Effectiveness of the

Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northwest

Forest Plan

The First Ten Years (1994–2003)

DEPA RTMENTOFAGRICULT URE

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Region

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

R6-RPM-TP-02-2006

Claudia Stuart and Kristen Martine, Technical Editors

With Contributions by Bruce Crespin, Merv George, 

Kathleen Heffner McClellan, Don Motanic, George Smith, 

Sonia Tamez, Sandi Tripp
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Ten years of management under the Northwest Forest Plan have brought significant changes to relationships between 

federal agencies and American Indian Tribes in the region. Developing a process to evaluate this relationship was an 

unprecedented effort that would not have been possible without the cooperation of dozens of individuals representing 

federal and tribal organizations. This report summarizes the findings for the tribal monitoring module. The tribal 

monitoring protocol and methodology were developed through the efforts of George Smith, Calvin Mukumoto, the 

Intertribal Timber Council, the Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group, and the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. 

Bruce Crespin, George Smith, Sandi Tripp, and Sonia Tamez collaborated to compile the initial draft of this report. The 

report was revised by Claudia Stuart in response to comments from management reviewers. Peer and management 

reviewers made recommendations that resulted in the final version of the report, which was produced by Claudia Stuart 

and Kristen Martine. Tribal governments that participated in the monitoring interviews must be commended for their 

willingness to express their views. Their candor provides valuable insights and serves as the foundation for future 

program direction. Participating federal officials deserve equal recognition for their contribution to the implementation 

of the program, as do the Regional Monitoring Team and Team Leader. 

Peer Reviewers 

Fran Philipek, District Archaeologist (BLM-Salem, OR) 

Tim Canaday, Lead Archaeologist (BLM-Klamath Falls, OR) 

Jacilee Wray, Anthropologist (NPS-Olympic NP, WA) 

Russell L. Kaldenberg, Archaeologist (USN-China Lake NWS, Ridgecrest, CA) 

Kathleen Heffner McClellan, Tribal Relations (FS-Eureka, CA) 

Claudia Stuart (Genetic Resource Center, Chico, CA) 

George Smith (Intertribal Timber Council-Portland, OR) 

Don Motanic (Intertribal Timber Council-Portland, OR) 

Les McConnell, Tribal Liaison (FS-Portland, OR) 

Bruce Crespin, Tribal and Cultural Programs (BLM-Portland, OR) 

Management Reviewers 

Gary Harris, Tribal Liaison (FS and BLM-Portland, OR) 

Sonia Tamez, Tribal Liaison (FS-Vallejo, CA) 

Tim Canaday, Lead Archaeologist (BLM-Klamath Falls, OR) 

J. Witherspoon (BLM-Salem, OR) 

Writer/Editor 

Maple Taylor (BLM-OSO) 

Cover photograph by Ken Wilson
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal 

Relationship 

iii 

Abstract 

Stuart, Claudia; Martine, Kristen, tech. eds. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years 

(1994-2003): effectiveness of the federal-tribal relationship. Tech. Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2006. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 

This report summarizes the results of a monitoring program designed to evaluate the effects of 

the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan implementation on federal-tribal relationships. 

A total of 76 federally recognized tribes consult with land managers in the Plan area about 

resources, places of interest, and the quality of the federal-tribal relationship. The views of 15 

Plan-area tribes are presented as well as the results of a Plan Review held in 2003 and a Tribal 

Forum held in 2005. 

 Key topics addressed by tribal monitoring are the conditions and trends of resources 

protected by treaty or of interest to American Indian tribes, and access to those resources; the 

condition of and access to sites of religious and cultural heritage; and the quality of the 

government-to-government relationship. A 14-question interview was used during formal, faceto-face consultations between tribal government representatives and federal agency officials to 

collect monitoring information. 

 Tribal opinions regarding these topics vary, but several conclusions can be drawn from 

the monitoring information collected. Tribes felt that the condition of aquatic and riparian 

habitats, fisheries, and forest health has improved under the Plan. Cooperative relationships 

between federal and tribal leaders are more productive under the Plan, partnerships have been 

formed to implement projects on the ground, and some tribal resource needs have been 

accommodated. Tribes prefer “layered” consultations that combine informal staff contact with 

formal government-to-government consultation. The tribes felt that the planning process 

sometimes slows management of trust resources and resources of interest on the ground. 

 

Keywords: effectiveness monitoring, tribal resources, Northwest Forest Plan, American Indian 

tribes, cultural sites, consultation, resource management, federal-tribal relations. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

iv

Photo by 

Ken Wilson
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal 

Relationship 

v 

Preface 

This report is one of a set of reports produced on this 10-year anniversary of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The collection of reports attempts to answer questions about the effectiveness of the 

Plan from new monitoring and research results. The set includes a series of status and trends 

reports, a synthesis of all regional monitoring and research results, a report on interagency 

information management and summary report. 

The status and trends reports focus on establishing new baselines of information from 1994, 

when the Plan was approved, and reporting change over the 10-year period. The status and 

trends series includes reports on late-successional and old growth forests, northern spotted owl 

population and habitat, marbled murrelet population and habitat, watershed condition, 

government-to-government tribal relationships, socio-economic conditions, and monitoring of 

project implementation under Plan standards and guidelines. 

The synthesis report addresses questions about the effectiveness of the Plan by using the status 

and trends results and new research. It focuses on the validity of the Plan assumptions, 

differences between expectations and what actually happened, the certainty of the findings, and, 

finally, considerations for the future. The synthesis report is organized in two parts: Part I – 

introduction, context, synthesis and summary and Part II - socioeconomic implications, older 

forests, species conservation, the aquatic conservation strategy, and adaptive management and 

monitoring. 

The report on interagency information management identifies issues and recommends solutions 

for resolving data and mapping problems encountered during the preparation of the set of 

monitoring reports. Information management issues inevitably surface during analyses that 

require data from multiple agencies covering large geographic areas. The goal of this report is to 

improve the integration and acquisition of interagency data for the next comprehensive report.
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

vi

Contents 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

The Plan......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

American Indian Tribes and the Plan............................................................................................................................ 2

Background: American Indian Tribes and the Federal-Tribal Relationship ............................................................. 3

American Indian Tribes ................................................................................................................................................. 3

The Federal-Tribal Relationship ................................................................................................................................... 3

Plan Expectations and Direction..................................................................................................................................... 4

Plan and RIEC Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................................................ 5

Monitoring Program History and Development............................................................................................................ 6

Pilot Study Methods....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Pilot Study Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Monitoring Evaluation Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Tribal Monitoring Results ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Establishing Consultation.............................................................................................................................................. 8

Guidance for Consultation ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Consultation about Federal Plans, Programs, Projects, and Activities ...................................................................... 10

Incorporating Tribal Information into Agency Planning and Decision-Making ......................................................... 11

Agency-Tribal Consultation and Collaboration .......................................................................................................... 12

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act......................................................................................................... 12

Effects of the Plan on Access and the Exercise of Tribal Rights and Interests............................................................ 12

Protecting Sensitive Tribal Information and Cultural Sites; Using Traditional Tribal Knowledge in Planning ........ 13

Conflicts over Resource Management and Use ........................................................................................................... 14

Changes in Consultation under the Plan..................................................................................................................... 16

The Federal-Tribal Relationship and Tribal Rights and Interests............................................................................... 16

Examples of the Exercise of Tribal Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests....................................................................... 17

Compatibility of Federal and Tribal Resource Management Objectives..................................................................... 17

Enhancing Federal-Tribal Relations ........................................................................................................................... 18

Plan Review and Tribal Forum..................................................................................................................................... 21
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

vii 

Pacific Southwest Region Plan Review........................................................................................................................ 21

Tribal Forum ............................................................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Key Monitoring Items .................................................................................................................................................. 25

Examples of Relationships, Processes, and Instances Identified by the RIEC............................................................. 27

Lessons Learned and Implications for Adaptive Management .................................................................................... 29

Future Direction .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A. Federally Recognized Tribal Governments in the Plan Area.............................................................. 35

Washington (Figure A-1)............................................................................................................................................. 35

Oregon (Figure A-2).................................................................................................................................................... 35

California (Figure A-3) ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix B. Tribal Monitoring Questionnaires and Protocols................................................................................. 40

Interview Questionnaire .............................................................................................................................................. 40

Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................................................................... 44

General Interview Principles....................................................................................................................................... 45

Invitation Letter ........................................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix C. Survey Results ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix D. Indian Tribes and Federal Agencies Participating in Tribal Forum.................................................. 53

Tribal Government or Organization............................................................................................................................ 53

Federal Agency............................................................................................................................................................ 53
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

viii

Photo by 

Ken Wilson
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

1 

Introduction 

The Plan 

In the early 1990’s, controversy over harvest of oldgrowth forests led to sweeping changes in management of 

federal forests in western Washington, Oregon, and 

northwest California. These changes were prompted by a 

series of lawsuits in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, 

which effectively shut down federal timber harvest in the 

Pacific Northwest. In response, President Clinton 

convened a summit in Portland, Oregon in 1993. At the 

summit President Clinton issued a mandate for federal 

land management and regulatory agencies to work 

together to develop a plan to resolve the conflict. The 

President’s guiding principles followed shortly after the 

summit in his Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and 

Sustainable Environment (Clinton and Gore 1993). 

Immediately after the summit, a team of scientists 

and technical experts were convened to conduct an 

assessment of options (FEMAT 1993). This assessment 

provided the scientific basis for the Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision (ROD; USDA and 

USDI 1994) to amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). 

The ROD, covering 24 million federal acres, put in 

place a new approach to federal land management. Key 

components of the ROD included a new set of land use 

allocations – late successional reserves, matrix, riparian 

reserves, adaptive management areas, and key 

watersheds. Plan standards and guidelines provided 

specific management direction regarding how these landuse allocations were to be managed. In addition, the Plan 

put in a place a variety of strategies and processes to be 

implemented. These included: adaptive management, an 

aquatic conservation strategy, late successional reserve 

and watershed assessments, a survey and manage 

program, an interagency organization, social and 

economic mitigation initiatives, and monitoring. 

Monitoring provides a means to address the 

uncertainty of our predictions and compliance with forest 

management laws and policy. The ROD stated that 

monitoring is essential and required: 

Monitoring is an essential component of the selected 

alternative. It ensures that management actions meet 

the prescribed standards and guidelines and that they 

comply with applicable laws and policies. 

Monitoring will provide information to determine if 

the standards and guidelines are being followed, 

verify if they are achieving the desired results, and 

determine if underlying assumptions are sound. 

Judge Dwyer reinforced the importance of 

monitoring in his 1994 decision declaring the Plan legally 

acceptable: 

Monitoring is central to the [Northwest Forest 

Plan’s] validity. If it is not funded, or done for any 

reason, the plan will have to be reconsidered. 

The ROD monitoring plan provided a very general 

framework to begin development of an interagency 

monitoring program. It identified key areas to monitor, 

initial sets of questions, types and scope of monitoring, 

the need for common protocols and quality assurance, and 

the need to develop a common design framework. In 

1995, the effectiveness monitoring program plan (Mulder 

and others 1995) and initial protocols for implementation 

monitoring (Alegria and others 1995) were approved by 

the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. 

Approval of the effectiveness monitoring plan led to the 

formation of technical teams to develop the overall 

program strategy and design (Mulder and others 1999) 

and monitoring protocols for late-successional and old 

growth forests (Hemstrom and others 1998), northern 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

2 

spotted owls (Lint and others 1999), marbled murrelets 

(Madsen and others 1999), tribal (Bown and others 2002), 

and watershed condition (Reeves and others 2004). 

Socio-economic monitoring protocols continue to be 

tested (Charnley and others 2005). 

Periodic analysis and interpretation of monitoring 

data is essential to completing the monitoring task critical 

to completing the adaptive management cycle. This 

important step was described in the overall monitoring 

strategy (Mulder and others 1999) and approved by the 

regional interagency executive committee. This 10-year 

report is the first comprehensive analysis and 

interpretation of monitoring data since the ROD. 

American Indian Tribes and the Plan 

Today, 76 federally recognized American Indian tribes 

are influenced by Plan management direction (Figure 1, 

Appendix A). These Indian nations either govern lands 

that fall within the range of the northern spotted owl, or 

retain rights to resources on and use of public lands within 

this range. Indian tribes and their respective reservation 

lands are treated as sovereign nations by the US 

government, and as such engage in government-togovernment consultation with federal agency officials 

about lands and resources influenced by the Plan. 

This report summarizes the results of a monitoring 

program designed to evaluate effects of Plan 

implementation on federal-tribal relationships and on 

tribal rights and interests. The views of 15 Plan-area 

tribes are presented, and a complete census of Plan-area 

tribal perspectives has been planned. The perspectives of 

all 76 tribal governments will provide valuable insights 

into tribal relationships with federal forests and managers 

in the Plan area. The results of a Plan Review held in 

2003 (Thomas 2003) and a Tribal Forum held in 2005 

(Motanic and George 2005) are presented, and a summary 

of the development of the monitoring program is 

provided. Finally, recommendations are made for future 

direction regarding monitoring and government-togovernment consultation under the Plan. Supplemental 

information related to social and economic effects of the 

Plan on tribal communities can be found in the socioeconomic monitoring report for the Plan (Charnley and 

others 2005). 

Figure 1. Plan-area tribal government locations. See Appendix A, 

Figures A-1 through A-3 for detailed maps of tribal government 

locations. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

3 

Background: American Indian 

Tribes and the Federal-Tribal 

Relationship 

American Indian Tribes 

American Indian peoples in the Pacific Northwest and 

northern California say their ancestors resided in the 

region for time immemorial. These culturally diverse 

communities have relied on the natural environment for 

their livelihood for millennia. Even today, tribal members 

depend on the natural landscape for hunting, fishing, 

collecting, economic well-being, and traditional cultural 

and religious practices. American Indian tribal members 

feel a deep connection to the natural landscape and 

express: 

...maintaining traditional ways is very important to 

many Indians for a variety of reasons. It provides a 

sense of cultural identity which contributes to 

individual and community health; it preserves a way 

of living that emphasizes sustainability; and it 

supports a local economy that not only represents 

material wealth to its participants but incorporates 

methods of sharing and trading goods that are part of 

the cultural heritage (Intertribal Timber Council 

1993). 

 A consequence of this connection to the landscape is 

that federal management of wildlife and plant habitat, and 

locations used for traditional activities on federally 

administered public lands can affect tribal rights and 

interests. Tribal rights and interests are protected by 

treaties, and Constitutional and other legal authorities, all 

of which shape the unique legal relationship between 

American Indian tribes and the US government that exists 

today. 

The Federal-Tribal Relationship 

The political autonomy of American Indians is secured by 

the US Constitution, executive orders, ratified treaties and 

agreements, various statutes, and judicial rulings (Kappler 

1972; Prucha 1994; Tiller 1996). These authorities not 

only support tribal sovereignty, or the inherent power to 

self-govern, but also ensure that lands and resources will 

be held in trust for tribes by the US government. Federal 

agencies with trust responsibilities must protect Indianowned assets and natural resources on Indian trust lands, 

and provide for the exercise of Indian rights and interests 

on federal lands (USDA FS 1997). 

 In the Plan area, tribal rights, interests, and access to 

resources and areas are protected to varying degrees by 

treaties, statutes, and judicial decisions. Ratified treaties 

protect the rights and interests of 22 tribes in the Plan 

area, mainly those in Washington and Oregon. When 

lands were ceded to the United States by treaty in the 

Pacific Northwest, Indian nations reserved the right to 

continue using resources and occupy ceded lands. Treaty 

reserved rights include taking fish, hunting, gathering, 

grazing, and trapping. 

 Federally recognized tribes in the Plan area that do 

not hold ratified treaties, mainly those in California, are 

afforded the same sovereign status and trust relationship 

with the US government as tribes that hold treaties. 

These tribes acquired federal recognition through a 

variety of means including agreements and executive 

orders, statutes, adjudication, and case law. 

 The trust relationship, laws, regulations and orders 

require federal agencies to consult with tribes about 

federal actions that may affect tribal rights and interests. 

Consultation takes place at the government-togovernment level between federal line officers with 

decision making authority and designated tribal 

representatives. Agency officials and Indian tribes have a 

mutual interest in addressing concerns about federal forest 

lands. Federal-tribal relations, and consultation between 

federal agencies and tribes, afford opportunities to 

cooperate and manage federal lands for the mutual benefit 

of tribes and agencies. 

 Guidance for government-to-government 

consultation and coordination between Indian tribes and 

federal agencies is provided in Bureau of Land 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

4 

Management and Forest Service operational manuals and 

handbooks (USDI BLM 1990 and 1994; USDA FS FSM 

2004 and FSH 2004), and executive and secretarial 

orders. In the Plan area, memoranda of understanding 

between individual tribes and agencies further define 

government-to-government consultation, and may also 

address off-reservation tribal rights and interests on 

federal lands, including traditional activities like 

gathering mushrooms and burning. 

 In most cases, federal agency responsibilities apply to 

actions under their authority on lands they administer. In 

performing their missions, federal agencies assess 

proposals for possible effects to Indian treaty rights, offreservation treaty resources and other tribal interests. If 

tribal interests may be impacted, government-togovernment consultation can identify potential effects and 

consider alternative options and mitigations. 

Plan Expectations and 

Direction 

As discussed in the Introduction section of this report, 

implementation of the Plan changed management 

direction for lands administered by the FS and BLM. 

During Plan development, land managers recognized that 

implementation of new management strategies could 

affect the exercise of tribal rights and interests. Potential 

effects of each alternative presented in the Plan on the 

exercise of treaty rights and access to trust resources were 

evaluated in the Federal Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team report (FEMAT 1993) and in the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS; USDA and USDI 1994). 

 The FEMAT analysis identified impacts of 

management on Native American uses and values as a 

key issue in policy development. The report predicted 

that implementation of the Plan could affect access to and 

the condition of trust resources protected by treaty and 

important to Native American groups, but concluded the 

effects could not be fully analyzed in advance of Plan 

implementation. The FEMAT report recommended that 

agencies consult and coordinate with tribes to evaluate 

potential effects of Plan implementation, specifically in 

regard to how agency programs could affect tribal 

spiritual beliefs (FEMAT 1993). 

 Additional analysis in the Final SEIS for the Plan 

concluded that implementation was not expected to affect 

American Indian rights or interests, or impose additional 

conservation burdens on tribes or reservation lands. The 

Plan predicted the exercise of Indian religious freedom on 

federal forest lands would not be affected, nor would 

programmatic direction in the FSEIS impact the condition 

of Indian trust resources. Implementation of Plan 

standards and guidelines was assessed as having the 

potential to affect Indian practices and activities, but 

provisions were included in the Plan for review and 

resolution of potential conflicts. The Final SEIS stated 

fewer cultural sites would be discovered and fewer sites 

impacted by implementation of the Plan. Plan analysis 

also predicted tribal fisheries would benefit from Plan 

implementation as a result of improved habitat conditions 

on federal lands (FSEIS; USDA and USDI 1994). 

 The Record of Decision (ROD) for the plan 

concluded that American Indian trust resources on public 

lands affected by Plan implementation would be protected 

more effectively than under existing management plans. 

The ROD directed land managers to identify trust 

resources that might be affected by planning efforts, and 

to identify potential conflicts between treaty rights or 

tribal trust resources and federal actions early in the 

planning process. Conflict resolution would take place 

collaboratively and on a government-to-government basis 

consistent with the federal Government’s trust 

responsibilities. Where treaty rights were restricted or 

conflicts occurred as a result of implementation of Plan 

standards and guidelines, the Regional Ecosystem Office 

(REO) would conduct a review to evaluate whether: 

1. Restrictions are reasonable and necessary for 

preservation of the species at issue 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

5 

2. The conservation purpose of the restriction 

cannot be achieved solely by regulation of nonIndian activities 

3. The restriction is the least restrictive alternative 

available to achieve the required conservation 

purpose 

4. The restriction does not discriminate against 

Indian activities as stated or applied 

5. Voluntary tribal conservation measures are not 

adequate to achieve the necessary conservation 

purpose (ROD; USDA and USDI 1994). 

 

 In 2001, the Plan’s survey and manage guidelines 

were amended to clarify the nature of federal-tribal trust 

responsibilities, which include facilitating tribal 

occupancy and use of federal forest land, and use of 

resources for traditional cultural and spiritual purposes 

(USDA and USDI 2001). 

Plan and RIEC Evaluation 

Questions 

Under the Plan the FS and BLM are required to monitor 

the effects of Plan implementation on American Indian 

treaty rights and trust resources on public lands. The 

1994 ROD required that monitoring evaluate effects of 

the Plan in reference to the following questions: 

• What are the conditions and trends for trust 

resources identified in treaties with American 

Indians? 

• Are sites of religious and cultural heritage being 

adequately protected? 

• Do American Indians have access to and use of 

forest species, resources, and places important 

for cultural, subsistence, or economic reasons, 

particularly those identified in treaties? (ROD; 

USDA and USDI 1994) 

 A corresponding set of key monitoring items to be 

evaluated by the monitoring program were identified in 

the 1994 ROD. Key monitoring items reflect changes in 

resource condition or access, and therefore serve as 

measures for how Plan management direction affects 

resources and access. Key monitoring items for 

American Indians and their culture are: 

• Condition and trend of American Indian trust 

resources 

• Effectiveness of the coordination or liaison to 

assure protection of religious or cultural heritage 

sites 

• Adequacy of access to resources and to the 

vicinity of religious or cultural sites (ROD; 

USDA and USDI 1994) 

In addition to Plan direction, the Regional Interagency 

Executive Committee (RIEC), which oversees Plan 

implementation, directed the monitoring team to 

document examples of the following in the year 2000: 

• Federal agency processes that fulfill Plan 

responsibilities 

• Cooperative relations between federal and tribal 

leaders 

• Consistency in interagency coordination 

• Responses to tribal information that identify 

specific resource needs 

• Instances where tribal needs have been 

accommodated 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

6 

Monitoring Program History 

and Development 

Pilot Study Methods 

The 1994 ROD provided general direction for the 

monitoring program, but did not specify how monitoring 

should be accomplished. In 1999 the Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) asked the 

Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) to conduct a pilot study 

to evaluate approaches to monitoring the effects of Plan 

implementation on government-to-government 

consultation between federal agencies and tribal 

governments (Smith and Mukumoto 2000). The study 

was conducted at the regional level, and sought to address 

the following three questions: 

1. How and to what degree is government-togovernment consultation being implemented 

under the Plan? 

2. Is the consultation occurring because of effects 

on resources of tribal interest on federal lands or 

trust resources on tribal lands? 

3. How effective are the government-togovernment consultations in accomplishing the 

goals and objectives of those consultations? 

 The RIEC issued a memorandum in 1999 notifying 

tribal government representatives about the pilot study. 

ITC and the RIEC worked together with Pacific 

Management Associates, a privately owned contract 

company, to formulate the pilot study. Pacific 

Management Associates finalized and administered the 

study in 2000. 

 The resulting pilot study was a two-part survey. 

First, a 74-composite question survey was mailed to tribal 

and federal agency representatives for review. Survey 

questions were based on Plan standards and guidelines 

that address tribal interests, land use, and collaboration 

with federal agencies. After completion of the 74-

question survey, a follow-up interview designed to 

document perspectives on the utility of the initial survey 

was conducted over the phone or in person (Smith and 

Mukumoto 2000). 

 The perspectives of nine tribal governments and 10 

federal regulatory and land management agencies were 

documented in the pilot study. Tribes from all three Planarea states were included in the study in an effort to 

obtain a cross section of Plan-area tribal opinions. 

Participating tribes also met one or more of the following 

criteria: 

• Treaty tribe with off-reservation reserved rights 

• Tribe established by executive order 

• Tribe with large forest land holdings 

• Tribes that have been restored following 

termination 

 Follow up interviews about the effectiveness of the 

monitoring protocol were conducted with tribal elected 

officials and technical support staff. Participating tribes 

include the Coquille Tribe of Oregon, the Hoopa Valley 

Tribe (California), the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the 

Muckleshoot Reservation (Washington), the Quileute 

Tribe of the Quileute Reservation (Washington), the 

Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation 

(Washington), the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip 

Reservation (Washington), the Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Nation (Washington), the 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 

Oregon, and the Skagit System Cooperative 

(Washington). 

 Responses to the monitoring pilot study were also 

solicited from 10 federal regulatory and land management 

agencies that work regularly with tribes surveyed during 

the pilot study. Methods for gathering information about 

federal agency perspectives were the same as those used 

to assess tribal views. Regulatory agencies participating 

in the study include the Environmental Protection 

Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries). Federal 

land management agencies include the Bureau of Indian 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

7 

Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Forest 

Service, the National Park Service and the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

Pilot Study Results 

Four of the nine study-tribes completed the 74-question 

pilot survey. All four tribes that completed the survey 

considered the methods employed in the study to be 

acceptable for evaluating the effects of Plan 

implementation. Five of the nine tribal governments 

contacted did not complete the 74-question survey, 

reporting it to be too long and overly broad during follow 

up interviews. 

 Interviews with tribal and federal government 

representatives provided a number of important findings 

related to the interview process. The pilot survey 

questionnaire proved confusing and simplistic. As a 

result, conclusions drawn could be misleading. The pilot 

survey also took too long to complete, and was viewed as 

inappropriate as a sole means of information-gathering. 

The questionnaire presumed a common perspective and 

body of knowledge among all respondents, and some 

questions applied only to a subset of respondents. Tribes 

indicated they prefer face-to-face communication over 

written dialogues, and stated quantified data did not 

adequately characterize many elements of government-togovernment consultation. Differences in consultation 

practices and priorities among tribal governments 

combined with the wide variety of federal agency 

missions, mandates, and procedures, made using a “onesize-fits-all” questionnaire problematic. This was 

particularly true when a single tribe consulted with 

multiple federal agencies. 

 This information was used to refine survey questions 

and develop a formal interview protocol for conducting 

Plan monitoring. The interagency tribal monitoring team, 

the IAC tribal subgroup, and Pacific Management 

Associates worked together to reduce the number of 

survey questions from 74 to 11 composite questions. 

Questions were formulated to meaningfully inform about 

government-to-government consultation and resource 

issues identified in the Plan and by the RIEC. 

 In June 2002, the RIEC approved the tribal 

monitoring questionnaire and protocol (Appendix B). 

The program was incorporated into field directives 

transmitted in October of 2002. Some tribal 

representatives voiced concern over the adequacy of tribal 

consultation conducted during finalization of the 

monitoring program. In response, tribal participation in 

implementation of the program was expanded, primarily 

through the work of the Tribal Monitoring Advisory 

Group (TMAG). 

Monitoring Evaluation Methods 

The initial phase of monitoring interviews commenced in 

2002. Because relationships between federal agencies 

and tribal governments in the Plan-area are highly 

individualized, the IAC tribal monitoring team planned to 

survey all 76 Plan-area tribal governments rather than 

taking a statistical sample of tribal opinions. The 11-

question interview resulting from the pilot study was used 

in formal, face-to-face consultations between tribal 

government representatives and federal agency officials, 

primarily FS and BLM decision makers. Meetings were 

generally attended by a tribal official, a federal line 

officer, and a regional tribal program specialist, although 

line officers could be excluded at the request of the tribe. 

Meetings were documented in writing and/or taped with a 

recording device. 

 Nine tribes participated in the initial interviews 

(Table 1). Four of these also participated in the pilot 

study. Interviewed tribes represent all three Plan-area 

states. Three tribes that consult primarily with the FS are 

from the Olympic Peninsula and other coastal areas of 

Washington. Two tribes are from western Oregon and 

consult with both the FS and the BLM. Three tribes are 

from northwestern California. These tribes consult with 

both agencies, but one consults primarily with the FS. 

 The initial nine tribal interviews using the 11-

question format revealed that further revision of the
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

8 

Table 1—Tribes participating in Interviews from FY 2002–2004 

Tribe 

Fiscal 

Year # Questions 

Pilot Study 

Tribe? 

Quinault Tribe (WA) 2002 11 Yes 

Lower Elwha Tribal Community (WA) 2002 11 No 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community (OR) 2002 11 No 

Coquille Indian Tribes (OR) 2002 11 Yes 

Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria (CA) 2003 11 No 

Blue Lake Rancheria (CA) 2003 11 No 

Karuk Tribe of California (CA) 2003 11 No 

Round Valley Indian Tribes (CA) 2003 11 No 

Lummi Tribe (WA) 2003 11 No 

Table Bluff Reservation – Wiyot Tribe (CA) 2003 14 No 

Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians (CA) 2003 14 No 

Yurok Tribe (CA) 2003 14 No 

Hoopa Valley Tribe (CA) 2003 14 Yes 

Quileute Tribe (WA) 2004 14 Yes 

Makah Tribe (WA) 2004 14 No 

survey questionnaire was needed if consistent responses 

were to be obtained. The language in nine questions was 

changed and three questions were added to clarify issues, 

gather consistent tribal responses about use of natural 

resources and locations in federal forests, and to identify 

desired conditions for forests. The intent was to better 

guide management of resources used by tribes. 

Revisions were completed by the interagency tribal 

monitoring team in collaboration with the Tribal 

Monitoring Advisory Group, federal staff, and other 

individuals with relevant expertise. The resulting 14-

question survey has been used in interviews with an 

additional six tribal government representatives. Two of 

these tribal governments work primarily with the FS in 

western Washington, and four work with the FS and the 

BLM in California. 

Tribal Monitoring Results 

To date, representatives from a total of 15 tribal 

governments in the Plan area have been interviewed. 

The views of tribal representatives regarding 

government-to-government consultation and tribal 

interests in the Plan area are summarized below. 

Comments are arranged by questionnaire topic and 

combine responses to both the 11 and the 14 question 

interviews despite minor changes in the wording of some 

interview questions. Bold font in Tables 2 – 12 

represents changes in language from the 11 to the 14 

question interview. Results of interviews are 

summarized quantitatively, and followed by more 

specific qualitative information about the topic. Because 

much of the information provided by tribes is sensitive, 

the names of tribes that provided specific comments and 

information are not provided. A complete list of survey 

results is provided in Appendix C. 

Establishing Consultation (Survey 

Question #1) 

Eleven of the 15 tribes interviewed report that 

consultation protocols have been developed with the FS 

and/or the BLM. Consultation protocols take the form of
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

9 

Table 2—Consultation protocols under the Plan 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

no answer Comment 

Question #1. Have written consultation 

protocols been developed?

11 4 0 FS/Yes-9; FS/No-1

BLM/Yes-4; BLM/No-3

NPS/Yes-1; NPS/No-1

Are they adequate for government-togovernment consultation?12 2 1 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

Are they adequate for potential effects on

Tribal lands or Tribal interests?

12 2 1 

formal agreements and practices, and informal staff to 

staff coordination. Some tribes have formal written 

agreements with the FS and BLM. These agreements 

structure protocols and address specific resource 

management issues. Only four of the interviewed tribes 

report that no consultation protocol is in place (Table 2). 

Twelve of the tribes interviewed consider their existing 

government-to-government consultation relationship 

adequate, and state agreements and protocols provide 

opportunities for tribal officials to evaluate effects of 

federal actions on tribal interests. Two tribes consider 

consultation inadequate. Three reasons for inadequate 

consultation relationships were identified by tribes. 

Inadequacies are related to local federal official 

prerogatives in consultation, and to the fact that some 

consultation dialogues do not address a full range of 

tribal interests. Two tribes stated they wished to or 

would consider establishing a formal consultation 

protocol or MOU in the future. Tribes also state 

inadequacies exist because some issues can only be 

resolved at the national level, and so discussing them 

with lower level officials is ineffective. 

 Tribes express dissatisfaction with the lack of 

consultation by some regulatory agencies, notably the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries) 

and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Statements made by tribal representatives during the 

interview process brought to light a number of issues 

related to consultation. In general, face to face meetings 

are the preferred means of conducting consultation. 

Tribes particularly approve of consultation relationships 

that combine a formal protocol between decision makers 

with informal staff-to-staff coordination. Most tribes 

interviewed attribute the success of consultation to this 

informal aspect of the process, which often takes place in 

the field. 

 Tribes state coordination with federal agencies could 

be more effective if internal tribal communication 

mechanisms were better. They also suggest improved 

internal communication mechanisms might enable tribal 

councils to be better informed about the results of 

informal consultation. Tribes see this as an issue that 

needs to be resolved internally, but believe federal 

agencies can help by working consistently through 

established formal and informal consultation processes. 

Guidance for Consultation (Survey 

Question #2) 

Eleven tribes interviewed are aware of and have access 

to federal policy information that influences tribal 

interests. Two tribes stated they do not have access to 

this policy information, and two did not respond to this 

survey question (Table 3). 

 Some tribes say expansion of tribal technical and 

administrative staff over the past several years has 

enhanced tribal understanding of and access to policy 

guidance. Tribes also state they have developed the 

ability to network with federal government staffs and 

often gain information by contacting federal technical 

experts directly. One problem identified by tribes is that
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

10 

 

Table 3—Federal policy guidance and availability 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #2. Is the Tribe aware of Federal policy guidance available for 

Tribal consultation when agency Plans, projects, programs or activities 

have the potential to affect resources, uses, or areas of interest to Tribes, 

including Tribal lands?

11 2 2 

Are Federal procedures adequate to identify direct and indirect 

effects to activities on Tribal lands? 

5 1 0 FS/Yes-1

it is difficult to consult effectively on the high volume of 

plans and projects federal agencies contact them about 

because tribal staffs are limited. Tribes often must rely 

on informal discussions in the field to resolve issues for 

projects with short notification timeframes. 

Consultation about Federal Plans, 

Programs, Projects, and Activities

(Survey Question #3) 

All 15 tribes interviewed stated they are consulted about 

federal agency plans, projects, and activities that might 

affect their interests (Table 4). This is particularly true 

for the FS and BLM. The frequency of consultation 

ranges from once per year, to quarterly, with several 

tribes meeting on a more frequent basis. One tribe that is 

rarely consulted did not desire more frequent contact at 

the time the interview was conducted. Another tribe 

stated some consultation letters from federal agencies did 

not consistently reach the appropriate tribal department, 

but that this was not necessarily the agency’s fault or 

responsibility. 

 Tribes note regularly scheduled meetings and 

notifications inform them about federal agency activities 

and plans, and involve tribes in key agency procedures. 

This is tied to notification and public involvement 

procedures associated with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), and executive orders. One tribe stated they 

had not engaged in section 106 (NHPA) consultation. 

 Tribal participation on committees instituted under 

the Plan varies. Seven tribes participate on Provincial 

Advisory Committees (PACs). One reason tribes 

provide for not participating on PACs is they have higher 

priorities for their limited staffs. A second reason given 

by tribes that participated in the past is that they see 

Table 4—Consultation about federal plans, programs, projects, and activities 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #3. Over the past ten years, has the Tribe been 

consulted on Federal agency Plans, projects, programs or 

activities that might affect Tribal resources, Tribal uses, or 

areas of interest to Tribes?

15 0 

How frequently? n/a n/a Frequent-2; Quarterly-5; 

Yearly-1; Irregular-2; 

Infrequent-2; Never-0; 

Unknown/No Answer-3

Does the Tribe participate with the PACs? 7 7 Unknown/No Answer-0 

Has the Tribe been involved in watershed analysis? 11 3 Unknown/No Answer-0 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

11 

PACs as having limited value. Some tribes believe 

federal agencies consider tribal participation on PACs to 

be government-to-government consultation. These tribes 

say PAC participation is not consultation, and that tribal 

participation on PACs does not diminish the agencies’ 

responsibility to inform, involve, and consult with tribes.

 Eleven tribes interviewed are involved in watershed 

analysis under the Plan. Many tribes are involved at the 

state level. A reason given for participation is that water 

resources are high priorities because they influence offreservation fisheries. Some high-priority watershed 

analysis efforts are driven by tribes and involve tribal 

leadership and coordination. An example is the Klamath 

River watershed analysis, which crosses state 

boundaries. One tribe stated they did not have enough 

tribal resources (i.e. staffing or funding) to address water 

quality issues. Another stated they were not involved 

with consultation with NOAA about fisheries issues. 

Incorporating Tribal Information into 

Agency Planning and Decision-Making

(Survey Question #4) 

In general, tribes state their interests are better addressed 

when plans or projects involve agency-tribal 

consultation. Eight tribes say input they provide during 

consultation and document review is evident in agency 

environmental analyses and land-use plans. Seven tribes 

said their input resulted in changes to proposed federal 

actions. Three tribes say their views were not considered 

in project planning, and four tribes note cases where FS 

and NPS projects proceeded without applying traditional 

environmental knowledge or incorporating ideas about 

tribal approaches supplied during consultation (Table 5). 

Tribes cite noteworthy examples of the FS, BLM, and to 

a lesser extent the NPS, incorporating tribal input into 

planning efforts and project design. Instances of tribal 

input being included in agency decisions are found in 

planning documents, watershed and wildland fire 

restoration projects, and prescribed burning projects. For 

example, tribal input was included in a National Park 

Service general management plan, resulting in what 

tribes felt was a landscape management approach that 

addressed cultural needs. Other examples of tribal 

involvement in planning include the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project (USDA and USDI 

2000) and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in 

Southwest Oregon (USDA and USDI 2004). In the case 

of a recent restoration project on BLM lands adjacent to 

tribal lands, plans were designed collaboratively with 

tribes and project implementation work was contracted to 

these tribes. Similarly, the FS contracted with a local 

tribe in Oregon to develop land management alternatives 

based on tribal historical and cultural uses, and is 

implementing most tribal recommendations through 

contracts with the local tribe. The use of fire to enhance 

culturally valuable plants is also example of tribal 

knowledge being incorporated into planning. In this 

case, the FS is conducting annual burns to improve the 

condition of bear grass. Some tribes say the number of 

such burning projects is increasing. 

Table 5—Incorporating tribal information into planning and decision making 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #4. Over the past ten years, has Tribal information been 

incorporated into Federal Planning documents and decision-making 

processes, in a manner such that Tribes can recognize their contributions?

8 3 4 FS/Yes-2

BLM/Yes-2

NPS/Yes-1

Did Tribal contributions result in any changes to Federal actions or 

considerations for resources of interest?

7 4 4 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

NPS/No-1
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

12 

Table 6—Agency consultation and collaboration 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #5. Over the past ten years, have agencies consulted or 

collaborated with Tribal governments to develop Plans for future 

monitoring, restoration, or assessment projects, or for other Planning 

efforts? 

13 1 1 FS/Yes-4

BLM/Yes-4

NPS/Yes-1

Agency-Tribal Consultation and 

Collaboration (Survey Question #5) 

A positive aspect of the Plan is the emphasis on 

consultation, which provides tribes the opportunity to 

address long-standing conflicts in a way they could not 

before the Plan was in place. Thirteen tribes say they 

have participated in government-to-government 

consultation and collaboration associated with project 

planning, monitoring, restoration, and assessment 

projects (Table 6). Again, tribes identified NEPA 

scoping, and Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement review processes as 

opportunities for tribes to collaborate with federal 

agencies. Tribes say the FS, BLM, and NPS are agencies 

that have engaged in collaboration. Some tribes say they 

contribute to planning efforts through participation on 

Resource Advisory Committees (RACs). One tribe 

noted the protocol for project prioritization by RACs 

favored treaty tribes over those without treaties. The 

result is that non-treaty tribes have less opportunity to 

participate in the process. 

Consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act (Survey Question #6) 

Thirteen tribes are actively involved in Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

which pertains to federal lands, and eight tribes 

participate in Section 10 consultation related to nonfederal lands (Table 7). One tribe expressed it is more 

involved in Section 7 consultation than is necessary. 

Two tribes would like to be consulted when agency plans 

affect species of concern to tribes, such as Pacific 

lamprey eels, but find they are typically not included. 

One tribe commented that they were never consulted 

about the listing of the northern spotted owl and the 

marbled murrelet under the ESA. 

Effects of the Plan on Access and the 

Exercise of Tribal Rights and Interests 

(Survey Question #7) 

Ten tribes say their ability to exercise tribal rights, or 

access resources and areas of tribal interest on federal 

lands has changed under the Plan. Of the six tribes 

queried about whether changes are related to Plan 

standards and guidelines, one answered yes, two 

answered no, and three didn’t know or did not answer. 

Six tribes viewed changes as being for the better, and 

seven stated changes made access and exercise of rights 

worse. Tribes find there have been trade-offs under the 

Plan, with greater protections but also greater restrictions 

depending on the specific resource or right in question. 

Three tribes did not perceive change under the Plan, or 

cannot definitively attribute it to the Plan (Table 8).
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

13 

Table 7—ESA consultation 

Question # Yes No Unknown/ 

No Answer 

Comments 

Question #6. What is the level of the Tribal government’s 

involvement in ESA: 

 

 [Low] [Med] [High] 

Section 7 consultations? 13 2 4 1 4 

Section 10 consultations? 8 7 6 2 0 

 In general, tribes find environmental reviews under 

the Plan extend planning timeframes. They also say plan 

implementation is expensive, reducing funds for other 

resource needs. Tribes cite four examples of changes in 

the exercise of tribal rights attributable to Plan 

implementation. They characterized these changes as 

“trade-offs” related to resource use and enhancement, 

wildlife habitat, availability of culturally-significant 

resources, and access. Tribes state traditional techniques 

for applying prescribed fire to enhance the habitat of key 

cultural plants, such as those used for basket weaving, 

are more common but also more difficult to implement 

under the Plan. Most tribes interviewed indicate reduced 

timber harvest under the Plan contributes to healthier 

landscapes, but express that fewer harvests also mean 

less available forage for elk and deer. Tribes find there 

is greater competition between tribal and non-tribal 

groups for forest resources under the Plan, particularly 

special forest products. 

 Tribes view federal road decommissioning as 

contributing to fishery improvements, but also state 

decommissioning limits access necessary for timber 

harvest on tribal lands, as well as hunting, gathering, and 

tribal cultural activities on both tribal and federal lands. 

One tribe expressed that lack of access to some areas is 

causing tribal members to lose knowledge of traditional 

cultural practices. Tribes from all three states in the Plan 

area say there is inadequate access to cedar for cultural 

use and consider this a major issue. Tribes also state 

limiting access protects some areas, but also displaces 

use to other lands that experienced less use before the 

Plan was in place. 

Protecting Sensitive Tribal Information 

and Cultural Sites; Using Traditional 

Tribal Knowledge in Planning (Survey 

Question #8) 

Eight tribes are aware of measures employed by federal 

agencies to protect sensitive tribal information (Table 9). 

One tribe thinks protection of tribal information needs to 

be improved. Tribes note agencies are generally 

sensitive to tribal proprietary information, but expressed 

concern about the release of information in certain 

Table 8—Plan effects on the exercise of treaty rights 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #7. Over the past ten years, how have the exercise of Tribal 

rights or access to resources and/or areas of Tribal interest on Federal lands 

been changed?

10 3 2 Better-6 

Worse-7 

Is this in any way due to implementing the PLAN standards and 

guidelines?

1 2 3 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

14 

settings, such as during wildfire fighting. This 

diminishes the level of trust tribes have regarding 

confidentiality of information provided to federal 

agencies. Some tribes have established security practices 

that protect traditional knowledge held by elders, and 

limit the information they provide to federal agencies. 

 Twelve tribes are aware of federal efforts to protect 

cultural and archaeological sites. Tribes think cultural 

and archaeological sites are managed by federal agencies 

consistent with direction in various laws and regulations 

and as an element in agency consultation agreements 

with tribes. Tribes raised identification of sites during 

the planning process as a concern, and express that 

federal site protection measures sometimes preempt 

tribal access and site use. In some cases consultation 

agreements with tribes provide for such access and use. 

As with sensitive tribal information, tribes are concerned 

that confidential cultural site locations are 

inappropriately divulged by federal agencies during fire 

suppression. They state fire suppression measures can 

result in sites being shown on maps and physically 

marked in the field. One tribe stated they were 

concerned that site locations were being made available 

to certain members of the general public and consider 

this inappropriate. 

 Three tribes state traditional knowledge is 

incorporated into land management planning, and six 

tribes either did not answer or didn’t know. Six tribes 

believe traditional knowledge is not incorporated into 

land management plans or practices. These tribes find 

agencies seldom take into account species of interest or 

concern to tribes, and maintain that agencies don’t accept 

the multi-species forest management orientation held by 

tribes. An exception is the use of prescribed fire, which 

tribes see agencies using with greater frequency. 

However, tribes express concern that traditional fire-use 

practices are not emulated, and so treatments are less 

effective than they could be. One tribe suggested that the 

Plan’s Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) offer 

opportunities to experiment with the effects of applying 

traditional tribal knowledge in federal forest 

management. 

Conflicts over Resource Management 

and Use (Survey Question #9) 

Seven tribes state conflicts over use or management of 

resources, or over use of areas has increased under Plan 

implementation, and identify fisheries, traditional use of 

fire, and forest products as the sources of conflict. Only 

three tribes perceive conflict over resources as 

decreasing (Table 10). Two tribes say the level of 

conflict is minor and unchanged. 

 Tribal views about conflict and dispute resolution 

vary. One tribal perspective is that conflicts over access 

and use pre-date the Plan, and the Plan is not useful in 

resolving conflict. Some tribes are uncertain about 

whether the Plan specifically induces conflict. Tribes 

maintain that good communication between tribes and 

local federal agencies helps minimize disputes in 

general. Seven tribes believe conflict resolution 

Table 9—Protecting sensitive tribal information and cultural sites; using traditional tribal knowledge in 

planning 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer 

Question #8. Is the Tribe aware of procedures that have been put in place to provide for: 

Protecting sensitive Tribal information from unauthorized access or release? 8 3 4 

Incorporating Tribal traditional knowledge in the development of management actions? 3 6 6 

Protecting cultural sites on Federal land? 12 1 2 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

15 

Table 10—Conflict over resource management and use under the Plan 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #9. What are the conflicts over the use or 

management of resources or areas of Tribal interest? 

N/A N/A N/A Fisheries 

No traditional fire 

Access to cedar/ 

special forest products 

Over the past ten years, have these conflicts increased 

or decreased? 

10 2 3 Increased-7 

Decreased-3 

No Conflict-2 

Is this a result of implementation of the PLAN and 

associated government-to-government consultation, 

including efforts to resolve conflicts? 

1 1 4 

Are the conflict resolution processes adequate? 7 6 2 

processes are adequate. Six tribes find existing conflict 

resolution measures are insufficient. Two didn’t know or 

didn’t answer this survey question. Some tribes 

expressed they have few issues to resolve and are not 

concerned about disputes. Others state they are able to 

identify issues that need resolution, but are without a 

means of affecting resolution. Tribal consultation 

agreements have dispute clauses, but tribes say these 

have not been tested. 

Tribes reiterate points made in response to the 

Effects of the Plan on the Exercise of Tribal Rights and 

Interests on Federal Lands section above and identify 

these same issues as sources of conflict. Specific 

statements about accessibility and resource condition are 

variable. One tribe finds the Plan reduces their ability to 

harvest timber because they cannot use adjacent federal 

forest roads to haul from their own lands. Another stated 

a portion of tribal land acquired after Plan 

implementation is subject to Plan standards and 

guidelines, and that this has a direct impact on tribal 

management of those lands. The tribe considers this a 

conflict that remains unresolved. Many tribes state road 

decommissioning and area closures implemented under 

the Plan make access to culturally significant places and 

resources difficult, while some found access to sites and 

places was protected through formal agreements. A few 

tribes find conflicts over access to and management of 

culturally significant trees and plants have increased. 

One tribe stated that access and management for 

subsistence and gathering activities has been an ongoing 

issue that is not linked exclusively to the Plan. The 

majority of tribes interviewed find Plan implementation 

lengthens the planning process and increases costs for 

projects on federal and tribal lands, thereby making 

management of resources and places more difficult. 

Tribes also feel increased public use of federal forests 

may conflict with their interests. One tribe believes the 

Endangered Species Act conflicts with tribal values and 

needs. One tribe asserted that tribal spiritual places are 

not protected under the plan. 

 Some tribes state changes in tribal government 

administrations can contribute to the level of conflict. 

Tribes have increased staffing, expanding their capacity 

to address tribal rights and interests. In some cases 

additional staffs are able to effectively address and 

resolve more conflicts. In others, changes lead to the 

identification of more conflicts that require resolution 

and increase the work load. Some state they have 

unresolved disputes that receive little consideration from 

federal agencies. Tribes see some issues under the Plan 

as impossible to resolve without legislation. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

16 

Table 11—Changes in consultation under the Plan 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #10. Please compare 

consultation before the PLAN (i.e., 

prior to 1994) and today. 

N/A N/A 4 No comparison (2). Consultation better (3). No 

consultation before (1). Not better or worse, but 

different focus (4). Varies w/ agency (1). 

Changes in Consultation under the Plan

(Survey Question #10) 

All tribes interviewed see consultation as having changed 

during the last decade (Table 11). More federal-tribal 

relationships were developed and sustained, and the 

quality and frequency of consultation has improved with 

some agencies. Some tribes think this is because of the 

Plan. Others believe this would have happened with or 

without the Plan. For some tribes the federal-tribal 

relationship progressed from an issue-driven, technical 

resource management interaction to a government-togovernment rapport with open and equitable processes. 

Some tribes attribute improved consultation to the recent 

maturation of their own tribal governments. These tribes 

spent much of the last decade building staff to increase 

technical expertise and provide for resource 

management. No consultation took place for some tribes 

ten years ago because they did not have tribal 

governments or staff in 1994. 

The Federal-Tribal Relationship and 

Tribal Rights and Interests (Survey 

Question #11) 

Nearly every tribe reported relations with federal 

agencies had improved under the Plan, contact between 

tribes and agencies is more frequent, and more project 

“scoping” meetings take place (Table 12). However, 

tribal opinions vary regarding the effect of the Plan on 

federal-tribal relationships. Tribes believe working 

together helped land managers recognize that tribes and 

land management agencies share many common goals. 

 Most tribes interviewed are satisfied with the end 

result of federal-tribal consultation because they are 

more involved with the planning process. The Plan had 

little effect on the interests of some tribes. Others see 

mixed change. One tribe asserts the Plan caused 

fisheries and wildlife restoration projects to be funded, 

but limits forest access through protective road closures. 

There is also increased competition for non-timber forest 

Table 12—Federal-tribal relationships and tribal rights and interests 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #11. How would the Tribe describe the success of 

implementing the PLAN:

 

Are the relationships between the Tribe and the Federal land 

management agencies improved?

14 0 1 

Are Tribal rights and interests, access, and resource conditions 

associated with Federal agency lands unchanged over the past 

ten years? 

3 3 0 

Is the Tribe satisfied with the outcomes of government-togovernment consultations or conflict resolution processes? 

4 1 1 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

NOAA/No-1 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

17 

Table 13—Exercise of tribal treaty rights and interests 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

No Answer Comments 

Question #12. Has the Tribe exercised treaty rights or addressed Tribal 

interests associated with National Forests and BLM public lands and 

resources? Please provide examples, if you wish. 

6 

products from non-tribal members. In a few cases, 

federal agencies move forward with dialogue but don’t 

address tribal needs or resolve issues of concern. Tribes 

want their priorities given the same weight as agency 

priorities. 

Examples of the Exercise of Tribal 

Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

(Survey Question #12) 

Only six tribes responded to this question. These tribes 

all exercise their rights and interests on federal lands 

(Table 13). They participate in watershed analysis, 

exercise off-reservation rights by gathering traditional 

plants for baskets and medicine, and develop cooperative 

agreements for mushroom-gathering on national forest 

lands. Tribes also partner with agencies to manage 

significant tribal heritage sites on public lands, and work 

together to transfer federal land to tribal ownership so 

Indian human remains from museums and federal project 

sites can be re-interred. 

Compatibility of Federal and Tribal 

Resource Management Objectives

(Survey Question #13) 

The six tribes that responded to Survey Question #13 

provided mixed responses in their evaluation of whether 

federal forest management under the Plan is compatible 

with tribal values (Table 14). More than half these tribes 

believe the intent of the Plan as described on paper is 

generally compatible with tribal interests and values, 

even if they dispute the value of specific components of 

the Plan. They agree with multiple-use goals and 

managing for biodiversity. Another point of agreement 

identified by tribes is the use of fire in forest 

management. Fire is a management tool tribes used 

traditionally to enhance the health and productivity of 

culturally important plants. Tribes also agree with 

agency use of prescribed fire to protect communities in 

wildland-urban interface areas. 

 These same tribes see the objectives of federal land 

managers as changing continuously, and view federal 

agency approaches to managing resources as 

inconsistent. They state federal agencies manage only a 

few wildlife and plant species. Tribes consider this 

approach to be incompatible with tribal values. One 

tribe pointed out that this inconsistency makes 

developing a vision of what the forest should look like in 

the future difficult. Tribes say they take a much broader 

approach to managing the landscape by managing for 

plant and wildlife species with cultural significance to 

tribes. They say tribal values remain consistent through 

time, and they base their resource management on 

practices used since time immemorial. Tribal traditional 

knowledge about managing the landscape has been 

passed down from generation to generation. Tribes 

believe traditional, time-tested knowledge should be 

more fully incorporated into federal land management. 

 Tribes describe the various management styles and 

paradigms in federal forest management as focusing on 

ecosystem management, biodiversity, multiple use, and 

sustainability. Tribes state a desire for a more uniform 

forest management strategy that integrates cultural 

values. They want forests managed for economic and 

cultural values that afford cultural and biological 

diversity. Tribal forest managers believe their land
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

18 

Table 14—Compatibility of federal and tribal resource management objectives

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

no answer Comment 

Question #13. How is 

Federal (FS/BLM) forest 

management compatible 

with what the Tribe values 

about those lands? 

N/A N/A N/A  Support burning for cultural plants, wildland-urban 

interface, forest health. 

 Goals generally compatible-accessibility, multiple-use, 

biodiversity. 

 Conflicts: Reduced elk forage; Forest Service protection 

efforts (management direction is not always consistent 

with tribal values, focuses on a few species instead of 

many, and changes frequently-no long term vision); 

plans consistent with tribal interests on paper, but 

agencies are not managing on the ground.

management strategies do not compromise culture. 

Rather, they believe they consciously reinforce their 

cultural character and practices in conserving water 

quality, wildlife herd areas, cultural resources, 

herbaceous species, acorns, and biodiversity. 

Tribes also express that a reduction in available elk 

forage has occurred under Plan management, and say this 

is incompatible with their values. They do not think 

agencies manage on the ground, and view this as 

incompatible with tribal values. 

Enhancing Federal-Tribal Relations

(Survey Question #14) 

Of the six tribes that responded to this interview 

question, all expressed that federal agencies should 

continue and expand upon positive and productive 

collaboration and communication with them. This would 

improve the consistency of federal-tribal consultation, 

and improve efforts to address tribal concerns and 

incorporate tribal interests into federal planning efforts. 

 Several tribes believe better government-togovernment relations could be achieved by having a 

common definition of consultation and a uniform 

consultation protocol across federal agencies, geographic 

regions, and management units. One tribe expressed that 

their consultation relationship with the FS, BLM, and 

BIA was good, and that other agencies should strive to 

be more like them. Tribes state they view consultation 

differently than federal agencies. They believe stronger 

consultation relationships would result if agencies 

focused on issues the tribes believe are most important 

instead of using consultation as support for proposed 

federal actions. Tribes maintain there is a need to 

address issues that cross administrative boundaries and 

land ownerships. 

 Three tribes expressed that resource conditions 

could improve if formal protocols were developed, or 

that they would like a more formal protocol. Tribes also 

believe consultation relationships would be strengthened 

if agencies provided feedback to tribes about how and to 

what extent their input is incorporated into agency 

decision making processes. Two tribes suggest that 

training programs or briefings for new line officers could 

ease transitions and make the consultation process more 

efficient. 

 Two tribes stated explicitly that they want to 

institute traditional cultural management on the ground 

through co-management and stewardship. They think 

tribal involvement in the design and implementation of 

stewardship contracts would reinforce tribal links to 

federal forests. This would be consistent with the role 

tribes see for themselves as local environmental leaders. 

Some want more on-the-ground federal agency activity 

and more projects funded, including restoration projects.
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

19 

Table 15—Enhancing federal-tribal relations 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/ 

no answer Comment 

Question #14 and Initial from 

portion of #11. Are there 

actions that would strengthen 

and enhance Federal-Tribal 

relations? 

N/A N/A N/A  Smooth transitions for new line officers 

 Share digital data with tribes – more open 

exchange of information 

 Develop uniform consultation protocol between 

agencies. 

 Single definition of “consultation”. 

 Consultation with FS, BLM and BIA is goodother agencies should adopt consultation practices 

 Formal consultation process might improve 

resource conditions 

 Federal agencies should develop stewardship 

contracts with tribes 

 Want more projects implemented 

 Provide funding for tribal members to consult.

. 

 One tribe stated they wanted a more open exchange of 

information such as digitized records. Another stated 

they would be able to participate in federal planning 

more actively if more funding was available. A few 

tribes want federal policy clarified regarding access to 

traditional resources such as trees and mushrooms. 

 For some tribes, consultation with the federal agency 

headquarters offices in Washington DC is inadequate. 

These tribes feel federal officials fail to notify tribes 

about changing policies and regulations in a timely 

manner, or to recognize the tribal right to provide input. 

Other tribes that have little contact with federal forest 

managers see no compelling need to increase 

communication in the near future. 

 Tribes state they were pleased to participate in the 

tribal consultation effectiveness monitoring program. 

One commented that it was “good to conduct this 

study...it’s good that you came here to do this!” 

Another stated “Keep the doors open!”
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

20 

Sidebar 1-Cultural Burning For Traditional Basketry Materials 

 

In northwestern California, American Indian traditional basket weavers work with the Six Rivers 

National Forest to identify and treat stands of bear grass and hazel that are sources of raw material for 

traditional baskets. Prescribed burning is a traditional management technique that has been successfully 

used to promote vigorous growth of key cultural plant species, especially where plant growth is decadent, 

over-mature, and not optimal for strong resilient fibers needed for baskets. 

For a number of years after the Plan was implemented, cultural burning projects were limited in number 

and frequency because the Plan’s Survey and Manage guidelines involved extended procedures and 

timeframes. As a result of a review of the Plan by the FS Pacific Southwest Region, standards and 

guidelines limiting cultural burning for traditional tribal purposes were modified to meet the needs of 

Indian tribes. 

This marks a change and is a multifaceted issue, as some tribes that support prescribed burning for 

traditional cultural objectives report that agency project managers do not solicit tribal environmental 

knowledge about practices associated with seasonal burning. Tribes consider the FS to be less successful 

in burning because FS projects do not emulate the traditional tribal practice of low-intensity underburning during the fall. Federal agency fire managers develop prescribed fire plans that do not 

incorporate traditional burn practices. 

Photo by 

Ken Wilson 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

21 

Plan Review and Tribal Forum 

In addition to interviews, tribes in the Plan area were 

given the opportunity to voice their perspectives about 

the Plan at two separate venues. In 2003, many 

California-area tribes attended the Pacific Southwest 

Region Plan Review meeting. Additionally, tribes from 

throughout the entire Plan area attended a Tribal Forum 

in 2005. Tribes made recommendations for how 

management under the Plan could be improved, and 

offered suggestions about how the monitoring process 

could be more effective. The results of both these 

forums are presented in the following paragraphs. 

Pacific Southwest Region Plan Review 

A review of the Plan in the Pacific Southwest Region 

was conducted during the week of June 23, 2003. The 

review included a meeting and field trips. The goals of 

the review were to evaluated the effectiveness of the Plan 

in northern California forests, and to identify how Plan 

implementation could be improved. Pacific Southwest 

Regional Forester, Jack Blackwell, led the review. Other 

team members included former Chief of the Forest 

Service, Dr. Jack W. Thomas, and Deputy Regional 

Forester Dr. Kent Connaughton. Participants included 

representatives from local tribes and other federal 

agencies, county supervisors, representatives from 

environmental organizations, timber workers, mill 

owners, congressional staffers, educators and Forest 

Service personnel (A complete list of participants is on 

file at the Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Vallejo, 

CA.). 

 During the Plan review, tribal participants noted 

traditional management techniques important to tribes, 

such as the use of prescribed fire for underburning, are 

not implemented under the Plan in California Plan-area 

forests. Tribes explained that low intensity fires are 

necessary to clean out brush and encourage desirable 

species. Tribes felt their involvement was needed to 

develop prescribed fire programs, and that tribal 

participation and opportunities for collaboration should 

be encouraged. 

 Two tribal members that are traditional practitioners 

representing basket weavers expressed they have been 

trying to get cultural burns for the last 10 years, 

specifically for bear grass and hazel. Their efforts have 

been unsuccessful. They stated that Survey and Manage 

requirements restricted their ability to implement 

projects, and that the NEPA process takes too long to 

complete. At the meeting, the Regional Forester 

committed to seeing what could be done to make it easier 

to do cultural burning. 

Tribal Forum 

Forum Goals and Objectives 

A tribal forum was held in Portland, Oregon on April 6, 

2005. The purpose of the forum was to provide 

opportunities for Indian tribes to share perspectives about 

how the Plan has affected their communities and 

resources of concern. Tribes also shared perspectives on 

government-to-government consultation under the Plan, 

and their vision for future monitoring program direction. 

The forum was attended by representatives from nine 

tribes and tribal organizations, and five federal agencies 

(Appendix D). The conclusions of the forum are 

presented in the following paragraphs and augment 

information provided during monitoring interviews with 

tribal representatives. The results contained in the tribal 

forum report will be presented to the Regional 

Interagency Executive Committee for consideration 

about possible management changes in the Plan area. 

Discussions at the tribal forum focused on four topic 

areas. These include protection of trust resources and 

resources of tribal concern on public lands, and 

preservation of the capacity of tribes to manage 

resources on reservation lands; use of traditional 

ecological knowledge in forest management; 

government-to-government consultation processes; and 

methods for monitoring effects and impacts of Plan 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

22 

implementation on tribal communities and resources of 

tribal concern. Presenters at the forum posed questions 

to the group, and then documented the resulting 

discussions. A summary of each discussion is provided 

in the Forum Conclusions section that follows. 

Forum Questions and Conclusions 

Has management under the NWFP provided a 

higher degree of protection for trust resources and 

resources of tribal concern on public lands, and 

preserved the capacity of tribes to manage resources 

on reservation lands? 

The success of federal land management in the Plan 

area depends on the tribe’s viewpoint toward 

management and the level of involvement the federal 

government has in the consultation process. Tribal 

perspectives can be divided into two general sects. The 

goal of one group of tribes is protection and management 

of forest resources for economic purposes. These tribal 

governments depend on revenue and tribal members 

depend on forest management to provide employment. 

The other group of tribes seeks to protect forest resources 

without concern for economic value. 

Some tribes feel regulatory agencies such as the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S Fish and 

Wildlife Service are protecting treaty rights through 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act and other 

environmental laws, but fail to consult with tribes. 

 Local consultation works well when informal and 

formal consultation processes are used in combination 

with each other. Consultation and regional level 

monitoring are interrelated, and in some cases one and 

the same. The tribes at the forum felt consultation failed 

when new laws and policies were proposed at the 

national level without coordinating the consultation 

process at the local level. 

Tribes are interested in developing more 

partnerships and stewardship agreements with federal 

agencies to get more work done on the ground. 

How can traditional ecological knowledge 

contribute to the body of information regarding 

effects of management established by the Plan on 

natural resources? 

Traditional ecological knowledge can reveal new 

ways of looking at nature’s patterns and new ways to 

manage natural resources. Tribal people are integrated 

with patterns of nature through their culture and 

traditions. For example, the stick in a tribal stick game 

has the same spiral pattern as a lightning tree. Each tribe 

and tribal family may place different values on the 

symbolism of those sticks, the games and legends. 

Tribes have used forest resources for medicine, 

sustenance, and places of worship. Tribes have watched 

nature’s patterns for centuries and traditional ecological 

knowledge has been reinforced through legends and 

traditions. Tribes know the importance of protecting and 

treasuring the uniqueness of each pattern and tradition, 

since they’ve been kept for centuries. The patterns are 

the values of the families and tribes. They are tied to 

families and share values with nature. 

Tribes can contribute traditional ecological 

knowledge to the body of knowledge regarding 

management effects, but trust between tribal people and 

the research community has always been an issue and 

conveying insights from one culture to another is 

difficult. Access to areas where this knowledge has been 

exercised over the years is important, and if federal 

agencies restrict access in the future, then valuable 

knowledge maybe lost or adversely impacted. 

How can government-to-government consultation 

processes more effectively and efficiently address 

tribal concerns about the impact Plan management 

has had on trust resources on federal lands? 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

23 

The tribes and representatives at the meeting 

brought up three issues related to effectively improving 

the consultation process. First, tribes emphasized that 

federal agencies should not confuse the popular word 

“collaboration” with consultation. In one case, a federal 

agency asked a tribe to consult directly with a trail group 

in an area where tribes have concerns. Tribes see this 

consultation as the responsibility of the government. The 

federal government may combine issues of interest 

groups and tribal governments during NEPA public 

involvement processes, but needs to make clear that 

federal agencies are consulting with tribes as 

governments and not as interest groups in the name of 

collaboration. 

Second, tribes and tribal representatives have 

provided information through the consultation process in 

the past, but at times the advice and recommendations 

gathered by federal agencies disappeared. No response 

or explanation of how the information was used was 

provided to tribes. For example, tribal, state, and county 

representatives made recommendations to the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) for 

changes to Survey and Manage direction in 1999. 

Federal executives from IAC took the information and 

later met in Washington, D.C. with the Council for 

Environmental Quality. The tribal and other non-federal 

representatives never received feedback about how their 

recommendations were used. The recommendations 

were validated at the time of the presentation as general 

public comments but not treated as consultation. 

Tribes recognize decisions line officers in the Plan 

area make do not have to agree with tribal perspectives 

100 percent of the time. Tribes do want to hear feedback 

about how their input was used, what issues were or were 

not agreed upon, what points were persuasive, and how 

they can be more effective as advocates in the future. 

Once the feedback loop is closed, tribes can improve 

partnerships and help provide for successful management 

in the future. 

Third, change in federal and tribal leadership is 

continuous in the Plan area. This creates a difficult 

consultation and relationship-building environment. 

Representatives at the tribal forum thought there should 

be an ongoing orientation process for both federal and 

tribal leaders. The group thought a Northwest Forest 

Plan 101 consultation video for leaders would be a useful 

tool, and that the video should be updated frequently. 

This could be based on a video developed by tribes at a 

workshop ten years ago. 

What is the best way to monitor the effects and 

impacts of the NWFP on tribal communities and 

resources of tribal concern? 

Tribal representatives at the forum thought federal 

agencies should look at different options for performing 

monitoring under the Plan. The monitoring process for 

consultation is currently completed through interviews 

by federal agency tribal liaisons. The Tribal Monitoring 

Advisory Group (TMAG) developed a draft 

questionnaire from a pilot project completed by George 

Smith, which was later changed by the Forest Service 

without tribal input before the interviews were initiated. 

The tribal liaisons from the federal agencies completed 

interviews as an internal process. The results have been 

shared with the TMAG. 

Tribal representatives at the forum thought there 

should be some monitoring by an external tribal group, 

such as one of the inter-tribal organizations. The tribal 

representatives also thought interview questions and the 

consultation monitoring process should be reviewed and 

revised if necessary, since it seemed to take a long time 

to complete. Interview questions should be tailored to 

each individual tribe to address their specific interests 

and resource issues, and administrative capabilities. 

A Tribal Leader’s Perspective 

Merv George, a Hoopa Tribal member and former Tribal 

Chair, director of the California Indian Fire and Forest 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

24 

Management Council, and IAC representative presented 

his perspective about the federal-tribal relationship and 

how tribes participate in the consultation under the plan. 

He said his role at the forum was not to represent all 

tribes but to present one tribal perspective, and stated 

that individual tribes may have different views of the 

plan. One tribe may be interested in protecting trust and 

culturally significant resources on federal land. Another 

may be interested in protecting resources, but also 

interested in the economic impacts from lack of federal 

land timber harvests. He reiterated that constant turnover 

in federal and tribal leadership creates a difficult 

consultation environment, and emphasized that 

consultation is only as good as the flow of 

communication. 

Helen Suri (Photo by Ken Wilson) 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

25 

Conclusions 

Monitoring results reflect the views of 15 of the 76 

unique and sovereign tribal governments in the area 

affected by the Plan, as well as information presented at 

the Pacific Southwest Region Plan Review and Tribal 

Forum. As such, results cannot be interpreted as 

representing all tribal government perspectives in the 

Plan area. Nevertheless, monitoring results offer insight 

into the status of the federal-tribal relationship, the 

effects of the Plan on resources valued by tribal members 

and access to those resources, and the effectiveness of 

the monitoring program among a subset of Plan area 

tribes. 

 Tribal responses address the three key monitoring 

items identified in the Plan, and provide examples of the 

five relationships, processes, and instances identified by 

the Regional Interagency Executive Committee as items 

that need to be addressed at the regional level. Tribal 

responses provide insight into how governments can 

work together toward mutually beneficial land and 

resource management goals. 

Key Monitoring Items 

Condition and Trend of American Indian Trust 

Resources 

Tribal opinions about the condition and trend of 

American Indian trust resources vary. Overall, tribes 

perceive the condition of aquatic and riparian habitats, 

fisheries, and forest health as improved under the Plan. 

Responses did not address the condition of specific 

resources used by tribes, such as cedar or mushrooms, 

but tribes note access to resources is limited by road 

decommissioning and competition from non-tribal 

members that collect forest products. Tribes point out 

specifically that the condition of grasses and other 

culturally significant plants is influenced by fire, and the 

use of prescribed fire has become more common on 

some forests. In other cases, their input about traditional 

fire use and land management in general is not 

incorporated into project planning or implementation, 

and this contributes to poor resource health and 

availability. They also state use of prescribed fire is 

restricted by the Plan’s Survey and Manage guidelines. 

Tribes also state that road decommissioning displaces 

forest use to new areas, but did not identify specific 

resources or areas affected by displacement. Concerns 

were also expressed about the condition of spiritual 

places. 

Effectiveness of the Coordination or Liaison to 

Assure Protection of Religious or Cultural 

Heritage Sites 

Tribes expressed concern over the protection of sensitive 

cultural information. They cite disclosure of cultural site 

locations during wildfire suppression as a specific 

concern, and identify the possible release of sensitive 

information in response to public requests for documents 

under the Freedom of Information Act as an issue 

needing resolution. They think site information is 

released to certain members of the public and consider 

this inappropriate. Concern about information release 

motivated some tribes to institute internal measures that 

prevent the release of sensitive information to federal 

agencies. 

Adequacy of Access to Resources and to the 

Vicinity of Religious or Cultural Sites 

Tribal perspectives about access to resources are 

variable. Most tribes describe access to resources and 

cultural sites as more difficult under the Plan. They 

consider this a long-standing problem that pre-dates the 

Plan, but state management direction under the Plan has 

contributed to decreased access. Tribes attribute this 

primarily to road decommissioning, but also identify the 

planning process as impeding resource use and access. 

In some cases access to resources and cultural sites is 

protected by MOUs. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

26 

Sidebar 2-Cooperative Federal Forest Management with Tribal Partners 

The Six Rivers National Forest completed an analysis for the East Ishi-Pishi road restoration project in 

August 2001. The final project plan entails decommissioning 65 miles of forest system roads, converting 

nine miles of road to trail, and maintenance of 158 miles of road. 

Recognizing that the East Ishi-Pishi project would take considerable resources and funding to complete, 

the FS entered into a challenge cost-share agreement with the Karuk Tribe of California to decommission 

three roads during the 2003 field season. The East Ishi-Pishi project area is entirely located within the 

tribe’s ancestral territory. It is mutually beneficial to both the FS and the tribe to reduce negative 

watershed impacts to tribal trust species caused by roads in the East Ishi-Pishi area. 

Detailed road surveys were needed before the implementation phase could begin. The tribe was awarded a 

grant from the state water resources control board to conduct road surveys that would be used to formulate 

design prescriptions and estimated budgets for road decommissioning projects. The tribe surveyed over 35 

miles of roads identified as high priority for restoration. The Six Rivers NF watershed and engineering 

staff reviewed the design prescriptions created by the tribe and, upon review, the FS was able to put a 

decommissioning contract out for bid. 

The next step was to develop a project plan that would provide the tribe with an opportunity to implement 

some of the road decommissioning work associated with the East Ishi-Pishi project. It was mutually 

agreed that the tribe would decommission 4.2 miles of road for a total cost of about $130,000 during the 

2003 field season. Each party would pay half the cost. Tribal members trained as heavy equipment 

operators and restoration specialists did work described in the project plan. The tribe provided the design 

specifications, equipment, personnel and incidentals needed to complete the project. The tribe 

subsequently removed an additional 21,912 cubic yards of fill material with other funding awarded 

through competitive grant awards outside the cost-share agreement in the southern unit of the East IshiPishi project area. 

In 2002, the forest received a grant from the California Department of Fish & Game for road 

decommissioning in the East Ishi-Pishi project area. Working together, the tribe and the FS were able to 

decommission 17 miles of road, excavate 55,000 yards of fill, and remove more than 90 culverts. Cost 

savings to the government were about $385,000. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

27 

Examples of Relationships, Processes, 

and Instances Identified by the RIEC 

Federal Agency Processes that Fulfill Plan 

Responsibilities 

Tribes identified public involvement associated with 

NEPA scoping and environmental document review 

processes as facilitating tribal input related to project 

planning and implementation. NHPA consultation also 

provides opportunities for tribes to provide input. Other 

mechanisms for tribal input include RACs and watershed 

analyses. Formal consultation and conflict resolution 

protocols have been established through memoranda of 

understanding for some tribes, but resolution protocols 

have not yet been tested. 

Cooperative Relations between Federal and 

Tribal Leaders 

Interviews with tribal representatives show cooperative 

relationships between federal and tribal leaders are more 

common and productive because of Plan implementation. 

Cooperative relationships are formalized in memoranda 

of understanding, participating agreements, stewardship 

contracts, and partnerships formed to implement projects 

on the ground. In general, tribes with formal cooperative 

relationships felt their rights and interests were better 

served than those that did not have formal relationships. 

Tribes with trust lands adjacent to federal lands have 

more active cooperative relationships with federal 

agencies than those that do not. Most tribal statements 

about cooperative relationships were positive, but tribes 

also describe specific instances where conflicts about 

resource management exist at the local level. Even 

where local conflicts are unresolved, disagreements do 

not seem to negatively affect the overall working 

relationship between tribes and local agency units. 

 One example of a mutually beneficial cooperative 

relationship is development of a cost-share agreement 

between the Karuk tribe and the Six Rivers National 

Forest. The two organizations completed a large road 

decommissioning project, and tribal members completed 

much of the field work. Another example is a project on 

BLM lands, where a tribe holding adjacent lands worked 

collaboratively with the BLM to design the project, then 

oversaw project implementation. In a third example, the 

FS contracted with a local tribe in Oregon to develop 

land management alternatives based on tribal historical 

and cultural uses, and is implementing most tribal 

recommendations through contracts with the local tribe. 

Consistency in Interagency Coordination 

The tribes interviewed maintain that communication with 

federal agencies has increased under the Plan, and state 

that positive relations have been developed. However, 

relations are not uniform among agencies, regions, or 

management units. Tribes say there is a lack of 

interagency coordination, and state that consultation is 

conducted differently by individual land management 

agencies. Some tribes were critical of the perceived lack 

of consultation, cooperation, and federal-tribal 

relationship building on the part of regulatory agencies. 

Tribes maintain that land management and regulatory 

agencies are both responsible for government-togovernment consultation. 

Responses to Tribal Information that Identify 

Specific Resource Needs 

Tribes generally agree that improved cooperative 

relationships under the Plan contribute to fulfillment of 

some tribal resource needs. Examples are prescribed 

burns for bear grass enhancement and MOUs that allow 

collection of traditional plants and access to culturally 

important areas. However, many tribes state traditional 

forest management knowledge they provide to agencies 

is not used in federal project planning. Tribes are unable 

to identify how their input is used in planning documents 

or project implementation. Some suggest dedicating a 

portion of NEPA documentation solely to addressing 

tribal input provided during government-to-government 

consultation. Tribes say this would be preferable to 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

28 

Sidebar 3-Managing Mushroom Gathering with the Karuk Tribe 

Today and since time immemorial, American Indian traditionalists in the Karuk Tribe of California and other 

indigenous tribal people engage in fall-season subsistence gathering of matsutake, commonly known as tan oak 

mushrooms, on the Six Rivers and Klamath National Forests. The high status of this mushroom in traditional 

Karuk tribal culture is evident in their language, with has a specific term for the tan oak mushroom, haiwish, and 

only one term to describe all other mushrooms. The Karuk consider this a key traditional food and have always 

gathered sustainable amounts using environmentally-sensitive practices. Gathering usually takes place as a 

cultural harvest at traditional family gathering sites that are respected by other Karuk. The Karuk feel that 

traditional tribal mushroom gathering practices can enhance species productivity. 

In recent years, the commercial and personal exploitation of non-timber or “special” forest products has increased, 

and commercial tan oak mushroom harvest has expanded significantly. The Karuk consider commercial methods 

and selection to be extreme, extensive, and not in balance with the environment. Commercial raking and digging 

remove entire spore populations, and illicit harvests by armed groups occur. 

Troubled by the magnitude and intensely competitive atmosphere that dominates commercial harvest; the Karuk 

Tribe expressed concern to the FS. The tribe conveyed an overriding concern that commercial harvests can result 

in loss of family picking sites, depletion of tan oak mushroom populations and habitat, and threats to tribal family 

subsistence. 

In 2000, the Karuk Tribe, the Six Rivers National Forest, and the Klamath National Forest entered into a formal 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to manage traditional tan oak mushroom harvest by tribe members. The 

intent was 

...to establish and maintain a mutually-beneficial management strategy for the Tan Oak mushroom resource as 

part of the government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the Forest. 

Under this MOU, the tribe developed and oversaw a permitting system enabling Karuk Tribal members to gather 

tan oak mushrooms on national forest system lands within Karuk ancestral territory. Tribal subsistence 

practitioners were no longer required to possess FS permits for personal use gathering of special forest products. 

Tribe members follow unique guidelines for traditional harvesting, in accord with a Karuk Tribal Council 

resolution and a subsequent tribal mushroom harvest ordinance. All other individual and commercial mushroom 

harvesters are subject to NF permitting. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

29 

lumping tribal input with that of other public interest 

groups in NEPA documents because it would allow them 

to see how their input was considered. Without a 

specific means of identifying consultation input, tribes 

find they consult but do not see their recommendations in 

the end product. 

Instances where Tribal Needs have been 

Accommodated 

Many tribes state cooperative government-togovernment relationships have improved under the Plan, 

and many resource conditions are better as a result. Few 

tribes listed specific instances where resource needs were 

accommodated. An exception is the Karuk tribe in 

northern California. The Karuk worked with the FS to 

develop an MOU that facilitates mushroom collection on 

the forest. The tribe and agency also worked on a plan to 

improve the condition of grasses used in basketry 

through the use of prescribed fire. Similar efforts to 

make better use of fire to improve culturally-valued 

resources have been made on many forests throughout 

the Plan area. 

Lessons Learned and Implications for 

Adaptive Management 

Government-to-Government Consultation 

Relationships 

The tribal monitoring program revealed information that 

can be used to further improve federal-tribal 

relationships and the accompanying monitoring process. 

The tribes interviewed identified many areas where they 

are satisfied with government-to-government relations, 

or with progress toward improving it. These include an 

increase in the frequency and quality of federal-tribal 

contacts among land management agencies, as well as 

specific instances where tribal rights and interests have 

been addressed. 

 Tribes also identify issues of concern that could be 

improved through adaptive management at the regional 

and local levels. Tribes identified a need to improve 

consultation relationships with regulatory agencies in 

general. Making consultation approaches more 

consistent between agencies, regions, and management 

units could make the consultation process more efficient 

for tribes and agencies. Tribes state a preference for 

face-to-face “layered” consultation relationships that 

combine informal staff contact with formal governmentto-government consultation. This approach could be 

further developed as a standard procedure for some field 

units. Many tribes also say they view regional and local 

level consultation as connected, equally important 

components of a single consultation process. 

 Informing line officers of the geographic scale of 

tribal interests, which can lie well beyond tribal lands 

and mapped aboriginal areas, could result in a more 

comprehensive consultation process that better 

incorporates tribal perspectives into planning. Finally, 

providing feedback to tribes about how agencies use 

tribal input in decision making could reinforce the 

federal-tribal relationship. 

Tribal Monitoring Process and Protocols 

A number of issues related to the tribal monitoring 

process and protocol emerged while interpreting the 

interview information and at the Tribal Forum. The 

survey questionnaire was administered by conducting inperson interviews. Coordinating the schedules of federal 

decision makers, tribal representatives, and federal tribal 

liaisons proved very difficult. As a result, fewer 

interviews were completed than expected. Allowing 

greater flexibility in the monitoring protocol, such as 

allowing interviews to be conducted over the phone 

rather than requiring interviews to take place in person, 

might result in more interviews taking place. 

 Another problem encountered was inconsistency in 

interview styles and documentation. Some interviews 

were detailed and extensively documented. Others were 

documented only in brief notes. Clarification and 

standardization of interview and documentation 

protocols could enhance results while still allowing for 

open-ended feedback. Documentation of the interviews 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

30 

could also be improved by developing more consistent 

record keeping methods and by transcribing interviews. 

 A related concern expressed by both tribal 

representatives and federal managers is that interview 

analysis and interpretation lacks objectivity because it is 

conducted by federal employees. Allowing a third party 

to participate in interviews and analyze results could 

resolve the objectivity issue. 

 A fourth issue is related to tribal reviews of survey 

documentation. Currently, opportunities to review 

interview responses are provided to tribes. However, not 

all interviewed tribes commented on interview 

transcripts. If tribes were able to consistently review 

survey responses, the process and quality of information 

obtained during the surveys might improve. 

 The complexity of the interview questionnaire and 

the length of time needed to fill it out is also an issue for 

tribes. Each survey question has several ancillary 

questions embedded in it, making it difficult for tribal 

officials to determine the intended focus of that portion 

of the questionnaire. The monitoring effort could benefit 

from further simplifying interview questions. This might 

also reduce the amount of time required to respond to 

survey questions, and make administration of the survey 

easier. It may also make it easier for tribal 

representatives to fill out questionnaires independently, 

eliminating difficulties associated with scheduling onsite interviews. 

Information Sharing, Resource Management, 

and Other Findings 

Tribes provide innovative ideas about prescribed fire, 

and resource enhancement and use by sharing traditional 

knowledge. This traditional knowledge could be 

incorporated into forest planning, particularly in 

Adaptive Management Areas, with unique and 

informative results. One potential area of improvement 

is agency treatment of tribal information about cultural 

sites during fire suppression. In the past, information 

about cultural sites has sometimes been provided to 

members of the public. Tribal members see this as 

inappropriate. 

 Tribes continue to encounter difficulties when 

exercising their rights and interests. Their need to access 

cultural sites and treaty resources in general will 

continue to be an issue of concern. Fisheries and waterquality also continue to be issues of concern for tribes, 

and adopting broader management strategies that cross 

multiple land jurisdictions, agencies, and tribes could be 

an effective approach to managing fisheries and water 

quality. 

 Tribes also identified several issues of concern 

which cannot be resolved at the regional level. Issues 

tribes think cannot be resolved at the regional level 

include the lack of agency protection of sensitive tribal 

information under the Freedom of Information Act, the 

inability to address government-to-government 

consultation separately from other public input in the 

NEPA process, the inability to change language that 

disfavors non-treaty tribes in the project prioritization 

process for Resource Advisory Committees (RACs), and 

inadequate consultation at the national agency level. 

 It was particularly challenging to interpret the 

monitoring results at the Plan level. Each tribe 

interviewed is an independent, sovereign nation with a 

unique culture, history, and relationship with the federal 

government. Thus the perspectives held by tribal 

governments are not easily compared. The monitoring 

program could be more informative if detailed results 

were reported separately for each individual tribe. By 

providing detailed results from individual tribes, the 

monitoring program could better communicate the views 

of individual tribes about their relationships with federal 

agencies. Monitoring could more fully document 

examples of federal-tribal coordination to provide 

models for future management. By reporting results for 

individual tribes to agency officials at the local and 

regional levels, the monitoring program could also begin 

to address tribal concerns about inconsistent approaches 

between agency regions and units. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

31 

Future Direction 

Future direction for the tribal monitoring program begins 

with completing interviews with all interested tribes in 

the Plan area. Obtaining more tribal perspectives will 

provide a comprehensive view of the federal-tribal 

relationship under the Plan. Information from interviews 

can then be used to inform agency decision makers, and 

to improve tribal monitoring in the Plan area. 

 Information from tribes will be summarized and 

provided to federal agency decision makers, allowing 

them to improve consultation relationships with 

American Indian tribes that exercise rights and interests 

in their area. 

 Also, once tribal perspectives are understood 

monitoring program goals and objectives for the next ten 

years can be reevaluated. A corresponding monitoring 

protocol that responds to redefined program objectives, 

and to the level of involvement desired by each tribe, can 

then be established. Flexibility that allows information 

to be collected from more tribal representatives could be 

built into the monitoring protocol, and a standardized 

feedback mechanism could be developed that allows 

tribes to understand how information they provide to 

agency decision makers is used. Methods for collecting 

more objective information, such as having a third party 

participate in interviews and interpret interview results 

will also be evaluated. 

 Gathering additional information from tribes may 

also generate new ideas about how land managers can 

accomplish more work on the ground that better 

addresses tribal rights and interests. Tribes have 

expressed interest in developing more cooperative 

agreements and stewardship contracts, applying 

traditional resource management concepts in AMAs, and 

in continuing to participate in agency planning. Future 

tribal interviews will continue to produce valuable 

information about how to best address tribal needs on 

public lands. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

32 

References 

Alegria, J.; Hyzer, M.; Mulder, B. [and others]. 

1995. Guidance for implementation monitoring for 

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Draft. On file at the Regional Ecosystem 

Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204 

Bown, K. [and others]. 2002 (4 October). Letter to 

USDA Forest Service Forest Supervisors and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management District Managers and 

Field Managers. Recommended Monitoring Interview 

Agenda. On file with: Resource Planning and 

Monitoring, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 333 

SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97208. 

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.; Stuart, C. [and 

others]. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan: The First Ten 

Years. Socioeconomic Monitoring Results. Vol. 3. 

Rural Communities and Economies. 

Clinton, W.J. and Gore, A. JR. 1993. The forest plan 

for a sustainable economy and a sustainable 

environment. In Tuchman and others 1996. The 

northwest forest plan – a report to the president 

and congress. USDA Office of Forestry and 

Economic Assistance.

Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v. 

James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, et al. 

Order on motions for Summary Judgment RE 1994 

Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Washington. 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, 

OR: US Department of Agriculture; US Department of 

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination]. 

Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C. [and others]. 

1998. Late-successional and old-growth forest 

effectiveness monitoring plan for the Norhtwest Forest 

Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-438. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Intertribal Timber Council. 1993. An Assessment of 

Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United 

States: IFMAT I; Indian Forest Management 

Assessment Team for Intertribal Timber Council, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Kappler, Charles J. 1972. Indian Affairs: Laws and 

Treaties. Vol. 1 and 2. US Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

Karuk Tribe of California; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Six Rivers National Forest; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Klamath National 

Forest. 2001. Memorandum of Understanding: To 

Establish and Maintain a Mutually-Beneficial 

Management Strategy for the Tan Oak Mushroom 

Resource. 6 p. 

Lint, J.B.; Noon, R.; Anthony, E.; [and others]. 

1999. Northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring 

plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-440. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Madsen, S.; Evans, D.; Hammer, T.; [and others]. 

1999. Marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan 

for the Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR-439. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Motanic, D. and George, M. 2005. Unpublished 

Tribal Forum notes. On file with: On file with: 

Resource Planning and Monitoring, Pacific Northwest 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

33 

Regional Office, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 

97208. 

Mulder, B.S.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. [and 

others]. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring: an 

interagency program for the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management [and others]; report; Monitoring 

Design Group, Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee. 

Mulder, B.S.; Noon, B.R.; Spies, T.A. [and others]. 

1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness 

monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

[NEPA].; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

[NHPA]; 16 U.S.C. 740 et. seq. 

Prucha, F.P. 1994. American Indian Treaties: The 

History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley, California. 

Reeves, G.; Hohler, D.; Larsen, D. [and others]. 

2004. Effectiveness Monitoring for the Aquatic and 

Riparian Component of the Northwest Forest Plan: 

Conceptual Framework and Options. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Sims, G. [N.d.]. Northwest Forest Plan Tribal 

References. Unpublished document. On file with: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Regional Office, 333 SE First Ave., 

Portland, OR 97208. 

Smith, G. and Mukumoto, C. 2000. Consultation 

with Tribal Governments Under the Northwest Forest 

Plan: Pilot Study Report. Pacific Management 

Associates for Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, 

Oregon. 2000 

Thomas, J.W. 2003. Application of the Northwest 

Forest Plan in National Forests in California. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

Tiller, V.E. 1996. American Indian Reservations and 

Trust Areas. US Department of Commerce, Economic 

Development Administration. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

1997. National Resource Guide to American Indian 

and Alaska Native Relations. State and Private 

Forestry. FS-600. Washington, D.C. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

2003. PLAN Review: PSW Region Findings. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Region. 

[unpublished]. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

2003. PLAN Review: PSW Region Action Plan. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Region. 

[unpublished]. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2004.

American Indian and Alaska Native Relations 

Handbook. FSH 1509.13. Washington, D.C. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2004.

External Relations: State, Tribal, County, and Local 

Agencies; Public and Private Organizations. FSM 

1563. Washington, D.C. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

34 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 2004. Record of decision for 

Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in southwestern 

Oregon. [unknown publisher] 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards 

and guidelines for amendments to the survey and 

manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation 

measures standards and guidelines. [place of 

publication unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 2000. Interior Columbia 

Basin Supplemental Draft EIS. Vol. 2. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of 

Interior, Portland, OR. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994. Record of decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of 

the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and 

guidelines]. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. [FSEIS]. 1994. Final supplemental 

environmental impact statement on management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth species 

within the range of the northern spotted owl: volume I. 

Portland, Oregon. [irregular pagination]. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1990. Native American Coordination 

and Consultation. BLM Manual 8160. Washington 

DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994. General procedural Guidance for 

Native American Consultation. BLM Manual H-8160-

1. Washington DC. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

35 

Appendix A. Federally Recognized Tribal Governments in the 

Plan Area 

Washington (Figure A-1) 

• Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

• Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation 

• Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

• Cowlitz Indian Tribe 

• Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation 

• Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe of Washington 

• Lower Elwah Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation 

• Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation 

• Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation 

• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation 

• Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation 

• Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington 

• Port Gamble Indian Community of the Port Gamble Reservation 

• Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation 

• Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation 

• Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation 

• Samish Indian Tribe 

• Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington 

• Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation 

• Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation 

• Snoqualmie Tribe 

• Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation 

• Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington 

• Suquamish Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation 

• Swinomish Tribe 

• Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation 

• Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington 

Oregon (Figure A-2) 

• Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians of oregon 

• Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 

• Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation 

• Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 

• Coquille Tribe of Oregon 

• Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon 

• Klamath Indian Tribes of Oregon
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

36 

California (Figure A-3) 

• Alturas Indian Rancheria 

• Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria 

• Big Lagoon Rancheria 

• Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria 

• Blue Lake Rancheria 

• Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria 

• Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the 

 Colusa Rancheria 

• Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria 

• Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California 

• Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California 

• Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria 

• Elk Valley Rancheria 

• Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California 

• Guidiville Rancheria of California 

• Hoopa Valley Tribe 

• HoPland Band of Pomo Indians of the HoPland Rancheria 

• Karuk Tribe of California 

• Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewart’s Point Rancheria 

• Lytton Rancheria of California 

• Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester-Point Arena 

 Reservation 

• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria 

• Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California 

• Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California 

• Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Pit River Tribe (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek, and Roaring Creek 

Rancherias) 

• Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation of 

 California 

• Redding Rancheria 

• Resighini Rancheria 

• Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation 

• Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California 

• Scott’s Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California 

• Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 

• Smith River Rancheria 

• Table Bluff Reservation-Wiyot Tribe 

• Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians of Upper Lake Rancheria of California 

• Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

37 

Figure A-1. Locations of Federally Recognized Tribes in Washington 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

38 

Figure A-2. Location of Federally Recognized Tribes in Oregon 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

39 

Figure A-3. Locations of Federally Recognized Tribes in California 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

40 

Appendix B. Tribal Monitoring Questionnaires and Protocols 

Interview Questionnaire 

 

1) Have written consultation protocols been developed? 

• Are they adequate for government-to-government consultation? 

• Are they adequate for potential effects on tribal lands or tribal interests? 

Consultation Protocol 

Developed?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Adequate for Consultation?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Adequate for Potential Effects?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

2) Is the tribe aware of federal policy guidance available for tribal consultation when agency plans, projects, programs 

or activities have the potential to affect resources, uses, or areas of interest to tribes, including tribal lands? Are federal

procedures adequate to identify direct and indirect effects to activities on tribal lands? 

Policy Guidance Available?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

Procedures Adequately Identify Effects on Tribal 

Lands?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

3) Over the past ten years, has the tribe been consulted on federal agency plans, projects, programs or activities that 

might affect tribal resources, tribal uses, or areas of interest to tribes? 

• How frequently? 

Has the Tribe Been Consulted?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

How Frequently?: 

*Single Answer for All: 

_____________________________ 

A_________________:_______________________

_____ 

B_________________:_______________________

_____ 

C_________________:_______________________

_____ 

• Does the tribe participate with the PACs? 

• Has the tribe been involved in watershed analysis? 

Tribe Participates with PACs?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

Tribe Involved in Watershed Analysis?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

41 

• Provide examples of effects, such as to resources, uses, or areas of interest. 

Examples: 

*Single Answer for 

All:___________________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________:___________________________________________________________________

_______ 

B_________________:___________________________________________________________________

_______ 

C_________________:___________________________________________________________________

_______ 

4) Over the past ten years, has tribal information been incorporated into federal planning documents and decisionmaking processes, in a manner such that tribes can recognize their contributions? Did tribal contributions result in any 

changes to federal actions or considerations for resources of interest? If so, please explain. 

Tribal Input Incorporated?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Tribal Input Changes Results? Explain, if so: 

*Single Answer for All: Y__ N__ 

Explain_________________________________ 

A_________________: Y__ N__ 

Explain________________________________ 

B_________________: Y__ N__ 

Explain________________________________ 

C_________________: Y__ N__ 

Explain________________________________ 

5) Over the past ten years, have agencies consulted or collaborated with tribal governments to develop plans for future 

monitoring, restoration, or assessment projects, or for other planning efforts? 

Agency Collaboration with Tribal Government to Develop Plans?: 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ No___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

6) What is the level of the tribal government’s involvement in ESA? 

• Section 7 consultations? Low____ 1_____ 2_____ 3_____ 4_____ 5_____ 

High_____ 

• Section 10 consultations? Low____ 1_____ 2_____ 3_____ 4_____ 5_____ 

High_____ 

7) Over the past ten years, how have the exercise of tribal rights or access to resources and/or areas of tribal interest on 

federal lands been changed? Is this in any way due to implementing the Plan standards and guidelines? 

How Has Tribal Exercise or Access on Federal Lands Changed?: 

*Single Answer for All: 

______________________________________________ 

A_________________:_______________________________________

_______ 

B_________________:_______________________________________

_______ 

C_________________:_______________________________________

_______ 

Due to Implementing PLAN 

S&Gs?: 

*Single Answer for All: Y__ 

N____ 

A_________________: Y__ 

N____ 

B_________________: Y__ 

N____ 

C_________________: Y__ 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

42 

 N____ 

8) Is the tribe aware of procedures that have been put in place to provide for: 

• Protecting sensitive tribal information from unauthorized access or release? 

• Incorporating tribal traditional knowledge in the development of management actions? 

• Protecting cultural sites on federal land? 

Protect Sensitive Tribal 

Information? 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Incorporate Traditional 

Knowledge? 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Protect Cultural Sites on Federal 

Land? 

*Single Answer for All: Yes___ 

No___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

9) What are the conflicts over the use or management of resources or areas of tribal interest? Over the past ten years, 

have these conflicts increased or decreased? Is this a result of implementation of the Plan and associated government-togovernment consultation, including efforts to resolve conflicts? Are the conflict resolution processes adequate? 

What Are the Conflicts? 

*Single Answer for All: 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

B_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

C_________________: -_________________________________________________________ 

Conflict Trend: 

*Single Answer for All: Increase__ 

Decrease__ 

A_______________: Increase__ 

Decrease__ 

B_______________: Increase__ 

Decrease__ 

C_______________: Increase__ 

Decrease__ 

Due to PLAN Consultation? 

*Single Answer for All:Y__ 

N____ 

A________________:Y__ 

N____ 

B________________:Y__ 

N____ 

C________________:Y__ 

N____ 

Adequate Conflict 

Resolution? 

*Single Answer for All: Y__ 

N___ 

A______________: Y___ 

N___ 

B______________: Y___ 

N___ 

C______________: Y___ 

N___ 

10) Please compare consultation before the Plan (i.e., prior to 1994) and today, 2003. 

Compare Consultation Today and Prior to PLAN (pre-1994): 

 *Single Answer for All: 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

B_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

C_________________: __________________________________________________________ 

11) How would the tribe describe the success of implementing the Plan? 

• Are the relationships between the tribe and the fderal land management agencies improved? 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

43 

• Are tribal rights and interests, access, and resource conditions associated with federal agency lands unchanged 

over the past ten years? 

• Is the tribe satisfied with the outcomes of government-to-government consultations or conflict resolution 

processes? 

Are Relations Improved?: 

*Single Answer for All: Y___ 

N___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

Interests/Access/Conditions 

Unchanged? 

*Single Answer for All: Y___ N___ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

Is Tribe Satisfied with 

Outcomes?: 

*Single Answer for All: Y___ 

N___ 

A_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

B_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

C_________________: Y___ 

N___ 

12) Has the tribe exercised treaty rights or addressed tribal interests associated with national forests and BLM public 

lands and resources? Please provide examples, if you wish. 

*Single Answer for All: Y___ N___ 

Example(s)___________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________: Y___ N___ 

Example(s)___________________________________________________________________ 

B_________________: Y___ N___ 

Example(s)___________________________________________________________________ 

C_________________: Y___ N___ 

Example(s)___________________________________________________________________ 

13) How is federal (FS/BLM) forest management compatible with what the tribe values about those lands? 

*Single Answer for All: 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

B_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

C_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

14) Are there actions that would strengthen and enhance federal-tribal relations? 

Tribal responses and follow-up 

Federal line official(s) follow-up [responses also, if available] 

*Single Answer for All: 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

A_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

B_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

C_________________:__________________________________________________________ 

 )_________________:___________________________________________________________ 

 )_________________:___________________________________________________________ 

 )_________________:___________________________________________________________ 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

44 

Monitoring Protocol 

I. Objectives 

To improve tribal relations and fulfill responsibilities of the Plan. 

II. Questionnaire 

The monitoring survey “tool” is a Questionnaire with 14 composite questions. 

III. Monitoring Process 

The lead agencies are the FS and the BLM. Monitoring process is as follows: 

Local line officer: Local line officials may be principal spokespersons in scheduling the monitoring interviews. 

Discussions about resource conditions will be helpful in assessing tribal access to resources and places of importance to 

them. 

Regional Tribal Program Specialists: Regional tribal program specialists on the interagency tribal monitoring team will 

conduct the interview, accompanied by the local agency line official(s), to provide support and continuity with 

interviews, and record tribal responses consistently. 

Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group: Members of this advisory group provide input to improve the tribal monitoring 

module implementation process, and may participate in particular tribal interviews if tribes consent. 

IV. Reporting 

Results from the interviews will be helpful in making recommendations for adaptive management, assessments of 

resource abundance, steps to improve relations, providing improved access to resources, access to maintain traditional 

cultural sites and use areas, or improvements to the inter-governmental communication processes. 

V. Implementation and Management: 

This module and associated activities will be the responsibility of the interagency tribal monitoring team. It is 

anticipated that the monitoring team will report annually on the results. A long-term goal is to produce an interpretative 

report that synthesizes several years of information and provides input for adaptive management. 

Recommended Monitoring Interview Agenda

Time 

(minutes) Subject Participants 

10 Introductions, opening statements (set tone) 

This is a listening session 

Federal officials and Tribal leaders 

10 Review agenda and purpose of the interviews 

Intent is to improve relations, practices 

Notes to be shared 

Monitoring staff and Federal officials 

10 Explain the interview process Monitoring staff 

60 to 120 Conduct the Interview 

Monitoring staff records responses 

Monitoring staff and Tribal leaders 

60 Open discussion 

May be issue driven 

May recommend actions 

Tribal leaders and Federal officials 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

45 

General Interview Principles 

Some subjects may be sensitive in nature. Tribal leaders may request any recording device be turned off or written 

notes not be taken for specific resources or site location information. Agency personnel need to honor such requests. 

To be respectful and to maximize precise transcriptions, agency requests to use audio or video recording devices should 

be made when meeting times are scheduled with tribes. Tribes may also opt to use recording devices throughout the 

monitoring sessions without asking for agency permission. 

Tribes may wish to exclude federal line officers from the actual monitoring interview session, to enhance candor 

and openness in tribal respondents. Tribes may also opt to include members of the Tribal Monitoring Advisory 

Group in sessions. 

Each question applies equally to the BLM and FS. It is important to consider and note any responses about federal 

agencies other than from BLM or FS. 

Timelines above are estimated. Some questions may generate longer responses. Some discussion subjects will be 

longer than others. 

To respect time schedules and make the interviews as efficient as possible, we recommend that the total time not 

exceed four hours. 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

46 

Invitation Letter 

Honorable (NAME), Chairperson 

(Name of Tribe) 

Tribal Government Address 

Tribal Government Address 

Dear (NAME of Tribal Chairperson): 

This letter is an invitation for you to participate in a Northwest Forest Plan (Plan) tribal monitoring interview session. 

As you may know, the Plan’s Record of Decision (ROD) contains significant objectives important to American Indian 

tribal governments with ties to federal forests covered by the Plan. Key Plan objectives for tribes include monitoring to 

determine if there are: (1) Plan implementation actions that affect tribal rights or interests, (2) improved conditions and 

trends of resources of interest to tribes, (3) effective communication and coordination between federal agencies and 

tribes, and (4) adequate access to natural resources and cultural sites. A tribal monitoring module has been developed, 

with tribal input, to document and evaluate government-to-government consultation processes, issues, and concerns 

associated with Plan implementation by the US Forest Service (FS) and the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

 The tribal monitoring module asks elected tribal officials or their representative(s) a set of interrelated 

questions. The questionnaire (attached) is intended to be the basis for an in-person verbal interview to obtain tribal 

views, and takes anywhere from 1 to 4 hours to complete. Tribal officials may extend discussions or even suggest 

alternative methods for gathering this tribal monitoring information. 

 The interviewer would normally be a regional FS or BLM tribal program specialist on the tribal monitoring 

team. A primary agency line official, or sometimes one official per agency, will be present to “listen”, unless you prefer 

the federal official(s) to be absent during the interview to maximize open, candid tribal dialogues. With your 

concurrence, other key agency officials may also be present, including secondary line officials and cultural specialists. 

Additionally, a member of the tribal monitoring advisory group may be present to reinforce accurate reporting. 

 As tribal chairperson you may consider the value of having other key tribal staff involved, such as the natural 

resources director, the forest manager, and cultural or biological staff specialists, or any other tribal officials or 

representatives you may delegate to participate. You may also wish to have one of your staff assist with note taking, to 

aid in documenting an accurate record, particularly if you prefer that electronic recording devices not be used. 

 At the tribe’s option, audio or video recording devices can be used to provide an accurate and complete record 

of the interview; however, these devices can inhibit responsiveness and candor. If electronic recording devices are 

used, they will be turned off simply on request (the same as for written notes). Tribes may use electronic recording 

devices without asking for federal agency permission. 

The 76 American Indian tribal governments with interests in the federal forests of the Plan area will all be invited to 

participate in these tribal monitoring sessions through 2004, and every 3 years after. You will be contacted to ensure 

your receipt of this invitation, and to coordinate mutually acceptable dates. 

Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation in gathering this critical information on your tribal 

perspectives on the implementation of the Plan. If you or your staff have any questions or require additional 

clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me, at (xxx) xxx-xxxx, tribal monitoring team member Sonia Tamez 

(USFS-R5), at (707) 562-8919, or the tribal monitoring module coordinator, Bruce Crespin (BLM-OR/WA), at (503) 

808-6493. 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

47 

Sincerely, 

Primary Line Official 

Attachment: 

 Tribal monitoring questionnaire (3 pp.) 

cc: Tribal Executive (Name)/ [Know actual position titles!!] 

 Director, Natural Resources 

 Forest Manager 

 Cultural Committee 

Forest Service/ 

 Sonia Tamez R5 

 Tribal Relations Advisor R6 

 Jon Martin R6 

 IAC – Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group (George Smith) 

BLM/ 

 CA-330 (Paul Roush) 

 CA-930 (Ken Wilson) 

 OR-932 (Nancy Molina) 

 OR-933 (Bruce Crespin) 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

48 

Appendix C. Survey Results 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/no 

answer Comment 

Initial #1. Have consultation 

protocols been developed? 

7 2 0 FS/Yes-6; FS/No-1 

BLM/Yes-3; BLM/No-1

Are they adequate for 

government-to-government 

consultation? 

9 0 0 

Are they adequate for potential 

effects to Tribal lands or Tribal 

interests? 

9 0 0 

 

Modified #1. Have written

consultation protocols been 

developed?

4 2 0 FS/Yes-3

BLM/Yes-1; BLM/No-2

NPS/Yes-1; NPS/No-1

Are they adequate for 

government-to-government 

consultation?

3 2 1 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

Are they adequate for potential 

effects on Tribal lands or Tribal 

interests?

3 2 1 

 

Initial #2. Is Federal policy 

guidance available for Tribal 

consultation when agency Plans, 

projects, programs or activities have 

the potential to affect resources, or 

areas of interest to Tribes, including 

Tribal lands?

7 0 2 

 

Modified #2. Is the Tribe aware of

Federal policy guidance available 

for Tribal consultation when agency 

Plans, projects, programs or 

activities have the potential to affect 

resources, uses, or areas of interest 

to Tribes, including Tribal lands?

4 2 0 

Are Federal procedures 

adequate to identify direct and 

indirect effects to activities on 

Tribal lands? 

5 1 0 FS/Yes-1

 

Initial #3. Has the Tribe been 

consulted on Federal agency Plans, 

projects, programs or activities that 

might affect the Tribal resources, 

uses, or areas of special interests? 

9 0 

How frequently? n/a n/a Frequent-2; Quarterly-4; Yearly-1; Irregular-0; 

Infrequent-0; Never-0 ; Unknown/No Answer-2
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

49 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/no 

answer Comment 

Does the Tribe participate with 

the PACs? 

5 3 Unknown/No Answer-1

Has the Tribe been involved in 

watershed analysis?

6 2 Unknown/No Answer-1

 

Modified #3. Over the past ten 

years, has the Tribe been consulted 

on Federal agency Plans, projects, 

programs or activities that might 

affect Tribal resources, Tribal uses, 

or areas of interest to Tribes?

6 0 

How frequently? n/a n/a Frequent-0; Quarterly-1; Yearly-0; Irregular-2; 

Infrequent-2; Never-0; Unknown/No Answer-1

Does the Tribe participate with 

the PACs?

2 4 Unknown/No Answer-0 

Has the Tribe been involved in 

watershed analysis?

5 1 Unknown/No Answer-0 

 

Initial #4. Has Tribal information 

been incorporated into Federal 

Planning documents and decisionmaking processes, in a manner such 

that Tribes can recognize their 

contributions?

4 1 4 

Did Tribal contributions result in 

any changes to Federal actions or 

resources of interest?

4 2 3 

 

Modified #4. Over the past ten 

years, has Tribal information been 

incorporated into Federal Planning 

documents and decision-making 

processes, in a manner such that 

Tribes can recognize their 

contributions?

4 2 0 FS/Yes-2

BLM/Yes-2

NPS/Yes-1

Did Tribal contributions result in 

any changes to Federal actions or 

considerations for resources of 

interest?

3 2 1 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

NPS/No-1

 

Initial #5. Have agencies consulted 

or collaborated with Tribal 

governments to develop Plans for 

future monitoring, restoration, or 

assessment projects? 

8 0 1 FS/Yes-1 

BLM/Yes-1

 

Modified #5. Over the past ten 

years, have agencies consulted or 

collaborated with Tribal 

5 1 0 FS/Yes-3

BLM/Yes-3

NPS/Yes-1
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

50 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/no 

answer Comment 

governments to develop Plans for 

future monitoring, restoration, or 

assessment projects, or for other 

Planning efforts? 

 

#6. What is the level of the Tribal 

government’s involvement in ESA: 

 

[None] [Some] [Low] [Med] [High] 

Section 7 consultations? 2 4 4 1 4 

Section 10 consultations? 7 0 6 2 0 

 

Initial #7. Has the exercise of Tribal 

rights or access to resources/areas of 

Tribal interest on Federal lands been 

changed because of implementing 

the PLAN standards and guidelines?

5 2 2 Better-3 

Worse-5 

 

Modified #7. Over the past ten 

years, how have the exercise of 

Tribal rights or access to resources 

and/or areas of Tribal interest on 

Federal lands been changed?

5 1 0 Better-3 

Worse-2 

Is this in any way due to 

implementing the PLAN 

standards and guidelines?

1 2 3 

 

Initial #8. Have procedures been 

put in place that provide for:

 

Protecting sensitive Tribal 

information from unauthorized 

access or release?

6 0 3 

Incorporating Tribal traditional 

knowledge in the development of 

management actions?

2 3 4 

Protecting cultural sites on 

Federal land?

7 0 2 

 

Modified #8. Is the Tribe aware of

procedures that have been put in 

place to provide for:

 

Protecting sensitive Tribal 

information from unauthorized 

access or release?

2 3 1 

Incorporating Tribal traditional 

knowledge in the development of 

management actions?

1 3 2 

Protecting cultural sites on 

Federal land?

5 1 0 

 
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

51 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/no 

answer Comment 

Initial #9. Have conflicts over the 

use and management of 

resources/areas of Tribal interest 

increased or decreased as a result of 

implementation of the PLAN and 

associated government-togovernment consultation, including 

efforts to resolve conflicts? 

5 2 2 Increased-3 

Decreased-2 

No Conflict-1 

Is the conflict resolution process 

adequate? 

4 3 2 

 

Modified #9. What are the

conflicts over the use or 

management of resources or areas of 

Tribal interest? 

N/A N/A N/A Fisheries 

No traditional fire 

Access to cedar/special forest products 

Over the past ten years, have 

these conflicts increased or 

decreased? 

5 0 1 Increased-4 

Decreased-1 

No Conflict-1 

Is this a result of 

implementation of the PLAN and 

associated government-togovernment consultation, 

including efforts to resolve 

conflicts? 

1 1 4 

Are the conflict resolution 

processes adequate? 

3 3 0 

 

#10. Please compare consultation 

before the PLAN (i.e., prior to 1994) 

and today. 

N/A N/A 4 No comparison (2). Consultation better (3). No 

consultation before (1). Not better or worse, but 

different focus (4). Varies w/ agency (1). 

 

Initial #11. How would the Tribe 

describe the success of 

implementing the PLAN:

 

Are the relationships improved? 8 0 1 

Are there actions that would 

further improve Federal and 

Tribal relations?

Discussed below in Question #14

 

Modified #11. How would the Tribe 

describe the success of 

implementing the PLAN:

 

Are the relationships between 

the Tribe and the Federal land 

management agencies

improved?

6 0 0 

Are Tribal rights and interests, 

access, and resource conditions 

associated with Federal agency 

3 3 0 
TECHNICAL PAPER R6-RPM-TP-02-2006 

52 

Question # Yes No 

Unknown/no 

answer Comment 

lands unchanged over the past 

ten years? 

Is the Tribe satisfied with the 

outcomes of government-togovernment consultations or 

conflict resolution processes? 

4 1 1 FS/Yes-1

BLM/Yes-1

NOAA/No-1

 

#12 (modified only). Has the Tribe 

exercised treaty rights or addressed 

Tribal interests associated with 

National Forests and BLM public 

lands and resources? Please provide 

examples, if you wish. 

6 

 

#13 (modified only). How is Federal 

(FS/BLM) forest management 

compatible with what the Tribe 

values about those lands? 

N/A N/A N/A  Support burning for cultural plants, wildlandurban interface, forest health. 

 Goals generally compatible-accessibility, 

multiple-use, biodiversity. 

 Conflicts: Reduced elk forage; Forest Service 

protection efforts (management direction is 

not always consistent with tribal values, 

focuses on a few species instead of many, and 

changes frequently-no long term vision); 

plans consistent with tribal interests on paper, 

but agencies are not managing on the ground.

Modified #14 and Initial from 

portion of #11. Are there actions 

that would strengthen and 

enhance Federal-Tribal relations? 

N/A N/A N/A  Smooth transitions for new line officers 

 Share digital data with tribes – more open 

exchange of information 

 Develop uniform consultation protocol 

between agencies. 

 Single definition of “consultation”. 

 Consultation with FS, BLM and BIA is goodother agencies should adopt consultation 

practices 

 Formal consultation process might improve 

resource conditions 

 Federal agencies should develop stewardship 

contracts with tribes 

 Want more projects implemented 

 Provide funding for tribal members to consult.
Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship 

53 

Appendix D. Indian Tribes and Federal Agencies Participating 

in Tribal Forum 

Tribal Government or Organization 

Intertribal Timber Council 

California Indian Forest & Fire Management Council 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw Indians 

Coquille Indian Tribe 

Skokomish Tribe 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 

Quileute Nation 

Federal Agency 

USDA Forest Service - State and Private Forestry, Office of Tribal Relations 

USDA Forest Service – Pacific Northwest Region 

NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service 

Bureau of Indian Affairs - Northwest Regional Office, Forest Development 

Bureau of Indian Affairs - Siletz Agency