<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:93040.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-522
THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION AMENDMENTS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 868
TO AMEND THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION ACT TO PROVIDE
FOR THE CULTURAL RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS OF
OREGON
----------
MARCH 30, 2004
WASHINGTON, DC
THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION AMENDMENTS ACT
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-040 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
S. Hrg. 108-522
THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION AMENDMENTS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 868
TO AMEND THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION ACT TO PROVIDE
FOR THE CULTURAL RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS OF
OREGON
__________
MARCH 30, 2004
WASHINGTON, DC
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
S. 868, text of.................................................. 3
Statements:
Hoiles, Cheryl, vice chairman, tribal council, Confederated
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, Coos
Bay, OR.................................................... 25
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, USDA.......................................... 23
Smith. Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon................. 1
Smith, George, tribal forester............................... 25
Somday, Francis, executive officer........................... 25
Wakeland, Peter, Director of Natural Resources, The
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Grand Ronde, OR........ 31
Ward, Jay, conservation director, Oregon Natural Resources
Council, Portland, OR...................................... 34
Appendix
Prepared statements:
Gordon, John C., chairman, Interforest LLC................... 41
Hall, Tex, president, National Congress of American Indians
(with resolution).......................................... 54
Hoiles, Cheryl............................................... 58
Rey, Mark.................................................... 45
Wakeland, Peter.............................................. 46
Ward, Jay (with attachment).................................. 48
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letters in support of the forest restoration plan for the
Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian..................... 79
THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW RESTORATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2003
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 9:52 a.m.
in room 485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Gordon Smith (acting
chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Gentlemen, if I can have you all take your
places, today the committee is considering S. 868, The Coos,
Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Amendments Act of 2003.
This legislation would effectively establish a land base for
the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Indians.
Many years ago when the tribes first approached me I told
them I could only support a proposal that met with broad local
support and that was a net positive for tribal members and for
Oregon, as a whole. S. 868 is the result of years of
discussions with the tribes, the Oregon Congressional
Delegation, local communities, and environmentalists. That
cooperation is reflected in a well-balanced plan that embraces
the ecological needs of the forests and the struggling local
economy. The forest area that is being considered in my
legislation lies within the Siuslaw National Forest.
Under the Clinton northwest forest plan, the Siuslaw is
largely set aside in late successional reserves, LSR's. Timber
management in these areas can only be used to accelerate the
development of old growth characteristics for spotted owl
habitat. Since most of the forest was heavily logged in the
past, it is now so choked with second-generation timber stands
that it is incompatible with wildlife needs. Both environmental
groups and the forest products industry have advocated
extensive thinning projects on the Siuslaw National Forest to
create productive wildlife habitat and timber for local
economies.
New stewardship contracting authorities allowed the Forest
Service to move forward on a small number of thinning projects
in the Siuslaw. Even the Oregon Natural Resources Council,
which is represented in today's panel, has recently stated
that, ``We do see the need for work to move these forests
ahead.'' But that work is not moving forward with any
noticeable speed. The Siuslaw National Forest has identified
300,000 acres in need of thinning, yet only about 2,000 acres
are being treated per year based on current staffing levels.
Thus, it will take the Forest Service 150 years to meet its
management objectives for the Siuslaw National Forest.
Certainly that is not nearly fast enough for a State that's
burning more spotted owl habitat than it is growing.
This legislation offers a change in course. The tribes
propose doing precisely what the Forest Service wants to do,
but is limited by procedural analysis and funding shortfalls.
By allowing the tribes to manage a small portion of the Siuslaw
National Forest, thinning projects would be accelerated. Not
only would this help meet the needs of threatened species, but
would provide revenue for the tribe for social services and
jobs for the local economy. Very rarely do I find common ground
between the Federal Government, loggers, environmentalists, and
the tribes. Through their patience and perseverance, the tribes
have accomplished more on that front than I thought possible.
They've gained support from their local elected officials.
They've gained support from some environmental groups and from
the forest products industry, and now they are looking for
support from their Federal Government.
If the Federal Government is serious about tribal self-
determination and honest about their record of tribal forest
management, then I believe that this proposal can gain
traction. To that extent, I hope today's hearing will bring us
all closer to doing what is right for the tribes and for the
land.
[Text of S. 868 follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Smith. Now I'd like to invite USDA Under Secretary
Mark Rey to make a statement. Good to have you here, Mark.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, USDA
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Senator Smith. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department's views on S. 868, the
Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Amendments Act of
2003. The Department supports the general goals of cultural
restoration and the economic benefits that S. 868 would
provide; however, we have some concerns about several aspects
of the bill--in particular, the land transfer from the Siuslaw
National Forest of the magnitude envisioned in the bill. We'd
like to have further discussions with you, with the delegation,
the tribe, and the committee on the complex issues presented by
the bill and potential alternative approaches to achieve the
stated goals of the legislation.
Under the provisions of S. 868, land would be managed to
the extent practicable to achieve management and restoration
goals established for nearby or adjacent Federal lands;
however, because management would no longer be subject to the
National Forest Management Act, that's not guaranteed. The
proposed transfer could fragment relatively contiguous
watersheds and could reduce the Forest Service's flexibility
for management of the remaining acreage of the Siuslaw National
Forest.
Additionally, there's some irony in the timing of this
particular proposal relative to the progress that the
Administration and the forest are making in bringing the
Siuslaw into more active management. We are accelerating the
rate of thinning in the late successional reserves and have
issued a long-term stewardship contract as authorized by an act
of Congress just roughly 1 year ago in the area that would be
conveyed to the tribe under the terms of the legislation. So
one of the things that we'd like to work with you to make sure
is that that accelerating rate of progress in active management
isn't delayed or disrupted if we are going to convey the land
involved to the tribe and out of Forest Service ownership.
We are mindful of the potential benefits this bill would
provide to the people of the Confederated Tribes. At the same
time, we'd like to look at alternatives to achieve those
benefits with different measures than those provided for in the
legislation, and we'd like to continue discussions with the
committee, with you, and the tribe to explore options of that
sort.
With that, I'd be happy to submit the balance of my
testimony for the record and answer any questions that you've
got.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mark.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Rey appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. What I hear you saying is that the
Administration has questions, is not opposed, but willing to
work with us on this.
Mr. Rey. That's correct.
Senator Smith. And as I understand your concerns, they're
primarily about how you reconcile the forest health initiative
and the ongoing thinning, which, as I understand, may provide
funding for about 40 percent of the restoration of that forest,
how to reconcile that with also transferring it to the tribe.
Mr. Rey. Correct. And also the question of how to
effectuate the transfer of management on the ground from the
Forest Service to the tribe and what, if any, the Forest
Service's continuing role could or should be in carrying out
some of the management activities that have already been
initiated since it's not apparent on the face of it, at least
in our discussions, albeit limited discussions so far with the
tribe, that they could pick up tomorrow what we have underway
today if, in fact, we concluded a conveyance to that extent.
So it may be that one option is to look to making the tribe
a partner in management concomitant with the conveyance or
independent of it, depending on how we want to proceed. Another
option might be to convey the land but have the Forest Service
continue under contract to perform the functions that they
already have underway to make sure that those functions aren't
disrupted. I'm not saying those are necessarily better
alternatives to a simple conveyance, but they are things that
we'd like to explore with you and with the tribe a little bit
further as we go forward.
Senator Smith. Mark, as you know better than anyone,
President Clinton's northwest forest plan promised harvest of a
billion board feet per year, and that is not likely to be
accomplished without an aggressive thinning program. I assume
that this occurring on the Siuslaw would actually be very
helpful to the Forest Service in achieving President Clinton's
objective.
Mr. Rey. No question about that. Again, the irony here is
that just late last week we announced two amendments to the
northwest forest plan that we think are critical to achieving
President Bush's commitment to redeem the promise that the
previous Administration made about sustainable harvest levels
off the Clinton forest plan, so to some extent we think we're
poised to do that work now. That doesn't speak one way or
another to our responsibilities to the tribe in terms of giving
them a reservation in recognition of their tribal rights, but
there is an irony in the sense that just at the time that the
Forest Service has finally been given the tools to get the job
done we are essentially looking at alternatives to take the job
away from them.
Senator Smith. Can you speak to firsthand knowledge of its
condition in meeting the objectives of providing habitat for
spotted owls?
Mr. Rey. There are spotted owls on the forest, but the
Siuslaw is by and large a second growth forest. There is
relatively little--in fact, very little--old growth remaining.
It is a second growth forest. Much of it is in a condition
where thinning is necessary, either to increase growth rates,
if timber production is a goal on a particular acreage, or, in
the case of late successional reserves, which have been
developed within the forest to begin to get those areas to
resemble late successional characteristics. Without that
thinning, then they won't become better spotted owl habitat
than they currently are, which is largely marginal.
Senator Smith. So it really is a convergence of actually
harvesting to help spotted owls?
Mr. Rey. In this case, yes.
Senator Smith. I wish that were more widely understood,
because I've seen this forest, as well, and I've seen the
tangle of second growth characteristics, which is so dense and
so thick that all that's being prepared there is a huge fire,
and having little to do with a healthy environment where old
growth can thrive and spotted owls can live.
Mr. Rey. Right. And in the case of this particular system,
that would likely be a stand replacement fire.
Senator Smith. In your testimony you warn of the precedent
this legislation would set for other proposals to transfer
large tracts of national forest system land to tribes. Is there
an acreage level that your Department would feel more
comfortable with?
Mr. Rey. Well, I think there's some fluidity in these
proposals. In the ones that Congress has most recently enacted,
the acreage amounts for the Grand Ronde and the Coquille Tribe
have been substantially less. Now, in those case there weren't
management prescriptions attached to the conveyance. In this
case the management prescriptions involve a somewhat less
intense management across what would therefore be justified as
a larger landscape.
I don't know that there's a magic acreage number. I think
what we'd be more interested in looking at is: In the course of
making sure that the progress that's already being made isn't
disrupted, is there a better way to build the relationship
between the tribe and the Forest Service during the conveyance
so that we don't see a disruption in the progress that is being
made.
Senator Smith. Mr. Rey, thank you very much for your
service, the Forest Service, and for being here today and
speaking to this legislation.
Mr. Rey. We look forward to working with you as the
legislation progresses through the Congressional process.
Senator Smith. Thank you. I always look forward to working
with you, and I think there is a community of interest here
that can be served for the tribes, for the environment, for the
economy of Oregon, and for spotted owls. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rey. Thanks.
Senator Smith. We'll call forward Cheryl Hoile. Welcome.
Thank you all for being here. Cheryl, we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL HOILE, VICE CHAIR, TRIBAL COUNCIL,
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW
INDIANS, COOS BAY, OR, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANCIS SOMDAY, EXECUTIVE
OFFICER TO THE TRIBE; AND GEORGE SMITH, TRIBAL FORESTER
Ms. Hoile. My name is Cheryl Hoiles. I'm vice chairman of
the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Indians and a Siuslaw tribal member. Supporting this testimony
today is the entire tribal council. On behalf of the 761 tribal
members, we thank you for holding this hearing on S. 868. We
have been waiting and working for many years to regain a
portion of our homelands. We are the only tribe in Oregon that
has never received any land or compensation for the unjust
taking of our lands 150 years ago. S. 868, introduced by
Senator Gordon Smith, will right this wrong. We urge the
committee to look favorably on this bill and move it through
the Senate quickly.
The Confederated Tribes would like to thank Senator Smith
for his strong leadership and advocacy on behalf of the tribes
and tribal issues. You are truly our friend.
I would like to enter my written testimony into the record,
along with several attachments. Included in these attachments
is written testimony by Dr. John Gordon.
Senator Smith. They will be received and included in the
record.
Ms. Hoile. Thank you. I see Dr. Gordon had testified on
behalf of IFMAT today. The Confederated Tribes would like to
thank Dr. Gordon for his support and guidance on this endeavor.
Our history is checkered with sadness and broken promises.
Our people inhabited the land along the Oregon coast on the
Coos River, Lower Umpqua River, and Siuslaw Watersheds. Much of
this area is now within the Siuslaw National Forest. In 1855 we
signed the Empire Treaty with the Federal Government, which
would have compensated us for our land and allowed us to live
on a small portion of it. The treaty was read twice on the U.S.
Senate floor and then somehow lost. Instead of honoring the
provisions of the treaty, the U.S. Government marched our
ancestors to the Coast Reservation and held them for 19 years
between 1856 and 1875. Administration of this portion of the
reservation was handled through the Umpqua and Alsea
Subagencies. The Alsea Subagency was closed by act of Congress
in March 1875. The lands restored to public domain included two
units of the coast reservation. The law required consent of the
tribes living in the unit.
The minutes of the conference held at Yachats on June 17,
1875, confirm that none of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, or
Alsea concurred with the closure of the agency and opening the
units to the Euro-American settlement. The action proceed
without tribal consent. Our land was taken from us and offered
for pioneer settlement. By the time our tribal members were
freed, one-half had died and our land was inhabited.
Between 1917 and 1956, the Confederated Tribes were
irregularly provided Federal services by the superintendent of
the Chemawa Indian School and the agent of the Siletz-Grand
Ronde agency.
In 1940, Louis J. Simpson and William G. Robertson donated
to the United States a tract of 6.1 acres in Empire, OR, for
the benefit of the local tribes. In 1941 an Indian division of
the Civilian Conservation Corps built a tribal hall for the
Confederated Tribes, and it is still in use today.
In 1954, by Presidential order, although opposed by the
Confederated Tribes, our tribal status was terminated. My
grandfather, who was chairman at the time, had to find the
strength to inform our people. The next several decades were
difficult ones for our members. Lack of education and economic
opportunities and racism by some of our white neighbors took
its toll.
In 1984, led by the efforts of Senator Mark Hatfield,
Congress restored our tribe to Federal recognition. No
financial compensation or land was granted to us at that time.
Efforts to regain even a portion of our homelands has always
been in the forefront of our efforts, and with restoration they
heightened.
In the development of this proposal, we have worked with
tribal membership to establish goals and criteria for the
tribal land use. The lands must be located in the ancestral
territory of the tribes. The land characteristics and existing
resource conditions must represent, as closely as possible,
what was found in aboriginal forests. The land and the
resources must be culturally significant to the tribes. The
land and the resources must contribute to the economic self-
sufficiency of the tribes.
We also believe that restoration of our tribal homelands
must not negatively impact the existing public rights and uses
of the land.
A provision of the tribe's restoration act provides for
establishment of a reservation so long as it is at no cost to
the Federal Government. Compliance with this provision requires
the tribal land base be restored from lands which the Federal
Government already owns. The 62,865 acres proposed for transfer
are from the lands of the Siuslaw National Forest to be held in
trust for our tribal members, are within the boundaries of our
ancestral homeland and will meet all of our goals and criteria.
These lands contain the highest degree of culturally
significant areas of any land between the Siuslaw and Umpqua
Rivers. The portions of the Siuslaw East and the Siuslaw West
Tracts which border the Siuslaw River have a concentration of
old village sites. There are also prior Indian allotments, both
along the river and in the interior of these tracts.
The waterfall areas of Sweet Creek and Beaver Creek in the
Siuslaw East Tract and Kentucky Falls on the North Fork of the
Smith River in the Lakes Tract have spiritual significance to
the tribes. The testimony that we have submitted for the record
provides detailed information regarding these sites and their
significance to the Confederated Tribes. Placing these lands in
trust for the tribes will allow us to protect and utilize these
sites for cultural restoration. The majority of these sites are
in protected riparian areas or other areas with rugged,
inoperable terrain, and cultural restoration objectives for the
selected tracts will have minimal, if any, impact on potential
economic activities.
The lands designated in the bill are part of the Oregon
Coast Mountain Range. They are characterized by steep slopes
and many streams. The mild, wet climate and fertile soils
provide some of the best forest growing conditions in the
world. The landscape includes highly productive Douglas-fir
forest, superb habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife,
including the bald eagle, marbled murrelet, northern spotted
owl, coho salmon, and pacific lamprey. These species are
candidates for listing or are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.
Our management will focus on restoring late successional
forests and watersheds. This tribal management direction is
consistent with existing goals for management of adjacent
Siuslaw National Forest lands. Timber will be harvested by
thinning to restore habitat and enhance cultural values on
thousands of acres of conifer plantations. Thinning will also
reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Additional resources will
be dedicated to watershed restoration projects. In general,
state-of-the-art science and adaptive learning approach will be
employed in the management of all tribal lands.
The land proposed for transfer will also help us to achieve
our economic needs, as well. It is important to note, while
this moves us in the direction of self-sufficiency, it does
not, in and of itself, meet all of our financial needs. We
anticipate that we will net approximately $1.1 million annually
from these lands. Revenue-generating activities are either
underway or in the planning stage, and in combination with
timber harvest, non-timber forest products, ecotourism
activities, watershed restoration, and habitat restoration
activities, we hope to meet our overall current budget needs of
$8 million.
Moneys gained from the forest will help provide health and
dental care to our members, low income housing, meet the needs
of our elders, and provide scholarships for our youth. We
anticipate that jobs generated from the transfer of these lands
in ecotourism, watershed restoration, and forest management
will help break the cycle of unemployment and poverty among our
tribal members.
The members of the Confederated Tribes consider themselves
not only Native Americans but also, Americans. We are proud of
our heritage and we are proud to live and work in our local
communities. Because we view ourselves as good neighbors, we
undertook an extensive public outreach program to both explain
our efforts to regain a small portion of our homeland and to
assure our neighbors that our activities on these lands would
benefit the greater community. We have held over 250 meetings
with all the possible stakeholders since 1997. These meetings
were focused on reviewing various land proposals, seeking
input, and as a result ultimately modifying our request. We
held eight open house and community meetings throughout the
areas, as well. We have met with the general public, adjacent
land owners, watershed councils, recreation interests, local
elected officials, Northwest tribes, national tribal
organizations, environmental and economic groups, and timber
interests, just to name a few.
We have compiled letters of support, which I have asked,
along with other documents, to be included in the record.
Included in this compendium of documents are letters from the
Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest, the National Congress of
American Indians, the cities of North Bend and Coos Bay and
Douglas, Lane and Coos County Commissioners, and letters from
every State legislator in the area, local environmental
organizations, and local and regional timber associations. We
are not a wealthy tribe, and this effort has strained our
resources.
For 7 years we have worked continuously with the members of
the Oregon Delegation to develop this land restoration
proposal. We have made significant accommodations to address
the concerns that have been raised by the elected officials. We
are hopeful that the support of the full delegation will be
forthcoming as this bill moves forward.
During the public process, we have addressed the concerns
we have heard and we believe that we have gained the trust of
the public. We have committed--and it is reflected in the
bill--that public access will be maintained for hunting,
fishing, recreation, and transportation. The lands will be
managed to protect endangered species and managed consistent
with current adjacent Federal land strategies. There will be no
gaming on these lands. Export of unprocessed logs from these
lands is prohibited. Timber from these lands will be equally
available to all domestic processors through a competitive bid
process. The tribes will not construct and operate a sawmill on
these lands. County revenues will not be affected when the land
is transferred.
In addition, we have had subsequent meetings with a number
of environmental organizations and would be willing to have
greater detail on management strategies included in the bill as
well as a greater and specific role for public input prior to
the final action on management activities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
we ask that you move swiftly on this legislation and restore a
very small but very significant portion of our homeland. We
have been working long and hard, but we cannot proceed without
your active support on the passage of this legislation.
Joining me today are Francis Somday, our tribal
administrator, and George Smith, our forest management
consultant. They will be assisting me with answering any
questions you may have.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Hoile appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Cheryl. As one who has
worked with the tribe for years now to try to get to this point
and to success, I have come to realize that the emotion that we
heard in your voice has very little to do with the economics of
this but a great deal to do with the emotional dignity that
comes with this restoration. Can you speak to that a little
more?
Ms. Hoiles. I'll try. This land is very important to us
culturally and spiritually. It means a lot to us. It is going
to give us the opportunity for future economic opportunities
for us through educating our young, being able to provide
services for our elders, and just feel the pride of having our
own lands.
Senator Smith. I share that hope and that pride and what
that would do for the tribe. I am privileged to sit in the
Senate seat of Mark Hatfield and to continue on with his work
on behalf of the tribe. I'm most anxious to see this succeed.
For the record, others have criticized this proposal that
I've introduced. They will point out that other western Oregon
tribes have had less than 10,000 acres restored to them, and
yet in this bill I've proposed 63,000 acres. How would you
answer? If you were me, how would you answer that criticism?
Ms. Hoiles. Well, we are three tribes. Our original lands
were 1.6 million. This is just 5 percent of that original land.
Senator Smith. That's a good answer. You know the co-
authors of the northwest forest plan. One of them is Jerry
Franklin. He's considered one of the leading experts on old
growth forests. I wonder if you can, for the record, describe
what your interaction has been with Jerry Franklin.
Ms. Hoiles. Well, I am aware that we have had interaction
with him, but George would really be able to address that
question.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Franklin was part of the
original project team that put this proposal together, and his
involvement was primarily a focus to ensure that our management
strategy for the plan complied with the goals and was
consistent with the northwest forest plan, and particularly
late successional management. Dr. Franklin's contributions are
cited in the front part of the plan.
Senator Smith. All right. I want to publicly thank the
tribes for the way they have included the local community. When
we first started talking about this, I sensed a tremendous
amount of local resistance to this proposal, and I think that
the way that you have reached out to allay fears of local
officials, local folks who also are trying to make a living,
and included them in terms of how this would benefit the entire
community is truly being reflected in the amount of support
that there is from all segments of society on the south coast,
and I truly am grateful for that.
Can you speak for the record--you have a little bit--about
how you think that this will affect the public in the wider
Coos area.
Ms. Hoiles. Well, the effect it will have directly on the
public will be minimal and transparent. They will still be able
to access for fishing, hunting, hiking, biking. It would be no
different than any other regulation that the Federal Government
had placed on it if we need to rope off for bad roads or
whatever. If we identify culturally or spiritually sensitive
area, then we would go through the process.
Senator Smith. Right.
Ms. Hoiles. So it would be minimal.
Mr. Smith. I might add, Senator, in support of the local
communities, the employment that would be generated from
accelerating the thinning operations on these parcels of land
would certainly create additional jobs and employment and
revenue for the communities, and also the tribe has access to
funds to do restoration work on these lands, and that would
also support local communities.
Senator Smith. and in your restoration, you clearly are
cutting timber, but you are doing so with a view to protecting
endangered species?
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The thinning
program that the tribe would be carrying out under its
management strategy is consistent with what the Forest Service
is now doing and the kind of activity that Under Secretary Rey
described. I guess the biggest difference is that the tribe--
this would be the only land that they would have, the 60,000
acres, and your comments focused on the fact that there's
300,000 acres out there to thin, so the tribe would be
launching an accelerated program to get this thinning done.
Senator Smith. Have you given any thought to Secretary
Rey's comments of how this transition would be managed? And do
you feel like that could be--the concerns of the Department of
Agriculture, could they be satisfied in a transition from one
to the tribe?
Mr. Smith. I certainly do. The tribe has an excellent
relationship with the Siuslaw National Forest, and we have
worked very closely initially with Jim Furnish and now with
Gloria Brown, who is the current forest supervisor. We have a
memorandum of agreement now in place for the Siuslaw National
Forest that would lead into a smooth transition of management.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Any closing comments you may want
to make?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. With that, we thank our second panel.
Ms. Hoiles. Thank you.
Senator Smith. We sure appreciate your testimony.
We call forward our third panel, which will consist of
Peter Wakeland and Jay Ward.
Peter, welcome. You can lead off the third panel.
STATEMENT OF PETER WAKELAND, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES, THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE, GRAND RONDE, OR
Mr. Wakeland. Thank you very much, Senator. I'd like to
thank the chairman and the committee, particularly you, Senator
Smith, for inviting me to testify before you today regarding
the legislation to provide the Confederated Tribes of Coos,
Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw with a tribal forest.
I'm the natural resources manager for the Confederated
Tribes of Grand Ronde and I am a Grand Ronde tribal member. I
am also a veteran staffer of the U.S. Senate, having worked on
American Indian issues, chemical weapons, demilitarization, and
Social Security reform.
Like the Coos, my tribe went through a long legislative
process to have land restored to us for cultural, ecological,
and economic uses. I hope that the experience that the Grand
Ronde went through and the quality of land management since
then will be relevant to policymakers in the current people.
Like the Coos, Congress terminated the Government's
relationship with the Grand Ronde Tribes in 1954, and what was
left of the original 69,000 acre reservation was gone entirely.
In 1988, with the support of Senator Hatfield and this
committee, the tribes were provided 9,811 acres of our original
reservation. In 1994, an additional 241 acres were added.
While lawsuits and procedural paralysis have crippled
neighboring Federal lands, the Grand Ronde has been able to
meet the promise of President Clinton's northwest forest plan
to protect the environment and produce a sustainable level of
timber. Timber harvested from our reservation feeds local
mills, which in turn creates jobs and supports local economies.
Because of this, the tribes play an important role in the lives
of tribal and community members. In just the last decade, the
tribe completed numerous stream enhancement projects--projects
that have created high-quality habitats and opened up over 20
miles of spawning and rearing reaches of reservation streams.
In 1995, we began seeing coho salmon returning to the
reservation.
Tribal forest stewardship has been so effective that we
have entered into a stewardship agreement with the Forest
Service and the BLM to help manage 10,000 acres of their land,
to help find creative ways of carrying out the northwest forest
plan. The Grand Ronde has only been able to achieve this level
of success because we have the flexibility that the Forest
Service and BLM do not. Like the proposal for the Coos tribal
forest, the Grand Ronde tribal forest is managed under the
National Indian Forest Resources Management Act in cooperation
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. Contrary to claims
that the BIA commits egregious malfeasance in its timber
management, the Grand Ronde have maintained a successful
partnership with the BIA, and I would discourage any
categorical depictions of Indian forest management, especially
in light of the previous hearing on IFMAT II.
Fortunately, the Grand Ronde is not saddled with managing
under the northwest forest plan, yet our forest is healthy and
provides a wide range of habitats. Because of all the
litigation associated with the northwest forest plan, it is my
opinion that it has proven to be a dismal failure and has had
detrimental effects on the overall health of western forests,
including landscape level loss of spotted owl habitat to
catastrophic fire. Consider, too, that catastrophic fires also
alarmingly degrade fisheries habitats, and while the lands at
issue before you lie in the coast range where fire incidents
are less frequent, we know that western forests do, in fact,
burn, and lack of sound management increases the likelihood
that they will.
Because of our success in managing our lands, I pose that
tribal forest management is perhaps more responsive to the
needs of the land. Returning land to Indian tribes, whether
small in acreage or large, is truly a matter between the
Federal Government and the tribes with which they are working,
a government-to-government process. We are all aware that there
are concerns on all sides whenever Federal lands are at issue,
and while the Coos have done an outstanding job of garnering
support, this particular process really must strive clear of
being driven solely by popularity.
Opponents of the bill before this committee may assert that
their claim to the land supersedes the claim of Indian people,
and this creates a dilemma for our elected leaders. Opponents
may also present arguments against the transfer of land to the
tribes and explain how devastating the transfer would be to the
environment, particularly to spotted owl and anadromous fish,
but this claim ignores the successes of the Grand Ronde that
has faced the same management challenges, the same endangered
species, and the same general geographic area.
The Coos Forest plan is based on restoring late
successional habitat for the spotted owl, which is precisely
what the environmental community has been advocating for the
Siuslaw National Forest, yet many in their community still have
strong objection to this legislation. So what, I ask, is truly
at the heart of their opposition to tribal control of ancestral
lands? Perhaps they simply don't want to see any timber
harvested for any reason for any people. Perhaps they would be
satisfied to see the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw remain
landless and without an economy. At the end of the day, I
suggest that at least a portion of their opposition lies in
control. If they cannot control the decisions the tribe makes,
then they oppose the plan, and no doubt they will present a
number of arguments, but I submit that their arguments are
speculative and emotional in nature, aimed at raising fears,
not grounded in fact.
The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes are the only
federally recognized tribes in Oregon that do not have any land
to call their own. It would be just to return to them a portion
of their ancestral lands, and equally just in allowing them to
write their own plan, a plan that would balance the needs of
the tribes with the protection and enhancement of tribal forest
assets. I implore you not to ignore these tribes' right to have
lands restored to them.
Supporting the bill is the right course of action, and time
will prove, as it has with the Grand Ronde, that it was the
best decision. The tribes' needs will be satisfied and the
environment will be made more resilient, healthy, and well
functioning.
My thanks to you again for the privilege of speaking before
you today. I will be happy to answer questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Peter.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Wakeland appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. Peter, your lands, the Grand Ronde, they
border much of the Forest Service land, do they not?
Mr. Wakeland. That's correct, they do.
Senator Smith. Any subjective opinion as to condition of
those lands versus the Federal lands?
Mr. Wakeland. I think it has already been touched on a
number of times today. The Siuslaw National Forest by and large
truly is a forest of second growth Douglas fir, and over the
past couple of decades there has been a tremendous lack of
management, in my opinion. These forest lands are at the point
now where we may see a stand replacement catastrophic fire if
we don't do something, and we've seen it all across the west in
other similar stands. If you don't manage, you're going to have
a problem. Siuslaw is there.
Senator Smith. Do the Grand Ronde care about the wildlife
and fish in that forest?
Mr. Wakeland. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, the waters
that we inherit in our reservation start on the eastern slopes
of the Siuslaw National Forest and run into the reservation, so
absolutely we care.
Senator Smith. And your lands would also border these
proposed in the Siuslaw National Forest, and I'm wondering if
your working relationship with the Forest Service would be
something of a model for the Coos Tribe as they ramp up their
stewardship.
Mr. Wakeland. I think so. I think we have been successful
to this point in working with the stewardship agreement with
the Forest Service, so I absolutely would think that would be a
benefit.
Senator Smith. Did you hear similar concerns expressed
about the Grand Ronde taking over these lands that you're now
hearing about the proposal for the Coos?
Mr. Wakeland. There was absolute concern when the
conveyance of our lands was at issue, especially with the
timber industry. They were very, very concerned that if the
Grand Ronde took over the land that the timber harvest would be
affected or that there would be exporting of timber. That
didn't--we don't export. There is a timber harvest, but it is
at a sustainable level with all kinds of environmental concerns
taken into account, and I think that the environmental
community has been pleased with the way we have managed the
forest.
Senator Smith. So, as you have experienced it in the Grand
Ronde, the local officials, the public, the environmental
community, even the timber community, and if the fish and
wildlife could talk, everybody is happy with what you're doing?
Mr. Wakeland. Absolutely. You know, we just got done
writing our next 10-year management plan, and we were
definitely expecting to receive a lot more comment than we did,
but apparently we have been doing a good enough job that people
were comfortable with that, and our next 10 years is down on
paper and we are ready to go.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Peter.
Mr. Wakeland. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Jay Ward, we're glad to have you here and we
welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAY WARD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, OREGON NATURAL
RESOURCES COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Ward. Good morning, Senator Smith, esteemed members of
the Grand Ronde, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes. I,
too, wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and address you on S. 868. With my presence here today, I
am also representing the Oregon Coalition for the Public Lands.
It is a diverse group of constituents in Oregon who are
interested in the protection and preservation of Oregon's
public forests, wilderness, refuges, parks, deserts, and
grasslands, as well as the rights of all citizens to
sustainably use and enjoy these lands.
While my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, is certainly
genuine, I will admit to having conflicting feelings regarding
the remedy proposed in S. 868. As you, yourself, pointed out on
the floor of the Senate last year, our Government's treatment
of the people of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw is nothing any of us should be proud of.
There can be no argument that, due to the shortsighted and
often racist attitudes of many of Oregon's early settlers, the
Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw peoples were forced from the
ancestral homelands, confined in abysmal conditions, and
subjected to numerous wrongs during the ensuing 150 years. We
commend you for your recognition of these historical wrongs
that have been perpetrated upon the people of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw. Furthermore, we applaud you and your staff
for the efforts you've expended in formulating a plan to
address those wrongs.
Mr. Chairman, we agree with you that these wrongs are
deserving of redress; however, we must disagree with the
proposed solution, and therefore respectfully oppose S. 868 as
currently worded.
As you've heard, the forests the Confederated Tribes seek
to acquire constitute much of the Federal lands in the coast
range between the Umpqua and Siuslaw Rivers, is some of the
most productive forest land in the western United States, and
represents vital habitat for Pacific salmon, spotted owls,
marbled murrelets, and hundreds of other species associated
with mature and old growth forests.
Ten roadless areas suitable for wilderness protection are
located within these public forests, and approximately 25,000
acres of old growth grace the landscape.
As a national forest, the Siuslaw is also recovering from
over 50 years of well-meaning but misguided forestry practices.
Thankfully, since the application of the landmark 1994
northwest forest plan, the employees and partners of the
Siuslaw National Forest have been working toward that vision.
Under the able leadership of forest supervisors Jim Furnish and
Gloria Brown, the Siuslaw has become a national leader in
meeting a multitude of management goals. In fact, last June
Chief Bosworth honored the Siuslaw National Forest staff and
personnel with the triple crown of forest management awards.
These awards illustrate the excellent work that the current
staff are doing to recreate a healthier Siuslaw National
Forest. In fact, Oregon Natural Resources Council staff has
been working with the Siuslaw National Forest personnel to plan
and implement restorative projects, as you pointed out in your
remarks earlier.
We have been able to establish and maintain this
relationship because both we and the Forest Service understand
that crucial Federal environmental laws such as the National
Forest Management Act are a backstop to any deviation from the
restorative vision currently being articulated by the Siuslaw
National Forest personnel.
America's Siuslaw National Forest belongs, we feel, to all
Americans, whether by Native Americans, native-born Americans,
or naturalized citizens, these public lands are appreciated for
their scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, and their
invaluable ecological role in conserving wildlife.
Currently, all Americans have the right to visit, traverse,
hunt, fish in, and enjoy these national forests; however, once
lands pass out of the national forest system there will be no
unalterable rights of access to these forests. A change in
leadership could suspend access to particular forests and
citizens would be compelled to enter into expensive mediation
and may or may not have legal standing to challenge that
suspension. Indeed, it is because of potential loss of access
and possible changes to existing game management policies that
the Oregon Hunters Association joined the Oregon Coalition for
Public Lands.
S. 868 would transfer over 62,000 acres of timber worth
billions of dollars to be held in trust by the BIA for the use
and benefit of approximately 760 tribal members. The most
recent such transfer was the transfer of 5,400 acres of Federal
forest to the 695 members of the Coquille Tribe in 1996. Should
S. 868 become law, what would be the response of other tribes
with smaller holdings, such as the Coquille, Cow Creek, and
Siletz, who have, as I stated, remarkably less acreage.
While the Forest Service is an agency with imperfect
history, it is charged by Congress to manage public lands with
conservation values as part of its mandate. The BIA has no such
mandate. It is the responsibility of the Forest Service to
sustain diversity, health, and productivity of the Nation's
forests and grasslands. It is the responsibility of the BIA to
develop forest land and lease assets on the land to the
economic benefit of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Application of landmark environmental laws like the National
Forest Management Act will be lost if these public forests are
no longer managed by the Forest Service on behalf of all
Americans.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve an
open public discussion of alternate means to right these
historical wrongs. Creating a tribal homeland for the 760
members of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua,
and Siuslaw may be a part of a just and equitable solution. The
first step has already been taken. The Government has
recognized the injustice. As a second step, we respectfully
suggest that Congress appoint a commission to determine the
extent to which the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw people have
been wronged, and that said commission identify a range of
alternatives to correct that injustice, and those alternatives
could include statutory co-management relationship,
acknowledging the tribes' historic ties to the lands, while
maintaining the protective sweep of Federal environmental
safeguards. Or, if the commission sees fit to restore lands to
the tribes, it could suggest legislation and provide funds to
the tribes to purchase private forest lands, large tracts of
which are within the tribes' ancestral homelands.
Senator Smith, we support the efforts of the Confederated
Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw to become
economically self sufficient. At the same time, we oppose
legislation which would turn over the Siuslaw National Forest
lands to the BIA and limit or move landmark environmental laws
that currently benefit all Americans.
Given the egregious treatment of the tribes by both
Government and non-governmental bodies, we are eager to work
together to arrive at an equitable solution.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you have.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Jay.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ward appears in appendix.]
Senator Smith. If we took the suggestion of ONRC and we
established this commission to determine if wrongs had been
committed and what remedies might be due these three tribes,
would a remedy be a management contract or some land? And if
so, how much land?
Mr. Ward. Senator, I think the amount of land is probably
best determined by such a commission. I think we would be
supportive of a proposal of this scale were it not to come from
national forest lands. As far as the co-management relationship
goes, that would seem to me it could be pretty flexible, could
involve hiring preferences of tribal members to do some of the
restoration work that is currently be produced by the Siuslaw
National Forest personnel.
Senator Smith. You'd probably agree with me though that a
management contract doesn't give you the same sense of
ownership as fee simple?
Mr. Ward. I would, sir.
Senator Smith. And I'm sure you can appreciate the
emotional need and the emotional tie the tribes have to this
land.
Mr. Ward. I do. I can tell you, on a personal level this is
one of the more challenging conflicts within our organization
right now. We have had productive and friendly relationships
with a number of northwest tribes working to restore ecological
functions to our ecosystems, so this is a tough one for us.
Senator Smith. Peter, for the record, how long ago were the
Grand Ronde lands conveyed back to the tribe?
Mr. Wakeland. It happened back in 1988.
Senator Smith. And do you recall, Jay, what the position of
ONRC was to that?
Mr. Ward. I don't. Although I lived in Oregon during that
time, I was actually not an ONRC affiliate.
Senator Smith. I've received letters of support for this
bill from the Pacific Rivers Council, Cascadia Wildlands
Project, and from other environmental organizations who are
supportive of this conveyance and confident in the tribes'
management of it. Do they have a different view of forest
management than the ONRC?
Mr. Ward. I would say we probably agree on general forest
management principles, but I wouldn't care to speak to them as
to their motivations on why they would consider backing the
bill. I would suggest that at some level this is a leap of
faith, and some people are more interested and willing to make
that leap than others.
Senator Smith. You've stated in your testimony that ``as a
national forest, the Siuslaw is also recovering from over 50
years of well-meaning but misguided forestry practices.''
You've also noticed that they're giving out awards for these
practices. How do you reconcile those positions?
Mr. Ward. Well, I would say that the awards that have been
given out in the last year are not the same I spoke of in the
previous 50 years. I think since Mr. Furnish has been the
supervisor and Ms. Brown after him, the work that they are
doing and that our staff has been involved with is probably
among the best of any national forest in the country.
Senator Smith. And I think, in fairness to our Forest
Service employees, I would agree they are doing a good job now.
But I don't think you are maintaining that these are productive
forest lands on Siuslaw at this point.
Mr. Ward. I think they are quite productive. We might be
talking about producing different things.
Senator Smith. Okay. All right. Right now Native Americans
manage 18 million acres of forest land in this country. Do your
objections to tribal timber management apply to all those
lands, or just to these lands?
Mr. Ward. Well, as these are currently national forest
lands, I think it applies mainly to these lands. I think if the
tribes--for instance, the Warm Spring tribes that manage their
land I believe are currently certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council as doing ecologically restorative and
productive work, but I wouldn't care to comment on tribal
management for other tribes that I'm not familiar with.
Senator Smith. Pete, you heard Jay say you've got to take a
leap of faith here. Did you have to get environmental groups to
take a leap of faith with the Grand Ronde transfer?
Mr. Wakeland. I think that there probably definitely was
that leap of faith at the time, and over the last 15 years
tribal forest management has evolved. We are doing things now
that we just think are just good for the land and for wildlife,
not at the behest of anybody telling us we had to, but because
that's the way we feel that tribal lands should be managed. So
I would probably say that the leap of faith probably paid off.
Senator Smith. I would, too. I think the proof is in the
forest, and that's why, frankly, a lot of the leap of faith for
me is not a big leap, because I think the Native American
peoples in their bones feel stewardship that, frankly, is of
more value than law, and I think their conduct is up here and
the law is right here. That's what underpins my support of this
is I think public ownership is overblown often. It is
important, but I think private ownership where peoples, and
especially native tribes have a piece of the rock, the results
are fabulous for people and species of all kinds.
Jay, would your organization feel differently about S. 868
if it were amended to provide for an alternative process for
public involvement--in other words, appeals--than is currently
provided for under BIA forestry regulations?
Mr. Ward. We would consider that to be an improvement,
certainly, Senator. I think if the bill were amended in that
manner but yet still transferred the title out of National
Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
hands and into Interior and trust or BIA we would still oppose
that.
Senator Smith. You'd still oppose?
Mr. Ward. Yes.
Senator Smith. Yours was transferred in that way, was it
not, Pete?
Mr. Wakeland. Yes; it was, Senator.
Senator Smith. Jay, do you support thinning of LSR's as an
alternative to harvesting of old growth?
Mr. Ward. We believe that thinning, whether it be in matrix
lands or LSR's, if done properly--and properly is certainly
something that is up for debate right now--but careful,
variable density thinning is defensible. We think LSR's are
probably the last place to start, and there are a lot of
plantations that are out there in the matrix that would be a
better place, but in the long term we could certainly envision
something of that nature.
Senator Smith. Is there anything about the way the tribes
are thinning now that bothers the ONRC?
Mr. Ward. Well, to be candid, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
Siuslaw Tribes, to the best of my knowledge, are not thinning
right now, simply because they're----
Senator Smith. But, for example, next door in the Grand
Ronde?
Mr. Ward. I will plead ignorance to the condition of the
land of the Grand Ronde. I will say that thinning at the
Siuslaw National Forest is doing right now and some of range or
districts on the Willamette has been pretty productive and
ecologically defensible.
Senator Smith. Your testimony references roadless areas
within the acreage proposed in my legislation. Since there are
no inventoried roadless areas within the area, do you have a
definition that's different than the Forest Service?
Mr. Ward. We do. The Forest Service has in the past a
5,000-acre minimum threshold on it. We've put 1,000 acres,
which is about a 1\1/2\-square, so we would consider a 1\1/2\-
mile roadless--or 1,000-acre roadless area to be worthy of
wilderness protection, whether the Forest Service may be less
eager to do so.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Any other questions?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. Thank you, Jay, for being here. And thank
you, Peter, for the example you have set in the Grand Ronde
Tribes. We appreciate that. And I simply want to express to the
Coos and Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribes that this is a work in
progress. It is a work making great progress. This hearing is a
good step forward, and I look forward to the day when we can be
around a presidential desk when this can occur and the tribal
members are crying tears of joy instead of tears of shame. I
say that both because I have that hope for these tribes, but
also because I believe that the leap of faith that is being
asked of us is not a very big one, and I think that the benefit
will be a very great one to the tribe, to the environment, and
to the local community and to the State of Oregon.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of John C. Gordon, Chairman, Interforest LLC
Summary
Tribes, the local communities and the country will be well served
by the designation of lands described in S. 868 as the Coos Tribal
Forest for the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Indians. Active management for biodiversity, watershed protection, and
timber and non-timber forest products of the kind proposed by the
tribes is the highest and best use of these lands. Indian tribes have a
strong record of land stewardship in the face of great difficulties.
The tribes live with the consequences of their forest management
decisions in ways that few other groups do. All values, including
cultural and spiritual ones, are thus incorporated into management
plans and actions. The establishment of tribal management of lands held
in trust by the U.S. Government is a unique way to achieve integrated
land management that benefits all parties efficiently. Like management
on all other categories of forest ownership, the quality of forest
stewardship on Indian lands varies from reservation to reservation.
Some Indian lands are models of ecosystem management, while other
tribal forests have experienced lower quality management in the past,
due to mistaken policies, scarce resources, or poor alignment between
tribal and Federal management goals. Recent reports [IFMAT II and I]
indicate that tribal management of forestlands is improving and is
often innovative. The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act
is one of the most recent and most modem Federal laws concerning forest
management. Uniquely, this law provides for independent review of
management on Indian forestlands at 10-year intervals. It allows tribes
to balance all forest values in management and encourages landscape
scale management through cooperation with adjacent landowners. S. 868
will be a significant positive step in insuring sustainable management
of the tribal and U.S. forest estate.
Background and Qualifications
I am John C. Gordon, chairman of Interforest LLC, a sustainable
forestry consulting firm active in creating forest management
strategies and plans, and in doing forest certification. I am also
Pinchot Professor of Forestry and Environmental Studies Emeritus and
former Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Earlier, I was head of the Department of Forest Science at the College
of Forestry, Oregon State University, Professor of Forestry at Iowa
State University and a scientist with the USDA Forest Service. I have
chaired and served with numerous national committees and panels,
including the Seventh American Forest Congress, the Scientific Panel on
Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems, Research and Resource Management
in the National Park System, and three National Research Council/
National Academy reports. I have chaired both of the Indian Forest
Resource Management Teams [IFMAT I and II] reporting under the National
Indian Forest Management Act, helped develop forest management
strategies for the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath Tribes, and have
lectured widely and testified before Congress on Indian forestry.
Indians as Forest Managers
Indians have lived intimately with forests in North America for
thousands of years. However, modem forest management by Indians, using
their concepts of nature and cultural views, is just emerging as tribes
regain the power to set goals and manage their forests to achieve them.
The recent emergence has little to do with Indian views of forests or
their capability for managing them. Rather it is a consequence of two
centuries of experimentation by the U.S. Government on how to deal with
tribal people.
The making and breaking of treaties, the movement of tribes to new
and common locations, the establishment and disestablishment of
reservations, the allotment of forests to individuals, and the
management of Indian forests by Federal agencies all have shaped the
Indian forests of the early 21st century. Those tribes, who retained
some of their original land base or got some other land, are now
beginning, through the process of self-determination, to reassert
Indian goals and management for their forests. Tribes whose land was
entirely taken seek to reestablish some portion of their homeland and
to begin to manage it as Indian land. This process of reassertion of
tribal management has had exciting results where it has gone forward.
Despite a documented shortage of resources compared to all other
ownership categories, much innovative and effective management is now
occurring on tribal lands. This is partly because Indian forests are
different from public and industrial forests, in that they are the
homelands of the tribe with strong cultural and spiritual significance
to the tribal members. It is also because the Indian people live with
the environmental and economic consequences of their forest management
decisions more intimately than most other people in the U.S. [IFMAT-
1993]. The forests of the Menominee in Wisconsin were among the first
forests in North America to be certified as sustainably managed by the
Forest Stewardship Council principles. Other tribes have since been so
certified, and a recent pre-certification review found that a high
fraction of the tribes reviewed was ready to proceed to certification.
Other reservations, notably the Colville, Yakima, and Warm Springs are
working effectively and in a balanced way to solve the fire and forest
health problems endemic to the American West. Some of the most highly
developed uneven-aged management anywhere is found on Indian
forestlands [IFMAT-1993]. Thus, many Indian forests are places of
experimentation and innovation and serve as some of the first examples
of the modem concept of adaptive management. It is true that some
Indian lands have not had the best quality of management (as have some
lands in all other categories of ownership) in the past, due to
mistaken policies, scarce resources, or poor alignment between tribal
and management goals. Recent reports [IFMAT II and I] indicate that
tribal management of forestlands is improving rapidly and is on the
whole effective. To quote from IFMAT II: ``There has been substantial
progress toward sustainability in Indian forests since the time of
IFMAT I. . . . Progress has been made in responding to forest health
problems, in implementing innovative silviculture, and forest
certification. The improvement in tribal forest management planning and
implementation has been substantial. On the whole, the management of
Indian forests is different and better than it was 10 years ago,
largely through the efforts of tribal organizations and dedicated BIA
staff.'' Thus, while achieving substantial improvements in habitat and
ecosystem characteristics, the harvest of timber on Indian lands has
been maintained at a sustainable level over the past decade [IFMAT II].
The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act is one of the most
recent and most modem Federal laws concerning forest management.
Uniquely, this law provides for independent review of management on
Indian forestlands at 10-year intervals. It allows and encourages
Tribes to set goals and to balance all forest values in management. It
encourages landscape scale management through cooperation with adjacent
landowners. Thus, there is strong evidence that the Confederated Tribes
will well and sustainably manage lands restored to them under S. 868.
The trust Relationship
Title to Indian lands is held by the United States in trust for the
beneficial use of the Indian owners. Direct management of Indian
forests until the early 1970's was done by the Federal agency regarded
as the principal trustee [Bureau of Indian Affairs]. The Indian Self-
Determination Act passed by the Congress in 1972 provided the authority
and impetus for tribes to have a much larger role in the management of
Indian forests. Today, the majority of Indian forests are managed
directly by Tribal Governments with the United States providing Federal
oversight, and the number of Indian forests so managed is increasing
rapidly through a process called ``compacting''. IFMAT II: ``Tribal
organizations are increasingly participating in the management of their
forests through tribal, rather than BIA, forest and natural resource
management organizations. The gap between the visions that Indians
express for their forests and the way, in terms of direction, they are
managed is narrowing due to greater tribal participation in forest
management and greater alignment between tribal and BIA approaches to
management. Direct tribal management has enabled tribes to emphasize
their specific goals in setting management direction for Indian forests
and this has fostered an integrative, holistic approach recognizing a
multiplicity of use and values. For most Indian forests, tribally
focused management has resulted in increased consideration of cultural
and spiritual values in planning and implementing forest management
strategies. It has also resulted in a greater alignment between the
expressed wishes of tribal members and management objectives and
practices [IFMAT II]. In general, this alignment has produced a careful
balance between economic and ecological values sought by Tribes.
Extreme management options tend to be excluded.
Proposed Management of the Coos Tribal Forest
Lands to be re-designated as Coos Tribal Forest are 62,865 acres of
Federal lands located in the Oregon Coast Range adjacent to the Pacific
Ocean. Coast Range forests are characterized by steep slopes and are
heavily dissected by streams, but the mild, wet climate and deep,
fertile soils provide some of the best forest growing conditions in the
world. The landscape of the proposed Coos Tribal Forest includes highly
productive Douglas-fir forests that provide superb habitat for a
variety of fish and wildlife including the bald eagle, marbled
murrelet, northern spotted owl and Coho salmon, all federally listed as
threatened or endangered.
Commercial logging and road building began on these lands in the
early 1900's and peaked over a 20-year period between the 1950's and
the 1970's. The high level of timber harvesting and harsh logging
practices (including sidecast road building, large clearcuts, and hot
slash bums) caused significant erosion and degradation of wildlife and
fish habitat. Today, the lands of the proposed Coos Tribal Forest
include 20,000 acres of young conifer plantations created by past
clearcut logging and replanting. These are quite homogenous, largely
single tree species plantations that can be restored to higher
diversity and better wildlife and fish habitat by thinning (partial
cutting intended to concentrate growth on fewer stems and thus shorten
the time needed to produce large trees). The stands of larger trees
thus created are better habitat for the threatened species. Murrelets
nest in larger trees and northern spotted owls both nest and hunt most
effectively in stands of larger trees. Also, some of the larger trees
along streams fall in and across the steam course, and provide the pool
and run structure important to Coho salmon spawning and rearing
habitat. Thus, the plantations already established provide a ready
opportunity for management both for timber and for habitat improvement.
This alignment provides one of the important bases for management
strategy proposed for the Coos Tribal Forest (see below).
Tribal Forest Management Goals and Objectives
Tribal goals for the Coos Tribal Forest are threefold. The
overarching goal is to restore tribal culture by reconnecting tribal
people to their ancestral homelands and to protect sites and resources
that are significant components of tribal culture. The second goal is
to restore the health of ancestral watersheds by blending, Native
American values with the latest scientific methods for ecosystem
restoration and sustainable forest management. The third goal is to
contribute to tribal self-sufficiency and to provide economic benefits
to local communities through jobs and revenues generated from watershed
restoration work, eco-tourism development and sustainable harvest and
use of forest products.
Tribal forest management will focus on restoring late-successional
forests (more mature forests that are presumed similar to those that
arise in nature) that are consistent with the existing goals for
management of adjacent Siuslaw NF lands. Timber will be harvested by
thinning (see above) to restore habitat and enhance cultural values on
thousands of acres of conifer plantations. This, along with adjacent
areas of NF will create a landscape devoted to large trees and improved
habitat. Thinning will also reduce the risk of catastrophic fires.
Variable density thinning, in which the clumped nature of trees arising
naturally from seed is mimicked, will be used to restore stand spatial
complexity, a variety of habitat values, and to promote the development
of forest floor, canopy gap and other species significant to tribal
culture. In general, state-of-the-art\1\ science and an adaptive,
learning approach will be employed in the management of all tribal
lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Science Update. Restoring Complexity: Second-Growth Forests and
Habitat Diversity. PNW Research Station, May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under provisions of S. 868, a special fund is established for
watershed restoration activities. The establishment of this special
account is a unique requirement for the Coos Tribal Forest and attests
to the tribes' commitment to restore the health of their ancestral
watersheds. S. 868 also will establish Special Management Areas [SMA's]
for existing old-growth stands and areas with unique scenic and wild
land values such as the existing Kentucky Falls Special Interest Area
and the Beaver Creek and Sweet Creek Falls and stream corridors. These
SMA's will be managed as undeveloped areas in accordance with existing
Federal standards and guidelines of the Siuslaw NF Plan. Tribal
management direction for the SMA's will provide an added layer of
protection for tribal cultural sites and resources.
The Coos Tribal Forest will comply with Federal environmental laws
including the Endangered Species Act.
Benefits to Local Governments
These will include greater local control and decisionmaking to
better align management with local goals, greater management
flexibility to accommodate new knowledge or changed conditions,
increased local economic activity, and greater cultural enrichment and
diversity.
Tribal governments are located in communities within or near their
land holdings and exercise local control and decisionmaking over
management of their lands. Land management policies and actions are
developed and implemented at the local level with greater opportunity
to be sensitive to needs and concerns of communities and citizens of
the area. This ``grass roots'' tribal management is vastly different
from the Washington, DC directed management occurring on Federal lands.
This ``top down'' Federal management process provides only restricted
and highly variable opportunity for local participation in
decisionmaking and has rarely been sufficiently responsive to needs and
concerns of local communities in the eyes of those communities.
Tribes have more flexibility in managing their lands within the
framework of applicable Federal laws. Local tribal control enables
streamlined decisionmaking, while the Federal agencies are burdened by
multiple layers of bureaucracy, endless review and ultimate
decisionmaking at the top level of the organization.
Indian forestlands are managed under the National Indian Forest
Resources Management Act [NIFRMA--P.L. 101-630, Nov. 1990), a modern
forest management statute. This Federal statute provides tribes with a
high degree of flexibility in setting management direction and
implementing forest practices on Indian lands, while constraining
management to sustainable practices that are monitored as part of the
Trust responsibility of the U.S. Government. The management guidelines
in NIFRMA allow tribes to achieve balance in meeting the needs of
forest health and providing economic benefits to tribal governments and
local communities. These guidelines also enable and encourage Tribes to
coordinate management of their lands with adjacent landowners,
government and private, to meet common landscape goals.
The activities of tribal governments and their business ventures
provide direct benefits to local and regional economies. Tribal
forestlands provide a stable economic base for support of tribal
government programs and development funds for business enterprises.
Funds for operation of tribal programs and revenues generated by tribal
businesses are largely spent and invested in local communities. Lands
restored to the Confederated Tribes from the Siuslaw National Forest
will provide revenue and job opportunities from at least three uses:
<bullet> sustainable harvest and use of timber and non-timber forest
products,
<bullet> recreation and eco-tourism activities, and
<bullet> watershed restoration and salmon recovery work.
Both tribal and non-tribal governments and citizens will benefit
from these land-use and restoration activities. A specific example is
the tribes' plan to reestablish its Blue Earth Products business
enterprise at a location near the proposed restored lands in western
Douglas or Lane County. This business fills a market niche for food and
floral products that reflect Oregon's coastal Indian culture. Many of
the products or ingredients will be gathered from the tribes' restored
forestlands. The gathering of raw materials, product processing and
packaging, and sales will generate new revenue and job opportunities
for this economically depressed area of the Oregon coast.
The spiritual values, beliefs and cultural traditions of Indian
people are embodied in a special relationship to the earth and the
natural world. Reestablishment of a portion of the tribes' ancestral
homelands is vital to restoration of tribal culture. It will enable
current tribal members to reconnect spiritually and physically to the
land their ancestors inhabited for centuries and which shaped their
culture. The tribes' cultural and recreational use of the restored
lands will include an Interpretive Center where the Tribes' history and
culture will be shared with citizens of the local area and tourists
visiting the Oregon coast. Opportunities for cultural enrichment and
fostering understanding of cultural diversity is a special benefit
offered to an area with tribal land holdings and the presence of Indian
people.
Concluding Remarks
Tribes, the local communities and the country will be well served
by the establishment of the forest areas designated by S. 868 as the
Coos Tribal Forest for the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua
and Siuslaw Indians. Active management for biodiversity, watershed
protection, and timber and non-timber forest products of the kind
proposed by the tribes is the highest and best use of these lands based
on their biological and physical characteristics and their cultural and
land use histories. Besides being fair treatment of current Tribal
members, restoration will recognize an important reality: healthy
forests managed by those who live in and around them provide enduring
benefits to the larger society, that is, to all of us.
Literature Consulted
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians.
2002. Reservation Plan and Forest Land Restoration Proposal. (Revised
June 2002). 25 pp.
The Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT II).
2003. An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the
United States. Executive Summary. Intertribal Timber Council, Portland,
OR. 22 pp.
The First Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT I). 1993.
An Assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United
States. Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, OR. 89 pp.
Science Update. Restoring Complexity: Second-Growth Forests and
Habitat Diversity. PNW Research Station, May 2002.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present the
Department's views on S. 868, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
Restoration Amendments Act of 2003. I am Mark Rey, Under Secretary,
Natural Resources and Environment.
While the Department agrees with the general goals of cultural
restoration and economic benefits that S. 868 would provide, we have
some concerns about aspects of the bill and could not support it as
introduced. In particular, the Department would not support a land
transfer from the Siuslaw National Forest of the magnitude envisioned
in this bill. We would like to have further discussion with the
committee on the complex issues presented by the bill and potential
alternative approaches to achieve the stated goals.
S. 868 would transfer approximately 62,865 acres of land from the
Siuslaw National Forest to be held in trust by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs [BIA] for the long-term use and benefit of the Confederated
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians [the ``Confederated
Tribes''] as the Coos Tribal Forest. The transfer would be subject to
valid existing rights, the continued enforcement of State laws, with
continuation of public access.
Under S. 868, the Coos Tribal Forest would be managed in accordance
with the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, retain all
endangered species critical habitat designations, and be managed
consistently with management and restoration goals of Federal land in
the area. Revenue from the sale of forest products would be distributed
for the benefit of tribal members, would continue to be subject to
payments to counties, and for the first 15 years, 20 percent of
revenues would be dedicated to a watershed restoration account. The
bill calls for a land exchange program for the first years following
transfer, and directs the Forest Service to provide assistance in the
development of a Forest management plan and transition of management
operations for the Forest.
The Forest Service manages the national forest system lands and
resources entrusted to its care for the benefit of the general public,
while respecting the special trust relationship of the United States
with Indian tribes. Tribes have been culturally tied to the land and
its resources for thousands of years. The Forest Service and tribes
share many common values and interests that can contribute toward the
common goal of resource stewardship.
Federal law and policy provide for government to government
relationships with Indian tribes that respect tribal sovereignty and
honor tribal interests. The Forest Service is taking measures to
improve relationships with all Indian tribes, including new policy
direction regarding consultation, access to sites and products of
traditional and cultural interest, repatriation of funerary objects,
and emphasis on contracting, grant, and research opportunities. We have
consulted with the Confederated Tribes over the past several years in
land management matters. We anticipate that our relationship with the
Confederated Tribes will continue in the spirit of mutual trust that
has already been established.
The Siuslaw National Forest is actively managing the lands being
considered in S. 868, and has made considerable investments to improve
resource conditions in the proposed transfer area. The lands are part
of the Northwest Forest Plan, which guides the management of 24 million
acres of Federal lands, including all or parts of 17 National Forests.
Most (93 percent) of the lands considered in the bill are classified as
Late Successional Reserves [LSR's] under the Plan. These lands are
managed through thinning treatments to achieve and maintain a
functional, interacting, late-successional and old growth forest
ecosystem. To achieve the goals of habitat enhancement and movement
toward old growth conditions, the Siuslaw National Forest awarded and
sold commercial thinning products on 1,039 acres in 2003 and is
planning the sale of additional commercial thinning products on 1,770
acres within the area considered for transfer. Two-thirds of the area
is within the Siuslaw Basin Stewardship Restoration Pilot, which
provides the Forest with authority to test new approaches of resource
management to work with local communities and benefit the land. About
12 million board feet of timber will be offered in 2004 under this
pilot.
The remaining 7 percent of the proposed transfer lands are
classified under the Northwest Forest Plan as Matrix, most of it in
riparian reserve. While Matrix includes non-forested areas, most timber
harvest would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable
forest lands. The timber stands within the area include 19,806 acres of
plantations and 42,758 acres of natural stands in various age classes,
8,400 acres of which is mature conifer.
In recent years, the Forest Service has purchased over 2,000 acres
of land in the lower reaches of riparian areas that provide critical
connectivity to salmon spawning habitat. The Siuslaw National Forest
has been investing in stream restoration to improve this habitat over
the past several years.
The area includes six trailheads, with 12 miles of hiking trails,
and more currently under construction. One trail leads to the scenic
twin waterfalls at Kentucky Falls and another leads to the very popular
Sweet Creek Falls. The Forest maintains nearly 200 miles of roads in
the area. A variety of cultural resources are found there, including
sites of former homesteads, ranger stations, lookout sites, the Sunset
Wagon Road, and other historic resources.
The proposed bill would transfer approximately 10 percent of lands
from the Siuslaw National Forest to create the Coos Tribal Forest. The
proposal is unusual in that it limits the Confederated Tribe's autonomy
in managing the new forest by including provisions relating to law
enforcement, regulations, and public access, among others. Land would
be managed, to the extent practicable, to achieve management and
restoration goals established for nearby or adjacent Federal land.
However, because management would no longer be subject to the National
Forest Management Act, this is not guaranteed. The proposed transfer
would fragment relatively contiguous watersheds and would significantly
reduce the Forest Service's flexibility for management of the Siuslaw
National Forest.
There is another issue of concern to us, of which this bill is only
one small part-that is the precedent it would set for additional
proposals for large land transfers from other National Forests to other
tribes, where there may be limited offsetting circumstances that
warrant such actions. While the Department would not support the
transfer of such a large amount of land from the National Forest
System, in a case such as this, and without offsetting national
benefits, we are mindful of the potential benefits this bill would
provide to the people of the Confederated Tribes. We would like to
continue discussions with the committee, Senator Smith, and the
Confederated Tribes to explore options to the proposed bill.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may
have.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter M. Wakeland, Natural Resources Manager,
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
I would like to thank the chairman and the committee, particularly
Senator Smith, for inviting me to testify before you today regarding
legislation to provide the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower
Umpqua and Siuslaw with a Tribal Forest.
I am the Natural Resources Manager for the Confederated Tribes of
the Grand Ronde, and I am a Grand Ronde tribal member. Our tribal
members are the descendants of 5 tribes and more than 20 bands of
Indian people including the Nehalem, Tillamook, Nestuca, Salmon River,
Rogue River, Molalla, Kalapuya, Umpqua, and Chasta. I am also a veteran
staffer of the U.S. Senate, having worked on American Indian issues,
chemical weapons demilitarization, and social security reform.
Like the Coos, my tribes went through a long legislative process to
have land restored to us for cultural, ecological and economic uses. I
hope that the experience the Grand Ronde went through, and the quality
of our land management since then, will be relevant to policymakers in
the current proposal. More importantly, I want to dispel the myths and
misconceptions about Tribal forest management that a few continue to
harbor.
Like the Coos, Congress terminated the U.S. Government's
relationship with the Grand Ronde Tribes in 1954, and what was left of
the original 69,000 acre reservation was gone entirely. The Grand Ronde
Tribes were stripped of their reservation lands, but not of their
spirit. In 1983, our status as a tribe was restored by the Government.
This opened the door for regaining a portion of the land that had been
taken from us. In 1988, with the support of U.S. Senator Mark O.
Hatfield and this committee, the tribes were provided 9,811 acres of
our original reservation. In 1994, an additional 241 acres were added
to the reservation.
It is meaningful in the context of this hearing to point out that
in the 15 years since our forest was restored to us, the Grand Ronde
have exceeded the expectations of environmentalists, local communities,
and the forest products industry.
While lawsuits and procedural paralysis have crippled neighboring
Federal lands, the Grand Ronde has been able to meet the promise of
President Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan--to protect the environment
and to produce a sustainable level of timber harvest.
Timber harvested from our reservation feeds local mills, which in
turn creates jobs and supports local economies. Because of this, the
tribes play an important role in the lives of tribal and community
members. And while the Grand Ronde has reason to be proud of our timber
harvest and the manner in which we extract timber resources, we are
equally proud of the manner in which we protect and enhance our non-
timber assets.
In just the last decade, the tribes have completed numerous stream
enhancement projects--projects that have created high quality habitats
and opened up over 20 miles of spawning and rearing reaches of
reservation streams. In 1995, we began seeing Coho salmon returning to
the reservation. Tribal forest stewardship has been so effective that
we have entered into an MOU with the Forest Service and BLM to help
manage 10,000 acres of their land to help find creative ways of
carrying out the Northwest Forest Plan.
The Grand Ronde has only been able to achieve this level of success
because we have flexibility that the Forest Service and BLM do not.
Like the proposal for the Coos Tribal Forest, the Grand Ronde Tribal
Forest is managed under the National Indian Forest Resources Management
Act, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. Contrary
to claims that the BIA commits ``egregious malfeasance'' in its timber
management, the Grand Ronde has maintained a successful partnership
with the BIA and I would discourage any categorical depictions of
Indian forest management--especially in light of the previous hearing
on IFMAT II.
Fortunately, the Grand Ronde is not saddled with managing our
forest under the Northwest Forest Plan, yet our forest is healthy, and
provides a wide range of habitats. Because of all of the litigation
associated with the Northwest Forest Plan, it has proven to be a dismal
failure, and has had detrimental affects on the overall health of
western forests--including the landscape level loss of spotted owl
habitat to catastrophic wildfire. Consider too, that catastrophic fires
also alarmingly degrade fisheries habitats. And while the lands at
issue before you lie in the coast range where fire incidents are less
frequent, we know that western forests do in fact bum, and that lack of
sound management increases the likelihood that they will. Because of
our successes in managing our forest lands, I posit that tribal forest
management is more responsive to the needs of the land.
Returning land to Indian tribes, whether small in acres or large,
is truly a matter between the Federal Government and the tribes with
which they are working--a government-to-government process. We are-all
aware that there are concerns on, all sides whenever Federal lands are
at issue, but this particular process must strive to steer clear of
being driven by popularity.
Opponents of the bill before the committee may assert that their
claim to the lands supersedes the claim of Indian people, and this
creates a dilemma for our elected leaders. Opponents may also present
arguments against the transfer of lands to the tribes, and explain how
devastating the transfer would be to the environment, particularly to
the spotted owl and anadromous fish. But this claim ignores the success
of the Grand Ronde that has faced the same management challenges? the
same endangered species in the same geographic area. The Coos Forest
Plan is based on restoring late successional habitat for the spotted
owl, which is precisely what the environmental community has been
advocating for the Siuslaw National Forest--yet many in their community
still have strong objection to this legislation.
So what, I ask, is truly at the heart of their opposition to tribal
control of ancestral lands? Perhaps they simply do not want to see
timber harvested for any reason, for any people. Perhaps they would be
satisfied to see the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw remain landless, and
without an economy. At the end of the day, I suggest that at least a
portion of their opposition lies in ``control.'' If they cannot control
the decisions that tribes make, then they oppose the plan. And no
doubt, they will present a number of arguments, but I submit that their
arguments are speculative and emotional in nature, aimed at raising
fears, not grounded in fact. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw Tribes are
the only federally recognized tribe in Oregon that do not have any land
to call their own. It would be just to return to them a portion of
their ancestral lands, and equally just in allowing them to write their
own plan--a plan that would balance the needs of the tribes with the
protection and enhancement of tribal forest assets.
Finally, if the restoration of reservation lands fails to happen,
then what is the alternative for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw
people? I implore you not to ignore their right to have lands restored
to them. Should you support the bill before you, your decision will not
be popular among those opposed to it. However, supporting it is the
only right course of action, and time will prove, as it has with the
Grand Ronde, that it was the best decision. The tribes' needs will be
satisfied, and the environment will be made more resilient, healthy,
and well functioning.
My thanks to you again, for the privilege of speaking before you
today.
______
Prepared Statement of Jay Ward, Conservation Director, Oregon Natural
Resources Council
Oregon Natural Resources Council's 6,000 members are dedicated to
preserving Oregon's wildlife, wildlands, and waters as an enduring
legacy.
With my presence here today, Oregon Natural Resources Council is
also representing the Oregon Coalition for Public Lands, a multi-party
citizens alliance that has come together to maintain public access and
title to Federal lands including but not limited to Bureau of Land
Management Lands, National Forest and National Park lands. The Oregon
Coalition for Public Lands is also interested in developing alternative
solutions to the numerous injustices suffered by the people of the
Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, esteemed members of the
Grand Ronde, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes. I wish to thank
you for the opportunity to address you today on S. 868, the Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Amendments Act Of 2003. We are grateful
for the opportunity to present our concerns with the bill and to answer
any questions you may have.
While my gratitude to you Mr. Chairman is genuine, I will admit to
having ambiguous feelings about testifying in opposition to S. 868. As
you yourself pointed out on the floor of the Senate last year, our
Government's treatment of the people of the Confederated Tribes of the
Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw is nothing any of us should be proud
of. There can be no argument that due to the short-sighted and
sometimes racist attitudes of many of Oregon's early immigrants, the
Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw peoples were forced from their
ancestral lands, confined in abysmal conditions and subjected to
numerous wrongs in the ensuing 150 years. We agree with you Senator
Smith that these wrongs are deserving of redress. However, we must
disagree with the proposed solution and oppose S. 868.
The forests of the Oregon Coast Range are largely under private
industrial forest ownership. Because these private lands are so
aggressively managed, the survival of several threatened and endangered
species including coho salmon, spotted owls and marbled murrelets
depends on strong conservation of the Siuslaw National Forest lands.
The forests the Confederated Tribes seek to acquire constitute most
of the Federal lands in the Coast Range between the Umpqua River and
Siuslaw Rivers. This is some of the most productive forestland in the
western United States and represents vital habitat for Pacific salmon,
spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and hundreds of other species
associated with mature and old-growth forests. Ten roadless areas
suitable for wilderness designation are located within these public
forests. Approximately 25,000 acres of old growth grace the landscape.
Waterfalls abound. Pure water supports winter steelhead, chum, fall
chinook, and coho here.
As a National Forest, the Siuslaw is also recovering from over 50
years of well-meaning but misguided forestry practices. Plagued by
hundreds of miles of substandard roads, and thousands of acres of
single-aged, single species tree plantations, the Siuslaw is in need of
proven recovery methodologies. These could include road removal, stream
restoration to benefit threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead,
careful application of variable-density thinning in previously logged
plantations to recreate multi-storied forests and careful management of
invasive species to restore the biodiversity of a coastal temperate
rainforest. Many of these activities are promised by the tribes, but
unfortunately citizens' ability to influence these activities will be
greatly diminished.
Fortunately many of these actions are already taking place. Since
the application of the landmark 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, the
employees and partners of the Siuslaw National Forest have been working
toward just that vision. Under the able leadership of Forest
Supervisors Jim Furnish and Gloria Brown, the Siuslaw has become a
national leader in meeting a multitude of management goals. In fact,
last June, Chief Bosworth honored the Siuslaw National Forest with the
``triple crown'' of forest management awards. These awards, the
``Breaking Gridlock'', ``Natural Resource Stewardship'' and ``Rise to
the Future'' awards highlight the excellent work that current staff are
doing to recreate a healthier Siuslaw National Forest for the next
millennia. In fact, ONRC staff has been working with Siuslaw National
Forest personnel to plan and implement restorative projects. We've been
able to establish and maintain this productive relationship because
both we and the Forest Service know that crucial Federal environmental
laws such as the National Forest Management Act and Federal Land Policy
and Management Act are backstops to any deviation from the restorative
vision currently being articulated by the Siuslaw National Forest
personnel.
America's Siuslaw National Forest belongs to all Americans. Whether
by Native Americans, native-born Americans or naturalized citizens,
these public lands are appreciated for their scenic beauty,
recreational opportunities and their invaluable ecological role in
conserving wildlife. Currently all Americans have the right to visit,
traverse, hunt and fish in and enjoy their National Forests except
under very specific circumstances related to fire, safety, or other
life threatening conditions .
Once lands pass out of the National Forest system, there will be no
unalterable rights of access to these forests. A change in tribal
leadership could suspend or abrogate access to particular forests and
citizens would be compelled to enter into mediation and then may or may
not have legal standing to challenge that suspension. Indeed, it is
because of this potential loss of access and possible changes to
existing game management policies that the Oregon Hunters Association
joined the coalition.
S. 868 would transfer huge acreage of the Siuslaw National Forest
lands to the Confederated Tribes. Over 62,000 acres of timber, worth
billions of dollars, would be transferred to and held in trust by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] for the use and benefit of approximately
700 tribal members. The only previous transfer in Oregon's recent
history was the transfer of 5,400 acres of Federal forests to the 695
members of the Coquille Tribe in 1996. Should S. 868 become law, what
will be the response of the Coquille, Cow Creek, and Siletz Tribes, who
have considerably less acreage? It is our opinion that this transfer
would open a Pandora's Box of claims and counter claims which this
committee could take decades to settle. In fact, it is arguable that
the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, whose homelands stretched from
Tillamook to Northern California have conflicting ancestral claims to
these lands.
Giving public lands to Native American Tribes is consistent with
the wishes of some officials and industry groups to divest public
resources and dismantle landmark environmental laws and policies. As
citizen-owners of the National Forests, all Americans can now
participate in the management of their forests, comment on National
Forest operations and utilize all branches of government to ensure that
the National Forests are managed in accordance with longstanding
environmental safeguards. These rights would be undermined by this
transfer of lands.
While the Forest Service is an agency with an imperfect history, it
is charged by Congress to manage public lands with conservation values
as part of its mandate. The BIA has no such mandate. It is the
responsibility of the Forest Service to ``sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations.'' Under the National
Indian Forest Resources Management Act, is the responsibility of the
BIA to ``develop forest land and lease assets on this land'' for the
economic benefit of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Application of landmark environmental laws like the National Forest
Management Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act will be
limited or lost if these public forests are no longer managed by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management on behalf of all
Americans.
Conservationists' recent experience with other tribal forest land
acquisitions shows that the public can lose a lot in these transfers.
For example, in 1997 Congress granted the 817 members of Oregon's
Coquille Tribe the ``Coquille Forest''. It consisted of public land
that had previously been managed by Coos-Bay BLM. The ``Coquille Forest
Act'' (P.L. 104-208) established the ``Coquille Forest'' and provided
that it would be managed under applicable State and Federal forestry
and environmental protection laws, and subject to the Northwest Forest
Plan. In November 1998, the Coquille Tribe released the Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for the Coquille Forest.
The Coquille Forest RMP states the forest will be harvested
sustainably, and with sophisticated methodology and estimated a
sustainable harvest would be 2 million board feet (mmbf) annually. But
the first timber sale proposed in the Coquille Forest, called the Chu-
aw Clau-she Timber Sale proposed to award 16.6 mmbf over a 2-year
period. While this timber sale was enjoined over its likely harm to
threatened Coho salmon, the Coquille Tribe continued clearcutting old
growth trees in violation of the Endangered Species Act and a standing
court order. Only after the sale had been partially logged and the
court issued a temporary restraining order did the BIA and the Coquille
Tribes halt the illegal logging. As of last week, the Coquille Tribe
has again submitted court documents to renew the logging in the Chu-aw
Clau-she Timber Sale. (see attachment: Illegal logging in Coquille
Tribal Forest)
While the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes assert that they
intend to maintain existing environmental laws and policies, at my last
reading, legislative text does not appear to guarantee this assertion.
Indeed, the timber industry and certain local leaders appear to support
this proposal only because loopholes could remove land from management
under the Northwest Forest Plan and facilitate the cutting of old
growth trees, while prohibiting tribes from building their own mill or
exporting logs.
In S. 868, the tribes have not even established through legislative
language that they would manage the forest in accordance with standards
and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. Given that these
protections are being systematically removed by the administration and
may not be in place at the time of transfer, it is likely that
management practices will be controversial. Since the BIA holds these
lands in trust for sovereign governments, citizen attempts to modify
management decisions will be much more difficult than attempts to
modify decisions about public lands. This is one reason that public
lands should remain in public hands and should be managed under
existing environmental laws.
This legislation will undercut the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan
[NWFP]. The Siuslaw National Forest is one of the National Forests
covered by this plan. The NWFP is the Federal Government's attempt to
provide a framework of sustainable forest management. Because of the
clearcut state of surrounding private forests, most of the Siuslaw
National Forest is sheltered in a system of Late Successional Reserves,
Riparian Reserves and in Tier 1 Key Watersheds. Removal of these lands
from the protections of the NWFP will jeopardize the reserve system as
well as the viability of terrestrial and aquatic species.
While much of this National Forest is currently managed to protect
endangered species like Coho salmon, spotted owl, and marbled murrelet,
adjacent State and private lands are granted exemptions from many
constraints imposed by the NWFP. The transfer of over 62,000 acres to
the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes and the removal of these
lands from the NWFP framework will seriously undermine the NWFP and
several related efforts, including Habitat Conservation Plans for the
Elliot State Forest and Weyerhaeuser's Millicoma Tree Farm, the Oregon
Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and future recovery plans for listed
species. Habitat Conservation Plans [HCP's] that currently provide
certainty and accountability to state and private land managers may be
thrown out and millions of dollars of taxpayers' moneys will have been
wasted.
The proposal would transfer Siuslaw National Forest lands from the
Forest Service to the BIA. As I'm certain you are aware Senator Smith,
the BIA is an agency currently embroiled in a massive mismanagement
scandal resulting from its failure to track the royalty receipts for
trustees. The agency's malfeasance is so egregious that the Department
of the Interior websites are currently under court order and the
Secretary of the Interior was declared in contempt of court for her
agency's lack of fiscal responsibility. As the BIA has been such a poor
steward of both native peoples' money and land, giving this agency
responsibility for over 62,000 acres of National Forest land is an
untenable gamble with precious resources.
One of the first rules of business is to avoid investing in a
declining market. While the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw people
state an interest in managing the forest for ecological restoration,
they also seek to become economically self-sufficient through these
activities. It is unlikely that they can achieve both goals given
current market conditions. Timber prices in the Northwest are at
historical lows and competition from foreign suppliers is at an all
time high.
Through decades of overcutting, our forest ``accounts'' are already
tragically overdrawn. We support economic self-sufficiency for native
peoples but we strongly oppose using publicly owned forests as a blank
check in an attempt to right past wrongs.
In conclusion Senator Smith, the American people deserve an open,
public discussion of alternate means to right these historical wrongs.
Creating a tribal homeland for the 700 members of the Confederated
Tribes may be a part of a just and equitable solution. We would suggest
that Congress appoint a commission to determine the extent to which the
Coos Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw people have been wronged, quantify that
harm and provide those funds to the tribes to purchase private forest
lands, large tracts of which were also of their ancestral lands. (See
attachment Siuslaw ownerships map)
It may be that the land base needed to maintain cultural identity
and the best economic future for the Confederated Tribes are separate
issues. Indeed, the future prosperity of most Oregonians is based in a
move away from extractive uses of our lands and toward technological
creativity and service and recreational economies. Federal
appropriations could support tribal investment in stable and profitable
business enterprises.
We support the efforts of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos,
Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw to become economically self-sufficient. At the
same time, we strongly oppose legislation which would turn over Siuslaw
National Forest lands to the BIA and limit or remove landmark
environmental laws that currently benefit all Americans. As citizens
interested in the condition of public lands, we urge you to abandon
this legislation and ask that you work to identify and fund good
alternatives that maintain the national forest lands in public hands.
Given the egregious treatment of the tribes by both Government and
non-governmental bodies, we are eager to work together to arrive at an
equitable solution.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Oregon Coalition for Public Lands Purpose Statement: The Oregon
Coalition for Public Lands is a diverse group of conservation,
recreational, and other organizations which are dedicated to the
protection and preservation of Oregon's public forests, wilderness,
refuges, parks, deserts, and grasslands, as well as the rights of all
citizens to sustainably use and enjoy these lands and have a
significant voice in their proper management.
The Oregon Coalition for Public Lands will work to ensure that all
the state's public lands shall be retained for responsible recreational
uses such as hunting, hiking, fishing, birding, backpacking, boating,
horseback-riding, sight-seeing, nature-appreciation, skiing,
photography, and camping, and also for the long-term benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations.
Oregon's public lands should be managed to maintain recreational
resources, abundant fish and wildlife populations, functioning
ecosystems, biological diversity, and watershed integrity.
The Oregon Coalition of Public Lands will work with other
institutions and individuals committed to promoting alternatives that
will obviate any perceived need to forfeit, sell, or diminish Oregon's
public lands legacy for any reason.
Members of the Oregon Coalition of Public Lands:
<bullet> Coast Range Association
<bullet> Friends of the Columbia Gorge
<bullet> Oregon Natural Resources Council
<bullet> Oregon Hunters Association
<bullet> Oregon State Public Interest Research Group
<bullet> McKenzie Guardians
<bullet> Salem Audubon Society
<bullet> Siskiyou Regional Education Project
<bullet> Soda Mountain Preservation Council
<bullet> Umpqua Watersheds
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.383
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.397
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.403
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.411
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.422
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.426
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.427
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.428
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.429
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.430
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.431
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.432
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.433
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.434
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.435
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.436
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.437
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.438
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.439
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.440
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.441
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.442
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.443
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.444
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.445
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.446
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.447
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.448
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.449
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.450
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.451
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.452
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.453
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.454
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.455
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.456
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.457
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.458
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.459
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.460
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.461
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.462
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.463
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.464
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.465
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.466
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.467
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.468
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.469
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.470
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.471
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.472
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.473
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.474
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.475
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.476
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.477
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.478
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.480
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.481
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.482
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.483
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.484
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.485
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.486
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.487
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.488
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.489
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.490
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.491
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.492
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.493
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.494
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.495
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.496
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.497
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.498
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.499
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.500
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.501
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.502
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.503
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.504
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.505
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.506
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.507
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.508
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.509
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.510
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.511
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.512
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.513
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.514
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.515
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.516
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.517
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.518
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.519
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.520
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.521
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.522
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.523
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.524
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.525
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.526
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.527
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.528
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.529
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.530
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.531
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.532
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.533
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.534
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.535
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.536
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.537
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.538
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.539
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.540
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.541
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.542
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.543
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.544
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.545
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.546
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.547
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.548
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.549
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.550
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.551
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.552
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.553
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.554
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.555
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.556
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.557
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.558
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.559
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.560
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.561
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.562
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.563
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.564
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.565
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.566
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.567
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.568
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.569
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.570
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.571
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.572
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.573
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.574
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.575
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.576
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.577
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.578
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.579
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.580
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.581
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.582
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.583
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.584
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.585
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.586
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.587
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.588
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.589
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.590
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.591
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.592
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.593
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.594
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.595
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.596
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.597
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.598
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.599
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.600
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.601
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.602
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.603
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.604
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.605
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.606
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.607
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.608
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.609
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.610
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.611
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.612
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.613
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.614
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.615
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.616
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.617
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.618
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.619
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.620
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.621
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.622
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.623
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.624
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.625
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.626
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.627
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.628
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.629
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.630
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.631
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.632
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.633
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.634
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.635
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.636
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.637
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.638
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.639
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.640
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.641
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.642
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3040.643
<all>