• Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
• Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission
• Klamath-California Intertribal Fish Commission

• FWS Will Discuss Incidental "Take" and the Endangered Species Act "Baseline"

• EIS Progress and Schedule

• Brief Discussion of the BLM Process and Schedule

• California Subcommittee to IAC
• Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Charter Revisions
• Planning for the Joint IAC/PAC Meeting
• Report on the ISC Meeting

The Hoopa Valley Tribe has sought to establish itself as a co-manager of resources within the Klamath/Trinity River Basin in Northwestern California. The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes possess federally reserved fishing rights. Further, these rights have been quantified to mean 50% of the harvestable surplus of Klamath River Basin fish stocks or a "moderate standard of living." However, health of Klamath River fish stocks is best exemplified by the fact that most of the Basin salmonid stocks are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Coho salmon were listed as a threatened species on May 6, 1997. Moreover, steelhead are a candidate species for listing under the Act. In additionally, several chinook stocks within the basin are under status review by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The Hoopa Valley Tribe has sought to encourage basin-wide recovery of Klamath River basin fish stocks through the integration of a comprehensive management approach which addresses all factors affecting the survival Klamath/Trinity River anadromous fish stocks. Congress has recognized the depleted status of Klamath Basin fish stocks and enacted several laws which are intended to reverse the decline in fish populations of the Klamath Basin. The Klamath River Restoration Act (PL 99-552) and the Trinity River Restoration Act (PL 98-541) were among the most recent attempts by Congress to address declining fish populations in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. Recovery of Klamath/Trinity River fish stocks is dependent on the participation of the indigenous Tribes of the Klamath River Basin. The Tribes of the Basin possess the resident knowledge and scientific expertise necessary to address complex and multi-dimensional problems in the Basin.

There are a total of 80 Component 2 and Protection Buffer species requiring surveys prior to the design of ground-disturbing activities to be implemented in FY 1999 (October 1998).

However, surveys are not technically feasible at this time for 32 of these species because (1) the species is impossible to identify in the field; (2) it can only be identified in the field by a few experts; or (3) multi-year surveys are required to determine species absence.

In order to evaluate more long-term issues associated with S&M, in addition to the above, a team was formed to evaluate the need for changes to Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer Standards and Guidelines.

(2) To guide the evaluation of the long-term changes to S&M and PBs, an oversight team has been established with representatives from the FS, BLM, FWS and PNW. Planning is underway for completion of an EIS evaluating other changes to the S&M and PB provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan.

(3) A draft of the DEIS is scheduled for printing and distribution by June 1. The S&M EIS Team will offer IAC members a detailed briefing on EIS alternatives and implications as soon as the DEIS is available. Analysis and response to comments will begin in September, with a DEIS and ROD issued as early in FY 2000 as possible.

The third year evaluation process includes a review of monitoring records and implementation progress, with the broader purpose of determining whether RMP objectives are being met or are likely to be met. The evaluation also assesses whether changed circumstances or new information has altered the levels or methods of activities such that the environmental consequences of the RMP would be substantially different than those anticipated in the final environmental impact statement for that RMP. In doing this, the evaluation process looks at the management action/direction in the RMP. ("Management action/direction" are measures planned to achieve stated RMP objectives; this RMP term approximates the term "standards and guidelines" as used in the NFP.)

The third year evaluation process may identify a potential need for plan maintenance, amendment or revision, or a potential need to change an RMP implementation practice. These potential needs will be examined, and third year evaluation findings will address whether changes are warranted at this time. In effect, the third year evaluation process provides an opportunity to review and clarify management action/direction, and to recommend changes in an RMP or the implementation of an RMP. The third year evaluation is adaptive management at work.

Each District has completed a 1998 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report (APS), which includes summary information based on the first three years of RMP implementation. The BLM is currently analyzing this information and developing preliminary findings. The State Director's preliminary findings will be available for public review and comment later this year.

On September 17, 1998, the IAC Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Subgroup met to discuss a proposed draft subgroup charter, the draft module (presented at the August 6 IAC meeting), and identify the recommended next steps to be taken. A detailed description of the meeting and recommendations were presented to the IAC at its November 5, 1998 meeting. Additionally, the draft subgroup charter was presented. The IAC "agreed with the consensus agreements and recommendations developed by the subgroup. The primary focus of the initial module should be on the government-to-government consultation process. Individual tribes will be monitored to determine the degree of implementation of the consultation process and the degree of effectiveness of those consultations and conflict resolutions efforts." (A FY 1999 pilot effort was identified as desirable.) The draft charter was approved subject to review by IAC members.

At the February 4 meeting, as part of a larger status report concerning NFP monitoring, it was stated that neither the module nor the pilot program description have been completed, as hoped. The REO was to "meet with IAC Tribal Representatives to reassess progress and schedules."

1. The IAC approve the attached subgroup charter as final.
2. The REO should continue to work with NWIFC to develop as soon as possible a proposed pilot program to assess government-to-government consultation.
3. The REO should distribute the revised pilot program to the subgroup members. The subgroup should meet as needed in order to finalize a recommend pilot program and schedule.
4. The proposed pilot program and implementation schedule should be presented to the IAC at the August meeting for review and comment, followed by a RIEC decision.
5. Implement the pilot program and report back to the IAC.
6. Subgroup continue to develop the rest of the Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring module.

• Effectiveness Monitoring Framework (Noon, et al.) does not provide an appropriate template for the development of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Only the appropriate individual steps and concepts from that framework should be incorporated into the module development.
• The subgroup will focus most of its initial effort on the pilot program to monitor whether government-to-government consultation is occurring and whether the participants are satisfied. In the long term, it will be necessary to develop a comprehensive inventory of Trust and Treaty resources, in order to satisfy the ROD at E-9. Therefore, the IAC subgroup will also begin working collaboratively to identify key policy questions which will provide guidance for the implementation of the other elements of the NFP relevant to American Indian issues and resources including, but not limited to: identification of American Indian Treaty and Trust Resources that would be affected by NFP activities; identification of potential conflicts between federal actions and Treaty Rights or Tribal Trust Resources; and a process for resolving such conflicts. The subgroup will report periodically to the IAC on its progress.
• Develop a questionnaire to look at attributes of government-to-government consultation to provide information on the current status and effectiveness. It is anticipated that a pilot effort will be developed to test the questionnaire and approach. The pilot should identify and include several case examples where government-to-government consultation occurred. In addition, the pilot design should attempt to include cases where either the tribes or agencies felt that consultation would have been advantageous, but it did not occur.
• The pilot effort will identify tribal and agency perspectives on how well government-to-government consultation is working and will identify issues of concern to the tribes and agencies. One outcome of the pilot may be an evaluation of the need for a protocol/template for government-to-government consultation and/or dispute resolution.
• It is anticipated that during government-to-government consultation tribes may identify sensitive resources or resources of concern that potentially could be addressed with monitoring information. This might take the form of sensitive or indicator habitats or species, rather than specific resources of concern. Efforts to evaluate and assess such monitoring needs for these resources will, to the extent possible, utilize other appropriate monitoring to track or assess the status and trends for these resources. If unmet monitoring needs are identified, they will be evaluated and considered for development of appropriate plans and programs.
• The Tribal monitoring module will focus on providing information on status and trends for adaptive management processes and decisions.
• The monitoring results are to be reported at the regional level. It is suggested that the Tribe is the scale appropriate for sampling. It is recognized that access for religious and cultural purposes occurs at an individual scale, but identification of the issue could be assumed to occur at the Tribal scale.
• The pilot effort should gather information on government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as to the existence of protocols, or lack thereof, and the degree of satisfaction by the Tribes and agencies.
• The subgroup will work to involve the Tribes in the development of the monitoring module and pilot. Continued active participation by the Tribal IAC members is a key process in that involvement and is anticipated to continue. In addition, consideration will be given to share the draft modules with the Tribes, at the earliest opportunity in their development, to increase the likelihood of a successful Tribal Monitoring Module.
• Include in the optional approaches for the conduct and reporting of a pilot and implementation of the module an alternative based on an independent group, i.e. not one of the management agencies.

• Effectiveness Monitoring Framework (Noon, et al.) does not provide an appropriate template for the development of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Only the appropriate individual steps and concepts from that framework should be incorporated into the module development.
• A comprehensive inventory The subgroup will focus most of Trust or Treaty Resourcesits initial effort on the pilot program to monitor whether government-to-government consultation is not doable nor desirable, primarily because of tribal reluctanceoccurring and legal questionswhether the participants are satisfied.
• The Tribal Monitoring Module should focus on the processes of government-to-government consultation as implemented within the NFP. However, the focus should notIn the long term, it will be limitednecessary to the NFP S&Gs, but include the broader scopedevelop a comprehensive inventory of trustTrust and legal responsibilitiesTreaty resources, in order to satisfy the ROD at E-9. Therefore, the IAC subgroup will also begin working collaboratively to identify key policy questions which will provide guidance for the implementation of the other elements of the NFP relevant to American Indian issues and resources including, but not limited to: identification of American Indian Treaty and Trust Resources that would be affected by NFP activities; identification of potential conflicts between federal actions and Treaty Rights or Tribal Trust Resources; and a process for resolving such conflicts. The subgroup will report periodically to the IAC on its progress.
• Develop a questionnaire to look at attributes of government-to-government consultation to provide information on the current status and effectiveness. It is anticipated that a pilot effort will be developed to test the questionnaire and approach. The pilot should identify and include several case examples where government-to-government consultation occurred. In addition, the pilot design should attempt to include cases where either the tribes or agencies felt that consultation would have been advantageous, but it did not occur.
• AThe pilot effort will identify tribal and agency perspectives on how well government-to-government consultation is working and will identify issues of concern to the tribes and agencies. One outcome of the pilot willmay be an evaluation of the need for a protocol/template for government-to-government consultation and/or dispute resolution.
• It is anticipated that during government-to-government consultation tribes may identify sensitive resources or resources of concern that potentially could be addressed with monitoring information. This might take the form of sensitive or indicator habitats or species, rather than specific resources of concern. Efforts to evaluate and assess such monitoring needs for these resources will, to the extent possible, utilize other appropriate monitoring to track or assess the status and trends for these resources. If unmet monitoring needs are identified, they will be evaluated and considered for development of appropriate plans and programs.
• The Tribal monitoring module will focus on providing information on status and trends for adaptive management processes and decisions, and avoid subjective interpretation and legal precedent.
• The monitoring results are to be reported at the regional level. It is suggested that the Tribe is the scale appropriate for sampling. It is recognized that access for religious and cultural purposes occurs at an individual scale, but identification of the issue could be assumed to occur at the Tribal scale.
• The pilot effort should gather information on government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as to the existence of protocols, or lack thereof, and the degree of satisfaction by the Tribes and agencies, and level of interest in protocol development.
• In addition, the effort should coordinate with similar efforts devoted to government-to-government protocol development. The subgroup will work to involve the Tribes in the development of the monitoring module and pilot. Continued active participation by the Tribal IAC members is a key process in that involvement and is anticipated to continue. In addition, consideration will be given to share the draft modules with the Tribes, at the earliest opportunity in their development, to increase the likelihood of a successful Tribal Monitoring Module.
• Include in the optional approaches for the conduct and reporting of a pilot and implementation of the module an alternative based on an independent group, i.e. not one of the management agencies.