[Senate Hearing 119-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-209
THE SECTION 106 CONSULTATION
PROCESS UNDER THE NATIONAL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2025
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-931 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
STEVE DAINES, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi ALEX PADILLA, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel
Jacey Albaugh, Majority Professional Staff Member
Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
Maya Hermann, Minority Natural Resources Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............ 1
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
New Mexico..................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Merritt, Dr. Chris, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer..... 4
McDonald, Andy, Environmental Compliance Manager, Montana-Dakota
Utilities Company.............................................. 14
Concho, Steven, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Pueblo of
Acoma, New Mexico; Board Member, National Association of Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers................................. 21
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
ACHP Foundation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 77
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
Article entitled ``Section 106 Success Story: Innovative
Approach Is Model for Cultural Resource Management''....... 73
Article entitled ``Section 106 Success Story: Spaceport
America: Commitment to Balance 21st and 16th Centuries''... 75
American Cultural Resources Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 80
Andrascik, Hannah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 85
Association of American Railroads:
Statement for the Record..................................... 86
Association of Oregon Archaeologists:
Letter for the Record........................................ 93
Boston, Christine:
Letter for the Record........................................ 95
Britt, Kelly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 96
Brooks, Allyson:
Statement for the Record..................................... 97
Burke, Adrienne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 101
Burke Williams, Amanda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 100
Caldwell, Aaron:
Letter for the Record........................................ 102
Chuipka, Jason:
Letter for the Record........................................ 105
Click, Rosie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 106
Concho, Steven:
Opening Statement............................................ 21
Written Testimony............................................ 23
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 62
Cowlitz Indian Tribe:
Statement for the Record..................................... 107
Ellyson, Laura:
Letter for the Record........................................ 110
Evo, Julie:
Statement for the Record..................................... 112
Falls, Eva:
Comments for the Record...................................... 115
Fort Belknap Indian Community:
Statement for the Record..................................... 116
Friedberg, Dara:
Communication for the Record................................. 121
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Higgins, Kelly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 122
Hillen, Beth:
Letter for the Record........................................ 123
Huddleston, Loren:
Communication for the Record................................. 125
Hynes, Johanna:
Letter for the Record........................................ 126
Igiugig Village Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 127
Kannady, John:
Communication for the Record................................. 130
Kawerak, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 131
Kear, Matthew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 133
Kessler, Dean:
Letter for the Record........................................ 134
Klamath Water Users Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 135
Laguna Pueblo:
Statement for the Record..................................... 140
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Washington Post editorial entitled ``In Defense of the White
House Ballroom'' published on October 25, 2025............. 47
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians:
Statement for the Record..................................... 143
Martel, Mason:
Letter for the Record........................................ 146
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe:
Letter for the Record from David Weeden, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer....................................... 147
Statement for the Record from Brian Weeden, Chairman......... 153
McDonald, Andy:
Opening Statement............................................ 14
Written Testimony............................................ 16
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 57
Merritt, Dr. Chris:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 51
Meyers, Maureen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 156
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe:
Statement for the Record..................................... 157
Miller, Derek:
Communication for the Record................................. 162
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers:
Statement for the Record..................................... 163
National Congress of American Indians:
Statement for the Record..................................... 168
National Trust for Historic Preservation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 179
Navajo Nation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 185
Nietering, Nathan:
Communication for the Record................................. 187
Oregon Water Resources Congress:
Statement for the Record..................................... 188
Peresolak, Kate:
Letter for the Record........................................ 192
Preservation Action:
Statement for the Record..................................... 193
Pueblo de Cochiti:
Statement for the Record..................................... 197
Quinault Indian Nation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 202
Rathbone, Stuart:
Letter for the Record........................................ 204
Receveur, Haley:
Letter for the Record........................................ 207
Reid, Dawn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 208
Slick, Katherine:
Statement for the Record..................................... 210
Snoqualmie Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 212
Society for American Archaeology:
Statement for the Record..................................... 216
Society for Historical Archaeology:
Executive Summary of Statement for the Record................ 223
Full Statement for the Record................................ 225
Steel Manufacturers Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 230
Swanton, Kristin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 232
Terry, Matthew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 233
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska:
Letter for the Record........................................ 234
Tohono O'odham Nation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 236
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund:
Statement for the Record..................................... 239
Village of Solomon (AK):
Letter for the Record........................................ 245
Walzer, Mariah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 248
Ward, Herbert Henry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 249
Welch, Elizabeth L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 250
Wellman, Judith:
Letter for the Record........................................ 251
Williams, Levi:
Letter for the Record........................................ 252
Woods, Erin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 253
Young, Jessica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 255
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo:
Letter for the Record........................................ 257
Zuercher, Shannon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 259
THE SECTION 106 CONSULTATION
PROCESS UNDER THE NATIONAL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in Room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman
of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Good
morning and welcome.
At today's hearing, we are going to examine the
consultation process that takes place pursuant to Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Congress
enacted the statute in 1966 to ensure that the Federal
Government would give due consideration to preserving America's
historical artifacts with appropriate stakeholders. This
section of NHPA is itself purely procedural, and as such, it
requires government officials to undertake a specific process,
but doesn't mandate any specified outcome. In that regard, it's
similar to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which
directs a process, not a result, and which the Supreme Court
recently, in its Seven County decision, returned to a right-
sized role in federal policymaking. Today, we will consider the
scope of Section 106 of NHPA to ensure that it plays the role
that Congress intended when NHPA was enacted.
We will be hearing from three witnesses today to better
understand these issues. They are, first, Dr. Chris Merritt,
the State Historic Preservation Officer for the State of Utah.
Second, Mr. Andy McDonald, the Environmental Compliance Manager
for Montana-Dakota Utilities Company. And finally, Mr. Steven
Concho, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pueblo
of Acoma. Welcome to each of you.
When a law written to protect our past starts to block our
future, it can be worth examining where we are and how we got
here, and how we might find a better balance and a better way
forward. The National Historic Preservation Act was written in
1966 to prevent places of genuine historical value from being
wiped out before anyone even had the chance to speak up or to
identify a relevant consideration. Few, if any, would dispute
that purpose. We ought to protect the places that show where we
came from and who we are. But over the years, a narrow
procedural safeguard has evolved into a sprawling,
unpredictable process that now delays some of the very projects
our country needs to build and maintain that story. Section 106
has within it a consultation process that has become more like
a maze without a map. Agencies, developers, and even
preservation officers often don't know where the boundaries lie
or how long the path with be. That confusion is showing up all
over the country and the uncertainty it sows has consequences
for everyone.
The Royal Slope Solar project in Washington is now three
years behind schedule. The Bonanza Solar project in Nevada has
been under construction for nearly three years. The Cape Wind
and Vineyard Wind projects in Massachusetts each faced long
delays before they could move forward. The Great Lakes Tunnel
project in Michigan, which would improve an important energy
link across the Upper Midwest, has spent years caught in back-
and-forth reviews. Ironically, this project began because the
state insisted the existing pipeline was unsafe and that it
needed to be buried for protection. But once the tunnel was
proposed, the ``area of potential effects,'' as the statutory
language directs us to inquire into, became so broad that every
step triggered a new consultation. That, in turn, broadened the
scope, and the broadened scope has added roughly four years to
the schedule of the project. In Oregon, the Department of
Forestry used most of its planning funds on heritage surveys
required under Section 106 instead of the wildfire work those
dollars were meant to support.
These are not just the priorities of one particular
political party or another that we are talking about. This
affects projects all over the country, supported by people of
many, many different backgrounds. They include solar and wind
projects that my friends on the other side of the aisle would
very much like to move forward. And yet, they all run into the
same consultation process that has grown so broad--and at times
inconsistent--that it hinders and in some cases outright blocks
projects, even though they may enjoy support from both
political parties and from people at every point along the
ideological continuum.
My home State of Utah has shown how we can recalibrate and
achieve a balance acceptable to everyone. Our state historic
preservation office has digitized records, created clear
expectations, and kept consultation moving efficiently. Utah
protects what is genuinely historic while allowing much-needed
projects that will benefit its citizens to move forward in a
timely manner. A law meant to safeguard our shared national
heritage should not become an instrument of paralysis. Congress
can preserve what is worth remembering without turning every
permit into an archeological expedition. The purpose of this
law is and was always to protect what matters, not to make
action impossible. Preserving our heritage should help us build
wisely, but it should not and must not keep us from building at
all. That is the balance this hearing is about. That's the type
of balance we are hoping to be able to find. Exploring ways to
protect the story of where we have been without making it
impossible to build what comes next.
And now, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Senator
Heinrich.
OPENGING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
The National Historic Preservation Act says something very
simple: before we build something we should know if there is an
important piece of our nation's history or culture in the area
where we are planning to build. And if there is, we should try
to figure out if we can avoid damaging it. Sometimes, damage
can't be avoided, and sometimes, the project being built is
important enough that damage to a historic resource is a trade-
off that we choose to make. The NHPA allows for that, but we
should at least check before we do irreversible damage to our
national heritage. We can and must build the energy
infrastructure our economy and our climate need while also
preserving our history and our heritage. We can do both.
Our kids and our grandkids deserve to know where they come
from, and we can't tell the story of our nation without
protecting the places that literally tell those stories.
Sometimes those places are a historic building or a historic
district. Sometimes those places are a valley or a mesa or a
mountain. In my State of New Mexico, Mount Taylor dominates the
horizon of central and western New Mexico, rising 5,000 feet
from the desert below to a peak of above 11,000 feet. It is
visible from nearly 100 miles away and it is sacred to at least
eight tribes in New Mexico and Arizona.
Mount Taylor and its surrounding mesas are a traditional
cultural property, and the impact of development on it should
be carefully considered before permits are issued. And that's
what the National Historic Preservation Act requires. Without
the NHPA, federal agencies could allow new development on this
mountain without ever considering its impact on the religious
practices and the traditions of neighboring tribal communities.
Mount Taylor is listed on the State Register of Historic Places
as a traditional cultural property, and that means that
projects there get more scrutiny than other places in our
state. But that's as it should be because of the significance
of Mount Taylor to communities across our state.
There is no perfect law on the books, and we should always
look for ways to make processes like Section 106 consultation
more efficient and more effective. I am confident we can do
that while also protecting the places, even the stories, that
have forged our national heritage. I am equally confident we
can't do any of this without staff at the agencies that process
permits for projects on federal lands. Our public land agencies
have already lost more than 20 percent of their staff to early
retirements, buyouts, and we are expecting layoffs at the land
management agencies in the coming weeks that will make this
even worse.
It doesn't matter what kind of permit you are looking for,
whether it's oil or gas, or grazing, or road construction, or
recreation; if the desk your permit application has landed on
doesn't have a human behind it, you are not going to get your
permit. We can tweak and reform laws all we want, but
fundamentally, until we have adequate staff at the agencies
that process permits, we will continue to see frustratingly
long permitting times. And as I have said a number of times
now, we can't do permitting reform if the administration
persists in ignoring the fundamental laws. That is just as true
for Section 106 agreements as it is for oil and gas permits. We
absolutely have to fix these issues alongside process
improvements if we are serious about permitting reform.
And finally, I would point out that there are three
buildings in this city that the National Historic Preservation
Act does not apply to--the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the
White House--and we have all seen what is going on at the White
House right now--to our house.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about
these issues, and I am incredibly pleased to introduce Mr.
Steven Concho from Acoma Pueblo, New Mexico. Mr. Concho is a
member of the Pueblo of Acoma, located in the western part of
our state. He has served for nearly 15 years now in the
Pueblo's Office of Historic Preservation, including for the
past five years as the Pueblo's Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, or THPO. Mr. Concho also represents the Four Corners
Region on the Board of Directors for the National Association
of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, where he advocates
for the protection of tribal cultural heritage and the
advancement of tribal preservation programs nationwide.
In his role as THPO, Mr. Concho is dedicated to ensuring
the protection, preservation, and continued vitality of Acoma's
ancestral lands and the broader Acoma cultural province for
future generations. His work emphasizes both safeguarding
sacred places and promoting meaningful tribal participation in
federal and state preservation processes. He is passionate
about community education, and strives to inspire younger
generations to pursue careers in archaeology, anthropology, and
cultural resource management, ensuring that the work of
preservation continues under future Acoma leaders. Welcome, Mr.
Concho, and thank you to all of our witnesses for lending us
your expertise this morning on this incredibly salient topic.
The Chairman. Okay, we are now going to hear from our
witnesses today. We will hear from each of you in five-minute
rounds. We will start with you, Dr. Merritt, and then go to Mr.
McDonald, then Mr. Concho.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS MERRITT,
UTAH STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. I
am honored to be here today.
I am Dr. Chris Merritt, the State Historic Preservation
Officer for Utah. I am excited today to talk briefly about the
National Historic Preservation Act. I have been a professional
archeologist for over 20 years, with the last 13 serving the
great State of Utah. Every day I am excited to go to work and
share my passion for history.
But let's first start with a small history review. The
1950s and 60s witnessed large federal initiatives, such as
interstate highways and urban renewal. Few checks existed, and
because of this, many historic downtowns, neighborhoods, and
places of archeological heritage were unnecessarily destroyed
with little to no consideration. This changed in 1966 with the
passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, which, in
part, mandated that federal agencies take into account their
actions on historic properties. As expressed in the preamble of
the Act, Congress found that, ``The spirit and direction of the
nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic
heritage.''
The Act established a federalist approach to historic
preservation, empowering each state to create its own office to
coordinate federal reviews and activities. The State Historic
Preservation Office, or SHPO, and later THPOs. Creation of
SHPOs was recognition that there needed to be a voice at the
state level to review projects and offer local advice and
technical assistance. While the Act created many programs, my
comments today focus on the legal compliance process, known as
106. From the Act emerged a regulatory process that starts by
determining if an undertaking has a potential to cause harm,
then identifying historic properties within the area, assessing
those effects to historic properties, and finally resolving
effects, when necessary. This process can be broadly compared
to the development of environmental analysis under NEPA. There
are many technical aspects of this type of review, but
ultimately, this is a procedural law meant to have a beginning
and an end.
The Utah SHPO knows that this process should be clear,
reasonable, and as predictable as possible, for not only the
good of the agency and proponent, but also for historic
properties themselves. Ambiguity in the scope, procedures, and
timeline in a Section 106 process could endanger historic
properties by dedicating insufficient time and resources to
appropriately plan for these properties, and could needlessly
make them a perceived roadblock when expectations could have
been clear at the beginning. We work through the process and
move forward undertakings while still ensuring that historic
properties are protected. My team reviews about 1,500 federal
undertakings per year, ranging from mineral exploration
programs to large-scale post wildland fire rehabilitation. But
only 3.2 percent of those result in adverse effects,
illustrating that the vast majority of undertakings do not harm
historic properties. SHPOs have 30 days to review projects, but
we have a goal with our governor's office and legislature to
cut that in half. We regularly cut review times by over 75
percent. We have accomplished the feat of obliterating
regulatory review timelines by not just commitment of dedicated
staff, but investment in digital workflows.
With support from the governor and the legislature, we have
been paperless since 2017, and are one of the first SHPOs to do
so. This builds on our comprehensive digital database
containing 270,000 historic resources, nearly 50,000
inventories, and adding another 5,500 resources per year. And
while those numbers are large, only about nine percent of Utah
has been inventoried. We share this comprehensive information
with all federal and state agencies and consultants. In my
tenure with the SHPO, we have focused on the reliability and
predictability of Section 106 by working to create interagency
uniformity, such as a standard-setting agreement with all five
Utah national forests. We also have nearly a dozen programmatic
agreements with federal agencies that streamline the process,
and we signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with the Army Corps
of Engineers just last week.
There are times of concern, however, where national-level
streamlining agreements can go too far. At the end of the last
administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
proposed a program comment that would have weakened or removed
state and public reviews of only those types of undertakings
that fell underneath deeply politicized categories. Thankfully,
that proposed program comment didn't carry over at the
administration change, but it had the potential to destroy the
federalist approach to preservation by picking winners and
losers based solely on the undertaking. Other issues with
Section 106 can arise when the regulations are stretched beyond
reasonability or misinterpreted, or by abusing procedural
regulatory statements to unduly delay projects that receive
SHPO concurrence. For example, one SHPO finds that a grazing
allotment fence restringing is a simple matter of a letter,
while another finds that the entire adjoining 100,000-acre
allotment needs inventory and necessitates creation of an
agreement document that could take months.
There are always opportunities to do Section 106 better. I
am personally hopeful that the model we employ in Utah can
demonstrate where efficiencies and streamlining improve the
process for all involved parties. Empowering the states to be
at the center of this process is a critical component of the
law to provide a check and balance on federal actions and their
impacts on cultural resources. In Utah, we are committed to
working collaboratively to keep the process moving and to never
allow a ``we can't'' mindset to determine our course of action.
Perhaps our greatest strength is that we recognize that the
Section 106 process was meant to be pragmatic and solution-
focused, not a means of stopping projects.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Merritt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Merritt.
Mr. McDonald.
STATEMENT OF ANDY MCDONALD, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MANAGER,
MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY
Mr. McDonald. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on the need to improve predictability and
certainty in the Section 106 review process under the National
Historic Preservation Act. My name is Andy McDonald, and I
serve as the Environmental Compliance Manager responsible for
supporting Montana-Dakota Utilities Company's electric
operations. Montana-Dakota is a small investor-owned utility
company that generates, transmits, and distributes electricity
to more than 145,000 customers across 185 communities and
adjacent rural areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
and Wyoming.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to define
and document the area of potential effects (APE) of a proposed
project--in other words, the area that must be assessed for
impacts to historic resources. The implementing regulations
define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been
interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively, creating
confusion and unnecessary delays. Montana-Dakota has
experienced this issue on recent projects. In the example I
would like to discuss today, Montana-Dakota is rebuilding a
three-mile electric distribution line where approximately half
of the line crosses federal lands managed by two different
federal agencies. The project involves undergrounding lines for
wildfire risk mitigation and upgrading aging infrastructure.
One agency required the APE to include only the portion of land
managed by that agency. However, the other agency required the
APE to include the entire three miles, including portions on
private land where no federal approval is required. It's
important to note that there is an area of cultural
significance on federal land in this area that we are working
with the agency to find a path around that does not negatively
affect those important resources.
We are cognizant of the fact that these resources could
extend onto neighboring private lands. Unfortunately, there is
a perception among some that if the federal agencies don't have
oversight over projects, that industry disregards any and all
aspects of environmental concern. My experience over the last
ten years paints a brighter picture about our efforts to
provide a reliable energy source to our customers, while
respecting the environmental and cultural resources that exist
across our landscape. There are plenty of examples across the
country of voluntary efforts made by industry to preserve our
landscape and resources. In a situation such as the one I have
described, utilities still have the ability to use consultants
and work with the appropriate state and tribal agencies and
private landowners to navigate a path around these areas
without negatively impacting historic resources. This approach
provides more certainty for industry and our federal
counterparts. They know which areas they are responsible for,
and we know which areas we are responsible for. This allows
projects to be planned and executed in a more timely and
economical manner. It will also allow federal employees more
time to focus on other management needs within their respective
areas.
To be clear, our issue is not with the intent of Section
106 or the federal employees' efforts to interpret and
implement it, but rather, the absence of clear, predictable
boundaries around what constitutes the relevant APE and what
effects must be considered. As my example illuminates, this
lack of clarity leads to inconsistent interpretations among
agencies, regions, individual staff, consultants, and even
utility companies.
In certain areas, environmental conditions and wildlife
restrictions leave extremely limited annual windows for
construction to be completed--sometimes as little as two months
during the year. In order to efficiently plan for rebuilding
our existing infrastructure to more modern designs, as well as
building new infrastructure to serve the rapidly expanding load
growth, clarity is needed in the NHPA. Congress has an
opportunity to enhance predictability and certainty to the
Section 106 review process for all parties involved,
specifically for linear projects, clarifying that agencies
shall review the geographic area or areas within which an
undertaking may directly cause alterations in the character or
use of historic properties if any such properties exist in that
area, and that agencies may only consider effects that share a
reasonably close causal relationship to and are proximately
caused by the undertaking. Lastly, clarifying that where the
geographic area or areas of an undertaking include multiple
agency jurisdictions, agencies must work together to apply
consistent standards with regard to reviewing potential
alterations in the character or use of historic properties.
This preserves the spirit of the NHPA while restoring
predictability and adding certainty to the Section 106 process.
On behalf of Montana-Dakota Utilities Company and EEI, I
appreciate the Committee's attention to this critical issue,
and I support Congress making changes to the NHPA to achieve a
more efficient, consistent, predictable, and effective Section
106 process. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. McDonald.
Mr. Concho, we will hear from you next.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN CONCHO, TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICER, PUEBLO OF ACOMA, NEW MEXICO; BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
Mr. Concho. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about the Section 106 process under the National
Historic Preservation Act. My name is Steven Concho, and I am a
member of the Pueblo of Acoma, and I serve as the Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer for the pueblo. I also sit on the
Board of Directors for the National Association of Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers, representing the Four Corners
region.
Our mesa-top home at Acoma, also known as Sky City, has
been where Acoma people have lived for more than a 1,000 years.
Our culture, language, and way of life are tied to an ancestral
landscape that extends far beyond our present-day boundaries.
Protecting these places is essential not only for our identity,
but for our survival as Acoma people. The Section 106 process
is one of a few laws that require the United States to listen
to tribes before federal actions disturb places of historic,
cultural, and often spiritual importance. Consultation under
Section 106 is not a courtesy. It is a legal duty that reflects
the government-to-government relationship between federally
recognized tribes and the United States and a trust
responsibility.
Section 106 requires agencies to take tribal input into
account by consulting at every stage, but it does not dictate
an outcome or prevent development. Development may still
proceed when a historic property is determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, including as a
traditional cultural property. The National Historic
Preservation Act simply requires that the federal agency
consider the adverse effects a proposed development would have
on a historic property before approving the permit. The
preference is to avoid the adverse effects, and if that is not
at all possible, the law requires mitigation. Consultation
provides the tribes, like ours, with a seat at the table and a
say in what the effects would be and how to avoid or mitigate
them. It does not hand tribes a veto. When tribes are consulted
early and properly, in my experience, almost all projects have
moved forward efficiently and collaboratively in a way that
protects cultural resources.
That's why early and meaningful consultation matters. On
the other hand, when the agencies engage tribes only after
decisions have been made, projects can stall because of fights
over threatened resources, resulting in rising costs. When
tribes are brought in from the start, projects move faster and
cultural resources are preserved. At Acoma, we saw firsthand
the positive effects of early and meaningful consultation with
a proposed CO2 pipeline that was going to cross 14
miles of Acoma lands. We developed a process to address this
project that we call the ``Acoma Model.''
From the very beginning of this pipeline project, the
Bureau of Land Management and the energy company worked
directly with the Pueblo of Acoma. The Pueblo entered into a
cost reimbursement agreement with the company so our cultural
experts could work alongside the project archeologist and
engineers. Together, in six weeks, working with a team of
knowledgeable Acoma cultural practitioners, the project team
surveyed 14 miles of Acoma trust land, identified more than 150
cultural sites, including 90 that would have never been
recognized through standard archeological methods, and
successfully rerouted the pipeline corridor to avoid them
entirely. That collaboration saved time, avoided conflict, and
protected cultural resources that are important to the Acoma
people. This is what successful consultation looks like.
Our office manages dozens of consultation requests across
four states every month with minimal staff and limited short-
term federal funding. Like many tribal historic preservation
offices, Acoma operates on roughly $100,000 a year, barely
enough to cover salaries, travel, and essential operations.
This level of funding forces all THPOs, including ours, to
triage projects and stretch limited capacity, which can lead
agencies to misinterpret slower response as delays. In reality,
the fastest and most effective way to improve consultations for
everyone--tribes, agencies, and industry--is to invest directly
in THPO capacity.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the Pueblo of Acoma
urges Congress to reaffirm support of Section 106, strengthen
support for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and ensure
that early, well-funded consultation remains a cornerstone of
responsible federal decision-making.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Concho follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
We will now begin five-minute rounds of questions,
alternating between Republicans and Democrats, in order of
seniority, subject to the early bird rule, and we will begin
that now.
We will start with you, Dr. Merritt.
Now, the statutory text that we are dealing with here,
Section 106 of NHPA, is ambiguous. It provides simple, broad
directions suggesting that federal agencies need to consider
effects on historic properties. Now, while there are
regulations that spell out some of the details, and something
of a process, they also leave significant details open to
interpretation. As a result, the scope of what can be
considered during the consultation process has ballooned rather
dramatically. How do you determine the appropriate area of
potential effects as you are reviewing? How do you keep that
area proportionate and relevant to the direct impacts on the
project?
Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Chairman, for that question, and I
will nerd out for a second for everybody's sake. So the area of
potential effect in 36 CFR 800 is defined by the direct
effects. So, think about digging, trenching, et cetera--
physical impacts. But there are portions of the APE that deal
with visual, atmospheric, and auditory. It is those parts,
those indirect effects, that do draw the APE larger in many
cases. I will say, of the 1,500 cases that we review a year in
Utah, only a few dozen, if not one percent of those cases, have
what we would call a variable APE based on those resources.
And so, as you point out, it is ambiguous, it is vague. And
there are positives for that and there are also very negatives,
as Mr. McDonald has mentioned. And so, we work through a
consultation process. The agency approaches us on a proposed
area of potential effects at the SHPO or the THPO, and then
other parties also have an opinion on what that APE could look
like. There is need, in my opinion, to better define some of
these aspects to create reliability in establishing APEs and
other effects.
The other thing I want to say is, I have a three-stool
approach in Utah--practice, data, and relationships. Practice,
to me, is an investment up front of setting up reliable
standards. And so, for a long time, Section 106 has been a very
reactive process. I would like to be proactive and come up with
established rules, so that as projects come forward, there is a
rule book for these proponents and other parties to play by
versus having every single process through the sausage grinder
end up in a different place.
The Chairman. Yes, and that makes a lot of sense.
Now, under the current process, what determines the extent
of indirect impacts when you see them, and how can those
indirect impacts be objectively and reasonably quantified when
determining the adverse effects? Is that part of the difficulty
here, figuring out how to quantify, how to evaluate relative
indirect impacts?
Dr. Merritt. Yes, that's a great question.
So, when we talk about effects, I will go to the parallel
law, the National Register of Historic Places. When we
designate something eligible for the National Register, we are
supposed to say what are those character-defining features that
make that site significant. When we go into the 106 process,
that's how we assess the impact of the project. Are we changing
those factors that make it eligible for the National Register--
those character-defining features? And I have to say, I cannot
quantify and I cannot come up with an objective measure of
indirect effects because it is so variable based on the
resource itself. A small uranium mine in central Utah is going
to be a different assessment than perhaps a tribally important
landscape in another part of our state.
And so, that's why it becomes very tricky when you are
assessing those visual and atmospheric and auditory effects to
come up with a regular agreed-upon pattern. And that's why,
again, I go back--I would like to invest early and set up
standards so not every single project has a different outcome.
The Chairman. Right. It would diminish the subjectivity
inherent in it, and when you have less subjectivity, you are
probably going to have a faster, more straightforward process.
Dr. Merritt. Absolutely, sir. And I think the subjectivity
creates frustration from agencies, tribal members, nations, and
proponents. So, I think ambiguity is sometimes the big problem.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. McDonald, in your testimony, you
state that ``the NHPA Section 106 implementing regulations
define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been
interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively.''
This is a fundamental issue, isn't it? One that we face
with many permitting statutes, including this one, including
NEPA, wherein there is a fairly simple procedural requirement
in a statute that has been weaponized, or it has at least
wandered beyond its original scope, the scope of its original
understanding. To what extent has this particular lack of
clarity in Section 106 delayed MDU's distribution line?
Mr. McDonald. Senator, thank you for the question.
In this particular project, it has delayed it on the terms
of months, more than years, you know, probably about 12 to 18
months in the process. This also is a line where we are dealing
with kind of going up the side of a mountain to a certain
extent, so our timeline for construction for this one is about
a two-month window from when the snowpack comes off to when we
are getting into the portion where it's too dry to work on. So,
it's not necessarily the consultation process that resulted in
that length of delay, but because of the timing of those
decisions and how that process has kind of been held up because
of the misunderstanding of where we need to look at and where
we don't need to look at for projects, or where we need to work
with state or tribal partners versus the federal partners in
that process. We have missed that window and now we are waiting
another construction season to address that line.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
For Mr. Concho to begin with, and then I want to hear Dr.
Merritt's opinion as well. In your experience, what would
expedite consultation with states and tribes, and how much of
this is ambiguity and how much of it is fundamental resourcing
of the offices that evaluate these projects? To Mr. Concho.
Mr. Concho. Yes, thank you for your question. I think, and
as I have stated, what works for Acoma is the Acoma Model,
which does force the project proponents to consult with the
tribe and bring us in at an early stage. That way, we know
exactly what is going on and how we can approach the projects
together. And it has worked. And we have had very much success
with that model. And so, I think just involving the tribes and
bringing us in at an early stage really expedites, and often,
in the long run, saves costs.
Senator Heinrich. Right.
Dr. Merritt.
Dr. Merritt. I feel I am very lucky to work in Utah because
our governor and our legislature provide us the tools to do
this efficiently. So always the knee-jerk answer is, like, more
money, more staff. And in some cases, in some states and many
tribes, that is very, very true. In Utah, that is not the case.
Senator Heinrich. What is your overall budget in Utah?
Dr. Merritt. This is a good question. We receive 60 percent
of our budget from the National Park Service through the
Historic Preservation Fund. So, I am sitting up here 60 percent
federally funded. That's just a tad under----
Senator Heinrich. What is the stateside piece?
Dr. Merritt. So, the state side is at 40 percent match.
Senator Heinrich. Yes.
Dr. Merritt. So, it's about a million dollars from the feds
and then, you know, $700,000 to $800,000 from the state.
And so, your question towards efficiencies--I think, again,
it goes towards early and often. I think you are going to hear
that a lot--lot of the projects we see in Utah that go
sideways, if we had better integration very early on in the
process, if the proponent had been told, like this is an
expectation, if the agencies talked to each other, I think all
of those embed efficiencies in the system.
Senator Heinrich. Say that last part one more time, because
that has been my experience as to many of these big
infrastructure projects. One of the fundamental challenges is
when the agencies----
Dr. Merritt. Don't integrate themselves and they don't----
Senator Heinrich [continuing]. Don't talk to each other
early in the process. Absolutely.
Mr. Concho, what is your budget again? Did you say
$100,000?
Mr. Concho. Yes, a little over $100,000 is the
appropriations that we have received.
Senator Heinrich. And do you receive any federal funds as
part of that?
Mr. Concho. We don't have--it's mostly just grants, and
then if there is some tribal funding to supplement.
Senator Heinrich. Dr. Merritt, I want to ask you if there
are tools that we should be using that are underused widely in
this process, and I am thinking, you know, because people made
the analogy to NEPA. In NEPA, we have categorical exclusions,
and those apply to things where the fact pattern is
demonstrably the same over and over and over again, and so, you
analyze those as a basket, rather than every single individual
time. Are there tools like that within the National Historic
Preservation Act that you think we should be utilizing more?
Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that one, because this
is one I am really passionate about. In my 13 years at the
state, I have invested heavily in what we call programmatic
agreements. So, in the 800 regulations that implement Section
106, they give us the tool to create agreements that can make
routine or even complex undertakings into an agreement document
that you enter the sausage grinder and you know what you are
going to end up with. Programmatic agreements have the ability
to do what we call streamline. And that is putting those things
in buckets, or baskets, or whatever analogy we would like. And
that allows us efficiencies in the system, because not every
single fence restringing project or every single USDA
disbursement to a farmer for a crop replacement, that doesn't
need to go through a full four-step process. And so, we can use
a programmatic agreement to say, analyze it at the agency
level, do your tribal consultation, but we don't need to see
the project at the state SHPO. You send that to us at the end
of the year.
And so, that's where our caseload is probably higher than
1,500, because we have put so many of those cases into large
buckets.
Senator Heinrich. Into those buckets, yes.
Mr. Concho, given the history of our country, the history
of your pueblo, why is it important for us to hear your
perspective when we consider historic preservation issues?
Mr. Concho. Thank you for that question. Yes, it's very
important that you hear the pueblo's perspective because from
where I am from, we have lived this life for almost a thousand
years, and I am here as a THPO in this capacity, basically
because I love what I do. I love my job. And I do this for
those folks yet to be born, to protect the area where I am
from, because it has been our--we have footsteps all over the
Southwest, and we still continue to migrate and visit and touch
these places, like Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, and protect these
places through song, through prayers, and also, often, we go
and visit these places still today. These places, people refer
to them as ruins or abandoned, but they are not. We still go to
these places. They are living places that still hold meaning to
the pueblo people. And this is where I come from, from the
Southwest, from the Pueblo of Acoma, one of the oldest
continuously inhabited cities in the United States, and we are
happy to be that way because we still continue to have our
traditions as they were given to us for a thousand years. And
protecting all these places in between keeps our tradition
alive, keeps our tradition growing.
Senator Heinrich. It's a living cultural landscape.
Mr. Concho. Yes, living cultural.
The Chairman. Senator Justice.
Senator Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member--
and I am just a plain-spoken guy from the State of West
Virginia, very proud of it, done a lot, a lot, a lot of stuff,
and I would just say just this--we absolutely should always
continue to ask ourselves, and I wrote it down, is, can we
protect and move forward at the same time? It's just that
simple. And the next thing that I would say is just what my dad
has said many times, but I will never forget this. You know, my
dad was a graduate as an aeronautical engineer from Purdue
University. And right after he came out of that, he enlisted in
the Air Force, and lo and behold, they taught him how to fly,
and he was flying a B-29 bomber, World War II. Now, you just
think about that guy and how great all those folks were, men
and women at that time, and the contribution that they made to
all of us, to each and every one of us. That guy stood at an
engineering table with two or three engineers and a
superintendent of a job and they were trying to figure out
exactly where to put the road. And I will never forget this
until I die--they went on and on for probably an hour and a
half, and then, at that time, Dad said to the superintendent,
``Kirby, I don't know exactly what the right answer is, but
this damn well ain't it.''
Now, that's all there is to this whole situation here. We
know what all the red tape and all the problems are, for crying
out loud. We know that we want to protect. You spoke, sir,
about the ruins and everything that people call it, but they
speak to you, do they not? They do. We know we have to protect.
We know that. But at the same time, we have got to find a way
to move forward because really and truly, the red tape, the
permitting process, to do anything--you see, I am a business
guy. The permitting process is so absolutely bogged down, it's
unbelievable. And you talk about sausage, I mean, for crying
out loud, it's the most bizarre things at times that anybody
could ever imagine.
So, we have got to do something about it, and we have got
to fix it. And we are smart. And we have the ability to fix it.
Please, let's quit denying, please, someway, somehow, let's
quit denying that we have a problem. I mean, it's preposterous
to think just how bad the problem really is. You know, we have
got to live here, too. That's all there is to it. And we have
got to do things. And we have got to try to make things better.
We have an energy meltdown right on our doorstep and we have
got to do something about that, too. If we don't watch out, we
are going to spin around two or three times in this great,
great, great nation, and we are going to say, uh oh, we have
got to a real, real--moment.
And so, with all that being said, I have really only got
just one question, and this would be to Mr. McDonald, and it's
so obvious, it's off the chart, but you know, what we have read
in here is, can you provide an estimate of the direct cost--
personnel, survey work, legal expenses, on and on and on--that
are solely attributable to Section 106, a process for a multi-
state project and how that cost is ultimately passed down to
the American energy consumers? To put it plainly, can you give
me an estimate of how much American taxpayers are paying for
the Federal Government's overcomplicated process? Please, sir.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, our
utility isn't quite the largest utility. We are, in fact,
pretty small in the grand scheme of things. We can certainly
visit with some of our counterparts and I can get you a more
reasonable estimate for that answer for the record, if that is
acceptable?
Senator Justice. Well, surely--surely, it's acceptable. But
the bottom line to the whole thing of what I am trying to say
is, the whole process here is not working. The process is
ungodly expensive and it is absolutely a time consumer like
nobody's business. We have just got to do something about it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
Ranking Member.
Can I just ask all the panel members--do any of you agree
that we should eliminate entirely the Section 106? Anybody that
agrees with that?
Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald. No.
Senator Cortez Masto. Dr. Merritt.
Dr. Merritt. No.
Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Concho.
Mr. Concho. No.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
I appreciate it, and I think there is opportunity to
streamline, and it makes sense, and I appreciate all of you
coming here. Obviously, this is necessary and it does work, in
some fashion, and what we are trying to figure out is where we
can streamline it. And all of you here are important in helping
us make that determination.
Dr. Merritt, thank you for being here and for the work that
you are doing for the State of Utah. As a neighbor in Nevada,
we appreciate that. I have spent a lot of time in Utah.
Let me ask you this: you talked about how APE should be
further defined--atmospheric, visual, auditory. How would we
define that at a federal level without implicating what you
said, the uniqueness of each project in every other state?
Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that, and I have
enjoyed working with the Nevada SHPO for many years. So, it's
good to see you today.
That's tricky. I have asked myself that, like, where in the
regulations can we make this more clear because I do feel there
are points of it. I don't know how to do it at a broad level.
This is why Utah is different than Nevada is different than
Wyoming is different than Maine. And that's why, again, I go
back to that federalist approach, as the problems that I have
sometimes seen with national agreements from the Advisory
Council or other places is that it's a one-size-fits-all, and I
am not Indiana. I can see things on the landscape for very long
distances out here in the West. And so, it's very hard to put a
pinpoint at a regulatory level. I think there are ways, and we
can be creative looking at the language of how the 36 CFR 800
regulations are written to better define and limit by
landscape, by landform, or something, because there are points
in the state where we have had a ten-mile buffer for a power
line.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
Dr. Merritt. Regardless of if there is a mountain between
it and that ten-mile buffer. So, there are smarter ways we can
do it, but I always come back to the federalist approach, as I
want to have a seat at that table helping to find that for the
best for the people of Utah.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and I agree, and I think it is
so important that we have local stakeholders there. I think
that was the intent, right, is to have the local stakeholders
involved because you know the land, you know better what is
going on and the challenges that we are facing to address the
concerns that we are looking at.
Can I also ask one final thing? You get federal funding
from the Federal Government, but Mr. Concho, the tribes don't
get federal funding dedicated. Do you have to fight for it
through grant funding? Is that correct?
Mr. Concho. If you are a THPO department, we do have to
submit our grants yearly.
Senator Cortez Masto. But you don't get federal--directed
federal funding, like a state office would?
Mr. Concho. No, we have to go through the National Park
Service funding for THPO.
Senator Cortez Masto. Is it the same process----
Dr. Merritt. It's also a grant for us as well. The Historic
Preservation Fund provides the funding for both SHPOs and
THPOs.
Senator Cortez Masto. And it's a grant process that you all
apply for?
Dr. Merritt. Can I answer?
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, please.
Dr. Merritt. So, the appropriation that comes from the
Historic Preservation Fund comes from offshore oil leasing
royalties. And so, it's not really taxpayer money in that
sense. The problem that we have is there are 59 SHPOs. There
are over 200 THPOs. But the pie doesn't necessarily grow,
right? So we are not adding states every single day, but we are
adding THPOs. And so, the pie for a THPO is smaller every time
there is a new THPO created versus my pie has expanded a little
bit because of population dynamics and other features that the
National Park Service uses to apportion our grant. But we are
both applying for grants to support our offices.
Senator Cortez Masto. So, would you recommend this as
another area for us to look at, how we provide equitable
funding, because it seems to me that SHPOs and THPOs are key to
this process, if we are looking at ensuring that they are at
the table helping to make these decisions, or should we not
look at that formula?
Dr. Merritt. I would say, from the questions I am hearing
today, everyone wants to find solutions. And so, I think at
every step of these questions there are solutions to be found.
Maybe it's funding, maybe it's procedural, maybe it's
regulatory, but I think all of it needs to be looked at because
not every state is as lucky as we are in Utah.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
Dr. Merritt. To do as good as we can because we have the
support.
Senator Cortez Masto. And you have the dedicated staff, and
I appreciate that.
Let me ask you one final question, and I am running out of
time. The Department of the Interior is planning on laying off
2,000 individuals. How important is it for the Department of
the Interior to have staff that are funding and working on this
106 process?
Dr. Merritt. So, to answer that question, overwhelmingly
SHPOs feel that with employee turnover at the Federal
Government, lack of staffing at the Federal Government, it puts
more pressure on us to do the work and more pressure--I won't
speak for the tribes, but I have heard from tribes that they
feel more pressure. As those positions dry up or people are
retiring, it does put more weight on us to carry the load for
these federal agencies. And I cannot imagine a world where the
lack of federal employees is not going to hurt permitting and
not hurt review processes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you again, all three
of you.
The Chairman. Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. The consulting firm McKinsey estimates that
the average proposed project subject to environmental review
takes four to five years to move through the permitting
process, with an average of four additional years spent
litigating the project. According to the Breakthrough
Institute, 75 percent of environmental litigation, like NHPA,
is driven by a handful of environmental NGOs. Of the
challenges, ten organizations are responsible for more than
one-third of often frivolous lawsuits. Agencies win
approximately 80 percent of these cases. Nevertheless,
litigation by these NGOs demonstrably slows and even kills
necessary projects that could have lowered costs for consumers
and increased reliability.
Mr. McDonald, radical environmentalists have abused our
court system and weaponized statutes such as the National
Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, and the Clean Water Act to slow or kill needful projects
to increase supply and lower costs. Given this legal landscape,
what reforms, in your opinion, are needed to stop this kind of
radical lawfare and lower electricity prices for consumers?
Mr. McDonald. Senator, thanks for the question.
As was described in the testimony, I really think that the
certainty that is provided with the regulations that we are
asking for here will eliminate some of that. I am not naive to
think it's going to eliminate all of that, but I certainly
think that, you know, if we have clear direction on what our
responsibility is in the statute, it provides for less
uncertainty and less ambiguity in what our responsibilities are
in those issues.
Senator Cotton. And if one of these radical groups
unsuccessfully sues on a project, are they barred from suing
under other statutes or are they free to proceed under other
statutes?
Mr. McDonald. Senator, I am not aware of the answer to that
question, but perhaps somebody else with a better legal
background would understand that.
Senator Cotton. I think they have many other statutes that
they can proceed under, so they get multiple bites at the
apple. When a project is shuttered because of such lawsuits,
are construction workers and operators still paid?
Mr. McDonald. Thanks for the question. Again, Senator, I
would have to get back to you on that one as well. I am not
aware of the answer to that question.
Senator Cotton. Well, given that most workers are being
paid by the hour, I think it's probably fair to guess that they
are not being paid, which means this kind of lawfare is not
just causing electricity supply to go down and prices to go up,
but hardworking construction workers not to be paid.
How does the threat of such open-ended lawsuits affect your
decision-making for projects at MDU?
Mr. McDonald. I think with all projects, lawsuits or not,
you know, we always strive to do the best job possible. We work
with our state, local, and federal partners, and tribal
partners in instances where we are working on tribal land, you
know, we always try and do the right thing. And again, the
clearer the statute is, the easier it is for us to plan for
these projects, to execute these projects in an efficient and
predictable manner.
Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you.
I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Senator Gallego.
Senator Gallego. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member
Heinrich, and thank you to our witnesses for your attendance
today.
Like many of the states represented on this Committee, my
home State of Arizona has widespread historic resources that
teach about our past, honor tribal heritage, and drive tourism
to our state--a lot of tourism. We are also experiencing
tremendous population energy demand growth, meaning we have to
find ways to both grow quickly and responsibly. I have been a
vocal supporter of building out housing, energy, and
transmission resources as fast as possible, but I have also
been vocal that we can't do so in a way that hurts and cuts our
community and tribal input. You know, for example, Arizona
State Historic--our SHPO office--has reviewed more than 3,000
federal projects and consultations in the past three years.
Their average turnaround time is less than 30 days and their
adverse effect rate is below two percent. This means they are
following the law while keeping things moving and even
improving economic investment and community relationships. I
believe there are ways to streamline though and improve Section
106 review without bypassing community input, and I look
forward to hearing your thoughts on all of this.
My first question is for Dr. Merritt. Last week, Arizona's
SHPO officer sent a letter to the Superintendent of the Grand
Canyon, highlighting ways that they can work together to
streamline construction of a new Grand Canyon lodge after it
was destroyed in the Dragon Bravo fire this summer.
Reconstruction of the lodge will require significant buildout
of energy and water infrastructure, as well as the building
itself. The letter highlights ways that Section 106 can be
streamlined under existing authorities, including synchronized
reviews, exemptions of certain activities from 106 review, and
real-time, on-the-ground decision-making. Do you think that
most states currently use streamlining authorities like those
outlined by the Arizona SHPO officer to the greatest extent,
and is there room for improvement under existing authorities?
Dr. Merritt. Thank you for that question, Senator, and that
was sad to lose that facility.
Senator Gallego. I know, trust me, it's a tearjerker for
all of us.
Dr. Merritt. I think it's always variable, and I do think
most SHPOs employ programmatic agreements to find ways of
streamlining and efficiency. This comes back to my third leg of
the stool--the relationship building. These programmatic
agreements are only as good as the relationship we forge
between the SHPO and a federal agency. And I am very happy that
the Arizona SHPO has that relationship with the National Park
Service to agree to allow things to move streamlined in a way
that is structured. I am also applauding the Arizona SHPO for
being proactive, working with the Park Service to plan for this
versus waiting.
The long answer is yes, I think many SHPOs use these
agreements, but I think we can expand their utility, and
instead of--perhaps what I am advocating is, instead of having
project-specific agreements, to be programmatic in the sense of
projects by the Park Service in Arizona as a whole, or other
agencies, because I think in those we find a lot of embedded
efficiencies that can help.
Senator Gallego. Got you.
My next question is to Mr. Concho. Many Arizona
stakeholders have highlighted that tribal consultation under
the Historic Preservation Act is not only required under
federal trust responsibility, but is extremely valuable for
wildfire rehabilitation, trail construction, and much more. Can
you speak more about if the value of tribal historic
preservation officers were to be lost if the opportunity for
tribal consultation is narrowed or reduced?
Mr. Concho. Yes, thank you for that question. Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers are very important to the
communities and the states that we live in, especially in a
southwestern state where there is a high concentration of sites
in the areas there. Without Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers, that all could be lost or not protected further from,
you know, from being counted as our history. As I mentioned
earlier, our history stems for a long time, and we are still,
we are here to protect that history. You know, one thing to
keep in mind when talking about SHPOs and THPOs is that being a
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, we did take on those
responsibilities from the SHPO and brought them home--like for
my example, to Acoma. And there is where I see these projects
come through my office. And by the same token, we have
thousands of requests that come in through my office yearly and
with a staff of only maybe one or two. And so, you can see how
that mounts up and how we have to prioritize what we have to
do.
Senator Gallego. Close down things, too.
Mr. Concho. So, I think additional funding to help us maybe
hire additional staff would help streamline those decisions
that we have to make as Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
to protect our cultural identity.
Senator Gallego. Great.
Back to Dr. Merritt. In FY24, Arizona SHPO Officers
reviewed 1,451 federal and state projects, with an average
turnaround time of just 20 days, flagging only two percent for
adverse impacts requiring mitigation. That's pretty efficient,
in my opinion. It's my understanding that the National Park
Service used to collect performance metrics like this for all
states, but no longer does. How can we know how much Section
106 is holding up projects if we aren't collecting and sharing
that data around it? Besides anecdotal?
Dr. Merritt. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that. And I do
think that there are the reporting mechanisms for us to receive
our grant. I think that is another place for accountability for
our offices and what we are doing. You know, I have
relationships with the governor and the legislature to report
those statistics as well, of how efficiency, and I have already
told many, many folks here, like, if a complaint of a 106
project makes it to a legislator or to a congress, I have
screwed up because that's how sometimes the measurement of
success of Section 106 is measured, is how many people are
complaining about it.
And so, I don't want that. I want to work to make this
function and smooth and I don't want people finding problems
with it, because that's the true accountability--the more
people that are finding errors with it, the more I am not doing
my job.
Senator Gallego. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for the hearing.
You know, as we are focusing on permitting reform, and more
broadly, I think it's very important that we are doing a more
focused review of Section 106 compliance and how this all
works.
Thank you for being here before the Committee today. My
colleagues know that I often start my comments by saying Alaska
is unique--our situation is just a little bit different. And I
think in this situation, again, it just underscores--we are
big, we are a young state, we've got a lot of properties that
may have impact to traditional, religious, or cultural
significance given the fact that we have 40 percent of the
tribes in the country. We want to make sure, we must make sure
that the consultation process is coordinated, it is efficient,
but honors that government-to-government consultation, and that
tribal voices are meaningfully heard--not just ``this is what
is going on and we will check in with you later,'' but being
there at the beginning.
We also recognize in my state, again, I mention we are
big--we've got about 80 percent of the state that has never
been surveyed for historic or cultural properties. And so, this
presents its own set of problems when you have even very
smaller, low-impact projects that may then trigger Section 106
reviews across huge areas. So, I am going to put this out to
Dr. Merritt, but gentlemen, any of you can reply to this. Just
a couple concrete examples of how this is playing out. In
Southeast Alaska, we had our power and telephone company--they
are trying to bring broadband to a very small community, Dyea,
and the National Park Service required 500 hand-dug test pits
along a 1.7-mile route. So, this was going to be more ground
disturbance than laying the fiber itself. The project was
delayed and the community basically lost out on that. And so,
it's an example of project risk that is very small, but you
have essential infrastructure that's effectively being halted.
And we want to do all we can to protect historic sites. We
understand that, but again, just looking at the scope of this.
Another project is in Northwest Alaska. Two mineral
exploration projects, Anarraaq and Aktigiruq--30 months of
review, seven EA extensions, conflicting findings between the
Corps, SHPO and the IRA Council ultimately halts the
construction despite extensive consultation there. So, the
question to you all is, when you have, again, projects that are
very small, a project risk so small, these repeated
reevaluations that effectively do nothing but delay projects.
And again, I am coming from a state where our construction
seasons are limited. It's truly a season. It's not 365 days.
You might have four months at best to advance your project.
So, Dr. Merritt, let's just start with you here.
Dr. Merritt. Thank you for that question, Senator. I can't
see the ground in Alaska, but I can see the ground very well in
Utah. And so, that's why there are different methods that each
state employs. And that goes back to the state-by-state
solution. But I think, again, it goes back to relationships and
finding common-sense solutions to get through these projects.
Sometimes doing shovel probes--shovel tests is what we call
those--makes sense. Other times, it has become perfunctory. We
always do them because we always have done them.
I can't speak to the Alaska SHPO and why they moved forward
on that, but I can speak to the other issue of having multiple
agencies not working well together. And I have seen that time
and time again, not because the solution is bad for anybody,
but because the coordination stank at the very onset. Is the
Army Corps maybe not coordinating with another agency early on,
or the other agency not knowing there would be another agency's
involvement, and so we get multiple steps, multiple horses in
the race that don't even know they are racing each other. I
have seen that happen multiple times in the implementation of
this law because we do have ourselves tied to NEPA. We have to
complete the 106 process before a NEPA decision can be reached.
I have worked for the Federal Government, I have worked for
the Forest Service, and I remember examples of working under
NEPA, and the NEPA shop not telling the archeologists what's
coming, and so, we're now the bottleneck because most NEPA is
desktop, you know, looking at stuff from computers and books
versus most archeology being on-the-ground type of work. So, I
have seen delays in that way and communication and also just
every single time thinking--are we doing this in the smartest
way for the people this project is trying to serve? I never
separate myself from the point of the project. I don't care
about what the project is from a regulatory standpoint. My job
is to just make it move as quickly as possible.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it sounds like you're not
satisfied that we have a process that is efficient, does allow
for a--whether it's a multi-track--but just recognizing that
understanding what this process may look like, timelines that
are realistic, could help us with our efficiency.
Dr. Merritt. One hundred percent.
When a proponent calls me because they know they have to
enter into a consultation with the BLM to get a permit, I try
to walk them through, as clearly as I can, like expect this,
expect this. When you meet with the BLM, let me know, we can
communicate with the BLM to move the project along. And so,
it's communication.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Dr. Merritt. And sometimes we stink at it.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Hickenlooper, you are up next.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all
of you for being here. Thanks for your work.
Expanding and updating our electrical grid is critical, I
think, to ensure reliable, affordable, you know, dependable,
electricity. Many of us up here have sponsored a number of
bills in that direction. In Colorado, we have seen how valuable
it is when energy developers and agencies consider cultural and
historical context and the resources up front in the processes
of much-needed grid expansion. I think you all touched on this.
Let me start with Dr. Merritt and Mr. Concho. What are your
ideas for how we can minimize the impacts to historic and
cultural resources, while at the same time being more efficient
or speeding up the buildout of critical infrastructure, like
transmission, which the country depends upon?
Mr. Concho, why don't you start?
Mr. Concho. Thank you for the question.
I believe, like you mentioned, first and foremost, bringing
on the tribes that belong to the areas that are being affected
with the project proponent, bringing them together at the table
as the project is at its inception is the most important part
in this whole thing because you get the input from tribal
representatives, plus the tribal knowledge--the elders, the
people that live there and that have lived there know where
certain things are at, know where certain historic and sacred
sites are. And so, coming from the Native American perspective
and coming from the Southwest, it is very important, especially
in the Southwest because there's not--you can't walk, at least
maybe a mile, and not run into a place of cultural
significance, and that's how important it is for the THPOs just
to come to the table early and involve the tribes at an early
point.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
Dr. Merritt. I struggle with being pithy, but I will try to
do my best because this is a very interesting question. So, in
Utah, we have spent most of this year working on a draft
agreement to look at geothermal. We are getting an increase of
geothermal projects in Utah, and I want to be ahead of it. I
want to be ahead of the gold rush for this new energy source
that could redefine our nation's dependence on other energy
sources. But we are investing up front, like, let's set up a
firm process for any geothermal company in our state. What are
the expectations? Where can you find and move quickly? Where do
you need to slow down? I think that's one big piece, is being
proactive, ahead of the game. We have established similars for
solar on the western side of Utah to make solar projects simple
when they come in--simple on a grand scheme.
The second thing, as you brought up--historic context. So,
I will nerd out again for you. For everybody's sake, the
National Register of Historic Places urges people to create
historic context. So, it's a playbook. You are out
inventorying, you find a type of building or an archeological
site, you go through this already-pulled-together resource to
determine what makes that resource important or not important
in the eyes of the law. I am a big proponent of these because
it does help standardize, when people are going to the field--I
find ``A'', I look at the document, and I conclude ``B'',
versus every single resource kind of winging it. And so, I
think that does offer another place of structure.
And so, we invested, in Utah, with partnership with the
Bureau of Land Management, historic context in our oil field in
northeastern Utah, looking at very commonly discovered sites--
sheep herder camps, Native American open campsites. And so, we
just wanted to invest a lot early on.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I appreciate that and I think
that is crucially important, making sure to reach out.
A relatively unknown part of my past that I loved is, my
business would renovate old historic buildings. I spent a lot
of time working with historic preservation in local communities
around the western United States. In 1997, I was proud, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation gave me their award of
honor--much ado about nothing, as my wife said. But I do think,
Mr. Merritt, I think it's incredibly valuable that we take into
consideration exactly what you are working on, making sure that
we are out front.
The Trump administration had removed three members of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation earlier this year and
then two more resigned. This is in addition to the staffing
cuts we have seen, not just for the Council staff, but for
federal land management agencies, other agencies leading
projects through the entire Section 106 process. Can you speak
to the impact that these vacancies and staffing cuts have made,
especially on energy projects?
Dr. Merritt. So, in Utah, we haven't seen as many of the
federal layoffs as in other states. The vacancies at the
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation could hurt us in the
long run of putting forward program comments that could help
expedite, nationally, some of these agreements. But increased
vacancies at federal agencies in Utah will slow the Federal
Government's response to permitting applications and reviews.
And so, while we're not seeing it yet in Utah, I know other
places are. And so, it is a concern of ours because the more
that the federal agencies don't do their job because of
staffing, the more it falls to us.
Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. Hear you loud and clear.
Thanks to all three of you.
I yield back to the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator McCormick.
Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. Thank you to our three distinguished guests. I am
grateful that this panel of witnesses has come here to discuss
an important issue for our permitting process and jobs pipeline
in Pennsylvania. The reality is that regulatory inconsistency
and duplication across federal agencies are unnecessarily
delaying and hindering vital infrastructure projects across the
country, including in my state, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. And that's why I am committed to streamlining the
permitting process and examining the different regulations and
rules put in place such as the Section 106 consultation process
under the National Historic Preservation Act. The NHPA process
currently slows down our ability to build, update, and
modernize due to several specific failures that directly impact
our state's economy. This includes the fundamental regulatory
inconsistency across how different federal agencies apply the
rule, often resulting in duplicative and overly expensive,
expansive consultations by agencies like the National Park
Service.
We also face challenges from the Bureau of Land
Management's deference to tribes and their required changes on
previously agreed upon plans, which creates crippling
uncertainty for developers. Compounding all of this, the
reliance on subjective and difficult-to-measure concepts, like
the traditional cultural properties (TCPs), allows for
decisions that go beyond clear statutory requirements, treating
vague concepts with the same significance as clearly delineated
historic sites. Now, for Pennsylvania to secure our future and
lead in manufacturing, we need reforms that impose firm
deadlines, clarify the scope of review to the project's actual
disturbance, and exempt critical infrastructure, like utility
poles and transmission lines from being unnecessarily flagged
as historic.
So, with that context, Mr. McDonald, last summer in
Pennsylvania we hosted the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and
Innovation Summit, which convened President Trump, his Cabinet,
and leading CEOs from the technology and energy sectors.
Throughout the day, participants raised our urgent need to
build new energy infrastructure quickly and efficiently to meet
the growing demands for energy. In your testimony, you discuss
the unexpected delays MDU faced when rebuilding an electric
distribution line due to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Given that U.S. electricity demand is
projected to increase by nearly 80 percent by 2050, how do you
expect the current Section 106 process to significantly hinder
critical energy development?
Mr. McDonald. Thanks for the question, Senator.
I think the answer is that it varies, and that gets back to
the point in my testimony about the clarity needed in the
statute. Depending on which federal agency you are talking to,
even which consultant, which utility company, there has just
been a lot of different interpretations of how do you define
that area of potential effects and what the project is
establishing there. So, I mean, potentially there are projects
that will go on as planned and everybody will agree upon the
same interpretation, but without that clarity in the statute,
it is still a bit of a guessing game on how these projects are
going to run and how efficient they are going to be planned and
executed.
And as I spoke to--with that example, again, we are dealing
with about a two, two-and-a-half-month window for construction.
So, even a delay of a month or two, depending on the timing of
when we get to that point in the process, can lead to a further
delay, depending on what your construction season delays are.
Senator McCormick. Advice on what changes policymakers
should pursue to address critical infrastructure delays caused
by Section 106?
Mr. McDonald. I think, Senator, we can get you more
definitive language on what that looks like. I think it's
really just, for linear projects, in particular, if we're not
receiving federal funding, which we typically don't--we are an
investor-owned company, so it's pretty rare anyways--but if
we're not receiving federal funding, then our thought is the
jurisdiction for the federal agencies and the consultation
projects is the land that they manage. That would be our
suggestion, but we can follow up with more distinct language
there too.
Senator McCormick. Very good.
Mr. Concho, I have a question for you, but I am not sure I
am going to have enough time, so, I will submit that for the
record.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
echo the sentiment that has been shared from several members
already, and that's the importance, obviously, of truly
meaningful tribal consultation. Consultation through Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is a critical
tool within California. We, too, have a State Historic
Preservation Officer, a SHPO, and in 2024 alone, the SHPO
completed roughly 4,100 reviews under Section 106. So, it's not
a slow, sleepy office. It is a very busy one, in addition to
being an important one. This has included individual project
consultations for efforts such as road projects, solar
installations, and hazardous fuels projects in our forests.
California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes, more
than any other state in the nation, and over 50 have THPOs, the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. And we value this
because tribes have traditional knowledge of the land and
resources that have been significant to their people since time
immemorial. That's why it's critical for the Federal Government
to meaningfully engage with tribes when pursuing projects that
could impact their cultural resources. And the key word I want
to emphasize here is meaningful. Tribal consultation is not
just a quick call, an email, whether or not it is replied to,
simply for the purposes of checking a box. Meaningful means
meaningful.
Mr. Concho, I know that in your testimony and some of the
Q&A with other members, you have talked about not just the
quality of engagement, how important that is, but the
importance and value of early engagement as well. For the
benefit of some of the members of the Committee, can you give
some examples of how early engagement can lead to either
reduced costs down the road, less risk of a project not getting
to the finish line, if you will, and the long-term viability of
some of these important projects?
Mr. Concho. Thank you for that question.
Back at Acoma, what I refer to as the Acoma Method, or the
Acoma Way, we met with the one of the Kinder Morgan projects
that was coming through our area. And you know, we did meet
with them from the onset and we partnered with them. And we met
with them and we brought in our tribal knowledgeable people
that know the land, know my elders, and we, with the Governor,
along with the Council, we sat and we talked about this project
and how it is going to go, and where is it going to go, and how
is it going to affect the land. So, we worked with them to
agree on a specific area that we are going to survey. That way,
we have enough room to say, oh, there is a cultural property
here or something significant here. That way, for that
pipeline, we can then say, okay, we are good with this project.
Let's move forward.
And by doing so early, it allows the proponent to say,
well, we sat with them. This is where it's going to go. The
monitors are there with us. And so, they got done with the
project in six weeks. There are other projects ongoing
currently, such as a fiber-optic project that's going through
the pueblo that we are working alongside the proponent with
that project. So, we're not saying that Section 106 stops or
gives the tribes permission to halt a project, but as long as
we are working together, we can see outcomes and look these
projects through and then see that they don't affect any of our
cultural resources.
Senator Padilla. Wonderful. It seems to be an elegant
evolution of what is referred to sometimes as the carpenter's
rule, right? Measure twice, cut once, right? If you are
thoughtful on the front end, you're not having to go back and
redesign and redesign and accommodate for things that you learn
later in the process because you consider them much earlier.
Dr. Merritt, quick follow-up question for you. What are
some of the best practices that have allowed responsible
development in Utah without undermining tribal resources?
Dr. Merritt. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
And so, I will just refer back to my talking points. It's
focusing on the process, the data, and the relationships. In
Utah, our Department of Transportation has actually set up
consultation agreements with tribes. So, the tribes aren't
being inundated with projects that they're not typically
concerned about as a way to limit down the workload for our
tribal partners.
We also focus on the digital workflows, and we provide data
sharing to all our state and federal partners to provide that
information in real time. And all of these efficiencies allow
us, much like Mr. Concho is saying, to invest up front to make
the best decision. The better data we have, the better process
we have, the better way we can plan for a project to not impact
Utah's 13,000 years of human history. And so, we have done that
in such a way that projects can move forward without deep-level
concerns and impacting resources without due diligence.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. I know my time is up,
Mr. Chairman. I just want to end on two quick notes.
One, I will submit some questions for the record in writing
for the witnesses afterwards. I know some of my colleagues
spoke to some of the funding and staffing, you know, general
resource concerns--the need for them as opposed to the cuts and
reductions that we seem to be fending off.
I will ask Mr. Concho specifically about THPOs and the
$100,000 figure that seems very low, nowadays especially, and
the value of additional investment for this process.
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, while the conversation has been
centered around consultations for specific projects on a
project-by-project basis, I know California is not the only
state--maybe one of the first states--to grow these
relationships and partnerships beyond just consultation for
purposes of a specific project, but genuine partnerships and
shared management responsibilities of public lands and
stewardship for the long term of public lands. There is a lot
of experience and historical knowledge to be gained here,
whether it's management, whether it's environmental species
protection, whether it's wildfire mitigation, on and on and on.
So, I hope these are great examples that other states can be
inspired by, learn from, and replicate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Heinrich. I am going to just put sort of a fine
point on what Senator Padilla mentioned. A couple of things
that we clearly heard in this hearing today are that we need
better coordination between federal agencies, and that has been
my personal experience, and I think that's something that
probably is shared across the aisle. But we also need people at
the desks. There is talk of extensive additional layoffs at our
public land agencies. I think there is no question that will
further slow the certainty that whether you care about this
flavor of energy or that flavor of energy, if there is no one
at the desk, you can't get a permit. And we need to make sure
that's not the case. That is not responsible management. It's
not responsible stewardship of our public lands. And hopefully,
we can find some common ground around that for the entire
energy spectrum.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, and I appreciate that insight that
nobody wants to see a process that has resulted in a lot of
delays produce even more delays. I will note that the
relatively recent efforts within the Trump administration to
streamline the federal workforce--almost mathematically
impossible that those could have caused the significant delays
that we are talking about here. And I would add that the
examples I mentioned, each of the examples I mentioned in my
opening statement have been going on for many years, and each
of them encountered significant delays either under the Biden
administration or the Obama administration.
A lot of what we are talking about here today, as we have
discussed at length, is the fact that we have some ambiguous
text that has left THPOs and SHPOs, among others in the
process, with a lot of subjective--there is a lot of
subjectivity involved, and that has resulted in delays. So, to
the extent that we can clarify those standards, we will all be
better off.
I want to also enter into the record a piece by the
Washington Post Editorial Board from a couple of days ago,
talking about the ballroom and placing it in a historical
context. That will be admitted, without objection.
[Washington Post editorial follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Finally, before we conclude today's hearing,
I want to take a moment of personal privilege to recognize our
Chief Counsel, Pat McCormick, who will soon be departing,
sadly, after 14 years of service to this Committee and the
United States Senate.
Pat is an extraordinary human being. Anybody who has
interacted with him knows that. His mind is an encyclopedia
that knows the work of this Committee backwards, forwards, and
upside down. His judgment and his deep knowledge of all the
laws touching on the subject matter of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee have anchored this Committee's work for
many of its most complex and consequential debates over the
last decade and a half. We will be introducing a resolution to
honor that service, but for now, Pat, I just thank you for your
many years of service.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Thank you to the Committee.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. We wish you the very best of luck in all of
your future endeavors, and thanks for your service.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you very much. It has been an honor to
work with you.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
All right, so that will conclude today's hearing. I thank
my colleagues for their contributions. I thank the witnesses,
who have traveled great distance to offer great insights today.
Any Senator who wishes to submit additional questions for
the record may do so. The deadline for doing that will be 6:00
p.m. tomorrow, and that is Thursday, the 30th of October.
Senators will have until 6:00 p.m. next Wednesday, November
5th, to add any statements for the record to today's hearing.
Thanks again for being here. The Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]