The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) convened it’s February business meeting on February 12th at the Arlo hotel — in the restored historic wing of DC’s oldest remaining apartment building dating to 1888.
ACHP Audio recording of meeting
In addition to the Council members, the room was overflowing (literally) with preservation professionals, eager to hear the latest updates affecting our field.
Covering a lot of ground, Vice Chair Voyles prioritized a pair of “hot-button” issues:
- the ACHPs review of the current Section 106 regulations (with an eye toward updates)
- discussion on the Army’s recently proposed Program Comment
Section 106 Regulations: Review & Possible Updates
Vice Chair Voyles detailed the ACHP’s intent to move forward with a review of the Section 106 regulations, with the stated goal of making them “work better” — improving and streamlining where appropriate.
Several Council members offered perspectives on the effort and interest in finding a path forward. NATHPO Executive Director for Indigenous Diplomacy and Federal Relations Ira Matt (Séliš), emphasized the importance of Tribal consultation and Indigenous knowledge, underscoring that meaningful consultation produces better-informed projects.
NCSHPO President Anne Raines shared that NCSHPO has created an internal working group to solicit feedback from SHPOs and help inform the ACHP’s review. She also clarified an important point: “SHPOs do not approve [a project], but rather, we consult.”
Key themes raised during discussion included:
- Reinforcing federal agencies’ obligations under NHPA
- Ensuring local voices are not “streamlined” out of the process
- Clarifying documentation standards to increase predictability
- Addressing the absence of timelines for federal agencies
- Grounding any potential changes in data
Vice Chair Voyles expressed a desire for swift action over the next two weeks, consistent with Executive Order 14192 Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (2025) and Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (2000).
Next steps include:
- a formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act
- with Federal Register notice expected next week
- formation of an ACHP working group of council members
- council members must express interest by February 20
- council members have a comment deadline of February 27 on the possible regulation change
- Read NCSHPOs comment letter
- this is not intended as the only opportunity for input, and the overall timeline has yet to be set
NCSHPO will remain engaged on this important topic, including expressing interest in joining the ACHP working group.
Army Program Comment Status
ACHP staff detailed the Army’s recent revisions made in response to feedback received — some of which offer improvements:
- Limiting the category of undertakings to those listed in Appendix A
- Clearly defining the standards for an adverse effect finding
- Outlining processes for considering effects to properties of significance to Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations
- Adding detail for processes related to discoveries
- Strengthening annual reporting and meeting requirements
- Removing language regarding the termination of existing Section 106 agreements and consolidation of current program comments
Nonetheless, staff noted that the broad applicability of the Program Comment warrants careful consideration by the Council, and that several substantive questions remain.
NCSHPO President Anne Raines expressed appreciation for the revisions, but requested that Council members decline to approve the Program Comment due to its continued deficiencies and conflict with the law. Quoting an Army memo from 2019, Raines conveyed:
The Army’s mission is to defend those things most prized by all nations: our people, our land, and our resources. Resources worth defending are worth protecting, and by protecting historic resources, the Army safeguards our nation’s heritage and supports its national defense mission. The Army protects historic resources through compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. The NHPA does not mandate preservation of such resources but requires the Army and other Federal agencies [to] assume responsibility for and consider the impact of their actions on historic properties. This requirement is met through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA
NATHPO’s Ira Matt echoed NCSHPO’s comments in their entirety, and noted that Tribes have not had an opportunity to review and comment on the revisions.
A motion was made (and seconded) for the Vice Chair to request a 60-day extension for review from the Army. Following additional discussion — and an indication from the Army that it was willing to extend by 45 days — the motion was amended to request a 45-day extension. The amended motion passed.
ACHP’s “Micro Agency” Era
The ACHP continues to advance it’s mission, tackling issues that may well define preservation for generations to come. The independent agency is doing so with a noticeably leaner team, with staff reduced from 40 to 17 — prompting restructuring to align resources with core priorities. Strategic partnerships have supplemented capacity with nine additional staff detailed from other federal agencies, though several of those assignments will sunset this year.
Executive Director Reid Nelson noted that FY26 funding of $8.285 million should allow for one additional staff member, limited personnel adjustments, and continued support for a full-time Chair, livestreaming capabilities, and fulfillment of financial obligations related to previously released staff.
