Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Tribal Interest in LARO's Cultural Resources, 1960s

The CCT and STI expressed their concern with cultural resources when archaeologists began work at LARO in connection with the late 1960s drawdowns. The tribes had been involved decades earlier when Indian crews assisted Ball & Dodd in relocating graves. Interest resurfaced within the STI following the initial survey work in 1966. Archaeologist Larrabee learned that the tribe might be claiming jurisdiction past the water's edge to the center of the Spokane River, potentially impacting archaeological work when normally submerged lands were exposed. Larrabee cautioned Roderick Sprague at WSU to check with the Department of the Interior counsel prior to any salvage work at Mill Creek in the spring. The Regional Solicitor, however, ruled that since the United States bought the lands, the tribe retained no rights below the 1,310 line. In the spring of 1968, STI attorney Robert Dellwo contacted LARO Superintendent Richie after reading about upcoming archaeological work along the river adjoining reservation lands. He noted that while the Tribal Council did not oppose this work, they believed they should be consulted prior to the start of any archaeological project since graves contained tribal ancestors and artifacts belonging to the tribe. Richie apologized for the misunderstanding, explained that the sites were across the river from the reservation, and reassured him that such contracts were awarded only to archaeologists "who have demonstrated competence and a cooperative attitude." He promised to keep the Council informed in the future, and he suggested a possibility of cooperating with the STI on archaeological displays for the new community building. [71]

The tribe took this offer of help on displays beyond what Richie probably intended and requested permission in August 1968 to collect artifacts for the exhibits by digging for bottles at Fort Spokane where many tribal members had worked or attended school. Locating and identifying bottles took special skill, tribal member Glen Galbraith told the Superintendent, and the tribe had "several members well experienced in this regard." In addition to bottles, the STI hoped to gather "truly Indian artifacts" on the reservation side of the lake. Instead of applying directly to the Secretary of the Interior for permission, the STI preferred to work with local LARO officials because of their cooperative attitude. [72] Richie discussed these ideas with Regional Archeologist Paul Schumacher, who responded favorably to the tribe's requests. He promised to tell WSU about their interests and noted that any historic objects would need to go first to the university but then could be loaned back to the tribe. WSU Archaeologist Lester Ross met with the tribal council in November and promised to work on a plan allowing tribal members to survey and map sites on the reservation. In the meantime, he laid out the guidelines that allowed members to collect artifacts as long as they plotted site locations on a master map and labeled artifacts in such a way that they could be tied to specific sites. [73]

Relations with the Tribes, 1970s and 1980s

Relations between the tribes and the Park Service at Lake Roosevelt grew more complicated during the late 1960s, with tensions escalating during the next decade. This was a time of nationwide Indian activism that found local expression in the movement to gain control over Indian lands around the reservoir. Under the 1946 Tri-Party Agreement, the Park Service, as the federal land manager for the Recreation Zone, was assigned primary responsibility over the shore lands, with some restrictions applying to the Indian Zones. This included management and protection of cultural resources on these lands, a responsibility that increased with the new legislative mandates starting in 1966. Both the STI and CCT began to challenge the 1946 agreement in the 1950s and finally achieved a victory in 1974 with a favorable Solicitor's opinion. This caused the Secretary of the Interior to order all parties to negotiate a new agreement that included the tribes. The parties, however, did not reach accord until 1990. During the sixteen years leading up to the new agreement, the tribes pushed for clarification and extension of their rights over a greater portion of the reservoir lands previously controlled by the Park Service. While most of the negotiations dealt with broad legal rights, cultural resources also played into the picture as the tribes asserted their right to control sites they considered a vital part of their heritage.

The question of tribal notification prior to excavations arose again locally in 1972, during the time that it became an issue nationwide. The STI became aware of a promise from Regional Director John Rutter to the Nez Perce Tribe that no archaeological permits would be given for their lands without prior tribal consultation and consent. The STI received assurance that these same procedures would be "uniformly applied throughout the country." This did not extend to non-Indian lands, however, and a federal agency could not be denied a permit. Despite this, the Park Service was notifying archaeologists who worked in the area and was confident that they would be sensitive to the STI request. [74]

Archaeologist Roderick Sprague, who worked on many projects at Lake Roosevelt, addressed similar concerns to his colleagues in a 1974 article in American Antiquity. While acknowledging Indian-archaeologist conflicts during this time of Red Power, he believed that most could have been avoided, and he suggested some ways to establish a cooperative relationship with the tribes. For instance, he considered it "no more than common courtesy" to contact the local tribe or tribes before starting field work, just as providing copies of final reports to tribes was appropriate and professional. He suggested that preferential hiring of tribal members would improve relations and that such cooperative efforts would bring benefits that far outweighed any inconvenience. [75]

Consultations with Tribes

The Park Service formalized the consultation process in September 1987 with the publication of its "Native American Relationships Management Policy" in the Federal Register. This policy directed the agency to develop programs that demonstrated an understanding and respect for the cultural traditions of American Indian tribes that could demonstrate ancestral ties to lands within the National Park System. Park managers needed to establish an effective consulting relationship with affected tribes. The policy was particularly clear with respect to treatment of burials, which were to be located and protected as well as possible. This was hard to apply to Lake Roosevelt, however, where water fluctuations caused annual destruction. In case of disturbance, the Park Service was directed to consult with tribes to determine the most appropriate treatment and disposition, following tribal preferences as much as possible. Additional consultations were to include Park Service archaeologists, followed by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if needed. This policy was complemented by the passage of NAGPRA in 1990. [76]

Consultations between LARO and the CCT helped determine the appropriate action for preserving a particular pictograph within the park. After monitoring the site for many years, the Park Service brought a conservator in September 1985 to suggest ways to protect and preserve the ancient art. His primary concerns were diverting water runoff and loose gravel from the road away from the rock and keeping the surface free of vegetation. The following June, the CCT reported that the surface had been defaced with some chipping of paint and the addition of graffiti, "MIKE S," in white letters ten inches high. The Park Service, Reclamation, Grant County, and the CCT met in December and decided to redesign the road to pull it away from the site. LARO maintenance crews carefully removed rockfall and built a retaining wall to keep rock from falling on the pictograph in the future. In addition, they installed a system to divert water away from the site. Both actions remain effective in late 2000, supplemented with periodic brush cutting by LARO crews. The Park Service brought the conservator back in September 1989 to remove the graffiti. There has been no further vandalism, and both LARO and the CCT continue to monitor the site. [77]

Burial Recovery, Late 1980s

At Lake Roosevelt, burials became one of the most contentious issues for all parties concerned. During the annual spring drawdowns of the lake, LARO rangers monitored known archaeological sites as time allowed, both to discourage looting and to watch for any human remains that might be exposed. If bones were found, unofficial protocols called for LARO to notify Reclamation, who then contracted with professional archaeologists to excavate the site and analyze the remains, followed by reburial. As early as the mid-1960s, it was apparent that the annual lake fluctuations had a detrimental effect on burials. In the mid-1980s, Reclamation took the lead in the recovery and disposition of burials by proposing funding for a reservoir survey each spring to look for burials and other significant archaeological resources. [78]

The CCT indicated a strong interest in participating in all phases of such a survey and insisted that any plan must have the approval of the tribes. They stressed that burials must be left undisturbed wherever possible, with no excavation done without the CCT's concurrence. After analysis was completed, any artifacts were to be turned over to the tribes for permanent curation. The CCT also requested funds to facilitate tribal participation. Donald Tracy, Grand Coulee Project Manager, responded that Reclamation would monitor areas exposed during the drawdown as usual, assisted by the Park Service outside the Indian Zones, and that all participants would follow steps taken in past years to excavate, analyze, and rebury any human remains found. He welcomed participation from interested tribal members, but he declined to pay for anything more than limited transportation costs for tribal participants. In addition, he stated that while Reclamation was required to consult with tribes and other federal agencies, it could not assign its legal responsibility for the cultural resources to another entity, as suggested by the CCT. "We believe that cooperation and mutual understanding can best be achieved by working within our existing authorities and frequently discussing the issues affecting all parties," he added. [79] Reclamation formally invited both the CCT and STI to participate in the annual spring surveys starting in 1988. The agency still contracted with professional archaeologists from Eastern Washington University, but it worked closely with the tribes in identifying the list of proposed sites and asked for help in identifying next of kin for specific areas. The surveys continued under these guidelines from 1988-1993. High water in 1994 and "jurisdictional confusions" the following year allowed only informal monitoring at a few known sites. Regular spring surveys resumed in 1996. [80]