The federal environmental review process is shifting—and for local governments, that shift could mean a stronger voice in decisions that shape infrastructure, land use, and development across Alaska.
In February 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) finalized sweeping updates to how it implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While much of the attention has focused on streamlining federal reviews, one key change stands out for local governments: formal recognition as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process.
What Changed?
The new DOI rule is part of a broader overhaul of federal environmental review processes. Following the rescission of long-standing government-wide NEPA regulations, federal agencies—including DOI—have been developing their own updated procedures.
DOI’s final rule does several things:
- Moves most NEPA procedures out of regulation and into a departmental handbook, increasing flexibility but reducing formal regulatory structure
- Streamlines environmental review processes to improve efficiency and reduce timelines
- Maintains key provisions that allow state, tribal, and local governments to participate in project review
But most importantly for local governments, the rule reinstates language identifying local governments as cooperating agencies.
Why “Cooperating Agency” Status Matters:
Under NEPA, cooperating agencies are entities with jurisdiction or expertise that can actively participate in environmental review. That status is more than symbolic—it determines whether local governments are involved early, or simply reacting later.
With the updated rule:
- Local governments can participate from the beginning of project review
- Local knowledge—about land use, community impacts, and infrastructure—is formally integrated
- Federal agencies must consider local expertise in decision-making
In practical terms, this means communities have a better opportunity to shape outcomes on projects involving public lands, energy development, transportation, and other federally influenced investments. As noted by the National Association of Counties, this change ensures local governments have “a seat at the table” during environmental reviews.
Implications for Alaska Communities:
For Alaska, where federal land ownership and permitting play an outsized role, this shift is particularly important. Local governments often:
- Manage infrastructure impacted by federal projects
- Coordinate with tribes, state agencies, and industry
- Face direct impacts from environmental decisions
Formal recognition as cooperating agencies strengthens the ability of Alaska communities to:
- Influence project design early
- Align federal actions with local plans and priorities
- Reduce conflict and delays by identifying issues sooner
In short, it creates an opportunity for more coordinated, place-based decision-making.
The Tradeoffs: Flexibility vs. Certainty
While the rule expands local government recognition, it also introduces uncertainty. By moving most procedures into a departmental handbook rather than regulation, DOI gains flexibility—but:
- Guidance can change more easily over time
- Processes may vary across agencies or project
- Some responsibilities of cooperating agencies are no longer codified in regulation
Additionally, changes to public comment requirements and environmental analysis approaches have raised concerns among some stakeholders about transparency and consistency.
What Comes Next?
DOI is only one piece of the puzzle. Other federal agencies—including Transportation, Energy, Agriculture, and the Army Corps of Engineers—are still developing their own NEPA rules. There is a strong push for those agencies to adopt similar language recognizing local governments as cooperating agencies, which would create more consistency across federal programs. At the same time, Congress is considering legislation that could formally codify the role of local governments in NEPA, further solidifying this shift.
Bottom Line:
The DOI’s new NEPA regulations represent both a structural overhaul and a meaningful opportunity. For local governments—especially in Alaska—the key takeaway is clear: Engagement in federal project reviews is no longer optional—it is expected, formalized, and increasingly essential. The communities that are prepared to engage early, coordinate regionally, and bring forward clear priorities will be best positioned to shape federal investments and outcomes in the years ahead.