The upcoming February 12th Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Business Meeting will include discussion on the Army’s proposed Program Comment for Army Warfighting Readiness and Associated Infrastructure. The Council is expected to proceed with a vote on the Program Comment, including NCSHPO, as one of 24 statutorily designated members. Notably, nine new Council members were appointed over the past month, and the Vice Chair continues to fulfill the duties of the still vacant Chair position.
NCSHPOs OFFICIAL RESPONSE LETTER urges the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to reject the proposed Program Comment for Army Warfighting Readiness. At its core, this proposal represents a fundamental departure from both the letter and spirit of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Rather than streamlining review of specific, well-defined activities — as program comments are intended to do — it would exempt the entirety of the Army’s mission, in perpetuity, from meaningful consultation under Section 106.
Undermining Consultation, Not Streamlining It
Section 106 is designed to be transparent and consultative, ensuring that each state & territory — through its governor-appointed SHPO — has the opportunity to review and comment on federal actions that may affect historic properties important to its citizens. This process is not inherently burdensome and, when properly implemented, supports both project delivery and responsible stewardship.
The proposed Program Comment would instead remove SHPOs, Tribes, and other consulting parties from discussions about historic properties within their own jurisdictions. By redefining “warfighting readiness activities” to include all present and future Army actions, the proposal grants the Army broad discretion and would significantly curtail consultation requirements.
Overbroad Scope Inconsistent with Regulatory Requirements
As the ACHP itself noted in its November 26, 2025 letter, the proposed category of undertakings is neither discrete nor clearly defined. The Army has gone further still, asserting that all warfighting readiness activities are covered — even those not identified —while proposing no reasonable end date for the Program Comment’s application.
This approach fails to meet the basic regulatory requirements of 36 CFR 800.14(e) and represents an unprecedented misuse of the program comment mechanism. If adopted, it would open the door for any federal agency to declare its entire mission exempt from state and Tribal consultation.
Redefining “Adverse Effect” Inconsistent with the NHPA
Equally troubling is the proposal’s treatment of adverse effects. The Program Comment asserts that physical changes, visual impacts, and even highly destructive training activities would not adversely affect historic properties, but instead contribute to their significance. It further suggests that mitigating adverse effects somehow diminishes historic integrity.
This reasoning directly contradicts the foundational principles of the NHPA and decades of preservation practice. Mitigation is not harm — it is the means by which harm is responsibly addressed.
Disregarding Proven, Collaborative Frameworks
Across the country, Army installations operate under more than 100 state-specific programmatic agreements developed through consultation with SHPOs. These agreements streamline compliance, incorporate local knowledge, and support the warfighting mission. Fort Bliss, for example, received the Secretary of the Army Award for Cultural Resource Management in part because of such agreements.
The proposed Program Comment would sweep these successful frameworks aside in favor of a mandatory, one-size-fits-all approach that disregards local history, context, and expertise.
The Question Before the Council
The ACHP now faces a simple but consequential question: can a single, generalized program comment govern every present and future action of a federal agency, across every state, and account for every potential risk to historic properties?
Given the diversity of Army installations, the complexity of their histories, and the statutory role of consultation, NCSHPO and its members believe the answer is no.
We respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed Program Comment and to engage with SHPOs, Tribes, and stakeholders in crafting a more targeted, lawful, and collaborative solution — one that truly supports both national defense and the stewardship responsibilities enshrined in the NHPA.
