Connecting the Dots: The Arch, the NCPC, and the Section 106 Rewrite

How to read this

The proposed 250-foot Monumental Arch would rise at Memorial Circle — the ceremonial gateway to Arlington National Cemetery, at the western end of Arlington Memorial Bridge. The Park Service's own Assessment of Effects concluded it would adversely affect that entire composition — Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, Memorial Bridge, and the Memorial Avenue corridor — by introducing a vertical feature into a landscape deliberately built to be horizontal, and diminishing the integrity of its setting, design, and feeling.⁷ Three federal bodies shape its fate: the agency that applies for it (the Interior Department / Park Service), the commission that approves it (NCPC), and the council that reviews its effect on historic places — and is separately rewriting the very rules that decide whether that harm counts (the ACHP).

What the public rosters show is that these are, to a remarkable degree, the same offices. Below, each connection links to its source. Where something is a documented fact, it is stated flatly. Where something is an open question, it is marked as a question — not an accusation.

Documented fact (with source) Open question — asked, not alleged

Four legal safeguards. One project. Every one under pressure at once.

At least four separate legal safeguards bear on this Arch — meant to keep it within the law, the skyline, and the historic setting. Each is being weakened, sidestepped, or rewritten right now: three at one commission, the fourth at a separate council, on overlapping timelines.

NCPC track

§ 8106 — Act of Congress

Should require: no structure on federal parkland in D.C. without express authority of Congress.

In the ballroom case, the federal government — the same Department (Interior) that is the applicant here — argued § 8106 doesn't bind the Executive Branch, and lost on Aug. 7. Congress has never authorized this Arch, yet NCPC is asked to approve it anyway.³⁶

No act of Congress

NCPC track

Height of Buildings Act (1910)

Should require: buildings stay within the historic height limit that shapes the skyline.

NCPC is urged to declare the Act non-binding on the federal government — reversing the Commission's own long-held position.⁴

Final vote Sept. 3

NCPC track

Commemorative Works Act

Should require: siting and approval standards for new memorials on federal land.

NCPC calls it "beyond the scope of this Commission's authority" — so it goes unexamined in the forum that's deciding.⁴

Not examined here

ACHP track

Section 106 (historic review)

Should require: reckon with the adverse effects the Park Service's own review already found — to Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and Memorial Bridge — before anything is built.⁷

The ACHP is rewriting the Part 800 rules to stop counting visual, indirect, and landscape harm — with a switch only the applicant can throw.⁵

Rewrite pending at OMB

Why the convergence is the point Any one of these moves might be defended on its own. What this page is about is that they are happening together, on one project, on one timeline. Interior is the applicant and sits on both bodies. The ACHP's rewrite, meanwhile, goes to OMB for review — and NCPC's own Vice Chairman is an OMB Associate Director whose portfolio includes permitting; whether he or his office took part in that review is the open question we put to him below. Three safeguards are pressed at the commission, the fourth at the council — while the one body § 8106 says must decide, Congress, is asked to do nothing at all.

1 The same offices, in more than one seat

Who sits where in the decision on the Arch. Each check is a role held by that office or person today; the one dashed marker (?) flags an open question, not an asserted fact.

Office / person	ApplicantDOI / NPS	Approves itNCPC	Rewrites the rulesACHP	White Houseofficial	Reviews the rewriteOMB / OIRA
Dept. of the InteriorSec. Doug Burgum	✓	✓	✓
Stuart LevenbachNCPC Vice Chairman		✓		✓	?
William ScharfNCPC Chairman		✓		✓
Michael BlairNCPC Commissioner		✓		✓

The highlighted row (Interior) holds three documented roles at once. The dashed marker flags the single open question — asked, not asserted (see §4). Sources: NCPC and ACHP rosters.¹²

The applicant, in the room. The applicant is the Interior Department's National Park Service — the agency developing and designing the Arch. And Interior's designated alternate on this Commission is the Acting Director of the National Park Service, seated to act in the Secretary's place. The agency proposing the Arch holds a seat on the commission that approves it.¹⁷

For completeness — and against over-reading. Many other agencies sit on these bodies by statute, on every matter, and prove nothing here. NCPC's remaining seats are held by the Secretary of War, the GSA Administrator, the D.C. Mayor and Council Chair, and the chairs of the Senate and House oversight committees; the ACHP seats roughly two dozen federal agencies as a matter of course. Interior appears above only because it is also the applicant. Two facts do bear noting: the ACHP's Chairmanship sits vacant, leaving it run by its Vice Chair (an EPA official); and the National Trust for Historic Preservation — the plaintiff that just defeated Interior in court³ — holds a seat on the very council whose rules Interior would rewrite. That last one cuts against the idea of a stacked deck, which is exactly why it belongs here.

2 The forums are narrowing as the vote nears

Each entry below is a dated public event. Read top to bottom, they converge on one meeting.

July 9, 2025
Three White House officials — Scharf (Staff Secretary), Levenbach (OMB), and Blair (Deputy Chief of Staff) — are appointed to NCPC; Scharf is named Chairman.¹
June & July 2026
NCPC reviews the Arch. At the July 9 hearing the Chairman calls the theory that the Height Act does not bind the government "probably the strongest argument," schedules the "vigorous debate" for the final-approval meeting — and says in the same breath, "I continue to support this project." (Tr. 180, 214–15)⁴
July 17, 2026
The ACHP circulates its rewrite of the Section 106 rules (36 C.F.R. Part 800) for a Council vote; it heads to OMB/OIRA for review.⁵
August 7, 2026
The D.C. Circuit affirms the injunction against the White House ballroom, rejecting Interior's argument that 40 U.S.C. § 8106 "does not bind the Executive Branch." The same statute forbids building on federal parkland without express authority of Congress.³⁶
August 9, 2026
NCPC Chairman William Scharf is named White House Counsel — the President's top lawyer — effective Sept. 1, two days before he is set to chair the Commission's final vote on the President's Arch.⁹
September 3, 2026
NCPC's final vote on the Arch. The court has enjoined the ballroom for want of congressional authority; the preservation rules are being rewritten to remove this project's kind of harm; and this is the forum that decides. They converge here.

3 The rewrite is shaped to this project's harm

The Arch's injury is an indirect, visual effect on a designed landscape and its setting. The draft Part 800⁵ removes each of those, one at a time. Before → after, from the redline.

1 · The viewshed leaves the map

Now

Area of potential effects covers where an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations.

Draft

Covers only where it causes direct material alterations. (§ 800.16(d))

Dropping "indirectly" means a sightline or viewshed harm — the textbook indirect effect — falls outside the analysis before it begins.

2 · The bar for "adverse" is raised

Now

An effect that may alter, directly or indirectly, any qualifying characteristic.

Draft

Only one that will cause material alteration, is reasonably foreseeable, with a reasonably close causal relationship. (§ 800.5(a)(1))

A second, independent hurdle against indirect and visual harm.

3 · The two on-point examples are deleted

Now

Adverse-effect examples include change to the property's setting, and introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements.

Draft

Both examples struck from the list. (§ 800.5(a)(2))

These are the two examples that describe this project exactly. ("Setting" survives elsewhere as an abstract factor — but the illustrations that give it teeth are gone.)

4 · Landscapes stop counting

Draft adds

"…landscapes, including ethnographic landscapes, do not qualify as property for the purposes of section 106." (§ 800.16)

Memorial Circle and the Arlington approach are a designed landscape. This line writes them out of the definition.

5 · A switch only the applicant can throw

Draft

A pending review stays under the old rules unless the project sponsor requests in writing to move to the new ones. (transition clause)

The applicant here — Interior — could unilaterally switch its own ongoing review into the rules where this harm no longer counts.

Quotations are from the draft redline as published by Cultural Heritage Partners.⁵

4 The open questions

These are questions, not charges. Each has a plain answer the public is entitled to hear on the record.

A precedent already set. The Commission of Fine Arts offers a sobering preview. Its members were appointed by the President shortly before they reviewed this presidential project — and after overwhelming public opposition, and after the project's own architect told the Commission that the President had personally rejected lowering the Arch by more than 80 feet, the Commission approved the design anyway.⁸

To the Vice Chairman Has he or his OMB office participated in, commented on, or been consulted about the ACHP's pending rewrite of the Part 800 rules — the rules that would curtail review of the very project before him? If so, will he recuse from the final vote?
To the applicant If construction proceeds and is later held unlawful for want of congressional authority, will the structure be removed?
To each presidentially appointed commissioner Does daily service to the project's proponent permit impartial adjudication of the proponent's application?

What you can do

The decision is not final. Resident comment carries the most weight now.

The NCPC votes September 3. Make your voice part of the record.

Contact your officials → Read the comments we filed →

Sources

Every dot above traces to one of these public records.

National Capital Planning Commission, Commission members roster (Scharf, Levenbach, Blair, and ex officio members).
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Council members roster (Interior, War, GSA, and preservation-organization seats).
National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, No. 26-5123 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 7, 2026) (affirming preliminary injunction; rejecting the argument that § 8106 does not bind the Executive).
NCPC Meeting Transcript, July 9, 2026 (Tr. 180, 214–15). See NCPC meeting transcripts.
Draft revision of 36 C.F.R. Part 800, circulated for the ACHP vote of July 17, 2026, as published by Cultural Heritage Partners.
40 U.S.C. § 8106 — no building or structure on federal parkland in D.C. "without express authority of Congress."
National Park Service, Assessment of Effects — Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle (June 3, 2026) — the applicant's own Section 106 report, finding the undertaking would adversely affect the Memorial Avenue Corridor, Arlington Memorial Bridge, Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and other properties by altering character-defining views and diminishing integrity of setting, design, and feeling.
Washington Post, "Commission of Fine Arts approves Trump's 250-foot triumphal arch" (May 21, 2026) — the CFA, its members appointed by the President, approved the design over public opposition; the project's architect told the Commission the President had personally rejected lowering the Arch by more than 80 feet.
Politico, "Trump names Will Scharf White House Counsel" (Aug. 9, 2026) — NCPC Chairman and staff secretary Will Scharf named White House Counsel effective Sept. 1, 2026; corroborated by the Washington Post, CNBC, and NBC News, which note his NCPC chairmanship helped advance the President's projects.