Federal Subsistence Board Work Session January 12 – 13, 2016 Presenters: Amee R. Howard and Theo Matuskowitz

Pros Force of law – “Teeth” Set Criteria Predictability Transparency through public process Cons Negative public comments May contain arbitrary content Lacks flexibility Rigid criteria that are hard to change/update Any future revisions would require formal rulemaking Lengthy public process Inability to adjust to regional changes in a timely manner

Pros Allows greatest flexibility for Board determinations Streamlined process Allows for agility when considering unique regional characteristics Allows for more timely changes to process Addresses existing void in how the public can request changes to the current nonrural determinations Cons Perceived as lacking “Teeth” Dependent on administration – perception that policy can and will be changed when there is a change in leadership

Pros Some flexibility introduced through the policy portion Force of law – “Teeth” through the regulatory portion Transparency through public process Ability to address regional variations through the policy portion Cons Lose some flexibility due to rulemaking component Lengthy public process Longer timeframe before the Board would be able to address issues with current nonrural determinations

Option # 1 – Two to Three+ years Option #2 – One to Two years depending on the Board’s direction for public process and Regional Advisory Council input Option #3 – Two to Three+ years

Option #1 – The Rural Subcommittee considered and dismissed a strictly regulatory option; it could take an extremely long time and it likely would be met with resistance from the Secretaries and the public. Option #2 – The Rural Subcommittee recommends the policy only option as the best course of action. Option #3 – The Rural Subcommittee considered and dismissed the development of a regulation directing the Board to follow an established policy.

The Secretaries just signed and published two new rules on this topic and may resist consideration of a third, especially if it appears that the process is shifting back towards the previous rule. Most of the positives for Options #1 & #3 are contingent on Secretarial support, without that support we would need to go with Option #2 to be responsive to rural users.

1.Develop Interim Policy which allows for Board direction and input and gives the Regional Advisory Councils time to review, comment, and make recommendations. A straight forward Interim Policy that will allow the Board to address existing or more immediate concerns. 2.Once the Interim Policy is in place, its effectiveness can be discerned and within a year, Councils can give the Board their recommendations and feedback on if it is working or not and whether or not it would be appropriate to adopt the interim policy as the permanent Board Policy.

Winter 2016Spring/Summer 2016Summer 2016Fall 2016Fall 2016/Winter 2017Winter 2017 Board Decision on whether or not to adopt Interim Policy to begin addressing proposals, with the understanding that the Permanent Policy will be finalized over the next year, with more input from the RACs and the Public Present Interim Policy to the Board at Summer Work Session 2016 for review, edits, feedback Present Interim Policy to the Regional Advisory Councils for review, edits, feedback Incorporate Board and Council edits into the Interim Policy Develop Interim Policy ISC review of Interim Policy Work with OSM Native Liaison to include this topic in the tribal consultation sessions in order to discuss ideas on regional characteristics for rural Notify RACs of intent to draft an Interim Policy and indicate that they will be asked to review it during fall 2016 meeting cycle. Ask them to be prepared to define the important characteristics that should be addressed for their region