Turtle Talk

The Forest Service has provided me with useful clarification about the Tribal consultations underlying USDA’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. But its response also sharpens the fact that as Tribes prepare comments due September 21, USDA’s proposed rule, DEIS, and Tribal Impact Statement rely on information obtained through consultation while the underlying consultation record remains inaccessible for review.

In an August 31 response to my request for consultation records, the Forest Service confirmed that:

• The reported 29 consultations were formal government-to-government consultations with federally recognized Tribes;
• The number excludes consultations with Alaska Native Corporations, which the agency categorizes as government-to-corporation consultation; and
• The August 5, 2025 Tribal Forum was not formal consultation and was not included among the 29 consultations.

Those answers clarify what the number 29 represents. But they don’t disclose which Tribes participated, when the consultations occurred, who attended, what information or recommendations were presented, what materials were exchanged, or how the Forest Service responded.

I requested a consultation log and the associated correspondence, agendas, notes, recordings, transcripts, presentations, and other exchanged materials. The Office of Tribal Relations referred that portion of the request to the Forest Service’s FOIA program.

USDA proposed rule and DEIS relies on the consultation information

This isn’t a situation in which consultation occurred alongside the rulemaking but played no role in USDA’s analysis.

The proposed rule expressly states that its Tribal summary “includes the input received to date through the consultation process.” It uses that information to characterize the overall Tribal response, identify asserted effects of rescission, and describe alternatives proposed by Tribal governments. USDA reports that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition” and identifies concerns involving sacred sites, traditional gathering areas, water quality, subsistence resources, governmental capacity, and the transfer of decision-making to future forest-level and project-level processes. The rule also describes consultation-derived proposals for retaining or strengthening roadless protections, establishing a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule, incorporating Indigenous Knowledge, expanding co-stewardship, and requiring Tribal consent. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, 91 Fed. Reg. 53,827, 53,831–32 (Aug. 20, 2026).

The Draft EIS relies on Tribal feedback and consultation documentation more substantively. Its Tribal Rights and Interests analysis uses consultation information to identify affected interests and to evaluate the alternatives through three indicators: access, resource usability, and disturbance. Applying that framework, USDA concludes that full rescission presents the greatest potential for adverse effects on Tribal rights and interests. The Draft EIS also identifies Tribal-proposed management and co-stewardship approaches and then declines to develop them as national rule alternatives, concluding that they are “better addressed through local land management planning or site-specific project level planning than through National Rulemaking.” Draft EIS at 29 and 197-203.

The Tribal Summary Impact Statement is even more explicit. It states that its summary “includes the input received to date through the consultation process” and uses that input to describe Tribal positions, impacts, proposed alternatives, and the matters to which the Forest Service gives an “Agency Response.” Tribal Summary Impact Statement at 2–6.

The economic analysis presents a more limited case. It cross-references the Draft EIS’s treatment of fisheries, wildlife, subsistence, and other ecosystem services, but it doesn’t disclose whether or how consultation information affected its economic assumptions or quantified results. Cost Benefit Analysis at 19-20, 28. That omission may itself be important because the consultation summary identifies Tribal costs that don’t appear in the analysis’s principal quantified categories, including effects on subsistence resources, cultural landscapes, sacred places, treaty resources, and Tribal governmental capacity.

Why access matters legally

Government-to-government consultation is distinct from public notice and comment. Some consultation communications may appropriately remain confidential, particularly where they contain sensitive cultural information, locations of sacred sites, or information a Tribe provided with an expectation of confidentiality. But that doesn’t resolve the public docket issue.

Notice-and-comment doctrine generally requires an agency to disclose the critical factual material on which a proposed rule relies in sufficient detail to permit meaningful comment. The relevant question isn’t whether every consultation communication must be published. It’s whether USDA has disclosed enough of the nonconfidential consultation record to allow commenters to identify omissions, test the agency’s characterization, and respond with contrary or supplementary evidence.

Here, USDA has made its own account of the consultations part of the proposed rule’s public justification, the DEIS’s effects analysis, and the Tribal Summary Impact Statement. Yet commenters cannot determine from the public docket:

• which Tribal governments supplied the information being summarized;
• whether a stated position was expressed by one Tribe, several Tribes, or a broad cross-section;
• whether materially different positions or qualifications were omitted;
• whether USDA accurately described the alternatives Tribes proposed;
• whether the agency’s response addresses the recommendations actually presented; or
• whether information supplied by one Tribe has been generalized to Tribes with different treaties, governments, homelands, resources, and legal interests.

The Forest Service’s own consultation directive underscores that consultation ordinarily generates a broader documentary record. Departmental Regulation 1350-002 calls for documentation that may include invitations and supporting materials, participant information, agendas, minutes or notes, follow-up correspondence, and an explanation of how Tribal input was considered. DR 1350-002 at 11. The existence of legitimate confidentiality concerns doesn’t explain the absence of a basic consultation log or other nonconfidential records.

Executive Order 13175 also requires meaningful and timely Tribal input when federal policies have Tribal implications. It doesn’t itself create a general public access right to every consultation record. But USDA’s reliance on an undisclosed record raises a practical question about whether consultation can be meaningfully evaluated and whether Tribes can correct USDA’s account before the agency acts.

Why access matters practically for Tribes

The Forest Service emphasizes that government-to-government consultation will remain available after the September 21 public comment deadline. That distinction is real, but continued access to a separate consultation process doesn’t replace the present opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and Draft EIS.

A Tribe preparing comments may need the consultation record to determine whether USDA:

• accurately represented that Tribe’s statements;
• attributed another entity’s position too broadly;
• omitted a proposed alternative, condition, or legal objection;
• treated opposition to wholesale rescission as opposition to active forest management;
• adequately incorporated Tribe-specific evidence into the DEIS;
• addressed cumulative burdens on Tribal governments and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices; or
• responded to requests for consent, co-management, co-stewardship, or protection at the national or traditional-homelands scale.

Without a consultation log and releasable supporting records, each Tribe can speak for itself, but it can’t readily evaluate USDA’s broader claims about what “Tribal governments consulted” collectively said or what the consultation process established.

The Forest Service’s August 31 response therefore establishes an important but limited fact: 29 formal consultations occurred with federally recognized Tribes. It doesn’t establish which Tribes participated, what they told the agency, how representative USDA’s synthesis is, or how their information and recommendations affected the proposed rescission.

Because USDA has incorporated its characterization of the consultations into the proposed rule, DEIS, and Tribal Summary Impact Statement, access to the underlying nonconfidential record isn’t merely a request for additional background. It bears directly on whether Tribes and other commenters can evaluate the agency’s analysis and respond meaningfully before the September 21 deadline.