• The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, codified at 36 CFR Part 294, prohibits road construction and commercial timber harvesting across approximately 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the National Forest System. These provisions apply to undeveloped lands across 36 states that have maintained their roadless characteristics. 

 

• For Federally recognized Tribal governments, these inventoried roadless areas encompass ancestral territories that Tribal Nations have stewarded since time immemorial and include sacred sites, traditional use areas, subsistence resources, medicinal plants, and headwater systems integral to the exercise of treaty and reserved rights and cultural practices. The Rule's protections have prevented industrial development within culturally significant landscapes 

 

• On August 20, 2026, the U.S .Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed changes to its 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposed changes to the Rule, could, by the USDA’s own admissions “significantly alter Tribal access to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, and other culturally significant areas,” and “could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests.” It achieves this by shifting the decision-making authority for proposed projects in inventoried lands from the federal government to a local-project-based level.  

 

• If enacted, proposed projects would be evaluated and approved by local Forest Service agencies on a project, by project, basis. Tribes wishing to assert geographic or resource considerations regarding proposed projects would be required to submit a petition under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) and USDA regulations at 7 CFR 1.28 for consideration. Federally recognized Tribes may also submit an additional government-to-government consultation petition for consideration.  

 

• While the proposed changes do not eliminate the current governing land management plans or site-specific NEPA requirements, it does loosen and eliminate current restrictions on road construction, road re-construction, and timber harvesting, while further, allowing drilling, mining, and other resource extraction in the inventoried lands. 

 

• In addition to these USDA changes, and in conjunction with the proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if enacted, would significantly impact, if not eliminate, the Tribal Consultation requirements for federal projects.  

The comment period for the proposed Rule change is open until October 6, 2026. For more information, resources, and comment templates, please visit: www.roadlessrule-tribal-hub.org 

Comments may be submitted here: Regulations.gov 

Links:

• ROADLESS RULE TRIBAL HUB 
• Regulations.gov 

• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has advanced sweeping proposed revisions by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to 36 C.F.R. Part 800; the regulation implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).   

• Section 106 is one of the principal federal processes requiring agencies to consider how federally funded, permitted, licensed, or otherwise federally connected projects may affect historic properties. For Tribal Nations, the process provides a formal mechanism for consultation before federal decisions harm sacred sites, ancestral lands, traditional cultural places, and cultural landscapes. Section 106 does not give Tribes veto authority over federal projects, but it provides a required process through which Tribal knowledge and concerns can influence project planning and mitigation.  

• Tribal organizations warn that the draft would weaken Tribal consultation, narrow which federal actions trigger review and which traditional cultural places and landscapes qualify for protection, limit consideration of indirect and cumulative effects, and reduce Tribal participation in mitigation. According to the draft analyzed by NCAI and other Tribal organizations, the proposed revisions would substantially change that process.  

• Among other changes, the draft would remove or weaken language governing Tribal consultation and Tribal participation throughout Section 106 review and would allow greater agency control over consultation procedures and timelines. The proposal also removes regulatory language expressly recognizing the federal government’s unique relationship with Tribal Nations and the importance of beginning Section 106 review early in project planning.  

• The draft would also narrow when Section 106 applies. It creates several proposed exclusions from the definition of a federal “undertaking,” potentially reducing the number of federally funded, permitted, approved, or otherwise connected activities that receive Section 106 review. Tribal advocates argue these exclusions conflict with the broader definition of “undertaking” established by Congress in the NHPA. 

• Of particular concern for Tribes, the proposal would narrow what qualifies as a “historic property.” The draft would require a physical location to contain or have contained “tangible human improvements” and to be “geographically compact,” while expressly excluding noncompact, unimproved natural features such as mountains, valleys, bodies of water, and ethnographic landscapes. Tribal organizations argue that this approach could exclude traditional cultural places and landscapes whose significance does not depend on buildings or other physical alterations. 

• Other proposed changes would exclude cumulative and indirect impacts from consideration, remove specific recognition of visual, atmospheric, audible, use, and setting impacts, and reduce Tribal participation in developing mitigation agreements. The draft also contains provisions that Tribal advocates believe could affect judicial review, including potential waiver of review rights through failure to respond and requirements involving covenants not to sue. 

• The immediate process is occurring at OIRA. Tribal Nations may request an Executive Order 12866 meeting regarding RIN 3010-AA10 while the proposed rule remains under review. These meetings allow Tribes to present concerns and written materials directly to OIRA and ACHP staff before publication, although the slide deck emphasizes that an OIRA meeting is not government-to-government Tribal consultation. Information about participants and materials submitted through these meetings is generally made public. 

Links:  

• ACHP — Vote to Move Forward with Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

• OIRA/Reginfo — RIN 3010-AA10 Regulatory Information 

• NCAI — Joint Statement on Protecting the Section 106 Process 

• NATHPO — July 2026 Section 106 Updates and Tribal Resources 

• Request an OIRA Executive Order 12866 Meeting 

  

• The Small Business Administration’s Rule 8(a) program is a federally subsidized program created to help socially and economically disadvantaged people start and successfully run small businesses throughout the nation.  

• Business owners accepted into the program are given access to sole-source federal contracts which are reserved for this program and of which the business would not have access otherwise.  

• To be eligible for the program, the applicant must be a small business owner, with a business in operation for at least two years. At least 51% of the business must be owned by a socially or economically disadvantaged person. 

• Until recently, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and Subcontinent Asian Americans had a rebuttable presumption under the SBA 8(a) rules of being “socially disadvantaged” groups. This designation allowed business owners, and the communities in which they operate, to have access to the support and opportunities of the SBA 8(a) program.   

•  In August, the Small Business Administration issued a change to its SBA Rule 8(a) federal contracting program. 

•  The new rule dismisses the rebuttable presumption that people in these racial and ethnic groups are “socially disadvantaged” and puts in place new eligibility requirements for all applicants which require a showing of discrimination and proof of harm because of the discrimination to obtain the designation and thus access and support to the SBA 8(a) program and its resources. 

• The SBA 8(a) program is a vital source of opportunity for Native owned businesses to access federal contracts. These contracts result in the provision of essential services in the public safety, infrastructure, education, and health industries. The Federal News Network reports with the change in this rule, Native Americans, Native, Hawaiians, and Native Alaskans have experienced the largest dropin economic activity across all sectors at 40%, 46%, and 66% respectively. 

• While the new rule does not apply to Tribal-owned entities, it does apply to businesses owned by tribal individuals. In addition to cutting funding from Native owned businesses, the rule changes have also created uncertainty for those businesses already within the program, as processing time has increased due to the departmental rule change.  For more information visit:  

Links: 

• SBA Finalizes 8(a) Rule Change: Entity-Owned Tribal Firms Unaffected, Individual Native American Applicants Face New Evidentiary Test | NAFOA