Columbia River Gorge Commission debates plan amendment amid tribal consultation questions; some commissioners to press for a vote

The Columbia River Gorge Commission on Jan. 13 spent much of its public meeting debating how to balance treaty-tribe consultation with county and resident interests as it moves a management-plan amendment toward final action. Commissioners and staff discussed new cultural-resource language developed with U.S. Forest Service staff and whether the commission should proceed to a vote now or wait for additional tribal input.

Commissioner Valerie Fowler, speaking for residents who had contacted her, said she would call for a vote at the meeting: "I've been asked by a lot of my residents, to... call for the vote." Fowler said uncertainty over timing was "really devastating to people" and urged staff to circulate related materials so commissioners and constituents could review them.

Staff said they had met with U.S. Forest Service staff and had circulated a revised plan amendment that includes "additional reference to cultural resource protection." Jeff (staff) told commissioners the language was still being finalized with Forest Service colleagues: "We're still working on what we think is the final text with... Forest Service staff. There are a lot of folks out, so we may not have that done." Staff also said they would request a written copy of comments previously given verbally by a Yakima staff member to include in the record.

Commissioner Nathan Reynolds and Commissioner Amy Weisfeld urged care in meeting the consultation standard. Reynolds described consultation under the bi-state process as necessarily "vague because of the cultural differences between tribal governments," and said consultation does not amount to "consent per se." He warned of the agency review bar: "What I am mostly worried about is if for any reason we haven't done what is adequate that the secretary of agriculture would send it back. The secretary of agriculture would say you haven't fulfilled your tribal constitution responsibilities." Weisfeld added the commission should avoid squandering good relations with treaty tribes while also respecting county concerns.

Several commissioners said staff had worked in "good faith" to incorporate concerns and that, absent new substantive comments from tribes, the commission should consider moving forward. Commissioners agreed to seek written tribal comments where possible and to continue coordination with the Forest Service on culturally protective language.

No formal vote was recorded in the Jan. 13 session. Commissioners discussed adding committee items and scheduling a fuller facilitated discussion of a related staff report at the March meeting. The commission opened a public-comment period but no members of the public used the raise-hand feature to speak during that portion of the meeting.

Next steps: staff will circulate the revised plan amendment language and attempt to secure written comments from the Yakima government for the record; the commission indicated it plans more substantive discussion and a facilitated session in March, while several commissioners said they would press for a formal vote when appropriate.