Position on S. 5653, Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act

Dear Senator,

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.9 million members and supporters nationwide, we write to share our top priorities for improvements to S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA). We share the sponsors’ goal of building clean energy and transmission faster, and we recognize the years of bipartisan work behind this bill. We urge you to make the following changes to the bill before it comes to the Senate floor to ensure it does not jeopardize protections for our cherished national parks.

Climate change is the greatest long-term threat national parks face, from shrinking glaciers to rising seas to the loss of ancient giant sequoias. NPCA has long supported efforts to cut pollution causing record-setting wildfires, droughts and floods that are affecting every park across the country. We acknowledge that this bill could unlock clean energy projects and build out a stronger power grid. Parks benefit from such advancements. We understand how important developing more renewable energy resources and the transmission network is to bring this clean energy to communities across the country. NPCA supports the bill’s transmission title, its requirement that data centers pay their share of the new grid costs, its guidance steering offshore wind away from national park waters and its dedicated funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. Clean energy and park protection can advance together, and the changes we recommend below would ensure these gains do not come at the expense of national parks.

We are also focused on helping all our special places prepare for the changes they cannot avoid. National parks do not exist in isolation. Federal projects – whether a pipeline, transmission line, mine or oil and gas drill field – impact park lands Congress and past presidents have protected for the American people. It is the impact the bill could have on the ability of parks to prepare that causes us the biggest concern. The bill’s changes could lock in permits for projects that impact parks without examining their whole impact on all park resources. Federal permits should seek to avoid impacting parks, which are visited by over 300 million people annually and preserve irreplaceable American resources. Federal decisions affecting these places should be informed by the people who know them best. Limiting engagement from the National Park Service (NPS), the public, Tribes and interested organizations may speed up the process, but it silences the people and communities most affected, ignores the knowledge they bring, and will ultimately cause any progress to come at a greater cost.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Among the many changes the bill proposes, one of our greatest concerns is Division B, Title III, which rewrites the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 remains the primary way the public, Tribes, and state and local governments have a voice in federal projects that affect historic places. For projects reviewed under Section 106, most are cleared quickly. Of roughly 120,000 projects reviewed each year, about 98% are designed to avoid harm to historic properties. Only the most damaging come under additional scrutiny, which is appropriate to protect resources that once lost are gone forever.

Instead of reforming the existing system, Section 2301 makes consultation discretionary and narrows the definition of places of traditional religious and cultural importance to Tribes. It also directs agencies to largely ignore a project’s visual and audible effects on historic sites, ends review for many federally funded projects, restricts legal actions, and allows the federal government to take funding and responsibilities away from State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. A federal agency assuming management and decision-making for places under Tribal jurisdiction would severely infringe on Tribal self-governance.

At Minidoka National Historic Site in Idaho, where Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II, Section 106 consultation gave survivors’ families, local residents and the state’s preservation office a voice in a proposed wind project. The result was an approved permit in which wind turbines were moved farther from the site and were reduced in number and height to protect the historic landscape. Consultation improved the project rather than stopping it. The Department of the Interior (DOI) separately reversed the approval in 2025. NPCA welcomes a genuine effort to improve the NHPA, developed with Tribes, preservation officials and the public. This title should be removed or substantially revised as outlined in the attached analysis.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NPCA is also concerned with similar changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Division A, Title I. Section 1110 would bar courts from halting a project based on NEPA claims alone and limit the remedy for an unlawful approval to sending it back to the agency while the project moves forward. NPCA has seen firsthand what this means. After a federal appeals court found in 2019 that the Army Corps of Engineers should have prepared a full environmental impact statement for transmission towers across the James River near historic Jamestown (part of Colonial National Historical Park) and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the permit was left in place during the new review. The towers, built while the case was pending, still stand today. Under this bill, this outcome could become the norm with projects completed despite significant flaws. The bill also narrows the actions NEPA covers, allows agencies to adopt one another’s categorical exclusions and shortens the time the public has to weigh in. We welcome efforts to make environmental reviews faster and more predictable while keeping a meaningful voice for parks and the public. Section 1110 and these related provisions should be removed or substantially revised as outlined in the attached analysis.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

NPCA has serious concerns with several provisions in Division A, Title III - Endangered Species Act. Of greatest concern is Section 1304, which changes how consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is undertaken. ESA consultation evaluates the effects of agency actions on listed species and critical habitat and considers ways to minimize those effects. Currently, the federal agency involved in a project must consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this bill, the state where a federal action takes place may act as the consultant under the ESA, instead of FWS or NMFS. This change could create over 50 different programs undermining the efficiency goals of this bill. This approach runs the risk of creating conflicts and overlapping decisions, especially in areas where project decisions are being made specific to migratory species such as threatened and endangered aquatic and avian species. As a result, a decision made on a project in Florida could have a significant impact on a species Rhode Island is working to recover. Additionally, as written, no exception is made for federal actions inside national parks or other federal lands. NPCA welcomes stronger partnerships with states on species recovery, built on the expertise of federal wildlife agencies. Section 1304 should be removed or substantially revised as outlined in the attached analysis.

Project Certainty

NPCA has several concerns with Division A, Title IV - Project Certainty. Although the title is intended to remedy the political and arbitrary stalling and revocation of permits for energy projects, certainty is equally important for communities, landscapes, and sustainable and compatible development near parks. Recent limits on public input already imposed and proposed by this administration, combined with the proposed changes in this bill to laws like NEPA, ESA, and NHPA, could grant permits or federal approvals to covered projects with little or no public or scientific review. The language could also support legal challenges to future attempts to regulate under other laws or put conditions on the operation of infrastructure covered by this legislation. NPCA would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors on language that balances the certainty needed for projects, other agencies and communities. At a minimum, Section 1401 should include clarification as outlined in the attached analysis.

Geothermal Leasing

NPCA is also concerned that geothermal provisions in Division B, Title II, Subtitle C could put the geysers of Yellowstone National Park or geothermal features at other parks at risk. Yellowstone holds more than half of the world’s active geysers, fed by underground heat and water that extend beyond the park boundary. Since 1988, the Geothermal Steam Act has required DOI to deny geothermal leases that are reasonably likely to significantly harm thermal features in national parks. Section 2229 would exempt broad categories of geothermal drilling from NEPA entirely, and Section 2225 would eliminate the federal drilling permit for many wells on non-federal land, removing the review needed to know whether a project threatens Yellowstone or other parks. Geothermal development has degraded or destroyed geyser fields around the world, and a geyser that stops erupting cannot be restored. These provisions should not apply to activities that may affect protected thermal features in national parks.

Agency Capacity

Lastly, none of this can be carried out without remedying the fact that the federal agencies, especially those in DOI and the Department of Agriculture, have seen steep staff losses over the last decade. NPS alone has lost 25% of its staff since 2025. Without funding and direction to hire more staff and provide adequate resources, permitting reform will still be bogged down regardless of any changes to the law. NPCA welcomes the bill’s permitting improvement fund as an important first step. Sustained funding and direction to rebuild staff at NPS and other agencies that carry out these reviews would help ensure permitting reform delivers on its promise.

Additional analysis of these and other provisions of great concern are included in the addendum of this letter. As you and your staff continue to analyze this legislation, we urge you to ensure these harmful provisions are fixed so that it does not come at too great a cost to our national parks. We look forward to working with you to get permitting reform right.

Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

National Parks Conservation Association

NPCA Analysis of S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026

NPCA’s analysis of S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA), focuses on the provisions with the most significant impact on national parks. It should not be considered an exhaustive review of the bill or potential park impacts.

Based on publicly available bill text released September 30, 2026

Division A, Title I – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

For decades, NEPA has reinforced effective decision-making in our national parks, giving people a voice in how their public lands are used, and has ensured the environment, from the air we breathe to the water we drink, is considered before development projects move forward.

Section 1102 changes the definition of “Major Federal Action” to apply to fewer projects, which could lead to NEPA analysis not being initiated for projects that would benefit from adequate analysis and public engagement.

Section 1105 allows federal agencies to rely on other reviews undertaken by states to satisfy federal review requirements. A state-level analysis, regardless of how it is compiled, could be substituted for meaningful federal review. While state-level analysis is important, state priorities and methods do not always align with those of federal agencies and should not be a complete substitute for thorough analysis.

Section 1106 limits the public comment period after an agency announces an environmental impact statement to 45 to 60 days, extendable to 75 days only if the agency and the project sponsor agree. Proposed project impacts are often not fully assessed until studies are completed. For example, an archaeological study could take longer than 60 days and may reveal impacts that could be easily avoided with a design modification. A truncated timeline prevents a thorough impact analysis that protects resources while allowing a project to proceed.

Section 1108 allows any agency to adopt categorical exclusions created by any other agency, greatly expanding the actions that can skip environmental review. Currently, agencies use categorical exclusions for routine, low-impact activities that do not disrupt ecosystems. They are used in a case-by-case manner that looks at specific projects and specific impacts. Allowing a categorical exclusion to be adopted by multiple agencies prevents an agency from thoroughly studying the possible impacts the project might cause.

Section 1110 would bar courts from halting a project based on NEPA claims alone and limit the remedy for an unlawful approval to sending it back to the agency while the project moves forward. NPCA has seen firsthand what this means. After a federal appeals court found in 2019 that the Army Corps of Engineers should have prepared a full environmental impact statement for transmission towers across the James River near historic Jamestown (part of Colonial National Historical Park) and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the permit was left in place during the new review. The towers, built while the case was pending, still stand today. Under this bill, this outcome could become the norm, with projects completed despite significant flaws.

The timeline changes included in Section 1110 are also a concern. The bill gives challengers 150 days to file and sends claims directly to federal courts of appeals, a more costly and complex venue for communities with limited legal resources. For the public at large, small organizations, small governments and Tribal nations, this can hinder the ability to file.

These litigation changes run counter to NEPA’s original purpose, which was to ensure that agencies plan and think of all the consequences of an action before approving or taking it. This allows project impacts to be thoroughly studied and modified to prevent harm before any damage occurs. Instead, projects would be able to proceed even after a court finds that the project and/or its approval was unlawful. Often, the resulting damage cannot be undone.

Division A, Title I, Subtitle C – Federal Permitting Improvement

NPCA appreciates Section 1132 on an environmental review and permitting tracker, which provides a level of transparency that helps inform developers and the public of the status of permitting projects. Having a unified place across all government agencies helps people understand where a project stands in the process and how long a permit decision is likely to take.

NPCA also appreciates Section 1133 on the permitting improvement fund. The $120 million over six years is a welcome improvement, since no dedicated funding exists today to help federal agencies improve the permitting process. One of the biggest barriers to timely permitting review is the lack of staff, funding and other resources at agencies. However, this funding will not be nearly enough. The Department of the Interior (DOI) was given roughly the same amount just to upgrade technology for a single department and it was barely adequate. Additionally, this does not allow for more staff to help process permits.

Division A, Title II – Clean Water Act

Section 1204(a) limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to serve a backstop role in protecting our nation’s waters. The section restricts the timeframe within which the agency may exercise its 404( c) veto over permits that fill our nation’s wetlands and waterways. EPA has used its authority fewer than 15 times in the more than 50 years since the Clean Water Act was enacted. Most recently, EPA vetoed the permits for a massive open pit mine next to several national parks in Alaska. The mine would have profound and irreversible impacts by severely disrupting the spawning grounds for sockeye salmon in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and eliminating food and fragmenting habitat for bears in Katmai National Park and Preserve. The 404( c) veto authority gives EPA a final backstop to address the severest threats to the nation’s waters. By constraining its use to a narrow window, this bill eliminates the flexibility that makes it effective and removes one of the final remaining safeguards agencies have to use discretion for protecting the environment around parks.

Division A, Title III - Endangered Species Act

For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been a critically important tool in the conservation and restoration of the over 600 threatened and endangered species that depend on habitats in national parks. The Santa Rosa Island fox at Channel Islands National Park, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse at Valles Caldera National Preserve and piping plover at Cape Cod National Seashore have all benefited from the restoration and recovery framework and support the ESA provides. NPCA has serious concerns with several provisions in Division A, Title III - Endangered Species Act.

Section 1301 creates overly narrow definitions for “best scientific and commercial data available” and “best scientific data available.” By limiting the standard to information available “at the time of the agency action” and requiring data to be applied “without presumptions or policy prescriptions,” the definition invites litigation over the science behind each decision and would discourage the precautionary approach the ESA relies on when data are incomplete. We are particularly concerned that the definitions limit the potential use of long-term studies that factor in the impacts of climate change on park species. It is critical that we consider all science, including studies that look to long-term future conditions.

Section 1303 would exempt transportation projects within an existing operational right-of-way from Section 7 consultation entirely. Roads and parkways run through and alongside many national parks, and work within their rights-of-way can affect listed species and habitat inside park boundaries.

Section 1304 amends consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. ESA consultation evaluates the effects of agency actions (projects) on listed species and critical habitat and, as needed, prohibits actions that would jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Currently, the federal agency involved in a project must consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this bill, the state where a federal action takes place can assume delegated authority from FWS or NMFS. Creating the possibility of over 50 different state-led programs undermines the permitting efficiency goals of this bill. Projects located in more than one state would require consultation only by the state in which the project occurs.

Section 1306 requires that the government accept and integrate state-collected data in listing and delisting decisions. It is unclear why state data should be given its own standard, instead of having the agency analyze the available data and determine which is the most reliable. The bill does not account for conflicts between state data and other scientifically sound data. For example, how would FWS weigh state data on counting grizzly bears at Yellowstone against the work of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee?

Wildlife and their habitats do not know or recognize state lines. The federal government clearly has the expertise and history to address the needs of our most vulnerable species, regardless of administrative boundaries. Deferring to states that may not have the history, expertise, standards, laws or technical ability to oversee the program is setting the stage for problems. All states are eligible under this title to assume the responsibilities of FWS and NMFS, regardless of their laws, staffing, agency budget or technical capacity. Many state wildlife agencies have capable scientists, but few have the budget to take on this work.

NPCA appreciates the additional authorization to appropriate $150 million a year for five years included in Section 1307. However, this does not compensate for the provisions of this bill that undermine consultation. Nor does it address the lack of funding and staffing across all ESA programs, including listing and recovery.

Division A, Title IV – Project Certainty

Section 1401 bars agencies from revisiting any federal authorization in effect on or after September 16, 2026, except in narrow circumstances, and locks in permits, making it harder to correct permits that were rushed or are still under judicial review. This is concerning for situations like the proposed Ambler industrial mining road through Gates of the Arctic National Preserve in Alaska, which would be locked in regardless of any deficiencies in the permitting process. Additionally, this section locks in ESA biological opinions and incidental take statements. This will limit the ability to consider new science and flexible species management strategies.

Section 1401 could also prevent a wider range of federal actions. The section bars agencies from taking any new action (such as rulemakings) that could amend or alter federal authorizations. NPCA is concerned that this lack of clarity could block future administrations from imposing more stringent pollution controls or other requirements under the Clean Air Act and other laws. We support adding provisions or clearer definitions to clarify this section to avoid upsetting the ability of agencies to protect our air, water and wildlife under current statutes.

NPCA understands this section is meant to keep the executive branch from unilaterally blocking, stopping, rescinding or canceling projects or permits without cause. However, the broad language addressing exceptions raises concerns. Subparagraph (b)(1)(D) includes an exception for “national security or defense.” Although paragraph (2) requires such actions to be limited to what is necessary, the exception does not resolve the current problem involving offshore wind, where national security has been cited to halt projects that had already completed review.

If an agency cannot meet a “clear and convincing evidence” burden in court, the project sponsor would be entitled to damages of 25 to 50% of all project costs, paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund without appropriation. This could discourage agencies from revisiting a permit even when new information shows a project threatens a national park. Section 1401 could also be used to allow for certain types of projects to be subsidized in favor of others, using taxpayer dollars outside of the appropriations process. We have seen this happen already, when the current administration used funding from the Judgment Fund to pay energy companies to cancel federal offshore wind leases and redirect capital toward fossil fuel projects.

Finally, Section 1401 leaves room for current and future presidents to block or cancel future permits and projects. The current language only protects existing authorizations from actions taken by a federal department or agency.

The judicial review provisions in Section 1402 are extremely concerning. These provisions would let district court judges in the project’s jurisdiction award damages of 50 to 100% of a project’s expected construction cost to developers if the court finds the federal government missed a legal deadline by 60 days, even if it acted in good faith and for good reasons, and that the type of project has been treated unfairly compared to others, calculated based on a five-year look-back. These awards would also come from the Judgement Fund, creating open-ended liability for taxpayers potentially totaling billions of dollars for just one project, given the wide range of damages and costs that developers are enabled to claim under Section 1402. Giving judges that kind of power over awarding taxpayer funds to private companies is alarming. Because the five-year look-back begins at the end of September 2025, the temporal baseline is skewed in favor of fossil fuel projects versus clean energy projects, since the current administration has either canceled or delayed many clean energy projects.

Division B, Title I – Electric Transmission

NPCA supports this title overall. Getting more clean energy onto the grid is important to addressing the climate pressures already reshaping national parks. We appreciate that state and Tribal consultation as well as the ability for the public to weigh in during the siting process are maintained in this title.

Section 2107 would ensure that data centers pay their share of the increase in costs for electricity as well as bear the costs for new transmission required by their facilities.

Division B, Title II, Subtitle C – Geothermal Leasing and Permitting

Since 1988, the Geothermal Steam Act, which applies to 17 parks from Alaska to Arkansas, has required DOI to deny a geothermal lease when development is reasonably likely to harm a significant thermal feature in a national park. This subtitle leaves that standard in place but removes the critical review needed to apply it.

Section 2223 requires annual geothermal lease sales, with replacement sales when one is canceled or delayed, and sets 30-day deadlines for acting on drilling permits. At Yellowstone National Park, leasing pressure is already reaching the park’s edge. In September 2025, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered about 3,740 acres for geothermal leasing in Bonneville County, Idaho, bordering the Island Park area that Congress withdrew from geothermal leasing to protect Yellowstone.

Section 2225 eliminates the federal drilling permit for geothermal wells on non-federal land when the United States owns less than half of the underground resource, so long as the operator holds a state permit. Federal review would disappear even where a well taps the same underground system that feeds park geysers.

Section 2229 would deem activities covered by the oil and gas categorical exclusions under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 not to be major federal actions under NEPA and would extend Section 390 to geothermal development. That would include new wells at sites drilled within the past five years or within fields covered by plans approved up to five years earlier, plans that may never have studied effects on park thermal features. Unlike the categorical exclusion in Section 2221, there is no review of extraordinary circumstances that would flag drilling near parks like Yellowstone.

Any harm to park thermal resources would more than likely be permanent. It is documented that by 1980, seven of the world’s ten major geyser fields had been significantly degraded after geothermal development, in places ranging from New Zealand to Iceland to the western United States. America’s national parks support some of the greatest intact geothermal resources in the world. It is critical that our nation develops a diverse energy portfolio including geothermal. However, we need to make sure we protect these unique park resources from the start.

Division B, Title II, Subtitle F - Offshore Energy

NPCA appreciates that Section 2251 guides offshore renewable energy development out of national parks and other protected areas. With limited exceptions, this provision does not apply to any area on the Outer Continental Shelf within the exterior boundaries of any unit of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Marine Sanctuary System or any National Monument.

Section 2252 sets up a federal framework for permitting offshore electric transmission, requiring DOI and the Department of Energy to identify preferred routes that would carry power generated offshore to the grid within two years of enactment. This lays important groundwork for directing power from offshore wind development. Planning for shared lines can reduce the number of separate cable routes coming ashore and potentially lessen impact on national parks and other public lands.

Division B, Title III – Historic Preservation

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has helped ensure that America’s history and heritage are preserved for generations to come. Section 106 of the NHPA has enshrined the ability of the public, tribes, and state and local governments to weigh in on projects that would affect historic sites across the nation. This not only gives people a voice, but it allows those with a deep or personal understanding of a historic or cultural site to share that understanding with the government and work with it to make sure it is protected.

The process works. Of roughly 120,000 projects reviewed each year, about 98 percent are designed to avoid harm to historic properties, and only about 2 percent result in a finding of adverse effects. Unfortunately, this bill would remove the ability of most Americans to engage with their government and hamper Tribal and state experts in performing their duties.

Section 2301(a) creates a new definition for a property of traditional, religious and cultural importance, narrowing it to exclude many places Tribes and Indigenous communities hold sacred and culturally significant. This could lead to damage or even the loss of sites that can never be rebuilt. Chaco Culture National Historical Park protects only part of a much larger ancestral landscape that Pueblo and Navajo communities hold sacred. The Badger-Two Medicine area next to Glacier National Park, sacred to the Blackfeet Nation, is recognized as a 165,000-acre Traditional Cultural District. Places like these could lose protection under a narrower definition.

Section 2301(b) sets unachievable standards for states and Tribes and punishes them for their inability to meet those standards by taking away their funding, contracts, cooperative agreements and ability to do their work. This not only would make it harder for them to reach the standards but makes it nearly impossible for them to improve and therefore gain back their funding, contracts and cooperative agreements. This undermines the sovereignty of Tribes.

Section 2301( c) instructs the federal government to ignore, in most cases, how a project can affect the visual, atmospheric and audible elements of a site. This is especially problematic for national parks, including national historical parks and battlefields. The viewshed of many parks is an important aspect of their creation and preservation. What you see from certain points, the dark skies at night and changes to the nearby landscape can completely alter the visitor experience. The same can be said for sound. Many parks are far from development and the silence, and even isolation, are an integral part of the story they tell and the feeling they protect. This bill makes it harder to stop development that would harm these parks.

At Minidoka National Historic Site, review of a large wind project, including Section 106 consultation, led the Bureau of Land Management to move turbines to about 9 miles from the site, cut their number by 40 percent and lower their height by 80 feet. At Manassas National Battlefield Park, a proposal for 37 data centers next to the battlefield threatened its views and soundscape until a Virginia court voided the rezoning, a ruling an appeals court upheld this spring. Under this bill, effects like these could largely be excluded from federal review.

Section 2301( c) would also change current law so that NHPA review and consultation do not have to take place if the only federal connection to a project is funding. This is problematic as the federal government relies on states and other entities to handle projects in their own jurisdiction. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation issues few, if any, permits and builds almost no projects itself. Instead, it funds states to build the projects. This would mean many transportation projects, even those near protected sites like national parks, would not have to consider the effects the projects would have on those sites despite being largely federally funded.

Section 106 consultation is one of the most important parts of the current law. Section 2301( c) would take the requirement that the federal government give notice to and engage in consultation with states, Tribes, their historic preservation officials and local government and make it discretionary. It would also allow a federal official, who could have no experience with park resources, to say that other considerations outweigh even the consideration of historic preservation. The term “other considerations” is undefined and therefore ripe for abuse, with no remedy or ability to appeal this decision provided in the bill.

Section 2301( c) on judicial review, as in the NEPA section, removes the ability to obtain relief from the courts. Instead of being able to halt a project that did not properly follow the law or failed to properly consider the effect of a project on historic sites, the bill merely sends the project back to the federal agency to complete more paperwork and carry on even if the courts deemed it unlawful.

When multiple federal agencies are involved, Section 2301 allows one agency to become the lead. On the surface this is a fine idea. As drafted, however, this bill allows one agency to dictate terms to and even override other agencies. Instead of the agencies cooperating, one would control the others and could ignore them if it chose. For example, if a transmission project crossed BLM land next to a national park and DOE served as lead agency, DOE could decline to engage with the National Park Service and write its own report without any sign-off from BLM.

NPCA appreciates Section 2302, which provides increased funding for the Historic Preservation Fund and makes the funding automatic each year, an improvement over current law. Unfortunately, this does not make up for the harm done by the rest of the NHPA title.