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

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–040 PDF 2004

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,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

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

(1)

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 Na-
2

tional 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:]
3

1

II

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION 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,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 10, 2003

Mr. SMITH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

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, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coos, Lower Umpqua,

5 and Siuslaw Restoration Amendments Act of 2003’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—
4

2

•S 868 IS

1 (1) the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower

2 Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (referred to in this

3 Act as the ‘‘Tribe’’) were restored to Federal rec4 ognition by the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw

5 Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 714 et seq.);

6 (2) the Tribe remains the only federally-recog7 nized Indian tribe in the State of Oregon that has

8 never received any compensation from the Federal

9 Government for the loss of former homeland;

10 (3) the Tribe historically inhabited land along

11 the Oregon coast located in the Coos River, lower

12 Umpqua River, and Siuslaw River watersheds;

13 (4) in addition to restoring Federal recognition,

14 the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration

15 Act (25 U.S.C. 714 et seq.) and other Federal laws

16 relating to Indian tribes provide the means for the

17 Tribe to achieve the goals of—

18 (A) cultural restoration;

19 (B) economic self-sufficiency; and

20 (C) the attainment of a standard of living

21 equivalent to that enjoyed by other citizens of

22 the United States;

23 (5) under the Indian Self-Determination Act

24 (25 U.S.C. 450f et seq.) and the Indian Financing

25 Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Tribe has
5

3

•S 868 IS

1 developed a reservation plan as a means of achieving

2 economic, cultural restoration, and self-governance

3 goals;

4 (6) the principal component of the reservation

5 plan is the restoration of a small portion of the

6 1,600,000-acre former homeland of the Tribe to es7 tablish a tribal forest land base;

8 (7) the tribal forest land base would be estab9 lished by redesignating as Indian trust land certain

10 land owned by the Federal Government;

11 (8) on redesignation of that land, the tribal for12 est land base would be managed in trust by the Bu13 reau of Indian Affairs, for the long-term benefit of

14 the Tribe, to ensure—

15 (A) the provision of positive contributions

16 to local communities; and

17 (B) the health of ancestral watersheds; and

18 (9) the establishment of a tribal forest land

19 base is consistent with provisions of the Tribal Land

20 Consolidation Area, approved by the Secretary of the

21 Interior on April 24, 1991, for the express purpose

22 of assisting the Tribe in selecting land for the estab23 lishment of a tribal forest land base.
6

4

•S 868 IS

1 SEC. 3. COOS TRIBAL FOREST.

2 Section 7 of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw

3 Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 714e) is amended—

4 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘at no cost to

5 the Federal Government’’; and

6 (2) by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(d) COOS TRIBAL FOREST.—

8 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

9 ‘‘(A) FOREST.—The term ‘Forest’ means

10 the Coos Tribal Forest designated under para11 graph (2)(A)(ii).

12 ‘‘(B) SECRETARY.—The term ‘Secretary’

13 means the Secretary of the Interior, acting

14 through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Af15 fairs.

16 ‘‘(C) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means the

17 State of Oregon.

18 ‘‘(2) DESIGNATION.—

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid exist20 ing rights (including all valid liens, rights-of21 way, reciprocal road rights-of-way agreements,

22 licenses, leases, permits, and easements in ef23 fect on the date of enactment of this sub24 section), all right, title, and interest of the

25 United States in and to the land described in

26 subparagraph (B) shall be—
7

5

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(i) held by the Federal Government

2 in trust for the use and benefit of the

3 Tribe; and

4 ‘‘(ii) designated by the Secretary as

5 the ‘Coos Tribal Forest’.

6 ‘‘(B) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land

7 referred to in subparagraph (A) is approxi8 mately 62,865 acres of land located in the

9 State, and more particularly described in the

10 Revised Forest Land Restoration Proposal of

11 the Tribe, dated April 2002, including—

12 ‘‘(i) the map entitled ‘Forest Land

13 Restoration Proposal Land Base Options’;

14 and

15 ‘‘(ii) the legal descriptions and acre16 age of—

17 ‘‘(I) the Siuslaw East Tract;

18 ‘‘(II) the Siuslaw West Tract;

19 and

20 ‘‘(III) the Lakes Tract.

21 ‘‘(3) APPLICABLE AUTHORITY.—Land held in

22 trust under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall—

23 ‘‘(A) constitute a forest reservation of the

24 Tribe; and
8

6

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(B) be subject to the Act of June 18,

2 1934 (commonly known as the ‘Indian Reorga3 nization Act’) (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

4 ‘‘(4) MANAGEMENT.—

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall

6 manage the Forest—

7 ‘‘(i) in accordance with the National

8 Indian Forest Resources Management Act

9 (25 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) and all other ap10 plicable laws;

11 ‘‘(ii) in accordance with all applicable

12 critical habitat designations under the En13 dangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

14 1531 et seq.); and

15 ‘‘(iii) in a manner that, to the maxi16 mum extent practicable, achieves manage17 ment and restoration goals established for

18 nearby or adjacent Federal land.

19 ‘‘(B) FOREST PRODUCTS.—

20 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary

21 shall distribute revenue from the sale of

22 Indian forest products derived from the

23 Forest in accordance with section 308 of

24 the National Indian Forest Resources

25 Management Act (25 U.S.C. 3107).
9

7

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) TIMBER PRODUCTION.—

2 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Unprocessed

3 logs harvested from the Forest shall

4 be subject to the same Federal statu5 tory restrictions on export to foreign

6 nations that apply to unprocessed logs

7 harvested from Federal land.

8 ‘‘(II) COMPETITIVE BIDDING.—

9 Notwithstanding any other provision

10 of law, all sales of timber from the

11 Forest shall be advertised, offered,

12 and awarded in accordance with com13 petitive bidding practices (under

14 which sales shall be awarded to the

15 highest responsible bidder).

16 ‘‘(III) SAWMILLS.—The Tribe

17 shall not construct or operate any

18 sawmill on the land comprising the

19 Forest.

20 ‘‘(C) GAMING.—No class III gaming (as

21 defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Reg22 ulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) shall be con23 ducted on any land comprising the Forest.

24 ‘‘(5) MANAGEMENT PLAN AND TRANSITION.—

25 ‘‘(A) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—
10

8

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2

2 years after the date of enactment of this

3 Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the

4 Tribe, shall develop a resource manage5 ment plan for the Forest.

6 ‘‘(ii) FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.—The

7 Secretary of Agriculture, acting through

8 the Chief of the Forest Service, shall co9 operate and assist in—

10 ‘‘(I) the development of the plan

11 under clause (i); and

12 ‘‘(II) the transition of manage13 ment operations for the Forest.

14 ‘‘(iii) COMPONENTS OF PLAN.—The

15 plan under clause (i) shall include—

16 ‘‘(I) management direction,

17 standards, and practices for specified

18 land allocations in the Forest; and

19 ‘‘(II) designation of special man20 agement areas that, as determined by

21 the Secretary, are of high cultural sig22 nificance and possess unique natural

23 and recreational qualities, including—

24 ‘‘(aa) the Kentucky Falls

25 Special Interest Area, consisting
11

9

•S 868 IS

1 of a 1683-acre corridor along the

2 north fork of the Smith River,

3 Oregon; and

4 ‘‘(bb) the Beaver Creek

5 Falls and Sweet Creek Falls

6 sites, Oregon, consisting of a

7 total of 320 acres.

8 ‘‘(iv) SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

9 AREAS.—Each special management area

10 designated under clause (iii) shall be man11 aged in accordance with—

12 ‘‘(I) standards and guidelines of

13 the Forest Service and the Siuslaw

14 National Forest plan (as in effect as

15 of the date of enactment of this sub16 section); and

17 ‘‘(II) such additional standards

18 and practices relating to management

19 of cultural resources as may be devel20 oped or used by the Tribe.

21 ‘‘(B) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary of Agri22 culture, acting through the Chief of the Forest

23 Service, shall cooperate and assist in the transi24 tion of management operations for the Forest.

25 ‘‘(6) PUBLIC ACCESS.—
12

10

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

2 subparagraph (B), the Forest shall remain open

3 to the public for the purposes of hunting, fish4 ing, recreation, and transportation.

5 ‘‘(B) RESTRICTIONS.—Subparagraph (A)

6 shall not apply in any case in which—

7 ‘‘(i) closure of the Forest is required

8 by Federal or State law; or

9 ‘‘(ii) the Tribe and the State agree in

10 writing that restrictions on public access

11 are appropriate to prevent harm to natural

12 resources in, or the environmental quality

13 of, the Forest (except that the agreement

14 of the State shall not be required in any

15 case in which immediate action is nec16 essary to protect archaeological or tribal

17 cultural resources).

18 ‘‘(7) JURISDICTION.—

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The United States

20 District Court for the District of Oregon shall

21 have jurisdiction over an action against the Sec22 retary arising out of any claim of a violation of

23 this subsection.

24 ‘‘(B) CLAIMANTS.—In accordance with ap25 plicable Federal law relating to standing to sue,
13

11

•S 868 IS

1 any affected citizen may bring a lawsuit against

2 the Secretary for a violation of this subsection.

3 ‘‘(C) REMEDIES.—Except as provided

4 under any other applicable law, remedies avail5 able under this subsection—

6 ‘‘(i) shall be limited to equitable relief;

7 and

8 ‘‘(ii) shall not include damages.

9 ‘‘(8) STATE REGULATORY AND CIVIL JURISDIC10 TION.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the

12 Forest, the State may exercise exclusive regu13 latory civil jurisdiction (including adoption and

14 enforcement of administrative rules and orders)

15 over—

16 ‘‘(i) except as provided in subpara17 graph (B), the management, allocation,

18 and administration of fish and wildlife re19 sources, including—

20 ‘‘(I) the establishment and en21 forcement of—

22 ‘‘(aa) hunting and fishing

23 seasons;

24 ‘‘(bb) bag limits; and
14

12

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(cc) limits on equipment

2 and methods;

3 ‘‘(II) the issuance of permits and

4 licenses; and

5 ‘‘(III) the approval or dis6 approval of hatcheries, game farms,

7 and other breeding facilities;

8 ‘‘(ii)(I) the allocation and administra9 tion of water rights;

10 ‘‘(II) the appropriation of water; and

11 ‘‘(III) the use of water;

12 ‘‘(iii) the regulation of boating activi13 ties, including—

14 ‘‘(I) equipment and registration

15 requirements; and

16 ‘‘(II) protection of the right of

17 the public to use waterways for the

18 purpose of boating or other naviga19 tion;

20 ‘‘(iv) fills and removals from water of

21 the State, as defined under applicable law

22 of the State;

23 ‘‘(v) the protection and management

24 of the proprietary interests of the State in
15

13

•S 868 IS

1 the beds and banks of navigable water2 ways;

3 ‘‘(vi) the regulation of—

4 ‘‘(I) mining;

5 ‘‘(II) mine reclamation activities;

6 and

7 ‘‘(III) exploration and drilling for

8 oil and gas deposits;

9 ‘‘(vii) the regulation of—

10 ‘‘(I) water quality;

11 ‘‘(II) air quality (including smoke

12 management);

13 ‘‘(III) solid and hazardous waste;

14 and

15 ‘‘(IV) remediation of releases of

16 hazardous substances;

17 ‘‘(viii) the regulation of the use of

18 herbicides and pesticides; and

19 ‘‘(ix) the enforcement of public health

20 and safety standards, including—

21 ‘‘(I) standards for the protection

22 of workers and well construction; and

23 ‘‘(II) codes governing the con24 struction of bridges, buildings, and

25 other structures.
16

14

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(B) COOS TRIBAL FOREST.—Nothing in

2 this paragraph authorizes the State to manage

3 fish or wildlife habitat on land comprising the

4 Forest.

5 ‘‘(9) STATE AND PRIVATE LAND.—

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this sub7 section confers on the Tribe any authority over

8 State or private land.

9 ‘‘(B) STATE REGULATION.—In a case in

10 which, and to the extent that, the State regu11 lates any State or private land under any dele12 gated Federal authority or any Federal pro13 gram, nothing in this subsection affects the au14 thority of the State under the authority or pro15 gram.

16 ‘‘(C) JOINT REGULATION.—In a case in

17 which the Federal Government and the State

18 jointly regulate any State or private land as de19 scribed in subparagraph (B), nothing in this

20 subsection affects the respective authority of

21 the Federal Government and the State relating

22 to regulation of the land.

23 ‘‘(D) TRIBAL REGULATION.—In a case in

24 which, and to the extent that, Federal law au25 thorizes the Tribe to assume regulatory author-
17

15

•S 868 IS

1 ity over any area, nothing in this subsection af2 fects the ability of the Tribe to exercise that au3 thority.

4 ‘‘(E) ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TRIBE.—

5 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Unless, and except

6 to any extent that, the Tribe assumes ju7 risdiction over the Forest in accordance

8 with Federal law (or in accordance with

9 any other law with the consent of the

10 State), the State shall have the jurisdiction

11 and authority to enforce laws of the State

12 relating to matters described in paragraph

13 (8)(A) on land comprising the Forest, in

14 the same manner and with the same rem15 edies, protections, and appeal rights as

16 otherwise provided by State law, against—

17 ‘‘(I) the Tribe;

18 ‘‘(II) any individual member of

19 the Tribe; and

20 ‘‘(III) any other person or entity.

21 ‘‘(ii) TRIBAL AUTHORITY.—In a case

22 in which the State and the Tribe enter into

23 an agreement with respect to the exercise

24 of tribal civil regulatory jurisdiction over

25 an activity on land comprising the Forest,
18

16

•S 868 IS

1 the Tribe may exercise that jurisdiction in

2 accordance with the agreement.

3 ‘‘(10) CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY.—In

4 the event of a conflict between Federal and State

5 law under this subsection, Federal law shall control.

6 ‘‘(11) WATERSHED RESTORATION ACCOUNT.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During the 15-year

8 period beginning on the date of enactment of

9 this subsection, the Tribe shall establish and

10 maintain a separate account for watershed res11 toration purposes.

12 ‘‘(B) DEPOSITS.—For each fiscal year, the

13 Tribe shall deposit in the account an amount

14 equal to 20 percent of gross revenue from the

15 sale of forest products derived from the Forest

16 during the fiscal year.

17 ‘‘(C) EXPENDITURES.—The Tribe shall ex18 pend funds from the account only for watershed

19 restoration purposes.

20 ‘‘(12) LAND EXCHANGES.—

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not more than 15

22 percent of the land designated under paragraph

23 (2)(A)(ii) shall be available for land exchanges

24 with Federal or non-Federal landowners that—
19

17

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(i) to the maximum extent prac2 ticable, use the best available scientific

3 data and modeling (including, to the extent

4 appropriate and feasible, data and model5 ing developed by the Umpqua Land Ex6 change Project); and

7 ‘‘(ii) achieve 1 or more of the goals

8 described in subparagraph (B).

9 ‘‘(B) GOALS.—The goals referred to in

10 subparagraph (A) are—

11 ‘‘(i) the enhancement of habitat val12 ues, including connectivity, for terrestrial,

13 aquatic, and managed species listed under

14 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

15 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

16 ‘‘(ii) the improvement of riparian cor17 ridors for the purpose of enhancing water

18 quality, water quantity, or habitat condi19 tions;

20 ‘‘(iii) the improvement of land man21 agement processes and plans, that are de22 veloped and approved in accordance appli23 cable law, on Federal land adjacent to or

24 near the Forest;
20

18

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) the inclusion of land in each of

2 the Coos River, lower Umpqua River, and

3 Siuslaw River watersheds; and

4 ‘‘(v) the protection and enhancement

5 of cultural and archaeological values of the

6 Tribe.

7 ‘‘(C) APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL.—Not

8 later than 180 days after the date on which the

9 Tribe or any other entity initiates a land ex10 change under this paragraph, the Secretary

11 shall make a final determination of approval or

12 disapproval of the land exchange.

13 ‘‘(D) EQUAL VALUE.—The fair market

14 value of any land or interests in land exchanged

15 under this paragraph—

16 ‘‘(i) shall be equal, as determined

17 through the use of nationally recognized

18 appraisal standards (including, to the ex19 tent appropriate, the Uniform Standards

20 for Federal Land Acquisition and the Uni21 form Standards of Professional Appraisal

22 Practice); or

23 ‘‘(ii) shall be equalized through the

24 payment of cash in accordance with section

25 206(d) of the Federal Land Policy and
21

19

•S 868 IS

1 Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.

2 1716(d)) and other applicable law.

3 ‘‘(E) TRANSFER OF LAND TO TRIBAL

4 TRUST STATUS.—Any land acquired as a result

5 of an exchange under this paragraph shall—

6 ‘‘(i) be taken into trust by the Sec7 retary in accordance with paragraph

8 (2)(A)(i);

9 ‘‘(ii) become part of the Forest; and

10 ‘‘(iii) be managed in accordance with

11 this subsection.

12 ‘‘(F) TERMINATION OF EXCHANGE AU13 THORITY.—The authority to conduct a land ex14 change under this paragraph shall terminate on

15 the date that is 5 years after the date of enact16 ment of this subsection if, on or before that

17 date, an entity other than the Tribe—

18 ‘‘(i) initiates the land exchange; and

19 ‘‘(ii) fails to offer the land of the en20 tity that is to be exchanged.

21 ‘‘(13) TIMBER REVENUE PAYMENTS TO COUN22 TIES.—

23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this sub24 section shall affect any timber revenue payment

25 to any county.
22

20

•S 868 IS

1 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY TO FOREST.—The

2 method of determining and assessing timber

3 revenue payments for Siuslaw National Forest

4 land that is adjacent to the Forest shall be ap5 plicable to the Forest.

6 ‘‘(14) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as are necessary to carry out this subsection.’’.

Æ
23

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.
24

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 sec-
25

ond 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.
26

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.
27

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 ap-
28

proximately $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
29

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.
30

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.
31

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 discour-
32

age 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.
33

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
34

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 Na-
35

tional 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 commis-
36

sion 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.
37

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
38

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 11⁄2-square, so we would consider a 11⁄2-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 cry-
39

ing 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.]

(41)

APPENDIX

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.
42

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
43

1Science Update. Restoring Complexity: Second-Growth Forests and Habitat Diversity. PNW

Research Station, May 2002.

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-art1 science and an adaptive, learning approach will be employed in the management of all tribal lands.

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
44

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 landuse 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 Con-
45

federated 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 longterm 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
46

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 partthat 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
47

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,
48

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 wellmeaning 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
49

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
50

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.
51

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, natureappreciation, 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
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694

Æ