Understanding Why the Historic Preservation Council Changed Its Environmental Review Rules

You might care about this because a federal agency called the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is changing how it handles environmental reviews. The ACHP is an independent group that works to protect America's historic places. For a long time, it had its own set of rules, known as 36 CFR Part 805, for following a big environmental law called the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. These rules helped the ACHP make sure its own actions considered environmental impacts. However, the ACHP rarely takes major actions that require this type of detailed environmental review. The last time was back in the late 1990s. Now, the ACHP is getting rid of these specific rules. This decision comes after the President issued an Executive Order. This order led another important agency, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to remove its own NEPA rules. Since the ACHP's rules were meant to work alongside CEQ's, they became outdated. Also, new laws passed by Congress and a recent Supreme Court decision have changed how NEPA is understood and applied. The Supreme Court ruling, in a case called Seven County, Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, suggests that agencies like the ACHP have more freedom in how they conduct NEPA reviews. Because of these changes, the ACHP decided it doesn't currently need its own detailed NEPA procedures. They are removing these rules right now, but they are also asking for public feedback on this step. You have until July 6, 2026, to share your thoughts. What makes this change particularly interesting is how one government decision can quickly affect many others. This action by the ACHP is a direct result of a chain of events starting with a Presidential order. This order pushed the Council on Environmental Quality to update its own environmental review rules. Because the ACHP's rules were tied to CEQ's, the ACHP had to react. This shows how changes at the top levels of government can lead to agencies re-evaluating their internal processes. Beyond this, the decision also highlights how new laws and court rulings can reshape how environmental protections are put into practice. Recent laws from Congress and a key Supreme Court case have given agencies more flexibility. The Supreme Court's decision, in particular, emphasized that courts should generally give a lot of respect to how agencies decide to carry out NEPA reviews. This broader view of agency discretion means that the ACHP feels less compelled to have a specific, detailed set of internal NEPA procedures, especially since it hardly ever needed them in the first place. This demonstrates a shift in how federal agencies might approach environmental reviews moving forward, moving towards simpler internal guidelines unless a specific need arises. Several groups and individuals would find this legal document and its implications very relevant. Historic preservation professionals, for instance, including those who work for government agencies, non-profits, or as consultants, will want to understand how the ACHP's internal procedures are changing. Even though this only affects the ACHP's internal processes, it reflects a broader approach to environmental review that could eventually influence their work. Environmental advocates and organizations focused on environmental policy will also be keenly interested. They watch these kinds of regulatory changes closely to see how federal agencies apply environmental laws. Legal professionals specializing in administrative law, environmental law, or regulatory affairs will find the legal reasoning behind this interim rule significant. This includes the discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act and the "good cause" for making immediate changes. Lastly, other federal agencies that have their own NEPA implementing rules might also look at this as an example. They might consider whether they, too, should adjust their procedures in light of the same Executive Order, CEQ guidance, new laws, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of NEPA.