    [Senate Hearing 108-522]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            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) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                                                            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:]

        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:
       sustainable harvest and use of timber and non-timber forest
                products,
       recreation and eco-tourism activities, and
       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:
       Coast Range Association
       Friends of the Columbia Gorge
       Oregon Natural Resources Council
       Oregon Hunters Association
       Oregon State Public Interest Research Group
       McKenzie Guardians
       Salem Audubon Society
       Siskiyou Regional Education Project
       Soda Mountain Preservation Council
       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