Effectiveness of the

Federal-Tribal Relationship

NORTHWEST

FOREST PLAN

The First 15 Years (1994–2008)

Oregon/Washington report prepared by:

The Resource Innovation Group and the Institute for a Sustainable 

Environment, University of Oregon

California report prepared by: 

Kathy Lynn, Katie MacKendrick, and Hannah Satein

Overall Report Compiled by: 

Gary R. Harris, Northwest Forest Plan, Tribal Monitoring Lead

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Forest 

Service

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

R6-RPM-TP-01-2011
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Oregon and Washington Report — i

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Preface

This monitoring report documents the effects of implementation of the Northwest Forest 

Plan (the Plan) on the relationship between Federally-Recognized American Indian Tribes 

and federal land management agencies within the range of the northern spotted owl. The 

planning period covered in this report is 2004-2008.

The monitoring protocol for this planning period was developed by the Tribal 

Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG) after publication of “Northwest Forest Plan – The 

First 10 years (1994-2003) Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship” (R6-RPMTP-02-2006) in 2006.

The protocol was implemented and reports were prepared under federal contracts; 

one for Oregon and Washington (The Resource Innovation Group and the Institute for 

a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon) and another for Northern California 

(the Intertribal Timber Council and the California Indian Forestry and Fire Management 

Council).

These reports are presented in their entirety as received from the contractors. The 

Oregon/Washington report is offered first and includes the executive summary, which 

includes findings and recommendations for OR, WA, and CA monitoring reports. 
ii — Oregon and Washington Report

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011
Oregon and Washington Report — iii

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Strengthening the Federal-Tribal Relationship:

 A Report on Monitoring Consultation

 under the Northwest Forest Plan in Oregon 

and Washington

Prepared for:

Prepared for: Tribal Relations Office of the

USDA Forest Service Region 6 

and the

US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon and Washington

Prepared by:

The Resource Innovation Group and the Institute for a Sustainable 

Environment, University of Oregon

5247 University of Oregon

Eugene, Oregon 97403

http://sustainable.uoregon.edu 
iv — Oregon and Washington Report

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011
Oregon and Washington Report — v

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

I.	 Executive Summary: A Report on Monitoring -

	 Oregon, Washington, and California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. 	 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Key Findings from the Initial Monitoring Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Oregon/Washington Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III. Key Findings from the Tribal Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Q.1. Adequacy of Consultation Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Q.2. Use and Adequacy of Federal Policy Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Q.3. Frequency of Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Q.3a. Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Q.4. Use of Tribal Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Q.5. Use of tribal information in future efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Q.6. Exercise of tribal rights and access to resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Q.7. Protection and use of tribal information and cultural resources in management plans 22

Q.8. Conflicts over the use or management of resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Q.9. Treaty Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Q.10. Federal Forest Management Compatibility with Tribal Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Q.11. How can federal-tribal relationships be strengthened?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

IV. 	Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Case Study #1: Coquille Indian Tribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Case Study #2: Quileute Indian Tribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Case Study #3: Quinault Indian Nation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Case Study #4: Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Case Study #5: Considerations for Consultation Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

V. 	 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

VI. 	References	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix A. Letter sent to Tribes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix B. Interview Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix C. Examples: Memorandum of Understanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix D. Summary of Comments from Review of the Draft Tribal Monitoring Report 77
vi — Oregon and Washington Report

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011
Oregon and Washington Report — vii

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Acknowledgements

The Resource Innovation Group, and the Institute for a Sustainable Environment at the 

University of Oregon, under contract with Region 6 of the USDA Forest Service, developed 

this report. Kathy Lynn and Katie MacKendrick are the primary authors. A tribal 

monitoring advisory group (TMAG) provided guidance throughout the development of the 

report. Members of the TMAG include:

• Gary Harris, USDA Forest Service Region 6 Tribal Relations Office

• Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council

• George Smith, Executive Director, Coquille Indian Tribe

• Sonia Tamez, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Tribal Relations Office (retired)

• Merv George, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Tribal Relations Office/ 

California Indian Fire Forestry Management Council

The authors thank the tribal leaders, tribal staff, and agency representatives who spent 

significant time sharing thoughts and perspectives for the interviews, case studies, and 

review of the full report. 
viii — Oregon and Washington Report

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 1

Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (the NWFP), 

agencies that manage federal land within the range of 

the northern spotted owl are to monitor the effects of 

implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan’s standards 

and guidelines. One element of monitoring, identified in 

the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Plan, is “American 

Indians and Their Culture.” Key issues addressed in the 

initial monitoring effort include conditions and trends of 

the trust resources1 identified in treaties with American 

Indians;

• effectiveness of the coordination or liaison 

to ensure adequate protection of religious or 

cultural heritage sites; and

• Adequacy of access by American Indians to 

forest species, resources, and places important 

for cultural, subsistence, or economic reasons, 

particularly those identified in treaties.

Effectiveness monitoring under the Plan is to take 

place at ten-year intervals. The monitoring for the first 

ten-year period was completed in 2003, and the results 

were published in 2006 as “Northwest Forest Plan – The 

First 10 years (1994-2003) Effectiveness of the FederalTribal Relationship” (R6-RPM-TP-02-2006). This initial 

monitoring report presented the views of fifteen tribes in 

the area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. A Tribal 

Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG) was subsequently 

chartered under the proviso of the Interagency Advisory 

Council to develop recommendations to improve the 

protocol and techniques used to monitor the federal-tribal 

relationship and obtain broader tribal participation. 

Context for Consultation

In November 2000, then-President Clinton signed Executive 

Order 131752 to accomplish three objectives:

• Establish regular and meaningful consultation 

and collaboration with tribal officials in the 

development of Federal policies that have tribal 

implications. 

1

See definition of trust resources from the Northwest Forest Plan Record 

of Decision on page 15 of this report.

2Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments Federal Register: Nov. 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 218)]

• Strengthen the U.S. government-to-government 

relationships with Indian tribes. 

• Reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates on 

Indian tribes. 

The Executive Order states, 

“Each agency shall have an accountable process 

to ensure meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of regulatory 

policies that have tribal implications.”

Numerous agencies and tribes have clearly defined 

processes for consultation, and yet there is still a lack 

of knowledge and/or shared understanding about what 

constitutes meaningful consultation. This report examines 

the state of consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP) through twenty-two interviews with tribes and five 

in-depth case studies focused on consultation experiences 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Oregon and 

Washington.3 The findings from this study, described in the 

full report, have resulted in a series of recommendations 

intended to strengthen the federal-tribal relationship within 

the context of the Northwest Forest Plan and beyond. 

The lessons learned from consultation under the 

Northwest Forest Plan can build greater understanding 

of meaningful consultation between tribes and federal 

agencies in all natural resource management issues. 

They can also foster consultation in issues such as 

health and human services, housing, transportation, 

economic development, and climate change. With a new 

administration in Washington D.C. every 4 to 8 years, and 

the potential for significant changes in federal and regional 

policy, there must be policies in place to ensure the federaltribal relationship continues to be monitored. 

The NWFP’s monitoring process has provided a 

model for examining the challenges and accomplishments 

of federal-tribal relationships and measuring success in 

government-to-government consultation. This model 

could be extended to monitor federal-tribal relationships 

throughout the country. For this to occur, future legislative 

and federal programs, should include provisions for tribal 

3

A parallel study in region 5, which is scheduled to be completed in 

December 2009, is currently underway and includes interviews with 

tribes in California that are within the Northwest Forest Plan area.

I. Executive Summary: Oregon, Washington, and California
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

2 — Oregon and Washington Report

monitoring similar to the NWFP monitoring process. 

New plans, plan revisions, and legislative proposals with 

potential to replace the NWFP must include a process for 

tribal monitoring. 

It is important to acknowledge that monitoring 

relationships between tribes and federal agencies yields 

sensitive information. Yet, for all of the challenges that 

tribes shared during this study about the current state of 

consultation, many indicated a strong desire for meaningful 

consultation and partnerships in the future. 

Following the recommendations, the full report 

presents findings from interviews with twenty-two 

tribes in Oregon and Washington within the range of the 

northern spotted owl, and five case studies that feature both 

challenges and successes in consultation. The report also 

highlights the outcomes of consultation regarding access 

to cultural resources and protection of tribal rights and 

interests under the Northwest Forest Plan

Recommendations

Through the 15 year NWFP tribal monitoring process, 

a series of recommendations for strengthening the 

federal-tribal relationship arose. The recommendations 

apply to federal agency staff at local, district, regional, 

and national offices that interact with tribes under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. They also apply to broader natural 

resource management issues. Federal agencies in this 

position include the USDA Forest Service, Department 

of Interior agencies (including the Bureau of Land 

Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department 

of Justice. The recommendations apply also to tribes 

and tribal organizations and associations interested in 

strengthening federal-tribal relationships. 

The recommendations are organized into three areas.

1. Define and engage in meaningful consultation.

2. Institute measures for accountability within 

consultation protocols at tribal, national, and 

district/local levels. 

3. Integrate consultation protocols into federal, 

state, and regional policies and programs.

1. Define and engage in meaningful 

consultation

Through the NWFP monitoring process, a set of 

recommendations was established to strengthen 

consultation by addressing the timing and substance of 

consultation and the leadership involved. Federal agencies 

have a trust responsibility that guides and limits the federal 

government in dealing with Indian tribes. It requires 

agencies to consult with tribes on decisions that relate to or 

affect the sovereignty, rights, resources, or lands of Indian 

tribes. Because consultation needs may differ significantly 

between tribes, the most important consideration is to 

engage tribal leadership in defining a consultation process. 

Negotiation about the consultation process in deference to 

tribal sovereignty is critical in meaningful consultation.

1.1 Clarify the purpose of consultation between 

the tribe and agency.

The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to 

engage in consultation with Indian tribes. However, through 

consultation there is significant opportunity for benefits 

to come from shared understanding and coordinated 

management. Therefore, it is important for both parties 

to identify objectives and goals for consultation and 

discuss those goals along with proposed plans and actions. 

Government-to-government consultation is a process 

separate from general public involvement. Although it 

does not guarantee that tribal input will change a project, 

it permits tribes and federal agencies to clarify their 

expectations jointly about proposed plans, actions, and 

intended outcomes.

At a minimum, consultation should ensure that the 

interests of the tribe are heard, articulate how tribal 

concepts and information generated in consultation are 

utilized, and provide feedback to the tribe on how tribal 

input is utilized throughout a project, as decisions are made 

and actions move forward. At a maximum, consultation 

can pave the way for mutually beneficial management 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 3

strategies that help tribes and agencies meet their objectives 

for land management and protection of natural and cultural 

resources. 

1.2 Involve all levels of leadership and staff in 

consultation.

When consultation occurs, tribes expect the highest level 

of leadership within the agency to engage with the highest 

level of leadership within the tribe. At the same time, tribal 

and agency staff with experience and knowledge about the 

issues and relationships must also be intimately engaged in 

the consultation process. The expectations of both parties 

are important. If tribes expect the appropriate decision 

maker to be involved in consultation, federal agencies must 

understand that expectation and structure consultation 

accordingly. If the appropriate decision maker is not 

among the highest level of leadership, the highest level of 

leadership should be available and willing to consult with 

the tribe in case the tribe believes lower levels of leadership 

are not giving sufficient weight to tribal input. Structuring 

the consultation process appropriately is vital to ensuring 

that consultation addresses conflicting viewpoints during 

the initial phase of project planning and therefore avoids 

litigation. The exclusion of tribal or agency leadership or 

staff may jeopardize the consultation process. 

1.3 Engage tribes in consultation in all phases 

of project identification, planning, development, 

implementation, and monitoring.

When tribes are notified of federal action and given 

opportunity for input, one level of consultation occurs. 

However, meaningful consultation occurs only when 

agencies engage with tribes much earlier in the process, 

even to the point of giving them an opportunity to guide 

where and how projects occur. By engaging tribes in all 

phases of a planning and project development, there is a 

greater opportunity to meet tribal interests and protect 

cultural resources. 

1.4 Increase capacity of agency staff at the 

district, regional, and national levels, including 

technical staff and leadership, to engage in 

consultation.

For consultation to be effective and meaningful, tribes and 

federal agency staff at all levels must understand the federal 

trust responsibility and the consultation process. Training, 

including joint trainings between tribes and agency staff, 

provide opportunities to gain this understanding. Training 

can ensure that federal agencies working with tribes meet 

their trust responsibility and foster productive and mutually 

beneficial relationships with tribes. Policy guidance within 

agencies should also include protocols for when training 

should occur, particularly as a mechanism for addressing 

staff turnover. With education about what consultation is 

and how it should occur, training could include:

why all levels of agency (and tribal) staff and leadership 

should engage in consultation;

• how general notification is different than 

consultation;

• why opportunities for intercultural dialogue are 

important for agencies to understand what they 

are hearing from tribes; and

• how to create a transition period when there is 

staff turnover to ensure that new staff members 

are adequately trained and relationships can be 

maintained.

1.5 Increase the use of Memorandums of 

Agreement. 

Memorandums of agreement (MOA) help to formalize 

consultation protocols and provide agencies and tribes an 

opportunity to build a shared agreement of the needs and 

objectives of consultation. Whereas a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) illustrates shared understanding, 

a MOA goes further to ensure that action is taken to 

honor the steps and purpose of consultation, and, in some 

cases, involves funding. Specifically, MOAs can increase 

knowledge and awareness among agency staff and tribes 

about the value of formal protocols and MOUs by providing 

examples and best practices. Having a formal MOA in place 

permits the outcomes from the agreement to be monitored. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

4 — Oregon and Washington Report

1.6 Re-establish Provincial Advisory Committees 

within the Context of the Northwest Forest Plan 

and Establish Oversight Committees that include 

Tribal Representation in Future Initiatives. 

Within the context of the Northwest Forest Plan, provincial 

advisory committees (PAC) provided an opportunity for 

agency executives and tribes to meet frequently and discuss 

land management plans. As PACs across the NWFP area 

lost funding, this critical relationship and opportunity 

for consultation between the highest levels of leadership 

were lost. Within the NWFP, re-establishment of these 

PACs would help strengthen consultation between tribes 

and federal agencies. When state, regional, or national 

initiatives, such as the NWFP, are put into place, in addition 

to tribal monitoring provisions, oversight committees with 

tribal representation should be established to ensure that a 

high level of consultation continues to occur. 

Intended Outcomes 

In the context of the Northwest Forest Plan and broader 

natural resource management policies, meaningful 

consultation is intended to increase and protect access 

to cultural and natural resources and forest areas and to 

improve resource management and decrease negative 

effects on tribal rights and interests. Other outcomes that 

could occur with more meaningful consultation under the 

NWFP include:

• Better representation of tribal interests and use 

of tribal information (and traditional knowledge) 

and protection of cultural resources in agency 

management plans:

– Consultation resulting in consideration of tribal 

input and meaningful action

– Use of tribal traditional knowledge and tribal 

information in project planning, decision 

making, and implementation to shape plans, 

decisions, and actions 

– Monitoring how well agencies’ plans and 

decisions reflect tribal values and needs

• Increased protection of cultural resources

• Opportunities to address land allocations within the 

NWFP and access to land/resources: 

– Restrictions that limit tribal access to cultural 

resources; inadequate protection of tribal rights; 

staff level conflicts; road decommissioning; 

Endangered Species Act conflicts; and other 

issues resulting from land management 

restrictions

– Land/resource access, including water and 

timber resources, cultural resources, hunting, 

and tribal resource management. 

Meaningful consultation can also address conflicts 

over land management and develop a protocol for managing 

for cultural resources under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Conflicts can arise from NWFP land designations, such 

as Late Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves. 

These land designations can exclude tribes from cultural 

and subsistence resources and alter wildlife habitat, such 

as grazing areas or plant habitat through fire suppression. 

In some instances, tribes are left with only one option to 

ameliorate conflicts: lawsuits. An alternative approach or 

protocol needs to be developed so that tribes can access 

resources of interest on tribal-ceded lands currently 

managed by federal agencies and federal agencies can 

follow land management plans.

2. Institute measures for accountability 

To ensure that consultation occurs, it is important to 

institute measures for accountability within consultation 

protocols at tribal, national, and district/local levels. 

2.1. Incorporate Tribal Monitoring Protocols into 

New Management Plans and Plan Revisions.

Tribal monitoring should be incorporated at all levels - 

from policy to management - to maintain and strengthen 

government-to-government relations. Tribal monitoring 

should be incorporated into new management plans and 

plan revisions. For relationships that have been built 

through the Northwest Forest Plan, Section 7 – Consultation 

to continue and grow in the future, tribal monitoring should 

be incorporated into future policy and management in the 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 5

Pacific Northwest and across the nation. In addition, new 

management plans at district or regional levels, such as the 

Western Oregon Plan Revisions, should include protocols 

for tribal monitoring.

2.2. Establish strategies for monitoring and 

creating accountability for agencies to engage in 

consultation. 

Using the NWFP monitoring process or an improved 

process, continue monitoring government-to-government 

relationships. The current time frame for monitoring 

is ten years. Recalling the frequency and substance of 

consultation experiences over a ten-year period can be 

challenging. In the future, the monitoring process should 

incorporate questions that focus on shorter time periods 

(e.g., two to three years) to gain a better understanding of 

how often tribes are consulted, what happens, and when 

with the information that is generated during consultation. 

Beyond the NWFP, monitoring federal tribal 

relationships should be a part of all agency management 

strategies. Specific areas of focus for this kind of 

monitoring could include: 

• Ask tribes how consultation is working. Develop 

a framework, such as a formal agreement to 

meet at least annually, to sit down and talk 

together. 

• Ask federal agencies how consultation is 

working. Consultation is a part of federal agency 

staff performance plans and thus should be 

made a priority. Federal agency staff should also 

have the opportunity to discuss consultation. 

• Develop criteria and performance measures 

for monitoring agency consultation, project 

implementation, and effectiveness (based on 

outcomes from consultation).

• Monitoring criteria can create accountability 

for federal agencies to engage in consultation. 

Performance measures related to consultation 

and monitoring can also ensure that 

agencies can institutionalize mechanisms for 

accountability. 

3. Integrate consultation protocols into 

federal, state, and regional policies and 

programs

3.1 Build capacity for tribal and agency staff to 

dedicate time to consultation and government-togovernment relationships. 

One of the greatest needs for tribes and agencies alike is 

increased capacity to engage in consultation. Tribes and 

agencies are experiencing budget shortfalls that limit staff 

availability to participate meaningfully in consultation. 

However, if agency and tribal leadership recognize the 

importance of consultation, it may be easier to justify staff 

resources for consultation. 

3.2 In legislative proposals at the national level, 

consider tribal needs and opportunities for 

consultations.

Within the new administration and Congress and with 

the current economic crisis, there are critical windows 

of opportunity to ensure that new pieces of legislation 

consider tribal needs, interests, and the role of consultation. 

Currently, the economic stimulus package and legislation 

about “green” jobs hold potential and interest for tribes. 

Climate change legislation will also have an impact on (and 

provide opportunity for) tribes. 

3.3 Consider tribal needs and opportunities for 

consultation when revising plans and creating new 

plans within the Northwest Forest Plan area.

Tribal monitoring must be included in legislative actions 

and federal plans, particularly those that might build on 

or replace the Northwest Forest Plan (such as the Western 

Oregon Plan Revisions or new legislative proposals). 

3.4 Re-establish funding for the Jobs in the 

Woods program.

Future federal agency plans and plan revisions must 

include funding for tribal restoration projects and jobs. 

The Jobs in the Woods program under the Northwest 

Forest Plan provided an opportunity for tribes to engage in 

vital assessment and stream restoration projects, develop 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

6 — Oregon and Washington Report

partnerships with private landowners and federal and state 

agencies, and learn technical restoration skills. To maintain 

ecosystem health and ecosystem services, funding is needed 

for programs that will assist tribes and federal agencies in 

taking action to restore existing ecosystems and manage 

restoration efforts into the future. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 7

II. Introduction: Oregon and Washington Report 

government-to-government relationships.4 Region 6 of the 

USDA Forest Service contracted with Resource Innovations 

at the University of Oregon to conduct interviews with all 

tribes within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Oregon 

and Washington. Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service 

contracted with the Intertribal Timber Council and the 

California Indian Forestry and Fire Management Council 

to coordinate interviews with tribes in the Northwest Forest 

Plan area in California. 

Findings from this monitoring effort will be used to 

report key aspects of federal-tribal relationships within the 

Northwest Forest Plan. However, findings, lessons learned, 

and recommendations can be shared much more broadly in 

a policy context to strengthen government-to-government 

relationships that extend well beyond the Northwest Forest 

Plan.

Key Findings from the Initial Monitoring 

Report

In 2006, the USDA Forest Service published a report on the 

Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship as part of a 

series of reports on the Northwest Forest Plan.5 The original 

monitoring effort that studied the effectiveness of federaltribal relationships was conducted for the period from 1994 

to 2003. The report summarizes the results of a monitoring 

program designed to evaluate the effects on federal-tribal 

relationships of the implementation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The report includes perspectives from fifteen 

of the seventy-six, federally recognized tribes within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area that agreed to participate in 

interviews for the monitoring project. The report also 

includes key findings and recommendations from a forum 

of tribal leaders that was held in April 2005.

The initial set of interviews consisted of fourteen 

questions used in formal, face-to-face consultations 

between tribal government representatives and federal 

agency officials to collect monitoring information. Key 

topics addressed in the questions included the conditions 

4See Appendix A for a full list of survey questions and the letter sent 

by the Forest Supervisor and District Manager to all tribal chairpersons 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Regions 5 and 6.

5Technical Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2006

Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), agencies 

managing federal land within the range of the northern 

spotted owl are to monitor the effects of implementation 

of the NWFP’s Standards and Guidelines. One element 

of monitoring identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) 

for the Plan is “American Indians and Their Culture.” Key 

issues addressed in the initial monitoring effort included:

• conditions and trends of the trust resources 

identified in treaties with American Indians;

• effectiveness of the coordination or liaison 

to ensure adequate protection of religious or 

cultural heritage sites; and

• adequacy of access by American Indians of 

forest species, resources, and places important 

for cultural, subsistence, or economic reasons, 

particularly those identified in treaties.

Effectiveness monitoring under the Northwest 

Forest Plan (the Plan) is stated to take place at ten-year 

intervals. The monitoring for the first ten-year period was 

completed in 2003 and the results were published in 2006 

as: “Northwest Forest Plan – The First 10 years (1994-2003) 

Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship” (R6-

RPM-TP-02-2006). In this initial monitoring report, the 

views of fifteen tribes in the area covered by the Northwest 

Forest Plan were presented. A Tribal Monitoring Advisory 

Group (TMAG) was subsequently chartered under the 

proviso of the Interagency Advisory Council to develop 

recommendations to improve the protocol and techniques 

used to monitor the federal-tribal relationship and obtain 

broader tribal participation. 

For the second round of monitoring, the TMAG 

devised an approach to provide an opportunity for all 

seventy-six, federally recognized tribes with interests in the 

federally managed land within the Plan area to participate 

in an interview to provide insight and perspectives about 

consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan. The TMAG 

worked collectively to develop a survey instrument that 

reflected lessons learned from the initial monitoring effort 

and focused on the consultation process, outcomes, and 

recommendations from the tribes on how to strengthen 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

8 — Oregon and Washington Report

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. 

Key findings from the interviews included:

• Some tribes felt that the condition of aquatic 

and riparian habitats, fisheries, and forest health 

had 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.

Key findings and recommendations from the 2005 

forum of tribal leaders included:

• Tribal leaders recommended that the federal 

agencies should not confuse the popular word 

“collaboration” with consultation. 

• Although tribes and tribal representatives 

provided information through the consultation 

process, tribal leaders believed that the advice 

and recommendations gathered by the federal 

agencies had, at times, disappeared without a 

response. 

• The continual federal and tribal leader 

turnover within the NWFP area creates 

a difficult consultation and relationshipbuilding environment. The representatives at 

this meeting felt there should be an ongoing 

orientation process for both federal and tribal 

leaders. 

It is important to reflect on these key findings and 

others in the 2006 report as the changes in the federaltribal relationship during the last five years since the initial 

monitoring took place are examined. Findings between 

the two periods of monitoring will be compared in the 

conclusion and recommendations section of this report. 

Oregon & Washington Methods

In both Regions, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) sent a joint letter to the chairpersons 

of all tribes within the Northwest Forest Plan area to invite 

them to participate in the interviews and introduce the 

respective contractors. In Region 6, Resource Innovations 

followed up with phone calls to each tribe that wanted 

to participate. In most cases, these calls were made to 

the natural resource director or coordinator for the tribe. 

Sources used to identify the appropriate contact included 

recommendations by the TMAG and Intertribal Timber 

Council, as well as listings in the 2008 Washington State 

Tribal Directory and the 2007 Indian Forestry & Natural 

Resources National Directory (published by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Intertribal Timber Council). 

Interview questions

After the initial monitoring had been conducted, the 

Tribal Monitoring Group refined and developed eleven 

questions to focus on the following areas:

• consultation process, outcome, and tracking

• access and protection

• affect on tribal values of interest (cultural, 

social, and economic)

• strengthening federal-tribal relations

A list of the questions used in the monitoring can be 

found in Appendix B. 

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

Each tribe participating in the monitoring effort was 

notified of confidentiality issues. The information collected 

during the interviews has been synthesized into the 

published report. In the report, no information is attributed 

to a specific person or tribe. However, because the interview 

notes and key code are part of the record of the monitoring 

process and will be considered property of the federal 

government, all interview participants were informed that 

confidentiality cannot be fully protected under the law. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 9

Tribal Interviews 

There are thirty-four, federally recognized tribes in 

Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) within the Northwest 

Forest Plan area. Twenty-seven of these tribes are in 

Washington, and seven are in Oregon. Of these thirty-four 

tribes, Resource Innovations interviewed twenty-one 

individuals representing twenty-two tribes.6

Oregon and Washington Case Studies

As part of the effort to monitor government-to-government 

relationships under the Northwest Forest Plan, Resource 

Innovations conducted five case studies that expand on 

the information and findings from the tribal monitoring 

interviews. There is a need to hear from tribes about their 

experiences and perspectives on how their rights and 

interests have been affected during plan implementation. 

The case studies explore in more detail the types of 

consultation processes that have occurred under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, barriers and limitations to 

consultation, successes, and lessons learned to inform 

policy development and implementation. 

Case studies can assist tribes and agencies in 

understanding local conditions and the outcomes from a 

given process, such as NWFP implementation. They also 

provide best practices from which others may learn or 

replicate in their own communities or among their own 

agencies. The five case studies featured in this report are:

1. Coquille Indian Tribe: consultation process 

(communication, relationships, and trust)

2. Quileute Indian Tribe: consultation challenges 

(supporting staff transitions and developing 

common understanding of treaty reserved 

rights)

3. Quinault Indian Nation: consultation and 

Northwest Forest Plan outcomes (effects on 

natural resource management, revenue, and 

access to cultural resources)

4. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe: consultation 

outcomes (developing consultation beyond 

6One interviewee is the natural resource staff person for two separate 

tribes; he was directed by both tribes to participate in the interview on 

behalf of both tribes.

project notifications to find balance between 

resource protection, forest management, and 

tribal access)

5. Formalizing Consultation Protocols: providing 

the foundation for consultation and longterm, cooperative government-to-government 

relationships.

Definitions

Consultation 

Consultation is an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by tribal officials into 

the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. Consultation is the active, affirmative process 

of (1) identifying and seeking input from appropriate tribal 

governing bodies, community groups, and individuals; 

(2) considering their interests as a necessary and integral 

part of the decision-making process; and (3) providing a 

feedback mechanism to share with tribes how tribal input 

has been used in the decision-making process. (EO 13175, 

11/6/2000; HUD Consultation Policy)

Collaboration 

Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and well-defined 

relationship entered into by two or more organizations 

to achieve common goals. The relationship includes a 

commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly 

developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual 

authority and accountability for success; and sharing of 

resources and rewards. Communication channels are well 

defined and operate on many levels. Authority is determined 

by the collaborative structure. (Massettich, Murray-Close 

and Monsey 2001)

Coordination

Coordination involves somewhat formal relationships, with 

some planning, division of roles, and understanding of 

compatible missions. Formal channels of communication 

are established. Individual organizations retain authority 

but share, to an extent, risk, resources, and rewards. 

(Massettich, Murray-Close and Monsey 2001)
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

10 — Oregon and Washington Report

Cooperation 

Cooperation is an informal relationship without a 

commonly defined mission, structure, or planning effort. 

Information is shared as needed, and authority is retained 

by each organization. Risks, resources, and rewards are not 

shared. (Massettich, Murray-Close and Monsey 2001)

Consultation at the Federal Level

President Clinton’s Executive Order 13175, “Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

requires each federal agency to have an accountable process 

to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials 

into the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. 

Federal agency action shall be guided by the principles 

of respect for Indian self-government and sovereignty, 

tribal treaties and other rights and responsibilities that 

arise from the special trust relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Federal action shall also 

favor maximum tribal participation and defer to the laws 

and policies established by Indian tribes to the extent 

permitted by law. Each federal agency has established a 

government-to-government consultation policy (see Forest 

Service policy below). Key aspects of federal consultation 

policy should include: 

• notifying Indian tribes as soon as possible 

regarding formulated or proposed federal 

actions;

• informing Indian tribes of the potential impact 

of formulated or proposed federal actions;

• informing Indian tribes of those federal officials 

charged with making the final decisions with 

respect to the federal action;

• ensuring those federal officials are engaged and 

available for consultation directly with tribes;

• ensuring the input and recommendations of 

Indian tribes are fully considered by those 

officials responsible for the final decision; and

• providing Indian tribes with feedback 

regarding the adoption or rejection of tribal 

recommendations by those federal official 

involved in the decision-making process. 

Forest Service Protocol for Consultation with 

Tribes – FSH 1509.13 (excerpt)

The following steps should be taken when coordinating 

consultation with tribes: 

• The agency contacts the Tribal Government, 

preferably prior to scoping and public 

involvement, to advise the Tribe of a proposed 

policy, plan, or project that may affect tribal 

rights or interests;

• The Tribe may respond back that this is not 

an issue or that this proposal is important and 

would like to initiate consultation;

• The Tribe may request that Federal agency 

technical experts meet with the Tribe’s technical 

representatives (or the Tribe may request an 

official level meeting);

• Issues are discussed in order for the agency to 

understand why the proposal is of concern to 

the Tribe. This allows the respective staff to 

brief respective parties and to provide informed 

opinions and recommendations;

• Consultation steps are defined and an agreement 

may be reached between the Tribe and the 

Forest Service on the process for consultation;

• The agency makes a decision in consultation 

with the Tribe.

Treaty Rights and Trust Resources (as described 

in the NWFP Record of Decision)7

This [record of] decision provides a higher level of 

protection for American Indian trust resources on public 

lands than the plans that it amends and does not impair or 

restrict the treaties or rights of tribes. However, subsequent 

implementation of standards and guidelines could directly 

affect American Indian practices and activities, e.g., a 

prohibition against the collection of certain plant material 

or trees in late successional reserves that are subject to 

tribal treaty off-reservation gathering rights. Under such 

circumstances, the exercise of these tribal treaty rights will 

not be restricted unless the Regional Interagency Ecosystem 

7 Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision. (April 1994). www.

reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pd
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 11

Office determines that the restriction is (1) reasonable 

and necessary for preservation of the species at issue, 

(2) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be 

achieved solely by regulation of non-Indian 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 

either as stated or as applied, and (5) voluntary tribal 

conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the 

necessary conservation purpose.

Future analysis and planning efforts to implement this 

decision on lands administered by the BLM and Forest 

Service will identify Indian trust resources that would be 

affected, and identify potential conflicts between proposed 

federal actions and treaty rights or tribal trust resources. 

Consultation with the recognized tribal government with 

jurisdiction over the trust property that the proposal may 

affect, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of the 

Solicitor will be conducted early in the planning process. 

The consultation with affected tribes will occur on a 

government-to-government basis. Conflicts will be resolved 

collaboratively, and affected tribes will be involved in the 

planning process, consistent with the federal government’s 

trust responsibilities.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

12 — Oregon and Washington Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 13

III. Key Findings from the Tribal Interviews 

interviewed provided examples of how consultation under 

the NWFP had been adequate and resulted in the protection 

and integration of tribal rights and interests and effects on 

tribal land from the NWFP. In describing the consultation 

process, one respondent said, 

“If the federal government wants to consult 

with the tribe, they send a letter and then the 

tribe decides if they want to participate in 

a consultation. And then the tribe gauges if 

they have interest and then at what level those 

meetings should be at.”

• The value of formal protocols and MOUs

Common themes emerged in the interviews to illustrate 

what might make a stronger government-to-government 

relationship between a federal agency and a tribe. In 

general, tribes with consultation protocols in place indicated 

that the protocol had created a stronger government-togovernment relationship. Four tribes specifically mentioned 

that existing memorandums of understanding with the 

federal agencies were critical to foster a strong governmentto-government relationship. 

“The government-to-government consultation 

process [outlined in an MOU that includes the 

NWFP] allows for collaboration between tribal 

staff and local agency staff. They try to keep it 

flexible and as little burden as possible.”

“The tribe has an MOU with the agency 

that talks about relationships between the 

governments and directs how the tribe 

coordinates with the agency on ceded 

lands. The tribe does make requests to have 

government-government consultation with the 

agency and tribal and agency biologists meet 

on a regular basis. There are also a lot of staff 

interactions and tribal council consultations, 

which often includes agency leadership.”

Another tribe specifically mentioned that its MOU helped 

the tribe to retain access to federal rights. 

There are thirty-four, federally recognized tribes in Region 

6 (Oregon and Washington) within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area. Twenty-seven of these tribes are in Washington 

and seven are in Oregon. From these thirty-four tribes, 

Resource Innovations interviewed twenty-one individuals 

representing twenty-two tribes.8

During the introduction to the interview process, 

numerous tribes had comments or questions before 

beginning the interview. Four interviewees specifically 

stated that their tribe had had little or no experience with 

the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and, as such, had 

concerns about participating in the interview. Several of 

those who indicated a lack of experience or knowledge of 

the NWFP suggested that they could talk about consultation 

with public agencies more broadly (outside of the NWFP). 

Throughout this report, comments about consultation that is 

outside of the Northwest Forest Plan are clearly pointed out. 

Q.1. Adequacy of Consultation Protocols

Of the twenty-two tribes interviewed, 50% indicated 

that written protocols had not been developed under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, and 18% were not sure if there were 

written protocols in place. Of the 32% of those interviewed 

who said there were protocols in place, all indicated 

that they were adequate for government-to-government 

consultation.

Successful approaches to consultation 

Fourteen of twenty-two tribes interviewed had comments 

about the adequacy of consultation and the Northwest 

Forest Plan to identify potential effects on tribal rights, 

interests, and effects on tribal lands. Numerous tribes 

8One interviewee is the natural resource staff person for two separate 

tribes; he was directed by both tribes to participate in the interview on 

behalf of both tribes.

Interview Question Yes No Don’t Know

1.a Have written consultation 

protocols been developed?

32% 50% 18%

1.b Are they adequate for 

government-to-government 

consultation? 

32% 45% 23%
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

14 — Oregon and Washington Report

“The agency has continued the commitment to 

have quarterly meetings every year. The tribe 

has an MOU with the agency that helps with 

their communications and results in greater 

government-government relations. This is 

[important to the tribe because] they have an 

interest in retaining to access to agency lands.”

• Increased involvement in consultation by 

agency leadership

Several respondents cited strong leadership within the 

agency or an individual agency staff person committed 

to consultation as a reason for stronger government-togovernment relationships. Other examples included funding 

within the agency that allowed for more frequent consultation 

and funding within the tribe that provided an opportunity for 

tribal staff to engage in meetings with the agency. 

• Increased engagement and participation by 

agency staff

Respondents generally felt that consultation improved 

as the level of engagement among agency staff with 

the tribe increased. For example, respondents who had 

experienced consultations involving a district manager or 

forest supervisor indicated stronger levels of consultation. 

Several respondents mentioned that increased engagement 

and participation by agency staff generally had resulted in 

stronger consultation. 

“Consultations have gone beyond formal 

protocol. Agency staff is actively participating 

in regional planning... [tribal staff] are 

members of a steering committee, which 

provides decision recommendations to the state 

director. On the ground, they have almost 

weekly interaction with the district manager 

and field staff.... The MOU between the agency 

and the tribe describes a relationship of sharing 

information. For the most part, that works 

pretty well with the agency.”

Another respondent suggested that when tribal staff 

and agency staff interact frequently, consultation becomes 

an effective ongoing process. Staff interaction can become 

an effective means of ongoing consultation with managers 

up to the state and regional levels. 

In general, interviewees who stated that federal policies 

on consultation are adequate described strong relationships 

with the agencies, good communication processes, and 

established protocols. Specifically, these respondents 

indicated that notification or communication early in the 

project design phase that continued throughout planning 

and implementation is clearly different from general 

notification after project design has been completed and the 

agency is only seeking comments on proposed activities. 

“They are adequate because of the 

relationships that exist between the tribal and 

federal governments. When the agency consults 

with the tribe, the agency provides the tribe 

with advance information about projects and 

activities.”

Barriers to successful consultation 

Several of the tribes interviewed offered comments about 

how consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan has been 

inadequate. In general, respondents who indicated that 

consultation has been inadequate claimed that, although 

federal agencies often provided general notifications, they 

did not contact the tribe for formal consultation and did not 

have policies in place to ensure that formal consultation 

would take place. 

• Staff Turnover

Numerous respondents described staff turnover as one of 

the biggest contributors to inadequate consultation. 

“They run into trouble when there is agency 

staff turnover and someone new comes who 

is not familiar with the MOU or the existing 

relationship with tribe and agency. Sometimes 

it is a challenge to bring them up to speed.” 

One tribe noted that, over time, relationships can improve, 

but only if there is a long-term commitment and transitions 

during staff turnover. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 15

“Because the agency doesn’t do anything on 

reservation lands, and since the tribe has 

[treaty] rights, they are involved with more comanagement activities. The relationship hasn’t 

always worked well but it has improved. They 

are constantly doing education work with the 

agency and that has gone a long ways in helping 

the relationships. However, not everyone 

is trained. This is problematic when people 

leave and there is staff turnover. It is always a 

struggle to educate people about the tribe.”

• Notification vs. Consultation

Some respondents stated that the only form of 

communication they had had with the federal agencies 

was general notification about proposed actions rather than 

formal consultation. 

“The tribe is aware that theoretical 

consultation protocols are in place, but the tribe 

does not have formal consultation... The tribe 

receives notices in the mail – not sure if that 

counts as consultation.”

Several tribes suggested that perhaps the agency did not 

have a full understanding of consultation and how it differs 

from communication with nontribal governments, including 

states, counties, and municipalities.

• Consulting with all relevant tribal leadership 

and staff

One tribe stated that because agencies met only with tribal 

technical staff, formal consultation with the tribe did not 

occur. 

“[Consultation is] totally inadequate. The 

agency is only meeting with technical staff, 

and that does not meet the requirement of 

consultation.”

Another respondent suggested that the opposite was also a 

problem.

“...because if the agencies are addressing 

issues and only notifying the tribal 

administrator, it’s not adequate. It needs to go 

to natural resources staff to engage those that 

will be working on the issue.”

• Lack of Policies and Formal Protocols

A number of respondents attributed weaker government-togovernment relationships to a lack of formal protocols or 

policies. 

“[There are] no tribal policies in place for 

consultation; they basically rely on case law.” 

• Lack of Funding

Several respondents mentioned funding as a barrier. This 

included limited agency funding to support internal staff 

time or support for the tribes. It also included limited 

funding within the tribes to be responsive when asked for 

input by the agencies. 

“The weakness in the consultation process is 

funding. The government gives little funding to 

support staff to meet obligations of consultation. 

Federal funding has been cut drastically...”

• Lack of relevant issues to work on

Two of tribes stated that they have consultation protocols in 

place but are not consulted about the NWFP because they 

do not have fishing or hunting rights or ceded land within 

the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

“There is a general agreement to have an 

annual meeting between the agency and the 

tribe, which is designed to discuss joint issues, 

but there has not been one in two years. There 

is not a lot of consulting going on about the 

NWFP or other issues.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

16 — Oregon and Washington Report

Q.2. Use and Adequacy of Federal Policy 

Guidance

Sixty-four percent of interview respondents stated that they 

are aware of federal policy guidance for consultation at the 

federal level, and 54% indicated they felt those procedures 

are adequate to identify direct and indirect effects on tribal 

rights, interests, and to activities on tribal lands. In general, 

those interviewed stated that they were aware of executive 

orders on consultation at a federal level, and some indicated 

they have agreements with agencies that reflect those 

federal policies for consultation. 

“This is part of the MOU – it says that anytime 

activities occur in ceded territory or lands that 

are regularly used, there should be a formal 

consultation.” 

When asked to elaborate on the adequacy of the federal 

policy guidance, six respondents indicated concern 

about the federal procedures in place and the depth 

of understanding that agencies have about the federal 

responsibility for consultation. 

“The tribe is not totally comfortable with 

the process, and the process differs with the 

different forests.”

Of those who said federal policy guidance is not adequate, 

several indicated that the agencies are apt to follow the 

legal “letter of the law” by providing written notice about 

federal actions, but not to engage in a formal consultation or 

ensure that tribes have meaningful involvement in planning, 

implementation, or monitoring of that action. 

“There is a government-to-government 

requirement and the [tribe] receives written 

notice... In a perfect world, there would be 

better coordination.” And “The agency 

doesn’t have enough detail to identify direct 

and indirect effects. The agency does not 

consider the effects of their actions on adjacent 

properties. The tribe sometimes gets pulled in 

by individual staff members at the agencies, 

but it is not universal and it is not adequate for 

consultation.”

Q.3. Frequency of Consultation 

Seventy-three percent of those interviewed stated that they 

had been consulted in the last ten years. However, many 

of those who said they had been consulted indicated that 

the level of consultation had not necessarily been adequate 

and may have been only a notification of agency actions. 

To provide context, several tribes described the kinds of 

proposed actions about which they had been notified or 

consulted by federal agencies related to the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Agency proposed actions have included 

thinning, road decommissioning and road building, invasive 

species control, watershed analyses, endangered species 

protection, forest products, and a proposed mine in a ceded 

area.

• Frequent consultation

Among the respondents who indicated they had been 

consulted with in the past ten years, there was a wide range 

in terms of the frequency and adequacy of the consultation 

that had occurred within that time period. Many of those 

interviewed indicated that they had been consulted on a 

regular basis and that consultation had improved over time.

Interview Question Yes No

3.a. Over the past ten years, has the tribe been 

consulted on federal agency plans, projects, 

programs, or activities that might affect tribal 

rights or interests? 

73% 27%

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes

Don’t

Know

2.a Is the tribe aware that 

federal policy guidance 

is 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? 

64% 32% 4% 0%

2.b Are federal procedures 

adequate to identify direct 

and indirect effects to 

activities on tribal lands?

54% 23% - 23%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 17

“[The tribe is] consulted regularly – almost 

daily. The consultation process has increased 

in frequency and has been improved over the 

years. Consultation may be high because the 

tribe has lands in three counties.”

One tribe mentioned that consultation occurs on a projectby-project basis, and several tribes noted that consultations 

may occur more frequently with a particular agency than 

with others. 

“While the tribes have been recognized as 

a significant stakeholder by one agency, in 

the case of the other, more often than not, 

it’s as a ‘dear stakeholder’. Consultation 

is more than just a letter that goes out to a 

concerned citizen.”

• Use of formal protocols and MOUs

One tribe attributed more frequent consultation to the 

establishment of a memorandum of agreement. 

“Consultation is an ongoing process and has 

been under the MOA since its inception. The 

tribe and the agency are always talking.”

Other tribes noted that the frequency of consultation is based 

on the number of environmental or cultural issues at stake.

• Leadership and champions within the agency

A number of those interviewed mentioned that it is often 

because of an individual within the agency that there is 

regular and meaningful consultation. 

“There is one person dedicated on tribal staff 

to monitor agency activities that affect ceded 

lands and tribal lands. They always comment, 

especially on things that have to do with water 

and fisheries. Interactions happen weekly or 

monthly.”

Another respondent stated:

“It depends. Had a great relationship with the 

agency leadership and local staff - but many 

folks have been replaced and that has created a 

need to start the relationship over. But they try 

and have quarterly or more regular meetings.”

• Infrequent consultation.

For others, consultation was too infrequent or unpredictable 

to ensure that tribal rights and interests would be upheld. 

“Formal consultation on projects (different 

from notification) is infrequent. The tribes get 

written notification and a call for comments on 

things that tend to be quite small.”

• Consequences of infrequent consultation: 

Notification instead of Consultation

In numerous cases, interviewees indicated that the 

consultation that had occurred over the last ten years 

occurred only in the form of an opportunity to comment 

on agency action or notifications by letter from the agency 

about a specific agency action. 

“We are notified just like the general public. 

There is no special notification to the tribe. The 

tribe has not necessarily had any formal policy 

interaction or consultation, only consultation at 

the technical level.”

“The tribe heard that the agency’s form of 

communication is to include the tribe on a 

mailing list to present the agency’s periodic 

schedule of proposed work... The tribe is 

notified as part of a general notification system 

produced for the general public.”

Several respondents did note that, although the agency often 

sent letters to notify the tribe of actions, the tribe is not 

always able to respond because of limited funding and staff 

time. Another tribe noted that when agency staff is familiar 

with the tribe, there may be greater communication, but if 

staff turnover occurs, it may turn back to notification. 

“They tend to get a few notifications a year. 

When [agency staff] is stable they have good 

stretches of communication. It has been two 

years since the last notification.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

18 — Oregon and Washington Report

• Agency understanding of consultation

Throughout the survey, respondents commented that 

agency staff may sometimes lack an understanding of what 

consultation is. 

“The agency conceives consultation differently 

then the tribe does. The tribe often feels they 

are consulted the same as the public – maybe 

that accomplishes what the agencies have to do. 

They are notified more than consulted. However 

if there is an issue they are able to work it out 

when they bring their concerns forward. But 

initial consultation is lacking.”

“Consultation is not when the agency sits down 

and lays out the issues – that’s just sharing 

information but it wasn’t true consultation.”

Q.3. Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC)

More than half of those interviewed indicated that there 

are or have been provincial advisory committees (PAC) or 

other intergovernmental forums in the area and tribes have 

participated in these forums. 

Although more than half of those interviewed stated 

they had participated in or were aware of a PAC or 

intergovernmental forum in their area, many indicated that 

the PACs or forums had not met frequently, or it had been 

several years since the last meeting. Several indicated they 

weren’t sure if the PACs still existed, and one specifically 

stated that the PAC in his area had dissolved. 

“The PAC dissolved because there was a lack 

of participation by community stakeholders. It 

was difficult to recruit community stakeholders 

(other than tribes) and there was a feeling that 

the PAC had lost some of its relevancy.”

Another tribe stated that, “The tribe knew about 

PAC in the first and second year of NWFP 

implementation, but it was at that time that 

tribes decided not to fill three places on the 

PAC that would have represented twelve (or so) 

tribes. At that point, it went to government-togovernment consultation. Other tribes weren’t 

pushing for participation in the advisory 

committee.” 

Of the tribes that indicated that they have or still 

do participate in the PACs or other forums, at least five 

indicated that funding and available staff time limit their 

ability to engage in intergovernmental forums.

“They participate at the level they are able 

given time and funding limitations. Tribal 

staff needs to wear a lot of hats and funding 

has decreased. Even though consultation 

obligations are technically met, there isn’t 

enough capacity to make change.”

Another tribe stated that they send a delegate as time 

and staffing allow. One tribe indicated that a lack of tribal 

resources affected their ability to participate fully. 

“This [lack of participation] is an example of 

where the tribe is not taking advantage of the 

forum to the extent that they could.”

Provincial Advisory Committees Yes No Don’t

Know

N/A

3.c. Are there PACs or other 

intergovernmental forums in the 

area? 

59% 14% 23% 4%

3.d. Do tribes participate in these 

forums?

59% 32% 9%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 19

Tribal Information Yes No Sometimes

Don’t

Know N/A

4.a Has tribal information 

been incorporated 

into federal planning 

documents (including 

watershed analysis 

and decision-making 

processes) in a manner 

such that tribes 

can recognize their 

contributions? 

59% 10* 14% 9%

4.b. Did tribal 

contributions result in any 

changes to federal actions 

or considerations for 

resources of interest?

32% 36% 9% 14% 9%

Q.4. Use of Tribal Information

Almost 75% of those interviewed indicated that tribal 

information that has resulted from consultation efforts has, 

to some extent, been incorporated into planning documents. 

However, only 40% of those interviewed indicated that they 

felt their contributions had resulted in changes to federal 

actions or considerations for tribal resources of interest. 

• Consultation that results in consideration of 

tribal input and meaningful action

When asked how tribal contributions resulted in changes 

to federal actions, several respondents provided examples 

of consultation processes that had resulted in meaningful 

incorporation of tribal issues and ideas. 

“While the tribes’ input may not have 

“changed” the results, the tribe does feel their 

input led to further investigation and caused 

the federal government to look at resources 

differently (i.e. taking into account their cultural 

significance).”

One respondent noted that the extent to which tribal 

contributions are considered has improved over time. 

“Tribal contributions are now being considered, 

but they were not initially. When the NWFP 

was first developed, the tribe presented a list of 

issues that were not incorporated into NWFP at 

all. But relations have greatly improved.”

• Failure to include tribal input - examples and 

consequences

There were, however, examples in which tribal information 

had not been gleaned or incorporated through the 

consultation process. Furthermore, some of these examples 

had resulted in weaker government-to-government 

relationships.

“The tribe feels like they are going through the 

motions. The agency listens to concerns but 

doesn’t consider them in implementation.”

“The tribe had a lengthy and frustrating 

process trying to get reconsideration on the 

sale of a property with a registered cultural 

site on it. Throughout this process, it has been 

difficult finding what person to deal with in this 

process.” 

One tribe provided an example of how a lack of 

consideration for tribal input had resulted in a lawsuit from 

the tribe against the federal agency. 

“[Tribal information was incorporated] when 

we sued them. The tribe pleaded with the 

agency to help come up with way to deal with 

problem, but the agency ignored the tribe, 

which led to a lawsuit. The agency settled 

out of court with the tribe. This was followed 

by a period of the agency paying attention to 

the tribe. Now the agency is understaffed and 

challenged by budget cuts. Tribal input has not 

been sought after in terms of NWFP and the 

tribe has not provided input.”

Two respondents specifically stated that, although their 

tribal input is considered, it is to a limited extent. 

“The tribe has not been as successful as 

they would like because they haven’t gotten 

everything they want incorporated in the federal 

management plan.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

20 — Oregon and Washington Report

Interview Question Yes No Don’t

Know

5) Have agencies consulted or 

collaborated with tribal governments 

to develop plans for future monitoring, 

restoration, or assessment projects, or 

for other planning efforts?

64% 32% 4%

“Tribal input is considered to a limited extent. 

The tribes are frequently unsatisfied with the 

amount of weight given to their input.”

Of those interviewed, only four specifically stated that 

the tribe has been provided with the end result document 

and shown how tribal input has been incorporated. 

“The tribe was a part of the entire process 

and was given access to final documents and 

findings.”

One tribe reflected that, “When the agencies make 

a real effort they usually incorporate feedback. 

Information can help inform an acceptable 

project, but not change it. They have an MOU 

about consultation that involved the NWFP. In 

this case they had a stronger impact on end 

product.”

Others interviewed indicated that they are often 

provided with the end result, but it is not clear how tribal 

input has been addressed. Some tribes did not know 

whether their input had been incorporated and had not been 

provided an end product. 

“We have made comments about road 

decommissioning, but don’t really get followup activities, maybe a phone call. No trouble 

getting documents, but the tribe doesn’t see 

where their specific comments fit in.” 

Another tribe suggested that, “There is a feeling that 

obligations are met because they have listened 

to the tribe. But follow-through often doesn’t 

happen.”

Q.5. Use of tribal information in future 

efforts

Sixty-four percent of those interviewed stated that agencies 

have consulted with the tribes to develop plans for future 

monitoring, restoration, or assessment projects, or other 

planning efforts. In general, comments about the level of 

consultation that have occurred about future projects mirror 

findings about consultation above. Some tribes felt that the 

MOUs and protocols that were in place have led to good 

consultation about future projects. 

“Most everything the tribe is consulted on is 

about plans for the future. There isn’t anything 

in particular that they hope to be consulted on 

that the agency hasn’t consulted with them on.” 

“The MOU [the tribe and agency] is working 

on is about plans for future. The tribe wants 

to include the tribal public in prioritization 

process. The agency is supportive of finding 

out the priorities of the public and getting input 

from whole tribe.” 

• Desire for increased consultation

The frequency of consultation about future projects 

often depends on agency staff or leadership who have an 

interest in and commitment to working closely with the 

tribes. Numerous respondents indicated a strong desire for 

increased consultation on future projects and consultation 

that occurs at all levels of project identification, design, 

planning, implementation, and monitoring. 

“We want to be consulted on anything that 

affects ceded lands – both cultural and natural 

resources.”

“Broad scale conversations are needed for 

land management and watershed goals. ...there 

is no conversation about what lands the tribe 

considers to be important.”

• Areas of interest for consultation

Several tribes described the kind of projects they hope to 

be consulted on in the future. These included projects with 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 21

cultural and geographic importance to the tribe, as well 

as economic and natural resource issues the tribes hope to 

explore. 

“As a rule of thumb the tribe likes to be 

consulted on areas of high importance and 

where there has been historical occupation by 

the tribe.”

Specific areas of interest mentioned by respondents 

included forest and watershed restoration projects, 

stewardship contracting, biomass utilization projects, 

climate change, and road management plans. 

Summary of Key Findings: Consultation 

Process and Protocols

Other Barriers to Consultation 

• The capacity and knowledge for agency staff 

to consult with tribes is critical to successful 

consultation. Consultation cannot rely on an 

individual agency staff person who has an interest in 

working with the tribe. Frequent turnover of agency 

staff can affect relationships and stable, long-term 

consultation with the tribes. 

• When a request for consultation from the agency to 

the tribe does not come from agency leadership, it 

may not reach the decision makers within the tribe. 

Consulting with tribes in future efforts

• Tribes want to be consulted by the agencies in 

all aspects of future agency actions, including 

the identification of actual projects, planning, 

implementation, and monitoring. 

• MOUs/MOAs can provide a venue for identifying 

types of projects on which to consult with tribes.

Access to and Protection of Tribal 

Resources and Interests

Part of the monitoring effort is intended to evaluate whether 

access to and protection of tribal resources and interests on 

federal land have increased for tribes under the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The following section examines these issues. 

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes N/A Don’t

Know

6) Have the exercise of 

tribal rights or access to 

resources and/or areas of 

tribal interest on federal 

lands changed? 

45% 36% 5% 5% 9%

Q.6. Exercise of tribal rights and access to 

resources

More than 45% of tribes interviewed suggested that the 

exercise of tribal rights or access to resources and/or areas 

of tribal interest on federal lands had changed under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. 

• Increased access to traditional resources, 

forest areas, and improved resource 

management

Thirty-six percent of respondents indicated that their tribe 

had not experienced changes in rights or access to resources 

since the establishment of the Northwest Forest Plan. Of 

the 45% of respondents who have seen changes, only two 

respondents suggested that the change had been for the better. 

One tribe indicated that within the context of the NWFP, 

access to cedar had increased. The other tribe stated that the: 

“NWFP laid groundwork for change. ...better 

access, direct participation in the decision 

making and things that benefit resources such 

as improvements to wildlife habitat, better 

access to hunting areas.”

• Decreased access and effects on tribal 

rights and interests

Those interviewed provided numerous examples of how 

tribal rights had been negatively affected, or how access 

to resources had decreased under the Northwest Forest 

Plan. One respondent noted that environmental restrictions 

had resulted in an absence of land management in some 

instances, increasing the risk of wildfire in some areas of 

interest to the tribes. 

“Treaty resources are being placed at risk 

because the lands are not being managed and 

make them susceptible to fire.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

22 — Oregon and Washington Report

The economic impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan 

resonated with several of the tribes interviewed. The 

limitations on timber harvests under the NWFP affected 

some tribes. A related impact, noted by several respondents, 

has been the increased demand on tribal staff to gain access 

to cultural resources because of the permitting processes. 

“The tribe has to get permits, vehicle tags for 

road access -- these changes have hindered the 

tribe’s ability to pursue tribal interests on trust 

lands... [Permits] hinder tribal access.” 

Three tribes specifically mentioned that access to cedar 

logs had become more difficult due to restrictions in the 

NWFP. 

“Access to cedar bark has become more difficult 

because of the limitation and abundance of 

required consultation for any federal action.” 

One tribe noted that it had taken time and legal fees to 

address the limitations on access to cultural resources. 

“The tribe is now familiar enough with the 

NWFP – so they don’t often try to push limits on 

resources. They learned a lesson and now avoid 

and circumvent the issues. Those less familiar 

could be running into more trouble [trying to 

access resources.]”

Other limits on access and tribal interests identified 

during the interviews included the following:

• reduced access to huckleberry fields; berry 

picking

• reduced access to brush gathering, bark 

stripping, nontimber forest products, and other 

cultural resources

• fewer hunting and fishing rights

• closing of roads and trails; road abandonment

• less access for elders at the level they have 

experienced in the past

One respondent described the impact of broad-based 

national policy on local issues. He claimed that national 

policies may not reflect the difference between treaty tribes 

and nontreaty tribes, thereby affecting tribal rights. 

Q.7. Protection and use of tribal 

information and cultural resources in 

management plans

Almost two-thirds of respondents felt that procedures have 

been put into place to protect sensitive tribal information 

from unauthorized access or release. Fifty-five percent 

indicated that tribal knowledge had been incorporated into 

management plans, and 59% were aware of procedures in 

place to protect cultural sites on federal land. These findings 

suggest that the agencies are at least somewhat active in 

protecting sensitive information and cultural resources on 

federal land and utilizing tribal knowledge in management 

planning. At least four of those interviewed stated that the 

cultural resources personnel for the tribe would be better 

equipped to respond to these three questions.

“This [protection of rights and access to 

resources] has improved greatly over time.” 

• Lack of acknowledgment and demonstration 

of incorporating traditional knowledge

In response to questions about the use of traditional 

knowledge in developing management actions, several 

respondents suggested that although the tribe has provided 

information related to management actions, it is not clear 

Protection and use of tribal

information and cultural

resources in management

planning

Yes No Don’t

Know

7.a Is the tribe aware of 

procedures that have been put into 

place to protect sensitive tribal 

information from unauthorized 

access or release?

68% 27% 5%

7.b Is the tribe aware of 

procedures that have been put in 

place to provide incorporation of 

tribal traditional knowledge into 

the development of management 

actions?

55% 41% 4%

7.c Is the tribe aware of 

procedures that have been put 

in place to provide protection of 

cultural sites on federal land?

59% 23% 18%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 23

how the information is utilized. One respondent stated that 

it would be more effective if the tribe could be involved at 

the “front-end.” 

Several respondents mentioned the challenges within 

the federal agencies that affected fully utilizing tribal 

information and protecting tribal rights, interests, and 

access. 

“...sometimes traditional knowledge is still not 

always incorporated or considered as fully as it 

could be. They don’t have funding for a cultural 

resource expert – so it falls on natural resource 

staff [within the agency] to understand the 

protection of cultural sites.” 

Others recognized that there are often champions with 

the agencies working to protect tribal rights and interests, 

but staff turnover can affect the long-term protection of 

those rights. 

“Local agencies are becoming more aware of 

the needs for protection. [The tribe] is getting 

better protection than they have had in the past. 

We have long term relationships that result in 

protection, but if there is staff turnover, there is 

no policy in place to ensure that the protection 

would be maintained.”

One tribe stated that protection of rights and resources 

and use of information was less than adequate. 

“There is no established relationship, nobody 

from the [agency] doing government to 

government consultation.” 

• Uncertainty about the protection of cultural 

resources

There was a level of uncertainty about the protocols used 

(or even whether protocols exist) to ensure that tribal 

information and cultural resources will be protected or that 

tribal knowledge would be utilized in management plans. 

“The tribe is not familiar with formal 

procedures – but we know they do protect 

things.”

 Another tribe stated, “The agency has been good 

about protecting sensitive information. Not 

totally sure about policies to incorporate tribal 

knowledge into projects, but the agency tries. 

There are a number of laws about protecting 

cultural sites on federal lands. But there are 

discrepancies about what is considered federal. 

The tribe has a broader definition of culturally 

important sites.” 

Another tribe mentioned the concerns the tribe 

continues to have about the protection of sensitive sites 

after the sale of federal lands; what protocols are in place to 

ensure tribal rights and access to resources on federal land 

if it is sold?

Q.8. Conflicts over the use or management 

of resources 

More than half of the respondents suggested that they do 

not have conflicts with federal agencies over the use or 

management of resources or areas of tribal interest.

• Management practices restricted by NWFP 

land designations

A common source of conflict, cited by at least six tribes 

interviewed, was the conflict that arises due to the 

restrictive nature of land allocations and limited access to 

resources under the NWFP. Tribes may want to see one 

kind of management practice (such as prescribed burning 

to promote bear grass) but restrictions (such as a late 

successional reserve designation) may limit their access or 

ability to implement such an action. 

“The imposition of the Northwest Forest Plan 

is thought about in the context of the tribal 

land, being able to access its own resources. 

More than half of the tribal forest is locked 

up in riparian reserves. Cultural resources 

Interview Questions Yes No Don’t

Know

8) Are there conflicts over the use 

or management of resources or 

areas of tribal interest? 

36% 55% 9%
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

24 — Oregon and Washington Report

folks have tried to encourage certain types 

of management that is limited by the land use 

allocation that culturally important plants exist 

in –they may be a riparian associated species, 

making them off-limits due to the aquatic 

conservation strategy.” 

• Administrative barriers

“When the tribe wants to gather roots or barks 

or berries, the federal land owners want to 

develop agreements before the gathering takes 

place. However, the agency doesn’t do a good 

job deciphering between the general public and 

the tribe. Drafts going back and forth. Nothing 

moves forward. The agency doesn’t want certain 

plants removed, so there is a conflict.”

• Persisting conflict due to federal land 

management practices 

Persisting conflict due to federal land management practices 

such as historic watershed management practices (legacy of 

roads and harvesting practices in the 1970s and 1980s) and 

continued timber harvest. 

• Increased stress on tribal land and tribal 

resources on public land

A common concern mentioned in the interviews was the 

stress on tribal land due to increased access by nontribal 

hunters, gathers (seeking access to huckleberries or other 

nontraditional forest products) and recreationalists, as well 

as trespassers (such as mushroom pickers). 

“Huckleberry fields are a primary source of 

conflict. The federal government is actually on 

[the tribe’s] side, but there are so many people 

harvesting the berries. This [issue in part] led 

to the Non-Timber Forest Products Act. One 

source of conflict is that commercial pickers 

often pick before the berries are ripe, but the 

tribe can’t pick until the berries are ripe, so 

there are often not many left for the tribe.”

• Decreased conflict due to NWFP resource 

management practices

Three respondents stated that although there is not conflict 

over resource management practices under the NWFP, there 

is conflict over other management and resource issues, 

including water rights and exercising traditional practices 

on federal land. 

One respondent suggested that, given the significant 

conflict in the 1970s and 1980s related to logging practices, 

current management practices focused on restoration 

and thinning have resulted in less conflict and improved 

habitat for wildlife. Several others agreed that the decline 

in conflict can be attributed to a decrease in timber harvest 

and federal action. 

• Lack of process or protocol for conflict 

resolution and staff turnover

One tribe mentioned that conflict can arise from lack 

of formal consultation and transparency in how tribal 

information is utilized in decision making. 

“[Tribal information was not incorporated] at 

policy level; sometimes at staff level. ...there 

have been disagreements, it has been difficult 

to see eye-to-eye, and [tribal] comments are 

often not addressed. The disconcerting thing is 

that [the tribe] never received a response [from 

the agency]. There isn’t a formal process at the 

policy level for dealing with disagreements.” 

From a process perspective, those interviewed 

suggested that the sources of conflict include poor 

consultation and a lack of written procedures as well as 

inadequate protection of tribal rights. An additional source 

of conflict mentioned was change in agency leadership and 

a lack of understanding and ideas by agency leadership. 

• Decreased conflict due to consultation and 

conflict resolution protocols, relationships

Two tribes suggested that although there is still conflict, 

it has diminished over time, and better processes are in 

place to address conflict and deal with the staff turnover. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 25

One tribe noted that given the reduced conflict since the 

establishment of the NWFP, the tribe is now interested in 

trying to do more projects without conflict. 

“There is good rapport with FS regarding how 

to address the issues.”

When asked if conflict resolution processes are 

adequate, several respondents suggested that strategies 

and relationships were in place with the federal agencies to 

ensure that conflicts could be resolved. 

“[Inadequate conflict resolution] goes to the fact 

that there is a lack of formal consultation and 

relationship.” 

Three tribes specifically mentioned having a formal 

protocol, such as an MOU, in place to resolve conflicts. One 

tribe also mentioned having a strong, collaborative, working 

relationship. 

“[The tribe and agency] have an MOU in place 

to help resolve conflict if problems arise. There 

haven’t been any major disagreements and 

one of the reasons is due to working together 

on a watershed analyses – this has helped the 

relationship tremendously.”

Two tribes mentioned National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and appeals as mechanisms for resolving 

conflict. However, as part of their statements, they both 

indicated that NEPA and appeals are not necessarily 

desirable forms of conflict resolution, and suggested that 

alternatives, such as formal consultations and MOUs, 

would be better. One tribe specifically suggested that if 

consultation happened earlier in the process, there might be 

fewer conflicts. Another mentioned that having a facilitator 

or an objective third party would help to resolve future 

conflicts. 

Q.9. Treaty Rights

Respondents were asked if their tribe exercised treaty 

rights, other rights, or pursued tribal interests associated 

with national forests and BLM public lands and resources. 

Two tribes specifically stated that they are not treaty tribes 

and therefore have no treaty rights or recognized treaty 

rights. In describing the treaty rights most relevant to the 

NWFP, the majority of responses were related to access to 

cultural and traditional resources – especially minor forest 

products and medicinal plants. Six tribes indicated that 

hunting, fishing, wildlife, and gathering (including berries 

and other food sources, whole trees, medicinal plants, and 

other vegetative materials, and firewood) were among the 

most important treaty rights in relationship to the NWFP. 

• Limited ability to access resources 

protected by treaty rights

When asked how treaty rights have been affected by 

the NWFP, three tribes specifically stated that access to 

resources protected by treaty rights had been limited under 

the NWFP. 

“Road closures diminish treaty rights by 

limiting abilities to conduct activities.”

Another tribe commented, “There have been significant 

losses of the land base for decades and now 

there is a pretty meager land base that the tribe 

has for exercising treaty rights.” 

One tribe commented that illegal harvesting that 

has occurred since the establishment of the NWFP has 

depleted resources used for traditional uses and a lack of 

enforcement has led to severe consequences in the depletion 

of these tribal resources. One respondent focused on the 

steps his tribe has taken under the NWFP to assert tribal 

rights and interests. 

“[The tribe] has a deep interest in management 

– they push themselves into decision making 

processes and practice all treaty rights on 

agency lands. They do have members that 

exercise their rights on ceded lands.”

“The tribe is recognized as a co-manager [of 

resources] and the [agency] knows that they 

have that status. But the [tribe] is having 

difficulty in other areas – such as accessing 

forest products on federal lands or exercising 

gathering rights.” 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

26 — Oregon and Washington Report

Q.10. Federal Forest Management 

Compatibility with Tribal Values

Almost half of the tribes interviewed suggested that federal 

forest management practices are compatible with tribal 

values. Examples given included the following:

– current practices of thinning, watershed restoration, 

and road decommissioning 

– management practices for multiple uses and values

– very low-impact logging regime

– values and priorities within the Northwest Forest 

Plan (e.g., protection of ponderosa pine)

– shift to ecosystem management and less extractivebased practices

– recovering endangered fish species

– managing for forest health and species diversity

– fostering healthy forests and healthy aquatic systems 

(and fish stocks)

When asked for examples of forest management 

activities within the context of the NWFP that align with 

tribal values, one tribe described management practices in a 

particular national forest that includes tribal ancestral lands. 

“There is a road use plan and closures in 

certain areas with late successional reserves. 

The [agency] has instituted the practice of 

having some forest set aside and dedicated to 

growing older forest, water quality and stream 

quality reserves. These practices are all in line 

with tribal values.”

Consultation regarding land management 

improves opportunities for cooperation, 

partnerships, and accessing resources

One respondent suggested that as compatibility between 

tribal and federal agency management practices grows, 

there will be increased opportunities for partnerships. 

Another noted that as compatibility in management 

practices increased, there was more opportunity for the 

tribe to access cultural resources. 

“It is important to keep forestlands healthy and 

provide resources for hunting and gathering. 

The [agency] has slowed down [on timber 

harvests] and the lands are much healthier now. 

In the past, the majority of cedar was harvested. 

The tribe wants more cedar available for totem 

poles, carving canoes, long house, etc. Most of 

those trees are gone – but now the [tribe and 

agency] are planning for future resources.”

Several tribes suggested that although the tribes and 

agencies may have common values, the agency still needs to 

consult with the tribe and make a clear distinction between 

the tribe and the general public. 

“[Agency] forest management fits in within 

[tribal] requirements, but the tribe finds 

themselves lumped in with public. But tribes 

aren’t the same as the public; there is a greater 

chance for conflict. If activities are compatible 

with public activities, the federal government 

cooperates.”

One tribe suggested that there are significant benefits 

of federal-tribal partnerships for resource stewardship. The 

person interviewed maintained that strong partnerships 

can result in a cultural shift at the agency level. To avoid 

actions, including land sales and mineral leases that make 

documented cultural sites vulnerable and discount decades 

of environmental restoration efforts by tribes and others, 

federal agencies and tribes need to establish meaningful 

communication and trust. Both are integral components of 

consultation and functional working relationships. Specific 

recommendations included: 

• Avoid land sales or leases that compromise the 

agency’s mission and in so doing reduce habitat 

protection, support for communities, and public 

benefit of land once stewarded. 

• Avoid land losses that impact entire basins. Forest 

habitat loss at the headwaters, for example, may 

impact land hundreds of miles away; and a mining 

site could taint drinking water for major cities 

downstream. 

• Develop more fiscally sustainable approaches to 

agency administration and land management. 

Partnering can help forward land stewardship and 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 27

bring in funding streams to allow the agency to 

continue working to fulfill its mission as opposed to 

actions that compromise its mission.

• Partnering tribes can bring needed expertise the 

agency may have lost in past funding cuts. In 

Washington State, for example, the tribes now 

employ more than thirty percent of scientists in the 

field. 

• Partnering tribes can bring needed funds to 

management activities.

• Need for intercultural dialogue

One tribe noted that although there may be some broad 

compatibility in management practices, tribes still carry 

their own distinct values that should be respected in 

management planning. One agency may manage in ways 

that are consistent with a tribe’s values that people are part 

of creation and natural resources are used for survival and 

prosperity. 

“:[The tribe] has their own intrinsic [principles] 

worthy of conservation by their own rights and 

their own inherent values.” 

One example given that relates to how agency 

management practices do not align with tribal values 

includes traditional, heavy timber harvests, although the 

respondent noted that this happens much less now. When 

asked for examples of forest management practices that 

have not reflected tribal values, one tribe suggested that the 

agency focus on commercial harvest is not conducive to 

maintaining tribal resources.

“The NWFP has increased awareness of 

treaty resources and the need to consider 

them. The [agency] has made an effort to meet 

tribal needs and consider tribal rights. This 

has gotten easier as the old guard retires and 

new staff comes in and are more conservation 

minded. Forest management can be good 

for treaty resources too. Road management, 

conservation-minded timber harvests and 

protecting riparian areas are all in line with 

tribal value.”

“The NWFP has included other interests such 

as the needs of wildlife. Previously the agencies 

were focused on timber harvest. The new 

approach is to have sections that deal with 

water and fish and wildlife. Because of that, 

the [agency] plans include more tribal values in 

their management activities. “

• Administrative barriers

Another respondent noted that the agency may hold values 

that are similar to those of the tribe, but can’t carry out 

compatible management practices because of budget 

cuts or requirements under the NWFP. Furthermore, 

external organizations may limit the opportunity for a 

certain practice to be implemented (e.g., an environmental 

organization may stop an action through an appeal.) 

“Society and environmental groups may just 

want to let things go and let Mother Nature 

manage them. But that hinders the tribes’ ability 

to exercise their rights. Catastrophic fire or 

disease means we can’t manage the lands the 

way we want to.”

Key Findings: Access to Resources and 

Tribal Rights and Interests

Access to cultural resources and tribal rights and 

interests

• The restrictions within the NWFP have resulted 

in inadequate access to cultural resources and 

tribal rights and interests for many of the tribes 

interviewed in this study.

Land allocations within the NWFP and access to 

land/resources

• Restrictions/Limitations

○ Inadequate protection of tribal rights 

○ Staff level conflicts

○ Road decommissioning

○ Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

28 — Oregon and Washington Report

○ Land management restrictions (e.g., 

prescribed burning in Late Successional 

Reserve (LSR))

• Land/resource access (what’s working and 

what’s not working) 

○ Water and timber resources

○ Cultural resources

○ Hunting

Protection of tribal resources and information and 

use of tribal knowledge

• Incorporation of tribal information and 

traditional knowledge into existing and future 

plans

○ Tribal information incorporated in and 

shaping plans, decisions, and actions

• How well do agencies’ plans and 

decisions reflect tribal values and 

needs?

○ Traditional knowledge incorporated into 

project plans

• Protection of sensitive tribal information

• Protection of cultural sites and tribal resources 

and interests

Federal agency forest management compatibility 

with tribal values

• Compatibility 

○ Examples/Values: 

• Common interests = partnership 

opportunities

• Improved management of natural 

and cultural resources

• Access to treaty resources

• Incompatibility 

○ Examples: Road decommissioning 

(diminishes treaty rights by limiting ability 

to conduct cultural activities and gather 

foods, fibers, and medicines)

Q.11. How can federal-tribal relationships 

be strengthened?

The survey asked respondents to provide suggestions to 

strengthen the federal-tribal relationship. 

• Utilize MOUs and more formal protocols to 

strengthen consultation.

In their recommendations to strengthen the tribal-federal 

relationship, four respondents specifically mentioned the 

need to develop MOUs, MOAs, or formal protocols between 

the tribes and federal agencies. 

“Creating or revitalizing instruments like an 

MOA will memorialize the relationship and be 

of great value to tribes and land management 

agencies.”

One tribe specifically suggested that formal protocols 

should include strategies for dealing with staff turnover, one 

of the primary reasons given for weaker government-togovernment relationships. 

“Write formal protocols for consultation [that 

address staff turnover] and get the training to 

make it work.”

Another tribe mentioned that MOUs would help ensure 

that federal agencies would meet their responsibility to 

identify and protect cultural resources 

• Qualities of a successful government-togovernment relationship

A number of respondents also described the tribal 

perspective on the qualities of and strategies for a successful 

government-to-government relationship. Other strategies 

included ongoing opportunities for collaboration and 

transparent communication, including regular meetings 

to talk about relevant issues and to check-in more broadly 

about consultation. Tribes also described the need for 

forward thinking and proactive agency staff with an interest 

in tribal views. 

“...open and straight forward communication 

has created a lot of trust. That has been the 

greatest asset in being able to offer input into 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 29

the federal agencies’ planning process. The 

development of trust and friendship has been 

paramount in their ability to do that.” 

“Keep encouraging the agency to have meetings 

and consultations. Consultations need to be 

more interactive. The tribal staff needs to brief 

the tribal council so communication with staff 

is necessary. The Forest Service needs to go 

through channels or talk staff-to-staff. And 

there has been greater recognition of this. 

There had traditionally been less collaboration 

around the NWFP – so continue to increase 

collaboration and cooperation. These 

relationships need to be nurtured.”

• Funding

In various parts of the interviews, several respondents noted 

that funding limits the ability of the tribes to fully engage 

in consultation with the agency. One tribe even noted that 

the agency requested consultation with the tribe more 

frequently than the tribe was able to engage. 

“The lack money and resources hinder 

the relationships. There is a need for more 

continuity. There are staffing issues with high 

turnover that affect communication. It comes 

down to people and understanding each 

other’s unique positions and a need for more 

cooperation.”

Respondents also noted that diminished funding for 

agency staff limits their ability to consult with tribes. 

“The government needs to provide more 

funding and staffing abilities. That is the 

biggest hindrance. It is tough to get a good 

end-result because they are coming in with 

diminished capabilities.”

• Staff Turnover

As in the initial monitoring that took place for the period 

between 1994 and 2003, numerous tribes interviewed stated 

that staff turnover is one of the biggest barriers to a federal 

tribal relationship. They suggested that memorandum 

of understandings or formal protocols could include 

mechanisms for training new staff and ensuring a smooth 

transition. One tribe suggested that training on tribal issues 

should be a requirement in job descriptions. 

“Due to the constant turnover of personnel, 

an ongoing training program would be really 

helpful and would strengthen the trust.” 

Another tribe suggested that stronger relationships with 

agency tribal liaisons might result in more continuity with 

all levels of government. 

“We need better function from tribal liaisons. 

They need to facilitate access to the correct 

staff. The liaisons need to engage the Tribe in 

outreach, they have never called us. The liaison 

must help with process building for the agency 

and the tribe, this has not happened.”

• Levels of consultation and contact with 

tribal leadership and technical staff

Several tribes mentioned the need for federal agency staff 

to consult with all levels of tribal government to strengthen 

the federal-tribal relationship. One respondent suggested 

that a way to accomplish this would be to strike the right 

balance when it comes to meeting with tribal council and 

policymakers, as well as tribal technical staff. This would 

ensure that the “letter-of-the-law” was being met through 

consultation with the highest level of tribal leadership, 

while still taking advantage of the knowledge among tribal 

technical staff. 

“A key theme that has come up numerous times 

is the need for the federal land management 

agencies to consult at the highest levels with 

the tribes. This means the forest supervisor, 

district manager and tribal liaisons engage 

in consultation, not just line officers or 

technicians.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

30 — Oregon and Washington Report

• Levels of consultation with agency 

leadership

“Having access to the top is important to the 

tribal federal relationship.”

Several respondents noted that when agency 

representatives consult with the tribe, the tribe expects the 

highest level of agency leadership, including the district 

manager or forest supervisor to engage in consultation. 

“Get the agency to understand who a tribe is 

and how they should interact with them. We are 

a federally recognized tribe with a treaty. Come 

in the door at the very highest level before they 

get started – not after or when they are done.”

“I think that by the tribal it would behoove the 

FS and BLM at the district manager or forest 

supervisory level to the resource area manger 

or forest range, become more familiar with 

the government to government relationship. 

Tribes are not just other stakeholders. There is 

a higher level of consultation required by the 

federal government.”

• Regular communication and personal 

contact.

More than half of the tribes interviewed described a 

strong federal-tribal relationship as one that recognized 

and followed formal protocols, but also included informal 

communication, personal contact, and sustained interest 

in working with the tribe by the federal agency. One tribe 

suggested that the most effective way to strengthen the 

government-to-government relationship would be for the 

federal agencies to simply engage and ask the tribe how 

well tribal interests and rights were being met. 

“Let’s just embrace it. Embrace us and ask 

the tribe what should be happening within the 

federal properties to fulfill reserved treaty 

rights – is the agency fulfilling tribal needs for 

huckleberries, animals, etc.?” 

Another stated, “Address issues at the start, 

consultations have been a work in progress, and 

although they have improved over time there 

is stillroom for improvement. Asking for input 

earlier would be helpful and would improve 

communication.”

• PACs

Throughout the interviews, those tribes that had experience 

with PACs continued to state their value and reflect on the 

important purpose they served in strengthening federaltribal relationships. 

“PACs have been beneficial because they 

create better communication opportunities 

with agencies. PACs also create cooperation 

opportunities.”

 “The PACs really provide an excellent forum 

for folks to be aware of issues and concerns, 

and there is a requirement for consultations. 

And it provided a forum to get message 

across. But PACs are being dissolved, and reestablishing forums would be great.”

• Develop clear monitoring strategies to 

ensure follow-through with consultation 

Although monitoring was a specific element of the 

interview guide, very few tribes interviewed were able to 

provide examples of any mechanisms in place to monitor 

how well the agencies are consulting with tribes or the 

results of consultation. 

“We need a mechanism to follow through with 

consultation.”

Several tribes stated that mechanisms must be in place 

to ensure that agencies follow through with consultation. 

These mechanisms could be established through MOUs and 

formal protocols. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 31

IV. Case Studies

As part of the effort to monitor government-to-government 

relationships under the Northwest Forest Plan, this report 

includes five case studies that expand on the information 

and findings from the tribal-monitoring interviews. There 

is a need to hear from tribes about their experience and 

perspectives on how their rights and interests have been 

affected during plan implementation. The case studies 

explore in more detail the types of consultation processes 

that have occurred under the Northwest Forest Plan, the 

barriers and limitations to consultation, the successes 

and lessons learned to inform policy development and 

implementation. 

Case studies can assist tribes and agencies in 

understanding local conditions and the outcomes from a 

given process, such as NWFP implementation. They can 

also provide best practices from which others may learn or 

replicate in their communities or among their agencies. The 

five case studies featured in this report are:

1.	 Coquille Indian Tribe. Consultation process: 

communication, relationships, and trust

2.	 Quileute Indian Tribe. Consultation 

challenges: supporting staff transitions and 

developing common understanding of treaty 

reserved rights

3.	 Quinault Indian Nation. Consultation and 

Northwest Forest Plan outcomes: effects on 

natural resource management, revenue, and 

access to cultural resources

4.	 Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. Consultation 

outcomes: developing consultation beyond 

project notifications to find balance between 

resource protection, forest management, and 

tribal access

5.	 Formalizing Consultation Protocols. 

Providing the foundation for consultation 

and long-term, cooperative government-togovernment relationships
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

32 — Oregon and Washington Report

Case Study #1: Coquille Indian Tribe 

• the Tribe’s experience with the Northwest Forest 

Plan and other land management activities; and 

• relevant tribal policy, local conditions, 

existing relationships, procedures, and unique 

approaches to consultation. 

Background 

Pre- Northwest Forest Plan

Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and before 

the creation of the Coquille Forest, personal relationships 

and compelling need drove consultation. This occurred 

through one-on-one interactions and depended on existing 

relationships among tribal and agency staff, which in some 

instances had been adversarial.

Northwest Forest Plan 1994-2003

The Northwest Forest Plan brought more opportunities for 

the tribe to ask questions through public involvement and 

to speak up and demand to be a part of the conversation. It 

also imposed management guidelines on the Tribe via the 

Coquille Forest legislation. The Coquille Forest is the only 

Indian forest managed under the Northwest Forest Plan.11

In the beginning, tribal staff sat in on watershed 

analysis meetings to ask questions and provide 

information.12 The Tribe also participated in meetings of 

the Southwest Oregon Provincial Advisory Committee, or 

PAC.13 The Coquille Tribe had an interest in participating 

in the local PAC because of its statutory requirement to 

manage the Coquille Forest in lockstep with the BLM. The 

Tribe found participation in the PAC beneficial. Frequent 

meetings provided opportunity to key into management 

directions, discuss impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan, 

and provide feedback to federal agencies. PAC meetings 

11Younker, Jason T. 2003. “Coquille/Kˉo ́kwell, A Southern Oregon Coast 

Indian Tribe: Revisiting History, Ingenuity, and Identity,” diss. (Eugene, 

OR: University of Oregon, Department of Anthropology, 2003), 61-63 

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=764820931&Fmt=6&clientId=11238

&RQT=309&VName=PQD

12Federal agencies were required to develop watershed analyses of 

implementing projects under the NWFP.

13As part of an interagency requirement to engage community 

stakeholders, the NWFP also established regional Provincial Advisory 

Committees (PACs)

Consultation process: communication, 

relationships and trust

Introduction

The Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 created the 

Coquille Forest (Section 501, Title V), an area of roughly 

5,000 acres within the historic territory of the Coquille 

Indian Tribe (the Tribe). It also initiated a relationship 

between the Coquille Tribe and the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Coos Bay District, which manages 

the lands adjacent to the Coquille Forest. The legislation 

instructs that the tribe manages the Coquille Forest “... 

under applicable forestry laws and in a manner consistent 

with the standards and guidelines of federal forest plans on 

adjacent lands.”9 Out of necessity, to be able to go about 

conducting tribal business, the Coquille Tribe initiated 

conversations with the BLM Coos Bay District. “This 

[statute] places a unique trust responsibility on the BLM 

that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the country. When the 

BLM chooses a management direction, it affects Tribal 

management.”10 Since 1996, the Tribe and the BLM have 

worked together and developed a productive relationship. 

Moving from formal, structured consultation to an 

informal, free-flowing dialogue, they have built trust and 

now support each other in seeking win-win situations.

Purpose of the case study

The Tribe’s historical experience, its assertiveness and 

interest in working collaboratively with public agencies, and 

particularly with the BLM Coos Bay District after passage 

of the Coquille Forest legislation, illustrate best practices 

for consultation. The Coquille Tribe’s experiences with 

consultation related to the land management guidelines 

of the Northwest Forest Plan offer insights from which 

other tribes may learn and draw to strengthen their own 

consultation processes. The following sections focus on: 

• consultation between the BLM Coos Bay 

District and the Coquille Indian Tribe; 

9

 The Library of Congress, Senate Report 104-314 – Oregon Resource 

Conservation Act of 1996

10Coquille Indian Tribe
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 33

also provided a forum for the Tribe to develop relationships 

with the Coos Bay BLM district manager and other federal 

land management line officers. 

Northwest Forest Plan 2004-present

In 2004, technical, political, and legal factors converged 

with strained relationships and led to a shift in Northwest 

Forest Plan implementation. Agencies began looking for 

opportunities to move forward and implement projects. 

Budget cuts and declining participation from Provincial 

Advisory Committee (PAC) members led Bureau of Land 

Management and US Forest Service (USFS) managers 

within southwest Oregon to determine that the PAC had 

served its purpose and it would be best to let the Charter 

expire. At that point, only the Coquille Tribe, federal 

agencies, and a few recreational groups participated 

in the local PAC. With the southwest Oregon PAC, the 

decision was made to dissolve a number of PACs in other 

provinces. At the same time, the Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee (IAC), the regional counterpart to the 

PACs, was also dissolved. For several years, the Coquille 

tribal forest manager had provided representation for the 

Intertribal Timber Council on the IAC. 

Tribal and Federal Policy

• Coquille Restoration Act of 1989: restored 

Coquille Indian Tribe as a federally 

recognized tribe.

• Oregon Resources Conservation Act of 

1996–Title V--Coquille Tribal Forest:

designated approximately 5,000 acres of 

forestlands in Coos County, Oregon as the 

Coquille Forest.

• Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004:

established a process for tribes to work with 

federal agencies to reduce wildfire risk and 

improve forest health across jurisdictional 

boundaries.

Changes to Consultation under the NWFP

The dissolution of the Plan’s formal interagency 

communication structure and changes in Plan 

implementation affected communication between the 

Coquille Tribe and federal land managers, including the 

BLM Coos Bay District. Instead of meeting on a regular 

basis with agency supervisors and others in the forums 

provided by the PAC and IAC, the Tribe began to engage on 

an issue-by-issue basis, reviewing projects individually and 

providing input. Tribal staff began to participate on Level 

One and Level Two teams with agency biologists from the 

BLM, Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to review project plans on an individual 

basis and assess potential effects to fish, wildlife, and 

endangered species.14 These changes in communication - 

from a regular interagency discussion to individual project 

review - could have negatively affected collaboration and 

14Streamlining guidance under the Northwest Forest Plan, Section 7—

Consultation, led to the creation of Level One and Level Two assessment 

teams.

The Coquille Tribe has worked to develop relationships 

and agreements with several federal agencies in 

Southwestern Oregon.

• MOU with BLM Coos Bay District to 

coordinate management of public lands (1997).

• Cooperative Right-of-Way and Land-use 

Agreement with BLM and BIA (1999). 

• MOA with U.S. Forest Service Powers Ranger 

District for notices on projects of interest; 

and generalized agreements about access to 

traditional resources. 

• MOA with Federal Highways that recognizes 

the Tribe’s interest in federal highways projects 

and, with other interested parties, will be 

notified on all instances that may affect the 

Tribe.

Each agreement functions differently, depending on the 

level of business the two entities are conducting with 

each other, and the relations created through working 

together.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

34 — Oregon and Washington Report

consultation. With a focus on fish and wildlife habitat and 

endangered species and no regular discussion about ongoing 

and future projects, tribal interests could have been left out 

of project plans. 

However, at this point, the Tribe and BLM had a 

consultation protocol in place and a concrete relationship. 

The Tribe also recognized the importance of maintaining 

an involvement during project design, when they could 

determine if consultation was necessary. Through 

consultation, the Tribe can learn about, review, and provide 

input on BLM projects. Therefore, the Coquille Tribe has 

made it a priority to communicate with the BLM Coos Bay 

District from project design through implementation and 

monitoring, and the BLM district manager has reciprocated.

During the past three years, consultation has moved 

from a more structured, formal process to an informal, 

ongoing dialogue. “Relations have built enough so that 

it’s much easier to discuss issues, and it doesn’t even 

seem like consultation.”15 The BLM district manager 

views consultation as a dialogue between parties in 

which information is shared and discussed for the mutual 

benefit of all parties; he recognizes the importance of 

personality styles. Openness, honesty, and sincerity are 

important in developing and sustaining consultation. Tribal 

staff notes that the BLM district manager is interested 

in communicating and finding win-win situations; and 

the BLM district manager notes, “Tribal staff has a style 

about them that is easy to engage.” The BLM sees value in 

working with the Tribe and will continue to consult with the 

Tribe even without the NWFP.

Accomplishments

Recently, the Tribe participated on a steering committee for 

the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). The committee 

consisted of six district managers and a representative for 

the Tribe. It made recommendations to the BLM State 

Director. The Tribe was the only nonfederal party with 

an official place at the decision table during the WOPR 

development process. As a result of this involvement, the 

final WOPR Record of Decision contained provisions that 

15BLM Coos Bay District Manager

represent the Tribe’s interests. The process and opportunity 

to be involved with the steering committee made it possible 

for the Tribe to know what is at stake and changes that may 

occur. “It was better to be there, and provide input and 

express concerns and needs rather than to be sitting on the 

sidelines and not be aware of the plan.”16

As a result of building relationships and trust over the 

years, the Tribe is now experiencing better consultation 

from the BLM , which is actively inviting the Tribe into 

the planning process. “It’s not because of the NWFP, 

it’s because of the people implementing the projects and 

their willingness to sit down at a table with us and talk 

about it.”17 For the first time, the BLM invited the Tribe 

to work on a plan revision at the beginning of the design 

phase, which makes it possible for the Tribe to advocate for 

protection of trust resources. 

The Coquille Tribe now engages in co-management 

with the BLM. The Tribe has a say on actions that occur on 

federal lands that affect tribal lands. “We are leveraging 

our values, our trust interests, and putting them into the 

BLM management plan.” The Coquille Indian Tribe is 

not a treaty tribe and depends on relationships and trust 

(relational) to advance its influence over managing the 

resources that are important to the Tribe: clear air, clean 

water, values, and traditional and cultural properties.

Through the Coquille Tribe’s efforts to provide 

education on trust responsibilities and communicate with 

the BLM, agency staff now has an understanding and an 

appreciation of cultural values. For example, the BLM staff 

is aware of where important resources exist in the forest and 

takes the time to talk about them with Tribal staff. Now, the 

BLM looks to the Tribe to provide important information 

on cultural resources to be incorporated into management 

decisions. “It’s within the scope of the work [BLM staff] 

do to acknowledge resources important to the Tribe, 

incorporate them, and talk about them. Because those are 

resources the agency holds in trust. That the BLM looks to 

the tribe as a resource is a remarkable difference between 

the Coquille Tribe and other tribes.”

16Coquille Indian Tribe

17Coquille Indian Tribe
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 35

A planned BLM timber sale on a parcel with land 

adjacent to the Coquille Forest illustrates improvements in 

consultation. Through planning with the Tribe, the BLM 

became aware of the Tribe’s strong interest and traditional 

use concerns in an area of meadow being encroached by 

trees because of fire suppression, and in another area on 

BLM land associated with the timber sale. The Tribe shared 

with the BLM information about traditional bear grass uses 

in the two areas. As a result, the BLM was able to protect 

and enhance the traditional meadow area and enter into a 

small agreement regarding the other area on BLM land so 

that the Tribe could manage and enhance the area for the 

BLM. In discussions of one timber sale with the tribe, the 

BLM became aware of two traditional use areas and learned 

about what is important to the Tribe in those areas. The 

BLM notes, “If we went in on our own, we would have done 

our own thing and impacted both areas in a negative way.”

Challenges

Trust Responsibilities

For a nontreaty tribe, federal agency trust responsibility 

can be elusive because it is based on quantifiable land and 

resources. For the Coquille Tribe, the Northwest Forest Plan 

did not contribute to protecting trust resources. It was the 

Coquille Forest Legislation that brought recognition of trust 

responsibilities. Trust responsibilities were acknowledged 

and grew out of the relationships the Tribe developed 

with federal agencies once the Coquille Forest Legislation 

designated forestlands for the Tribe. Only in the last six 

years was the trust responsibility refined. Both parties 

are now able to take advantage of the relationship that 

has grown out of the recognition of trust responsibility to 

forward individual and mutual interests.

Land Management

The approach of the Northwest Forest Plan can conflict with 

a traditional ecological approach. The Coquille Tribe notes 

that the NWFP initially identified one species of importance 

and then added a few more; however, the approach to 

protection was to draw lines or boundaries and create 

reserves. 

“The traditional ecological knowledge 

approach would dictate more involvement with 

those (important) resources in managing for 

those resources as opposed to drawing lines. 

We’re going to be involved with those resources 

and have a place in managing them.” 

The Northwest Forest Plan reserve system limits 

managing for important resources, and the Northwest 

Forest Plan doesn’t really allow for managing for cultural 

resources. 

“We got lucky on a bear grass area in 

traditional matrix lands, but if it had been in 

riparian reserve or LSR we wouldn’t have been 

so lucky.”

Tribal Monitoring

Through its staff’s participation on the Western Oregon 

Plan Revision (WOPR), however, the Tribe noticed that 

the plan revision failed to incorporate tribal monitoring as 

it exists under the Northwest Forest Plan. Without tribal 

monitoring, actions under the WOPR on 2.8 million acres 

of BLM lands could impact tribal relations and resources of 

interest. Although local relationships are now strong, unless 

tribal monitoring is incorporated into the plan revision 

there is no guarantee for the future that government-togovernment consultation and protection of tribal interests 

will continue. Although the WOPR did not address tribal 

monitoring at the state level, it is the intent of the Coquille 

Tribe to address tribal monitoring at the local level through 

its cooperative relationship with the Coos Bay District. 

Lessons Learned

Assertiveness and a Willingness to Engage Help 

Move Consultation Forward

As a restored tribe, the Coquille Tribe approaches land 

management planning with federal agencies and other 

situations with a fresh outlook. The Coquille Tribe doesn’t 

have the more adversarial history with federal agencies that 

some other tribes have. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

36 — Oregon and Washington Report

“Those factors have allowed us to be more 

inquisitive and have given us more time to 

deliberate, think about our options and take 

more time before acting. They have given us the 

opportunity to build more relationships.”

Although the Coquille Tribe is ready to stand up for 

itself, it recognizes the need for a less adversarial approach. 

“However, therein lies our ability to be 

assertive, we want to figure out what’s going 

on. We’ve been compelled to organize ourselves, 

and that’s given us advantage.”

In addition, as part of its historical experience as a 

tribe, the Coquille Tribe is known for its hospitality and for 

being accommodating.

How to sustain relationships between federal agencies 

and tribes is incumbent upon the leadership in the agency 

and the Tribe. 

“You can have all the paper and agreements, 

but really it boils down to the relationship.” 

“The other part is entirely incumbent on 

tribes – if we are not willing as tribal folks 

or tribal government to tell people why it’s 

important and project ourselves as a resource 

– if we’re not willing to assist federal officials 

in understanding the broader aspects of the 

federal trust responsibility and the value of 

the Tribe as a resource, things then rest on 

individual people relationships and may not be 

sustained when changes occur in leadership 

and staff positions.” 18

Building Relationships is Integral to Consultation

In addition to developing formal agreements, building 

relationships and communicating on a regular basis are 

integral to consultation. 

“I am aware of the MOU and commitment the 

BLM made to consulting with the tribe, but 

I haven’t looked at it in several years and it 

18Coquille Indian Tribe

doesn’t influence my day-to-day interactions 

with the tribe.” Agreements are one way to 

assist consultation. 

However, as one tribal staff member noted,

“It’s more about the personal commitment, 

philosophy and understanding of government 

responsibility to tribes. An agreement in and of 

itself is not going to make any difference.”19

The BLM notes it is important to engage in meaningful 

discussions with tribes, and it falls on the BLM to have an 

open and transparent style. However, the same is true for 

tribes. Closed-mindedness, bitterness, and lack of trust only 

hinder consultation. If these issues exist, both parties must 

commit to working through them together.

Federal Agency Staff Must Understand the 

Federal Tribal Trust Responsibility

It is critical for federal agencies to understand the 

trust responsibility. Agency understanding of the trust 

responsibility can result in successful consultation and 

co-management opportunities.

Tribes Offer Valuable Knowledge and Resources 

to Federal Land Planning 

Tribes have traditional and historical knowledge and 

experience that reflect why the environment and natural and 

cultural resources are important. They offer insight on the 

significance of discussing resources the value of the work to 

protect them. 

“Without the willingness we have to introduce 

those values, we would miss opportunities to 

perpetuate those values and miss opportunities 

to pause and appreciate those values of being 

human.”

By strengthening their relationships, agencies and 

tribes can find opportunities to collaborate. Currently, the 

Coquille Tribe is working on an experimental biomass 

project. The Tribe needed a place to store the biomass 

material before it could be transported for processing. 

19BLM Coos Bay District Manager
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 37

Because of ongoing communications, the BLM was able to 

create an agreement that involved permitting the Tribe to 

share the space in a road maintenance area that the BLM 

owns. In turn, the Tribe will do some needed repairs and 

site improvements and save the BLM money.

Address the Impact of Staff Turnover on 

Consultation 

Staff turnover in federal agencies can disrupt relationships, 

understanding, and trust that have developed over years 

of working together. Staff turnover can affect consultation 

considerably. Developing approaches to sustain continuity 

in relationships can help maintain consultation between 

tribes and federal agencies. Some approaches suggested by 

the Tribe, based on its experience with the BLM Coos Bay 

District are:

• creation of an agency staff mentorship program; 

• fostering smooth transitions of leadership in the 

agency when there is staff turnover; and 

• inclusion in line officers job descriptions, a 

requirement for knowledge of tribal relations. 

Formal agreements are important. For example, the 

MOU with the Coquille Tribe provides new agency and 

tribal staff with background information on consultation 

with the Tribe and a good starting point. However, the 

BLM must educate its own managers and staff about the 

government’s obligations. Staff must understand it is a part 

of how the agency does business. The BLM also notes that 

it might be useful when a new manager comes in if the 

previous manager accompanies that person and introduces 

him to the tribal council. This would help the previous 

manager to bridge the relationship and introduce past and 

ongoing commitments.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

38 — Oregon and Washington Report

Case Study #2: Quileute Indian Tribe

The changing interpretation of the law regarding 

treaty-reserved rights has impacted land management plans 

and policies and relationships among tribes in Washington 

State and federal land management agencies. When the 

law is interpreted narrowly, focusing only on specific 

species, or when public land is converted to private, the 

tribe’s continuing property rights are compromised and 

its interests are vulnerable. Consultation can play a role in 

building common understanding among federal agencies 

and tribes regarding rights and interests. However, open 

communication, education, and long-term relationships that 

go beyond formal consultation are critical.

The following case describes the Quileute Tribe’s 

experience with consultation under the Northwest Forest 

Plan and more generally with other federal agencies. 

The Tribe’s experience provides insight on challenges to 

consultation that can arise during staff transitions and 

barriers to accessing cultural resources that arose under 

the NWFP land designations. The case concludes with 

suggestions, based on conversations with tribal and federal 

agency staff, for sustaining relationships through staff 

transitions and improving consultation through thoughtful 

and transparent processes. 

Consultation under the NWFP

In 2000, the Quileute Tribe developed a formal consultation 

memo of understanding (MOU) with the Olympic National 

Forest (ONF). The MOU, currently in its second term 

Consultation challenges: supporting staff 

transitions and developing common understanding 

of treaty reserved rights

Introduction

The Quileute Tribe, located on the Olympic Peninsula 

in Washington State, has a population of about 800 

people and a total land area of approximately 1,000 

acres.20 In addition to its current land base, the Tribe 

retains rights to natural resources on lands and in 

waters ceded to the U.S. government.21 Like other 

tribes in Washington State, who signed treaties in 

1855 and 1856 with Isaac Stevens, the Quileute has 

the reserved right to natural resources on surrounding 

lands now managed by the federal government, and 

from usual and accustomed places, including those 

now in private ownership. In other terms, the Tribe has 

continuing property rights and continuing jurisdiction, 

also known as overlapping jurisdictional rule.

Over the years since the treaties were enacted, the 

interpretation of reserved rights to natural resources 

has changed, and continues to change. The Quileute 

staff recalls in 1974 the interpretation recognized 

only salmon and steelhead fishing. It wasn’t until the 

mid-1980s and ‘90s that the interpretation expanded 

to include other resources. A U.S.9th Circuit Court 

decision in 1998 (157 F3 630) regarding shellfish, 

known as the Rafeedie decision (after Judge Edward 

Rafeedie), helped expand the interpretation and clarify 

that tribes are entitled to all marine fishery resources 

regardless of whether they are actively harvesting 

them, and extend treaty rights beyond salmonids.22

This case illustrates that the courts will interpret 

treaties broadly to recognize that tribes do not use only 

a few specific resources from land or water and should 

be entitled to broad access to the resources today.

20Quileute Tribe staff

21Treaty of Olympia of 1855, http://www.quileutenation.org/index.

cfm?page=treaty_of _olympia.html.

22US v Washington, 157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. – 1998), culminating a series of 

district court cases and appeals. 

Quileute Indian Reservation Boundary, Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington State. Image: Quileute Indian Tribe.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 39

(2005-2009), acknowledges the Tribe’s right to hunt, fish, 

and gather within the ceded lands outlined in the Treaty of 

Olympia of 1855. The MOU’s purpose is to provide: 

“A. a mutually beneficial process for the ONF 

and the Tribe to jointly identify, communicate, 

and coordinate actions of common concern 

relating to the management of natural resources 

and tribal culture (including but not limited 

to lands, waters, fish, wildlife, vegetation and 

firewood) tribal practices, and archaeological 

or anthropological remains; and 

B. a mechanism for continuing involvement in 

the development and revision of land and water 

management plans.”23

The MOU describes procedures for project 

coordination, including notification and review procedures; 

and cooperative opportunities, including cultural resource 

management and information development. It states that 

environmental planning will involve the Tribe at the 

earliest point practicable and “before [plans] have reached 

the stage of a published proposed rule in the Federal 

Register,”24 and it states the Tribe and ONF will meet 

annually to discuss the MOU terms and other matters of 

mutual interest. ONF staff note also that the MOU is an 

important resource for staff transitions.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175,25 before 

public scoping and any internal process, the Forest Service 

sends the Tribe a letter for comments regarding proposed 

plans and a time frame. Also, in accordance with EO 13175, 

the Forest Service district ranger meets with the Tribe’s 

director of natural resources quarterly. Additional Forest 

Service and Tribal staff also attend these meetings. Quileute 

Tribe staff members describe the quarterly meetings as an 

opportunity to learn about ONF activities and new Federal 

23Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Quileute Indian 

Tribe and USDA Forest Service Olympic National Forest for Coordination 

on Resource Management Issues. 2004. 

24MOU between Quileute Indian Tribe and USDA Forest Service Olympic 

National Forest – see 3

25Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments. November 6, 2000.

Register regulations to develop meaningful comments. 

Olympic National Forest staff members describe the 

meetings as an opportunity to discuss upcoming projects 

and accomplish some of the objectives of government-togovernment consultation. The meetings may also serve as a 

venue to introduce new district rangers. 

The Olympic National Forest has experienced a 

large turnover in district rangers in the recent past, some 

lasting just a few months and others lasting several years. 

During times of staff transition within the agency, the 

Quileute Tribe has experienced lulls in communication, 

quarterly meetings, and varying levels and understandings 

of consultation. Sometimes, transition has led to a need 

to redevelop relationships and common understanding of 

treaty reserved rights. As a result, staff transitions have 

hindered progress in building relationships, addressing 

conflicts, and improving protection for resources of interest. 

The Olympic National Forest works with at least 

thirteen Indian tribes; the Quileute Tribe works with at 

least ten federal agencies and ten state agencies regarding 

project planning and policy implementation. For new staff, 

developing and managing relationships with sovereign 

nations and public and private stakeholders during planning, 

project implementation, and monitoring pose significant 

learning curves.

To assist staff transitions, the Quileute Tribe has 

developed presentations to educate new district rangers 

and other federal and state agency staff about treaty rights, 

intercultural dialogue, and the subtleties of government-togovernment relationships. To better assist staff transitions, 

the Tribe wonders how it may work with federal agencies 

to prepare for staff transitions and what federal agencies 

can do to plan for and support staff transitions to maintain 

relationships and progress between the Tribe and agencies.

Northwest Forest Plan

Staff transition within the Olympic National Forest has 

affected communication regarding the Northwest Forest 

Plan status, including which elements are still operative 

and which are inoperative. The Plan has recently undergone 

numerous changes that have directly impacted the Quileute 

Tribe. The Tribe’s experience with the NWFP includes 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

40 — Oregon and Washington Report

working on a watershed analysis with the Forest Service, 

developing restoration projects through the Jobs in the 

Woods program, participating as a tribal representative on 

the Interagency Advisory Council (IAC) in the 1990s, and 

attending meetings of the Olympic Provincial Advisory 

Committee (OPAC). 

Several years ago, funding for the Jobs in the Woods 

program ended; recently, the OPAC dissolved; before 

that, the IAC - the regional counterpart to the PACs - also 

dissolved. These changes weakened communication 

among stakeholders and governments and management of 

resources of concern within the forest.

Jobs in the Woods

Through the Jobs in the Woods program, established 

in 1994 under the Northwest Economic Adjustment 

Initiative,26 the Quileute Tribe had the opportunity to 

compete with other tribes for funding to support restoration 

projects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) received 

funding through the program to distribute to tribes after 

ranking proposed projects, based on criteria established 

through watershed analyses. The Quileute Tribe received 

funding every year (~1997-2005) for at least two projects. 

The funding provided through Jobs in the Woods enabled 

the Tribe to accomplish vital assessment and stream 

restoration projects, including culvert repairs, and develop 

26https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/3283

partnerships with local land owners. It also helped to train 

Tribal staff in technical stream restoration tasks. Quileute 

staff described the program’s end as 

“a huge loss that no other program has 

replaced. All animals’ and plants’ habitats in 

the forest will degrade again without programs 

to maintain habitat.”27

In addition to support for restoration projects, Quileute 

Tribe staff members noted that the NWFP incorporated 

important support for rural communities, ecosystems, and 

treaty rights. The Northwest Forest Plan recognized the 

need for local assistance and provided funding mechanisms 

for local-level entities to deal with the economic 

displacement that followed timber harvest reductions. 

Compared to management goals during the 1980s, the 

Northwest Forest Plan also encompassed a wider range of 

values, and, as a result, people are now acknowledging the 

value of an intact, functioning, forest ecosystem.

Tribal Monitoring

The inclusion of a section on treaty rights in the NWFP 

Record of Decision provided opportunity for tribes 

and federal agencies to have dialogue and strengthen 

understanding and protection of treaty rights. Quileute 

Tribe and Olympic National Forest staff members did begin 

a dialogue; however, it has yet to fully come to fruition. 

Staff members’ transitions within the ONF and within local 

law enforcement have affected the dialogue and progress 

in achieving common understanding regarding treatyreserved rights. In addition, reduced funding to support 

dialogues between agency and Tribal staff members limited 

its success. Quileute staff members noted the decline in 

funding resources available to the ONF following the 

decline in timber harvests after NWFP implementation had 

impacted the Forest Service’s capacity to build relationships 

with the Tribe. 

27Currently, the Jobs in the Woods program is an unfunded mandate of 

the NWFP.

Treating invasive knotweed along Calawah River. Image: Quileute 

Indian Tribe.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 41

Interagency Advisory Council

During the 1990s, Quileute staff participated on the 

Interagency Advisory Council (IAC) for the NWFP. Tribal 

staff served on the IAC for a number of years, attending 

quarterly meetings and representing the issues NW tribes 

faced under the NWFP. The IAC was active in making 

NWFP policy recommendations regionally and nationally. 

The recommendations reflected an interpretation of treatyreserved rights based on discussions of the IAC and its 

members. However, at this regional level, interpretations of 

treaty-reserved rights differed from local interpretations; 

a lack of communication between the regional office 

and local federal agency offices made it difficult for 

policy recommendations made at the regional level to be 

implemented at the local level.28 Quileute staff suggested 

that increased participation or opportunity for input by 

local federal agency staff at the regional level, or increased 

dialogue between regional staff and local staff could 

improve future policy recommendations and the resulting 

implementation.

Provincial Advisory Council 

Quileute staff related that the Olympic Provincial Advisory 

Council (OPAC), which dissolved about a year ago, had 

originally been set up for stakeholders with an interest 

in the Olympic National Forest to learn about proposed 

policies and projects. Tribal staff maintained that they felt 

like token participants in the process. Now, without the 

OPAC meetings, Tribal staff members say they are losing 

their stakeholder foot in the door. In addition to lulls in 

communication that result from staff turnovers, the loss of 

OPAC meetings has further reduced opportunities for the 

Tribe to learn about agency-proposed policies and projects 

and provide input and comments. Sometimes OPAC brought 

to the attention of its members issues that the tribes did not 

know about. OPAC meetings were the Tribe’s only access to 

actions of which the Tribe should have been aware and the 

option for consultation. Without venues for dialogue, such 

as the OPAC meetings, the Tribe was not able to provide 

feedback on how proposed regulations might affect their 

28Quileute Nation staff

work or their ability to access resources of interest in the 

forest. The Tribe loses understanding of how the Forest 

Service comes to project decisions.

Access to Resources

The Quileute Tribe and the Olympic National Forest have 

been able to work together and reach agreement regarding 

access to some resources, such as various traditional 

plants and firewood. However, agreement has not been 

reached about other resources such as cedar logs. ONF staff 

members noted that the Forest Service would like to provide 

the Tribe and other tribes in the area with cedar logs. 

However, several factors have limited the Forest Service’s 

ability.

• NWFP land designation - Late Successional 

Reserve (LSR) designation makes it more 

challenging to consider using standing trees.

• Limited staff capacity makes it difficult to 

locate potential trees in the forest.

• Habitat – Cedar trees provide habitat for 

threatened and endangered species.

• Cedar declines and theft – Some areas of the 

forest, including easy access areas along the 

road system, have had large losses of oldgrowth cedar. Much cedar theft has occurred 

along the road system.

• Conservative interpretation of the treaty 

language – The interpretation of reserved rights 

as access to specific resources from land and 

water instead of broad access, as acknowledged 

in the Refeedie decision described above has 

limited the ability of the Forest Service to 

provide cedar logs.

The Northwest Forest Plan land designations have also 

limited available habitat for elk and overall forest access. 

The LSR designation has decreased grazing habitat for elk; 

road decommissioning and gating for prophylactic reasons 

(vandals, garbage dumping, and theft) within LSR have 

decreased access to the forest. The Quileute Tribe and the 

Forest Service have had some success in addressing these 

two issues. The ONF worked with the Tribe to develop its 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

42 — Oregon and Washington Report

plan for road decommissioning, incorporating comments 

from the Tribe on specific roads the Tribe needed to access 

certain streams. In approximately 2007, the ONF worked 

with the Tribe to develop its strategic plan, incorporating 

feedback on the need for ungulate habitat. Since then it has 

worked with the Tribe on projects to develop elk habitat in 

the forest.

At the technical staff level, ONF and Tribal staff 

members noted that they have been able to work well 

together. However, at the policy level, relationships and 

communication have at times fallen short of what is needed 

to build trust and maintain relationships to fulfill the federal 

trust obligation and accomplish government-to-government 

consultation. Recommendations based on conversations 

with Tribal and federal agency staff for improving and 

sustaining consultation and relationships between Tribes 

and federal agencies follow. 

Lessons Learned

Educational opportunities are needed for federal 

agency staff members to learn about the federaltribal relationship. 

Over the course of agency staff transitions, pre- and postNWFP, the Quileute Tribe has experienced varying levels 

of open communication. At times Tribal staff members say 

they have been left with the impression that consultation 

is driven by individuals who understand the federal trust 

responsibility and work to build relationships. Consultation 

has been hindered by individuals who do not understand 

the relationship between federal agencies and tribes or 

who actively resist the relationship. ONF staff members 

maintain that opportunities to learn about the federal-tribal 

relationship and government-to-government consultation 

are lacking. New district rangers receive training on 

government-to-government consultation. However, line 

officers and acting rangers – individuals who fill in during 

staff transitions –receive no training.29

29This is not to imply that agency staff members have no experiential or 

learned knowledge regarding government-to-government relations. 

Hyas Creek stream restoration. Image: Olympic National Forest.

Stream restoration on Hyas Creek, tributary to the Sitkum River 

in the Quileute’s ceded area. The Forest Service and Quileute 

Tribe cooperated on this project, which involved placing trees, 

large woody debris, in Hyas Creek to improve fish habitat. Image: 

Olympic National Forest.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 43

ONF staff and Tribal staff agree that there is a 

need for more education. Without education, ONF staff 

members note a real missing link for understanding cultural 

concerns, issues, and values. Staff members try hard to stay 

connected, but training is needed to fully understand some 

cultural norms.

Opportunity exists for the Tribe and ONF to develop 

joint training and educational opportunities. The Tribe 

has developed several presentations to educate federal and 

state agency staff; and Tribal staff members say they are 

prepared to engage in interagency training that has been 

built into a new MOU between the National Park Service, 

the Quileute Tribe, and seven other Olympic Peninsula 

tribes. Joint training opportunities also offer a chance to 

improve communication among agency and tribal staff.

Additional educational opportunities can assist tribes to 

educate new agency staff about treaty- reserved rights and 

help new agency staff understand the language in an MOU 

about the federal-tribal relationship and the process required 

to fulfill government-to-government consultation. They can 

buffer staff transitions within the agency. 

Understanding and interpreting treaty-reserved rights 

have varied over time and among federal and state agencies. 

Although the law protects all resources, the Tribe has 

experienced difficulty accessing all resources. Tribal staff 

members suggest that a lack of understanding of federal 

Indian laws causes some of the problems. More frequent 

dialogue at the local, regional, and national level could 

clarify misunderstandings. Further court decisions could 

also help. 

A lack of training and misunderstanding of 

consultation lead to conflicts in developing and 

implementing projects. 

Tribal staff members maintain that they have 

experienced problems in implementing fisheries 

management activities within the ONF. They have been 

stopped, questioned and even blocked by new rangers and 

law enforcement officials from accessing streams in the 

forest. Consultation provides an opportunity to talk about 

such issues, learn from them, and discuss ways to avoid 

them in the future. 

Maps of usual and accustomed places and ceded 

lands would help federal agencies determine 

when proposed projects are in a tribe’s scope of 

interest.

ONF staff members noted that there are no good maps of 

tribes’ usual and accustomed places or ceded lands. Maps 

that show these areas would help agency staff determine 

when a particular project is within the scope of interest 

for a particular tribe. In the development of project plans, 

ONF staff members want to contact tribes about issues of 

importance to them and include all tribes with an interest in 

a particular project. However, agency staff members were 

unsure of the total scope of tribes’ interests in terms of 

locations and issues. 

Quarterly meetings may not be sufficient, 

particularly during staff transitions.

At times, regularly scheduled meetings have faltered 

during staff turnovers. More frequent meetings might 

maintain relationships and strengthen communication, 

particularly during personnel transitions. More frequent 

meetings might maintain an ongoing dialogue about plans, 

and address issues before full consultation is needed. ONF 

staff members recommended including in meetings an 

individual who could bridge staff transition. This would be 

someone from the agency or Tribe who had been involved 

in the past, was remaining in the area physically, and able 

to act as a bridge between new and old staff and maintain a 

link between the agency and the Tribe. During transitions, 

new staff members should meet with neighboring forest 

supervisors, district rangers, and the regional tribal liaison 

to learn about consultation and local issues. 

Consultation must be monitored and federal 

agencies and tribes must be held accountable. 

“Tribes can develop MOUs but they’re only as 

good as the people who are going to enforce 

them.”30 

30Quileute Nation staff
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

44 — Oregon and Washington Report

Staff transitions have had an impact on consultation 

between the Quileute Tribe and the ONF. To assist future 

transitions, mechanisms to monitor consultation and ensure 

accountability could help. Additional strategies include:

• When consultation happens, document the 

process through detailed note-taking. 

• Organize forums for agencies and tribes to 

jointly design the consultation process.

• Provide resources to ensure staff capacity for 

regular contact between tribes and federal 

agencies

• In accordance with EO 13175, ensure timely 

notice whenever tribes are impacted by agency 

action.

• Organize a process for the Forest Service 

and tribes to develop a set of policy 

recommendations for the new administration; 

an opportunity for a fresh start with doors open 

for tribes and willingness among agency staff to 

receive the recommendations once outlined.

Federal agencies and tribes need to develop 

and maintain a mutually agreed upon system for 

project planning. 

Quileute staff members noted the importance of agencies 

contacting the Tribe about project plans. The Tribe has 

developed an MOU with the ONF to help in project 

planning. Yet, inconsistencies in process have occurred 

between federal agencies and the Tribe. At times, the Tribe 

has learned about proposed plans or regulations through 

the Federal Register instead of from the acting agency. 

Tribal staff members related that once plans have been 

published in the Federal Register, influencing change is like 

moving a mountain and requires a lot of political clout – 

understandable because of the effort put forth by an agency 

to reach that stage. Yet, it illustrates that tribal input before 

the Register stage is critical. Without consistent contact 

from federal agencies, it is difficult for the Tribe to keep 

track of all the agencies and their proposed projects. 

Consultation must happen before federal agencies 

take action – during the planning stage. Currently, 

organizations, including the Columbia River Intertribal 

Fish Commission and the Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission, work to scan the Federal Register for 

projects, actions, and plans that may impact tribes because 

communication between federal agencies and tribes fails 

to cover all projects of interest to tribes. However, it is 

incumbent on the agency to notice the affected tribe(s) and 

establish pre-Register consultation for tribal input.

Improved consultation could alleviate the need for these 

agencies to monitor the Federal Register. However, for this 

to occur, consultation must be thorough, transparent, and 

mutually agreed upon. Even more critical, the agency must 

follow up on issues raised by the Tribe in the consultation, 

so that the consultation process is not reduced to lip service.

EPA Region 10: Consultation Framework and 

Guiding Principles

Region 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has spent considerable time and effort to develop 

a consultation framework and guiding principles for 

government-to-government consultation.31 In addition to 

the recommendations described above, these principles 

offer considerations for other federal agencies that wish to 

improve their consultation processes. Below are highlights 

of EPA Region 10’s consultation framework and additional 

consultation challenges the EPA Region 10 has identified in 

its current effort to revise its consultation framework.

EPA Region 10 staff emphasizes the importance of 

commitment to consultation. Staff suggests its approach 

can be successful because of the care put into setting up 

consultation, the respect during consultation, the process to 

address concerns and incorporate a tribe’s comments into 

project plans, and the deference given to tribal sovereignty.

EPA Region 10’s consultation framework includes 

procedures for thorough, inclusive, and transparent 

consultation, moving forward with regional issues 

(involving more than one tribe), and protecting tribal 

31EPA Region 10 – Consultation Framework – http://yosemite.epa.gov/

r10/tribal.NSF/34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/4e239b01fbabd5198

825694b00041cc5!OpenDocument
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 45

information. It describes processes for consultation that 

tribes request and consultation the EPA initiates.

Negotiating Consultation

EPA Region 10 staff describes the importance of 

negotiation before beginning consultation. For each 

consultation, the agency goal is to work with the tribe 

(or tribes) to determine where consultation will occur, 

who will be there, the expected outcomes, what the tribe 

hopes to achieve, and any other details that will ensure 

a transparent and mutually agreed upon process. EPA 

staff members note that tribes usually prefer face-to-face 

consultation involving the highest level agency staff 

person. Negotiation helps tribes to be supportive of the 

process because they can see how they will be involved 

in every step.

Identifying Consultation Priorities

The EPA Region 10 has begun a process to revise its 

consultation framework to improve consultation. EPA 

staff members note challenges in identifying tribes’ 

priorities for consultation, including and in addition to: 

village lands, reservations, Usual & Accustomed Areas 

and watersheds of interest. The EPA is working to find 

a better way to make sure tribes are receiving all of the 

information about their consulting interests. EPA Region 

10 staff notes the Forest Service is currently developing a 

database that offers potential for this purpose. 

When Consultation is Meaningful

EPA Region 10 staff describes another challenge in 

defining when consultation is meaningful.

“Sometimes even though we may all try 

our best, we’re constrained by statutes and 

regulations.” 

Sometimes, the EPA is constrained in its ability to 

alter proposed project plans because of existing rules and 

regulations. When this is the case, consultation can help 

to mitigate concerns. However, in the end, a tribe can be 

left feeling that consultation was not meaningful because 

the tribe’s concerns were not fully addressed. The 

challenge is to be creative and address tribal concerns 

within the constraints of law and regulation.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

46 — Oregon and Washington Report

Case Study #3: Quinault Indian Nation

Quinault Indian Reservation Act (P.L. 100-638)

From the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, Dahlstrom 

Lumber Co. v. Portland Area Director, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, 20 IBIA 143 (07/17/1991) 

The Quinault Indian Reservation was established 

on the Olympic Peninsula in western Washington 

by an Executive Order in November 1873. Parts of 

the area encompassed within the reservation were 

not surveyed until 1892. Because of an inaccuracy 

in the survey, approximately 15,000 acres along the 

northern boundary were improperly excluded from, the 

reservation. 

In 1897, President Grover T. Cleveland set aside a large 

tract of forest land adjacent to the reservation. This 

tract later became the Olympic National Forest. Part 

of the boundary for the forest tract was stated to be the

“North boundary of the Quinault Reservation.” Lands 

that should have been included within the reservation 

thus became part of the Olympic National Forest. 

The Olympic National Park was established by the 

Act of June 29, 1938. Part of the land for the park 

was taken from the Olympic National Forest and 

included acreage that should have been included in the 

reservation as established by the 1873 Executive Order. 

Public Law 100-638, 102 Stat. 3327 (P.L. 100-638), 

was enacted on November 8, 1988. P.L. 100-638 was 

intended primarily to provide a means through which 

the Quinault Indian Nation could begin to remedy some 

of the problems on the reservation that resulted from 

allotment and earlier surveying errors. 

Section 1 of P.L. 100-638 expanded the reservation by 

transferring approximately 11,905 acres of land from 

United States ownership with administration by USFS 

to United States ownership in trust for the Tribe with 

administration by the Department of the Interior. In 

addition, section 2 of the act (referred to as the Quinault 

Special Management Area) required USFS to continue 

to administer an additional 5,460 acres of land, but to 

transfer 45 percent of the income generated from those 

lands to the Secretary of the Interior to be transferred 

to the QIN. 

Consultation and Northwest Forest Plan 

outcomes: effects on natural resource 

management, revenue, and access to cultural 

resources

Introduction

The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) consists of the Quinault 

and Queets tribes and descendants of five other coastal 

tribes - Quileute, Hoh, Chehalis, Chinook, and Cowlitz 

-and is located on the southwestern corner of the Olympic 

Peninsula in Washington State. The Quinault Indian 

Reservation (QIR) includes twenty-three miles of Pacific 

coastline, and its boundaries enclose more than 208,150 

acres of conifer forest. These forests are composed of 

western red cedar, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, Douglasfir, Pacific silver fir and lodgepole pine-dominated upland 

sites, whereas extensive stands of hardwoods, such as red 

alder and Pacific cottonwood, can be found in the river 

valleys.32 In 2000, the tribal population was 1,37033, and in 

2001, tribal enrollment was 2,45434. Today, the QIN and its 

enterprises employ nearly 700 people, making it one of the 

largest employers in Grays Harbor County.35

This case study describes the Quinault Indian Nation’s 

experience with consultation with the USDA Forest Service 

and the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan on QIN natural 

resource management, revenue, and access to cultural 

resources.

Consultation under the NWFP

Members of the QIN and the Forest Service staff 

interviewed for this case study indicated that consultation 

under the Northwest Forest Plan has increased, as has 

agency awareness of cultural and trust resources. Whereas 

the QIN and agency staff indicated that both sides are 

working on the consultation process and the consultation 

32Quinault Indian Nation. http://209.206.175.157/. January 26, 2009

332000 Census

342001 BIA labor report

35Quinault Indian Nation. http://209.206.175.157/. January 26, 2009
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 47

relationship has improved significantly. Members of the 

QIN suggested that the executive orders now in place for 

consultation have resulted in more QIN and agency staff 

engaging in consultation. Specifically, members of the 

Nation suggested that the 1988 Quinault Indian Restoration 

Act (P.L. 100-638) has initiated more meaningful 

consultation.

 “Prior to the North Boundary Restoration in 

1988, there was no consultation. Afterwards, we 

began to have monthly or quarterly meetings.” 

QIN staff 

The QIN stated that the Forest Service does provide 

letters and notification for any action. However, the Nation 

often receives notifications at the same time as the general 

public. The Nation expressed concern that the Forest 

Service is still working internally to make decisions and put 

forward actions and not working directly with the Nation to 

develop plans and strategies. 

“The Nation– submitted our input for the 

Humptulips project, but never received any 

information on how it was received or used by 

the agency” QIN staff

Level of leadership

One of the biggest concerns among QIN natural resource 

staff interviewed for the case study was that, although 

local Forest Service staff members regularly consult and 

coordinate with the QIN, there is very little interaction 

with the Forest Supervisor. The Nation believes that formal 

consultation should begin with the Forest Supervisor - the 

highest level of leadership. 

“Tribes need to be engaged in the initial 

scoping process – not just when decisions have 

been made. When timber sales have already 

been designed, it’s too late. Can’t get any 

meaningful input at that level.” QIN staff

Tribal capacity and communication

One QIN member did indicate a recent instance when 

the Nation was able to provide input into a Forest Service 

action before the decision was made and the final product 

completed. However, there was a miscommunication 

with the Nation on when the request for input occurred. 

The Forest Service staff interviewed for this case study 

recognized that tribal workload might affect the Nation’s 

ability to respond to all agency notices. 

“If we write a letter describing the project and 

a time period for response, we don’t always 

receive a response from the tribe. If we make 

a phone call, we’re more likely to receive a 

response, but we really aim for a formal written 

response that the Forest Service can include 

in a project file. A formal response represents 

the interest of the entire tribe or nation instead 

of an individual. [I] Blame it on workload.” 

Olympic National Forest, USDA Forest Service 

staff

Turnover

The Nation did recognize that the local district has gone 

through downsizing, which led to more transition and lack 

of knowledge about consultation with the Nation. However, 

QIN members recognized that the local staff members 

who have been there for many years help ensure a better 

transition and more consistency with the consultation 

relationship.

“Just when you get a good relationship with 

the district ranger, he tends to leave. But the 

core staff has been there for decades and they 

have institutional knowledge that has kept the 

relationship going and brought the new district 

ranger up to speed.” QIN staff

Impacts and Access to Resources under 

the Northwest Forest Plan

Access to Cultural Resources

According to the QIN, the Northwest Forest Plan has 

not had an impact on cultural use, and the consultation 

relationship has strengthened access to some resources. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

48 — Oregon and Washington Report

Consultation with the Olympic National Forest (ONF) under 

the Northwest Forest Plan has resulted in some access to 

cedar. 

“[When] the Forest Service finds cedar blow 

down, they contact the tribe and give the tribe 

first right to take the cedar. The tribe has gone 

in to get as much as possible. The tribe has to 

be fairly aggressive because there is a high theft 

of cedar – if the tribe doesn’t act quickly the 

cedar thieves find it quickly.” QIN staff

The QIN attributes the ability to access cedar to a 

strong relationship with the local Forest Service staff. 

Cultural resources that QIN members use are still available 

on the reservation, and the Nation has experienced no 

significant issues under the NWFP regarding access to 

hunting and gathering. Individual tribal members may 

collect cultural resources on national forest system(NFS) 

lands without knowledge of the tribe or the USFS. They 

may have their own special spots they go to as a family. 

They understand balance and don’t take too much from 

a single area and spread their collecting around to it isn’t 

even noticed. Most of these resources are renewable each 

year and grow back when collected correctly. Most people 

interacting with such resources do such a good job that 

resource managers don’t see their impact or notice their 

presence. They don’t make a mess or leave any trace of their 

visit.

NWFP impacts to the Quinault Indian Nation 

timber economy

Reductions in timber harvests under the Northwest Forest 

Plan have directly affected access to opportunities for the 

QIN timber and individual jobs for tribal members. 

“Because the NWFP has reduced wood, it’s 

changed the local economy of how wood is 

moved and purchased. It has shifted it to the 

private sector. We’ve lost mills and communities 

have changed because the huge volume of 

resources has changed. The overall impact of 

the NWFP is that it has so dramatically reduced 

the annual harvest level.” QIN staff

One QIN staff member stated that it is critical for federal 

agencies to understand the impact and begin to use 

consultation to increase opportunities for restoration, jobs, 

and economic development. 

Quinault Special Management Area

The Quinault Special Management Area (QSMA) was 

intended to provide the Quinault Indian Nation with fortyfive percent of the income generated from management 

activities implemented by the Olympic National Forest 

in the QSMA.36 According to the QIN and ONF staff, 

the Northwest Forest Plan has had a direct impact on 

management of commercial timber and other resources in 

the QSMA and affected both the amount of revenue and 

timing of the dispersal of that revenue to the QIN. 

“The commercial thinning sales [in the QSMA] 

were directly impacted by the Survey and 

Manage direction in the NWFP. We were 

initially required to conduct field surveys for 

Survey and Manage species, and the QSMA 

turned out to be a hot bed for several Survey 

and Manage slugs, primarily the warty jumping 

slug. So many were found that it took several 

years to reach the point where we could proceed 

with the timber sales. ...I can say for sure that 

the timing of the sales was slowed.” Olympic 

National Forest, USDA Forest Service staff

Reductions in commercial timber harvests within the 

QSMA reduced the amount of revenue tha reached the 

Nation.

“What revenues do we really get? Maybe a 

few thousand when it was anticipated to be 

hundreds of thousands.” QIN staff

Quinault River Restoration Project

The Quinault Indian Nation initiated the Quinault River 

Restoration Project in 2007. The Quinault River Restoration 

Project aims to restore a regime of natural processes on 

the upper river through the use of engineered logjams 

36Public Law 100-638, 100th Congress
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 49

and floodplain reforestation to protect and restore critical 

spawning habitat for sockeye salmon. In one month 

following completion of the pilot project in October 2008, 

200 spawners were counted among the logjams.37

This Quinault River Restoration Project is among the 

most important habitat restoration projects to the Nation, 

according to those interviewed for this case study. The QIN 

is proposing a twenty -fifty-year habitat restoration project, 

which will include twenty years of initial construction (of 

the engineered logjams) and tree planting and another thirty 

years of adaptive management. To accomplish this effort, 

however, the Nation needs a long-term relationship with 

the Forest Service to access the material for the engineered 

logjams. For perspective, the initial pilot project, which 

resulted in thirteen engineered logjams, utilized 2,500 logs. 

The Nation is now estimating the number of logs needed 

for the twenty-year construction phase and projects that an 

additional 400 logjams could be needed, potentially well 

more than 75,000 logs.

The Nation feels that the Forest Service is unengaged 

and unsupportive of the project, primarily because the 

project is not on National Forest System land. However, the 

goal of the restoration effort is to re-establish stability to the 

meandering channels of the Upper Quinault River, which 

will accrue benefits to all stakeholders in the Quinault 

Valley, including the Forest Service. Effects of land use and 

development during the last century have reduced sockeyespawning habitat from an estimated nineteen miles to fewer 

than four miles. Once the floodplain has been stabilized 

and the channels re-established, prime habitat for salmon 

spawning will be restored. Although the project was done 

adjacent to USFS property, which had been lost to the river, 

it is now starting to be reclaimed as the river channel is 

being pushed back from national forest system lands and 

redepositing land once eroded away. Land survey laws 

along a river channel can take and then restore ownership, 

based on how the river moves. In this instance, the USFS 

appears to be in a position to regain many acres once lost to 

the river. As it relates to the Forest Service, the channels

37Wild Salmon Center (accessed February 2, 2009) http://www.

wildsalmoncenter.org/press/wsc_news_nov_08.php#logjam

could once again find themselves meandering through 

Forest Service boundaries.

“The Forest Service is a major player in the 

Quinault Valley – they have been for decades 

and they are still are a major entity in the 

Quinault Valley. From that perspective, we 

believe they ought to be engaged in this habitat 

restoration project. It is a significant issue for 

the Quinault Indian Nation – we are trying 

to save and protect a critical fish species to 

the Nation. We feel the Forest Service ought 

to be interested in what we are planning on 

doing. When you overlay that with their trust 

responsibility to be mindful of the interests of 

the QIN in the area, it is another reason they 

need to be involved.” QIN staff

According to those interviewed for the case study, the 

Nation tried to engage the Forest Supervisor and the Forest 

Service Leadership team, but was unable to schedule a 

meeting over a six-month period to present on the project. 

“The Nation engaged really well with the local 

district ranger and staff, but every time the 

ranger went to Olympia to meet with the Forest 

Service Supervisor, the leadership didn’t give it 

the attention that the QIN had expected.” 

The Nation feels that Forest Service engagement in 

the restoration initiative is critical. The Forest Service has 

the potential to lend significant credibility and press to this 

effort if they were to engage as a full partner.

“I would like to see the Forest Service engage 

as a partner in this. Even if they have a 

legitimate argument that the majority of the 

property is outside of FS boundaries, and 

they can’t do work on these lands because 

of legislative restrictions, that doesn’t mean 

that they can’t be a partner with us on the rest 

of the initiative. Send the message up their 

bureaucratic ladders that this is important to 

QIN and help us with public relations.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

50 — Oregon and Washington Report

Free Use Permits

One of the most significant reasons that the QIN needs 

Forest Service partnership on the project is to access 

material for the engineered logjams. The Forest Service is 

the only landowner remotely close to the Nation that can 

provide the amount of material needed for the restoration 

over the twenty-year time frame. 

The Nation can apply for a “Free Use Permit” as a 

cultural tribe and access $5,000 to $10,000 in material 

each year. In 2007 and 2008, the QIN applied for a $10,000 

permit and received only $5,000 permits each year. In 

December 2007, a big storm event resulted in a significant 

amount of blow down, which could have made it possible 

for the agency to provide a larger amount of material (and 

potentially a $10,000 free use permit.) However, the Nation 

was awarded only the $5000 permit. The road right of 

way material through the blow down was put up for sale 

and didn’t sell. This was given to the QIN for the value 

of the free use permit. The wood above and beyond the 

$5,000 value was then sold to the QIN for the stumpage 

rate established for the timber sale. All of the material was 

then used for the pilot project. According to conversations 

between QIN staff and the QIN attorney, the Forest Service 

has latitude to be flexible with the Free Use Permits and 

spend them out fully, depending on the scale of the cultural 

activity. If the Forest Service were a partner in the Quinault 

River Restoration Project, the Nation feels it might be more 

forthcoming with material under the Free Use Permit.

Furthermore, the Nation is concerned that its only 

access to material is through the Free Use Permits, which 

are also available to local and county entities and other 

tribes. If the agency treated the QIN as a federal entity, it 

could provide the material directly, without going through a 

Free Use Permit.

“If the Forest Service saw the Nation as a 

federal entity, then the Forest Service is 

authorized to make that wood available directly, 

not as a handout.”

An additional challenge that has resulted from a lack 

of consultation is related to Japanese knotweed, an invasive 

species in the area. More consultation between the QIN 

and the Forest Service is critical. The Forest Service land is 

upstream from the QIN reservation, including areas that the 

QIN has already treated. Plant foliage from untreated areas 

floats downriver and leads to knotweed re-establishment 

in areas that have already been treated. The Forest Service 

had recently completed an environment impact assessment 

within the NWFP to address Japanese knotweed, but lost 

funding because of the national fire-spending transfer that 

occurred during the 2008 fire season. 

The QIN did suggest that it was exploring use of 

the Tribal Forest Protection Act as a way to implement 

treatments on adjacent federal land. 

Use of MOU’s in consultation

The Quinault Indian Nation does not have a formal MOU 

with the Forest Service. The QIN indicated that its longterm relationship with the Forest Service has led to regular 

consultation on projects in relations to Executive Order 

13175 and the Quinault Special Management Area (P.L. 

100-638). The QIN recently developed a MOU with the 

National Park Service and seven other Olympic Peninsula 

tribes, which has established a consultation relationship 

and built an understanding of needs for the Nation and 

the agency. The MOU is only the first step in developing 

an accountable process so that staff understand and 

accomplish consultation in a meaningful way.

Lessons Learned 

Engage tribes in consultation at all levels of planning, 

scoping, and implementation. Currently, the QIN is 

notified of projects as they are developed, but those 

interviewed want to be involved at a much more significant 

level and on more than timber sales. 

“The Forest Service plans like no one you’ve 

ever seen. While we are asked to provide input 

on individual timber sales, there is a whole lot 

of other planning that goes on that we could be 

engaged in. Ten- and twenty-year plans, forest 

plans, etc. – but the Tribe is not interacting with 

the agency as those longer-term plans are being 

developed.” QIN staff
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 51

Level of leadership. Consultation must occur with all 

levels of federal agency leadership and staff – from line 

officers and technical staff to district rangers and forest 

supervisors. 

“To see the Forest Supervisor come down and 

to see the impacts of agency action and policy 

on the tribe would be immensely helpful. Not 

necessarily for individual timber sales, but 

to come down to discuss the agency’s entire 

impact and meet with the Nation for discussions 

about opportunities. This would be a start to 

recognizing meaningful consultation.” QIN 

staff

Use federal programs to increase partnership 

opportunities. Use of federal authorities and programs, 

such as the Tribal Forest Protection Act, could lead to more 

collaboration in managing cultural and natural resources. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

52 — Oregon and Washington Report

Case Study #4: Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

Under the NWFP, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe’s 

experience with consultation highlights a common shortfall 

of consultation processes between federal agencies and 

tribes in Region 6: project notifications in place of formal 

government-to-government consultation. The following 

case describes the outcomes of inadequate consultation 

and offers lessons learned in considering how to enhance 

consultation processes so that they are meaningful for tribes 

and federal agencies and result in balanced outcomes. The 

case also offers insight from the Tribe’s experience with 

adaptive management and collaborative land management, 

including the NWFP-designated Finney Adaptive 

Management Area and the Washington State-initiated 

Timber-Fish-Wildlife forest management system. 

Background

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Upper Skagit 

Indian Tribe has cooperated successfully with the Forest 

Service on a variety of projects. The Tribe has assisted 

in distributing salmon carcasses in the Skagit Basin and 

in planning an elk habitat area. The USIT staff notes also 

that the Tribe is just now engaging in the Forest Service 

review process for timber harvest proposals within the 

Skagit Basin. Recently, the Tribe has found a channel of 

information within the Forest Service, an agency staff 

member, who has shared maps and proposals for very light 

thinning projects on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National 

Forest. Through this connection, the USIT staff has begun 

to understand the Forest Service’s process for identifying 

places for harvest.

Consultation vs. Project Notification

In 2004, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe began 

formally consulting with the Forest Service. Prior to 2004, 

a cooperative of three tribes represented the USIT in 

consultation. The Tribe has no formal, written consultation 

protocol in place. The USIT staff describes the Tribe’s 

formal consultation process with the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest as an annual meeting with several agency 

representatives, who inform the Tribe of the forest service’s 

planned activities for the coming year with minimal followup. 

Consultation challenges and resulting outcomes: 

developing consultation beyond project 

notifications to find balance between resource 

protection, forest management and tribal access

Introduction

The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (USIT) is located in the 

North Cascades region of Washington State and owns a 

small amount of forest land, approximately 250 acres. The 

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe’s guiding philosophy includes 

a belief in a landowner’s entitlement to active forest 

management as long as resource protection is adequate. 

This philosophy extends to areas within the Tribe’s usual 

and accustomed land, areas now managed by the Mt. 

Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The Tribe’s treatyreserved rights protect access to these areas. However, land 

designations under the Northwest Forest Plan have limited 

the Tribe’s ability to access the forest and fulfill its treatyreserved rights.

Within the Tribe’s usual and accustomed land, Late 

Successional Reserve (LSR) lands, designated to protect 

old growth forest, have reduced the Tribe’s ability to access 

the forest. Matrix lands, designated for timber harvest, have 

affected resources of concern. The limited availability of 

matrix lands has constrained timber harvesting in the Skagit 

Basin and in turn reduced revenue for road maintenance and 

abandonment, which has directly increased the likelihood 

of sediment delivery to fish-bearing streams. USIT staff 

members acknowledge that the NWFP land designations 

are a result of listing the northern spotted owl and marbled 

murrelet under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Therefore, the ESA is the actual root cause of reduced 

access.

Through consultation, the Tribe seeks to address these 

issues and find balance between resource protection, forest 

management, and tribal access to usual and accustomed 

land now managed by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National 

Forest. The USIT seeks also to be included in decision 

making from the point of planning and project conception 

through to monitoring. USIT staff members assert that ongoing meetings and project updates and protection of tribal 

rights are integral components of meaningful consultation.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 53

“We need an additional meeting(s) to hear 

about the implementation of these plans, were 

they effective, were there problems in the 

proposed implementation plans or were the 

projects successful? It is important to the Tribe 

that federal agencies understand that we are not 

interest groups or members of the public in this 

consultation process.”38

38Upper Skagit Indian Tribe staff

During the planning process, the forest service and 

other federal agencies managing lands near the Upper 

Skagit Indian Tribe send the Tribe project notifications by 

mail or email. However, limited tribal funding currently 

requires tribal staff to address a multitude of tasks that, 

under different circumstances, would be divided among 

more individuals. Because of this limited staff capacity, the 

Tribe’s ability to respond to all project notifications received 

by the tribe is directly inhibited. More important, the Tribe 

is often unable to screen all of the project notifications to 

determine whether they are of specific interest and whether 

they require consultation. 

The Tribe’s ongoing relationships with individual 

employees within the federal agencies do help in identifying 

projects of specific interest, but do not fully ensure the 

Tribe’s interests are considered and protected. The Tribe has 

developed a good rapport with federal agency staff through 

a long-standing relationship. As a result, some individual 

federal agency employees take the time to review projects 

with the Tribe’s interests in mind and contact the Tribe to 

call attention to particular projects. However, because of 

limited staff capacity, some projects of interest to the Tribe 

do slip through with no consultation. 

The current consultation process also offers limited 

opportunities to address project concerns. In effect, sending a 

letter or an email does not meet federal and legal requirements 

for consultation. This narrow scope of action impedes 

meaningful consultation between federal agencies and tribes. 

It limits communication and opportunity for the Tribe to 

provide comments and to know how and if those comments 

are considered in project planning. As a result, outstanding 

issues persist between the Tribe and federal agencies.

Consultation Outcomes

The USIT staff acknowledges that outstanding issues 

limit the effectiveness of consultation, and inadequate 

consultation limits opportunity to address the issues. 

“Even if we believe in consultation, we don’t 

seem to get results.”39

39Upper Skagit Indian Tribe staff

Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

54 — Oregon and Washington Report

Recently, the Tribe has met with federal agency staff 

members to discuss accessing an important gathering area 

for huckleberries so that tribal members can exercise treaty 

hunting and gathering rights. However, the agency has been 

working to designate the area as a grizzly bear recovery 

area, reducing access in the process. Thus, even though 

grizzly bears have been absent from the area for fifty years, 

and even though the Tribe’s treaty-reserved rights predate 

any habitat designations, the agency and the Tribe have 

not been able to address access to the area. As a result they 

cannot ensure that the Tribe’s interests are protected and 

needs met. 

In addition, USIT members are required to obtain 

permits from the forest service for gathering activities. 

Many of the Tribe’s members are active in basketry and 

the collection and preparation of native basketry materials. 

USIT staff members noted that the permits the tribal 

members must obtain are the same permits members of 

the general public must obtain for gathering activities. The 

permitting process in itself is not cumbersome. However, 

the permits limit the quantities tribal members are allowed 

to harvest. They also encroach on the Tribe’s ability to 

govern its members. 

“In our minds, the [federal government’s] 

trust responsibility extends beyond the general 

public...We have made it clear to the USFS 

that access to all areas within our Usual and 

Accustomed land is our treaty right and we 

have not resolved this issue.”40

To better understand access, maintenance, and resource 

protection needs, the Tribe has completed a geographic 

information system (GIS) project to locate all Forest 

Service road gates and the dates of seasonal closure, and 

is in the planning stages of creating a GIS layer showing 

the locations and current status of all Forest Service roads 

in the Skagit Basin. However, to address these issues, 

the Tribe and the Forest Service need to consult on a 

government-to-government level and develop a plan that 

can balance the Tribe’s needs, habitat conservation, and 

resource management. 

Competing interests make project planning difficult. 

However, the decision-making process regarding projects 

also makes it difficult for tribe’s rights and interests to 

be protected. Although federal agencies are making final 

project decisions, it is common for their interests to take 

precedence over the interests of tribes. The Upper Skagit 

Tribe has experienced this regarding the NWFP land 

designations and the Endangered Species Act. To address 

endangered species concerns, the Tribe’s treaty-reserved 

rights are being compromised.

Collaborative Land Management Systems

Finney Adaptive Management Area

In addition to LSR, Matrix, and Riparian Reserve land 

designations, the NWFP created Adaptive Management 

Areas (AMA) in each physiographic province within the 

Plan area. The AMAs encouraged federal land managers to 

test flexible and creative management approaches to balance 

40USIT Staff

Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 55

multiple interests. Each AMA had a particular management 

emphasis. In the North Cascades physiographic province, 

the 98,400-acre Finney AMA on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest emphasized late-successional forest 

restoration and riparian habitat.41 The Finney AMA 

offered land managers an opportunity to address significant 

damages to fish and water quality that resulted from 

extensive clear-cutting and road building.42 The Finney 

AMA also offered an opportunity to balance tribal forest 

access with management and resource protection. 

To date, USIT staff noted that the AMA planning 

process has been incredibly slow and constrained by limited 

funding resources. Research questions to address fisheries 

resources and water quality were only recently (2008) 

formulated. During AMA meetings, the Tribe has provided 

comments to guide planning direction and decisions. 

However, those comments have not impacted planning. In 

this process, USIT staff claimed that the Tribe has been 

treated like a member of the general public. 

41Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area Guide: http://www.

fsl.orst.edu/ncama/guidint.htm 

42Adaptive Management Area Network Archive – Finney: http://www.

reo.gov/ama/locations/finney.htm

Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest Management 

System

In 1987, the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Agreement (TFW) 

was developed as a result of the adoption of Washington 

State’s first forest practice rules (1974) and litigation over 

a variety of potential harvest impacts to aquatic species. 

The TFW process has evolved over the years, but it is based 

on a management approach that is open to a variety of 

disciplines and personnel, in addition to foresters from the 

Department of Natural Resources. It emphasizes resource 

protection coupled with the viability of the forest products 

industry. USIT staff describes the Tribe’s experience in 

TFW as varied. 

“Very tenuous in the early years, as landowners 

proposing timber harvest were not used to, 

nor willing to allow, especially tribal, input on 

issues they felt were their domain. However, 

acceptance came with consistent, credible, and 

practical suggestions and solutions to conflicts 

and problems within the interdisciplinary 

process. Tribal review of harvest applications 

has come to be trusted and relied upon in the 

Skagit basin.” 43

The USIT staff stated that the Tribe can engage with 

federal agencies in the TFW system in a meaningful way.

“The openness of the TFW process is its 

strength coupled with continuous contact 

among all participants in the form of monthly 

gatherings, ID Team field reviews, and 

quarterly updates on rule changes that facilitate 

at least understanding if not agreement.” 44

However, USIT staff stress the difference in the 

requirements of participants in the TFW process to listen 

to the Tribe and the requirements of federal agencies to 

engage the Tribe. The TFW process has built trust, balanced 

interests, allowed for joint decision making, and sustained 

dialogue among participants. It may offer insight for formal 

43USIT Staff

44USIT Staff

Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

56 — Oregon and Washington Report

consultation. However, it is important to acknowledge that 

the requirements of formal consultation differ.

Lessons Learned

Address tribal values during all decision-making 

processes.

The USIT staff related that all tribal values, for the most 

part, are centered on reserved rights. Therefore, these rights 

must be addressed initially during any decision-making 

process. Addressing a tribe’s rights reactively or after 

decisions and actions have occurred, leads to conflicts and 

inadequate protection of tribal rights. More weight should 

be given to the Tribe’s interests in comparison to weight 

now given to general interest groups.

Demonstrate action on tribal issues or concerns. 

Balance the protection for management and tribal 

use of the land.

USIT staff stated that relationships with the federal agencies 

could be strengthened by the agencies demonstrating action 

on issues or concerns raised by the Tribe. Agencies could 

demonstrate action through periodic updates and additional 

information about projects that were discussed, on-going 

communication with the Tribe, additional meetings with the 

Tribe, and addressing and working with the Tribe to recover 

access to usual and accustomed land. 

USIT staff members claimed that enough weight has 

not been given to the Tribe’s interests. To address this, 

they suggest coordinating additional meetings between the 

Tribe and Forest Service so that they Tribe can learn how 

project plans are developed and implemented and see how 

its interests and concerns are incorporated into decision 

making and project planning.

Develop additional educational opportunities for 

federal agency staff.

Currently, USIT staff members were unaware of forums or 

trainings in the North Cascades for agency staff to learn 

about consultation or treaty-reserved rights. Education 

and more communication could help federal agency staff 

understand the Tribe’s rights. 

Increase federal agency and tribal staff capacity 

for consultation

Increased tribal funding would help to address staff 

limitations. A formal, written agreement for government-togovernment consultation may also help to identify projects 

of specific interest and begin to address outstanding issues, 

including competing interests. However, to be effective, 

consultation and project planning for federal lands require 

an inclusive decision-making process that acknowledges 

tribal rights and interests. 

Develop a scope of interest to identify consultation 

priorities

The Upper Skagit Tribe has recently developed a scope 

of interest for the Federal Communications Commission 

Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Photo courtesy of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 57

(FCC), which contacts the Tribe regarding cell phone 

tower sitings. The FCC used to notify the Tribe regarding 

numerous sitings, even those occurring on the other side of 

the country. The scope of interest at least limits notifications 

to the geographic area of interest to the Tribe. It sorts the 

projects initially so that the Tribe is not so overwhelmed 

with notifications. Upper Skagit Tribal staff said it could 

be worthwhile to develop a similar scope of interest with 

federal agencies to prioritize projects for consultation and 

ensure that projects of interest would not slip through the 

cracks.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

58 — Oregon and Washington Report

Case Study #5: Considerations for Consultation Protocols

However, the initial interviews for this project also 

revealed that 50 percent (11) of the tribes interviewed 

in Region 6 have no consultation protocol in place, and 

18 percent (4) are not sure if a protocol exists. A formal 

protocol allows tribes and federal agencies to mutually 

develop a framework for consultation. It provides a 

mechanism to ensure that consultation occurs. Without this 

mechanism in place, federal agencies may not be aware 

of when it is necessary to consult with tribes or the land 

management activities that may impact tribal rights and 

interests. As a result, the federal agencies may not followthrough with consultation.

Purpose of the case study

For tribes and federal agencies without formal, written 

protocols in place, this case study offers considerations 

to consider during a dialogue about developing a formal 

consultation protocol. This case offers examples of 

consultation protocols from the National Park Service–

Eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes and the Siuslaw National 

Forest–Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI).46 However, it is important 

to acknowledge the importance of the process and the 

communication and relationships built between tribes 

and federal agencies in developing a formal consultation 

protocol. It is important also for tribes and federal agencies 

to first identify the outcomes they want to achieve from 

having a formal consultation protocol in place and to 

determine methods for how to get there. The protocols 

described in this case study and the consultation references 

cited provide insight into a protocol’s contents. Yet, it 

is a tribe’s right to define the protocol and, with federal 

agencies, decide its contents. 

Background 

This section provides an overview of the context and 

purpose of memorandums of understanding developed by 

the National Park Service and eight Olympic Peninsula 

46Although the National Park Service (NPS) does not allow many of 

the same land uses permitted by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, the NPS is profiled in this case study, based on its work to 

develop an MOU that meets the needs of the agency and eight Olympic 

Peninsula tribes.

“The Parties wish to cooperate and harmonize the 

application of their respective authorities to advance 

their common interests in protecting and conserving 

the resources and environment of the ONP and to 

ensure that the Tribes’ treaty rights to natural and 

cultural resources are respected.”

NPS-eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes MOU (July 

2008)

Developing a Memo of Understanding: Providing 

the foundation for consultation and longterm, cooperative, government-to-government 

relationships

Introduction

Tribal monitoring conducted during the first ten years 

of the Northwest Forest Plan (1994-2003) revealed that 

all of the tribes with consultation protocols in place (11) 

described them as adequate for government-to-government 

consultation.45 The initial interviews conducted for this 

project, the second round of tribal monitoring under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, also revealed that of the tribes 

interviewed that had written consultation protocols in place 

(32 percent; 7) in Region 6, all indicated that their protocols 

are adequate for government-to-government consultation. 

This link between protocol development and consultation 

adequacy highlights the important role written consultation 

protocols can play in initiating cooperative government-togovernment relationships. 

Tribes maintained that consultation protocols 

strengthened government-to-government relationships in 

several ways. They defined the interests and responsibilities 

for each party; increased engagement among federal agency 

staff; strengthened communication, relationships and trust; 

improved information sharing between tribes and federal 

agencies; promoted tribal involvement in federal agency 

planning from the initial planning stages; and incorporated 

information about and protection of tribal rights and 

interests in federal agency land management plans. 

45Claudia Stuart, and Kristen Martine, eds. 2006. “Northwest Forest 

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

Relationship.” Technical Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2006.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 59

Tribes, as well as the Siuslaw National Forest and 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians.

National Park Service and Eight Olympic 

Peninsula Tribes

In July 2008, the National Park Service – Olympic National 

Park (ONP) and eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes signed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) that establishes a 

framework for government-to-government consultation. 

During a number of general management planning 

meetings, the Tribes first stressed to the National Park 

Service their desire to hold annual meetings regardless of 

specific plans or projects. During a National Park Service 

training session on Native American law in 2007 in 

Port Angeles, Washington, the idea to develop a general 

consultation MOU originated. The Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission organized a meeting, moderated 

by Charles Wilkinson, to prioritize the Tribes’ interests. 

An additional training session was held in early 2008 in 

Ocean Shores, Washington to discuss working successfully 

with tribal governments. It was hosted by a consortium 

comprised of the Quinault Indian Nation, several National 

Forests, including regions on the West Coast, Rocky 

Mountain, and the Southwest and the NPS Intermountain 

Region. This session supported the process of developing 

the MOU. 

The training sessions brought tribal and park staff 

together, which helped to strengthen understanding, 

interest, and commitment to foster stronger governmentto-government relationships and facilitate the creation of 

the MOU. The ONP superintendent and anthropologist,the 

Department of Interior solicitor, Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission, and eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes worked 

together to draft the language for the MOU. Within one year 

they approved and signed it. The quick time frame in which 

the MOU was developed and approved, with participation 

by the eight tribes and the National Park Service, clearly 

demonstrated interest and commitment. 

The Hoh Indian Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 

Quileute Nation, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Jamestown 

S’Klallam Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian 

Nation, and Skokomish Indian Tribe all have ties to lands 

within the Olympic National Park and all participated in 

developing this MOU. The MOU acknowledges that the 

Tribes have a stake and a shared interest in the land and 

natural and cultural resources that are managed by Olympic 

National Park. 

The MOU defines the trust responsibilities of the 

federal government and clarifies the responsibilities and 

expectations of both parties - the National Park Service and 

the eight Tribes. It sets guidelines, schedules, and contacts 

involved in general consultation. Its goal is to ensure that 

the Tribes and NPS meet before specific issues arise. The 

MOU captures the core values of the Tribes and serves as a 

foundation for building a sustainable relationship between 

the National Park Service and the Tribes. 

In an interview for this case study, ONP staff members 

clarified that although the MOU does not create new policy, 

it clearly identifies and captures in writing the objectives, 

expectations, and interests of all parties and serves as an 

important tool for orienting new staff. Quinault Indian 

Nation staff members added that the MOU establishes 

procedures for implementing consultation.

Siuslaw National Forest and Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians have an interest in the lands once held by 

their ancestors - land encompassing 1.6 million acres on the 

Central Oregon coast and adjacent coast range, including 

part of the Siuslaw National Forest (SNF). Since 1997, with 

support from legislators, local government, conservation 

organizations, and the timber industry, the CTCLUSI 

has been working to move forward a request to the U.S. 

Congress to restore ceded lands. The CTCLUSI is the only 

federally recognized Oregon tribe that has not received 

restored lands or compensation by the U.S. Congress for 

taken lands.47 At the recommendation of former Oregon 

senator, Gordon Smith, as part of the land restoration 

proposal, the Confederated Tribes approached the 

47Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. 

Congressional Request to Restore Tribal Land. 2007.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

60 — Oregon and Washington Report

Siuslaw National Forest and, in 2003, developed a formal 

consultation memo of understanding.

The original expectation for the MOU was to 

formalize consultation in preparation for when the U.S. 

Congress restores land to the CTCLUSI. Regardless of 

the restoration, however, the Confederated Tribes have 

interests in the lands that are now part of the Siuslaw 

National Forest. For this reason, the MOU also formalizes 

information sharing on heritage resources, permits, road 

construction, and restoration, and develops a foundation 

for communication about the lands in which the CTCLUSI 

and Siuslaw National Forest share an interest. Although 

the Confederated Tribes have no treaty rights (because an 

1855 treaty between Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians and the federal government was never ratified), the 

CTCLUSI is federally recognized.

“It is the policy of the United States Government 

and the Forest Service to coordinate activities 

and consult with federally recognized Indian 

Tribal Governments with respect to resource 

management ...” 48

The Confederated Tribes see the SNF as a partner 

in land management. In an interview for this case study, 

CTCLUSI staff shared their feelings that the Siuslaw 

National Forest has done well at sharing information early 

in the planning process, and the CTCLUSI has tried to 

respond by providing the SNF updates on its legislative 

efforts. The MOU has facilitated positive relationships 

between the parties, which the Confederated Tribes 

acknowledge will be an asset when a land transfer occurs. 

Under different circumstances, a land transfer could be 

adversarial. The communication pathways and mutual trust 

built through the MOU will aid future opportunities to work 

together.49

Yet, CTCLUSI staff members say that until the federal 

government approves a land transfer - a matter of social 

48Memo of Understanding between The Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the USDA Forest Service, 

Siuslaw National Forest. 2003.

49CTCLUSI staff

justice - there will always be a barrier to working 

together. After lands are restored, the Confederated Tribes 

can say,

“Okay. We’ve reached a level of reconciliation 

and can move forward working together.”

MOU: Mechanism to Ensure Consultation 

Occurs

The following sections highlight essential parts of the two 

MOUs. See Appendix C to read in full the MOUs between 

the National Park Service and eight Olympic Peninsula 

Tribes and between the Siuslaw National Forest and the 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians.

The National Park Service and eight Olympic Peninsula 

Tribes signed their MOU in July 2008 and continue to 

work on details regarding the consultation process and the 

types of projects for communication and consideration for 

consultation.50 The Siuslaw National Forest and CTCLUSI 

have completed a five-year period with their MOU. As of 

December 2008, they are in the process of updating it.51

An MOU serves as a starting point and is not an 

end in itself. These MOUs offer examples for tribes and 

federal land management agencies interested in developing 

agreements and protocols for government-to-government 

consultation.52

Purpose, goals, and objectives

The purpose section of the MOU defines the interests of 

each party in the consultation process.

“The Tribes, and the NPS, each sharing 

an interest in regulation of activities and 

management of the resources within and around 

the boundaries of ONP, enter into this MOU to 

clarify responsibilities and expectations.”53

50Quinault Nation Staff

51Siuslaw National Forest staff, CTCLUSI staff

52Another resource for developing a consultation protocol: Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 1500, section 1563.11 “General Consultation 

Requirements” http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?1500

53Purpose, Memo of Understanding between National Park Service and 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 61

The MOU between the NPS and eight Olympic 

Peninsula Tribes applies not just to consultation, but also 

to communication, coordination, information sharing, and 

collaboration to pool knowledge and resources and work 

to protect and restore natural and cultural resources. The 

MOU between the Siuslaw National Forest and CTCLUSI 

also pertains to consultation and to land and resource 

information and data sharing for the Siuslaw National Forest 

lands within the ancestral territory of the Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. 

Goals and objectives further describe the purpose of the 

MOU and strategies for implementation. The MOU between 

the NPS and eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes acknowledges 

integrating traditional knowledge into NPS research and 

resource management, at the Tribes’ discretion, along with 

NPS knowledge. It also describes a joint process to work 

toward the shared goal of conserving common resources. 

Definitions

The definitions section of the MOU includes shared 

understanding for the terms that underlie the MOU. The 

NPS and Eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes MOU includes the 

following terms in a section on definitions:

• affect tribal rights or interests

• cultural resources

• natural resources

• government-to-government consultation

• policies or actions that may affect Tribal 

interests or reserved treaty rights

• tribal officials

The NPS MOU defines government-to-government 

consultation as,

“an accountable process that ensures 

substantive, meaningful, and timely input by 

Tribal officials on NPS policies or actions that 

may affect the Tribe’s rights or interests prior 

to a decision; and substantive, meaningful, and 

timely consideration by ONP of Tribal input 

prior to decision making, and to be informed on 

Hoh Indian Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Quileute Nation, Port 

Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Makah Indian 

Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, and Skokomish Indian Tribe. 2008.

how their input was considered and addressed 

in the decision.”

This definition is important because it stresses the need 

for both tribal input and feedback from ONP staff on the 

input prior to any decision making. 

In the initial interviews for this project, several Tribes 

noted that they receive notifications regarding federal 

agency land management plans and decisions but do not 

receive offers to communicate and provide input early in 

project design or planning. There is a significant difference 

between notification, which members of the general public 

may also receive to provide comments on project plans, and 

consultation, which is a policy of the federal government to 

engage Tribes in project design and planning and providing 

comments. Clarifying these terms in an MOU creates 

awareness among federal agency staff and opportunities for 

Tribes to provide input at all stages of project development 

and implementation. It also allows federal agencies to 

provide input on tribal projects. For all parties involved, an 

MOU provides an opportunity to develop a framework for 

improving communication and coordination.

Authorities

The authorities section of the MOU provides the basis 

for consultation rooted in tribal constitutions, the U.S. 

Constitution, and federal legislation and includes federal 

trust and consultation responsibilities. This section differs 

for each Tribe, depending on its history and relationships 

with federal agencies and other entities. However, the two 

MOUs described herein offer initial lists. In addition, USDA 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1500, section 1563.11-Exhibit 

01 provides a table that describes key laws and executive 

orders about consultation and coordination requirements 

for each.54 See Appendix C and D for the complete lists of 

authorities included in the MOUs.

Obligations

The obligations section of the MOU can include a 

description of mutual obligations held by each party and 

54Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1500, section 1563.11-Exhibit 01 http://

www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?1500
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

62 — Oregon and Washington Report

obligations specific to each party. The obligations cover 

project planning, scheduling, and implementation. They 

cover procedures that range from identifying a contact 

person who is responsible for facilitating and maintaining 

government-to-government communication, to pursuing 

opportunities for collaboration among the parties and other 

federal agencies. As part of planning and scheduling, the 

MOU between SNF and CTCLUSI states that the SNF will 

involve the Tribes “at the earliest point practicable in the 

planning process before written public notification.” It also 

accounts for the timeframe during which communication 

and project review and consideration will occur; and lists 

opportunities for field visits during project implementation 

and monitoring. 

The CTCLUSI tribal staff members noted that the call 

for consultation early in the planning process is a key part 

of the consultation process, and it is important for the MOU 

to recognize the government-to-government relationship. 

The topics and projects on which the Confederated Tribes 

and Siuslaw National Forest consult are almost secondary to 

the significance of the relationship stated in the MOU.55

The MOU between the NPS and eight Olympic 

Peninsula Tribes specifies the types of projects on which 

the parties will seek to collaborate and the types of data 

and information they plan to share. The MOU describes 

a framework to begin sharing information and working 

together on projects and acknowledges that the process will 

be monitored, tracked, and refined over time. It states that 

the Tribes and NPS will meet regularly to review processes 

and outcomes and work together to develop training 

opportunities to maintain a shared understanding and 

provide new staff members with knowledge and resources 

to continue the processes into the future. 

Based on the MOU, the eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes 

and NPS plan to have annual face-to-face meetings. As of 

March 2009, the annual meeting has been scheduled to be 

held after the intertribal canoe journey in summer 2009. 

In an interview for this case study, parties involved in 

developing the MOU shared concerns about whether annual 

meetings will be enough to address outstanding issues and 

55Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians staff

strengthen communication. Agreeing in writing to hold at 

least one annual meeting for all parties may suffice for this 

MOU. There is an option for additional meetings to occur, 

in this case, with individual Tribes or through workgroups 

created to address specific issues. The NPS is considering 

creating individual agreements with each Tribe.

It is likely that the language in a written MOU will 

not capture all of the issues that exist between parties. 

However, it is important for the MOU to articulate a 

process for identifying, addressing, and having a dialogue 

about outstanding issues. The MOU for the eight Olympic 

Peninsula Tribes and NPS states that during the annual 

meeting, the parties plan to develop a work plan to address 

outstanding issues, form workgroups to discuss specific 

issues, and create a calendar for future meetings. Figure 1 

describes the outstanding issues that the parties included as 

an appendix to their MOU. 

The obligations in the MOU between the NPS and eight 

Olympic Peninsula Tribes also cover the accommodation 

and protection of the Tribes to exercise certain rights 

and fulfill interests with respect to natural and cultural 

resources. The section also includes NPS staff in the 

development of tribal plans and actions regarding natural 

and cultural resources that transcend the bounds of the 

Olympic National Park, such as salmon and riparian habitat. 

When Consultation Occurs

The USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1500 outlines 

the general requirements and steps for government-togovernment consultation (section 1563.11).56 Region 5 of the 

USDA Forest Service provides insight on the key principles 

for effective consultation based on the steps outlined in 

FSM 1500:57

• Tribes should be consulted as early as possible 

in the development of policies, plans, and 

actions that may have tribal implications. The 

56Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1500 http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/

Directives/get_dirs/fsm?1500 

57USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Policies: Consultation, 

Steps to Effective Consultation http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tribalrelations/

consultation.php?more=page4
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 63

FS should contact elected officials or designated 

representatives of the tribal government to 

discuss a particular issue or opportunity. This 

should be done prior to “scoping” and general 

public involvement. Tribes may request that FS 

technical specialists meet with tribal technical 

experts, or the tribal leadership may request a 

meeting with FS line officers. 

• Preliminary discussion of why the proposed 

policy or action is of concern to the Tribe 

and why the FS is pursuing the proposal can 

be helpful and enable participants to prepare 

informed responses and recommendations. 

• After consultation, the FS should give 

full consideration to tribal concerns and 

recommendations on a particular issue or 

opportunity. Tribes should then be informed 

on how their input was considered in the final 

decision. 

• The decision should be documented, including 

the results of the consultation, and the final 

decision communicated to the Tribe. The 

consultation efforts of a FS unit should be 

evaluated periodically for their effectiveness, 

and this information should be included in 

appropriate program management reviews.

Dispute Resolution and Disclaimers

If any party has issue with an aspect of the MOU or the 

processes described therein, a section on dispute resolution 

provides information on how to ameliorate conflict. Dispute 

resolution can involve a neutral, third-party facilitator. 

However, involving a third party does not replace the 

right to appeal a federal agency decision. A section on 

disclaimers includes information specifying the MOU’s 

jurisdiction and identifies areas of overlap and nonoverlap 

with other agreements, protocols, policies, and laws. 

Provisions for MOU amendment, review, 

and termination

The inclusion of provisions for MOU review, modification, 

and termination allows the consultation process and the 

government-to-government relationship to evolve and 

grow. The CTCLUSI staff related that it is important to 

note room for improvement on both sides. In the past, the 

Confederated Tribes have had to cancel quarterly meetings 

Figure 1 Initial Issues for Workgr oups: NPS—Eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes MOU
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

64 — Oregon and Washington Report

at the last minute, thus creating an inconvenience for the 

SNF and delaying opportunities to exchange information. 

The SNF hasn’t always provided information requested 

by the CTCLUSI. However, the CTCLUSI has been able 

to express this feedback, and the SNF has accepted it as 

information that will help strengthen communication and 

relationships. 

Both MOUs include provisions for annual face-to-face 

meetings to review the MOU. These meetings require 

tribal and agency staff members to have a dialogue about 

the MOU and matters of mutual interest. They also permit 

tribal and agency staff members to build relationships and 

learn to collaborate toward shared interests. Nevertheless, 

it is worthwhile to consider whether annual meetings are 

sufficient to improve communication and address and 

clarify mutual understanding about issues that exist among 

parties.

Lessons Learned

Developing a written MOU provides a foundation for 

building cooperative relationships and identifying a formal 

process for consultation. It offers tribes and federal agencies 

an opportunity to think through and clarify their interests. 

Three integral components to consider for a written 

consultation MOU include: 

• the government-to-government relationship and 

the importance of initiating formal consultation 

at the earliest point possible in the planning 

process; 

• a schedule or structure for regular interactions, 

such as face-to-face meetings; and

• a framework for identifying, documenting, and 

addressing outstanding issues. 

A written MOU may not contain all of the details 

of the consultation relationship or process, or address 

all outstanding issues between parties. Yet, it does need 

to document the duty, desire, and need for parties to 

communicate and engage in consultation about shared 

interests and outline a process for maintaining and 

strengthening communication and trust. The strength grows 

during the process of developing an MOU. It is sustained by 

individuals who acknowledge the importance and need to 

work together and take and maintain the initiative to do so, 

even through staff turnover.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 65

V. Recommendations

1.1 Clarify the purpose of consultation 

between the tribe and agency.

The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to 

engage in consultation with Indian tribes. However, through 

consultation there is significant opportunity for benefits 

to come from shared understanding and coordinated 

management. Therefore, it is important for both parties 

to identify objectives and goals for consultation and 

discuss those goals along with proposed plans and actions. 

Government-to-government consultation is a process 

separate from general public involvement. Although it 

does not guarantee that tribal input will change a project, 

it permits tribes and federal agencies to clarify their 

expectations jointly about proposed plans, actions, and 

intended outcomes.

At a minimum, consultation should ensure that the 

interests of the tribe are heard, articulate how tribal 

concepts and information generated in consultation are 

utilized, and provide feedback to the tribe on how tribal 

input is utilized throughout a project, as decisions are made 

and actions move forward. At a maximum, consultation 

can pave the way for mutually beneficial management 

strategies that help tribes and agencies meet their objectives 

for land management and protection of natural and cultural 

resources. 

1.2 Involve all levels of leadership and 

staff in consultation.

When consultation occurs, tribes expect the highest level 

of leadership within the agency to engage with the highest 

level of leadership within the tribe. At the same time, tribal 

and agency staff with experience and knowledge about the 

issues and relationships must also be intimately engaged in 

the consultation process. The expectations of both parties 

are important. If tribes expect the appropriate decision 

maker to be involved in consultation, federal agencies must 

understand that expectation and structure consultation 

accordingly. If the appropriate decision maker is not 

among the highest level of leadership, the highest level of 

leadership should be available and willing to consult with 

the tribe in case the tribe believes lower levels of leadership 

Through the NWFP monitoring process, a series of 

recommendations for strengthening the federal-tribal 

relationship arose. The recommendations apply to 

federal agency staff members at local, district, regional, 

and national offices who interact with tribes under the 

Northwest Forest Plan and to broader natural resource 

management issues. Federal agencies in this position 

include the USDA Forest Service, Department of Interior 

agencies (including the Bureau of Land Management, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service), NOAA Fisheries, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department 

of Justice. The recommendations also apply to tribes and 

tribal organizations and associations with an interest in 

strengthening federal-tribal relationships. 

The recommendations are organized into three areas:

1. define and engage in meaningful consultation;

2. institute measures for accountability within 

consultation protocols at tribal, national, and 

district/local levels; 

3. integrate consultation protocols within federal, 

state and regional policy and programs.

1. Define and engage in meaningful 

consultation

Through the NWFP monitoring process, a set of 

recommendations was established to strengthen 

consultation by addressing the timing and substance of 

consultation and the leadership involved. Federal agencies 

have a trust responsibility that guides and limits the federal 

government in dealing with Indian tribes. It requires 

agencies to consult with tribes on decisions that relate to or 

affect the sovereignty, rights, resources, or lands of Indian 

tribes. Because consultation needs may differ significantly 

between tribes, the most important consideration is to 

engage tribal leadership in defining a consultation process. 

Negotiation about the consultation process in deference to 

tribal sovereignty is critical in meaningful consultation.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

66 — Oregon and Washington Report

are not giving sufficient weight to tribal input. Structuring 

the consultation process appropriately is vital to ensuring 

that consultation addresses conflicting viewpoints during 

the initial phase of project planning and therefore avoids 

litigation. The exclusion of tribal or agency leadership or 

staff may jeopardize the consultation process. 

1.3 Engage tribes in consultation in all 

phases of project identification, planning, 

development, implementation, and 

monitoring.

When tribes are notified of federal action and given 

opportunity for input, one level of consultation occurs. 

However, meaningful consultation occurs only when 

agencies engage with tribes much earlier in the process, 

even to the point of giving them an opportunity to guide 

where and how projects occur. By engaging tribes in all 

phases of a planning and project development, there is a 

greater opportunity to meet tribal interests and protect 

cultural resources. 

1.4 Increase capacity of agency staff at 

the district, regional, and national levels, 

including technical staff and leadership, to 

engage in consultation.

For consultation to be effective and meaningful, tribes 

and federal agency staff at all levels must understand the 

federal trust responsibility and the consultation process. 

Training opportunities, including joint trainings between 

tribes and agency staff, provide opportunities to gain this 

understanding. Training can ensure that federal agencies 

working with tribes meet their trust responsibility and 

foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships with 

tribes. Policy guidance within agencies should also include 

protocols for when training should occur, particularly as a 

mechanism for addressing staff turnover. With education 

about what consultation is and how it should occur, training 

could include:

• why all levels of agency (and tribal) staff and 

leadership should engage in consultation;

• how general notification is different than 

consultation;

• why opportunities for intercultural dialogue are 

important for agencies to understand what they 

are hearing from tribes; and

• how to create a transition period when there is 

staff turnover to ensure that new staff members 

are adequately trained and relationships can be 

maintained.

1.5 Increase the use of Memorandums of 

Agreement. 

Memorandums of agreement (MOA) help to formalize 

consultation protocols and provide agencies and tribes an 

opportunity to build a shared agreement of the needs and 

objectives of consultation. Whereas a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) illustrates shared understanding, 

a MOA goes further to ensure that action is taken to 

honor the steps and purpose of consultation, and, in some 

cases, involves funding. Specifically, MOAs can increase 

knowledge and awareness among agency staff and tribes 

about the value of formal protocols and MOUs by providing 

examples and best practices. Having a formal MOA in place 

permits the outcomes from the agreement to be monitored. 

1.6 Re-establish Provincial Advisory 

Committees within the Context of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and Establish 

Oversight Committees that include Tribal 

Representation in Future Initiatives. 

Within the context of the Northwest Forest Plan, provincial 

advisory committees (PAC) provided an opportunity for 

agency executives and tribes to meet frequently and discuss 

land management plans. As PACs across the NWFP area 

lost funding, this critical relationship and opportunity 

for consultation between the highest levels of leadership 

were lost. Within the NWFP, re-establishment of these 

PACs would help strengthen consultation between tribes 

and federal agencies. When state, regional, or national 

initiatives, such as the NWFP, are put into place, in addition 

to tribal monitoring provisions, oversight committees with 

tribal representation should be established to ensure that a 

high level of consultation continues to occur. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 67

Intended Outcomes 

In the context of the Northwest Forest Plan and broader 

natural resource management policies, meaningful 

consultation is intended to increase and protect access 

to cultural and natural resources and forest areas and to 

improve resource management and decrease negative 

effects on tribal rights and interests. Other outcomes that 

could occur with more meaningful consultation under the 

NWFP include:

• Better representation of tribal interests and use 

of tribal information (and traditional knowledge) 

and protection of cultural resources in agency 

management plans:

• Consultation resulting in consideration of 

tribal input and meaningful action

• Use of tribal traditional knowledge and 

tribal information in project planning, 

decision making, and implementation to 

shape plans, decisions, and actions 

• Monitoring how well agencies’ plans and 

decisions reflect tribal values and needs

• Increased protection of cultural resources

• Opportunities to address land allocations within 

the NWFP and access to land/resources: 

• Restrictions that limit tribal access to 

cultural resources; inadequate protection 

of tribal rights; staff level conflicts; road 

decommissioning; Endangered Species Act 

conflicts; and other issues resulting from 

land management restrictions

• Land/resource access, including water 

and timber resources, cultural resources, 

hunting, and tribal resource management. 

Meaningful consultation can also address conflicts 

over land management and develop a protocol for managing 

for cultural resources under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Conflicts can arise from NWFP land designations, such 

as Late Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves. 

These land designations can exclude tribes from cultural 

and subsistence resources and alter wildlife habitat, such 

as grazing areas or plant habitat through fire suppression. 

In some instances, tribes are left with only one option to 

ameliorate conflicts: lawsuits. An alternative approach or 

protocol needs to be developed so that tribes can access 

resources of interest on tribal-ceded lands currently 

managed by federal agencies and federal agencies can 

follow land management plans.

2. Institute measures for accountability 

To ensure that consultation occurs, it is important to 

institute measures for accountability within consultation 

protocols at tribal, national, and district/local levels. 

2.1. Incorporate Tribal Monitoring 

Protocols into New Management Plans 

and Plan Revisions.

Tribal monitoring should be incorporated at all levels - 

from policy to management - to maintain and strengthen 

government-to-government relations. Tribal monitoring 

should be incorporated into new management plans and 

plan revisions. For relationships that have been built 

through the Northwest Forest Plan, Section 7 – Consultation 

to continue and grow in the future, tribal monitoring should 

be incorporated into future policy and management in the 

Pacific Northwest and across the nation. In addition, new 

management plans at district or regional levels should 

include protocols for tribal monitoring.

2.2. Establish strategies for monitoring 

and creating accountability for agencies to 

engage in consultation. 

Using the NWFP monitoring process or an improved 

process, continue monitoring government-to-government 

relationships. The current time frame for monitoring 

is ten years. Recalling the frequency and substance of 

consultation experiences over a ten-year period can be 

challenging. In the future, the monitoring process should 

incorporate questions that focus on shorter time periods 

(e.g., two to three years) to gain a better understanding of 

how often tribes are consulted, what happens, and when 

with the information that is generated during consultation. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

68 — Oregon and Washington Report

Beyond the NWFP, monitoring federal tribal 

relationships should be a part of all agency management 

strategies. Specific areas of focus for this kind of 

monitoring could include: 

• Ask tribes how consultation is working. Develop 

a framework, such as a formal agreement to 

meet at least annually, to sit down and talk 

together. 

• Ask federal agencies how consultation is 

working. Consultation is a part of federal agency 

staff performance plans and thus should be 

made a priority. Federal agency staff should also 

have the opportunity to discuss consultation. 

• Develop criteria and performance measures 

for monitoring agency consultation, project 

implementation, and effectiveness (based on 

outcomes from consultation).

Monitoring criteria can create accountability 

for federal agencies to engage in consultation. 

Performance measures related to consultation 

and monitoring can also ensure that 

agencies can institutionalize mechanisms for 

accountability. 

3. Integrate consultation protocols into 

federal, state, and regional policies and 

programs

3.1 Build capacity for tribal and agency 

staff to dedicate time to consultation and 

government-to-government relationships. 

One of the greatest needs for tribes and agencies alike is 

increased capacity to engage in consultation. Tribes and 

agencies are experiencing budget shortfalls that limit staff 

availability to participate meaningfully in consultation. 

However, if agency and tribal leadership recognize the 

importance of consultation, it may be easier to justify staff 

resources for consultation. 

3.2 In legislative proposals at the 

national level consider tribal needs and 

opportunities for consultations.

Within the new administration and Congress and with 

the current economic crisis, there are critical windows 

of opportunity to ensure that new pieces of legislation 

consider tribal needs, interests, and the role of consultation. 

Currently, the economic stimulus package and legislation 

about “green” jobs hold potential and interest for Tribes. 

Climate change legislation will also have an impact on (and 

provide opportunity for) tribes. 

3.3 Consider tribal needs and 

opportunities for consultation when 

revising plans and creating new plans 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area.

Tribal monitoring must be included in legislative actions 

and federal plans, particularly those that might build on or 

replace the Northwest Forest Plan (such as new legislative 

proposals). 

3.4 Re-establish funding for the Jobs in 

the Woods program.

Future federal agency plans and plan revisions must 

include funding for tribal restoration projects and jobs. 

The Jobs in the Woods program under the Northwest 

Forest Plan provided an opportunity for tribes to engage in 

vital assessment and stream restoration projects, develop 

partnerships with private landowners and federal and state 

agencies, and learn technical restoration skills. To maintain 

ecosystem health and ecosystem services, funding is needed 

for programs that will assist tribes and federal agencies in 

taking action to restore existing ecosystems and manage 

restoration efforts into the future. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 69

VI. References

Confederated Tribes of Warms Springs Memorandum of Understanding with National Forests, BLM, and BIA, http://

www.wsfpi.com/Docs/16%20CTWS%20USFS%20MOU%204-25-03.pdf

Massettich, Paul W., Marty Murray-Close, and Barbara Monsey. 2001. Collaboration—What Makes it Work. 2d ed. St. 

Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 

Native American Consultation Database, http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nacd/

National Congress of American Indians, http://198.104.130.237/ncai/index.jsp?pg=3

O’Brien, Sharon. 1989. American Indian Tribal Governments. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 

Prucha, Francis P., ed. 1990. Documents of United States Indian Policy. 2d ed. London: University of Nebraska Press.

Reynolds, Betsy. 1997. Building Bridges: A Resource Guide for Tribal/county Intergovernmental Cooperation. Edited by 

Sonya Wind. Seattle, WA: Northwest Renewable Resources Center).

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. 

FS-600. 

Wilkinson, Charles. 2005. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. New York. W.W. Norton and Company.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

70 — Oregon and Washington Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 71

Appendix A. Letter sent to Tribes

Dear Tribal Leader:

We are writing to request your assistance in participating in a study to evaluate the impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan on 

resources of concern and working relationships between your tribe and Federal agencies. The study will rely upon results of 

a telephone survey and selected case studies to develop a monitoring report that will be presented to the regional executives 

of Federal agencies involved in the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The insight and perspectives provided from tribal leadership will hopefully result in actionable recommendations that 

will strengthen working relationships between your tribe and federal land managers and improve resource management to 

address tribal concerns. If you are willing to participate in this process, please identify the names and phone numbers for 

the individuals who should be contacted to provide the insights and perspectives on behalf of your tribe. 

Resource Innovations, of the University of Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment, will be responsible for 

conducting the study in Oregon and Washington. The Intertribal Timber Council and the California Indian Forestry 

Fire Management Council will perform the study in California. A description of the process we will use to develop the 

monitoring report and accompanying case studies, along with a discussion of potential confidentiality issues that may arise, 

is attached. 

If you have questions or comments regarding this process, please contact Gary Harris, Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management, Tribal Relations Staff Assistant at (503) 888-2603 or by e-mail at grharris@fs.fed.us.

LINDA GOODMAN ED SHEPHARD

Regional Forester State Director

Region 6 Oregon State Office

Forest Service Bureau of Land Management

Enclosure(s)
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

72 — Oregon and Washington Report

Enclosure 1: Northwest Forest Plan Tribal 

Monitoring Project

Purpose

Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), agencies 

managing federal land within the range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl are to conduct monitoring of the effects of 

implementation of the Plan’s Standards and Guidelines. 

One element of monitoring identified in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Plan is “American Indians and Their 

Culture”. Key issues addressed in the initial monitoring 

effort included:

• Conditions and trends of the trust resources 

identified in treaties with American Indians.

• Effectiveness of the coordination or liaison 

to assure adequate protection of religious or 

cultural heritage sites, and

• Adequacy of access by American Indians to 

use of forest species, resources, and places 

important for cultural, subsistence, or economic 

reasons, particularly those identified in treaties.

Background

Effectiveness monitoring under the Plan is to take place at 

10-year intervals. The results of monitoring for the first 10-

year period was completed in 2003 and published in 2006 

as: “Northwest Forest Plan – The First 10 years (1994-2003) 

Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship” (R6-RPMTP-02-2006). In this document, the views of 15 Tribes 

in the area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan were 

presented. A Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG) 

– see attached list of members, was chartered under the 

proviso of the Interagency Advisory Council to develop 

recommendations to improve the protocol and techniques 

used to monitor the Federal-Tribal relationship and obtain 

broader Tribal participation. 

2008 Monitoring Changes

The TMAG has devised an approach that provides an 

opportunity for all 76 federally recognized tribes with 

interests in the federally managed land within the Plan 

area to participate in an interview to provide their insight 

and perspectives regarding the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Some tribes will be selected for in-depth case studies. The 

protocol is described as follows:

1. Unless otherwise requested, telephone 

interviews will be used to obtain responses to a 

standard set of questions;

2. The questions focus on four areas:

a. Consultation Process, outcome and 

tracking,

b. Access and protection,

c. Affect on tribal values of interest (cultural, 

social and economic), and

d. Strengthening of federal-tribal relations;

3. In-depth case studies will be conducted and 

reported in situations where information can 

offer lessons learned; and

4. Interviews and report writing will be conducted 

by a third-party, independent, non-government 

organization or party.

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

The information collected during the interviews will 

be synthesized into a published report. In the report, no 

information will be attributed to a specific person or tribe. 

The interviewers will create a key code, which will allow 

the raw interview notes to be tied to an individual who 

was interviewed throughout the process. Because the 

interview notes and the key code are part of the record of 

the monitoring process and will be considered property of 

the federal government, confidentiality may not be fully 

protected under the law. 

Process for Conducting Interviews

Resource Innovations, a program within the University 

of Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment, will 

be conducting the interviews, writing the reports, and 

preparing the case studies in Oregon and Washington. 

Many of you will know of Resource Innovations from 

their work with the Intertribal Timber Council on the June 

2006 “Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide”. Over the next 

few months, staff from Resource Innovations will be in 

contact with you, or your professional staff, to identify who 

you would like them to interact with while conducting the 

interview. Interviews to complete the questionnaire are 

anticipated take approximately an hour.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 73

Appendix B. Interview Questions

Access and Protection

6) Have the exercise of tribal rights or access to resources 

and/or areas of tribal interest on federal lands been 

changed? If so, how? 

7) Is the tribe aware of procedures that have been put in 

place to provide for

7a. protecting sensitive tribal information from 

unauthorized access or release?

7b. incorporating tribal traditional knowledge 

in the development of management actions?

7c. protecting cultural sites on federal land?

8) Are there conflicts over the use or management of 

resources or areas of tribal interest? What are the sources of 

the conflict? 

8a. Are conflict resolution processes adequate?

Affect On Tribal Values of Interest

9) Has the tribe exercised treaty rights, other rights, or 

pursued tribal interests associated with national forests and 

BLM public lands and resources? Please provide examples, 

if you wish.

9a. Any barriers to exercising rights? 

10) How is federal (FS/BLM) forest management 

compatible with what the tribe values about those lands?

Strengthening Tribal-Federal Relationship

11) How can the tribal-federal relationship be strengthened? 

(consultation process?)

Tribal consultation process, outcome, and 

tracking

1) Have written consultation protocols been developed?

1a. Are they adequate for government-togovernment consultation?

1b. Are they adequate for potential effects on 

tribal rights, interests, and effects on tribal 

lands?

2) Is the tribe aware of federal policy guidance that is 

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?

2a. Is notification specific to the tribe?

3) Over the past ten years, has the tribe been consulted on 

federal agency plans, projects, programs, or activities that 

might affect tribal rights or interests? 

3a. How frequently and over what time period? 

3b. Are there PACs or other intergovernmental 

forums in the area? 

3c. Do Tribes participate in these forums?

4) Has tribal information been incorporated into federal 

planning documents (including watershed analysis and 

decision-making processes, in a manner such that tribes can 

recognize their contributions? 

4a. Can you provide any examples of when the 

tribes were dissatisfied?

4b. Did tribal contributions result in any 

changes to federal actions or considerations for 

resources of interest? If so, please explain.

5) Have agencies consulted or collaborated with tribal 

governments to develop plans for future monitoring, 

restoration, or assessment projects, or for other planning 

efforts?
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

74 — Oregon and Washington Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 75

Appendix C. Examples: Memorandum of Understanding

The example Memos of Understandings described in case 

study #5 Considerations for Consultations are available via 

the Intertribal Timber Council website: http://www.itcnet.

org/. 

• MOU between the Siuslaw National Forest 

and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians

• MOU between Eight Olympic Peninsula Tribes 

and the National Park Service
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

76 — Oregon and Washington Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 77

Appendix D. Summary of Comments from Review of the Draft 

Tribal Monitoring Report

Final Report Draft Comments:

Resource Innovations sent a request to all tribal and agency representatives that had participated in interviews and 

case studies for the report requesting formal review of the report. The letter was sent on March 2 and participants were 

given two weeks to conduct the review. Text of the email request follows:

Dear Tribal leaders, staff, and agency partners:

We are writing to request your assistance in reviewing a draft of the attached report, Strengthening the FederalTribal Relationship: A Report on Monitoring Consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan.

You participated in this 

study during 2009 by responding to questions about the consultation process between tribes and federal land management 

agencies, outcomes from consultation related to access to natural and cultural resources and protection of tribal rights and 

interests, consultation monitoring and tracking, and how to improve the federal-tribal relationship.

The attached draft report contains recommendations for strengthening the federal-tribal relationship and compiled 

findings from the 22 total interviews we conducted with tribes in Oregon and Washington within the Northwest Forest Plan 

area. It also contains five case studies, which look more in-depth at the consultation experiences of specific tribes within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area.

We are hoping you will have time to review the draft report for accuracy and clarity. With your help, our goal is 

to develop a report that is useful in providing insight into the challenges and strengths of government-to-government 

consultation, and in offering a succinct list of recommendations that may be shared more broadly with federal agencies, 

tribes and policymakers so that the responses and experiences captured in this report can be used to strengthen the federaltribal relationship in the future.

We hope to receive all comments by Monday, March 16, 2009. We welcome comments by email, fax, mail or by phone. 

We are sending the draft report for review to all of the tribes that participated in interviews and case studies, and the federal 

agencies who also provided input for the case studies.

You are welcome to share the report among other staff within your tribe or agency. However, this is a draft and is not 

yet available for public review.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any trouble opening the document, or if you have any questions about 

this process. We look forward to hearing from you and receiving your feedback.

Sincerely,

Kathy Lynn, Resource Innovations

Additional questions about this project may be directed to:

Gary Harris, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, Tribal Relations Staff Assistant

Phone: (503) 888-2603

Email: grharris@fs.fed.us
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

78 — Oregon and Washington Report

Comments were submitted by the following tribes:

Full report draft comments submitted by:

Name Organization Email Notes

Phyllis Steeves Siuslaw National Forest psteeves@fs.fed.us Email comments

Mike Iyall Cowlitz Tribe mikenjoan@comcast.net Email comments

Doug Couvelier Upper Skagit Indian Tribe DougC@UPPERSKAGIT.com Email comments

Jacilee Wray Anthropologist – Olympic 

National Park

Jacilee_wray@nps.gov Attached word document

Lee Carlson Yakama Nation lcarlson@yakama.com Track changes in report

Mike Stamon Quinault Indian Nation MSTAMON@quinault.org Track changes in report

Libby Halpin Nelson Tulalip Tribes Libbynel@comcast.net Email Comments

The comments tribes and federal agencies submitted regarding the full report draft are included below. 

Where relevant, we also offer a description of how we integrated their comments into the final report.

Comments from Respondent 1:

• We have reviewed the document and have no concerns regarding our interview - good job!

Comments from Respondent 2:

•	 Executive Summary: Context: I think the key to the Executive Order is the “accountable process” Like we said 

even about the ONP agreement is that is a starting point to making it accountable to the staff that would actually 

carry out the consultation process. Consultations are doing better at the gov’t to gov’t level but tend to fail at the 

staff levels. Too often the consultation process seems to not be as strong below the initial contact at the top end and 

looses its energy to be meaningful and accountable as it gets down to the staff level. Mostly because of unclear and 

accountable direction from above.

•	 Recommendations: 1.2 Involve all levels of leadership and staff in consultation: You nailed this on the head!!!!! 

Fixed what I was saying above about “an accountable process” defined so it doesn’t fail at the staff level.

•	 3.4 Re-establish funding for the Jobs in the Woods program: Timing might be good to re-enact this one before 

the stimulus money starts flowing. My impression is the money is coming down EXISTING pipelines with controls 

already in place. Would be good to see this be reinstated. It was a great program that put some great work into the 

landscape.

•	 Case Study Pg. 52: Impacts and Access to Resources under the Northwest Forest Plan: Individual tribal 

members may on their own be collecting cultural resources on USFS lands unknown to the tribe or the USFS. They 

may have their own special spots they go to as a family. They understand balance and don’t take too much from a 

single area and spread their collecting around to it isn’t even noticed. Most of these resources are renewable each 

year and grow back when collected correctly. I like to think most people interacting with these sorts of resources do 

such a good job we as resource managers don’t see their impacts or ever notice they were there. They don’t make a 

mess or leave any trace to their visit.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 79

•	 Use of MOU’s in consultation: The MOU is only the first step in really developing an accountable process so staff 

involved in the consultation really understand and accomplish the consultation in a meaningful way

• In regards to the comment about the $200,000 road we will spend $80,000 to decommission: It is kind of out of 

context and just hanging out there by itself. Also kind of a stretch for the NWFP. I’m thinking it may be better with 

out it.

Integrated into the final report:

We addressed all of the specific suggestions and removed the final statement regarding the road decommissioning. We did 

not add to or change the areas where the comments are in support of the existing recommendations or statements. 

Comments from Respondent 3:

I reviewed the document and used track changes to insert some comments. I agree with your conclusions and 

recommendations for the most part. Some could use a little clarification or emphasis and those are the areas I tried to attach 

my comments to. Would have been nice to have had one of the Columbia River Tribes included in your case studies so it 

didn’t just reflect coastal tribes.

•	 Recommendation 1.1 Clarify the purpose of consultation between the tribe and agency: Emphasize that 

consultation is not just checking a box for public involvement nor is it a guarantee that tribal input will be able to 

change a project.

•	 Recommendation 1.2 Involve all levels of leadership and staff in consultation: Most tribes generally want to 

speak directly with the appropriate decision maker.

•	 Recommendation 1.6 – Intended outcome: This is a point of view issue that frequently pops up: the tribes see these 

lands as tribal ceded lands currently managed by federal agencies, not as federally owned lands. 

•	 Pg. 10. Key findings from the interviews included: Tribes felt that the condition of aquatic and riparian

habitats, fisheries, and forest health had improved under the Plan. This is not universal improvement. In some 

areas, there has been some improvement in conditions.

•	 Pg.13 Consultation at the Federal Level: Informing Indian tribes of those federal officials charged with

making the final decisions with respect to the federal action. And that those officials are available for 

consultation.

• Pg. 23 Key findings from consultation: Adequacy of Consultation

○ When there are formal protocols in place there is generally a stronger level of consultation, specifically when 

those protocols are outlined in MOAs or MOUs. Those protocols need to be described by the tribe and the 

process should come from the tribe to the federal agency

○ The agencies do not necessarily perceive consultation in the same way that the tribe does. The agency personnel 

frequently do not understand the distinction between tribal treaty rights and public privilege. Nor is the concept 

of ceded lands well understood by the agency staff.

○ For a successful consultation, several tribes suggested that there is a need for formal consultation and 

engagement with tribal administrators and council members, as well as technical tribal staff – not just one or the 

other. In particular, tribes want to have their discussions with the person that will be making the decision.

•	 Pg. 29. Q9. Treaty Rights: In general, local agency staff don’t seem to fully understand the distinction between a 

tribe’s treaty right and the general publics privilege of access.

•	 Pg. 68. Recommendation 1.2 Involve all levels of leadership and staff in consultation: I’m not sure this is entirely 

accurate. The tribes generally expect the appropriate decision maker to be involved in the consultation. However, 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

80 — Oregon and Washington Report

higher levels of agency leadership should be willing to consult with the tribe if the tribe feels that the decision maker 

is not giving the tribal input sufficient weight. I think the tribes would rather work out their difference on the front 

side of the project rather than sue or appeal a decision afterwards.

Integrated into final report document

Recommendation 1.1 updated to include – “Government-to-government consultation is a process separate from general 

public involvement. Although it will not guarantee that tribal input will change a project, it will offer tribes and federal 

agencies to clarify their expectations jointly regarding proposed plans, actions and intended outcomes.”

Recommendation 1.2 updated to include – “The expectations of both parties are important. If tribes expect the 

appropriate decision-maker to be involved in consultation, federal agencies need to understand that expectation and 

structure consultation accordingly. If the appropriate decision-maker happens not to be the highest level of leadership, that 

individual should also be available and willing to consult with the tribe in case the tribe believes lower levels of leadership 

are not giving sufficient weight to tribal input. Structuring the consultation process appropriately is vital to ensuring that 

consultation addresses conflicting viewpoints during the initial phase of project planning and therefore avoiding litigation.”

Recommendation 1.6, Intended Outcomes – changed ‘federal land’ to ‘tribal ceded land currently managed by federal 

agencies’

In addition, in Key Findings – changed finding to reflect only in some areas tribes felt improvements in natural 

resources had occurred under the Plan. Added bullet to Consultation at the Federal Level definition to reflect comment. 

Incorporated comments into three bullets under Summary of Key Findings: Consultation Process and Protocols,

Adequacy of Consultation.

Comments from Respondent 4:

• Pg. 3 - Your key issues include “trust resources.” I believe I commented on this way back in 1997. The term is being 

misused. Trust resources are managed solely for Indians, and the BIA manages those resources. Treaty rights are not 

necessarily trust resources. I would speak to you solicitor about using this term as it creates a type of resource that 

does not exist on some federal lands. 

• I think you should have an editor go through it carefully. Many words are connected or two sentences were 

combined, leaving an awkward sentence, or other typos exist. I just did not have the time to edit all of these.

• Many of the tribal comments center around new staff and making sure that consultation is done uniformly. This 

should go in the executive summary.

• P 6 - I believe an MOA involves funding whereas an MOU does not.

• P 10 - I agree that the tribes like layers of consultation - from agency leads to informal staff - but later there are 

contradictions to this where tribes state that only leadership should consult. There needs to be some follow-up on 

such discrepancies and maybe you will find that the tribes actually agree on these points. Along the same lines, there 

are conflicting opinions about road closure.

• p. 61 - Having NPS MOU in this document is a bit confusing because the NPS is not mentioned previously and 

we do not allow many of the same uses as the USFS or BLM, so I would suggest stating why you are using it as an 

example and describing the difference in our land management practices from USFS and BLM. 

• P 61, Paragraph 1 - The training at Ocean Shores was hosted by a consortium comprised of the Quinault Indian 

Nation, several National Forests, including regions on the West Coast, Rocky Mountain, and the Southwest and the 

NPS Intermountain Region.

• Paragraph 2, line 2 - relationships, add “and” helped
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 81

• Paragraph 4, line 5 - add “sustainable” relationships

• P 65, Paragraph 2, line 2 - next annual meeting will be held after the intertribal canoe journey this summer.

• P 65, Line 5 - I don’t think we want to update this MOU. I would delete sentence “Updating the language ....may 

better fulfill the original intention of the MOU.” 

• Move to improve communication after the sentence on the annual meeting. What we will be doing is creating 

separate agreements with individual tribes. I think the MOU as written covers all basis and will not need to be 

rewritten, just facilitate individual agreements.

• p.66, paragraph 1, line 2 - instead of “their” rights replace with “certain” rights. Not all treaty rights can be carried 

out in the park, for example we do not allow hunting.

Integrated into final report document

Addressed concerns regarding use of terms trust resources and treaty rights by pulling language taken directly from ROD 

into a sidebar. We acknowledge the confusion that exists regarding these terms. However, for the purposes of this report, we 

are following the definitions outlined by the IAC and ROD. 

In addition, addressed comments regarding MOAs involving funding in Recommendation 1.5. Addressed similar 

comments regarding layers of consultation through other comments provided. Added a footnote to Consultation Protocols 

case study to address comment regarding differences in allowed land uses between NPS and FS/BLM. Added suggested 

edits into Consultation Protocols case study also.

Comments from Respondent 5:

Case Study #5: Considerations for Consultation Protocols: Provisions for MOU amendment, review and termination. 

Including provisions for MOU review, modification and termination allows for the consultation process and the governmentto-government relationship to evolve and grow over time. CTCLUSI staff relates that it is important to note there’s room for 

improvement on both ends. In the past, the Confederated Tribes has at the last minute needed to cancel quarterly meetings, 

creating an inconvenience for the SNF and delaying opportunities to exchange information; and the SNF hasn’t always 

followed through in providing information [to the CTCLUSI directly following a request. Yet, the SNF and CTCLUSI have 

the opportunity to share feedback with each other, and re-request information during their quarterly meetings, which 

help strengthen communication and relationships. The meetings are ongoing and provide an important venue to address 

continuous issues and tend to work in progress. SNF staff describes the atmosphere of the quarterly meetings as courteous, 

open and relaxed, a sign of the trust built between the two parties.]

Integrated into final report document

Integrated updated text into case study.

Comments from Respondent 6:

The USFS and the Tribes needs to move past compulsory and token efforts to communicate. We have attempted for many 

years to work with the agency, when we are able to work with them, we have both benefited. There must be a cultural shift at 

the agency level. We see property sold with documented cultural sites on them, over tribal objections. We see mining leases 

sales proposed that could eliminate decades of environmental restoration efforts by tribes and others. This kind of action is 

wrong at so many levels, let me attempt to list some of these.

• #1 When government assets (the people’s property) (are sold) the selling agency has less justification for it’s 

existence; that is shouldn’t we hire realtors instead? Realtors would get more money than agencies with a much 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

82 — Oregon and Washington Report

lower overhead. Realtors are better at selling land, much better, but they don’t do habitat.

• #2 The agencies should consider partnering with others, preferably tribes, before selling their reason for existing. 

Once lands are sold it is unlikely the agency mission for those properties will continue. Speculators and developers 

don’t do habitat, nor do they stay and support communities.

• #3 Once land is sold or leased the public loses benefit of what was once stewardship of that land. Forest habitat 

loss will impact an entire drainage, so actions at the headwaters have impacts, perhaps hundreds of miles away. A 

proposed coppermine could have tainted drinking water for several major cities far downstream.

• #4 Once lands are sold, the agency will spend the funds and then will have to sell more lands to continue. How will 

they continue when they have sold it all?

• #5 Partnering can help keep lands in stewardship and bring in funding to allow the agency to get back to what was 

once it’s mission. Partners can bring needed expertise lost in past funding cuts. In Washington State the tribes 

now employ over 30% of the scientists in the field, state and federal agencies are in another round of cuts. The result 

will be even fewer scientists in the field.

• #6 Partnering can bring profitability back to management activities. This will allow the agency to resume it’s role 

as a steward of the lands. The needs that generated these agencies still exist, even as the agency dies. Partnering is 

perhaps, the last chance for the agencies to continue.

• Unfortunately, we have never got to share these thoughts before with agency leadership that could act on them. 

When we do share them with agency staff we get only a sad look. They can’t even help themselves.

• Yes, I would like to see the tribes have a better voice in this process.

Text Integrated into final report document

Benefits of federal-tribal partnerships for resource stewardship 

Strong partnerships can result in a cultural shift at the agency level. In order to avoid actions, including land sales and 

mineral leases, which make documented cultural sites vulnerable and discount decades of environmental restoration efforts 

by tribes and others, federal agencies and tribes need to establish meaningful communication and trust, both integral 

components of consultation and of functional working relationships. 

• Avoid land sales or leases that compromise the agency’s mission and in so doing reduce habitat protection, support 

for communities, and public benefit of land once stewarded. 

• Avoid land losses that impact entire basins. Forest habitat loss at the headwaters, for example, may impact land 

hundreds of miles away; and a mining site could taint drinking water for major cities downstream. 

• Develop more fiscally sustainable approaches to agency administration and land management. Partnering can help 

forward land stewardship and bring in funding streams to allow the agency to continue working to fulfill its mission 

as opposed to actions that compromise its mission.

• Partnering tribes can bring needed expertise the agency may have lost in past funding cuts. In Washington State, for 

example, the tribes employ over 30 percent of scientists in the field. 

• Partnering tribes can bring needed funds to management activities.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Oregon and Washington Report — 83

Comments from Respondent 7:

I will outline some brief comments I have at this point, that mostly underscore your existing recommendations. Note that 

I am speaking primarily from my experience with the Forest Service, as a tribal administrative lead for the Forest ServiceTulalip Tribes MOA, signed November of 2007.

• Consultation process can be effectively laid out in an MOA, or sub agreement to the MOA as is our intention. This 

will give both the Tribes and the Forest Service an opportunity to work together on arriving at such a process that 

is understandable, workable to both parties, and is capable of achieving some collective input and consistency in 

approach from multiple staff and departments within both tribes and federal agencies.

• While training opportunities for federal agency staff are very important, especially including topics of cross 

cultural communication, tribal history on what are now federal lands and treaty rights specific to the Tribes they 

are consulting with, and, training for all federal agency staff and tribal staff too on the consultation mechanism(s) 

agreed upon.

• Strongly agree that PACs should be re-established, and provide ongoing regional guidance on issues that profoundly 

impact tribes—an example is the new Special Forest Product Policy (in review by Obama administration now) which 

will need very direct involvement of area tribes whose treaty rights are directly impacted and even with commenting 

opportunity, could have contributed earlier in this process to yield a more thoughtful draft policy—better policy, 

greater federal efficiency.

A few of the challenges to effective consultation I have noticed so far:

• Budget and staff limitations, particularly a concern with the Forest Service – this is always given to us as a reason 

why certain types of consultation or follow up has not occurred- their staff is reduced from prior levels and asked to 

cover too many fronts; consultation may take a back seat due to a variety of what are seen as more pressing issues.

• Tribal continual follow up and effort needed to ensure consultation- when Tribal staff also limited, this becomes 

difficult

• Consultation happening within different departments, among different staff- not well coordinated and as a result, 

not as well informed. A more coordinated approach to consultation from both federal and tribal perspectives, would 

fortify this process.

• While some agency heads or staff may be committed and knowledgeable, other staff may have very little 

understanding or knowledge about tribes and tribal consultation requirements—agencies need to better convey these 

responsibilities as well as allocate appropriate levels of their time to consultation if it is really to occur meaningfully.

• All good relationships require time and personal connections help. Staff turnover in either parties can slow this 

process.

• Despite having an MOA, and regular monthly meetings now with some staff from the Forest Service, there are still 

several important projects that went forward with no mention to Tulalip, and that we didn’t find out about until late 

in the process. Knowing what Tribes are interested in and using staff interactions to convey informally as well as 

formally, these projects of potential tribal concern, is a slow process and one that will time and tribal vigilance to 

foster.

Use of Comments in Final Report:

Comments will be posted to a discussion website about the report to help stimulate dialogue on the role of and process for 

consultation. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

CF — Oregon and Washington Report

Case study comments:

Tribes and federal agencies participating in the five case studies included in the report each had opportunities to comment 

on case study drafts before the full report draft went out to all participating tribes for review. Their comments were 

integrated into the case studies before those case studies were integrated into the full report draft.

Scott Schuyler, Doug 

Couvelier

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe sschuyler@upperskagit.com; 

Dougc@upperskagit.com

Email comments regarding 

USIT case study

Howard Crombie Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians

hcrombie@ctclusi.org Email comments regarding 

Consultation Protocols case 

study

Sue McGill, Jacilee Wray Olympic National Park - 

Past Acting Superintendent 

Jacilee_wray@nps.gov Email comments regarding 

Consultation Protocols case 

study

Mel Moon, Katie Krueger, 

Frank Geyer

Quileute Indian Tribe mel.moon@quileutenation.org; 

frank.geyer@quileutenationa.org; 

katie.krueger@quileutenation.org

Email comments regarding 

Quileute Indian Tribe case 

study

Wenona Wilson EPA Region 10 – Tribal 

Consultation Specialist

Wilson.wenona@epamail.epa.gov Email comments regarding 

Quileute Indian Tribe case 

study

Martha Krueger USDA Forest Service, 

Olympic National Forest

mfkrueger@fs.fed.us Email comments regarding 

Quileute Indian Tribe case 

study

George Smith,

Jason Robison,

Tim Vredenburg, 

Coquille Indian Tribe georgesmith@coquilletribe.org; 

jasonrobison@coquilletribe.org; 

timvredenburg@coquilletribe.org

Email comments regarding 

CIT case study

Mark Johnson BLM Coos Bay District – 

District Manager

Mark_e_Johnson@or.blm.gov Email comments regarding 

CIT case study

Mike Stamon, Dave 

Bingaman, Larry Gilbertson, 

Jim Plampin, Wayne Moulder

Quinault Indian Nation mstamon@quinault.org, 

dbingaman@quinault.org

Email comments regarding 

QIN case study
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 85

Strengthening the Federal-Tribal Relationship:

A Report on Monitoring Consultation under the 

Northwest Forest Plan in Northern California

Prepared for

Tribal Relations Office of the

USDA Forest Service Region 5 

and Bureau of Land Management, California

Authors:

Kathy Lynn

Katie MacKendrick

Hannah Satein
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

86 — Northern California Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 87

Table of contents

I.	 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Key Findings from the Initial Monitoring Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

California Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Consultation at the Federal Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Forest Service Protocol for Consultation with Tribes – FSH 1509.13 (excerpt). . . . . . 94

Treaty Rights and Trust Resources (as described in the NWFP Record of Decision). 94

II.	 Key Findings from the California Tribal Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Consultation Process and Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Q.1. Adequacy of Consultation Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Q.2. Use and Adequacy of Federal Policy Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Q.3. Frequency of Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Q.3a. Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Q.4. Use of Tribal Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Q.5. Use of Tribal Information in Future Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Access to and Protection of Tribal Resources and Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Q.6. Exercise of Tribal Rights and Access to Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Q.7. Protection and Use of Tribal Information and Cultural Resources 

 in Management Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Q.8. Conflicts over the Use or Management of Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Effect on Tribal Values of Interest (Cultural, Social, and Economic). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Q.9. Treaty Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Q.10. Federal Forest Management Compatibility with Tribal Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Strengthening Federal-Tribal Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Q. 11. How Can Federal-Tribal Relationships be Strengthened?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

III. 	Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Case Study #1: Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Case Study #2: Elk Valley Rancheria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

IV. Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Appendix A: Letter Sent to Tribes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Enclosure 1: Northwest Forest Plan Tribal Monitoring Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Appendix B. Interview Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix C. Summary of Comments from Review of the Draft Tribal 

 Monitoring Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

88 — Northern California Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 89

Acknowledgements

The USDA Forest Service in Region 5 contracted with the Intertribal Timber Council 

and the California Indian Fire and Forestry Management Council (CIFFCM) to conduct 

interviews with tribes in California within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Merv George, 

with CIFFMC at the time of the interviews, conducted all interviews for the report. Kathy 

Lynn contracted with the Intertribal Timber Council to analyze the interview data; Kathy, 

Katie MacKendrick and Hannah Satein are the primary authors of this report. 

A tribal monitoring advisory group (TMAG) provided guidance throughout the 

development of the Northwest Forest Plan tribal monitoring report for both Regions 5 and 6 

of the Forest Service. Members of the TMAG include:

• Gary Harris, USDA Forest Service Region 6 Tribal Relations Office

• Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council

• George Smith, Executive Director, Coquille Indian Tribe

• Sonia Tamez, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Tribal Relations Office (retired)

• Merv George, USDA Forest Service Region 5 Tribal Relations Office/ California 

Indian Fire Forestry Management Council

The authors thank the tribal leaders, tribal staff, and agency representatives who spent 

significant time sharing thoughts and perspectives for the interviews, case studies, and 

review of the full report. 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

90 — Northern California Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 91

I. Introduction 

government-to-government relationships.1 Region 6 of the 

USDA Forest Service contracted with Resource Innovations 

at the University of Oregon to conduct interviews with all 

tribes within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Oregon 

and Washington. Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service 

contracted with the Intertribal Timber Council and the 

California Indian Forestry and Fire Management Council 

(CIFFMC) to coordinate interviews with tribes in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area in California. 

Findings from this second monitoring effort will be 

used to report key aspects of federal-tribal relationships 

within the Northwest Forest Plan. However, findings, 

lessons learned, and recommendations can be shared much 

more broadly in a policy context to strengthen governmentto-government relationships that extend well beyond the 

Northwest Forest Plan.

Key Findings from the Initial Monitoring 

Report

In 2006, the USDA Forest Service published a report on the 

effectiveness of the federal-tribal relationship as part of a 

series of reports on the Northwest Forest Plan.2 The original 

monitoring effort that studied the effectiveness of federaltribal relationships was conducted for the period from 1994 

to 2003. The report summarizes the results of a monitoring 

program designed to evaluate the effects on federal-tribal 

relationships of the implementation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The report includes perspectives from fifteen 

of the seventy-six, federally recognized tribes within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area that agreed to participate in 

interviews for the monitoring project. The report also 

includes key findings and recommendations from a forum 

of tribal leaders that was held in April 2005.

The initial set of interviews consisted of fourteen 

questions used in formal, face-to-face consultations 

between tribal government representatives and federal 

agency officials to collect monitoring information. Key 

topics addressed in the questions included the conditions 

1

See Appendix A for a full list of survey questions and the letter sent 

by the Forest Supervisor and District Manager to all tribal chairpersons 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Regions 5 and 6.

2Technical Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2006

Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), agencies 

that manage federal land within the range of the northern 

spotted owl are to monitor the effects of implementation 

of the Northwest Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines. 

One element of monitoring identified in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Plan is “American Indians and Their 

Culture.” Key issues addressed in the initial monitoring 

effort included:

• conditions and trends of the trust resources 

identified in treaties with American Indians;

• effectiveness of the coordination or liaison 

to ensure adequate protection of religious or 

cultural heritage sites; and

• adequacy of access by American Indians of 

forest species, resources, and places important 

for cultural, subsistence, or economic reasons, 

particularly those identified in treaties.

Effectiveness monitoring under the Northwest Forest 

Plan is to take place at ten-year intervals. The monitoring 

for the first ten-year period was completed in 2003, and the 

results were published in 2006 as: “Northwest Forest Plan – 

The First 10 years (1994-2003) Effectiveness of the FederalTribal Relationship” (R6-RPM-TP-02-2006). In this initial 

monitoring report, the views of fifteen tribes in the area 

covered by the Northwest Forest Plan were presented. 

A Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG) was 

subsequently chartered under the proviso of the Interagency 

Advisory Council to develop recommendations to improve 

the protocol and techniques used to monitor the federaltribal relationship and obtain broader tribal participation. 

For the second round of monitoring, the TMAG 

devised an approach to provide an opportunity for all 

seventy-six, federally recognized tribes with interests in the 

federally managed land within the Plan area to participate 

in an interview to provide insight and perspectives about 

consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan. The TMAG 

worked collectively to develop a survey instrument that 

reflected lessons learned from the initial monitoring effort 

and focused on the consultation process, outcomes, and 

recommendations from the tribes on how to strengthen 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

92 — Northern California Report

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. 

Key findings from the interviews:

• Some tribes felt that the condition of aquatic 

and riparian habitats, fisheries, and forest health 

had 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 the management of trust resources and 

resources of interest on the ground.

Key findings and recommendations from the 2005 forum of 

tribal leaders:

• Tribal leaders recommended that the federal 

agencies should not confuse the popular word 

“collaboration” with consultation. 

• Although tribes and tribal representatives 

provided information through the consultation 

process, tribal leaders believed that the advice 

and recommendations gathered by the federal 

agencies had, at times, disappeared without a 

response. 

• The continual federal and tribal leader 

turnover within the NWFP area created 

a difficult consultation and relationshipbuilding environment. The representatives at 

this meeting felt there should be an ongoing 

orientation process for both federal and tribal 

leaders. 

It is important to reflect on these key findings and 

others in the 2006 report as the changes in the federaltribal relationship during the last five years since the initial 

monitoring took place are examined. 

California Methods

In both regions, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) sent a joint letter to the chairpersons 

of all tribes within the Northwest Forest Plan area to invite 

them to participate in the interviews and introduce the 

respective contractors. In Region 5, the California Indian 

Forestry and Fire Management Council followed up with 

phone calls to each tribe requesting participation.

Interview Questions

After the initial monitoring had been conducted, the tribal 

monitoring group refined and developed eleven questions to 

focus on the following areas:

• consultation process, outcome, and tracking

• access and protection

• affect on tribal values of interest (cultural, 

social, and economic)

• strengthening federal-tribal relations

A list of the questions used in the monitoring is in 

Appendix B. 

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

Each tribe participating in the monitoring effort was 

notified of confidentiality issues. The information collected 

during the interviews has been synthesized into the 

published report. In the report, no information is attributed 

to a specific person or tribe. However, because the interview 

notes and key code are part of the record of the monitoring 

process and will be considered property of the federal 

government, all interview participants were informed that 

confidentiality cannot be fully protected under the law. 

Tribal Interviews in California 

There are forty-two, federally recognized tribes in 

California within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Of these 

forty-two tribes, the California Indian Forestry and Fire 

Management Council interviewed seventeen individuals 

representing fifteen tribes.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 93

California Case Studies

As part of the effort to monitor government-to-government 

relationships under the Northwest Forest Plan, the 

California Indian Forestry and Fire Management Council 

conducted two case studies that expand on the information 

and findings from the tribal monitoring interviews. There 

is a need to hear from tribes about their experiences and 

perspectives on how their rights and interests have been 

affected during plan implementation. The case studies 

explore in more detail the types of consultation processes 

that have occurred under the Northwest Forest Plan, barriers 

and limitations to consultation, successes, and lessons 

learned to inform policy development and implementation. 

Case studies can assist tribes and agencies in understanding 

local conditions and the outcomes from a given process, 

such as NWFP implementation. They also provide best 

practices from which others may learn or replicate in their 

own communities or among their own agencies. The two 

case studies featured in this report are:

1. Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe: Consistency in 

consultation and its role in aligning land 

management across jurisdictions

2. Elk Valley Rancheria: Communication, funding, 

education, and co-management to address 

factors affecting consultation

Definitions

Consultation 

Consultation is an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by tribal officials into 

the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. Consultation is the active, affirmative process 

of (1) identifying and seeking input from appropriate tribal 

governing bodies, community groups, and individuals; 

(2) considering their interests as a necessary and integral 

part of the decision-making process; and (3) providing a 

feedback mechanism to share with tribes how tribal input 

has been used in the decision-making process. (EO 13175, 

11/6/2000; HUD Consultation Policy)

Collaboration 

Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and well-defined 

relationship entered into by two or more organizations 

to achieve common goals. The relationship includes a 

commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly 

developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual 

authority and accountability for success; and sharing of 

resources and rewards. Communication channels are well 

defined and operate on many levels. Authority is determined 

by the collaborative structure. (Massettich, Murray-Close 

and Monsey 2001)

Coordination

Coordination involves somewhat formal relationships, with 

some planning, division of roles, and understanding of 

compatible missions. Formal channels of communication 

are established. Individual organizations retain authority 

but share, to an extent, risk, resources, and rewards. 

(Massettich, Murray-Close and Monsey 2001)

Cooperation 

Cooperation is an informal relationship without a 

commonly defined mission, structure, or planning effort. 

Information is shared as needed, and authority is retained 

by each organization. Risks, resources, and rewards are not 

shared. (Massettich, Murray-Close and Monsey 2001)

Consultation at the Federal Level

President Clinton’s Executive Order 13175, “Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

requires each federal agency to have an accountable process 

to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials 

into the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. 

Federal agency action shall be guided by the principles 

of respect for Indian self-government and sovereignty, 

tribal treaties, and other rights and responsibilities that 

arise from the special trust relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Federal action shall also 

favor maximum tribal participation and defer to the laws 

and policies established by Indian tribes to the extent 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

94 — Northern California Report

permitted by law. Each federal agency has established a 

government-to-government consultation policy (see Forest 

Service policy below). Key aspects of federal consultation 

policy should include: 

• notifying Indian tribes as soon as possible 

regarding formulated or proposed federal 

actions;

• informing Indian tribes of the potential impact 

of formulated or proposed federal actions;

• informing Indian tribes of those federal officials 

charged with making the final decisions with 

respect to the federal action;

• ensuring those federal officials are engaged and 

available for consultation directly with tribes;

• ensuring the input and recommendations of 

Indian tribes are fully considered by those 

officials responsible for the final decision; and

• providing Indian tribes with feedback about the 

adoption or rejection of tribal recommendations 

by those federal officials involved in the 

decision-making process. 

Forest Service Protocol for Consultation 

with Tribes – FSH 1509.13 (excerpt)

The following steps should be taken when coordinating 

consultation with tribes: 

• the agency contacts the tribal government, 

preferably prior to scoping and public 

involvement, to advise the tribe of a proposed 

policy, plan, or project that may affect tribal 

rights or interests;

• the tribe may respond back that this is not an 

issue or that this proposal is important and the 

tribe would like to initiate consultation;

• the tribe may request that federal agency 

technical experts meet with the tribe’s technical 

representatives (or the tribe may request an 

official level meeting);

• issues are discussed in order for the agency to 

understand why the proposal is of concern to 

the tribe. This allows the respective staff to 

brief respective parties and provide informed 

opinions and recommendations;

• consultation steps are defined and an agreement 

may be reached between the tribe and the Forest 

Service on the process for consultation;

• the agency makes a decision in consultation 

with the tribe.

Treaty Rights and Trust Resources 

(as described in the NWFP Record of 

Decision)3

This [record of] decision provides a higher level of 

protection for American Indian trust resources on public 

lands than the plans that it amends and does not impair or 

restrict the treaties or rights of tribes. However, subsequent 

implementation of standards and guidelines could directly 

affect American Indian practices and activities, e.g., a 

prohibition against the collection of certain plant material 

or trees in late successional reserves that are subject to 

tribal treaty off-reservation gathering rights. Under such 

circumstances, the exercise of these tribal treaty rights will 

not be restricted unless the Regional Interagency Ecosystem 

Office determines that the restriction is (1) reasonable 

and necessary for preservation of the species at issue, 

(2) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be 

achieved solely by regulation of non-Indian 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 

either as stated or as applied, and (5) voluntary tribal 

conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the 

necessary conservation purpose.

Future analysis and planning efforts to implement this 

decision on lands administered by the BLM and Forest 

Service will identify Indian trust resources that would be 

affected and identify potential conflicts between proposed 

federal actions and treaty rights or tribal trust resources. 

Consultation with the recognized tribal government with 

jurisdiction over the trust property that the proposal may 

3

Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision. (April 1994). www.reo.gov/

library/reports/newroda.pd
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 95

affect, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of the 

Solicitor will be conducted early in the planning process. 

The consultation with affected tribes will occur on a 

government-to-government basis. Conflicts will be resolved 

collaboratively, and affected tribes will be involved in the 

planning process, consistent with the federal government’s 

trust responsibilities.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

96 — Northern California Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 97

II. Key Findings from the California Tribal Interviews 

described interaction with federal agencies as more informal 

than consultation and desired more co-management rather 

than merely being told what was happening. 

Staff Turnover

Two tribes stated that staff turnover impaired consultation 

and federal-tribal relationships. One tribe described how the 

transition of federal agency staff reduced the quality of its 

consultation process. The person who had been consulting 

with the tribe had retired, and the new person was illprepared, unhelpful, or culturally insensitive. 

Limited Staff Capacity and Access to the Highest 

Level

Two tribes cited staff capacity and a lack of interaction 

with higher level federal staff as problems that impaired 

consultation. One tribe maintained that fire issues were not 

being addressed because of limited federal agency staff 

and that assistance was needed. The other tribe stated that 

consultation was inadequate because they do 

“not have enough access to regional managers. 

[The] field office has limited authority to make 

any major decisions.”

Written Protocols Have Not Been Developed

Seven tribes interviewed stated they did not have written 

protocols in place. One tribe noted it formerly had one with 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but no longer 

did. Another tribe stated that there were few Forest Service 

lands near their reservation.

Q.2. Use and Adequacy of Federal Policy 

Guidance

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes N/A

1a. Have written consultation 

protocols been developed?

53% 47% 0 0

1b. Are they adequate for 

government-to-government 

consultation? 

20% 60% 13% 7%

A number of tribes contacted for interviews indicated that 

because of their limited (or complete lack of) tribal land 

base, they were not aware of the Northwest Forest Plan and 

declined to participate in an interview.4 Some tribes did 

share experiences with consultation in general, even when 

it was not directly related to the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Throughout this report, comments about consultation not 

related to the Northwest Forest Plan are clearly pointed out. 

Consultation Process and Protocols

Q.1. Adequacy of Consultation Protocols

Of the fifteen tribes interviewed, 47 percent indicated 

that written protocols for consultation had not been 

developed under the Northwest Forest Plan. Of the 53 

percent who said they had protocols in place, just three 

tribes indicated they were adequate for government-togovernment consultation. 

Use of Memos of Understanding and Memos of 

Agreement

Of the eight tribes (53 percent) with written consultation 

protocols in place, five stated that they had a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) or a memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) that helped facilitate consultation.

Have Written Protocols and Process, but Room 

for Improvement

Several of the tribes interviewed noted that their written 

protocol could be improved. The presence of a written protocol 

did not ensure adequate consultation. One tribe suggested it 

was too early to tell if its MOU was adequate. Other tribes 

4

Tribes with limited or no tribal land may, however, rely on federally 

managed lands for subsistence and culturally important resources and 

sites. 

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes

Don’t

Know

2a. Is the tribe aware that federal 

policy guidance is 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? 

47% 47% 0% 7% 

total is

greater

than

100%

2b. Are federal procedures adequate 

to identify direct and indirect effects 

to activities on tribal lands?

13% 80% 7% 0%
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

98 — Northern California Report

Whereas 47 percent of respondents stated that they are 

aware of federal policy guidance for consultation at the 

federal level, 80 percent of all tribes interviewed indicated 

that federal procedures are inadequate to identify direct and 

indirect effects to activities on tribal lands. 

Guidance from Specific Agencies, Programs, or 

Legislation

Several tribes provided examples of guidance from a 

specific agency or piece of legislation, including the 

Environmental Protection Agency and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

General Guidance

One tribe stated that a “blanket report” is provided, but no 

individual guidance.

Adequate Notice Given regarding Effects to Tribal 

Lands

Only one tribe maintained that federal procedures are 

adequate to identify effects to activities on tribal lands:

“Always notified if impacts are there...get maps 

and letters.”

Inadequacy of Federal Procedures regarding 

Effects to Tribal Lands

A number of tribes responded that federal procedures 

were inadequate to identify direct and indirect effects to 

activities on tribal lands. Tribes described federal agencies 

that provided too little time for tribes to respond. One tribe 

suggested, 

“Ten-day notices are not adequate.”

Other tribes noted adequate procedures existed for 

certain issues only; two tribes described inadequate 

procedures for protecting cultural resources and tribal 

resources from the impacts of multiple use policies.

Q.3. Frequency of Consultation 

Eighty percent of the tribes interviewed stated they 

had been consulted in the last ten years. Yet, the issues 

addressed, agencies and staff engaged, and frequency of 

consultation varied. 

Consultation Varies by Issue, Agency, and 

Frequency

Tribes provided examples of the issues addressed in 

consultation, such as wind generation, impacts on cultural 

sites, fire concerns, and environmental assessments and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. Tribes described 

how the frequency of consultation varied, depending on the 

issue or staff involved. One tribe noted timber harvest plans 

motivated consultation. 

Tribes also provided examples of the federal agencies 

and private organizations that consulted with them, such 

as the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, 

California Department of Transportation, and logging 

companies. The frequency of consultation varied among 

agencies. One tribe noted that consultants for the California 

Department of Forestry send notifications; another tribe 

state, 

“Pacific Gas and Electric all the time, depends 

on the projects and contact people involved, 

Forest Service sometimes.”

The frequency of consultation varied from a dozen 

notifications a year to two times in the last five years. One 

tribe suggested it received notifications every time activities 

occurred in its area. Another tribe noted that during the last 

fifteen years the tribe has had frequent consultations, the 

requirements for which are spelled out in its MOU. 

Although some tribes suggested that they received 

frequent consultation, others described the opposite. One 

tribe suggested that it was rarely consulted because local 

federal agency staff had limited understanding of the tribe’s 

Interview Question Yes No

3a. Over the past ten years, has the tribe 

been consulted on federal agency plans, 

projects, programs, or activities that might 

affect tribal rights or interests? 

80% 20%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 99

standing because is was a smaller band related to a larger 

tribe. Although both are federally recognized, the larger 

tribe receives regular consultation, whereas the smaller, 

separate-but-related band, rarely receives consultation. 

Q.3. Provincial Advisory Committees 

(PACs)

Twenty percent of those interviewed indicated that there 

are or have been Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC) 

or other intergovernmental forums in the area; 13 percent 

of the fifteen tribes interviewed have participated in these 

forums. 

Imbalance of Power and a Lack of Relevance and 

Support in PACs

Two tribes stated that they had previously participated in 

the PACs, but no longer did. One tribe stated that 

“they didn’t listen”

and another said they are a

“waste of time - used to [participate] but [they] 

do not recognize the tribe’s role...[in] decision 

making.” 

These tribes chose to stop participating in the PACs after 

their unsatisfactory experiences.

Unaware of PACs (Lack of Tribal Participation and 

Representation in PACs)

One tribe stated they were unaware of any PACs. This 

suggests that PACs may exist, but that tribal representation 

in PACs could be limited. 

Q.4. Use of Tribal Information

Six tribes indicated that tribal information that has 

resulted from consultation efforts has, to some extent, been 

incorporated into planning documents. However, only one 

tribe interviewed indicated that it felt its contributions had 

resulted in changes to federal actions or considerations for 

tribal resources of interest. 

Many tribes gave examples of the types of projects 

that they have worked on with federal agencies. Several 

tribes stated that they assisted in watershed analyses and 

assessments. One tribe noted that it had worked on an 

inventory of federal lands in 2001.

Two tribes suggested their contributions were 

sometimes incorporated; one noted that change is 

slow, but the Forest Service is starting to become more 

culturally sensitive. Another tribe stated that information is 

incorporated and changes are made 

“on a local level - small items work well when 

within the local level discussion. Big ticket 

items (wilderness) don’t work as well- [due to] 

limitations on authority.”5

5Congress designates Wilderness Areas, yet these designations also impact 

the rights of tribes and therefore are important to acknowledge in considering 

strengthening consultation at the highest level of decision making.

Interview Question Yes No NonResponse N/A

3c. Are there PACs or other 

intergovernmental forums in 

the area? 

20% 73% 7% 0%

3d. Do tribes participate in 

these forums?

13% 80% 0% 7%

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes

Don’t

Know

NonResponse

4a. Has tribal 

information been 

incorporated into 

federal planning 

documents (including 

watershed analysis 

and decision-making 

processes) in a 

manner such that 

tribes can recognize 

their contributions? 

40% 60% 0% 0% 0%

4b. Did tribal 

contributions result 

in any changes 

to federal actions 

or considerations 

for resources of 

interest? 

7% 33% 13% 7% 40%
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

100 — Northern California Report

Nine tribes replied that they had not had their 

information incorporated into federal planning documents 

and decision-making processes. Five tribes replied that the 

information they had given had not resulted in any changes 

in federal actions, and two responded that sometimes 

changes are made. One tribe stated that 

“no...input is ever solicited.”

Another stated that it is “hard to say”

if its contributions resulted in any changes to federal 

actions or consideration of resources of interest. 

Q.5. Use of Tribal Information in Future 

Efforts

Almost half of those interviewed stated that agencies 

have consulted with the tribes to develop plans for future 

monitoring, restoration, or assessment projects, or other 

planning efforts. 

Consultation on Specific Projects

Three tribes stated that they had been consulted on issues 

regarding fisheries and fishing rights; one tribe cited the 

Marine Life Protection Act. Other issues tribes were 

consulted on included water rights, restoration, mushroom 

and basket gathering, and watershed assessments. 

Use of Memos of Understanding

One tribe stated that its 

“MOU partially covered this [process].”

 This highlights the potential of MOUs to facilitate adequate 

consultation processes. 

Notification vs. Consultation

Several tribes described consultation as receiving 

notifications from federal agencies about planned actions. 

One tribe stated that it was 

“asked for assistance after the fact”

but would 

“prefer to be involved in the future.”

This suggests that, for a number of tribes, the consultation 

process is more akin to a notification process about ongoing 

federal planning efforts. 

Access to and Protection of Tribal 

Resources and Interests

Part of the monitoring effort is intended to evaluate whether 

access to and protection of tribal resources and interests on 

federal land have increased for tribes under the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The following section examines these issues. 

Q.6. Exercise of Tribal Rights and Access 

to Resources

Twenty percent of tribes interviewed suggested that the 

exercise of tribal rights or access to resources and/or 

areas of tribal interest on federal lands had changed under 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Sixty percent of respondents 

indicated that they had not experienced changes in rights or 

access to resources since the establishment of the Northwest 

Forest Plan.

Access to Cultural Sites has been Affected or 

Limited

One tribe stated that its access to cultural sites has been 

limited by gates that demarcated “special management 

zones.” Another tribe stated that its access to a specific 

cultural site had been affected. 

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes

5. Have agencies consulted 

or collaborated with tribal 

governments to develop plans for 

future monitoring, restoration, or 

assessment projects, or for other 

planning efforts?

47% 47% 6%

Interview Question Yes No SometimesN/A Don’t

Know

6. Have the exercise of 

tribal rights or access to 

resources and/or areas of 

tribal interest on federal 

lands changed? 

20% 60% 13% 0% 7%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 101

Impacts to Hunting and 

Gathering

Two tribes stated that their hunting and gathering areas had 

been affected. One tribe described that fishing and its right 

to snowy plover had been affected. Another tribe suggested 

that 

“special gathering status should be granted to 

tribes over other groups.”

Land Designations Affect Rights and Access

One tribe replied that it had not experienced any changes 

“aside from more lands being put into wilderness.” 

Although wilderness designations occur at the 

Congressional level and not under the Northwest Forest 

Plan, it is important to note that these designations also 

affect the ability of tribes to exercise their rights and access 

important resources and sites.

Lack of Knowledge about the Northwest Forest 

Plan

Two tribes stated that they were not sure how their tribal 

rights had been affected due to a lack of knowledge about 

the Northwest Forest Plan. They maintained that they had 

never heard of the NWFP or knew very little about it. 

These experiences suggest that other tribes may not have 

the information they need to properly determine how the 

NWFP impacts tribal rights or access to resources and areas 

of interest. 

Q.7. Protection and Use of Tribal 

Information and Cultural Resources in 

Management Plans

Sixty percent of respondents noted that procedures had 

been put into place to protect sensitive tribal information 

from unauthorized access or release. Forty-seven percent 

indicated that tribal knowledge had been incorporated into 

management plans, and 67 percent noted they were aware of 

procedures in place to protect cultural sites on federal land.

Procedures and Staff are Ineffective

One tribe stated that the “Forest Service is uneducated,” 

and another said that occasionally sensitive tribal 

information is protected: “It depends on who is working 

with the tribes.” One tribe stated that the procedures in 

place are ineffective, 

“Archeological sites are being documented 

when they were asked not to. Sometimes tribes 

don’t want archeological sites documented 

because of a fear of what will happen with the 

information...Freedom of Information Act is 

always an issue to worry about.”

Incorporation of Knowledge for Specific Projects

Tribes cited specific projects they had worked on with the 

Forest Service and BLM to incorporate tribal information 

into management practices, including land use practices and 

tribal knowledge. One tribe said it had worked with federal 

agencies on 

“bear grass or thinning fuels reduction projects.”

Interview Question Yes No

7a. Is the tribe aware of procedures that have 

been put into place to protect sensitive tribal 

information from unauthorized access or 

release?

60% 40%

7b. Is the tribe aware of procedures that have 

been put in place to provide incorporation 

of tribal traditional knowledge into the 

development of management actions?

47% 53%

7c. Is the tribe aware of procedures that have 

been put in place to provide protection of 

cultural sites on federal land?

67% 33%
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

102 — Northern California Report

No Procedures in Place to Incorporate Tribal 

Information

One tribe replied that although

“some discussion...[has] been happening...no 

procedures [have been] put in place”

to incorporate tribal knowledge about traditional burning 

and other management issues into federal management 

plans. 

Protection of Information and Cultural Sites Only 

Partially Adequate

One tribe said it was aware of procedures to protect 

information about sacred sites; another said that it was 

aware of procedures to protect information about several of 

their tribal sites. One tribe credited the Forest Service with 

the protection of a specific cultural site. Another tribe said 

that its weaving and gathering areas were being adequately 

protected. 

One tribe said that it worked with federal agencies 

to co-enforce and monitor tribal cultural sites. Another 

tribe stated that more work is needed in this area. One 

tribe described working on an MOU to deal with issues 

surrounding the protection of tribal information and cultural 

sites and the incorporation of tribal knowledge.

Protection of Cultural Sites Depends on Staff

Three tribes stated that the protection of cultural sites 

depends on the federal agency staff. One tribe stated that it 

“depends on [the] Forest Service 

representatives”

and another stated that most of the time protection is 

adequate but 

Q.8. Conflicts over the Use or Management 

of Resources 

Twenty percent of the respondents suggested that they 

do not have conflicts with federal agencies over the use 

or management of resources or areas of tribal interest. 

However, the majority of the tribes responded that they had 

conflicts and that conflicts were increasing. 

Cultural Sites Not Protected

One source of conflict cited by tribes was a lack of 

protection for cultural sites. One tribe stated that it wanted a 

specific group of sites protected, but the 

“BLM does not seem to care.”

Others described how looting is occurring on cultural sites; 

“Medicine people using areas are not formally 

protected from the general public. As a result 

of trees tipping over it is uncovering ancient 

village sites, and the public is allowed to visit 

the lands because it is not in trust.”

Negative Impact on Tribal Resources and Areas 

from Public Use

Five tribes stated that the presence of the general public on 

federal lands was having a negative impact on the lands and 

causing conflict. They described garbage, pollution, and 

inappropriate hunting and gathering. One tribe stated that 

conflicts are increasing; 

“Access to gathering sites is getting tough. 

Many non-natives over pick and over harvest 

valuable areas. Not much left for Indians.”

Conflict over Fire Use and Management

Four tribes described conflicts over the way federal agencies 

manage and use fires. One tribe replied: 

Interview Question Yes No Sometimes

8) Are there conflicts over the use or 

management of resources or areas of 

tribal interest? 

73% 20% 7%
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 103

“Wilderness does not allow for stewardship- 

[it] will burn up eventually (wilderness equals 

abandonment).”

Similarly, one tribe replied that it faces

“land management issues during fires. 

Intentional fires as fuel breaks hurt tribal 

areas. [There are] fuels management...conflicts 

[because the] Forest Service only wants to 

protect conifers.” 

Another tribe stated that it is 

“not allowed to remove fire hazard (trees) 

because of coastal zone permit processes. Too 

bureaucratic of a process because of strained 

relationships.”

Still another tribe said it faced conflicts over building fires 

for ceremonies. 

Two tribes stated that conflicts over fires are increasing. 

One replied 

“[conflicts are] increasing-[the] forests are 

becoming more unhealthy.” Another stated, 

“[Conflicts] increase with Forest Service 

activities. Fires increase disputes.” 

One tribe stated that the presence of fires is leading to 

decreased conflict because 

“fires bring out bad policies.”

Land Use, Land Designations, and Management 

Conflicts

The tribes interviewed provided a range of land 

management and land use conflicts they face. One tribe 

described a specific land use conflict over the placement of 

a proposed energy plant. Another cited a 

“lack of stewardship- [federal agencies] not 

taking care of the land”

as causing conflict. Still another tribe said it faced conflict 

over 

“land management issues- [putting] land 

into trust. Zoning issues are a really major 

source of conflict [that] may or may not be 

from [the] Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management.”

One tribe stated it faced conflicts over mushrooms. 

Another stated it was having 

“permit problems with bear dance access...

[and] perhaps the Forest Service needs cultural 

training on tribal ceremonies.” 

Another tribe replied it was having conflicts about the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

Adequacy of Conflict Resolution Processes 

Six tribes replied that they had adequate conflict resolution 

processes. One stated that the processes in place were 

adequate: they have 

“two summit meetings each year.”

Out of the six tribes that stated they had adequate 

conflict resolution processes, three replied this was because 

of their MOU or MOA. 

Six tribes replied that conflict resolution processes are 

not adequate. One tribe stated that it has 

“made complaints but nothing helps.”

Another tribe replied that although it 

“always gets a return phone call from Forest 

Service representatives,”

the processes are not adequate and 

“always can be improved.”

One tribe stated that no conflict resolution processes 

exist. Another tribe said they were 

“Unsure; few conflicts worked themselves out.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

104 — Northern California Report

Effect on Tribal Values of Interest 

(Cultural, Social, and Economic)

Q.9. Treaty Rights

Respondents were asked if their tribe exercised treaty 

rights, other rights, or pursued tribal interests associated 

with national forests and BLM public lands and resources. 

Many tribes responded that they had exercised their hunting 

and gathering rights, and some tribes cited conflicts that had 

arisen around these rights. A few tribes replied that they 

had not exercised their rights.

Exercising Hunting and Gathering Rights

Ten of the fifteen tribes responded that they had exercised 

their hunting and gathering rights, activities such as fishing 

and collecting mushrooms, nuts, basket materials, firewood, 

and medicinal plants. One tribe stated that it exercised its 

rights 

“not as a government action, but individual 

members still gather basket materials,...wildlife, 

regalia items (sea lion tusks), [and] abalone.”

Another tribe stated that its gathering rights are 

“spelled out in [its] MOA.”

Similarly another tribe stated that it had 

“mushroom agreements [for] off reservation 

[collection].”

Not Exercising Rights

Three tribes responded that they had not exercised any of 

their tribal rights. One tribe stated that the 

“Forest Service does not recognize any tribal 

rights off tribal lands.”

Conflicts in Exercising Rights

Four tribes stated that they faced conflicts exercising their 

rights. One tribe replied it does exercise its rights but 

“access is severely hampered by gates. Hunting, 

gathering, [and] ceremonial preparation [are] 

negatively impacted.” 

Another tribe stated that “exploratory digging hurts 

tribal land use” and another stated its “fishing 

rights [are a] big issue”

and that there had been conflict over them. 

Q.10. Federal Forest Management 

Compatibility with Tribal Values

The tribes interviewed provided many examples to illustrate 

the ways in which federal forest management is compatible 

and incompatible with tribal values. 

Overall Compatible Management

Three tribes replied that overall federal forest management 

aligns with tribal values. One tribe stated that habitat 

protection for fish and endangered species is nearly 

compatible with tribal management. One tribe described,

“[The] Northwest Forest Plan is similar to...

[the tribal] forest management plan: adapted 

management areas...,riparian protection zones 

are similar, silvicultural prescriptions [and] 

fuel transport are very similar.”

Another tribe noted, “Manage the same. Tree poachers 

and grave diggers have been prosecuted in the 

past. Tribe would do the same.”

Compatibility is Situational

Two tribes replied that federal-tribal management 

compatibility depended on each situation. One tribe stated,

“When both sides agree, cultural and 

environmental issues work well. Management 

style is where problems arise.”

Fire Management Not Compatible

Three tribes stated that federal fire management is 

incompatible with tribal management. The tribes described 

that there is too much fuel piling up in the forests and more, 

low-intensity, prescribed burns are needed. One tribe noted,

“Federal management lets too much duff 

(forest slash a.k.a. fire fuel) exist. Lands are 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 105

not kept up. Tribe would have been using more 

prescribed fire. [This management] results in 

bad wildlife habitat and gathering areas.”

Overall Incompatible Management

Beyond incompatible fire management, five tribes said that 

overall federal forest management is incompatible with 

tribal values. They provided varying reasons why this is 

the case, including conflicts over village and burial sites, 

exclusion of other tribal species and resources from federal 

management, differences regarding the concept of late 

successional reserves, and differences in priorities, e.g., 

economics vs. culture. 

Strengthening Federal-Tribal Relations

Q.11. How Can Federal-Tribal Relationships 

be Strengthened?

The survey asked respondents to provide suggestions 

to strengthen the federal-tribal relationship. Five tribes 

stated that improving communication between tribes and 

federal agencies would help improve the federal-tribal 

relationship. Tribes suggested that there needs to be 

more communication and it needs to occur earlier. Tribes 

emphasized the importance of having meaningful and 

honest communication. One tribe recommended opening up 

dialog and allocating more funding for communication.

Increase Educational Opportunities for Federal 

Agencies

Five of the fifteen tribes replied that the federal-tribal 

relationship could be improved if federal agency staff had 

more education about tribal policy, culture, and concerns. 

One tribe noted,

“Federal agencies have to be culturally 

sensitive and understand native culture. [They 

need to] work with natives and not against their 

interests. There are no checks and balances in 

the forest.”

Another tribe described,

“[There needs to be] better understanding 

by upper management in the Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management of how 

tribes value land and resources. Most don’t 

understand tribal management methods/

resources.”

Resolve Existing Conflicts Regarding Level of 

Consultation and Relationships 

Four tribes maintained that resolving issues between tribes 

and federal agency staff would improve the federal-tribal 

relationship. The conflicts cited by the tribes arose because 

of staff turnover, personality conflicts between federal 

and tribal staff, and the level of staff consulting. One tribe 

suggested,

“Federal agencies should contact...[the] 

chairman [and] set up...a person to person 

meeting. Letters don’t cut it. Because of limited 

tribal staff, it is very important to keep the 

chairman in the loop.”

Another recommended more regional meetings with the 

highest level of the Forest Service and BLM.

Engage in Collaborative Consultation and Comanagement 

Three tribes recommended that true consultation and 

management rather than having federal agencies simply 

notify tribes of their actions could strengthen federal-tribal 

relationships. The tribes need to be seen and treated 

as equals, distinct from the general public. One tribe 

suggested,

“:Those tribes that have technical, professional 

capacity [should be] invite[d] to a process/

forum where they can be joint decision 

makers. [There are] ways to do it without 

jeopardizing federal responsibilities. The goal 

is collaborative management.”
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

106 — Northern California Report

Another tribe insisted,

“Consultation needs to be meaningful and 

upfront. Not [just a] token. [It needs to occur] 

right at the beginning of the process [as] 

government to government true equals.”

Return Land to Tribes

Two tribes stated that returning land to tribes would 

improve federal-tribal relationships. One of the tribes said 

it is 

“hard for [the tribe]...small land base now...

no longer have fishing rights or access to tribal 

lands. Culturally [we] still care, but politically 

and legally [we are] unable to get too involved.”

Adequate Consultation for Tribes of All Sizes

The experiences of tribes in California, ranging from 

small Rancherias with minimal or no land bases to large 

tribes with intact tracts of their ancestral territory, suggest 

the importance of consistency in consultation regardless 

of size of the tribe or land base. Some of the smaller 

tribes interviewed for this project described experiencing 

inadequate consultation and suggested lack of recognition 

as one of the causes. Smaller tribes may rely more heavily 

on federally managed lands for access to resources and 

culturally important sites because they may own smaller 

amounts of land. Smaller tribes may lack human resources 

to engage in consultation and follow-up with federal 

agencies. The same may be true for larger tribes. To ensure 

adequate consultation for all tribes, it is important to 

consider these factors among tribes.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 107

III. Case Studies

As part of the effort to monitor government-to-government 

relationships under the Northwest Forest Plan, two case 

studies were conducted to expand on the information and 

findings from the tribal-monitoring interviews. There 

is a need to hear from tribes about their experience and 

perspectives on how their rights and interests have been 

affected during plan implementation. The case studies 

explore in more detail the types of consultation processes 

that have occurred under the Northwest Forest Plan, the 

barriers and limitations to consultation, and the successes 

and lessons learned to inform policy development and 

implementation. 

Case studies can assist tribes and agencies in 

understanding local conditions and the outcomes from a 

given process, such as NWFP implementation. They can 

also provide best practices from which others may learn or 

replicate in their communities or among their agencies. The 

two case studies featured in this report are:

1.	 Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe: Consistency 

in consultation and its role in aligning land 

management across jurisdictions

2.	 Elk River Rancheria: Communication, 

funding, education, and co-management to 

address factors affecting consultation
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

108 — Northern California Report

Case Study #1: Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe

Consistency in Consultation and its Role in 

Aligning Land Management across Jurisdictions

Introduction

For centuries, the Hoopa people have lived in the area 

now known as the Hoopa Valley along the Trinity River 

in Humboldt County, California. The Hoopa Valley 

Reservation today comprises around 92,000 acres of the 

valley and surrounding mountain slopes; about one-quarter 

of the tribe’s historic territory (around 400,000 acres). Of 

the 92,000 acres, roughly 2,250 acres are allotted lands, 

1,300 are individually owned, and the rest are tribally 

owned (Tiller 2005). The tribe currently has approximately 

2,700 members. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe has long had an established 

governance system. Under the amended 1988 Indian SelfDetermination Act (PL 100-580), the Hoopa Valley Tribe 

was one of the first tribes (one of twenty in the nation) to 

take on self-governance as a demonstration tribe. Selfgovernance became solidified in the early 1990s and has 

allowed the tribe to define how it uses federal funds and 

develop its own programs to apply those funds. 

The tribe relies on the Trinity River, tributary streams, 

and prairie, oak woodland, and mixed hardwood and 

conifer forests for subsistence, well-being, and livelihood. 

In addition, the tribe’s historic territory, continued 

interests, and connection to the land today extend beyond 

the reservation boundaries across surrounding private and 

public lands, including adjacent lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 

Sacred to the tribe, and conservatively protected, are its 

fishing rights which are federally reserved and confirmed in 

Parvanno v. Babbitt,1994.

Purpose of the Case Study

The Hoopa Valley Tribe case study offers insight into 

the impacts of staff transition on consultation and 

communication between the tribe and federal agencies. 

It highlights how a lack of access to the highest decisionmaking level within federal agencies affects tribal 

rights, resources, and interests; and how a lack of land 

management actions under the Northwest Forest Plan 

affects federal-tribal relations and resources of concern. The 

case study considers the barriers to, opportunities for, and 

benefits of aligning forest management on the reservation 

and on surrounding Forest Service and BLM managed 

lands to improve forest health, reduce fire risk, and work 

towards fulfilling goals for the tribe and the agencies. It 

also presents recommendations described by individuals 

interviewed for this case for strengthening consultation and 

federal-tribal relationships.

Background

Trinity River

The Trinity River flows through the Hoopa Valley 

Reservation, but originates in the Scott Mountains to the 

northeast. After traveling approximately 130 miles, it enters 

the Lower Klamath River just north of the reservation 

near Weitchpec, California. Before traveling through the 

reservation, the Trinity and Lewiston dams divert Trinity 

River flows to California’s Central Valley via the Trinity 

River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s decisions regarding flow 

allocations for the Trinity River affect the tribe’s drinking 

water supply, cultural and social practices, and subsistence 

and cultural resources, including salmon and other aquatic 

species, which also cross the reservation boundaries 

traveling to the ocean via the Lower Klamath River. 

Presently, the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD) 

signed by the Department of Interior and HVT allows for 

approximately 27 % of the annual inflow above the TRD to 

be released for restoration of Trinity River fisheries (See PL 

102-575).

Forest Management

During the 1940s through the 1980s, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) was in charge of forest management planning 

for the tribe. Hoopa tribal staff suggested that the BIA 

was planning with the economic interests of the tribe in 

mind, but the tribe never approved any of the BIA’s forest 

management plans. They described that past BIA and 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 109

surrounding Forest Service and BLM forest management 

practices conflicted with tribal forest management practices. 

One tribal staff member described how the tribal members 

used to collect different tree sizes and species for different 

uses, which helped in maintaining forest health. 

“One thing we know is when people used to 

harvest wood from the forest, they used different 

species for different purposes – one species 

and size for cooking, another for starting a fire, 

etc., which helped in keeping the forest clean 

and free of underbrush accumulating. Federal 

agencies stopped those practices, and now 

everything is accumulating on the forest floor.”

In 1988, the tribe took over forest management 

planning and implementing for its 88,000-acre forest, yet 

the BIA retains signatory authority on the tribe’s forest 

management plan. Hoopa tribal staff described how the 

tribe switched from economic-driven management to 

management that incorporated a mix of forest values – 

economic, ecologic, and cultural. The tribe now manages its 

forest to maintain culturally important species, in addition 

to managing for economic species. However, Endangered 

Species Act requirements shift the tribe’s monitoring and 

management focus to listed species in the area, including 

the Northern Spotted Owl, and away from culturally 

important tribal government and tribal members. The tribe’s 

timber is Smart Wood Certified by the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC).

Past forest management practices and policies on and 

surrounding the reservation influence the tribe’s lands and 

interests today. Hoopa tribal staff described how federal 

forest management policies, including banning the use 

of fire, have led to significant changes in the landscape, 

including changes in species composition and impaired 

forest health, conditions cited by numerous tribes in 

California who participated in this study. 

“Over the last 80 years, the landscape has 

evolved, along with the climate getting drier, 

along with subtle changes and the lack of the 

use of fire. The landscape has evolved to the 

point where plants are unhealthy, shaded by 

Doug firs that have encroached.” 6

Past forest management practices affect the tribe’s 

ability to manage its forestlands for economic values and 

increase the tribe’s vulnerability to catastrophic fire. Hoopa 

tribal staff described how past management could be one 

of the reasons the forest is experiencing more blowdown 

– hundreds of acres are being wiped out on and adjacent 

to the reservation. They described how surrounding land 

management practices increase the potential for catastrophic 

fire to spread onto the reservation, and catastrophic fire 

could decimate the tribe’s timber economy and harm 

culturally important species, sites, and human health.

Northwest Forest Plan Implementation

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service manages lands adjacent to the 

Hoopa Valley Reservation to the north, east, and south in 

the Six Rivers National Forest. The Lower Trinity Ranger 

District office is located in Willow Creek, CA, just south 

of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Six Rivers National 

Forest Supervisor’s office is located in Eureka, CA. 

Hoopa tribal staff described how the Forest Service 

and BLM have done very little in the area under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Tribal staff noted that protection for 

the Northern Spotted Owl halted timber sales and logging 

in the area. One staff member maintained that few Forest 

Service staff are working in the area as a result.

“Because the Forest Service is not doing much, 

the Willow Creek office, the Lower Trinity 

Ranger District, has been gutted. So little is 

being done, it’s like a ghost town. I don’t even 

know who’s working there now.”

Tribal staff noted that the lack of activity is worrisome 

because a lot of land could use work. One staff member 

suggested, as an example, how the Forest Service quit 

logging to protect the northern spotted owl population in the 

Willow Creek study area, an Adaptive Management Area 

in the Six Rivers National Forest. However the area doesn’t 

6Hoopa Tribal Forestry staff
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

110 — Northern California Report

have good prey habitat, which could be contributing to the 

population’s decline.

Bureau of Land Management

The Arcata Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management 

works adjacent to the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The BLM 

is responsible for the Lacks Creek Management Area on 

the west side of the reservation and lands just north of the 

reservation boundary.

Hoopa tribal staff suggested the BLM, compared to 

the Forest Service, does not manage much land in the area. 

However, they suggested that since Northwest Forest Plan 

implementation, projects are more readily available to the 

tribe on land that the BLM does manage. The tribe started 

working on a project on BLM land in 1995 and currently 

has crews working in the Lacks Creek Area, which is within 

the Redwoods National and State Parks Protection Zone.

Consultation Process

Notification

Although there hasn’t been much activity under the NWFP 

in the area, Hoopa tribal staff maintained that federal 

agencies do try to consult with the tribe, but in the form 

of notification. The Forest Service sends out a list of 

potential projects to the tribe, but the projects on the list 

aren’t located close to the reservation and therefore aren’t a 

priority for the tribe. As a result, the tribe doesn’t bother to 

comment. One tribal staff member noted that a former tribal 

relations staff member at the regional Forest Service office 

in Eureka did a great job notifying the tribe of any actions 

that could impact the tribe’s interests, but that individual has 

now retired. Staff members suggested that the consultation 

process for NEPA is inadequate. Other staff members were 

unaware of any systems to communicate information about 

projects from federal agencies to the tribe.

Authority

Staff members suggested that the tribe lacks access to 

federal agency staff at the highest level, which raises 

questions of authority and inhibits consultation. Tribal 

leadership is hesitant to participate without federal agency 

leadership also participating. The Hoopa Valley Tribe’s 

experience in this case aligns with comments shared 

by other tribes who participated in interviews for the 

northern California report. Other tribes noted conflicts 

over informing and accessing federal and tribal leaders, 

suggesting the importance of increasing access to federal 

staff at the highest level and keeping tribal chairpersons 

informed. 

Tribal-Federal Relationships

Staff turnover members suggested the tribe works well with 

line officers and individual federal agency staff. However, 

tribal staff described that federal agency staff turnover and 

a lack of understanding about tribal sovereignty directly 

influence relationships between the tribe and federal 

agencies. Other California tribes stated that staff turnover 

and a lack of understanding among federal agency staff 

affected consultation. Hoopa tribal staff members suggested 

that it is not a matter of federal agency staff not being 

able to comprehend tribal standing, but rather a matter 

of experience, education, and knowledge transfer. Staff 

members described how these issues vary between Forest 

Service and BLM staff. 

Tribal staff maintained that Forest Service employees 

- line officers in particular - move so frequently that it limits 

the extent of the relationships the tribe is able to develop 

with them. Tribal staff members described experiences in 

which projects initiated with one staff member stopped with 

that person’s departure. They related occasions on which 

the tribe had to start from scratch educating a new staff 

member about tribal standing because the new staff member 

had transferred with no experience working with tribes. Of 

a policy between the tribe and Forest Service about burning 

and collecting wood, one tribal staff member described how 

the federal staff member left in the middle of it; the tribe 

had to introduce the new staff person to the project because 

the information had not been shared with that person. 

Hoopa Tribal staff insisted that the Forest Service staff has 

changed significantly in the past year. They noted there 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 111

are no mechanisms in place to transfer work in progress or 

relationships between transitioning staff. One tribal staff 

member stated, 

“Forest Service staff changes constantly. Since 

the 1980s we’ve gone through five different 

forest supervisors and four district rangers. It is 

frustrating to have to familiarize new rangers, 

and the Forest Service doesn’t have someone at 

the line officer, ranger, or supervisor level that 

is helping to familiarize people with the Tribe’s 

standing.”

Tribal staff members suggested that the BLM has 

a good understanding of the tribe’s standing because 

individuals remain in one location as line officers for 

longer periods of time. Tribal staff members also noted 

that, as a result, the tribe has been working with the BLM 

since NWFP implementation and has agreements in 

place regarding the work. Staff members noted that the 

relationships between the tribe and BLM have progressed 

significantly since the early 1990s; before the early 1990s, 

the tribe and BLM acted independently and kept to 

themselves. Now, they work together on a governmentto-government basis. One staff member for the tribe said 

that the BLM now offers projects to the tribe before others 

because of the tribe’s proximity to BLM managed land and 

because the BLM knows the tribe has quality, capable, and 

reliable, natural resources staff members.

Mechanisms for Collaboration

Hoopa tribal staff described a number of projects and 

topics through which the tribe and federal agencies have 

shared knowledge and resources, including assisting the 

Forest Service with surveys of the North Fork of the Trinity 

River and the Fish and Game on South Fork surveys and 

communicating with BLM staff to share ideas on surveying 

for fishers. In addition to staff- level cooperation, tribal staff 

members mentioned several mechanisms that have allowed 

federal-tribal collaboration. These mechanisms vary in 

relation to the Northwest Forest Plan but are important in 

their ability to bring tribes and federal agencies together to 

jointly manage lands and pool resources and knowledge.

Tribal Forest Protection Act

Tribal staff noted that the Tribal Forest Protection Act 

allowed the tribe to develop and implement a stewardship 

contracting project on federal lands adjacent to the 

reservation in areas burned during the 2005 Megram fire. 

Currently, the tribe is pursuing additional work on adjacent 

federal lands through the Act.

Jobs in the Woods

Staff members for the Hoopa Tribe described that the 

funding for watershed restoration and restoration jobs 

was one of the biggest selling points of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. They said that discontinuing that funding was 

detrimental to the Plan and to tribes.

Trinity River Restoration

Hoopa Tribal staff described how restoration work on the 

Trinity River has brought the tribe and federal agencies 

together through funding allocated for restoration.

Role of Consultation in Ensuring Tribal 

Access to Resources and Sites

Hoopa Tribal staff members said that the tribe doesn’t 

rely heavily on federally managed lands for subsistence 

and natural and cultural resources. However, natural and 

cultural resources and sites important to the tribe are 

located on adjacent federally managed lands. Staff members 

described concerns about the impacts of federal land 

management practices on tribal interests, including sites 

and resources. Tribal staff noted the lack of Forest Service 

action to protect the integrity of a spiritual area on Forest 

Service managed land, suggesting the site is destined for 

catastrophic fire. 

Yet, staff members noted that the tribe is working to 

formulate agreements with federal agencies to address 

issues regarding access to important resources and sites. 

Staff described how the tribe and the Forest Service have 

formulated a mushroom-gathering policy to protect the 

species from commercial harvesting and careless harvesting 

practices on National Forest system lands. The policy 

makes some concessions, but not all that the tribe wanted. 

Staff members also described a forest species policy and a 
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

112 — Northern California Report

firewood policy for tribal membership. But, as mentioned 

above, the firewood policy stopped in mid-development as a 

result of turnovers in the federal agency staff.

Recommendations to Improve Federaltribal Consultation and Communication

Develop mechanisms to maintain relationships 

through staff transitions

Hoopa tribal staff emphasized the great turnover in federal 

agencies in the area, particularly in the Forest Service and 

the impacts of the turnovers on federal-tribal relationships 

and projects. Hoopa tribal staff suggested that to address 

issues such as knowledge transfer, there is a need for 

a process for an outgoing staff person to introduce the 

incoming staff person to current ongoing projects and 

contacts. 

Address land management concerns on adjacent 

federal lands

As a result of the fluidity of ecosystems and watersheds 

across jurisdictional boundaries and the imposition of 

jurisdictional boundaries through tribal ancestral territories, 

federal land management adjacent to the Hoopa Valley 

Reservation affects the tribe’s lands and interests, and vice 

versa. Tribal staff described how land management under 

the NWFP has been scaled back. Yet, there is a need for 

management action on federal lands to protect resources 

and sites of concern and to reduce the risk of catastrophic 

fire spreading from adjacent lands onto the reservation. 

Federal agencies need to consider how to address land 

management so that the tribe’s interests are protected.

Incorporate tribal knowledge, insight, 

and resources into project planning and 

implementation

Hoopa tribal staff described the capacity of the tribe’s 

natural resource staff members to assist in planning and 

management on federal lands adjacent to the reservation. 

Staff members described collaborative projects through 

which the tribe has been able to use consistent management 

techniques on tribal and federal lands, including a 

prescription for brush cutting along a road bordering 

the reservation and federal lands. Incorporating tribal 

knowledge and resources offers an opportunity to meet the 

tribe’s and federal agencies’ land management needs and 

the potential to build federal-tribal relationships.

Increase federal-tribal communication and collaboration

Hoopa tribal staff suggested the need for better 

collaboration and coordination between the tribe and 

federal agencies to treat forestlands and streams within 

the area. Staff members insisted that collaboration among 

entities working in different parts of the watersheds or 

forest currently would allow all stakeholders to hear about 

the total watershed and landscape. They suggested that the 

Trinity River restoration program could offer one avenue 

for building communication and collaboration regarding 

watershed management. However, they noted past avenues 

for communication, including the Klamath Restoration 

Act (PL 98-552), which ceased in 2006, and the Provincial 

Advisory Committee (PAC) in Redding, in which the tribe 

never participated. Communication and collaboration could 

help develop and maintain federal-tribal relationships and 

land management. However, it is important to consider 

maintaining venues for communication and collaboration 

once initiated, either through collaborative processes or 

written protocols.

Need for consultation at the highest decision-making level

Hoopa tribal staff described concern for policies and land 

management decisions made at the highest level of decisionmaking within federal agencies. They shared concerns 

about NEPA consultation, Endangered Species Act 

requirements, Wilderness designations, and polices applied 

to federal lands, and suggested that tribal insight was not 

adequately incorporated or considered. As a result, the 

policies now affect the tribe’s interests and contribute to the 

tribe’s vulnerability and resource degradation. One tribal 

staff member described how the tribe was treated during the 

development of a non-timber forest products policy.

“We’ve been able to do some good with the 

National Forest. Tribal members are able to 

gather certain forest products, though a very 

limited list of forest resources, and don’t need 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 113

an additional permit. The list was developed 

by the timber sale shop out of the Forest 

Service in D.C. The list was based on need 

from communities requesting to use the forest 

including the public. The tribe was considered 

the same as the public, or as a minority group.”

Other tribal staff members described how the tribe 

could be affected if a new federal forest management plan 

includes new monitoring and management requirements 

for northern spotted owls. The concerns expressed suggest 

that policies crafted at the federal level require greater 

insight and involvement from tribes so that those polices 

will translate well at the local level. Although these federal 

policies relate loosely to the Northwest Forest Plan, the 

tribe’s experience with them demonstrates the need to 

strengthen consultation processes between tribes and 

federal agencies from the highest decision-making level 

down to the lowest one. 

Conclusion

In summary, the lack of Northwest Forest Plan 

implementation in the area could have affected the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe’s consultation experience and the 

development of consultation processes between the 

tribe and federal agencies under the Plan. However, that 

surrounding federally managed lands affect the tribe’s 

interests on and off the reservation suggests a need for 

consultation – starting with the highest level of federal 

agency leadership down to the level of line officers. The 

lack of understanding of tribal sovereignty by incoming 

federal agency staff members suggests a need for education 

of federal agency staff at all levels to improve relations and 

opportunities for collaboration between the tribe and federal 

agencies. Finally, to address issues arising during times 

of staff transition, there is a need to develop processes for 

transferring knowledge and contacts between outgoing and 

incoming staff. These processes could be an important part 

of consultation protocols developed between the tribe and 

federal agencies.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

114 — Northern California Report

Case Study #2: Elk Valley Rancheria

Communication, Funding, Education, and Comanagement to Address Factors Affecting 

Consultation

Introduction

The people of Elk Valley, part of the Tolowa Tribe, 

historically lived along the coast and rivers in the redwood 

forests of northern California and southern Oregon. 

Today, the Elk Valley Rancheria is located in Del Norte 

County near Crescent City, California. In 1960, the 

federal government terminated the Rancheria. In 1983, the 

Rancheria was reestablished with sixteen other Rancherias 

in California as a result of Tillie Hardwick et al. v. United 

States, Civil No. C-79-1910-SW (N.D. Cal. 1983). The Elk 

Valley Rancheria has ninety-four, enrolled members and 

owns 600 acres; the Bureau of Indian Affairs holds 400 

acres in trust for the tribe.

The Pacific Ocean lies to the west, and the Klamath 

and Smith rivers travel south and north (respectively) of 

the Rancheria on their way to the ocean. Lake Earl State 

Wildlife Area, Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, 

Redwoods National Park, and Six Rivers National Forest 

all lie within twenty-five miles of the Rancheria. In 2003, 

primarily through its casino and tribal government and 

additional business enterprises, including an RV resort 

inside Redwoods National Park, Elk Valley Rancheria 

provided 250 jobs to the local economy, making it the 

largest employer in Del Norte County. The timber industry 

has played a large role in the region’s economy and wellbeing and continues to some degree today. (Tiller 2005)

Purpose of the Case Study

The Elk Valley Rancheria’s experience with 

consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan highlights 

the conflict that can arise and persist through inadequate 

consultation that results from staff transitions, lack of 

understanding about tribal sovereignty and consultation, 

and lack of funding to support consultation within federal 

agencies and tribes. The case study describes the tribe’s 

experience and summarizes recommendations offered by 

individuals interviewed for this case to address the factors 

that affect consultation.

Consultation Process

Staff Transitions, Lack of Understanding and 

Follow Through

Elk Valley Rancheria staff members suggested the tribe 

had an MOU in place when working with a former district 

ranger for the Gasquet Ranger District of the Six Rivers 

National Forest. One staff member for the tribe noted,

“Elk Valley and Smith River Rancheria started 

to develop a good relationship with the Forest 

Service under the past district ranger. With an 

MOU in place, the tribe thought relations would 

continue to be good, but I guess it depends on 

who is in the office.”

Elk Valley staff members described that when the last 

ranger was in office, the Forest Service started to use fire to 

manage an old oak grove. As a result, the grove was starting 

to come back with less competition from other species. 

Tribal staff suggested the cultural burn worked as a fire 

break and showed that cultural burns do work. Yet, the use 

of fire also stopped following a a transition of staff. 

Tribal staff members insisted that with federal agency 

staff transitions, the tribe has lost ground. They noted that 

new federal agency staff lack understanding of past work 

and relationships with the tribe and lack cultural sensitivity. 

Elk Valley Rancheria staff described that federal 

agencies have, to some extent, consulted with the tribe on 

agency plans, projects, and programs that could affect tribal 

rights or interests. In the last five years, one staff member 

for the tribe said the tribe has been consulted three times. 

Specifically, tribal staff pointed out consulting with federal 

agencies regarding fire and concerns for cultural areas, but 

not about future planning efforts. However, they noted input 

provided through consultation hasn’t been incorporated 

into federal agency planning in a way that the tribe can 

recognize its contributions. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 115

Notification vs. Consultation

In addition to some consultation, tribal staff members 

suggested they do receive notifications from federal 

agencies, but the system is inadequate because the agencies 

don’t follow through with the tribe. Tribal staff stressed that 

notification does not mean consultation has been met. 

Tribal-Federal Relationships

For the Elk Valley Rancheria, federal agency staff 

transitions have led to an increase in conflict because 

federal staff members have been unresponsive to tribal 

concerns over the use and management of resources 

of interest to the tribe. Tribal staff members suggested 

conflicts are a result of personnel issues rather than policy; 

the tribe has made complaints, but they haven’t helped.

Role of Consultation in Ensuring Access 

to Resources and Sites

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, Elk Valley Rancheria 

staff suggested that the exercise of tribal rights and access 

to resources and areas of interest has not improved. The 

tribe has exercised hunting and gathering rights on federally 

managed lands. However, tribal staff members maintained 

that gates severely hamper hunting, gathering, and 

ceremonial preparation. Three new wilderness designations, 

actions to reduce the spread of Port Orford Cedar root 

disease, and road decommissioning and closures within the 

area also limit tribal access, including the ability of tribal 

elders to reach gathering and hunting spots. In addition, 

tribal staff noted that other people picking bear grass and 

other basket materials on federal lands affects resources and 

sites that are important to the tribe.

Elk Valley Rancheria staff members said that tribal 

access to culturally important species and sites is limited on 

federally managed lands as a result of different management 

practices. One staff member noted,

“The lack of burning affects acorns and hazel 

sticks important to the tribe. There’s a lot of 

disease out there and the Forest Service needs 

to burn the forest to clean them up; they have to 

burn before the disease gets down to the cedar.”

Tribal staff members suggested that procedures to 

protect sensitive tribal information are inadequate. They 

noted experiences in which Forest Service staff gave 

out information to the media regarding sacred sites and 

in which people removed tribal artifacts as a result of 

inadequate protection. One staff member for the tribe 

described a conflict over an access road on Forest Service 

managed land and a gate on property the tribe purchased 

to protect a cultural site on the Smith River. The Forest 

Service removed the gate, flattened the area, and planted 

trees so that it is no longer visible where the gate was. The 

conflict has lead to increased foot traffic within the site 

where the tribe has a cultural camp. Tribal staff members 

insisted that the Forest Service, Gasquet Ranger District, 

said they can’t restrict access because of fishers wanting 

access to the other side of Forest Service land. The conflict 

remains unresolved.

Recommendations to Improve FederalTribal Consultation and Communication

Aligning tribal and federal forest management 

Elk Valley Rancheria staff suggested that federal forest 

management would be more compatible with tribal values 

if federal staff used more sustainable resource extraction 

methods, had more timber sales, and increased the use of 

fire and prescribed burns. Tribal staff members maintained 

that federal forest management practices lead to too much 

duff and forest slash accumulation, which results in poor 

wildlife habitat and gathering areas. 

Meaningful and genuine consultation

To strengthen the federal-tribal relationship, Elk Valley 

Rancheria staff described the need for the Forest Service’s 

attitude to change. Currently, tribal staff members said the 

Forest Service feels compelled to work with the tribe; yet, 

the tribe doesn’t want to feel like it is in the way. The tribe 

is interested in being acknowledged and in collaborating 

and meaningful consultation. They expressed a desire for 

federal agencies to work with the tribe and not against its 

interests.
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

116 — Northern California Report

Building federal agency cultural understanding

As part of strengthening federal-tribal relations, Elk Valley 

Rancheria staff stressed the need for cultural sensitivity 

and an understanding among federal agency staff of tribal 

standing. 

Appropriating adequate funds for consultation

Elk Valley Rancheria staff suggested inadequate funds 

are appropriated for consultation, and federal agencies 

and tribes are not willing or able to pay out of pocket to 

support it. Neither the agencies nor the tribes have funds to 

support consultation. Therefore, to strengthen consultation 

and maintain it through staff transitions, it is important to 

appropriate adequate funds at the federal level.

Developing cooperative agreements to develop and implement forest management policy

Tribal staff for the Elk Valley Rancheria described a 

successful past experience working with federal agency 

staff members to re-introduce cultural burns and the use 

of fire as a management tool on the landscape. However, 

they said that the practices put in place stopped with the 

transition of federal agency staff. Tribal staff members 

suggested developing cooperative agreements to address 

changes in land management that could arise during staff 

transitions and land management practices that affect 

tribal rights and interests. They suggested agreements to 

co-manage the land to ensure that the tribe not only has 

opportunity to provide input on management decisions 

but to participate in land management. One staff member 

stated,

“Beyond consultation, I would like to 

see the tribe (and any tribes) guide and 

inform forest management policy and/

or enter into a cooperative agreement for 

joint management. I think consultation 

isn’t strong enough without an ability to 

compel action; and I think tribes can only 

do that through a cooperative management 

arrangement that both develops and 

implements forest management policy.”

Conclusion

In common with the experiences of other tribes in 

California within the Northwest Forest Plan area, the Elk 

Valley Rancheria’s experience highlights the importance 

of building understanding of tribal sovereignty and 

culture among federal agency staff at all levels. The tribe’s 

experience points out the importance of maintaining 

relationships through staff transitions. It suggests a need for 

checks and balances and accountability for federal agencies 

and tribes regarding consultation. Improving consultation 

could provide opportunity for aligning federal and tribal 

visions for and interests in forest management and for 

upholding tribal rights. It could provide a starting point for 

cooperative land management.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 117

IV. Appendices

Appendix A: Letter Sent to Tribes

Dear Tribal Leader,

We are writing to request your assistance in participating in a study to evaluate the impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan 

on resources of concern and working relationships between your tribe and federal agencies. The study will rely on results 

of a telephone survey and selected case studies to develop a monitoring report that will be presented to the regional 

executives of federal agencies involved in the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The insight and perspectives provided from tribal leadership will hopefully result in actionable recommendations that will 

strengthen working relationships between your tribe and federal land managers and improve resource management to 

address tribal concerns. If you are willing to participate in this process, please identify the names and telephone numbers 

of the individuals who should be contacted to provide the insights and perspectives on behalf of your tribe. 

Resource Innovations of the University of Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment will be responsible for 

conducting the study in Oregon and Washington. The Intertribal Timber Council and the California Indian Forestry 

Fire Management Council will perform the study in California. A description of the process to be used to develop the 

monitoring report and accompanying case studies and a discussion of potential confidentiality issues that may arise are 

attached. 

If you have questions or comments regarding this process, please contact Gary Harris, Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, Tribal Relations Staff Assistant at (503) 888-2603 or by e-mail at grharris@fs.fed.us.

LINDA GOODMAN ED SHEPHARD

Regional Forester State Director

Region 6 Oregon State Office

Forest Service Bureau of Land Management

Enclosure(s)
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

118 — Northern California Report

Enclosure 1: Northwest Forest Plan Tribal Monitoring Project

Purpose

Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), agencies managing federal land within the range of the Northern Spotted 

Owl are to conduct monitoring of the effects of implementation of the Plan’s Standards and Guidelines. 

One element of monitoring identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Plan is “American Indians and Their 

Culture.” Key issues addressed in the initial monitoring effort included:

• conditions and trends of the trust resources identified in treaties with American Indians;

• effectiveness of the coordination or liaison to assure adequate protection of religious or cultural heritage sites, 

and

• adequacy of access by American Indians to use of forest species, resources, and places important for cultural, 

subsistence, or economic reasons, particularly those identified in treaties.

Background

Effectiveness monitoring under the Plan is to take place at ten-year intervals. The results of monitoring for the first tenyear period was completed in 2003 and published in 2006 as “Northwest Forest Plan – The First 10 years (1994-2003) 

Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship” (R6-RPM-TP-02-2006). In this document, the views of fifteen tribes in the 

area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan were presented. A Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG) (see attached list 

of members) was chartered under the proviso of the Interagency Advisory Council to develop recommendations to improve 

the protocol and techniques used to monitor the federal-tribal relationship and obtain broader tribal participation. 

2008 Monitoring Changes

The TMAG has devised an approach that provides an opportunity for all seventy-six, federally recognized tribes with 

interests in the federally managed land within the Plan area to participate in an interview to provide their insight and 

perspectives regarding the Northwest Forest Plan. Some tribes will be selected for in-depth case studies. The protocol is 

described as follows:

1. Unless otherwise requested, telephone interviews will be used to obtain responses to a standard set of questions.

2. The questions focus on four areas:

c. consultation process, outcome and tracking;

d. access and protection;

e. affect on tribal values of interest (cultural, social, and economic); and

f. strengthening of federal-tribal relations.

7. In-depth case studies will be conducted and reported in situations where information can offer lessons learned.

8. Interviews and report writing will be conducted by a third-party, independent, non-government organization or 

party.

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

The information collected during the interviews will be synthesized into a published report. In the report, no information 

will be attributed to a specific person or tribe. The interviewers will create a key code, which will allow the raw interview 

notes to be tied to an individual who was interviewed throughout the process. Because the interview notes and the key code 

are part of the record of the monitoring process and will be considered property of the federal government, confidentiality 

may not be fully protected under the law. 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 119

Appendix B. Interview Questions

Tribal consultation process, outcome, and 

tracking

1) Have written consultation protocols been developed?

1a. Are they adequate for government-togovernment consultation?

1b. Are they adequate for potential effects on 

tribal rights, interests, and effects on tribal 

lands?

2) Is the tribe aware of federal policy guidance that is 

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?

2a. Is notification specific to the tribe?

3) Over the past ten years, has the tribe been consulted on 

federal agency plans, projects, programs, or activities that 

might affect tribal rights or interests? 

3a. How frequently and over what time period? 

3b. Are there PACs or other intergovernmental 

forums in the area? 

3c. Do tribes participate in these forums?

4) Has tribal information been incorporated into federal 

planning documents (including watershed analysis and 

decision-making processes, in a manner so that tribes can 

recognize their contributions? 

4a. Can you provide any examples of when the 

tribes were dissatisfied?

4b. Did tribal contributions result in any 

changes to federal actions or considerations for 

resources of interest? If so, please explain.

5) Have agencies consulted or collaborated with tribal 

governments to develop plans for future monitoring, 

restoration, or assessment projects, or for other planning 

efforts?

Access and Protection

6) Have the exercise of tribal rights or access to resources 

and/or areas of tribal interest on federal lands been 

changed? If so, how? 

7) Is the tribe aware of procedures that have been put in 

place to provide for

7a. protecting sensitive tribal information from 

unauthorized access or release?

7b. incorporating tribal traditional knowledge 

into the development of management actions?

7c. protecting cultural sites on federal land?

8) Are there conflicts over the use or management of 

resources or areas of tribal interest? What are the sources of 

the conflict? 

8a. Are conflict resolution processes adequate?

Affect on Tribal values of interest

9) Has the tribe exercised treaty rights, other rights, or 

pursued tribal interests associated with national forests and 

BLM public lands and resources? Please provide examples, 

if you wish.

9a. Any barriers to exercising rights? 

10) How is federal (FS/BLM) forest management 

compatible with what the tribe values about those lands?

Strengthening Tribal-Federal Relationship

11) How can the tribal-federal relationship be strengthened? 

(The consultation process?)
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

120 — Northern California Report
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 121

Appendix C. Summary of Comments from Review of the Draft 

Tribal Monitoring Report

Final Report Draft Comments:

A request was sent to all tribal and agency representatives that had participated in interviews and case 

studies for the report requesting formal review of the report. The letter was sent on October 20 and 

participants were given ten days, plus additional time if requested to conduct the review. Each Tribe was 

contacted by phone as well. Text of the email letter request follows:

Dear Tribal Leaders and Staff,

We are writing to request your assistance in reviewing a draft of the attached report, Strengthening the Federal-Tribal

Relationship: A Report on Monitoring Consultation under the Northwest Forest Plan.You participated in this 

study during 2009, which focuses on Region 5 (California) of the USDA Forest Service, by responding to questions about 

the consultation process between tribes and federal land management agencies, outcomes from consultation related to 

access to natural and cultural resources and protection of tribal rights and interests, consultation monitoring and tracking, 

and how to improve the federal-tribal relationship.

The attached draft report contains compiled findings from the 15 total interviews the California Indian Forestry and Fire 

Management Council (CIFFMC) conducted with tribes in California within the Northwest Forest Plan area. It also contains 

two case studies, which look more in-depth at the consultation experiences of specific tribes within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area in California. Finally, the attached draft executive summary from the report that focuses on Region 6 (Oregon and 

Washington) of the USDA Forest Service contains recommendations for strengthening the federal-tribal relationship.

We are hoping you will have time to review the draft report and draft executive summary for accuracy and clarity. With 

your help, our goal is to develop a report that is useful in providing insight into the challenges and strengths of governmentto-government consultation, and in offering a succinct list of recommendations that may be shared more broadly with 

federal agencies, tribes and policymakers so that the responses and experiences captured in this report can be used to 

strengthen the federal-tribal relationship in the future. Once California tribes have opportunity to review the Region 5 draft 

report, our goal is to integrate the Region 5 and Region 6 reports.

We hope to receive all comments by Friday, October 30, 2009. We welcome comments by email, mail or by phone. If you 

need more time or have questions on how to submit your comments, please contact Kathy Lynn at 541-346-5777.

We are sending the draft report for review to all of the tribes that participated in interviews and case studies. You are 

welcome to share the report among other staff within your tribe or agency. However, this is a draft and is not yet available 

for public review.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any trouble opening the document, or if you have any questions about this 

process. We look forward to hearing from you and receiving your feedback.

Sincerely,

Kathy Lynn

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Katie MacKendrick
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

122 — Northern California Report

Additional questions about this project may be directed to:

Don Motanic

Intertribal Timber Council

Office: 503-282-4296

Email: donmo@itcnet.org

Comments were submitted by the following tribes:

Full report draft (including case studies) comments submitted by:

Name Organization Email Notes

Reweti Wiki Elk Valley Rancheria rwiki@elk-valley.com Email comments

Mike Orcutt Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe director@hoopa-nsn.gov Track changes in report document

The comments tribes and federal agencies submitted regarding the full report draft, including case 

studies, are included below. Where relevant, we also offer a description of how we integrated their 

comments into the final report.

Comments from Respondent 1:

Full report: I don’t have anything specific that you wouldn’t be able to cull from somewhere else.

Case study: One comment I would like to add is that beyond consultation, I would like to see the Tribe (and any Tribes) 

guide and inform forest management policy and/or enter into a cooperative agreement for joint management. I think 

consultation isn’t strong enough without an ability to compel action; and I think Tribe’s can only do that through a 

cooperative management arrangement that both develops and implements forest management policy. One technical point is 

that the Elk Valley Rancheria consists of predominantly Tolowa, Yurok cultural members rather than just Tolowa members.

Integrated into the Final Report as follows:

Case study:

The people of Elk Valley are predominately cultural members of the Tolowa and Yurok tribes. Historically, they lived along 

the coast and rivers in the redwood forests of Northern California and Southern Oregon. ...

Creating cooperative agreements to develop and implement forest management policy

Tribal staff for the Elk Valley Rancheria described a successful past experience working with federal agency staff to 

re-introduce cultural burns and the use of fire as a management tool on the landscape. However, they described that the 

practices put in place stopped with federal agency staff transition. Tribal staff suggested developing cooperative agreements 

to address changes in land management that could arise during staff transitions and land management practices that 

affect tribal rights and interests; they suggested agreements to co-manage the land to ensure that the Tribe not only has 

opportunity to provide input on management decisions but to participate in land management. One staff member stated,

Beyond consultation, I would like to see the Tribe (and any Tribes) guide and inform forest management policy 

and/or enter into a cooperative agreement for joint management. I think consultation isn’t strong enough 

without an ability to compel action; and I think Tribe’s can only do that through a cooperative management 

arrangement that both develops and implements forest management policy.
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 15 Years (1994–2008): Effectiveness of the Federal-Tribal Relationship

Northern California Report — 123

Comments from Respondent 2:

Case study: Respondent 2 offered clarifications regarding number of acres the reservation comprises, number of Tribal 

members, Tribal rights, federal policies, and court decisions mentioned in the case study. All were integrated into the final 

draft of the full report (including the case studies).
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION R6-RPM-TP-01-2011

124 — Northern California Report
Inside Back Cover
Back Cover