Response

Comment
The tribe's relationship with and dependence on Winema National Forest Lands extend beyond the
exercise of hunting and fishing rights. The physical characteristics of the Forest are of great cultural
importance to the tribe and affect the Klamath Tribe's ability to exercise its treaty rights. Specific sites
and their surroundings are one component of the treaty right which is important for religious, cultural
and historic reasons. The abundance and distribution of certain wildlife species are important culturally
as is the diversity of species throughout the Forest.
Response
I
The physical characteristics of the Forest are of great cultural and spiritual importance to the Klamath
Tribe. This does not directly affect the exercise of treaty rights. Additions have been made to Chapter
1 of the FEIS to reflect this concern.
The Forest has provided strong recognition of the interests of the Tribe, not tied directly to any treaty
requirement, in the designation and protection of Tribal cultural values and historical use areas. During
the development of the Forest Plan, the Forest has worked with the Tribe to address their issues and
concerns relative to the management of resources. Many changes are evident between the Draft and
Final Forest Plan as a result of the continued involvement of the Klarnath Tribe. Beyond the Tribe's
direct involvement in the Forest planning process, coordination with the Tribe on site specific projects
will continue as the Plan is implemented. Please see the forest-wide standards and guidelines concerning
the Tribe for additional information.
The Consent Decree of 1981 between the United States of America, the Klamath Tribe, and the State
of Oregon requires that the Forest cooperate with the Tribe in the exchange of information regarding
habitat management. The parties to this agreement are not required to obtain each other's consent
prior to adopting policies on resource management activities.
Yhe intent of the Forest Plan is to manage habitat to provide for viable populations of all existing wildlife
species distributed across the range of habitats on the Forest. Please see the Forestwide Standards
and Guidelines for Fish, Wildlife, and Sensitive Plants.
Comment
While the extent of the Forest Service's duties as trustee to Indian tribes has not been determined by
any court, it is clear that among its duties it must investigate and disclose impacts unique to the tribe
of its proposed plan.
In Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 ILR 3065, Civil No. 82-116-BLG (D. Mont., 1985), the court
held:
(0) Once a trust relationship is established, the Secretary is obligated, at the very least, to
investigate and consider the impacts of his action upon a potentially affected Indian tribe.
Response
The FEIS and Forest Plan have been expanded concerning the relationship between the management
of the Forest and the Tribe's treaty rights. See Chapter IV of the FEI'S and the forest-wide standards
and guidelines in the Forest Plan.
Comment
For example, no explanation is provided for determining that ODFW population goals are an appropriate
indicator of responsiveness to the tribe's subsistence needs; no analysis is included of the impacts of
the plan on the tribe or the treaty rights area by sedimentation of streams, loss of fish habitat, even-aged
harvest methods, the proposed lodgepole departure, the dramatic change in age and size of trees,
the use of scenic management standards, the use or non-use of dispersion standards, and many other
potential effects. Most anticipated effects are disclosed on a forest-wiide basis averaged over a period
of a decade or more, making it impossible to determine particular effects on the tribe or the treaty
rights area. Those effects purportedly analyzed with respect to former reservation lands were calculated
and estimated based on the Chiloquin Ranger District acreage, rather than the former reservation.
K- 13