Hearings to examine the Section 106 consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act.

1[Senate Hearing 119-209]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-20956                      THE SECTION 106 CONSULTATION7                       PROCESS UNDER THE NATIONAL8                       HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT910=======================================================================1112                                HEARING1314                               BEFORE THE1516                              COMMITTEE ON17                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES18                          UNITED STATES SENATE1920                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2122                             FIRST SESSION2324                               __________2526                            OCTOBER 29, 20252728                               __________2930                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3132                       Printed for the use of the33               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3435        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3637                               ______3839                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE404161-931                    WASHINGTON : 20264243               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4445                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman46JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico47JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon48STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington49TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii50DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine51JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada52BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado53CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California54LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona55JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota5657                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director58            Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel59           Jacey Albaugh, Majority Professional Staff Member60                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director61                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel62        Maya Hermann, Minority Natural Resources Policy Director6364                            C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------6768                           OPENING STATEMENTS6970                                                                   Page71Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     172Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from73  New Mexico.....................................................     37475                               WITNESSES7677Merritt, Dr. Chris, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer.....     478McDonald, Andy, Environmental Compliance Manager, Montana-Dakota79  Utilities Company..............................................    1480Concho, Steven, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Pueblo of81  Acoma, New Mexico; Board Member, National Association of Tribal82  Historic Preservation Officers.................................    218384          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED8586ACHP Foundation:87    Statement for the Record.....................................    7788Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:89    Article entitled ``Section 106 Success Story: Innovative90      Approach Is Model for Cultural Resource Management''.......    7391    Article entitled ``Section 106 Success Story: Spaceport92      America: Commitment to Balance 21st and 16th Centuries''...    7593American Cultural Resources Association:94    Statement for the Record.....................................    8095Andrascik, Hannah:96    Letter for the Record........................................    8597Association of American Railroads:98    Statement for the Record.....................................    8699Association of Oregon Archaeologists:100    Letter for the Record........................................    93101Boston, Christine:102    Letter for the Record........................................    95103Britt, Kelly:104    Letter for the Record........................................    96105Brooks, Allyson:106    Statement for the Record.....................................    97107Burke, Adrienne:108    Letter for the Record........................................   101109Burke Williams, Amanda:110    Letter for the Record........................................   100111Caldwell, Aaron:112    Letter for the Record........................................   102113Chuipka, Jason:114    Letter for the Record........................................   105115Click, Rosie:116    Letter for the Record........................................   106117Concho, Steven:118    Opening Statement............................................    21119    Written Testimony............................................    23120    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    62121Cowlitz Indian Tribe:122    Statement for the Record.....................................   107123Ellyson, Laura:124    Letter for the Record........................................   110125Evo, Julie:126    Statement for the Record.....................................   112127Falls, Eva:128    Comments for the Record......................................   115129Fort Belknap Indian Community:130    Statement for the Record.....................................   116131Friedberg, Dara:132    Communication for the Record.................................   121133Heinrich, Hon. Martin:134    Opening Statement............................................     3135Higgins, Kelly:136    Letter for the Record........................................   122137Hillen, Beth:138    Letter for the Record........................................   123139Huddleston, Loren:140    Communication for the Record.................................   125141Hynes, Johanna:142    Letter for the Record........................................   126143Igiugig Village Council:144    Letter for the Record........................................   127145Kannady, John:146    Communication for the Record.................................   130147Kawerak, Inc.:148    Letter for the Record........................................   131149Kear, Matthew:150    Letter for the Record........................................   133151Kessler, Dean:152    Letter for the Record........................................   134153Klamath Water Users Association:154    Statement for the Record.....................................   135155Laguna Pueblo:156    Statement for the Record.....................................   140157Lee, Hon. Mike:158    Opening Statement............................................     1159    Washington Post editorial entitled ``In Defense of the White160      House Ballroom'' published on October 25, 2025.............    47161Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians:162    Statement for the Record.....................................   143163Martel, Mason:164    Letter for the Record........................................   146165Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe:166    Letter for the Record from David Weeden, Tribal Historic167      Preservation Officer.......................................   147168    Statement for the Record from Brian Weeden, Chairman.........   153169McDonald, Andy:170    Opening Statement............................................    14171    Written Testimony............................................    16172    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    57173Merritt, Dr. Chris:174    Opening Statement............................................     4175    Written Testimony............................................     7176    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    51177Meyers, Maureen:178    Letter for the Record........................................   156179Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe:180    Statement for the Record.....................................   157181Miller, Derek:182    Communication for the Record.................................   162183National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers:184    Statement for the Record.....................................   163185National Congress of American Indians:186    Statement for the Record.....................................   168187National Trust for Historic Preservation:188    Statement for the Record.....................................   179189Navajo Nation:190    Letter for the Record........................................   185191Nietering, Nathan:192    Communication for the Record.................................   187193Oregon Water Resources Congress:194    Statement for the Record.....................................   188195Peresolak, Kate:196    Letter for the Record........................................   192197Preservation Action:198    Statement for the Record.....................................   193199Pueblo de Cochiti:200    Statement for the Record.....................................   197201Quinault Indian Nation:202    Letter for the Record........................................   202203Rathbone, Stuart:204    Letter for the Record........................................   204205Receveur, Haley:206    Letter for the Record........................................   207207Reid, Dawn:208    Letter for the Record........................................   208209Slick, Katherine:210    Statement for the Record.....................................   210211Snoqualmie Tribe:212    Letter for the Record........................................   212213Society for American Archaeology:214    Statement for the Record.....................................   216215Society for Historical Archaeology:216    Executive Summary of Statement for the Record................   223217    Full Statement for the Record................................   225218Steel Manufacturers Association:219    Letter for the Record........................................   230220Swanton, Kristin:221    Letter for the Record........................................   232222Terry, Matthew:223    Letter for the Record........................................   233224Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska:225    Letter for the Record........................................   234226Tohono O'odham Nation:227    Statement for the Record.....................................   236228United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund:229    Statement for the Record.....................................   239230Village of Solomon (AK):231    Letter for the Record........................................   245232Walzer, Mariah:233    Letter for the Record........................................   248234Ward, Herbert Henry:235    Letter for the Record........................................   249236Welch, Elizabeth L.:237    Letter for the Record........................................   250238Wellman, Judith:239    Letter for the Record........................................   251240Williams, Levi:241    Letter for the Record........................................   252242Woods, Erin:243    Letter for the Record........................................   253244Young, Jessica:245    Letter for the Record........................................   255246Ysleta del Sur Pueblo:247    Letter for the Record........................................   257248Zuercher, Shannon:249    Letter for the Record........................................   259250251                      THE SECTION 106 CONSULTATION252                       PROCESS UNDER THE NATIONAL253                       HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT254255                              ----------256257                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025258259                                       U.S. Senate,260                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,261                                                    Washington, DC.262    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in Room263SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman264of the Committee, presiding.265266              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,267                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH268269    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Good270morning and welcome.271    At today's hearing, we are going to examine the272consultation process that takes place pursuant to Section 106273of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Congress274enacted the statute in 1966 to ensure that the Federal275Government would give due consideration to preserving America's276historical artifacts with appropriate stakeholders. This277section of NHPA is itself purely procedural, and as such, it278requires government officials to undertake a specific process,279but doesn't mandate any specified outcome. In that regard, it's280similar to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which281directs a process, not a result, and which the Supreme Court282recently, in its Seven County decision, returned to a right-283sized role in federal policymaking. Today, we will consider the284scope of Section 106 of NHPA to ensure that it plays the role285that Congress intended when NHPA was enacted.286    We will be hearing from three witnesses today to better287understand these issues. They are, first, Dr. Chris Merritt,288the State Historic Preservation Officer for the State of Utah.289Second, Mr. Andy McDonald, the Environmental Compliance Manager290for Montana-Dakota Utilities Company. And finally, Mr. Steven291Concho, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pueblo292of Acoma. Welcome to each of you.293    When a law written to protect our past starts to block our294future, it can be worth examining where we are and how we got295here, and how we might find a better balance and a better way296forward. The National Historic Preservation Act was written in2971966 to prevent places of genuine historical value from being298wiped out before anyone even had the chance to speak up or to299identify a relevant consideration. Few, if any, would dispute300that purpose. We ought to protect the places that show where we301came from and who we are. But over the years, a narrow302procedural safeguard has evolved into a sprawling,303unpredictable process that now delays some of the very projects304our country needs to build and maintain that story. Section 106305has within it a consultation process that has become more like306a maze without a map. Agencies, developers, and even307preservation officers often don't know where the boundaries lie308or how long the path with be. That confusion is showing up all309over the country and the uncertainty it sows has consequences310for everyone.311    The Royal Slope Solar project in Washington is now three312years behind schedule. The Bonanza Solar project in Nevada has313been under construction for nearly three years. The Cape Wind314and Vineyard Wind projects in Massachusetts each faced long315delays before they could move forward. The Great Lakes Tunnel316project in Michigan, which would improve an important energy317link across the Upper Midwest, has spent years caught in back-318and-forth reviews. Ironically, this project began because the319state insisted the existing pipeline was unsafe and that it320needed to be buried for protection. But once the tunnel was321proposed, the ``area of potential effects,'' as the statutory322language directs us to inquire into, became so broad that every323step triggered a new consultation. That, in turn, broadened the324scope, and the broadened scope has added roughly four years to325the schedule of the project. In Oregon, the Department of326Forestry used most of its planning funds on heritage surveys327required under Section 106 instead of the wildfire work those328dollars were meant to support.329    These are not just the priorities of one particular330political party or another that we are talking about. This331affects projects all over the country, supported by people of332many, many different backgrounds. They include solar and wind333projects that my friends on the other side of the aisle would334very much like to move forward. And yet, they all run into the335same consultation process that has grown so broad--and at times336inconsistent--that it hinders and in some cases outright blocks337projects, even though they may enjoy support from both338political parties and from people at every point along the339ideological continuum.340    My home State of Utah has shown how we can recalibrate and341achieve a balance acceptable to everyone. Our state historic342preservation office has digitized records, created clear343expectations, and kept consultation moving efficiently. Utah344protects what is genuinely historic while allowing much-needed345projects that will benefit its citizens to move forward in a346timely manner. A law meant to safeguard our shared national347heritage should not become an instrument of paralysis. Congress348can preserve what is worth remembering without turning every349permit into an archeological expedition. The purpose of this350law is and was always to protect what matters, not to make351action impossible. Preserving our heritage should help us build352wisely, but it should not and must not keep us from building at353all. That is the balance this hearing is about. That's the type354of balance we are hoping to be able to find. Exploring ways to355protect the story of where we have been without making it356impossible to build what comes next.357    And now, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Senator358Heinrich.359360          OPENGING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,361                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO362363    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.364    The National Historic Preservation Act says something very365simple: before we build something we should know if there is an366important piece of our nation's history or culture in the area367where we are planning to build. And if there is, we should try368to figure out if we can avoid damaging it. Sometimes, damage369can't be avoided, and sometimes, the project being built is370important enough that damage to a historic resource is a trade-371off that we choose to make. The NHPA allows for that, but we372should at least check before we do irreversible damage to our373national heritage. We can and must build the energy374infrastructure our economy and our climate need while also375preserving our history and our heritage. We can do both.376    Our kids and our grandkids deserve to know where they come377from, and we can't tell the story of our nation without378protecting the places that literally tell those stories.379Sometimes those places are a historic building or a historic380district. Sometimes those places are a valley or a mesa or a381mountain. In my State of New Mexico, Mount Taylor dominates the382horizon of central and western New Mexico, rising 5,000 feet383from the desert below to a peak of above 11,000 feet. It is384visible from nearly 100 miles away and it is sacred to at least385eight tribes in New Mexico and Arizona.386    Mount Taylor and its surrounding mesas are a traditional387cultural property, and the impact of development on it should388be carefully considered before permits are issued. And that's389what the National Historic Preservation Act requires. Without390the NHPA, federal agencies could allow new development on this391mountain without ever considering its impact on the religious392practices and the traditions of neighboring tribal communities.393Mount Taylor is listed on the State Register of Historic Places394as a traditional cultural property, and that means that395projects there get more scrutiny than other places in our396state. But that's as it should be because of the significance397of Mount Taylor to communities across our state.398    There is no perfect law on the books, and we should always399look for ways to make processes like Section 106 consultation400more efficient and more effective. I am confident we can do401that while also protecting the places, even the stories, that402have forged our national heritage. I am equally confident we403can't do any of this without staff at the agencies that process404permits for projects on federal lands. Our public land agencies405have already lost more than 20 percent of their staff to early406retirements, buyouts, and we are expecting layoffs at the land407management agencies in the coming weeks that will make this408even worse.409    It doesn't matter what kind of permit you are looking for,410whether it's oil or gas, or grazing, or road construction, or411recreation; if the desk your permit application has landed on412doesn't have a human behind it, you are not going to get your413permit. We can tweak and reform laws all we want, but414fundamentally, until we have adequate staff at the agencies415that process permits, we will continue to see frustratingly416long permitting times. And as I have said a number of times417now, we can't do permitting reform if the administration418persists in ignoring the fundamental laws. That is just as true419for Section 106 agreements as it is for oil and gas permits. We420absolutely have to fix these issues alongside process421improvements if we are serious about permitting reform.422    And finally, I would point out that there are three423buildings in this city that the National Historic Preservation424Act does not apply to--the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the425White House--and we have all seen what is going on at the White426House right now--to our house.427    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about428these issues, and I am incredibly pleased to introduce Mr.429Steven Concho from Acoma Pueblo, New Mexico. Mr. Concho is a430member of the Pueblo of Acoma, located in the western part of431our state. He has served for nearly 15 years now in the432Pueblo's Office of Historic Preservation, including for the433past five years as the Pueblo's Tribal Historic Preservation434Officer, or THPO. Mr. Concho also represents the Four Corners435Region on the Board of Directors for the National Association436of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, where he advocates437for the protection of tribal cultural heritage and the438advancement of tribal preservation programs nationwide.439    In his role as THPO, Mr. Concho is dedicated to ensuring440the protection, preservation, and continued vitality of Acoma's441ancestral lands and the broader Acoma cultural province for442future generations. His work emphasizes both safeguarding443sacred places and promoting meaningful tribal participation in444federal and state preservation processes. He is passionate445about community education, and strives to inspire younger446generations to pursue careers in archaeology, anthropology, and447cultural resource management, ensuring that the work of448preservation continues under future Acoma leaders. Welcome, Mr.449Concho, and thank you to all of our witnesses for lending us450your expertise this morning on this incredibly salient topic.451    The Chairman. Okay, we are now going to hear from our452witnesses today. We will hear from each of you in five-minute453rounds. We will start with you, Dr. Merritt, and then go to Mr.454McDonald, then Mr. Concho.455    You may proceed.456457                STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS MERRITT,458            UTAH STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER459460    Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. I461am honored to be here today.462    I am Dr. Chris Merritt, the State Historic Preservation463Officer for Utah. I am excited today to talk briefly about the464National Historic Preservation Act. I have been a professional465archeologist for over 20 years, with the last 13 serving the466great State of Utah. Every day I am excited to go to work and467share my passion for history.468    But let's first start with a small history review. The4691950s and 60s witnessed large federal initiatives, such as470interstate highways and urban renewal. Few checks existed, and471because of this, many historic downtowns, neighborhoods, and472places of archeological heritage were unnecessarily destroyed473with little to no consideration. This changed in 1966 with the474passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, which, in475part, mandated that federal agencies take into account their476actions on historic properties. As expressed in the preamble of477the Act, Congress found that, ``The spirit and direction of the478nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic479heritage.''480    The Act established a federalist approach to historic481preservation, empowering each state to create its own office to482coordinate federal reviews and activities. The State Historic483Preservation Office, or SHPO, and later THPOs. Creation of484SHPOs was recognition that there needed to be a voice at the485state level to review projects and offer local advice and486technical assistance. While the Act created many programs, my487comments today focus on the legal compliance process, known as488106. From the Act emerged a regulatory process that starts by489determining if an undertaking has a potential to cause harm,490then identifying historic properties within the area, assessing491those effects to historic properties, and finally resolving492effects, when necessary. This process can be broadly compared493to the development of environmental analysis under NEPA. There494are many technical aspects of this type of review, but495ultimately, this is a procedural law meant to have a beginning496and an end.497    The Utah SHPO knows that this process should be clear,498reasonable, and as predictable as possible, for not only the499good of the agency and proponent, but also for historic500properties themselves. Ambiguity in the scope, procedures, and501timeline in a Section 106 process could endanger historic502properties by dedicating insufficient time and resources to503appropriately plan for these properties, and could needlessly504make them a perceived roadblock when expectations could have505been clear at the beginning. We work through the process and506move forward undertakings while still ensuring that historic507properties are protected. My team reviews about 1,500 federal508undertakings per year, ranging from mineral exploration509programs to large-scale post wildland fire rehabilitation. But510only 3.2 percent of those result in adverse effects,511illustrating that the vast majority of undertakings do not harm512historic properties. SHPOs have 30 days to review projects, but513we have a goal with our governor's office and legislature to514cut that in half. We regularly cut review times by over 75515percent. We have accomplished the feat of obliterating516regulatory review timelines by not just commitment of dedicated517staff, but investment in digital workflows.518    With support from the governor and the legislature, we have519been paperless since 2017, and are one of the first SHPOs to do520so. This builds on our comprehensive digital database521containing 270,000 historic resources, nearly 50,000522inventories, and adding another 5,500 resources per year. And523while those numbers are large, only about nine percent of Utah524has been inventoried. We share this comprehensive information525with all federal and state agencies and consultants. In my526tenure with the SHPO, we have focused on the reliability and527predictability of Section 106 by working to create interagency528uniformity, such as a standard-setting agreement with all five529Utah national forests. We also have nearly a dozen programmatic530agreements with federal agencies that streamline the process,531and we signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with the Army Corps532of Engineers just last week.533    There are times of concern, however, where national-level534streamlining agreements can go too far. At the end of the last535administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation536proposed a program comment that would have weakened or removed537state and public reviews of only those types of undertakings538that fell underneath deeply politicized categories. Thankfully,539that proposed program comment didn't carry over at the540administration change, but it had the potential to destroy the541federalist approach to preservation by picking winners and542losers based solely on the undertaking. Other issues with543Section 106 can arise when the regulations are stretched beyond544reasonability or misinterpreted, or by abusing procedural545regulatory statements to unduly delay projects that receive546SHPO concurrence. For example, one SHPO finds that a grazing547allotment fence restringing is a simple matter of a letter,548while another finds that the entire adjoining 100,000-acre549allotment needs inventory and necessitates creation of an550agreement document that could take months.551    There are always opportunities to do Section 106 better. I552am personally hopeful that the model we employ in Utah can553demonstrate where efficiencies and streamlining improve the554process for all involved parties. Empowering the states to be555at the center of this process is a critical component of the556law to provide a check and balance on federal actions and their557impacts on cultural resources. In Utah, we are committed to558working collaboratively to keep the process moving and to never559allow a ``we can't'' mindset to determine our course of action.560Perhaps our greatest strength is that we recognize that the561Section 106 process was meant to be pragmatic and solution-562focused, not a means of stopping projects.563    Thank you.564    [The prepared statement of Dr. Merritt follows:]565566[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]567568    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Merritt.569    Mr. McDonald.570571 STATEMENT OF ANDY MCDONALD, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MANAGER,572                MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY573574    Mr. McDonald. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and575members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to576testify today on the need to improve predictability and577certainty in the Section 106 review process under the National578Historic Preservation Act. My name is Andy McDonald, and I579serve as the Environmental Compliance Manager responsible for580supporting Montana-Dakota Utilities Company's electric581operations. Montana-Dakota is a small investor-owned utility582company that generates, transmits, and distributes electricity583to more than 145,000 customers across 185 communities and584adjacent rural areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,585and Wyoming.586    Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to define587and document the area of potential effects (APE) of a proposed588project--in other words, the area that must be assessed for589impacts to historic resources. The implementing regulations590define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been591interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively, creating592confusion and unnecessary delays. Montana-Dakota has593experienced this issue on recent projects. In the example I594would like to discuss today, Montana-Dakota is rebuilding a595three-mile electric distribution line where approximately half596of the line crosses federal lands managed by two different597federal agencies. The project involves undergrounding lines for598wildfire risk mitigation and upgrading aging infrastructure.599One agency required the APE to include only the portion of land600managed by that agency. However, the other agency required the601APE to include the entire three miles, including portions on602private land where no federal approval is required. It's603important to note that there is an area of cultural604significance on federal land in this area that we are working605with the agency to find a path around that does not negatively606affect those important resources.607    We are cognizant of the fact that these resources could608extend onto neighboring private lands. Unfortunately, there is609a perception among some that if the federal agencies don't have610oversight over projects, that industry disregards any and all611aspects of environmental concern. My experience over the last612ten years paints a brighter picture about our efforts to613provide a reliable energy source to our customers, while614respecting the environmental and cultural resources that exist615across our landscape. There are plenty of examples across the616country of voluntary efforts made by industry to preserve our617landscape and resources. In a situation such as the one I have618described, utilities still have the ability to use consultants619and work with the appropriate state and tribal agencies and620private landowners to navigate a path around these areas621without negatively impacting historic resources. This approach622provides more certainty for industry and our federal623counterparts. They know which areas they are responsible for,624and we know which areas we are responsible for. This allows625projects to be planned and executed in a more timely and626economical manner. It will also allow federal employees more627time to focus on other management needs within their respective628areas.629    To be clear, our issue is not with the intent of Section630106 or the federal employees' efforts to interpret and631implement it, but rather, the absence of clear, predictable632boundaries around what constitutes the relevant APE and what633effects must be considered. As my example illuminates, this634lack of clarity leads to inconsistent interpretations among635agencies, regions, individual staff, consultants, and even636utility companies.637    In certain areas, environmental conditions and wildlife638restrictions leave extremely limited annual windows for639construction to be completed--sometimes as little as two months640during the year. In order to efficiently plan for rebuilding641our existing infrastructure to more modern designs, as well as642building new infrastructure to serve the rapidly expanding load643growth, clarity is needed in the NHPA. Congress has an644opportunity to enhance predictability and certainty to the645Section 106 review process for all parties involved,646specifically for linear projects, clarifying that agencies647shall review the geographic area or areas within which an648undertaking may directly cause alterations in the character or649use of historic properties if any such properties exist in that650area, and that agencies may only consider effects that share a651reasonably close causal relationship to and are proximately652caused by the undertaking. Lastly, clarifying that where the653geographic area or areas of an undertaking include multiple654agency jurisdictions, agencies must work together to apply655consistent standards with regard to reviewing potential656alterations in the character or use of historic properties.657This preserves the spirit of the NHPA while restoring658predictability and adding certainty to the Section 106 process.659    On behalf of Montana-Dakota Utilities Company and EEI, I660appreciate the Committee's attention to this critical issue,661and I support Congress making changes to the NHPA to achieve a662more efficient, consistent, predictable, and effective Section663106 process. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I664look forward to answering any questions you may have.665    [The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]666667[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]668669    The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. McDonald.670    Mr. Concho, we will hear from you next.671672   STATEMENT OF STEVEN CONCHO, TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION673 OFFICER, PUEBLO OF ACOMA, NEW MEXICO; BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL674      ASSOCIATION OF TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS675676    Mr. Concho. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and677members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to678testify today about the Section 106 process under the National679Historic Preservation Act. My name is Steven Concho, and I am a680member of the Pueblo of Acoma, and I serve as the Tribal681Historic Preservation Officer for the pueblo. I also sit on the682Board of Directors for the National Association of Tribal683Historic Preservation Officers, representing the Four Corners684region.685    Our mesa-top home at Acoma, also known as Sky City, has686been where Acoma people have lived for more than a 1,000 years.687Our culture, language, and way of life are tied to an ancestral688landscape that extends far beyond our present-day boundaries.689Protecting these places is essential not only for our identity,690but for our survival as Acoma people. The Section 106 process691is one of a few laws that require the United States to listen692to tribes before federal actions disturb places of historic,693cultural, and often spiritual importance. Consultation under694Section 106 is not a courtesy. It is a legal duty that reflects695the government-to-government relationship between federally696recognized tribes and the United States and a trust697responsibility.698    Section 106 requires agencies to take tribal input into699account by consulting at every stage, but it does not dictate700an outcome or prevent development. Development may still701proceed when a historic property is determined eligible for the702National Register of Historic Places, including as a703traditional cultural property. The National Historic704Preservation Act simply requires that the federal agency705consider the adverse effects a proposed development would have706on a historic property before approving the permit. The707preference is to avoid the adverse effects, and if that is not708at all possible, the law requires mitigation. Consultation709provides the tribes, like ours, with a seat at the table and a710say in what the effects would be and how to avoid or mitigate711them. It does not hand tribes a veto. When tribes are consulted712early and properly, in my experience, almost all projects have713moved forward efficiently and collaboratively in a way that714protects cultural resources.715    That's why early and meaningful consultation matters. On716the other hand, when the agencies engage tribes only after717decisions have been made, projects can stall because of fights718over threatened resources, resulting in rising costs. When719tribes are brought in from the start, projects move faster and720cultural resources are preserved. At Acoma, we saw firsthand721the positive effects of early and meaningful consultation with722a proposed CO2 pipeline that was going to cross 14723miles of Acoma lands. We developed a process to address this724project that we call the ``Acoma Model.''725    From the very beginning of this pipeline project, the726Bureau of Land Management and the energy company worked727directly with the Pueblo of Acoma. The Pueblo entered into a728cost reimbursement agreement with the company so our cultural729experts could work alongside the project archeologist and730engineers. Together, in six weeks, working with a team of731knowledgeable Acoma cultural practitioners, the project team732surveyed 14 miles of Acoma trust land, identified more than 150733cultural sites, including 90 that would have never been734recognized through standard archeological methods, and735successfully rerouted the pipeline corridor to avoid them736entirely. That collaboration saved time, avoided conflict, and737protected cultural resources that are important to the Acoma738people. This is what successful consultation looks like.739    Our office manages dozens of consultation requests across740four states every month with minimal staff and limited short-741term federal funding. Like many tribal historic preservation742offices, Acoma operates on roughly $100,000 a year, barely743enough to cover salaries, travel, and essential operations.744This level of funding forces all THPOs, including ours, to745triage projects and stretch limited capacity, which can lead746agencies to misinterpret slower response as delays. In reality,747the fastest and most effective way to improve consultations for748everyone--tribes, agencies, and industry--is to invest directly749in THPO capacity.750    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the Pueblo of Acoma751urges Congress to reaffirm support of Section 106, strengthen752support for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and ensure753that early, well-funded consultation remains a cornerstone of754responsible federal decision-making.755    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your756questions.757    [The prepared statement of Mr. Concho follows:]758759[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]760761    The Chairman. Thank you so much.762    We will now begin five-minute rounds of questions,763alternating between Republicans and Democrats, in order of764seniority, subject to the early bird rule, and we will begin765that now.766    We will start with you, Dr. Merritt.767    Now, the statutory text that we are dealing with here,768Section 106 of NHPA, is ambiguous. It provides simple, broad769directions suggesting that federal agencies need to consider770effects on historic properties. Now, while there are771regulations that spell out some of the details, and something772of a process, they also leave significant details open to773interpretation. As a result, the scope of what can be774considered during the consultation process has ballooned rather775dramatically. How do you determine the appropriate area of776potential effects as you are reviewing? How do you keep that777area proportionate and relevant to the direct impacts on the778project?779    Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Chairman, for that question, and I780will nerd out for a second for everybody's sake. So the area of781potential effect in 36 CFR 800 is defined by the direct782effects. So, think about digging, trenching, et cetera--783physical impacts. But there are portions of the APE that deal784with visual, atmospheric, and auditory. It is those parts,785those indirect effects, that do draw the APE larger in many786cases. I will say, of the 1,500 cases that we review a year in787Utah, only a few dozen, if not one percent of those cases, have788what we would call a variable APE based on those resources.789    And so, as you point out, it is ambiguous, it is vague. And790there are positives for that and there are also very negatives,791as Mr. McDonald has mentioned. And so, we work through a792consultation process. The agency approaches us on a proposed793area of potential effects at the SHPO or the THPO, and then794other parties also have an opinion on what that APE could look795like. There is need, in my opinion, to better define some of796these aspects to create reliability in establishing APEs and797other effects.798    The other thing I want to say is, I have a three-stool799approach in Utah--practice, data, and relationships. Practice,800to me, is an investment up front of setting up reliable801standards. And so, for a long time, Section 106 has been a very802reactive process. I would like to be proactive and come up with803established rules, so that as projects come forward, there is a804rule book for these proponents and other parties to play by805versus having every single process through the sausage grinder806end up in a different place.807    The Chairman. Yes, and that makes a lot of sense.808    Now, under the current process, what determines the extent809of indirect impacts when you see them, and how can those810indirect impacts be objectively and reasonably quantified when811determining the adverse effects? Is that part of the difficulty812here, figuring out how to quantify, how to evaluate relative813indirect impacts?814    Dr. Merritt. Yes, that's a great question.815    So, when we talk about effects, I will go to the parallel816law, the National Register of Historic Places. When we817designate something eligible for the National Register, we are818supposed to say what are those character-defining features that819make that site significant. When we go into the 106 process,820that's how we assess the impact of the project. Are we changing821those factors that make it eligible for the National Register--822those character-defining features? And I have to say, I cannot823quantify and I cannot come up with an objective measure of824indirect effects because it is so variable based on the825resource itself. A small uranium mine in central Utah is going826to be a different assessment than perhaps a tribally important827landscape in another part of our state.828    And so, that's why it becomes very tricky when you are829assessing those visual and atmospheric and auditory effects to830come up with a regular agreed-upon pattern. And that's why,831again, I go back--I would like to invest early and set up832standards so not every single project has a different outcome.833    The Chairman. Right. It would diminish the subjectivity834inherent in it, and when you have less subjectivity, you are835probably going to have a faster, more straightforward process.836    Dr. Merritt. Absolutely, sir. And I think the subjectivity837creates frustration from agencies, tribal members, nations, and838proponents. So, I think ambiguity is sometimes the big problem.839    The Chairman. Now, Mr. McDonald, in your testimony, you840state that ``the NHPA Section 106 implementing regulations841define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been842interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively.''843    This is a fundamental issue, isn't it? One that we face844with many permitting statutes, including this one, including845NEPA, wherein there is a fairly simple procedural requirement846in a statute that has been weaponized, or it has at least847wandered beyond its original scope, the scope of its original848understanding. To what extent has this particular lack of849clarity in Section 106 delayed MDU's distribution line?850    Mr. McDonald. Senator, thank you for the question.851    In this particular project, it has delayed it on the terms852of months, more than years, you know, probably about 12 to 18853months in the process. This also is a line where we are dealing854with kind of going up the side of a mountain to a certain855extent, so our timeline for construction for this one is about856a two-month window from when the snowpack comes off to when we857are getting into the portion where it's too dry to work on. So,858it's not necessarily the consultation process that resulted in859that length of delay, but because of the timing of those860decisions and how that process has kind of been held up because861of the misunderstanding of where we need to look at and where862we don't need to look at for projects, or where we need to work863with state or tribal partners versus the federal partners in864that process. We have missed that window and now we are waiting865another construction season to address that line.866    The Chairman. Thank you.867    Senator Heinrich.868    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.869    For Mr. Concho to begin with, and then I want to hear Dr.870Merritt's opinion as well. In your experience, what would871expedite consultation with states and tribes, and how much of872this is ambiguity and how much of it is fundamental resourcing873of the offices that evaluate these projects? To Mr. Concho.874    Mr. Concho. Yes, thank you for your question. I think, and875as I have stated, what works for Acoma is the Acoma Model,876which does force the project proponents to consult with the877tribe and bring us in at an early stage. That way, we know878exactly what is going on and how we can approach the projects879together. And it has worked. And we have had very much success880with that model. And so, I think just involving the tribes and881bringing us in at an early stage really expedites, and often,882in the long run, saves costs.883    Senator Heinrich. Right.884    Dr. Merritt.885    Dr. Merritt. I feel I am very lucky to work in Utah because886our governor and our legislature provide us the tools to do887this efficiently. So always the knee-jerk answer is, like, more888money, more staff. And in some cases, in some states and many889tribes, that is very, very true. In Utah, that is not the case.890    Senator Heinrich. What is your overall budget in Utah?891    Dr. Merritt. This is a good question. We receive 60 percent892of our budget from the National Park Service through the893Historic Preservation Fund. So, I am sitting up here 60 percent894federally funded. That's just a tad under----895    Senator Heinrich. What is the stateside piece?896    Dr. Merritt. So, the state side is at 40 percent match.897    Senator Heinrich. Yes.898    Dr. Merritt. So, it's about a million dollars from the feds899and then, you know, $700,000 to $800,000 from the state.900    And so, your question towards efficiencies--I think, again,901it goes towards early and often. I think you are going to hear902that a lot--lot of the projects we see in Utah that go903sideways, if we had better integration very early on in the904process, if the proponent had been told, like this is an905expectation, if the agencies talked to each other, I think all906of those embed efficiencies in the system.907    Senator Heinrich. Say that last part one more time, because908that has been my experience as to many of these big909infrastructure projects. One of the fundamental challenges is910when the agencies----911    Dr. Merritt. Don't integrate themselves and they don't----912    Senator Heinrich [continuing]. Don't talk to each other913early in the process. Absolutely.914    Mr. Concho, what is your budget again? Did you say915$100,000?916    Mr. Concho. Yes, a little over $100,000 is the917appropriations that we have received.918    Senator Heinrich. And do you receive any federal funds as919part of that?920    Mr. Concho. We don't have--it's mostly just grants, and921then if there is some tribal funding to supplement.922    Senator Heinrich. Dr. Merritt, I want to ask you if there923are tools that we should be using that are underused widely in924this process, and I am thinking, you know, because people made925the analogy to NEPA. In NEPA, we have categorical exclusions,926and those apply to things where the fact pattern is927demonstrably the same over and over and over again, and so, you928analyze those as a basket, rather than every single individual929time. Are there tools like that within the National Historic930Preservation Act that you think we should be utilizing more?931    Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that one, because this932is one I am really passionate about. In my 13 years at the933state, I have invested heavily in what we call programmatic934agreements. So, in the 800 regulations that implement Section935106, they give us the tool to create agreements that can make936routine or even complex undertakings into an agreement document937that you enter the sausage grinder and you know what you are938going to end up with. Programmatic agreements have the ability939to do what we call streamline. And that is putting those things940in buckets, or baskets, or whatever analogy we would like. And941that allows us efficiencies in the system, because not every942single fence restringing project or every single USDA943disbursement to a farmer for a crop replacement, that doesn't944need to go through a full four-step process. And so, we can use945a programmatic agreement to say, analyze it at the agency946level, do your tribal consultation, but we don't need to see947the project at the state SHPO. You send that to us at the end948of the year.949    And so, that's where our caseload is probably higher than9501,500, because we have put so many of those cases into large951buckets.952    Senator Heinrich. Into those buckets, yes.953    Mr. Concho, given the history of our country, the history954of your pueblo, why is it important for us to hear your955perspective when we consider historic preservation issues?956    Mr. Concho. Thank you for that question. Yes, it's very957important that you hear the pueblo's perspective because from958where I am from, we have lived this life for almost a thousand959years, and I am here as a THPO in this capacity, basically960because I love what I do. I love my job. And I do this for961those folks yet to be born, to protect the area where I am962from, because it has been our--we have footsteps all over the963Southwest, and we still continue to migrate and visit and touch964these places, like Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, and protect these965places through song, through prayers, and also, often, we go966and visit these places still today. These places, people refer967to them as ruins or abandoned, but they are not. We still go to968these places. They are living places that still hold meaning to969the pueblo people. And this is where I come from, from the970Southwest, from the Pueblo of Acoma, one of the oldest971continuously inhabited cities in the United States, and we are972happy to be that way because we still continue to have our973traditions as they were given to us for a thousand years. And974protecting all these places in between keeps our tradition975alive, keeps our tradition growing.976    Senator Heinrich. It's a living cultural landscape.977    Mr. Concho. Yes, living cultural.978    The Chairman. Senator Justice.979    Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member--980and I am just a plain-spoken guy from the State of West981Virginia, very proud of it, done a lot, a lot, a lot of stuff,982and I would just say just this--we absolutely should always983continue to ask ourselves, and I wrote it down, is, can we984protect and move forward at the same time? It's just that985simple. And the next thing that I would say is just what my dad986has said many times, but I will never forget this. You know, my987dad was a graduate as an aeronautical engineer from Purdue988University. And right after he came out of that, he enlisted in989the Air Force, and lo and behold, they taught him how to fly,990and he was flying a B-29 bomber, World War II. Now, you just991think about that guy and how great all those folks were, men992and women at that time, and the contribution that they made to993all of us, to each and every one of us. That guy stood at an994engineering table with two or three engineers and a995superintendent of a job and they were trying to figure out996exactly where to put the road. And I will never forget this997until I die--they went on and on for probably an hour and a998half, and then, at that time, Dad said to the superintendent,999``Kirby, I don't know exactly what the right answer is, but1000this damn well ain't it.''1001    Now, that's all there is to this whole situation here. We1002know what all the red tape and all the problems are, for crying1003out loud. We know that we want to protect. You spoke, sir,1004about the ruins and everything that people call it, but they1005speak to you, do they not? They do. We know we have to protect.1006We know that. But at the same time, we have got to find a way1007to move forward because really and truly, the red tape, the1008permitting process, to do anything--you see, I am a business1009guy. The permitting process is so absolutely bogged down, it's1010unbelievable. And you talk about sausage, I mean, for crying1011out loud, it's the most bizarre things at times that anybody1012could ever imagine.1013    So, we have got to do something about it, and we have got1014to fix it. And we are smart. And we have the ability to fix it.1015Please, let's quit denying, please, someway, somehow, let's1016quit denying that we have a problem. I mean, it's preposterous1017to think just how bad the problem really is. You know, we have1018got to live here, too. That's all there is to it. And we have1019got to do things. And we have got to try to make things better.1020We have an energy meltdown right on our doorstep and we have1021got to do something about that, too. If we don't watch out, we1022are going to spin around two or three times in this great,1023great, great nation, and we are going to say, uh oh, we have1024got to a real, real--moment.1025    And so, with all that being said, I have really only got1026just one question, and this would be to Mr. McDonald, and it's1027so obvious, it's off the chart, but you know, what we have read1028in here is, can you provide an estimate of the direct cost--1029personnel, survey work, legal expenses, on and on and on--that1030are solely attributable to Section 106, a process for a multi-1031state project and how that cost is ultimately passed down to1032the American energy consumers? To put it plainly, can you give1033me an estimate of how much American taxpayers are paying for1034the Federal Government's overcomplicated process? Please, sir.1035    Mr. McDonald. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, our1036utility isn't quite the largest utility. We are, in fact,1037pretty small in the grand scheme of things. We can certainly1038visit with some of our counterparts and I can get you a more1039reasonable estimate for that answer for the record, if that is1040acceptable?1041    Senator Justice. Well, surely--surely, it's acceptable. But1042the bottom line to the whole thing of what I am trying to say1043is, the whole process here is not working. The process is1044ungodly expensive and it is absolutely a time consumer like1045nobody's business. We have just got to do something about it.1046    Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir.1047    The Chairman. Thank you very much.1048    Senator Cortez Masto.1049    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the1050Ranking Member.1051    Can I just ask all the panel members--do any of you agree1052that we should eliminate entirely the Section 106? Anybody that1053agrees with that?1054    Mr. McDonald.1055    Mr. McDonald. No.1056    Senator Cortez Masto. Dr. Merritt.1057    Dr. Merritt. No.1058    Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Concho.1059    Mr. Concho. No.1060    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1061    I appreciate it, and I think there is opportunity to1062streamline, and it makes sense, and I appreciate all of you1063coming here. Obviously, this is necessary and it does work, in1064some fashion, and what we are trying to figure out is where we1065can streamline it. And all of you here are important in helping1066us make that determination.1067    Dr. Merritt, thank you for being here and for the work that1068you are doing for the State of Utah. As a neighbor in Nevada,1069we appreciate that. I have spent a lot of time in Utah.1070    Let me ask you this: you talked about how APE should be1071further defined--atmospheric, visual, auditory. How would we1072define that at a federal level without implicating what you1073said, the uniqueness of each project in every other state?1074    Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that, and I have1075enjoyed working with the Nevada SHPO for many years. So, it's1076good to see you today.1077    That's tricky. I have asked myself that, like, where in the1078regulations can we make this more clear because I do feel there1079are points of it. I don't know how to do it at a broad level.1080This is why Utah is different than Nevada is different than1081Wyoming is different than Maine. And that's why, again, I go1082back to that federalist approach, as the problems that I have1083sometimes seen with national agreements from the Advisory1084Council or other places is that it's a one-size-fits-all, and I1085am not Indiana. I can see things on the landscape for very long1086distances out here in the West. And so, it's very hard to put a1087pinpoint at a regulatory level. I think there are ways, and we1088can be creative looking at the language of how the 36 CFR 8001089regulations are written to better define and limit by1090landscape, by landform, or something, because there are points1091in the state where we have had a ten-mile buffer for a power1092line.1093    Senator Cortez Masto. Right.1094    Dr. Merritt. Regardless of if there is a mountain between1095it and that ten-mile buffer. So, there are smarter ways we can1096do it, but I always come back to the federalist approach, as I1097want to have a seat at that table helping to find that for the1098best for the people of Utah.1099    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and I agree, and I think it is1100so important that we have local stakeholders there. I think1101that was the intent, right, is to have the local stakeholders1102involved because you know the land, you know better what is1103going on and the challenges that we are facing to address the1104concerns that we are looking at.1105    Can I also ask one final thing? You get federal funding1106from the Federal Government, but Mr. Concho, the tribes don't1107get federal funding dedicated. Do you have to fight for it1108through grant funding? Is that correct?1109    Mr. Concho. If you are a THPO department, we do have to1110submit our grants yearly.1111    Senator Cortez Masto. But you don't get federal--directed1112federal funding, like a state office would?1113    Mr. Concho. No, we have to go through the National Park1114Service funding for THPO.1115    Senator Cortez Masto. Is it the same process----1116    Dr. Merritt. It's also a grant for us as well. The Historic1117Preservation Fund provides the funding for both SHPOs and1118THPOs.1119    Senator Cortez Masto. And it's a grant process that you all1120apply for?1121    Dr. Merritt. Can I answer?1122    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, please.1123    Dr. Merritt. So, the appropriation that comes from the1124Historic Preservation Fund comes from offshore oil leasing1125royalties. And so, it's not really taxpayer money in that1126sense. The problem that we have is there are 59 SHPOs. There1127are over 200 THPOs. But the pie doesn't necessarily grow,1128right? So we are not adding states every single day, but we are1129adding THPOs. And so, the pie for a THPO is smaller every time1130there is a new THPO created versus my pie has expanded a little1131bit because of population dynamics and other features that the1132National Park Service uses to apportion our grant. But we are1133both applying for grants to support our offices.1134    Senator Cortez Masto. So, would you recommend this as1135another area for us to look at, how we provide equitable1136funding, because it seems to me that SHPOs and THPOs are key to1137this process, if we are looking at ensuring that they are at1138the table helping to make these decisions, or should we not1139look at that formula?1140    Dr. Merritt. I would say, from the questions I am hearing1141today, everyone wants to find solutions. And so, I think at1142every step of these questions there are solutions to be found.1143Maybe it's funding, maybe it's procedural, maybe it's1144regulatory, but I think all of it needs to be looked at because1145not every state is as lucky as we are in Utah.1146    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.1147    Dr. Merritt. To do as good as we can because we have the1148support.1149    Senator Cortez Masto. And you have the dedicated staff, and1150I appreciate that.1151    Let me ask you one final question, and I am running out of1152time. The Department of the Interior is planning on laying off11532,000 individuals. How important is it for the Department of1154the Interior to have staff that are funding and working on this1155106 process?1156    Dr. Merritt. So, to answer that question, overwhelmingly1157SHPOs feel that with employee turnover at the Federal1158Government, lack of staffing at the Federal Government, it puts1159more pressure on us to do the work and more pressure--I won't1160speak for the tribes, but I have heard from tribes that they1161feel more pressure. As those positions dry up or people are1162retiring, it does put more weight on us to carry the load for1163these federal agencies. And I cannot imagine a world where the1164lack of federal employees is not going to hurt permitting and1165not hurt review processes.1166    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you again, all three1167of you.1168    The Chairman. Senator Cotton.1169    Senator Cotton. The consulting firm McKinsey estimates that1170the average proposed project subject to environmental review1171takes four to five years to move through the permitting1172process, with an average of four additional years spent1173litigating the project. According to the Breakthrough1174Institute, 75 percent of environmental litigation, like NHPA,1175is driven by a handful of environmental NGOs. Of the1176challenges, ten organizations are responsible for more than1177one-third of often frivolous lawsuits. Agencies win1178approximately 80 percent of these cases. Nevertheless,1179litigation by these NGOs demonstrably slows and even kills1180necessary projects that could have lowered costs for consumers1181and increased reliability.1182    Mr. McDonald, radical environmentalists have abused our1183court system and weaponized statutes such as the National1184Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy1185Act, and the Clean Water Act to slow or kill needful projects1186to increase supply and lower costs. Given this legal landscape,1187what reforms, in your opinion, are needed to stop this kind of1188radical lawfare and lower electricity prices for consumers?1189    Mr. McDonald. Senator, thanks for the question.1190    As was described in the testimony, I really think that the1191certainty that is provided with the regulations that we are1192asking for here will eliminate some of that. I am not naive to1193think it's going to eliminate all of that, but I certainly1194think that, you know, if we have clear direction on what our1195responsibility is in the statute, it provides for less1196uncertainty and less ambiguity in what our responsibilities are1197in those issues.1198    Senator Cotton. And if one of these radical groups1199unsuccessfully sues on a project, are they barred from suing1200under other statutes or are they free to proceed under other1201statutes?1202    Mr. McDonald. Senator, I am not aware of the answer to that1203question, but perhaps somebody else with a better legal1204background would understand that.1205    Senator Cotton. I think they have many other statutes that1206they can proceed under, so they get multiple bites at the1207apple. When a project is shuttered because of such lawsuits,1208are construction workers and operators still paid?1209    Mr. McDonald. Thanks for the question. Again, Senator, I1210would have to get back to you on that one as well. I am not1211aware of the answer to that question.1212    Senator Cotton. Well, given that most workers are being1213paid by the hour, I think it's probably fair to guess that they1214are not being paid, which means this kind of lawfare is not1215just causing electricity supply to go down and prices to go up,1216but hardworking construction workers not to be paid.1217    How does the threat of such open-ended lawsuits affect your1218decision-making for projects at MDU?1219    Mr. McDonald. I think with all projects, lawsuits or not,1220you know, we always strive to do the best job possible. We work1221with our state, local, and federal partners, and tribal1222partners in instances where we are working on tribal land, you1223know, we always try and do the right thing. And again, the1224clearer the statute is, the easier it is for us to plan for1225these projects, to execute these projects in an efficient and1226predictable manner.1227    Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you.1228    I yield back my time.1229    The Chairman. Senator Gallego.1230    Senator Gallego. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member1231Heinrich, and thank you to our witnesses for your attendance1232today.1233    Like many of the states represented on this Committee, my1234home State of Arizona has widespread historic resources that1235teach about our past, honor tribal heritage, and drive tourism1236to our state--a lot of tourism. We are also experiencing1237tremendous population energy demand growth, meaning we have to1238find ways to both grow quickly and responsibly. I have been a1239vocal supporter of building out housing, energy, and1240transmission resources as fast as possible, but I have also1241been vocal that we can't do so in a way that hurts and cuts our1242community and tribal input. You know, for example, Arizona1243State Historic--our SHPO office--has reviewed more than 3,0001244federal projects and consultations in the past three years.1245Their average turnaround time is less than 30 days and their1246adverse effect rate is below two percent. This means they are1247following the law while keeping things moving and even1248improving economic investment and community relationships. I1249believe there are ways to streamline though and improve Section1250106 review without bypassing community input, and I look1251forward to hearing your thoughts on all of this.1252    My first question is for Dr. Merritt. Last week, Arizona's1253SHPO officer sent a letter to the Superintendent of the Grand1254Canyon, highlighting ways that they can work together to1255streamline construction of a new Grand Canyon lodge after it1256was destroyed in the Dragon Bravo fire this summer.1257Reconstruction of the lodge will require significant buildout1258of energy and water infrastructure, as well as the building1259itself. The letter highlights ways that Section 106 can be1260streamlined under existing authorities, including synchronized1261reviews, exemptions of certain activities from 106 review, and1262real-time, on-the-ground decision-making. Do you think that1263most states currently use streamlining authorities like those1264outlined by the Arizona SHPO officer to the greatest extent,1265and is there room for improvement under existing authorities?1266    Dr. Merritt. Thank you for that question, Senator, and that1267was sad to lose that facility.1268    Senator Gallego. I know, trust me, it's a tearjerker for1269all of us.1270    Dr. Merritt. I think it's always variable, and I do think1271most SHPOs employ programmatic agreements to find ways of1272streamlining and efficiency. This comes back to my third leg of1273the stool--the relationship building. These programmatic1274agreements are only as good as the relationship we forge1275between the SHPO and a federal agency. And I am very happy that1276the Arizona SHPO has that relationship with the National Park1277Service to agree to allow things to move streamlined in a way1278that is structured. I am also applauding the Arizona SHPO for1279being proactive, working with the Park Service to plan for this1280versus waiting.1281    The long answer is yes, I think many SHPOs use these1282agreements, but I think we can expand their utility, and1283instead of--perhaps what I am advocating is, instead of having1284project-specific agreements, to be programmatic in the sense of1285projects by the Park Service in Arizona as a whole, or other1286agencies, because I think in those we find a lot of embedded1287efficiencies that can help.1288    Senator Gallego. Got you.1289    My next question is to Mr. Concho. Many Arizona1290stakeholders have highlighted that tribal consultation under1291the Historic Preservation Act is not only required under1292federal trust responsibility, but is extremely valuable for1293wildfire rehabilitation, trail construction, and much more. Can1294you speak more about if the value of tribal historic1295preservation officers were to be lost if the opportunity for1296tribal consultation is narrowed or reduced?1297    Mr. Concho. Yes, thank you for that question. Tribal1298Historic Preservation Officers are very important to the1299communities and the states that we live in, especially in a1300southwestern state where there is a high concentration of sites1301in the areas there. Without Tribal Historic Preservation1302Officers, that all could be lost or not protected further from,1303you know, from being counted as our history. As I mentioned1304earlier, our history stems for a long time, and we are still,1305we are here to protect that history. You know, one thing to1306keep in mind when talking about SHPOs and THPOs is that being a1307Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, we did take on those1308responsibilities from the SHPO and brought them home--like for1309my example, to Acoma. And there is where I see these projects1310come through my office. And by the same token, we have1311thousands of requests that come in through my office yearly and1312with a staff of only maybe one or two. And so, you can see how1313that mounts up and how we have to prioritize what we have to1314do.1315    Senator Gallego. Close down things, too.1316    Mr. Concho. So, I think additional funding to help us maybe1317hire additional staff would help streamline those decisions1318that we have to make as Tribal Historic Preservation Officers1319to protect our cultural identity.1320    Senator Gallego. Great.1321    Back to Dr. Merritt. In FY24, Arizona SHPO Officers1322reviewed 1,451 federal and state projects, with an average1323turnaround time of just 20 days, flagging only two percent for1324adverse impacts requiring mitigation. That's pretty efficient,1325in my opinion. It's my understanding that the National Park1326Service used to collect performance metrics like this for all1327states, but no longer does. How can we know how much Section1328106 is holding up projects if we aren't collecting and sharing1329that data around it? Besides anecdotal?1330    Dr. Merritt. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that. And I do1331think that there are the reporting mechanisms for us to receive1332our grant. I think that is another place for accountability for1333our offices and what we are doing. You know, I have1334relationships with the governor and the legislature to report1335those statistics as well, of how efficiency, and I have already1336told many, many folks here, like, if a complaint of a 1061337project makes it to a legislator or to a congress, I have1338screwed up because that's how sometimes the measurement of1339success of Section 106 is measured, is how many people are1340complaining about it.1341    And so, I don't want that. I want to work to make this1342function and smooth and I don't want people finding problems1343with it, because that's the true accountability--the more1344people that are finding errors with it, the more I am not doing1345my job.1346    Senator Gallego. Thank you.1347    I yield back.1348    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.1349    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1350    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for the hearing.1351You know, as we are focusing on permitting reform, and more1352broadly, I think it's very important that we are doing a more1353focused review of Section 106 compliance and how this all1354works.1355    Thank you for being here before the Committee today. My1356colleagues know that I often start my comments by saying Alaska1357is unique--our situation is just a little bit different. And I1358think in this situation, again, it just underscores--we are1359big, we are a young state, we've got a lot of properties that1360may have impact to traditional, religious, or cultural1361significance given the fact that we have 40 percent of the1362tribes in the country. We want to make sure, we must make sure1363that the consultation process is coordinated, it is efficient,1364but honors that government-to-government consultation, and that1365tribal voices are meaningfully heard--not just ``this is what1366is going on and we will check in with you later,'' but being1367there at the beginning.1368    We also recognize in my state, again, I mention we are1369big--we've got about 80 percent of the state that has never1370been surveyed for historic or cultural properties. And so, this1371presents its own set of problems when you have even very1372smaller, low-impact projects that may then trigger Section 1061373reviews across huge areas. So, I am going to put this out to1374Dr. Merritt, but gentlemen, any of you can reply to this. Just1375a couple concrete examples of how this is playing out. In1376Southeast Alaska, we had our power and telephone company--they1377are trying to bring broadband to a very small community, Dyea,1378and the National Park Service required 500 hand-dug test pits1379along a 1.7-mile route. So, this was going to be more ground1380disturbance than laying the fiber itself. The project was1381delayed and the community basically lost out on that. And so,1382it's an example of project risk that is very small, but you1383have essential infrastructure that's effectively being halted.1384And we want to do all we can to protect historic sites. We1385understand that, but again, just looking at the scope of this.1386    Another project is in Northwest Alaska. Two mineral1387exploration projects, Anarraaq and Aktigiruq--30 months of1388review, seven EA extensions, conflicting findings between the1389Corps, SHPO and the IRA Council ultimately halts the1390construction despite extensive consultation there. So, the1391question to you all is, when you have, again, projects that are1392very small, a project risk so small, these repeated1393reevaluations that effectively do nothing but delay projects.1394And again, I am coming from a state where our construction1395seasons are limited. It's truly a season. It's not 365 days.1396You might have four months at best to advance your project.1397    So, Dr. Merritt, let's just start with you here.1398    Dr. Merritt. Thank you for that question, Senator. I can't1399see the ground in Alaska, but I can see the ground very well in1400Utah. And so, that's why there are different methods that each1401state employs. And that goes back to the state-by-state1402solution. But I think, again, it goes back to relationships and1403finding common-sense solutions to get through these projects.1404Sometimes doing shovel probes--shovel tests is what we call1405those--makes sense. Other times, it has become perfunctory. We1406always do them because we always have done them.1407    I can't speak to the Alaska SHPO and why they moved forward1408on that, but I can speak to the other issue of having multiple1409agencies not working well together. And I have seen that time1410and time again, not because the solution is bad for anybody,1411but because the coordination stank at the very onset. Is the1412Army Corps maybe not coordinating with another agency early on,1413or the other agency not knowing there would be another agency's1414involvement, and so we get multiple steps, multiple horses in1415the race that don't even know they are racing each other. I1416have seen that happen multiple times in the implementation of1417this law because we do have ourselves tied to NEPA. We have to1418complete the 106 process before a NEPA decision can be reached.1419    I have worked for the Federal Government, I have worked for1420the Forest Service, and I remember examples of working under1421NEPA, and the NEPA shop not telling the archeologists what's1422coming, and so, we're now the bottleneck because most NEPA is1423desktop, you know, looking at stuff from computers and books1424versus most archeology being on-the-ground type of work. So, I1425have seen delays in that way and communication and also just1426every single time thinking--are we doing this in the smartest1427way for the people this project is trying to serve? I never1428separate myself from the point of the project. I don't care1429about what the project is from a regulatory standpoint. My job1430is to just make it move as quickly as possible.1431    Senator Murkowski. Well, it sounds like you're not1432satisfied that we have a process that is efficient, does allow1433for a--whether it's a multi-track--but just recognizing that1434understanding what this process may look like, timelines that1435are realistic, could help us with our efficiency.1436    Dr. Merritt. One hundred percent.1437    When a proponent calls me because they know they have to1438enter into a consultation with the BLM to get a permit, I try1439to walk them through, as clearly as I can, like expect this,1440expect this. When you meet with the BLM, let me know, we can1441communicate with the BLM to move the project along. And so,1442it's communication.1443    Senator Murkowski. Yes.1444    Dr. Merritt. And sometimes we stink at it.1445    Senator Murkowski. Thank you for that.1446    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1447    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.1448    Senator Hickenlooper, you are up next.1449    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all1450of you for being here. Thanks for your work.1451    Expanding and updating our electrical grid is critical, I1452think, to ensure reliable, affordable, you know, dependable,1453electricity. Many of us up here have sponsored a number of1454bills in that direction. In Colorado, we have seen how valuable1455it is when energy developers and agencies consider cultural and1456historical context and the resources up front in the processes1457of much-needed grid expansion. I think you all touched on this.1458    Let me start with Dr. Merritt and Mr. Concho. What are your1459ideas for how we can minimize the impacts to historic and1460cultural resources, while at the same time being more efficient1461or speeding up the buildout of critical infrastructure, like1462transmission, which the country depends upon?1463    Mr. Concho, why don't you start?1464    Mr. Concho. Thank you for the question.1465    I believe, like you mentioned, first and foremost, bringing1466on the tribes that belong to the areas that are being affected1467with the project proponent, bringing them together at the table1468as the project is at its inception is the most important part1469in this whole thing because you get the input from tribal1470representatives, plus the tribal knowledge--the elders, the1471people that live there and that have lived there know where1472certain things are at, know where certain historic and sacred1473sites are. And so, coming from the Native American perspective1474and coming from the Southwest, it is very important, especially1475in the Southwest because there's not--you can't walk, at least1476maybe a mile, and not run into a place of cultural1477significance, and that's how important it is for the THPOs just1478to come to the table early and involve the tribes at an early1479point.1480    Senator Hickenlooper. Great.1481    Dr. Merritt. I struggle with being pithy, but I will try to1482do my best because this is a very interesting question. So, in1483Utah, we have spent most of this year working on a draft1484agreement to look at geothermal. We are getting an increase of1485geothermal projects in Utah, and I want to be ahead of it. I1486want to be ahead of the gold rush for this new energy source1487that could redefine our nation's dependence on other energy1488sources. But we are investing up front, like, let's set up a1489firm process for any geothermal company in our state. What are1490the expectations? Where can you find and move quickly? Where do1491you need to slow down? I think that's one big piece, is being1492proactive, ahead of the game. We have established similars for1493solar on the western side of Utah to make solar projects simple1494when they come in--simple on a grand scheme.1495    The second thing, as you brought up--historic context. So,1496I will nerd out again for you. For everybody's sake, the1497National Register of Historic Places urges people to create1498historic context. So, it's a playbook. You are out1499inventorying, you find a type of building or an archeological1500site, you go through this already-pulled-together resource to1501determine what makes that resource important or not important1502in the eyes of the law. I am a big proponent of these because1503it does help standardize, when people are going to the field--I1504find ``A'', I look at the document, and I conclude ``B'',1505versus every single resource kind of winging it. And so, I1506think that does offer another place of structure.1507    And so, we invested, in Utah, with partnership with the1508Bureau of Land Management, historic context in our oil field in1509northeastern Utah, looking at very commonly discovered sites--1510sheep herder camps, Native American open campsites. And so, we1511just wanted to invest a lot early on.1512    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I appreciate that and I think1513that is crucially important, making sure to reach out.1514    A relatively unknown part of my past that I loved is, my1515business would renovate old historic buildings. I spent a lot1516of time working with historic preservation in local communities1517around the western United States. In 1997, I was proud, the1518National Trust for Historic Preservation gave me their award of1519honor--much ado about nothing, as my wife said. But I do think,1520Mr. Merritt, I think it's incredibly valuable that we take into1521consideration exactly what you are working on, making sure that1522we are out front.1523    The Trump administration had removed three members of the1524Advisory Council on Historic Preservation earlier this year and1525then two more resigned. This is in addition to the staffing1526cuts we have seen, not just for the Council staff, but for1527federal land management agencies, other agencies leading1528projects through the entire Section 106 process. Can you speak1529to the impact that these vacancies and staffing cuts have made,1530especially on energy projects?1531    Dr. Merritt. So, in Utah, we haven't seen as many of the1532federal layoffs as in other states. The vacancies at the1533Advisory Council of Historic Preservation could hurt us in the1534long run of putting forward program comments that could help1535expedite, nationally, some of these agreements. But increased1536vacancies at federal agencies in Utah will slow the Federal1537Government's response to permitting applications and reviews.1538And so, while we're not seeing it yet in Utah, I know other1539places are. And so, it is a concern of ours because the more1540that the federal agencies don't do their job because of1541staffing, the more it falls to us.1542    Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. Hear you loud and clear.1543    Thanks to all three of you.1544    I yield back to the Chair.1545    The Chairman. Thank you.1546    Senator McCormick.1547    Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking1548Member. Thank you to our three distinguished guests. I am1549grateful that this panel of witnesses has come here to discuss1550an important issue for our permitting process and jobs pipeline1551in Pennsylvania. The reality is that regulatory inconsistency1552and duplication across federal agencies are unnecessarily1553delaying and hindering vital infrastructure projects across the1554country, including in my state, the Commonwealth of1555Pennsylvania. And that's why I am committed to streamlining the1556permitting process and examining the different regulations and1557rules put in place such as the Section 106 consultation process1558under the National Historic Preservation Act. The NHPA process1559currently slows down our ability to build, update, and1560modernize due to several specific failures that directly impact1561our state's economy. This includes the fundamental regulatory1562inconsistency across how different federal agencies apply the1563rule, often resulting in duplicative and overly expensive,1564expansive consultations by agencies like the National Park1565Service.1566    We also face challenges from the Bureau of Land1567Management's deference to tribes and their required changes on1568previously agreed upon plans, which creates crippling1569uncertainty for developers. Compounding all of this, the1570reliance on subjective and difficult-to-measure concepts, like1571the traditional cultural properties (TCPs), allows for1572decisions that go beyond clear statutory requirements, treating1573vague concepts with the same significance as clearly delineated1574historic sites. Now, for Pennsylvania to secure our future and1575lead in manufacturing, we need reforms that impose firm1576deadlines, clarify the scope of review to the project's actual1577disturbance, and exempt critical infrastructure, like utility1578poles and transmission lines from being unnecessarily flagged1579as historic.1580    So, with that context, Mr. McDonald, last summer in1581Pennsylvania we hosted the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and1582Innovation Summit, which convened President Trump, his Cabinet,1583and leading CEOs from the technology and energy sectors.1584Throughout the day, participants raised our urgent need to1585build new energy infrastructure quickly and efficiently to meet1586the growing demands for energy. In your testimony, you discuss1587the unexpected delays MDU faced when rebuilding an electric1588distribution line due to Section 106 of the National Historic1589Preservation Act. Given that U.S. electricity demand is1590projected to increase by nearly 80 percent by 2050, how do you1591expect the current Section 106 process to significantly hinder1592critical energy development?1593    Mr. McDonald. Thanks for the question, Senator.1594    I think the answer is that it varies, and that gets back to1595the point in my testimony about the clarity needed in the1596statute. Depending on which federal agency you are talking to,1597even which consultant, which utility company, there has just1598been a lot of different interpretations of how do you define1599that area of potential effects and what the project is1600establishing there. So, I mean, potentially there are projects1601that will go on as planned and everybody will agree upon the1602same interpretation, but without that clarity in the statute,1603it is still a bit of a guessing game on how these projects are1604going to run and how efficient they are going to be planned and1605executed.1606    And as I spoke to--with that example, again, we are dealing1607with about a two, two-and-a-half-month window for construction.1608So, even a delay of a month or two, depending on the timing of1609when we get to that point in the process, can lead to a further1610delay, depending on what your construction season delays are.1611    Senator McCormick. Advice on what changes policymakers1612should pursue to address critical infrastructure delays caused1613by Section 106?1614    Mr. McDonald. I think, Senator, we can get you more1615definitive language on what that looks like. I think it's1616really just, for linear projects, in particular, if we're not1617receiving federal funding, which we typically don't--we are an1618investor-owned company, so it's pretty rare anyways--but if1619we're not receiving federal funding, then our thought is the1620jurisdiction for the federal agencies and the consultation1621projects is the land that they manage. That would be our1622suggestion, but we can follow up with more distinct language1623there too.1624    Senator McCormick. Very good.1625    Mr. Concho, I have a question for you, but I am not sure I1626am going to have enough time, so, I will submit that for the1627record.1628    Thank you.1629    The Chairman. Senator Padilla.1630    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to1631echo the sentiment that has been shared from several members1632already, and that's the importance, obviously, of truly1633meaningful tribal consultation. Consultation through Section1634106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is a critical1635tool within California. We, too, have a State Historic1636Preservation Officer, a SHPO, and in 2024 alone, the SHPO1637completed roughly 4,100 reviews under Section 106. So, it's not1638a slow, sleepy office. It is a very busy one, in addition to1639being an important one. This has included individual project1640consultations for efforts such as road projects, solar1641installations, and hazardous fuels projects in our forests.1642    California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes, more1643than any other state in the nation, and over 50 have THPOs, the1644Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. And we value this1645because tribes have traditional knowledge of the land and1646resources that have been significant to their people since time1647immemorial. That's why it's critical for the Federal Government1648to meaningfully engage with tribes when pursuing projects that1649could impact their cultural resources. And the key word I want1650to emphasize here is meaningful. Tribal consultation is not1651just a quick call, an email, whether or not it is replied to,1652simply for the purposes of checking a box. Meaningful means1653meaningful.1654    Mr. Concho, I know that in your testimony and some of the1655Q&A with other members, you have talked about not just the1656quality of engagement, how important that is, but the1657importance and value of early engagement as well. For the1658benefit of some of the members of the Committee, can you give1659some examples of how early engagement can lead to either1660reduced costs down the road, less risk of a project not getting1661to the finish line, if you will, and the long-term viability of1662some of these important projects?1663    Mr. Concho. Thank you for that question.1664    Back at Acoma, what I refer to as the Acoma Method, or the1665Acoma Way, we met with the one of the Kinder Morgan projects1666that was coming through our area. And you know, we did meet1667with them from the onset and we partnered with them. And we met1668with them and we brought in our tribal knowledgeable people1669that know the land, know my elders, and we, with the Governor,1670along with the Council, we sat and we talked about this project1671and how it is going to go, and where is it going to go, and how1672is it going to affect the land. So, we worked with them to1673agree on a specific area that we are going to survey. That way,1674we have enough room to say, oh, there is a cultural property1675here or something significant here. That way, for that1676pipeline, we can then say, okay, we are good with this project.1677Let's move forward.1678    And by doing so early, it allows the proponent to say,1679well, we sat with them. This is where it's going to go. The1680monitors are there with us. And so, they got done with the1681project in six weeks. There are other projects ongoing1682currently, such as a fiber-optic project that's going through1683the pueblo that we are working alongside the proponent with1684that project. So, we're not saying that Section 106 stops or1685gives the tribes permission to halt a project, but as long as1686we are working together, we can see outcomes and look these1687projects through and then see that they don't affect any of our1688cultural resources.1689    Senator Padilla. Wonderful. It seems to be an elegant1690evolution of what is referred to sometimes as the carpenter's1691rule, right? Measure twice, cut once, right? If you are1692thoughtful on the front end, you're not having to go back and1693redesign and redesign and accommodate for things that you learn1694later in the process because you consider them much earlier.1695    Dr. Merritt, quick follow-up question for you. What are1696some of the best practices that have allowed responsible1697development in Utah without undermining tribal resources?1698    Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that question.1699    And so, I will just refer back to my talking points. It's1700focusing on the process, the data, and the relationships. In1701Utah, our Department of Transportation has actually set up1702consultation agreements with tribes. So, the tribes aren't1703being inundated with projects that they're not typically1704concerned about as a way to limit down the workload for our1705tribal partners.1706    We also focus on the digital workflows, and we provide data1707sharing to all our state and federal partners to provide that1708information in real time. And all of these efficiencies allow1709us, much like Mr. Concho is saying, to invest up front to make1710the best decision. The better data we have, the better process1711we have, the better way we can plan for a project to not impact1712Utah's 13,000 years of human history. And so, we have done that1713in such a way that projects can move forward without deep-level1714concerns and impacting resources without due diligence.1715    Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. I know my time is up,1716Mr. Chairman. I just want to end on two quick notes.1717    One, I will submit some questions for the record in writing1718for the witnesses afterwards. I know some of my colleagues1719spoke to some of the funding and staffing, you know, general1720resource concerns--the need for them as opposed to the cuts and1721reductions that we seem to be fending off.1722    I will ask Mr. Concho specifically about THPOs and the1723$100,000 figure that seems very low, nowadays especially, and1724the value of additional investment for this process.1725    And lastly, Mr. Chairman, while the conversation has been1726centered around consultations for specific projects on a1727project-by-project basis, I know California is not the only1728state--maybe one of the first states--to grow these1729relationships and partnerships beyond just consultation for1730purposes of a specific project, but genuine partnerships and1731shared management responsibilities of public lands and1732stewardship for the long term of public lands. There is a lot1733of experience and historical knowledge to be gained here,1734whether it's management, whether it's environmental species1735protection, whether it's wildfire mitigation, on and on and on.1736So, I hope these are great examples that other states can be1737inspired by, learn from, and replicate.1738    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1739    Senator Heinrich. I am going to just put sort of a fine1740point on what Senator Padilla mentioned. A couple of things1741that we clearly heard in this hearing today are that we need1742better coordination between federal agencies, and that has been1743my personal experience, and I think that's something that1744probably is shared across the aisle. But we also need people at1745the desks. There is talk of extensive additional layoffs at our1746public land agencies. I think there is no question that will1747further slow the certainty that whether you care about this1748flavor of energy or that flavor of energy, if there is no one1749at the desk, you can't get a permit. And we need to make sure1750that's not the case. That is not responsible management. It's1751not responsible stewardship of our public lands. And hopefully,1752we can find some common ground around that for the entire1753energy spectrum.1754    Thank you, Chairman.1755    The Chairman. Thanks, and I appreciate that insight that1756nobody wants to see a process that has resulted in a lot of1757delays produce even more delays. I will note that the1758relatively recent efforts within the Trump administration to1759streamline the federal workforce--almost mathematically1760impossible that those could have caused the significant delays1761that we are talking about here. And I would add that the1762examples I mentioned, each of the examples I mentioned in my1763opening statement have been going on for many years, and each1764of them encountered significant delays either under the Biden1765administration or the Obama administration.1766    A lot of what we are talking about here today, as we have1767discussed at length, is the fact that we have some ambiguous1768text that has left THPOs and SHPOs, among others in the1769process, with a lot of subjective--there is a lot of1770subjectivity involved, and that has resulted in delays. So, to1771the extent that we can clarify those standards, we will all be1772better off.1773    I want to also enter into the record a piece by the1774Washington Post Editorial Board from a couple of days ago,1775talking about the ballroom and placing it in a historical1776context. That will be admitted, without objection.1777    [Washington Post editorial follows:]17781779[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]17801781    The Chairman. Finally, before we conclude today's hearing,1782I want to take a moment of personal privilege to recognize our1783Chief Counsel, Pat McCormick, who will soon be departing,1784sadly, after 14 years of service to this Committee and the1785United States Senate.1786    Pat is an extraordinary human being. Anybody who has1787interacted with him knows that. His mind is an encyclopedia1788that knows the work of this Committee backwards, forwards, and1789upside down. His judgment and his deep knowledge of all the1790laws touching on the subject matter of the Energy and Natural1791Resources Committee have anchored this Committee's work for1792many of its most complex and consequential debates over the1793last decade and a half. We will be introducing a resolution to1794honor that service, but for now, Pat, I just thank you for your1795many years of service.1796    Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Thank you to the Committee.1797    [Applause.]1798    The Chairman. We wish you the very best of luck in all of1799your future endeavors, and thanks for your service.1800    Mr. McCormick. Thank you very much. It has been an honor to1801work with you.1802    The Chairman. Thank you so much.1803    All right, so that will conclude today's hearing. I thank1804my colleagues for their contributions. I thank the witnesses,1805who have traveled great distance to offer great insights today.1806    Any Senator who wishes to submit additional questions for1807the record may do so. The deadline for doing that will be 6:001808p.m. tomorrow, and that is Thursday, the 30th of October.1809    Senators will have until 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday, November18105th, to add any statements for the record to today's hearing.1811    Thanks again for being here. The Committee stands1812adjourned.1813    [Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]18141815                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED18161817                              ----------18181819[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]18201821                                 [all]