Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is the independent federal agency that advises the President, Congress, and federal agencies on historic preservation policy. Its most important function is administering the Section 106 review process — the requirement that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on historic properties — including those listed on the National Register — before proceeding. The Council also oversees the Historic Preservation Fund, which provides the financial backbone for state and tribal preservation programs. Tribal engagement reflects the broader framework of Indian self-determination.

Current Law (2026)

Parameter	Value
Agency type	Independent federal agency
Chairman	Appointed by the President
Members	Mix of federal officials, state/local representatives, preservation experts, public members
Core function	Administer Section 106 review of federal actions affecting historic properties
Historic Preservation Fund	$150 million/year authorized from OCS revenues (current authorization extended through Sept 30, 2026 by FY26 Interior appropriations)
Fund source	Outer Continental Shelf mineral lease revenues
International role	Authorized U.S. participation in ICCROM

Legal Authority

54 U.S.C. § 303101 — Establishment of Historic Preservation Fund (creates the Fund in the Treasury to finance preservation activities under the National Historic Preservation Act)
54 U.S.C. § 303102 — Funding ($150 million/year deposited from Outer Continental Shelf revenues)
54 U.S.C. § 303103 — Use and availability (Fund amounts may be used only for historic preservation purposes and are available only when appropriated by Congress)
54 U.S.C. § 304101 — Establishment of ACHP (creates the Council as an independent agency; composition includes a presidentially appointed Chairman, heads of key federal agencies, state/local government representatives, preservation professionals, and public members)
54 U.S.C. § 304102 — Duties (advise President and Congress on preservation matters; recommend coordination of federal, state, and local activities; review federal policies affecting preservation; disseminate information; encourage public participation; recommend improvements to laws)
54 U.S.C. § 304103 — Cooperation with federal agencies (Council may obtain information and assistance directly from any federal agency)
54 U.S.C. § 304106 — International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (authorizes U.S. participation in ICCROM, the international preservation organization)
54 U.S.C. § 304107 — Legislative independence (no federal officer or agency may require the Council to submit legislative recommendations or testimony for pre-approval before Congress)
54 U.S.C. § 304108 — Regulations (Council may promulgate regulations governing Section 106 implementation)
54 U.S.C. § 304112 — Grant program effectiveness (Council may enter cooperative agreements with federal grant-administering agencies to improve effectiveness of preservation in grant programs)

How It Works

The ACHP's central role is administering Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act — the requirement that federal agencies must "take into account" the effect of their undertakings on historic properties and give the ACHP an opportunity to comment before proceeding. This review process is one of the most consequential regulatory mechanisms in federal environmental and cultural resource law, affecting everything from highway construction to telecommunications tower siting to federal building renovations.

Section 106 doesn't prohibit federal agencies from affecting historic properties — it requires them to consider the impacts and consult with interested parties before acting. The consultation process involves the federal agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), the ACHP (in cases of significant impact), and other consulting parties including Indian tribes, local governments, and the public. When adverse effects are identified, the parties negotiate a memorandum of agreement specifying how impacts will be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

The Historic Preservation Fund provides the financial foundation for the national preservation system. Funded at $150 million per year from Outer Continental Shelf mineral revenues (mirroring the LWCF's funding model), the Fund supports state historic preservation offices, tribal preservation programs, grants for preservation projects, and the national heritage areas program. Like the LWCF, the Fund's amounts are available only when appropriated by Congress — the authorization and the appropriation are separate steps.

The Council's composition reflects its bridging role. Members include the heads of key federal agencies (Interior, Agriculture, HUD, Transportation, and others), governors, mayors, preservation professionals, Native American representatives, and public members. The Chairman is appointed by the President. This diverse membership ensures that preservation policy reflects the perspectives of federal agencies, state and local governments, tribal nations, and the preservation community.

The Council's legislative independence provision is notable: no federal agency can require the ACHP to submit its legislative recommendations to Congress through any executive branch clearance process. This protects the Council's ability to advise Congress independently, free from executive branch interference with its preservation advocacy.

How It Affects You

If you work at a federal agency: Every time your agency undertakes, assists, or permits an action that could affect a property on or eligible for the National Register, you must complete Section 106 review under 36 CFR Part 800. This covers everything from major construction projects to federal permits to grant-funded activities — even agency leases and licenses. The process requires identifying affected historic properties (often via a Phase I cultural resources survey), assessing adverse effects, and consulting with SHPOs and interested parties. Budget Section 106 into project planning from day one; trying to satisfy it after design is complete creates expensive redesigns.

If you're a developer or project applicant: If your project requires a federal permit, license, or funding — a wetlands fill permit from the Army Corps, a telecommunications tower NEPA review, a federal highway grant — Section 106 review almost certainly applies. A Phase I archaeological survey typically costs $5,000–$15,000 for a small site and $50,000–$200,000+ for a large corridor project. Phase II (evaluation) and Phase III (data recovery mitigation) can add hundreds of thousands of dollars if significant resources are found. The key is early consultation with the SHPO and the permit-issuing agency: mitigation measures negotiated early in design are far less costly than those required after construction documents are complete. Historic property avoidance — routing a road around a National Register property — almost always costs less than mitigation.

If you're a state or tribal preservation officer: You are the primary consulting partners in Section 106 review and a direct beneficiary of the Historic Preservation Fund's $150 million annual appropriation. Fund grants support your office's staff, survey and inventory programs, and restoration grants for threatened historic properties. Annual Subgrant programs — distributed by SHPOs to local governments, nonprofits, and preservation organizations — typically range from $5,000 to $100,000 per award. Advocate for full Congressional appropriation of the authorized $150 million; in many years Congress appropriates less than the full authorization.

If you're a member of an Indian tribe: Section 106 requires federal agencies to consult with tribes on undertakings that may affect properties of religious and cultural significance to your tribe — even when those properties are not on the National Register. Your tribe can designate a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) to take on SHPO functions for tribal lands; ACHP provides grants and technical assistance for THPO program development. Tribes have the right to request the ACHP's involvement in Section 106 cases, and the ACHP has issued specific guidance on tribal consultation best practices that gives tribes leverage when federal agencies are conducting inadequate consultation.

If you're a property owner or community member: Section 106 review gives you a formal voice when federal actions threaten historic properties in your community. You can become a "consulting party" by demonstrating that you have a direct and substantial interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties — this gives you standing to participate in consultations, review agency findings, and request that ACHP formally enter the process. Your local SHPO can tell you whether a federal action near you triggered Section 106 review and how to participate. The ACHP's public complaint process allows you to report inadequate federal Section 106 compliance directly to the Council.

State Variations

The ACHP is a federal agency, but the preservation system it oversees depends on state and tribal partners:

Each state has a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) who participates in Section 106 review
State preservation programs vary widely in staffing, funding, and regulatory authority
Some states have "little Section 106" provisions that apply to state-funded or state-permitted projects
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers serve a parallel role on tribal lands
Historic Preservation Fund grants to states and tribes provide core operational support

Implementing Regulations

36 CFR Part 800 — Protection of Historic Properties: the ACHP's comprehensive implementing regulation for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act — the step-by-step process federal agencies must follow when their undertakings may affect historic properties:
- § 800.3 — Initiation of Section 106: a federal agency must determine whether it has an "undertaking" (a project, activity, or program that the agency carries out, funds, assists, or licenses) that could affect historic properties; if so, it must initiate Section 106 by identifying the appropriate SHPO/THPO and determining whether a programmatic agreement or standard review applies; the agency must also determine the "area of potential effects" (APE) — the geographic area in which the undertaking may cause direct or indirect changes to historic properties
- § 800.4 — Identification of historic properties: the federal agency must take reasonable and good-faith efforts to identify all historic properties within the APE; this typically requires a Phase I cultural resources survey by qualified archaeologists or architectural historians; a property is eligible for the National Register if it meets the criteria for significance (age, integrity, significance in history/architecture/archaeology/culture); if properties are found and evaluated as eligible, the review continues
- § 800.5 — Assessment of adverse effects: the agency must apply the "Criteria of Adverse Effect" to determine whether the undertaking would affect the characteristics that qualify the property for the National Register; adverse effects include physical destruction, alteration of character-defining features, removal from context, neglect causing deterioration, change in the use or character of the property's setting, and introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish integrity; the test is qualitative, not quantitative
- § 800.6 — Resolution of adverse effects: if adverse effects are found, the agency must consult with SHPO/THPO, Indian tribes with cultural interest, the ACHP (if it chooses to participate), and other consulting parties to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) specifying measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects; MOA provisions commonly include documentation requirements (Historic American Buildings Survey-level drawings), archaeological data recovery, revised project design to avoid the property, or ongoing monitoring; the ACHP must be notified and given the opportunity to participate
- § 800.13 — Emergency situations: in emergencies (natural disasters, sudden infrastructure failure), agencies may take immediate rescue or salvage operations without complying with normal Section 106 procedures, but must notify the ACHP and SHPO/THPO as soon as possible and complete Section 106 review for any subsequent undertakings
The Part 800 regulations represent 50+ years of administrative evolution since the NHPA's 1966 enactment. The process has been shaped by litigation, agency policy guidance, and ACHP programmatic agreements covering specific undertakings (telecommunications towers, highway transportation programs). The "standard treatment" of Phase I identification → Phase II evaluation → Phase III mitigation is so common in environmental compliance practice that "doing a Phase I" is standard language in development projects requiring federal permits. Recent rulemakings: 64 FR 27044 (May 1999) — comprehensive rewrite of Part 800 that added clearer procedures for tribal consultation and programmatic approaches; 84 FR 14676 (April 2019) — updated to streamline and modernize consultation procedures.
36 CFR Part 60 — National Register of Historic Places (§§ 60.1, 60.14, 60.15 — authorization and expansion, changes/revisions to listed properties, removal from National Register)
36 CFR Part 296 — Protection of Archaeological Resources (§§ 296.7, 296.12 — notification to Indian tribes, relationship to Section 106 of NHPA)
36 CFR Part 2 — NPS resource protection (§ 2.1 — preservation of natural, cultural, and archaeological resources)
36 CFR Part 292 — National Recreation Areas (§ 292.43 — protection and preservation of cultural and paleontological resources)

Pending Legislation

HR 6353 — Waive Section 106 reviews for public water system rehab projects. Status: In committee.

Recent Developments

The ACHP has modernized its Section 106 regulations to streamline review for routine undertakings while maintaining rigorous consultation for significant projects. The Council has increased emphasis on equity and inclusion in preservation, addressing the historical underrepresentation of African American, Latino, Asian American, and LGBTQ+ heritage in the National Register and Section 106 process. Climate change impacts on historic properties — particularly coastal and flood-vulnerable resources — are an emerging focus area.

Trump permitting reform and Section 106 streamlining (2025): Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy) and OBBBA's permitting reform provisions both targeted Section 106 review as a source of project delay. The OBBBA included provisions limiting Section 106 consultation to 90 days for energy and infrastructure projects (compressed from an open-ended timeline that could extend years). ACHP issued implementing guidance clarifying that the 90-day limit applies to federal agency consultation obligations — State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) retain their full consultation rights under existing regulations.
DOGE and ACHP staffing — small agency vulnerability: As a small independent agency with approximately 50 full-time employees, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was particularly vulnerable to DOGE workforce reviews. DOGE recommended consolidating ACHP's functions into the National Park Service's Historic Preservation Programs — a proposal that preservation advocates opposed as undermining ACHP's independent oversight role. Congress did not authorize the consolidation; ACHP retained independent agency status but absorbed a 15% staffing reduction through attrition and delayed hiring.
Confederacy monuments and Section 106 review: The ongoing national debate over Confederate monuments on federal property — accelerated by the George Floyd protests in 2020 and Executive Order 13985 — has drawn ACHP into politically charged decisions about whether Confederate monuments meet the "historic significance" threshold for National Register listing and Section 106 consideration. The Biden administration had initiated a review of Confederate symbols on federal property; the Trump administration suspended that review in 2025. Several Confederate statues removed from federal property during 2020-2024 were ordered reinstated by Trump EO; ACHP provided guidance on the historic preservation treatment of reinstated monuments.
Tribal consultation and NHPA Section 101(d) — increased litigation: Federal courts have issued significant decisions in 2024-2025 on the adequacy of federal agency tribal consultation under NHPA Section 101(d) and NEPA. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Agua Caliente Band v. Coachella Valley Water District (2024) strengthened tribal consultation requirements for projects affecting ancestral lands. Section 106 consultation with THPOs — Tribal Historic Preservation Officers — has become a more contested process as tribes assert broader geographic areas of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) that must be assessed for project effects.