[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18703-18706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3509]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / 
Notices  

[[Page 18703]]



ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION


Draft Program Comment Regarding Cold War Era Unaccompanied 
Personnel Housing

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ACTION: Notice of intent to issue program comment on Cold War era 
unaccompanied personnel housing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is formulating its plan on how 
to manage its inventory of Cold War (1946-1974) era unaccompanied 
personnel housing (UPH). In order to better meet its Federal historic 
preservation responsibilities in managing these properties, DoD has 
requested the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to 
comment on the overall management of such properties, as opposed to 
submit each individual undertaking under such management to separate 
review. The DoD and ACHP have drafted such a comment and now seek 
public input on it. ACHP will take into account this public input prior 
to deciding whether to issue the program comment.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed program 
comment to Dave Berwick, Army Program Manager, Office of Federal Agency 
Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. Fax 202-606-8672. You may 
submit electronic comments to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Berwick (202) 606-8505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of 
their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to 
comment with regard to such undertakings. ACHP has issued the 
regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies 
comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR 
part 800 (``Section 106 regulations'').
    Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request 
ACHP to provide a ``Program Comment'' on a particular category of 
undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each 
individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 
800.4 through 800.6. An agency can meet its Section 106 
responsibilities for those undertakings by taking into account ACHP's 
Program Comment and by following the steps set forth in those comments.
    DoD has requested such a Program Comment to cover management of its 
Cold War era unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH). A copy of the draft 
Program Comment can be found at the end of this notice. Once the public 
input resulting from this notice is considered, ACHP will decide 
whether to issue a final Program Comment to DoD.

Background on Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

    Prior to the Civil War, the military constructed few permanent 
barracks. In general, permanent barracks existed at a few interior 
installations, coastal fortifications, and military academies. After 
the Civil War, as new military installations were constructed, more 
attention was given to the design and construction of large barrack 
buildings located on the edge of parade grounds. The Army began 
constructing two-company barracks featuring a central block flanked by 
two wings. Between 1866 and 1942, the Army issued standardized plans, 
but thousands of troops were also housed in temporary World War I 
mobilization barracks.
    In the 1920s, poor living conditions of Army personnel led to the 
sale of excess property in order to improve military posts and housing. 
Large barracks were constructed between the 1920s and 1940s according 
to standardized plans. During World War II, mobilization plans were 
used for the large number of temporary barracks constructed to house 
the exponential growth of the military.
    The DoD maintained a standing force of unprecedented size during 
the Cold War; the Army retained almost 900,000 personnel during the 
1950s. Faced with the task of providing adequate housing for that many 
soldiers, the Army reverted to the use of standardized plans for 
permanent construction of UPH. As reported to Congress: ``The use of 
standardized plans saves in design costs, saves time in initiation of 
work, and provides uniformity throughout the Army. Where such plans are 
used, the only additional design work necessary at a specific site is 
to adapt the structure to the local terrain and existing utilities 
systems.'' (U.S. Congress, House. Hearings Before the Committee on 
Armed Services, Military and Naval Construction, 82nd Congress, 2nd 
Session, p. 3966)
     Cold War Era sleeping facilities were predominantly provided in 
squad rooms with partial partitions. Dormitory style rooms were 
provided for the top four grades of enlisted personnel, at Service 
schools with substantial out-of-classroom study, and where there was 
shift-type work. In the 1950s, accommodating all company functions in a 
single building was the prime consideration in the design of barracks. 
Hammerhead and H-style barracks consolidated troop housing, dining 
facilities, and administration facilities into one building.
     In the 1960s Rolling Pin barracks separated troop housing, dining 
facilities, and administration facilities into separate buildings. 
These were grouped into regimental complexes consisting of ten Rolling 
Pin barracks, two consolidated mess halls, two administrative 
buildings, chapel, post exchange, gymnasium, and dispensary.
    With the suspension of the Selective Services Act in 1973, the 
military recognized the need to attract and retain servicemen in a 
voluntary military. Quality of life was identified as important to 
troop morale. Open dormitory design with limited privacy was now an 
undesirable feature. New barracks design incorporated the preferred 
``2+2,'' consisting of two adjoining, two person rooms sharing a 
bathroom, throughout the 1980s.
     The historic significance of Cold War UPH lies in their 
association with developing trends associated with the build-up of the 
military to support the Cold War. As the size of the military

[[Page 18704]]

increased, and Congress placed limits on funding available for housing, 
the Military Departments developed standardized barracks plans to meet 
the needs of its unaccompanied enlisted personnel. The development of 
permanent housing for a large standing military of enlisted personnel 
reflects the response to the Cold War, and therefore the properties are 
potentially significant as a class of resources under Criterion A of 
the National Register Criteria for their association with the events, 
activities, and patterns of the Cold War build-up, though properties 
may not be individually eligible.
    Currently, DoD has identified 4,524 Cold War era unaccompanied 
housing buildings in its inventory. Of this total, 2,863 (63%) belong 
to the Army, 1,051 (23%) belong to the Navy, and 605 (13%) belong to 
the Air Force.
     The Program Comment will apply to all Cold War Era UPH buildings. 
These buildings were constructed to house the unprecedented number of 
military personnel retained during the Cold War. The Military 
Departments followed a number of standardized designs for construction 
of UPH buildings during this period. The so-called Hammerhead, Rolling-
Pin, and H-style barracks were the most common designs of the period. 
Though these designs were originally the traditional open floor plan 
style, the Military Departments are upgrading all barracks to the 
current standards of living, including individual rooms and bathrooms. 
DoD anticipates that this Program Comment for UPH will allow the 
Military Departments to more expeditiously improve Quality of Life for 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines.
    DoD anticipates that all of its Cold War era UPH will be subject to 
the following categories of undertakings: ongoing operations, 
maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, 
cessation of maintenance, new construction, demolition, deconstruction 
and salvage, remediation activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and 
closure.
     This action will include all buildings and structures that were 
designed and built as UPH in the years 1946-1974, regardless of current 
use. This will be all buildings and structures with the DoD Category 
Group (2 digit) Code of 72, Unaccompanied Personnel Housing, in the 
Military Service's Real Property Inventory currently or at the time of 
construction.
    DoD is requesting that the ACHP provide a Program Comment as a DoD-
wide Section 106 compliance action related to the effects on Cold War 
era UPH due to the management actions listed above. Such management 
actions have a potential to adversely affect historic UPH.
    Under the UPH Program Comment, a possible, though not likely, 
outcome would be the alteration or demolition of the entire group of 
properties built between 1946 and 1974. Because much of this housing is 
still being actively used by the Military Departments to house its 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, it is more likely that many of 
these buildings will remain in use and in the inventory. However, as 
alteration or complete demolition is an option under the Program 
Comment, the proposed mitigation must reflect and address that 
possibility. Because the significance of these properties lies 
primarily in their association with the history surrounding the build 
up of the Cold War, and not in their architectural qualities, the loss 
of this entire class of properties would be appropriately mitigated if 
the record of that association is completed before the buildings are 
irreversibly altered or demolished. In this case, the existing Army 
study, entitled Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) During the Cold 
War (1946-1989), comprehensively records the history of the 
construction and use of UPH during the Cold War era, and documents how 
the changing needs of the Cold War military were met through the design 
of Department's UPH. Consequently, because the important aspects of the 
relationship between these properties and the Cold War are already well 
documented through the history, plans, and photographs contained in the 
existing study, even if all the properties are demolished the effect of 
the loss will be appropriately mitigated.

Text of the Draft Program Comment

    The following is the full text of the draft Program Comment:

Program Comment for Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

I. Introduction

    This Program Comment provides DoD, and its Military Departments 
with an alternative way to comply with their responsibilities under 
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard to 
the effect of the following management actions on Cold War Era 
Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) that may be listed or eligible 
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places: Ongoing 
operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, 
mothballing, cessation of maintenance, new construction, demolition, 
deconstruction and salvage, remediation activities, and transfer, sale, 
lease, and closure of such facilities.
    In order to take into account the effects on such UPH, DoD and its 
Military Departments will conduct documentation in accordance with The 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 
Historic Preservation. As each Military Department will be responsible 
for conducting its own mitigation actions, the following required 
documentation is structured by Military Department, followed by DoD-
wide requirements.

II. Treatment of Properties

A. Army Mitigation
    1. In 2003, the Army completed a study entitled Unaccompanied 
Personnel Housing (UPH) During the Cold War (1946-1989). This Historic 
Context study was undertaken to support the analysis of real property 
related to Army UPH, and to support the identification and evaluation 
of historic properties. In addition to providing historic information 
regarding the UPH program, the study also documents the property types 
defined in their historic context. In-depth archival research of 
primary and secondary sources was undertaken on the organizational 
history, doctrines, and policies that influenced the design and 
development of Army UPH during the Cold War era. Data were collected to 
identify significant events and policies that influenced site plans, 
building design, and spatial arrangement of Army UPH facilities. 
Archival research was also directed to compile data on the evolution 
and modification of these property types over time. In addition, site 
visits to six Army installations containing UPH facilities were 
completed. The installations were examined to identify and document 
UPH-related property types based on extant real property in the Army 
inventory. These case studies included a summary installation history, 
interview data from the cultural resource management, a review of 
extant real property, and a detailed architectural analysis of the 
design, materials, construction and modification of over 700 examples 
of Army UPH. The resulting report provides a comprehensive and detailed 
record of Army UPH, including a collection of site plans, as-built 
building plans, and photographs (Chapter 4). Since these standard 
designs have already been well documented, no additional documentation 
of the Army's UPH are needed as part of the overall DoD mitigation.

[[Page 18705]]

    2. The Army, in order to take into account effects on potentially 
historic UPH, will amend Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) During 
the Cold War (1946-1989) in order to make it available to a wider 
audience. Due to security concerns, the distribution of the context 
study is limited to U.S. Government Agencies Only. The Army will remove 
the elements of the document that are security risks and then make the 
context available to the public.
B. Navy Mitigation
    1. The Navy will produce a supplemental context study appendix that 
will be attached as an appendix to the Army's Unaccompanied Personnel 
Housing (UPH) During the Cold War (1946-1989). The final product will 
be a separately bound volume of additional information and photographs 
and tabular appendices that, when taken with the Army's and Air Force's 
context studies, provide a clear picture of the DoD's UPH. The context 
study appendix will:

--Explore the post-World War II changing demographics of Navy personnel 
and its impact on housing needs;
--Amend, as necessary, and adopt the Army's criteria for evaluating the 
historic significance of UPH;
--Consider the importance of major builders, developers and architects 
that may have been associated with design and construction of UPH; and
--Describe the inventory of UPH in detail, providing information on the 
various types of buildings and architectural styles and the quantity of 
each.

    2. The Navy shall document a representative sample of the basic 
types of UPH. The Navy will choose three geographically dispersed 
installations with the greatest number and variety of such resources. 
The Marine Corps will choose one such example. The sample chosen shall 
be the best representative examples of the range of UPH types 
constructed during the Cold War era. This documentation would include 
collecting existing plans and drawings, writing a historic description 
in narrative or outline format, and compiling historic photographs of 
the buildings (similar in scope to the Army's documentation).
C. Air Force Mitigation
    1. The Air Force will produce a supplemental context study appendix 
that will be attached to the Army's Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 
(UPH) During the Cold War (1946-1989). The final product will be a 
separately bound volume of additional information and photographs and 
tabular appendices that, when taken with the Army's and Navy's context 
studies, provide a clear picture of the Department of Defense's UPH. 
The context study appendix will:

--Explore the post-World War II changing demographics of Air Force 
personnel and its impact on housing needs;
--Amend, as necessary, and adopt the Army's criteria for evaluating the 
historic significance of UPH;
--Consider the importance of major builders, developers and architects 
that may have been associated with design and construction of UPH; and
--Describe the inventory of UPH in detail, providing information on the 
various types of buildings and architectural styles and the quantity of 
each.

    The Air Force shall include documentation of representative 
sampling of the basic types of UPH. The Air Force will choose three 
geographically dispersed installations with the greatest number and 
variety of such resources. The sample chosen shall be the best 
representative examples of the range of UPH types constructed during 
the Cold War era. This documentation would include collecting existing 
plans and drawings, writing a historic description in narrative or 
outline format, and compiling historic photographs of the buildings, 
and would be similar in scope to the Army's documentation.
D. DoD-Wide Mitigation
    1. Additionally, DoD recently completed a draft context study 
entitled The Built Environment of Cold War Era Servicewomen through the 
Legacy Resource Management Program. This context study examines how the 
needs of women service members shaped construction plans and practices 
of several types of facilities, including UPH. The Legacy Program 
recently approved funds for the completion of this document. The legacy 
program will make the context study available to the Military 
Departments and the public to enhance the consideration and 
documentation of the UPH story.
    2. DoD and its Military Departments will make copies of all 
documentation available electronically, to the extent possible under 
security concerns, and hard copies will be placed in a permanent 
repository, such as the Center for Military History.
    3. As a result of on-going consultations with stakeholders, each 
Military Department will provide a list of its UPH properties covered 
by the Program Comment, by State, to stakeholders. Each Military 
Department will be responsible for determining how to convey its 
information.
    4. All Military Departments will encourage adaptive reuse of UPH 
properties when feasible, as well as the use of historic tax credits by 
private developers under lease arrangements. Military Departments will 
also incorporate adaptive reuse and preservation principles into master 
planning documents and activities.
    These actions satisfy DoD's requirement to take into account the 
effects of the following management actions on Cold War Era DoD UPH 
that may be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places: ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, 
rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, ceasing maintenance 
activities, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, 
remedial activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure.

III. Applicability

    A. This Program Comment applies solely to Cold War Era DoD UPH. The 
Program Comment does not apply to the following properties that are 
listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic 
Places: (1) Archaeological properties, (2) properties of traditional 
religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian 
tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and/or (3) UPH in National 
Register of Historic Places districts where the UPH is a contributing 
element of the district and the proposed undertaking has the potential 
to adversely affect such historic district. This exclusion does not 
apply to historic districts that are made up solely of UPH properties. 
In those cases the Program Comment would be applicable to such 
districts.
    Since the proposed mitigation for UPH documents site plans, 
building designs, and the spatial arrangement of UPH, along with the 
events and actions that lead to the development of UPH, the important 
aspects of UPH, whether single buildings or districts made up entirely 
of UPH, will be addressed regardless of the type of undertaking that 
may affect this particular property type.
    B. An installation with an existing Section 106 agreement document 
in place that addresses UPH can choose to:
    (1) Continue to follow the stipulations in the existing agreement 
document for the remaining period of the agreement; or

[[Page 18706]]

    (2) Seek to amend the existing agreement document to incorporate, 
in whole or in part, the terms of this Program Comment; or
    (3) Terminate the existing agreement document, and re-initiate 
consultation informed by this Program Comment if necessary.
    C. All future Section 106 agreement documents developed by the 
Military Departments related to the undertakings and properties 
addressed in this Program Comment shall include appropriate provisions 
detailing whether and how the terms of this Program Comment apply to 
such undertakings.

IV. Completion Schedule

    On or before 60 days following approval of the Program Comment, 
DoD, its Military Departments and ACHP will establish a schedule for 
completion of the treatments outlined above.

V. Effect of the Program Comment

    By following this Program Comment, DoD and its Military Departments 
meet their responsibilities for compliance under Section 106 regarding 
the effect of the following management actions on Cold War era DoD UPH 
that may be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places: Ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, 
rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, ceasing maintenance 
activities, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, 
remedial activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure. 
Accordingly, DoD installations are no longer required to follow the 
case-by-case Section 106 review process for such effects.
    As each of the Military Departments is required under this Program 
Comment to document their own facilities, failure of anyone Military 
Department to comply with the terms of the Program Comment will not 
adversely affect the other Departments' abilities to continue managing 
their properties under the Program Comment.

VI. Duration and Review of the Program Comment

    This Program Comment will remain in effect until such time as 
Headquarters, Department of the Army determines that such comments are 
no longer needed and notifies ACHP in writing, or ACHP withdraws the 
comments in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Following such 
withdrawal, the Army would be required to comply with the requirements 
of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 regarding the effects under this Program 
Comments' scope.
    Headquarters, Department of the Army and ACHP will review the 
implementation of the Program Comment ten years after its issuance.

    Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e).

    Dated: April 7, 2006.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 06-3509 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-M