbent upon them, under
section 368, to get the ball rolling.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. You talked about process paralysis,
and Mr. Hutt talked about a year to get bureaucratic approval
of the one Senate change. I am going to suggest a problem. I
would love to tell you, Mr. Albrecht, and the rest of the panel
respond to that, it seems to me that what we have done here is
we have a whole bunch of relatively young people. The Forest
Service, in fact, has a huge number of people that will retire
over the next five years or so and who may have hung up their
hats already, frankly.
It is not like when I was young and working in the
Agriculture Department when we had so many great bureaucrats
who knew how to do things, and it was a culture. Now we have
seen a shift in that culture, and partly because we have young,
and now there are many people and many levels of review, and
there is no decision responsibility that is clear. And these
people operate under the fear of litigation.
Is that a fair analysis of what has happened here? Is that
a fair analysis, Mr. Albrecht?
Mr. Albrecht. Well, the Forest Service, you know, they are
going to be sued by some environmental group no matter what
they do. Could we just send a retired Forest Service supervisor
to the Black Hills? He was a good man. Mr. Hugh Thompson from
the Dixie National Forest in Cedar City. He believed in the
multiple-use concept.
A lot of these people who have joined these agencies and
coming up through the ranks and making the decisions now, do
not.
Mr. Cannon. Let me just interrupt you now. I would like to
hear, the fact is multiple use is embedded with absolute
clarity in law.
Mr. Albrecht. It is.
Mr. Cannon. And the problem is that you have people who
know it. And you have this fellow who is a supporter of the
idea. But is it essentially the problem that law doesn't matter
when you get a bureaucracy that amends the law with culture,
with bad culture?
Mr. Albrecht. The law is interpreted differently from one
forest or one agency to another, and within district offices
within that agency. And it all needs to be the same. It is all
the Federal government, it is all the Forest Service, it is all
the Park Service. One office needs to interpret that the same
as the other.
Mr. Hutt. I would just like to address a couple things. The
turnover in the Forest Service is substantial. When you talk to
one person, you maybe go through a whole process, and then you
have to go through the whole thing again in six months because
somebody else has taken the place.
The other thing you mentioned is the levels of review. To
make a simple change in a special use permit requires multiple
levels of review.
And the third thing is the appeals. In the Black Hills
National Forest, every appealable decision made by the Forest
Service has been appealed. Every single one. And some of them
more than once. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
expired. I yield back.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. We are pleased to
have Mr. Bishop from Utah join us in the Subcommittee. I would
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah may join us
on the dais and participate in today's hearing. Hearing no
objection, I welcome our colleague from Utah. So ordered.
Mr. Bishop. I was about to object, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the opportunity of being able to
come back here.
Mr. Albrecht, let me just pick on you for just a second.
Going back to the historical purpose of the reason for having
rural co-ops in the first place, why were you all established?
Mr. Albrecht. Why were the electrical co-ops established?
To serve the rural areas, because the investor-owned utilities
could see no profitability there. And so, in 1935, FDR
established the Rural Electrification Act. And no money was
made available to co-oppers at that time, 1935 to 1940. A lot
of co-ops were created at that time. That money has risen in
cost, as you well know, and most of the cooperatives have
bought out from RUS, and now have their own private bankers.
But that is the reason. The investor-owned utilities saw no
profitability there.
Mr. Bishop. We are dealing with these groups and a group
that does not have, by definition, equal opportunity or equal
protection or equal access. We are dealing with a group of
people who, by definition, will always be put at some kind of
disadvantage.
And I think as we are coming up with policies, we need to
make sure we remember why these organizations were established
in the first place, and that there is a specific need that is
distinct and different. Rural people, those living in rural
areas, have a distinct disadvantage to those living in urban
areas, and the types of getting this kind of basic needs.
Especially in electrical areas.
In fact, you have answered all these questions as time has
gone on here. Mr. Albrecht, you have lines that go through
forest and BLM lands. Is there a different administration,
different set of rules between the two?
Mr. Albrecht. There is, and there is a difference between
the various district forest ranger districts and the BLM
districts.
Mr. Bishop. Is there anyone on the dais that has given a
presentation so far, that does not think that because of the
different interpretations which are given in each office, and
especially through different types of regulatory bodies, that
there is a need for Congress to step in and come up with some
kind of uniform way in which these decisions could be
administered? Is there anyone who disagrees with that?
Mr. Neal. No, I don't disagree. Just so you know, EI
submitted legislation recommendation to the Resource Center,
accompanied by legislation language addressing vegetation
management issues on a Federal level.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I think you have done a marvelous
job in bringing testimony in here, expert testimony, that
simply recognizes there is a compelling need to deal with a
group of people who are being serviced at a disadvantage in the
first place, to come up with some kind of way of bringing some
uniformity so people can actually do their jobs and provide for
the betterment of people in rural areas. It is a crying need.
If I could just pontificate for one minute, and I will
hopefully end up before the light turns yellow. You do a lot of
suspension bills in this committee. Last time you had one that
came to the Rules Committee. You had a representative who was
not a member of this committee claim the process and the
product of not this subcommittee, but the Resource Committee,
is not representative of the Nation as a whole. Basically, he
was saying there are too many Westerners who serve on this
committee, and they don't get the full picture. And their
amendment at that particular time of this gentleman was totally
gutting the process and the work of this committee.
I think he has a point. Because as I look around at the
name tags of all these people here, with the exception of my
good friend from the South, we don't really have any Easterners
on this panel. You are all Westerners. You see things in a
different way. And listening to the testimony here, it makes
your blood boil to see what is happening out in the western
part of this country.
And I think one of the things that we really need to do
desperately in this Congress is make sure that all of our
friends who don't have representation on this committee hear
this kind of testimony. I think when it comes second-hand, it
is not nearly as forceful, it is not nearly as dramatic or
impactful as when you hear what these people have to deal with
on a daily basis. And some of our good friends who are not in
the western part of the United States need desperately to
understand this is what is happening to the West. It is
happening on a daily basis, and there is a desperate need for a
lot of the reforms that are coming out of the Resource
Committee.
I think you have done a great job, Mr. Chairman, of
bringing people here that will identify something that has to
be done. And we can't keep piddling around with it, and we
can't keep waiting on it.
And I will yield back, because it just went yellow.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Words well said.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I agree with your
comments. But I would hate to state that we are not helpful to
the rest of the nation, because that is our job.
I would like to inquire one more avenue, and that is, given
the Forest Service's ability to do their job in different
areas, could they better improve communications with the rural
electric utilities given that the amount of money requested for
hazardous fuels reduction in that 2007 budget is woefully
short? Like about $299 million?
It is a dramatic cut in programs intended to ensure the
cooperation with state and private lands. What effect do you
think this will have on maintaining the work order of these
lands and rights-of-way?
And while you might mull that over in your mind, I am
listening to the presentations and the questions from my
colleagues about standardization and the ability to be able to
do that, I am sure that can save money for everybody.
However, is that something that you see, given the current
situation of reducing of funds to be able to carry out some of
those new programs, or the ability to work together, like in
Arizona?
Mr. Blair. I would like to respond to that. A properly
maintained right-of-way is maintained on our nickel. If they
will allow us to maintain those rights-of-way through their
property, it goes a long way to create a natural fire break.
And so part of what they are wanting to achieve, we are trying
to achieve for them. Just let us do it.
And so the impact financially would simply be people
allowing us, you know, giving us the blessing to clear our
right-of-way.
Ms. Napolitano. But is it the fact that they don't have
enough personnel to deal with giving you that ability to do
your job?
Mr. Blair. I can only speak for my system. Working within
my system, I have both. I have districts who, we never get what
we want, but who do not have the personnel to get out and do
it. And we have districts who simply do not want it done.
Ms. Napolitano. OK.
Mr. Eldrige. I really don't personally think it is a
personnel issue. In fact, this is how you would manage a
shrinking budget, is that you would put broad policy and then
implementation rules underneath, where there are standards that
you abide by.
I mean, we have construction standards, we have numerous
standards that we have to abide by, or we lose our financing.
And so we just abide by them, besides it being a good thing to
do.
And so I really think the answer is less process, be clear
about what is to be achieved, and then set up the rules and the
guidelines to achieve them.
The other thing is, I really believe in this concept of
policy of place. And that is, you have broad policy, but every
place is a little bit different. I don't have some of the
problems that South Dakota has. So it needs to be mitigated for
the actual set of circumstances. But then the rules can be
written once, and we will abide by them.
Ms. Napolitano. But is it interpretation that is causing
different districts to interpret them differently?
Mr. Eldrige. Yes, I think it is. But that is why clear
interpretation needs to be written by the people that wrote the
policy. Legislative intent, if nothing else.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, yes. But if they interpret the
current rules differently, what is to prevent them from
interpreting new rules to their own----
Mr. Eldrige. Fire them, and get somebody in there who will
follow the rules we set up. I mean really, somebody--this is a
problem. There is not true management. If I had this kind of
activity, there would be new people in there.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, but you train your people. Do you
bring them together? Is it something we should be doing, is
bringing all those different folks who are in decisionmaking
authority together, issuing the same information to them,
holding them all accountable to the same requirement?
Mr. Eldrige. Sure. That is a great idea.
Mr. Neal. I would also encourage these committees, there is
two things that I see are important, is the training issue, as
I mentioned in the testimony. Federal land managers really
don't understand the electric grid and the need for vegetation
management. The MOU that we are working at the national level
does have that training.
Then I think you need to have, instead of the local
district, have control of utility corridors, because they cross
multi-districts or different national forests. And what one
district stops you from doing can affect the reliability of the
grid.
So it needs to be headquartered at the regional office,
where the regional forester takes responsibility for the
distribution and transmission lines in the national forest.
That way, there is some direct oversight, and the decisionmaker
is making that final decision. And there is a peer process for
the utilities that they can't get what they want, as far as
following sound environmental standards in their clearing
activities.
Ms. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Albrecht. Well, I was just going to say if I was facing
a budget cut, in your example, the Forest Service facing a
budget cut, my resource is the trees, the forest. I would want
to protect those. So anything I could do to protect the forest,
I would do it. If I had to get rid of a bug and bunny counter,
fine. I would protect the forest. That is what they are all
about.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. One last question, Mr. Chairman,
and I will be done.
To Mr. Neal. In the proposal that you have worked on in
Arizona, rural environmentalists at the table, would you work
with the environmental community?
Mr. Neal. As far as putting the MOU together within the
national forests, it is basically the utility working group
includes a utility representative, and then U.S. Fish and
Wildlife representative and Forest Service representative from
each national forest we serve. There is nobody from the
environmental community as far as that working process.
Ms. Napolitano. Are they aware of what you are putting
forth? Is there any comment?
Mr. Albrecht. Well, I am also on Governor Napolitano's
Forest Health Council. And I have talked about the process with
them, and there are environmental groups, Sierra Club and the
Center for Biodiversity, that are a part of that. And they have
heard, you know, me talking about those subjects with them.
You know, quite frankly, I think they understand the need,
especially with the fires and the outages and things that are
associated with that. And like I say, just like it is up in
these areas, the forest health is deplorable. We need to do
something. We need to manage our forests, as you all know. And
I think they understand there is a need.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have to follow
up because some of us on the committee actually helped write,
and pass, and vote for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act which
deals with forest study, which set up the authorization that my
friend and colleague from California is referencing.
And I know the Administration has fully funded this effort
within that authorization, although they have moved some money
around. And certainly more money could always do more work out
in the forests. They are moving at a record pace, I would say,
having cleared, I think it is 4 million acres last year in
thinning projects. And I know there are Members of this
committee who opposed that bill, probably would oppose those
thinning projects today.
My colleague from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth, and I have
crafted the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act to get
at precisely the issues you have identified here in terms of
the costs to the Agency and the delay to the Agency to come to
a decision after a catastrophic event. And if the Agency
follows all environmental laws and decides it should remove
timber, then do it in a timely way, so that the timber still
has value. And the Forest Service and the Congressional Budget
Office have come back to this committee and said if you do
that, not only will you save money, you will make money for the
Forest Service, and the Chief has testified to that case.
So if your concern is there is a lack of funds to the
Forest Service, if your concern is about restoring the forest
to a healthy status quicker, then we have the product for you
to vote for. But unfortunately, we don't get those votes
sometimes, and that is disconcerting.
In your case, though, this isn't about money to actually go
in and cut the brush and the trees, because you and your
ratepayers are paying for that, correct?
Mr. Albrecht. Correct.
Mr. Walden. So I was a journalism major, not a math major,
but I have a trusty calculator. And I just figured out, for the
1,140 residents in Cascade Locks, if the Forest Service bills
them, that is the equivalent of $273.68 for every man, woman,
and child in that community. Because they contend they weren't
able to do the kind of work you are saying you are not always
able to do in a timely manner, and so a fire broke out.
It just strikes me that common sense is lost in this
discussion all too often when dealing with Federal agencies.
And it isn't that there aren't good people in the Federal
agencies. It is they are conflicted in how to interpret the
law, how to interpret their own rules, and then how to
interpret some judge's decision who weighs in forest by forest,
frankly, and makes decisions on what should be done.
It is our responsibility to fix that mess. It is our
responsibility for the health of the forest, for the safety of
the residents near your power lines, to those who receive your
power and pay the bill. And I don't know, it just escapes me
because it seems so obvious, that somehow we ought to craft a
system that if you have a right-of-way and a power line through
that right-of-way, and you have done your initial NEPA to get
that right-of-way, we ought to have a standardized set of
principles, like Mr. Eldrige has testified to, and you all I
think would agree to, that says here is how you manage that
right-of-way. If you have trees you think are going to fall
onto your lines, maybe tell us, but we will give you a quick OK
to go take them out.
I am told the Forest Service has to be the one that goes
out and marks each tree. Is that correct?
Mr. Eldrige. Yes.
Mr. Walden. So if you identified that tree back in July,
Mr. Eldrige, you are waiting until now and still haven't gotten
the OK to cut it down. And when you get the OK, somebody from a
Forest Service office will have to come out and paint a stripe
around that tree, right?
Mr. Eldrige. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. And so you have already identified--do we have
to number these trees now? Is this what we do? This is
nonsense, and it is costly. We can throw rocks at
administration or this or that, but at the end of the day it is
our ratepayers, our forests; it is your customers that are
paying a bill they don't need to pay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Neal. Just based on what you said. We had a bark beetle
infestation in Arizona, as well. And we have approximately
2,100 miles of Ponderosa Pine forest type. These trees were
outside of the permitted right-of-way, and the permit states
that we are responsible for maintaining that utility corridor,
under the direction of the forest supervisor in charge. So even
though we have recognized standards, they don't necessarily
agree with them.
Also, we will be held accountable if a tree falls and
starts a fire, then, as people mentioned, we are held
accountable to those.
We had a bark beetle infestation. We tried to get that
support in removing those dead trees outside of permitted
right-of-way, and they said it is your responsibility. Well,
since 2003 your company has spent over $14 million removing
dead trees adjacent to utility corridors to keep the lights on.
So, I mean, that is an impact our customers are seeing because
there isn't any cooperation. It is on the utility, and that is
unfortunate, I think.
Mr. Albrecht. I would just like to add to that, you know,
there is livelihoods that depend on those forests, too. A lot
of those dead beetle-killed trees could be sawed into lumber
and marketed, and we wouldn't be paying what we are paying at
the hardware store. We have a couple small sawmills in our area
that are struggling, and we have forests that are just dying.
They are terrible.
Mr. Walden. We see them all over the country, sir.
Mr. Albrecht. With recreational eastern homeowners that had
built nice cabins in those forests. And I am telling you, it is
not if, it is when it will all go up.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I
appreciate the comments that you have shared with this
committee, and hopefully we can take that and put it into
action. I know we have arranged for a meeting with some of your
folks and the Forest Service following this meeting in this
room to see if at the top end of the Forest Service we can get
the kind of agreements that would make a real difference for
this country of ours, and straighten out this mess.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Walden. Mrs. Napolitano, any
more?
Ms. Napolitano. A very quick question, and it was brought
out by the talk on the removal of underbrush and the trees, and
the statement that you can sell some of them if you were able
to.
First of all, what do you do with that underbrush and those
deceased trees that you cannot sell, that are unsalable? What
happens to them?
Mr. Blair. In our area, it is ground up and mulched. You
either use it for groundcover for the project that you are
working on, or you give it away. You get it out of there any
way you can. There are always people willing to take that.
Usually the Forest Service or the BLM would like to have it
somewhere, and so we grind it up into mulch.
Mr. Hutt. In our area it is either cut and left to lie, or
it is piled in brush piles for subsequent burning, or in some
cases it is chipped and scattered.
Mr. Albrecht. It varies from district to district. Some of
our districts want it cut and just scattered along the right-
of-way so it looks natural; others want it cleaned up so they
can burn it later. It varies.
Mr. Neal. In our area it is a visual, along the right-of-
way, it is required to be chipped and brought back along the
right-of-way. If it gets beyond the visual, it gets scattered
across the right-of-way.
Ms. Napolitano. That brings up two questions. Once, if they
are infested with that pine beetle, aren't you just spreading
it to create another way of getting those beetles to go back at
the trees? That is one.
Second, if you have a large amount, and I am assuming that
you do, has there ever been any consideration of utilizing the
chips to burn for fuel to create energy?
Mr. Neal. We have looked at burning for energy. Well, quite
frankly, there isn't any market in Arizona for utilizing
timber. It is pretty much everything has been run out of
business. There is probably one or two mills located in
Arizona, and they are overrun with wood product today because
of the Rodeo-Chediski fires and bark beetle infestation. They
can't handle any more.
As far as utilizing wood chips for burning, it used to be a
byproduct of another industry. For example, a laminated wood
company, a byproduct that comes off of that can go to energy.
But to set a mill up, there is no return.
And then the other part is, what we produce is not going to
run a mill, a biomass plant, all year around. So it has to be
supplemented from other resources.
Mr. Hutt. On your question on the beetle-infested trees,
typically when the tree becomes a danger to a power line is
after it has died. It has red needles, and lost its needles. By
then, in the spring of the year the beetles have left that tree
and gone to other trees.
In regards to using it as fuel, the Black Hills National
Forest Advisory Board has a subcommittee that is looking at
that, but there is nothing available right now to do that.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, gentlemen. And the reason I
asked is because I had spoken to somebody in sanitation who say
they can also use it for spreading onto a landfill, because the
heat that generates out of a landfill is over 140 degrees. So
that would kill any kind of infestation that would be present.
Because I was interested in whether or not there would be eggs
or any other kind of potential threat.
But the reference to energy, burning trash in one of my
facilities in my area creates energy that is sold to the
electric company. That is why I was bringing that up and trying
to figure out, because you have tons of the material that you
either chip or use, and can conceivably become an industry that
might help some of your communities be able to sustain or lower
the cost of their own electricity needs.
Mr. Eldrige. The volume is too low and the supply is too
uncertain for it to work.
Ms. Napolitano. I see. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Before we
dismiss the panel, I have one further question.
Mr. Neal, you encouraged Congress to continue oversight
efforts, and to step in where it is productive to do so on
these issues. Can you suggest to us or any of the other
witnesses what steps Congress ought to take in order to resolve
this issue?
Mr. Neal. I think some of the things that you have all
mentioned is streamlining the administration process on getting
the approval to do the work that we need to do, incorporate UVM
and best management practice into total maintenance, and
training. I think it is very important that our fellow partners
understand how electricity and how trees can interact with
power lines and cause power outages.
And again I also, as you mentioned, there is a financial
liability to utilities, because all the burden is put on us if
something happens. And there has to be some sort of joint
responsibility if you refuse to allow us to get in and do the
work once we identify a hazard and it is not timely. Because
every day that tree sits there, and the gentleman has been
sitting there for nine months, that is unacceptable. Because it
can fall any day.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I would start with Mr. Eldrige.
Mr. Eldrige. The thing I would add to what was just said is
accountability; that we are very clear on what the expected
outcome is. And if it is not brought about, we do something
about it.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Albrecht. I would just say continue to dialogue with
the cooperatives and the utilities, because if we are not
talking, we are not going to accomplish anything. And those
folks need to sit down and talk with us, listen to our
concerns. We need to listen to theirs.
I have always found that if two people are equally
informed, they seldom disagree. And we are not to that point
with them.
Mr. Blair. I think one of the things that needs to happen
is take many of the unnecessary steps out of the processes. If
we have a defined right-of-way and we are able to maintain that
right-of-way, and there are trees that are obviously within
that right-of-way, we should not have to wait for somebody to
come identify a tree and say this is in your right-of-way. We
should be able to go and maintain that right-of-way and remove
the tree.
You know, it is akin to if you get a building permit to
build your house, and you build your house; now do you have to
go back and get permission to do maintenance on it? It is to
the point of ridiculous. And especially at a point in time
where the budget money is not there. These people could
actually be out doing real work and progressing on other
avenues where they are also behind.
If you have a defined right-of-way, now if we violate that
right-of-way, there ought to be a penalty. But if we stay
within our right-of-way and within our agreed maintenance
procedures, we should not have to have somebody come out and
paint a tree for us to tell us that yes, it can be removed now.
Mr. Hutt. In talking with Forest Service people in our
area, they share our concerns and our frustration. And I think
some of the things that they would like to see changed are
limits, put some limits on which of their decisions are
appealable.
Also to streamline the process so that there is less
process and more action, so that their field people could
actually do work in the field, instead of all the planning and
the paperwork.
And also, I think the uniform requirements would be a good
solution, too.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Hutt, thank
you, gentlemen.
Any other questions of the panel? I want to thank all of
you for being here. Mr. Hutt, would you please say hi to the
King family and Pizza Works there in Custer?
Mr. Hutt. I sure will.
Mr. Radanovich. And again, thank you for all your
testimony. It is pretty valuable. And with that, you are
dismissed, and we will introduce the next panel.
Next is Mr. Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National
Forest System here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Holtrop, welcome to
the Subcommittee. Lots to talk about. But we will give you five
minutes to testify for this issue, and then we will open up the
dais for questions.
Again, if we can have order in the room, and keep the noise
down. Mr. Holtrop, if you would like to begin, that would be
wonderful.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittees. And thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide the Department's views on
the need for proper forest management on Federal rights-of-way
to ensure reliable electricity services.
The Department recognizes that electric utilities provide
an essential service that is closely tied to our nation's
economy and welfare. To meet both ecological and reliability
standards, it is essential that the Forest Service and
utilities work cooperatively to streamline and expedite the
management of vegetation near utility lines and facilities.
The Forest Service manages approximately 193 million acres
of national forest and grasslands in 42 states, as well as the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, managed under multiple-use and
sustained-yield principles. The Forest Service oversees a vast,
complex array of natural resources and opportunities.
Rights-of-way for electric transmission lines are one of
the many uses of national forest system lands. Presently there
are approximately 3,000 authorized electric transmission and
distribution facilities on the national forest and grasslands,
including about 1,300 rural electric facilities.
Rights-of-way for electric transmission lines are a
legitimate use of national forest system land. We have a
tremendous obligation and a great opportunity to work with the
utility companies, and through them, serve our rural and urban
communities. We see it as an important part of our mission.
One of the most significant challenges in the management of
electric transmission rights-of-way is the interference of
undesirable vegetation. In order to provide a dependable supply
of electricity, utilities must be able to manage vegetation
near their transmission and distribution lines and other
facilities to prevent blackouts and wildfires.
Proper and coordinated planning for right-of-way management
is critical for the Forest Service to expedite any approvals
necessary to allow permit holders to comply with standards for
vegetation management. Right-of-way operating plans developed
and agreed to by both the permit holders and the Forest Service
are key to streamlined approvals for effective actions for
rights-of-way management.
With an approved operating plan in place, permit holders
can take actions to manage undesirable vegetation and ensure a
dependable supply of electricity to the communities they serve.
Nationally, the Department of Agriculture, along with the
Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Edison Electric Institute, and Association of Shareholder-
Owned Electric Companies, will soon finalize a memorandum of
understanding that establishes a framework for a cooperative-
integrated vegetation management set of practices for electric
transmission rights-of-way. These same procedures could apply
to other utility companies operating on national forest system
lands.
We expect to make further progress in managing undesirable
vegetation in and adjacent to rights-of-way. As was mentioned
earlier, proper and coordinated planning for right-of-way
management is critical for the Forest Service to expedite any
approvals necessary to allow permit holders to comply with
standards for vegetation management.
Mr. Chairman, with the new authorities that we have been
given and the dedication and talent of the Federal Land
Management Agencies and our partners, we are confident that we
will make significant improvements in the management of
electric transmission rights-of-way. We will continue to work
with our utility partners to accomplish this. We appreciate
your support.
Now, as I have been listening, I decided I wanted to kind
of write down a few thoughts to respond to, and let you know
very explicitly what are some of the things that I am committed
to do today, and into the future, to ensure that rights-of-way
are managed properly and reliably for electric service.
First of all, I am committed to finalizing the MOU that I
referred to, and that was referred to in the earlier panel, as
well, to provide a consistent approach to vegetation management
across the national forests and grasslands.
I am also committed to working with the Subcommittees to
review the limited liability laws, regulations, and policies
that we have. And I think that there have been enough questions
raised on that that it would be useful for us to get together
and talk about some of the establishment of that limited
liability in law, and the regulations, and look for perhaps
some ways that we can improve the situation for all our sakes.
Third, I am committed to continuing to make changes in
order to be more effective and efficient, such as what we heard
is happening in Arizona, the work in Arizona. And as my full
written testimony talked about, what we are doing on the Plumas
National Forest in California, and some of the successes that
we are finding there, and some of the streamlined consultation
processes and other things that we can do. I am committed to
continue to work on those and find ways to be more effective
across the country.
I am also committed to providing the committee with a more
detailed assessment of some of the individual concerns that
have been raised in the testimony that we just heard, and to
provide actions to mitigate those concerns where appropriate.
And finally, I would like to say that I am committed to
continuing to dialog, to build relationships with, and to
obtain the pre-planning that is necessary for us to accomplish
the work that we are working together with the utilities, to do
that together, and to continue that dialogue effectively.
So thank you, and I look forward to any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Departments views
on the need for proper forest management on federal rights-of-way to
ensure reliable electricity services.
The Department recognizes that electric utilities provide an
essential service that is closely tied to our Nation's economy and
welfare. To meet both ecological and reliability standards, it is
essential that the Forest Service and utilities work cooperatively to
streamline and expedite the management of vegetation near utility lines
and facilities, including facilities on federal lands, in a timely and
efficient manner.
Overview
The USDA Forest Service manages approximately 193 million acres of
National Forests and Grasslands in 42 states, as well as the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, managed under multiple use and sustained
yield principles. In this context, the Forest Service oversees a vast,
complex array of natural resources and opportunities. Rights-of-way for
electric transmission lines are one of the many uses of National Forest
System lands. Presently, there are approximately 3,000 authorized
electric transmission and distribution facilities on the National
Forests and Grasslands, including about 1300 rural electric facilities.
Rights-of-way for electric transmission lines are a legitimate use
of National Forest System land. We have a tremendous obligation and a
great opportunity to work with the utility companies, and through them,
serve our rural and urban communities. We see it as an important part
of our mission as well as assisting in achieving one of our strategic
plan goals of helping meet energy resource needs.
Rights-Of-Way Management
One of the most significant challenges in the management of
electric transmission rights-of-way is the interference of undesirable
vegetation. In order to provide a dependable supply of electricity,
utilities must manage vegetation near their transmission and
distribution lines and other facilities to prevent blackouts and
wildfires, which can harm people, wildlife, habitat, and property.
Recognizing the importance of reliable electric service, Congress
made provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve electric
system reliability standards, including establishing vegetation
management standards. Moreover, Congress specified that federal land
management agencies responsible for approving rights-of-way for
electric transmission or distribution facilities located on federal
lands must expedite any approvals necessary to allow the owners or
operators of these facilities to comply with standards for vegetation
management, electric service restoration, and to resolve situations
that imminently endanger the reliability or safety of the facilities.
Actions can be taken to reduce the impacts of undesirable
vegetation on electric transmission rights-of-way. Utility companies
who hold a special use permit on National Forest System lands have the
authority to clear branches or tress on or adjacent to the right-of-way
that generally threatens safe transmission. In emergency situations
(i.e. after a wind, or ice storm or other extreme weather event) permit
holders may be allowed to take additional actions without prior
approval, provided notice is given to the Forest Service within 48
hours after the fact.
Proper and coordinated planning for right-of way management is
critical for the Forest Service to expedite any approvals necessary to
allow permit holders to comply with standards for vegetation
management. Right-of-way operating plans developed and agreed to by
both the permit holders and the Forest Service are key to streamlined
approvals for effective actions for rights-of-way management.
Operating plans outlining communication contact information, health
and safety standards and comprehensive maintenance operations for the
rights-of-way management assure both the permit holder and Forest
Service know what to expect when maintenance of rights-of-way are
needed. With an approved operating plan in place, permit holders can
take actions to manage undesirable vegetation and ensure a dependable
supply of electricity to the communities they serve. Typically,
notification from the permit holder for repair and maintenance
activities could then operate as follows: Routine maintenance would
require advanced notice for ground disturbance and tree removal,
emergency repairs would require notice as soon as possible, and major
actions would require substantial advance notice in order for the
Forest Service to comply with applicable environmental law.
Cooperative Approach to Rights-Of-Way Management
Nationally, the U.S. Department Agriculture along with the U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Edison Electric Institute--an association of shareholder-owned
electric companies--will soon finalize a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that establishes a programmatic framework for developing a
cooperative integrated vegetation management (IVM) set of practices for
electric transmission rights-of-way. We anticipate these same
procedures could apply to all utility companies operating on National
Forest System lands.
The objective of this MOU is to manage vegetation and the
environment to balance benefits of control, costs, worker and public
health and safety, environmental quality, and regulatory compliance.
The MOU is intended to facilitate the following goals:
<bullet> Maintain reliable electric service;
<bullet> Maintain power line safety;
<bullet> Reduce the likelihood of wildfires;
<bullet> Protect the soil and water resources;
<bullet> Reduce the risk to human health;
<bullet> Streamline administrative processes for approving right-
of-way maintenance practices;
<bullet> Promote the use of local species in re-vegetation
projects;
<bullet> Encourage outreach to educate the public in general about
the use and acceptance of integrated vegetation management on electric
transmission rights-of-way;
<bullet> Facilitate prompt evaluation and mitigation or
eradication of dangerous right-of-way conditions; and
<bullet> Incorporate best management practices, where appropriate,
into the terms and conditions of authorizations for electric
transmission line rights-of-way.
In addition to the development of the National MOU, the Forest
Service and electric utilities are working cooperatively to promote
sound management within rights-of-way for electric transmission. Some
examples are as follows:
<bullet> In October 2005, the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management in cooperation with the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council, Western Governor's Association, and the Council
of Western State Foresters, sponsored the ``Promoting Effective
Collaborations Between Electric Utilities and Land Management
Agencies'' workshop. The workshop objective was to explore
responsibilities, expectations and issues in order to benefit public
lands while maintaining the reliability of the electric transmission
system. This workshop has helped build relationships between electric
utilities and the federal land managers as well as establish a mutually
agreed upon framework for operations.
<bullet> The National Forests Supervisor's Council of Arizona, the
Arizona Public Service Commission (APS), the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) and the Salt River Project (SRP) have formed a
Utility Vegetation Management (UVM) working group to establish
guidelines for utility corridor maintenance. The guidelines address
such issues as the development of clearing standards for the separation
needed between power lines and vegetation to prevent outages and fires.
The UVM working group has almost completed these guidelines for the
preparation of individual operating plans. Once clearing standards are
finalized in an operating plan, the utility company will be able to use
those same standards to meet their reliability requirements.
<bullet> Working collaboratively in California, the Forest Service
and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) outlined a course of
action that reduces the number of authorizations by combining
individual permits into master authorizations for each Forest,
standardized permit terms, conditions and operating plans between
Forests. The process was piloted in the spring of 2005 on the Plumas
National Forest. Based on the successful results of the pilot run, the
program was implemented on four more Forests. The results are promising
due in large part to PG&E's strong commitment to sound land stewardship
practices and an extensive knowledge of resource issues and challenges
related to utility management.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)
We along with other federal land managers continue to assess the
existing designation of electric transmission facilities and corridors
and plan for future developments. After enactment of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, Congress requested the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy,
and the Interior and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality to prepare a report assessing the status of electric
transmission and distribution corridors and transmission facilities on
federal land.
The Forest Service contributed the following specific information
to the November 2005 Report to Congress:
<bullet> The Forest Service has designated 317 electric
transmission and distribution corridors through National Forest land
management plans (Forest Plans).
<bullet> The Forest Service is proposing to designate an
additional 44 electric transmission and distribution corridors through
Forest Plan revisions or amendments.
<bullet> The Forest Service is assessing 13 applications for
electric transmission facilities.
<bullet> A total of 1,803 electric transmission and distribution
rights-of-way are expected to be reauthorized over the next 15 years.
<bullet> The delays in processing both reauthorization of electric
transmission rights-of-way and designation of proposed electric
transmission corridors under FLPMA result from legal challenges, delays
in other federal agency approvals, request for extended public comment
periods, the complexity of some requests, and competing priorities
affecting staff resources and workloads.
In March 2006, the Forest Service promulgated regulations to
recover the costs of processing special use applications and monitoring
compliance with special use authorizations in part to provide
additional resources to respond effectively to the increase in rights-
of-way applications and renewals. Taking this action should provide
more effective management of rights-of-way.
Additional efficiencies are expected through the development and
completion of the West-Wide Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement that is being conducted pursuant to Section 368 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. This study will gather and interpret
information on all energy corridors--oil, gas, hydrogen pipelines, and
electric transmission and distribution facilities--in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. A similar study will be conducted for the
remaining contiguous United States by August 2009.
Conclusion
The Forest Service working with holders of authorizations of
electric transmission rights-of-way expects to make further progress in
managing undesirable vegetation in and adjacent to federally managed
rights-of-way. As was mentioned earlier, proper and coordinated
planning for right-of way management is critical for the Forest Service
to expedite any approvals necessary to allow permit holders to comply
with standards for vegetation management.
Mr. Chairman, with the new authorities that we have been given and
the dedication and talent of the Federal land management agencies and
our partners, we are confident that we will make significant
improvements in the management of electric transmission rights-of-way.
We will continue to work with our utility partners, other federal,
state, and local partners to accomplish this. We appreciate your
support. I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may
have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. I appreciate your
testimony.
You know, everything is just kind of shortened to the point
the testimony that we heard from the previous panel, it makes
us look stupid, it makes your agency look foolish. It just
makes the Federal Government look like idiots.
How do you suggest changing this thing so that we don't
have to listen to this kind of testimony or get these kinds of
complaints any more? Is it going to be an MOU? Is it going to
take legislative change, as well, do you think?
Mr. Holtrop. I think there is a multitude of approaches
that we could take, and we ought to take every one of them that
is going to be effective for us.
I do believe that the MOU that we are talking about has a
great deal of potential to be very effective for us, the one
that we are working on with Edison Electric. I also believe
that some of the other work that is already being done in pilot
approaches, such as what is being done on the Plumas National
Forest in California with PG&E, has potential to be utilized in
other places.
So I think there are things that we can be doing and should
be doing administratively. There may be some things, as we talk
about, for instance, the limited liability, and we have the
opportunity to express what some of the basis in law is for the
limited liability policies that we have in place. Maybe there
are some legislative solutions that we may need to take a look
at.
Mr. Radanovich. How about firing people that postpone and
push off things for five years, that should be done
immediately?
Mr. Holtrop. If there is a performance problem, we need to
take care of the performance problems, there is no question
about that. With some of the issues that we are talking about,
if there is a very small activity, such as the, I believe it
was on the Umatilla with the removal of a single tree, that it
took nine months. I would like to think that that is an
extraordinary circumstance, it doesn't happen all the time. But
if it does, I agree that is not acceptable, it is not
appropriate.
If there is some reason that the tree should not be removed
for some other purpose, at the very least there ought to be an
answer far sooner than that. But at the same time, I think
there are larger issues and larger projects that are being
proposed that are going to take time from time to time.
And when you are talking about sometimes needing a three-
to five-year lead time for getting something completed, that
three to five years should include the recognition that once a
utility recognizes that is a project that they want to have
completed, and they let us know that, that three to five years
gives us time to plan for when we are going to begin the NEPA
process, to do the NEPA process, and then get the project
completed. And that all ought to be included in that.
And if it is like a relocation of a right-of-way or a new
right-of-way, a new transmission line corridor or something
like that, those type of timeframes are probably going to
occur. But if it is regular treatment of vegetation for the
management of an existing right-of-way, again, I believe a
great deal of the solution is in preparing jointly prepared
management plans for those rights-of-way that establish what
are the standards, and what do we need to do to be able to move
forward.
Mr. Radanovich. Maybe you can answer on the pole hole heard
around the country, as we heard earlier today. What kind of
culture could possibly be in the Forest Service that would
allow a staffperson make somebody wait that long to dig a
posthole a mile and a half from the creek and 12 miles from the
river, thinking that that posthole might have an environmental
impact on an endangered species? Is there a culture in the
Forest Service that promotes this kind of stuff?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't believe there is a culture in the
Forest Service that promotes that kind of stuff. I believe we
do have an agency of about 35,000 employees, and of course
there are some people who have some pretty strong opinions
across the spectrum. And we need to find ways to make sure we
are valuing those opinions. But we also have to have an
opportunity to have processes that avoid those types of
circumstances.
One of the things that I committed to, and I will commit to
again, is that some of those individual specific instances,
such as that one, I am not prepared to answer what happened in
that particular case. I will look into it, and I will be happy
to share with you what I find out, and what we will have to do
about it.
Mr. Radanovich. I certainly would appreciate it. How do I
do this?
Mr. Walden. You are the Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Mrs. Napolitano.
Ms. Napolitano. Either one of us are going to add time, so
it doesn't make any difference who goes first.
What is the Forest Service Agency's wide guidance for
vegetative management? Is there something in writing that
specifies, that directs, that communicates to all the different
Forest Service Agencies how to deal with them? Is there a
standardization? Is there a guideline, a manual, anything? What
do you have?
Mr. Holtrop. We do have a manual, and we have handbooks.
And there is a wide array of vegetation management treatments.
If the question is particularly focused on is there
guidance, national policy for the management of vegetation in
and around power line corridors----
Ms. Napolitano. That is the question.
Mr. Holtrop.--and power lines, yes, there is national
guidance. But at the same time, we are recognizing that when we
provide national guidance for 193 million acres in 42 states,
that a power line corridor on the Ocala National Forest in
Florida is very different than a power line corridor in the
Hela National Forest. And we need to take that into account.
But at the same time, as the previous panel talked about,
and I agree, that there ought to be some things that are
consistent from place to place. But I also believe that there
are some things that make sense for us to allow local land
managers to make decisions that have enough flexibility to make
decisions that make sense in a local location, as well.
Resources vary from place to place. Endangered species vary
from place to place. And so I don't think a standard practice
that works across the whole nation is necessarily the only
solution that we can have.
I do believe that we can provide some national guidance
that takes care of many of the types of concerns that we heard
about.
Ms. Napolitano. So the one-size-fits-all standardization
might not be an answer; it might be a worsening of the problem.
Mr. Holtrop. If we take it to an extreme, it could possibly
become more of a problem. If we don't allow local utilities and
land managers to make decisions that make sense locally by
having been too restrictive on one size fits all on a national
level.
At the same time, I do believe there are some, and there
are existing national standards that should apply to the
management of rights-of-way on the national forests.
Ms. Napolitano. In listening to the testimony in the prior
panel, it seems that major complaints are that regulations are
vague and inconsistent, and that the agencies are slow to
respond to the permits. And again I pose the question to you,
is funding an issue? Or is it that the Forest Service has no
comprehensive guidance for this vegetation management?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, as in everything, if there were more
money, we could do more things. But at the same time, one of
the steps that we have taken earlier this year is to do a
regulation for cost recovery, in which we will be able to
recover the cost of permit administration and permit monitoring
for special use permits across the board. And that should free
up some additional resources available to us, as well.
But I think it is imperative upon us as an agency, in an
era of fiscal restraint, for us to find ways to be efficient
and cost-effective in the way that we expend scarce Federal
dollars. And I believe the previous panel had several
suggestions that make sense for us to work more closely with
the utilities to accomplish some of those types of things.
Again, I believe we can accomplish a great deal by pre-
planning together what the right-of-way management strategies
ought to be for a corridor. By doing that, we develop
relationships, we develop communication strategies. And I think
that can go a long way toward resolving many of these
conflicts. And I am committed to continuing to work to make
sure that we are moving in that direction.
Ms. Napolitano. Now, some of these permits, they cost the
utilities money, right? To go after some of the permits? Or is
it a free service?
Mr. Holtrop. The permits for the transmission lines and the
corridors?
Ms. Napolitano. To go in and clean up, to do any kind of
permitting along the rights-of-way.
Mr. Holtrop. The maintenance costs, the development of the
environmental documents, et cetera, are borne by the utility.
Am I answering your question?
Ms. Napolitano. Yes, to a certain degree, because you kind
of hit a nerve about looking at fee-based services, is what I
am listening. And what are those going to be, and where are
they going to be? And are you going to regain some of the cost
doing fee-basing of permitting? What areas are you looking at?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, the policy is going to allow us to
collect that for special use permits across the board. Again, I
am not sure I am answering the question that you are asking.
But what it would allow us to do is to recover the cost, the
government's cost of preparing the permit, and of monitoring
the permit. And by doing so, that will help supplement some of
the existing resources that we have available to work in those
places. Again, as the earlier panel indicated, there are some
places where there just are not the people necessary to
accomplish the work that they feel is necessary.
So I think it is incumbent upon us to find ways to get that
funding. It is incumbent upon us to work more closely with our
partners, the utilities, to accomplish the work that needs to
be done.
Ms. Napolitano. How badly or how heavily are you going to
be impacted by the reduction of, what is it, $481 million? Let
us see, what am I looking at here? By fuel reduction of $491
million for hazardous fuels reduction.
Mr. Holtrop. We continue to make progress in the number of
acres of vegetation that we are treating in each year. Again,
in an era of fiscal restraint, we put together a budget that we
feel reflects the full array of resources needs, and most
accurately reflects what we should be doing, given the
resources that are available to us.
As I have mentioned, in any resource program, more funding
would certainly allow us to do more work. But at the same time,
I think we have a responsibility to find ways to accomplish as
much work as we are able to accomplish with the funds that are
available to us.
Ms. Napolitano. I am still harping on the same question. If
you are going to reduce services, to be able to cut down, are
you going to recoup those services by increasing the fees for
permitting or whatever else, it does not quite make sense. If
we have been doing this for eons, for decades, would providing
the service along with the utilities' assistance, et cetera,
for the protection of a nation's power delivery, what is going
on, sir?
Mr. Holtrop. I think there are maybe a couple of
circumstances that I am thinking about, that I hope are
responsive to your question.
One is we need to recognize there are differences in terms
of the payment for the right to have a permit on the national
forest system lands. In some cases, some utilities pay a fee
for the permit; other utilities, such as rural electric
cooperatives, don't pay a fee for the actual special use
permit. The cost that they have is for the maintenance and the
provision, and it goes all the way back, again as the earlier
panel talked about, the historical reason for the rural
electric facilities. So the purpose for the payment of the
fees, there is different circumstances there.
What the Forest Service is doing is modifying the fee
structure for processing our special use permits, and that is
based on Congressional direction to develop a program to
improve the administration of our agency's special use program.
And so under this new rule, the Forest Service will collect
fees from some permit applicants to recover the costs of
processing and administering special use authorizations,
consistent with the recommendations made by the General
Accounting Office. So we are responding to Congressional
direction to have a more improved administration of our special
use program, and we are modifying that fee structure to allow
us to process those permits and collect the cost to the
government in order to both process those permits and monitor
them.
Ms. Napolitano. Are you, in essence, saying that the
reduction of those $760 million authorized by Congress under
the Healthy Forest Act is the authorities given to you to be
able to do that? Is that correct? Is that what you are alluding
to?
Mr. Holtrop. I am sorry, I am not sure what the $760
million----
Ms. Napolitano. Well, are the Forest Service and the
funding for hazardous fuels reduction at the $760 million level
authorized by Congress under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
of 2003?
Mr. Holtrop. They are different. There is not a
relationship between the hazardous fuels funding and this
approach to try to better fund our special use administration
program. Hazardous fuels funding, the request for hazardous
fuels funding is a request that we made based on a recognition
of what land management needs are across the spectrum of the
national forest system for treating the vegetations that are
hazardous, and this other approach is just to improve the
management of our special use program.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. I thought there was a nexus
there, and apparently is, maybe in my mind. But then again,
that is another question.
When you were talking about getting information
disseminated to different agencies by email to expedite the
process, whereas the utilities would be able to move along on
their removal of whatever brush or dead trees there are, what
capability, or do you have adequate infrastructure for
computers at all these different areas to be able to receive
the information to carry out those orders?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, we do have an email system where all
employees have email capabilities at each of their desks. So
yes, we have the infrastructure to send an email to all
employees. We can do that.
Ms. Napolitano. And the last bit of that is, what would you
think of standardizing training for all your agency heads to
understand at the same time, the same message?
Mr. Holtrop. I think that that is a good idea. We have that
included in the MOU we are working on with Edison Electric.
That is a part of that. I think there is never a situation in
which, as circumstances change, as the world changes, all of
our leaders throughout the Forest Service can always benefit
from continued training. That is something that we are
committing to doing, and will need to continue to do.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joel, I want to go
through this, because there is sort of, as I hear it, apples
and oranges.
The $760 million that my colleague from California
references in authorization was in the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act for thinning projects and hazardous fuels
removal, correct?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Mr. Walden. OK. I am assuming, and I know you didn't
support that legislation when it came through the committee or
the House, but I think that is the 760 you are talking about
that is the concern you have, that maybe the Administration
hasn't fully funded the authorization that you opposed. But
that is another issue.
But my understanding is since 2000, your agency has had a
quadrupling of funding in this area.
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. A fourfold increase, a fourfold increase in the
funding for this area since 2000. So there has been a
quadrupling. And currently the funding request for hazardous
fuels reduction work fully funds at $760 million, correct? But
it is not all new money.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes. I am not prepared to answer that.
Mr. Walden. That since 2000, you have quadrupled the amount
of acreage as well, haven't you?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, both through the use of hazardous fuels
funds, plus we have prioritized other vegetation management
programs to be focused in areas that most need treatment.
Mr. Walden. And that is where you have brought other money
in within the budget. I mean, there is a bit of an argument
here about whether you have shifted the existing funds over to
help meet that full $760 million authorization. And I probably
concur with my friend from California that more money could be
spent under that authorization, and back to other programs. But
indeed, I think you are at the full $760 million the way you
account for it.
But in any case, it is four times what was being done prior
to 2000.
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Walden. And quadrupled in terms of acreage treated.
None of that, however, has to do with the rights-of-way issue
for power lines, because they pay for that treatment, correct?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct. The only nexus between those
would be, as the previous panel was talking about, there are
circumstances where we have large areas of bug-killed timber,
in which there is a concern that the forest health condition
might create a----
Mr. Walden. In those areas that are adjacent to the power
lines, are you failing to treat those because of the lack of
funds?
Mr. Holtrop. As again the previous panel mentioned, there
are areas in Arizona, there are areas in Montana, there are
areas in Oregon and throughout the country--Colorado and
California--in which we have large acreages of bug-killed
timber.
Mr. Walden. I understand that. But are those adjacent to
the rights-of-way?
Mr. Holtrop. Some of them are adjacent to rights-of-way,
and some of them----
Mr. Walden. OK, here is what I would like to get, is a list
of those that are adjacent to rights-of-way where you lack the
money to do treatment that your agency believes those areas
need to be treated.
Mr. Holtrop. We will work on getting you that answer, yes.
Mr. Walden. I mean, because if that is an issue, we need to
know about it. I am assuming you have the funding, the ability
to set priorities. And if that is the priority area to treat,
the budget you have requested should give you the funds to
treat those areas.
Mr. Holtrop. We certainly have the ability to prioritize
where we do the work, within the budget that we have requested.
Mr. Walden. And then I guess I want to go to this issue of
strict liability. And you and I have discussed this specific
issue before in Cascade Locks and elsewhere. But I think it is
a legitimate one, where a power company co-op or other says we
need to go do this. In our best judgment, there is an issue
here with a tree that is technically outside of our right-of-
way, but taller than 30 feet, that could fall into the lines.
And in this one case, and I know it may be an isolated case,
but nine months later the tree is still there, and the decision
hasn't come yet.
Is it really fair, if it has sort of been before your
agency for nine months, that a strict liability provision would
be applied to the power company if that tree falls and ignites
a fire this summer?
Mr. Holtrop. The circumstances at Cascade Locks and the
many circumstances that we talked about in the previous panel,
that we heard about in the previous panel, do indeed cause me
to say I think the next step on this is for us to work closely
with the Subcommittees to understand the FLPMA, which requires
us to have the liability for high risk, especially if this is
on public lands. And the relationship between that legal
requirement that we have and the regulations that are in place,
it is that 1976 law, so for the past 30 years. And perhaps
there are some areas for improvement.
Mr. Walden. I know your agency has been, you know, of late
very progressive in looking at, for example, ISO standards, ISO
9000 standards. Isn't this an area where that would make sense?
It just seems to me, Joel, that you all have the brain
power and the ability to sit down and say when it comes to a
right-of-way, here is what we want to the power company, here
is your authority to meet this standard. And then you audit it
once in a while to make sure they are not out, you know,
cutting trees 200 yards back and selling them to somebody, and
I don't think they are going to do that.
My point is it seems to me that a lot of money and effort
is spent, and a lot of delay occurs, that could be catastrophic
in nature over these single-tree issues or things like that,
that I would think that once you have done the NEPA for a new
right-of-way, then there ought to be a plan in place that
allows them to maintain that right-of-way to a common-sense
standard, and allow them to be certified to do that or
something.
That frees up your people then to do more meaningful work.
I mean, arguing over a post hole 12 miles from a stream with
endangered fish, a mile from the nearest creek, doesn't seem to
be a very productive use of taxpayer resources. Or, for that
matter, the ratepayer cost, because that is the other side of
this equation. If we can hold cost of power rates down, and we
can get your folks involved in the work that is so needed
elsewhere that will have more dramatic effect. Is that
something you think you can move toward?
Mr. Holtrop. I think what you are saying makes a great deal
of sense. And I think it is very consistent with the theme in
my testimony, as well, in which I believe pre-planning--there
are aspects of land management that we in the Forest Service
have some expertise in, and are able to make some reasoned
input into what is the right way to treat a piece of land.
By the same token, we are not the experts in electricity
transmission. And so it is truly a partnership that needs to be
formed between us and the utilities. And I really believe that
if we do the type of pre-planning for these corridors, we can
resolve many of these issues very expeditiously.
Mr. Walden. This Subcommittee has enjoyed working with you
and your agency folks to solve a lot of problems over the last
few years, and I have every confidence that, given your
leadership and that of the agency, this one can be addressed in
a thoughtful, meaningful, and effective way, too. So I
appreciate your willingness to stay and meet with these folks,
and see if we can't get something going.
I hope you will get back to us and let us know how that
process unfolds, and what is possible. And if you need
legislative changes somehow to give you additional authorities
or whatever to bring some common sense to our land management
laws, do let us know. We are happy to take a look at that as a
subcommittee. Because I think we can find a balanced and better
way than we are operating today, and I am sure you concur on
that notion.
Mr. Holtrop. I do. And I appreciate your support, and look
forward to working with the committee and working with the
members of the previous panel, and our partners in utilities
across the country, to accomplish those things.
Mr. Walden. As always, we appreciate your testimony and
help. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Walden. And thank you, Mr.
Holtrop, for your testimony. Now let us work together and solve
this problem.
With that, again, thank you. And this hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>