The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) formally issued a Program Comment for the Department of the Army on April 3, 2026, marking a significant shift in how the Army will address historic preservation requirements for its vast range of warfighting readiness activities and associated infrastructure. This action, published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2026, establishes a new framework designed to streamline compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For the Department of the Army, this comment provides an "at scale solution" to manage its extensive historic property portfolio more efficiently, while for historic preservation advocates, it represents a programmatic approach that balances operational imperatives with the protection of cultural heritage across Army installations.
Understanding Section 106 and Programmatic Compliance
Section 106 of the NHPA, codified under 54 U.S.C. 306108, mandates that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. These undertakings encompass a broad array of projects, activities, or programs carried out, licensed, or assisted by federal agencies. The ACHP, through its regulations at 36 CFR part 800, sets forth the process for this compliance. Traditionally, this often involves individual reviews for each undertaking. However, 36 CFR 800.14(e) allows agencies to request a "program comment" for a specific category of undertakings. Once issued, this program comment provides an alternative compliance pathway, replacing the need for project-by-project reviews and allowing agencies to meet their Section 106 responsibilities by following its established procedures. The Army's new Program Comment falls precisely into this category.
The Army's Operational Imperative and Historic Footprint
The U.S. Army operates under a statutory warfighting readiness mission, defined by 10 U.S.C. 7062. Fulfilling this mission requires continuous training, testing, equipping, and industrial activities, along with dynamic management of its infrastructure. The Army possesses a monumental real estate portfolio, spanning 14 million acres across 135 installations, with over 390,000 buildings and structures. Since its inception, the Army has accumulated a significant number of historic properties, currently managing over 200,000 such assets, including 122,000 buildings and 84,000 archaeological sites. This number is projected to exceed 500,000 in the near future. The sheer volume and aging nature of these properties present a formidable challenge for individual Section 106 reviews, potentially hindering the Army's ability to adapt its infrastructure and execute readiness activities with necessary speed. The Program Comment aims to address this by providing a more predictable and efficient compliance mechanism.
A Tiered Approach to Historic Property Management
To manage its diverse historic properties, the Program Comment introduces a "military landscape" analytical framework. This framework considers both built and natural infrastructure collectively as "associated infrastructure" and supports consistent, context-sensitive decision-making across all Army installations. It implements a tiered system for categorizing historic properties:
- Tier 1: National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)
- Tier 2: Properties of Traditional Religious and Cultural Importance (PTRCI)
- Tier 3: Pre-1941 Built Infrastructure (Non-NHL) and Archaeological Sites and Districts (Non-PTRCI)
- Tier 4: WWII and Cold War Era Built Infrastructure (1941-1989) (Non-NHL)
This tiered system establishes specific management review procedures tailored to the significance and characteristics of each property type, providing a structured methodology for balancing preservation and mission needs.
Extensive Consultation and Refinement
The development of this Program Comment involved an extensive consultation process. The Army initiated outreach to the public, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) before formally submitting its request to the ACHP in December 2025. Following this, the ACHP conducted its own robust consultation in January 2026, utilizing broadcast emails, social media, and a dedicated website. This included two government-to-government consultations with seven Tribal nations and two SHPO meetings with representatives from 22 states, in addition to the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Thirty-five written comments were received, highlighting several key concerns.
Commenters raised questions about the broad scope and applicability of the proposed comment, particularly its potential to extend beyond Army-managed lands. Significant concerns were also voiced regarding a provision that initially suggested existing Section 106 Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), Programmatic Agreements (PAs), and Army Alternate Procedures (AAPs) could be terminated. Additionally, calls were made for more extensive consultation regarding identification, assessment, and resolution efforts, alongside skepticism about standard mitigation processes for adverse effects.
Crucial Revisions and Future Safeguards
The ACHP membership, after considering these comments during its February 12, 2026 business meeting, requested an additional 45 days for review, which the Army granted. This extended period allowed ACHP staff to work with the Army to address the outstanding issues. Several critical revisions were incorporated into the final Program Comment:
- The applicability was explicitly limited to Army installations, clarifying its geographic scope.
- The document now states that the Program Comment is an optional compliance tool, allowing the Army flexibility in its application.
- Existing Section 106 agreements, such as MOAs and PAs, must now be terminated in accordance with their own specific provisions, addressing a major concern from the consultation phase.
- Enhanced detail was added concerning processes for consulting with Tribes and incorporating Indigenous Knowledge.
- Procedures for notifying SHPOs, Tribes, and the ACHP regarding post-review discoveries were refined.
- Mechanisms for amending the Program Comment were established, and an expiration date of December 31, 2055, was set, ensuring future review and potential adaptation.
These revisions underscore a commitment to balancing the Army's mission requirements with the concerns of preservation stakeholders, demonstrating responsiveness to the consultation feedback.
Implications for Military Readiness and Heritage Protection
The issuance of this Program Comment holds dual implications. For the Department of the Army, it offers a pathway to more efficiently manage its extensive historic property portfolio, potentially accelerating critical readiness activities that previously faced delays due to lengthy individual Section 106 reviews. This programmatic approach is designed to reduce bureaucratic hurdles and provide predictable outcomes, aligning with the Army's need for "mission speed."
From a historic preservation perspective, the comment centralizes the management of Section 106 compliance for a wide array of Army undertakings. While it aims to establish standardized procedures and a tiered assessment system, it also shifts away from the project-by-project review that is the traditional core of Section 106. The success of this new framework will largely depend on the Army's diligent implementation of the refined consultation processes, particularly with Tribal nations, and its adherence to the specified management review procedures for each historic property tier. The expiration date of 2055 provides a built-in mechanism for future evaluation and adjustment, allowing stakeholders to assess its effectiveness over time in balancing the imperatives of national defense and cultural heritage preservation.
