**TESTIMONY OF RON SUPPAH, CHAIRMAN,**

**THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS**

**RESERVATION OF OREGON,**

**BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES**

**SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS**

**ON S. 647,**

**THE LEWIS AND CLARK MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS ACT OF 2007,**

**MAY 3, 2007**

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Ron Suppah, Chairman of
the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
regarding S. 647, the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.

Mr. Chairman, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of
Oregon support S. 647's basic premise of updating the Wilderness Areas
and other land use designations within the Mount Hood National Forest to
address the growing demands placed on the Forest by the expanding
population in the Portland metropolitan area and other nearby areas in
the State. There is much to like about this legislation, both in its
broad goals and its specific provisions. However, we note that the
treatment of several issues affecting the Warm Springs Tribe in the
Mount Hood National Forest has eroded from last year's legislation, and
that is a matter of concern to us.

As we noted in our testimony on last Congress's Mount Hood bills (S.
3854 and H.R. 5025), the people of the Confederated Tribes have lived
since time immemorial within and around what is today the Mount Hood
National Forest. We have been nourished by its fish, game and plants,
and enjoyed its sanctuary, protection and beauty. We arose from this
land and have long been its stewards. In more recent times, as a
contemporary government in Oregon's community of governments, we also
enjoy and exercise our rights and interests both along side and within
the Mount Hood National Forest, including our unique treaty reserved
rights and our traditional and religious practices.

Against this background, we set forth our comments below on specific
provisions of S. 647.

First, we appreciate the deletion of the Findings section from last
year's Senate bill. Several of the Findings' statements did not aptly
reflect our Tribe's beliefs or our relationship with the Mount Hood
National Forest. Although the bill does not now have a Findings section,
this legislation's extensive legislative history, including introductory
statements, correspondence and committee hearings, should provide a
comprehensive portrait of the context within which this legislation is
being developed.

Title I -- Designation of Wilderness Areas. As a first order of business
regarding the addition of wilderness to the Mount Hood National Forest
in S. 647 and last year's bills, S. 3854 and H.R. 5025, we want to
express our appreciation for the efforts made, as we understand it, to
consider huckleberry patches and particularly to preserve our ability to
get to the huckleberry areas to exercise our treaty protected right to
gather. It is our understanding that the wilderness additions in the
Mount Hood bills avoid the closing of all but a very few existing forest
roads in the National Forest, which will allow our Tribal members,
particularly our elder members, to continue to take a car or a van to
the huckleberry areas.

Section 101(4). Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness Addition. In Warm Springs
testimony last year on S. 3854, we supported added acreage to the Mark
O. Hatfield Wilderness only to the extent it stops at the top of the
ridge above the City of Cascade Locks and does not extend down the face
of the ridge. Full Wilderness designation on the very face of the ridge
running down toward the City of Cascade Locks could unduly constrain the
City's economic options. In S. 647 before the Subcommittee today, we
note that the map and acreage describing the addition to the Mark O.
Hatfield Wilderness appear essentially unchanged from the map and
acreage proposed last Congress in S. 3854. However, upon closer
inspection, we note that the wilderness proposal does come significantly
down the face of the ridge (as it may have last year), and that the
descriptive name of the addition has been changed from "Gorge Ridge" to
"Gorge Face." We remain concerned about this encroachment on Cascade
Locks, and ask the Committee to work with the City to assure that its
capabilities to pursue a full range of economic opportunities, as
expressly intended in the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act, are
not hampered.

We note and object to the deletion from S. 647 of the Columbia Gorge
Airshed provision carried in Section 102(b)(2) of S. 3854 and Section
102(c)(4) in H.R. 5025 last Congress, where it noted that the new Mark
O. Hatfield Wilderness addition was not to result in its classification
as a Class I airshed. Removal of that provision poses the potential that
Class I airshed designation could be applied to the new Wilderness,
creating a difficult-to-implement restriction on rail, marine and
highway travel through the Gorge that could interfere with one of the
important commercial corridors between the Portland metropolitan area
and eastern Oregon and Washington and Idaho. We urge that the Airshed
provision be reinstated in S. 647.

Section 104. Administration. As we noted in our testimony last year
regarding S. 3854, we today note S. 647\'s omission of the "Continued
Use by Members of Indian Tribes" provisions in last Congress's H.R.
5025. That bill's Section 103(i)(1), (2) and (3) authorized access and
temporary closure of new Mount Hood Wilderness for tribal traditional
and religious purposes. As we said last year, throughout our history,
the ancestors of people who today are members of the Confederated Tribes
of Warm Springs have used what is currently called the Mount Hood
National Forest for traditional cultural and religious purposes. In S.
647, which is predicated on providing Wilderness, Recreation Area and
Wild and Scenic River designations for the benefit of the surging
majority population, it is particularly essential that our people be
assured that we will be able to continue the sacred and ancient
traditions that have bound us to the land forever, as in last Congress's
H.R. 5025. It is also essential that today's Senate bill include the
temporary closure provision from H.R. 5025 so that we can continue to
practice our traditional cultural and religious activities without fear
of intrusion or interruption. Such closures would have to be arranged
with the Forest Service, and would be for the smallest area and the
least amount of time practicable to carry out these activities.
Additionally, these activities would have to be in accord with the
Wilderness Act, as well as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

Mr. Chairman, the closure of Forest Service land for limited unique
purposes is already authorized. Forest Service regulations (36 CRF
261.53) today allow closure for endangered species, special biological
communities, historical interest, scientific experiments, public health
and safety, and protection of property. We note that Section 604 of S.
647 itself authorizes public closure of Mount Hood National Forest land
for watershed purposes where appropriate. We further note that the
temporary closure of federal land for tribal traditional cultural and
religious purposes is already authorized in three instances for National
Park lands. So closure of Forest Service land is already authorized for
certain circumstances and closure of federal land for tribal traditional
cultural and religious purposes is not a new precedent. S. 647\'s own
introductory statement clearly describes the burgeoning demands that the
majority population's recreational users are placing on Mount Hood's
lands, and we only ask that you provide the Agriculture Secretary the
discretion, in the face of that rising tide, to allow our people to be
able to continue our traditional beliefs and practices in peace.

Section 105. Buffer Zones. Given that S. 647 extends wilderness
designations close to established urban areas in some instances, it is
important that "no buffer zone" language is included in the bill. Our
preference for such language is that used in Section 103(j) of last
year's H.R. 5025, which is clearer than the current language. The old
House language states that "nothing in this Act creates protective
perimeters or buffer zones" while the current language of S. 647 states
that "Congress does not intend for designation of wilderness \... to
lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones." S. 647
also states that nonwilderness activities or uses up to boundaries shall
not, "of itself," preclude the activities. There is some ambiguity in
these provisions, and we believe a clear and firm statement like that in
last year's House bill is preferable.

Section 107. Fish and Wildlife; Hunting and Fishing. We prefer the Fish
and Wildlife provisions from Section 108 of last year's S. 3854, which
expressly allowed activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife
populations and habitat in new wilderness additions, so long as those
activities are consistent with applicable wilderness management plans.
Fish and wildlife are precious to us, particularly salmon. Tremendous
efforts have been and continue to be made to restore Columbia salmon
populations. It appears to make sense that, if salmon populations and
habitat can be improved inside new wilderness, in keeping with the
management plans, that should be permitted.

Title III. Mount Hood National Recreation Area. Section 301.
Designation. As we stated in testimony last year, the designation of
specific Recreation Areas within the Mount Hood National Forest raises
for us the prospect of "loving the Mountain to death." Intensive
recreational activity, even in nonmechanized forms such as mountain
biking, can be destructive. Accordingly, we approach this Title with
some caution.

With regard to Sections 301(a) and (d) of S. 647, our caution is
heightened when we note that text from last year's S. 3854 assuring
protection of "cultural" and "spiritual" values in the Recreation Area
is deleted. The removal of this language suggests that locations of
cultural and spiritual sensitivity for our Tribe are not to be
protected. Further, the directive in (d) that "the Secretary shall only
allow uses that are consistent with the purposes and values identified
in subsection (a)" -- recreational, ecological, scenic, watershed, and
fish and wildlife - could be interpreted as banning our use of those
lands for traditional cultural and religious purposes. We would like to
work with the Committee to resolve this difficulty.

We do appreciate that this year's bill does drop the language from last
year that the Recreation Area "interpret" archeological and
paleontological sites. "Interpretation" could have led to the
identification of sites, and once sites are publicly identified, they
can be subject to vandalism. Often the best way to protect such sites is
to not identify them.

Section 301(f). Road Construction. Warm Springs appreciates the
inclusion of treaty and statutory rights in the Recreation Area road
construction exception. Often, the exercise of treaty rights by our
Tribal elders can only be accomplished by their driving, or being
driven, to a particular area, say to a huckleberry patch. Over time, as
huckleberry patch locations may change, new roads may be needed.

Title IV -- Transportation and Communication Systems. As our testimony
noted last year for S. 3854, significant areas of the Warm Springs
Reservation are included in the Section 401 Definition of the "Mount
Hood region." Highway 26 and numerous other State and Forest Service
roads come off the Mount Hood National Forest directly onto our land.
The road to Timothy Lake traverses our Reservation, and is used by
snowmobilers in the winter. Additionally, the scope of the
Transportation Plan encompasses travelers traversing the Mount Hood
region, which involves a long stretch of Highway 26 crossing the Warm
Springs Reservation, often snow covered in winter. Finally, members of
our Tribe frequently travel deep within the Mount Hood National Forest,
as we have for thousands of years, and transportation access within the
Forest is important to us. Accordingly, our Tribal government should be
included in the transportation planning process, and we ask that " the
Warm Springs Tribal government" be added in Section 402(b)(2)'s listed
Mount Hood regional governments involved in the planning.

Title VI -- Mount Hood National Forest and Watershed Stewardship.
Section 602. Forest Stewardship Assessment. The Warm Springs Tribe
supports this provision, which is identical to the provisions in last
year's S. 3854. Our Reservation has an extensive forested border in
common with the Mount Hood National Forest. In many ways, the management
and health of our forest are closely linked to the management and health
of the Mount Hood National Forest. The required development of a
stewardship assessment and its implementation for the Mount Hood Forest
will help protect our forest, for which the United States government as
a whole, including the U.S. Forest Service, has a trust responsibility.

Section 603. Sustainable Biomass Utilization Study. We support this
Section, which is identical to last year's bill. Our Tribe, through Warm
Springs Forest Products Industries, is deeply involved in a 20-megawatt
biomass electric generation project that would accept significant
amounts of excess biomass material from the Mount Hood National Forest.
Our Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service, including the Mount Hood National
Forest, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding early in 2006 to
facilitate both fuels reduction on the Mount Hood National Forest and
the provision of biomass for the Tribe's biomass generation project.

An immediate example of this is the Warm Springs Tribe's working with
the Mount Hood National Forest Clackamas Ranger District on the Cascade
Crest Forest Health Improvement Project. Around Olallie Butte, both on
our Reservation and on adjoining National Forest lands, more than 60,000
acres of forestland are overstocked and infested with Mountain Pine
Beetle. Under the MOU and the Tribal Forest Protection Act, we are
developing a stewardship agreement to remove hazardous fuels and thin
overstocked stands in this area that will also provide fuel for our
biomass facility.

Title VIII -- Local and Tribal Relationships. Section 801. Findings and
Purpose. Section 802. First Foods Gathering Areas. The Warm Springs
Tribe objects to the unilateral elimination of the exclusive use
authority for those first foods gathering areas identified as Priority
Use Areas in last years bill. This provision was a critical element for
us in last year's legislation. It was in both the House and Senate bill.
Now, in S. 647, it has been eliminated without so much as a courtesy
call to us. No one has bothered to tell us even why they believe this
provision should be dropped. Accordingly, we register our strong
objection to both the elimination of the provision and the manner in
which it was removed.

The Priority Use First Food Gathering Area provisions, including
exclusive use, are critical to protecting and preserving the Tribe's
treaty protected right to gather roots, berries and plants within the
Mount Hood National Forest. In recent years when our Tribal members have
gone to long-established huckleberry patches for the traditional annual
harvest, we have been alarmed to see others wantonly stripping the
berries with rakes and other tools, with no regard for the permanent
destruction they are causing the huckleberry bushes. The establishment
of exclusive Priority Use Areas for tribes with treaty gathering rights
in the Mount Hood National Forest is an exercise of the federal trust
obligation to protect treaty resources, and is essential today to
protect our roots, berries and plants from the destructive practices of
non-Indians. It is disturbing that this current bill, S. 647, offers to
exclusively protect the watersheds of various municipalities, but
deliberately reverses course when addressing Indian treaty protected
resources. We urge the sponsors of S. 647 and the Committee to work with
us to try to correct this situation. We believe the former provisions
allowed flexibility in establishing the exclusive Tribal Priority Use
Areas, enabling the Tribe and the Forest Service to establish these
areas through collaborative discussions to bring a desperately needed
measure of protection to our treaty protected roots, berries and plants.

Section 804. Savings Provisions Regarding Relations with Indian Tribes.
This Section preserving the full scope of the Warm Springs 1855 Treaty
rights and protecting our trust lands and allotments, including our
fishing access sites, as well as our hunting and fishing rights, are
essential to this legislation. Tribal treaties are the highest law of
the land, and their preservation from any potential misinterpretation,
alternation or diminishment, intentional or otherwise, as a consequence
of this Act is absolutely essential for this bill.

Section 905. Mount Hood National Forest Recreational Working Group. The
Warm Springs Tribe supports this provision and wishes to express our
appreciation to S. 647's sponsors for including affected tribal
governments in the list of governments that may make nominations for
Working Groups members to the Regional Forester. We would suggest one
further revision to Section 905(d)(10), making it "Affected adjacent
Indian tribes." Given the bill's emphasis on adjacent governments,
including just "affected" tribes could potentially include non-adjacent
tribal governments, who may assert their rights are affected by Mount
Hood related issues.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the S. 647 testimony of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. We look forward to
working with the sponsors of the bills and the Committee in revising and
advancing this important Mount Hood wilderness legislation.

Thank you.