Flathead Lake Environmental

The Montana Consensus Council's first step was to assess the situation surrounding fisheries management in Flathead Lake. The goal of a situation assessment is to foster an understanding of the variety of concerns related to a particular issue. We use this information to offer all the stakeholders, including the decision makers, a range of options and recommendations for how to address the situation in a way that meets the needs of as many interests as possible.

By assessing a situation before entering into a decision-making process, participants gain a clearer picture of the issues. They also develop a better understanding of the people involved, their concerns, problems and opportunities presented by the situation, and the risks associated with different ways to improve the situation.

The purpose of this situation assessment is to:

** Identify the people and organizations concerned with Flathead Lake fisheries;

** Identify the interests of the concerned people;

** Examine how the issues are being addressed now and how they are likely to be addressed in the future;

** Assess stakeholder satisfaction with the likely outcomes of fisheries management; and

** Explore opportunities to include a group of people representing diverse interests in a meaningful public involvement and decision-making process to develop the next fisheries management plan.

The Montana Consensus Council is an impartial servant of all participants in this process. We are not an advocate for any particular interest or outcome. We are committed to assessing the situation and advising all stakeholders, including the decision makers, on a fair, effective, and efficient process for developing the Flathead Lake fisheries cooperative management plan.

A situation assessment allows us to step back from an initial correspondence and begin to build a deeper and more balanced understanding of the issues and of each party's values and interests. We believe that each problem-solving or planning process must be tailored to meet the specific needs of each circumstance. The purpose of this situation assessment is to gather the information needed to design the most effective process for developing a fisheries management plan for Flathead Lake.

This situation assessment summarizes the results of about 100 voluntary, confidential interviews conducted by the Montana Consensus Council with people interested in fisheries management on Flathead Lake and adjacent rivers and streams. It is not an exhaustive study, nor an end in itself. Think of this report as a starting point for further conversations about fisheries management on Flathead Lake.

Potential interviewees were initially identified by talking with DFWP and CSKT staff. The list of interviewees was also supplemented by referrals made during the interviews. The people interviewed included staff, employees, and members of the following groups:

CSKT Tribal Council Flathead Reservation Fish and Wildlife Board DFWP Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Glacier National Park Local legislators County officials Local chambers of commerce Marina owners Boat dealers Fishing tackle retailers Fishing outfitters Motel owners and managers Charter boat operators River guides and rafting companies Conservations and environmental groups Plug Creek Timberlands Flathead Electric Coop Montana Logging Association Unaffiliated anglers who fish the Flathead system

The interviews were conducted from July through August 1999. Many of the interviews were conducted face-to-face at a location of the interviewees' choice. Some interviews were done over the telephone. Each person had the opportunity to discuss his or her concerns freely, while addressing the following questions:

** How would you describe the fisheries situation in the Flathead Lake system?

** What are your interests and concerns regarding the management of fisheries in the Flathead Lake system?

** How could the current situation be improved? What would a successful fisheries look like to you?

** What is likely to happen if the state and tribes do not develop a cooperative management plan?

** How acceptable is that likely outcome to you? And how acceptable is it likely to be to other stakeholders?

** What type of information is necessary to develop a fair, effective, and efficient management plan? How should such information be gathered and distributed?

** What is the likelihood of reaching agreement among all stakeholders on a fisheries management plan? What are the constraints or obstacles to reaching agreement?

** Would you be interested in participating in a facilitated dialogue to help develop a fisheries management plan?

Additional information was obtained from written documents, including local newspapers, organizational documents, existing fisheries management plans, and governmental reports.

This report focuses on fisheries and their management in Flathead Lake, its tributaries, and the four-mile reach of the mainstem Flathead River from the lake to Kerr Dam.

Flathead Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake in the United States west of the Mississippi River. It measures 27 miles long and 8 to 15 miles wide, with 124 miles of shoreline. The lake averages 165 feet deep, and is 370 feet deep at its deepest point. [Maps]

Kerr Dam was built in 1938 about 4 miles downstream from the natural lake outlet at Polson. The current owner, the Montana Power Company, is selling the dam to Pennsylvania Power and Light. The sale is expected to be completed by late October 1999. The dam regulates the top 10 feet of water in the lake and is operated to provide flood control and power production. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is completing a relicensing process on Kerr Dam that was begun in 1976. CSKT is a co-licensee under the new FERC license. A FERC order was granted in 1985 authorizing fisheries mitigation efforts.

The two major tributaries to Flathead Lake are the Flathead and Swan rivers. The three forks of the Flathead supply about 80 percent (9 million acre-feet) of the annual discharge in the Flathead system. The North and Middle forks are free of major dams, but the South Fork is impounded by Hungry Horse Dam, a federal project built in 1953 and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The dam provides flood protection, hydropower, recreation, and water storage. The Middle Fork, North Fork, and the upper reach of the South Fork are designated National Wild and Scenic rivers. The upper reaches of the Middle and North forks flow within the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. On the Swan River, Bigfork Dam&emdash;about 1 mile upstream from Flathead Lake&emdash;was built in 1902 to produce hydroelectric power. The dam is due for FERC relicensing, and also may change ownership in the near future. Bigfork and Hungry Horse dams effectively block fish passage from Flathead Lake to the upper river reaches.

According to DFWP and CSKT reports, the major sport fish species in Flathead Lake include westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, lake trout, lake whitefish, and yellow perch. The major sport fish in the river are westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish. Populations of largemouth bass, yellow perch, and northern pike are scattered among sloughs and old oxbows along the Flathead River between the lake and Columbia Falls. Of these species, only westslope cutthroat, bull trout, and mountain whitefish are native to the Flathead system. Other native non-game fish present include longnose sucker, largescale sucker, northern pikeminnow, peamouth chub, pygmy whitefish, redside shiner, and sculpins.

In the Flathead drainage, native westslope cutthroat trout follow one of three life cycle patterns: (1) Some populations spawn and rear in tributary streams and then move downstream to mature and live in Flathead Lake; (2) other populations spawn and rear in tributary streams and then live in the mainstem Flathead River; and (3) some "resident" populations spend their entire life cycle in tributary streams. Individual cutthroat may combine the first two patterns. Native bull trout primarily follow the first pattern.

Since the late 1800s, the introduction of non-native fish and other aquatic species has dramatically altered the Flathead fisheries. According to the Flathead Lake and River System Fisheries Status Report (DFWP, June 1999), lake whitefish were introduced in 1890, lake trout in 1905, yellow perch in 1910, and kokanee salmon in 1916. By the 1920s, kokanee and perch dominated the sport fishery. Kokanee continued to fill creels (supplying as much as 77 to 97 percent of the harvest) through the mid 1980s.

Then, starting in 1968, DFWP introduced the opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) into Ashley, Swan, and Whitefish lakes. The shrimp were intended as forage for kokanee, based on favorable salmon growth rates achieved in Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. Mysis moved from the lakes downstream into Flathead Lake by 1981 and their numbers increased rapidly to a peak of 130 shrimp per square meter by 1986. The Mysis population has since leveled off at about half that density or less. Rather than providing forage for kokanee, however, the shrimp became a favorite food of lake trout and lake whitefish. Mysis also competed with kokanee and cutthroat trout for zooplankton, a favored food. The result was an abrupt decline in the number of kokanee, cutthroat, and bull trout, and an increase in lake trout and lake whitefish.

In 1998, bull trout were listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been petitioned to also list westslope cutthroat trout.

Fisheries biologists continue to study this complex aquatic system. More detailed analysis is available in the Flathead Lake and River System Fisheries Status Report (DFWP, June 1999), Montana Warmwater Fisheries Management Plan 1997-2006 (DFWP, March 1997), Fisheries Management Plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation (CSKT Tribal Fisheries Program, 1987, amended 1993), various limnology reports by the Flathead Lake Biological Research Station, and continuing data collections by DFWP and CSKT. CSKT has conducted an intensive creel survey, the results of which will be reported by the end of 1999.

In 1987, DFWP reported that Flathead Lake angling produced a net economic value of about $90 per day. 

A mail survey conducted by DFWP showed 41,049 angler days per year in 1995. Some surveys show much higher angler days (more than 87,000 in 1981) before the kokanee fishery crashed. Such comparisons from year to year are misleading, however, because of differences in surveys methods.

Flathead Lake currently supports a small hook-and-line commercial fishery for lake whitefish that harvests about 20,000 pounds of whitefish each year.

DFWP and CSKT share jurisdiction over the fisheries in Flathead Lake. Several other entities also hold legal authority for decisions that may affect management of the fisheries and the waters of the lake and relevant rivers.

DFWP is responsible for managing the fisheries resources of the state of Montana. The department also is authorized to negotiate agreements with CSKT to cooperate in matters related to hunting and fishing. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission also sets policies for the protection, preservation, and propagation of fish, including endangered species, and the establishment of fishing seasons and regulations. DFWP is drafting a Native Fish Management Plan that will define state policies and rely on local initiatives to implement them.

The southern half of Flathead Lake lies within the Flathead Reservation, home to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, a sovereign nation. The Reservation was created under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. The treaty also guaranteed the Tribes the "exclusive right of taking fish in all streams running through or bordering" the Reservation. Several court decisions have affirmed the Tribes' jurisdiction over fisheries management in the portion of Flathead Lake that lies within Reservation boundaries. The Tribes manage fish and certain bird species on the Reservation under a cooperative agreement with the State signed in 1990 and renewed in 1998. The Tribes manage other Reservation wildlife independent of the State.

The Tribal Natural Resources Department is responsible for a broad range of environmental regulations and management of the Reservation. The Shoreline Protection Office manages and permits docks, and often aids navigators of Flathead Lake, as well as streams and wetlands activities throughout the Reservation. The Environmental Division is responsible for water and air quality matters on the Reservation.

The Tribes' Fisheries Management Plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation, adopted in 1987 and amended in 1993, is guided by three basic assumptions: (1) the Tribes are committed to managing their fisheries resources using the services of a professional staff and employing professional management techniques; (2) the Tribes wish to manage their fish stocks to provide fish for food, recreation, or Tribal commercial purposes consistent with their potential habitat; and (3) the Tribes wish to manage fisheries to maintain the current species composition found in reservation waters. An exception is where bull trout and pure strain westslope cutthroat trout are found, they will have priority over non-native species. The plan also describes tribal policy on the introduction of non-native aquatic organisms, stocking, and procedures for developing regulations and management strategies.

The Flathead Reservation Fish and Wildlife Board advises the Tribal Council and the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission on the regulation of non-member hunting and fishing within the Flathead Reservation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the federal Endangered Species Act. The agency lists, reclassifies, and delists species under the Act; provides biological opinions to federal agencies on management actions that may affect listed species; oversees recovery activities for listed species; provides for the protection of important habitat; and, provides grants to states to assist with endangered species conservation efforts. USFWS has also contributed to fish stocking efforts in the Flathead drainage.

After bull trout were listed as threatened in June 1998, USFWS began developing a recovery plan. Within the Columbia basin, The Flathead sub-unit has its own planning team, which first met in June 1999 to begin drafting a list of recovery criteria and actions for the entire Flathead basin. This process is consistent with the state's restoration plan (see below). Delisting of bull trout cannot occur until recovery is achieved throughout the Columbia basin.

Under what is known as "section 7 consultation," all federal agencies are required to consult with USFWS through the development of a biological assessment on actions that may affect a listed species such as bull trout. If adverse effects are likely, then USFWS prepares a Biological Opinion outlining the actions the federal agency must take to minimize and mitigate those effects. If a population would be jeopardized, the actions may be halted altogether. Since bull trout were listed, the U.S. Forest Service and FERC have engaged in section 7 consultations with USFWS. A biological assessment is being prepared for Kerr Dam.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is responsible for decisions related to the licensing of Kerr and Bigfork dams, including mitigating harm to the Flathead Lake fishery caused by the dam construction and operation. The commission also ensures compliance with regulations, terms, and conditions of licenses, amendments, and exemptions.

The Bonneville Power Administration and the Northwest Power Planning Council are involved in the management of Hungry Horse Dam, including overseeing and funding fishery impacts mitigation. Constraints on dam operations may affect fishery management decisions. In 1993, the Northwest Power Planning Council adopted the Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation Implementation Plan, which describes specific measures to protect and enhance resident fish and aquatic habitat. The plan emphasizes improving habitat and fish passage.

The Bull Trout Restoration Team is an interdisciplinary panel appointed by Governor Racicot in 1993 to "work in a cooperative fashion to produce a plan that maintains, protects, and increases bull trout populations" independent of the federal listing process. The team's nine members represent state, federal, and tribal management agencies, industry, and conservation organizations. In November 1998, the team released the Draft Bull Trout Restoration Plan for public comment. Since then, the team has been redrafting the plan to incorporate changes based on the comments received. They hope to finalize the plan during fall 1999. The plan describes management objectives and actions to protect and maintain all populations of bull trout and important habitat across the state. The plan also calls for maintaining a minimum of 50 redds in the core areas within 5 of the 12 Restoration/Conservation Areas identified in the plan. At least one of these areas must be in the Flathead drainage. Other management actions include habitat restoration, control of non-native species, enforcement, and education.

The Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement, signed by all relevant state and federal resource management agencies, calls for protecting and maintaining Montana's remaining native populations of westslope cutthroats. Efforts are underway to develop sub-basin plans, including one for the Flathead drainage.

The Flathead Basin Commission was created in 1983 by the state legislature as a partnership between local citizens and local, state, federal, tribal, and Canadian officials. Its mission is "to protect the existing high quality of the Flathead Lake aquatic environment; the waters that flow into, out of, or are tributary to the lake; and the natural resources and environment of the Flathead Basin." The commission has no regulatory authority, but provides a forum for gathering information, learning, and discussion.

The Flathead Conservation District and the Lake County Conservation District administer permits regulating stream bank and other water management activities.

The Flathead Lake Biological Research Station at Yellow Bay, a program of the University of Montana, was established in 1899 and operates year-round as a community information center and research facility. Station faculty and students have conducted many studies on water quality and lake characteristics on Flathead Lake. The station also has land on Bull Island and Polson Bay and manages the Bird Islands.

This section presents the results of the stakeholder interviews conducted during the summer of 1999 by the Montana Consensus Council.. Peoples' concerns and interests are summarized under eight categories: General Areas of Agreement, Scientific Uncertainty, Restoring Native Fish Species, Promoting a Multi-species Recreational Fishery, Economic Impacts and Opportunities, Concerns About DFWP And CSKT Fisheries Management, Agency Relationships, and Collaborative Approach.

Based on the interviews, we can identify several areas of general agreement, including:

** Maintaining water quality and the overall health of the system are paramount concerns.

** CSKT, DFWP, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a responsibility to maintain and enhance bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout.

** A multi-species fishery, including recovery of native fish species, is desirable.

** Flathead Lake supports an important recreational fishery.

** Flathead Lake is one system, and a single management plan for the entire lake (preferably, the entire Flathead ecosystem) is essential.

** The Flathead Lake system has been disturbed by several factors.

** Major management actions could result in unintended consequences.

** A cooperative fisheries management plan must honor the management authority of CSKT and DFWP; maintain and, preferably, enhance native fish species; maintain a viable recreational fishery in Flathead Lake; and provide a framework to integrate the best scientific understanding of the system and the many management plans and projects that affect management of the Flathead fisheries.

** The necessary information to support management decisions is incomplete, but the lack of perfect information should not deter CSKT and DFWP from making reasonable, well thought-out decisions based on current knowledge.

** Fisheries management should be "adaptive," that is, implementing management change incrementally and evaluating consequences before implementing additional change.

** The decision-making process must be timely.

Although people generally agreed on these points, there is considerable disagreement among the stakeholders about appropriate methods to achieve a healthier system and more diverse fishery; the scientific basis for various management approaches; whether the recovery of native species is achievable; the willingness to risk the present fishery for the purpose of enhancing native fish species; and the degree to which economics should influence fisheries management. The following specific issues and concerns are presented here in no particular order.

www.FlatheadLakers.org

Some people said that the 1998 report, An Assessment of Bull Trout and Lake Trout Interactions in Flathead Lake, Montana, is based on the best available science and should be used to guide the management of lake trout and bull trout in Flathead Lake.

Other people said that the 1998 report is more opinion than fact and that the opinions may have limited application to Flathead Lake because many of the participants in the panel of experts were more familiar with the lake trout fishery in the Great Lakes. They expressed concern that the 1998 report did not include input from recognized experts with local knowledge of Flathead Lake.

Some people said that it is not possible to predict the biological consequences of a drastic reduction in lake trout, and those consequences likely would be undesirable.

Although they may have disagreed about which management changes to implement, many people suggested the use of "adaptive management" strategies as a means to effectively manage the fishery in the face of scientific uncertainty.

People agree that bull trout and westslope cutthroat have been adversely affected by various human-caused disturbances to the Flathead Lake and river system. Some people are concerned that, if immediate steps are not taken to begin recovery of bull trout and cutthroat trout, these species could be lost from the Flathead system.

Some people said that management should focus on supporting the present fishery because it may not be possible to re-create the fishery that used to exist in Flathead Lake.

Some people question whether it is necessary to reduce lake trout numbers in order to increase numbers of bull trout. They also question whether reductions in lake trout numbers will result in increased numbers of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout.

Some people are concerned that recovery efforts may unnecessarily constrain management, including opportunities to use the recreational fishery.

Other people said that efforts to recover bull trout and cutthroat trout should take precedence over other management objectives, even if this precludes recreational fishing.

Promoting a Multi-species Recreational Fishery

Depending on their interests, people expressed preferences for different fisheries management approaches. Some people said they want no change from current management.

Many people regret the loss of the kokanee salmon fishery. Some people are concerned about the decline in the yellow perch fishery in the lake.

Some people said that management should emphasize recovery of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout because the Flathead Lake and river system is one of very few places with the potential to support a recreation fishery for native species.

Some people are concerned that lake trout have moved into the river system above Flathead Lake and are not compatible with the rainbow and cutthroat trout fishery in the river. Some people are concerned that northern pike in the river are not compatible with the largemouth bass fishery in the sloughs. Others are concerned about the incompatibility of northern pike with native and introduced salmonids.

Some people want to see major reductions in lake trout, including the use of intensive netting operations and/or commercial harvest.

If it is necessary to reduce lake trout numbers, some people said that increasing the angling harvest was the preferred way to do so.

Some people would prefer a greater emphasis on management of lake trout as a trophy fishery.

Some people said they want the fisheries managed to enhance opportunities for recreational fishing, including augmentation with kokanee, coho salmon, or walleye. Some people suggested hatchery augmentation of kokanee salmon or other forage species to enhance bull trout populations.

Some people just want an abundance of catchable sport fish, regardless of species, in Flathead Lake.

Although they also serve local people, the businesses that provide support services to anglers say they are dependent upon people who visit the Flathead specifically for the opportunity to fish for lake trout in Flathead Lake. The loss of the kokanee was a challenge for these businesses and they do not want to make another transition.

Some people said that the lake trout fishery provides one attractive element in an overall Flathead Valley vacation experience. Many tourists hire the services of charter boat operators. While these tourists are fishing, their family members often shop in local stores. Loss of the lake trout fishery could result in fewer tourists and a corresponding decline in other tourism-related businesses.

Several rafting companies have diversified to include guided fishing services on the North and Middle forks and mainstem of the Flathead River. They said that many of their clients are novice anglers who appreciate the opportunity to learn how to fly fish.

Some fishing guides have diversified to include fishing for northern pike.

Local sporting goods store operators said that fishing tackle sales are important to their business. These people appreciate stability in the fishery and fishing regulations because they purchase their inventory well in advance of the next fishing season.

Some people pointed out that cottage industries have developed for the manufacture and distribution of tackle specifically designed for lake trout, lake whitefish, and perch in Flathead Lake.

Some people have suggested commercial harvest as a method to control lake trout. Others are concerned about the economics of a commercial lake trout fishery. To support a commercial fishery, the lake trout population would have to be sustainable, and, once established, the commercial fishery would significantly influence management objectives for Flathead Lake. A sustainable commercial lake trout fishery may not be compatible with management objectives for native species.

Some people are concerned that a commercial lake trout operation would require a constant government subsidy.

Some people said that, however lake trout reductions are accomplished, the fish should not be wasted.

Some people said that recovery of native species should have priority over economic concerns associated with the Flathead Lake fishery.

Some people said that any commercial use of resources that belong to CSKT should primarily benefit the Tribes or tribal members.

Concerns About DFWP And CSKT Fisheries Management

Some people expressed concern that DFWP decision makers will not support DFWP staff recommendations. Similar concerns were expressed that the Tribal Council may not support CSKT staff recommendations.

A few people question the ability of DFWP to effectively manage the fishery in Flathead Lake. They fault DFWP for introducing Mysis shrimp introductions and are concerned that future management decisions also might have undesirable results.

A few people question whether CSKT will remain committed to a cooperative fisheries management plan.

Generally, people understand and appreciate that CSKT and DFWP have a cordial working relationship and that Tribal and agency staff cooperate well on matters related to the management of the Flathead Lake fishery.

People are aware, however, that DFWP and CSKT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have disagreed&emdash;sometimes strongly&emdash;about fisheries management in Flathead Lake. They are concerned that the public&emdash;and the fisheries&emdash; may not be well served by disagreements among the agencies.

Some people expressed concern about differences between Tribal and State policies and priorities for the management of the fishery.

Some people expressed concern that matters unrelated to Flathead Lake (such as decisions on gaming and U.S. Highway 93) might affect the eventual fisheries management decision.

People we interviewed shared a general sense of enthusiasm about the project. They appreciated being asked, up front, about what they think and how they want to participate. Most people acknowledged that a collaborative approach is desirable and indicated a willingness to participate. A few people expressed reservations about the process.

A few people are concerned that a collaborative approach will only prolong the planning process.

A few people are concerned that DFWP and CSKT have initiated this process as a means to postpone making difficult decisions.

The following suggested process for developing a cooperative fisheries management plan for Flathead Lake is offered as a work in progress. It is designed to address the interests and concerns of the decision makers and as many stakeholders as possible. A final decision on the planning process will be made by CSKT and DFWP, in consultation with the stakeholders.

Based on the interviews and follow-up conversations with DFWP and CSKT, it is clear that a number of considerations or sideboards must guide the development of any cooperative management plan for the Flathead Lake fisheries. Although there may not be complete agreement on the spectrum of considerations, or the weight assigned to any specific consideration, they nevertheless begin to define the so-called "decision space" for managing the fishery.

 www.FlatheadLakers.org

CSKT, DFWP, and the people interviewed seem to agree that any public process to develop a co-management plan should:

** Be timely and efficient.

** Respect the decision-making authority of DFWP, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, and the CSKT Tribal Council.

** Offer meaningful involvement for all interested stakeholders in the decision-making process.

** Develop agreement on the best available science on the Flathead system.

** Acknowledge the requirements of other decision-making processes and plans, including the Montana Environmental Policy Act. the Bull Trout Recovery Plan, the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Plan, and the Westslope Cutthroat Conservation Agreement.

** Provide ongoing, regular public information and education (for example, through a quarterly newsletter).

** Supplement other public involvement efforts.

** Be adaptive (implemented incrementally and evaluated before additional changes are made).

On a more substantive level, CSKT, DFWP, and the stakeholders agree that the co-management plan should:

** Restore bull trout.

** Restore other native fish species.

** Meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

** Provide recreational fishing opportunities (as far as possible while remaining consistent with native fish species restoration).

** Maintain water quality and the overall health of the system.

** Consider economic effects.

Consistent with these considerations, we suggest that DFWP and CSKT convene an advisory committee. The purpose of the advisory committee would be to:

** Confirm and finalize the process and substantive considerations and goals of the management planning process.

** Design a process to seek agreement on the best available science on the Flathead system.

** Develop and evaluate options for responding to the problems and opportunities addressed in the co-management plan.

CSKT and DFWP will make a public announcement asking anyone who is interested in serving as an advisor to the planning process to contact CSKT or DFWP. The Tribes and the department will then develop a process to create the advisory committee.