Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Changes Under the 1990 Agreement

The three federal agencies (Reclamation, Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs) and two tribes (CCT and STI) had hoped that the years of jurisdictional confusion at Lake Roosevelt would end with the signing of the Cooperative Management (Multi-Party) Agreement in April 1990. The agreement divided Lake Roosevelt and its shore lands into a Reclamation Zone administered by Reclamation, a Recreation Zone administered by the Park Service, and a Reservation Zone administered by the CCT and STI. One area addressed by the agreement was the "Protection and Retention of Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources." All five parties agreed to develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) to guide identification and protection of archaeological and historical sites associated with Indian occupation. In addition, the plan was to delineate a procedure for ensuring the return to the tribes of artifacts collected from Lake Roosevelt. The agreement instructed the federal agencies to notify and consult with the tribes before starting any archaeological project involving Indian resources and then went beyond the mere act of consultation to require the agencies to give the tribes a chance to participate in, or even undertake, these activities. [81]

Within a couple of months of signing the new agreement, cultural resource personnel representing all five parties held an informal meeting to discuss their new roles and ways to coordinate cultural resource management at Lake Roosevelt. According to meeting minutes, all agreed that the program should be cooperative and reservoir-wide to provide the best protection for the resources. They proposed setting up a cultural resource advisory board to draft the CRMP required by the agreement. As envisioned, the board would provide technical advice to the agencies and tribes as well as the overall Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee (LRCC), but it would not make policy. Both Reclamation and the Park Service asked the LRCC to establish an advisory board to include the five parties along with the Washington State Archaeologist. The LRCC endorsed the establishment of the Lake Roosevelt Cultural Resource Management Advisory Group by June 1991, and asked Lynne MacDonald, Reclamation Regional Archeologist, to serve as convenor. In addition to its general advisory role, the group was to make recommendations about the Programmatic Agreement with the BPA. [82]

Programmatic Agreement of 1991

The Programmatic Agreement (PA) of 1991 introduced a new player into the already complex jurisdictional situation at Lake Roosevelt, and over the next several years it altered relationships among the parties and ultimately changed cultural resource management. The newcomer was the BPA, a federal agency set up in 1937 to market power from federal dams on the Columbia River. Under the Intertie Development Unit environmental impact statement (EIS), BPA addressed only the impacts of its power operations on cultural and natural resources at five reservoirs, including Lake Roosevelt. A subsequent EIS, developed through the Systems Operation Review process, addressed impacts of all operations at fourteen reservoirs, including the initial five. The BPA's responsibility stemmed from its role in power generation at the dams and the associated lake level fluctuations used to meet peak power demand. The frequent raising and lowering of water levels in the reservoirs eroded shorelines and damaged archaeological sites, in addition to having a negative impact on a wide variety of natural resources, particularly fish. [83]

Under the Programmatic Agreement, BPA committed to work with federal agencies and tribes, in their respective jurisdictions, to intensively survey both historic properties and sites with traditional cultural value to Indians. All surveys had to follow accepted archaeological practices. Following the completion of intensive surveys, all parties were supposed to consult with BPA and the SHPO to draft an Action Plan to identify and address issues including research design, determinations of eligibility, methods of mitigating adverse effects on eligible properties, monitoring, and curation. Because the surveys are incomplete, the Action Plan has not been drafted to date. The agreement was signed by BPA in May 1991, with other parties following. [84]

Reclamation was a major player in this agreement, with surveys planned for two of its reservoirs. Reclamation's Regional Archeologist Lynne MacDonald contacted Pacific Northwest Regional Archeologist Jim Thomson, requesting his assistance in developing and coordinating the surveys for Lake Roosevelt. Since his arrival in Seattle in 1982, Thomson's direction helped bring significant growth to the archaeological program in the region. At LARO, Thomson had nurtured good working relationships with his counterparts at both the CCT and STI. At the time, both tribes supported MacDonald's request that Thomson manage the BPA survey. [85]

The signing of the PA was welcomed by Park Service personnel who, for the first time, would have sufficient funds to survey archaeological resources around Lake Roosevelt in accordance with a research design and methodology that met current professional standards. At Lake Roosevelt, BPA contributed 92 percent of the funding for all the work under the PA, with Reclamation covering the remainder. Working with the Lake Roosevelt Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, LARO staff, and other cultural resource professionals in the regional office, Thomson developed a multi-disciplinary scope of work for the survey. In meetings with the committee and BPA, all agreed that the survey would document not only archaeological sites but also the built environment, including structures and landscapes. [86]

The Park Service signed a five-year Interagency Agreement with BPA in October 1992 to administer the contract. The final budget provided $2.8 million over five years for intensive documentation of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical resources around Lake Roosevelt. At an on-site meeting shortly after the signing, representatives of the Park Service, Reclamation, and BPA worked to reach consensus on management issues that would ensure the success of the project. Representatives of both tribes were advised of the meeting but were unable to attend. Despite this, the Park Service emphasized that "Consultations with the tribes will be a key part of the on-going project." [87]

Because of the magnitude of the BPA-funded survey at Lake Roosevelt, two term archaeologist positions were created to support the Park Service's responsibilities for managing the contract. Wayne Prokopetz, from Reclamation's Salt Lake City office, joined Park Service staff in the regional office to work closely with Thomson in administering the contract and serving as a technical advisor to BPA and Reclamation for the entire reservoir survey effort. The second position was a field archaeologist, Paula Hartzell-Scott, who worked under the direction of Thomson and Prokopetz. She was stationed at LARO to support the field survey and coordinate with the tribes and Reclamation at the field level. Furthermore, she was available to assist the park's operations with project clearances and support for the park resource management program. [88]

In addition to the survey effort, the BPA funding was seen as an opportunity to help the tribes gain greater expertise in resource management practices to support their consultation efforts and work with various state and federal agencies. Another key goal of the agreement was to make the information developed by the survey readily available to managers, researchers, and the public. Incorporated into the agreement was funding to ensure that the results were mapped using GIS and reported in various formats. [89]

The influx of funds enabled an increase in archaeological survey work at Lake Roosevelt during the 1990s, but it also ushered in a period of increased tensions among the managing parties. Disagreements centered on several issues that at times intertwined to form a complex knot. These included concerns over project planning and control of BPA funds; jurisdiction over various parts of the recreation area; burial removal; professional qualifications; and ARPA permits. Exacerbating these agreement-related disputes were the tensions created by years of grievances over federal encroachment on tribal lands and the increasing strength of tribal assertion of their rights to control their heritage and the lake resources. Individuals on all sides, defending strongly held beliefs and positions, further escalated the tensions at different times over the next few years of the contract.

These tensions were evident by fall of 1994 when members of the Lake Roosevelt Cultural Resources Advisory Committee raised concerns about lack of communication between the committee and the Park Service, as well as a desire to be more involved with the planning and implementation of the cultural resource plan. The CCT reiterated these concerns when it objected to the Park Service plan for conducting a cultural resource inventory, contending that the tribe had not been involved in the planning stage as much as it should have been. They were willing to consider the plan as a draft so they could provide further input. In addition, they wanted to discuss which parties were doing the work and how the money was to be allocated. The CCT expected that a substantial portion of the funding would be spent on their lands, with the tribe as the likely contractor. [90]

The Park Service countered that members of the Lake Roosevelt Cultural Resources Advisory Committee had reviewed the draft proposals and scopes of work, and the CCT had indicated understanding and frequent concurrence with project activities through discussions with the advisory group. With the CCT's support, the Research Design contract was awarded to Eastern Washington University, which had worked closely with the CCT on the burial surveys and other projects for a number of years. In addition, the Park Service pointed out that the CCT representatives had taken an active role in setting research and survey priorities, requesting, for example, that the survey of the Lions Island site be given high priority for funding. The Park Service was the lead agency for the MOA surveys, but other parties could be and were involved in survey activities. One point of contention was the position of the Park Service and Reclamation that the designated land managers had responsibility for the surveys on their lands; this meant that other partners were not allowed to survey independently outside their areas of jurisdiction without the land manager's consent. Under the initial statement of work, the Park Service, at the tribes' request, let a sole-source contract to the CCT's preferred contractor for a survey of tribal lands, with another sole-source contract to the STI for its survey of tribal lands using its own STI crew. Another contractor surveyed LARO lands at Lake Roosevelt. [91]

At the same time as the actual survey work was begun on the ground at LARO, the Park Service was undergoing its own major internal reorganization. Under the new order, major responsibilities formerly carried out by regional staff were transferred to the parks. The administration of the BPA MOA was transferred from the regional office to the park, with regional staff continuing to serve in an advisory capacity. The transfer further exacerbated the tensions because the perception of the regional office as a more neutral party was replaced by one where the park staff was seen as being more partial to Park Service interests. On the ground, working relationships and conflicts began to seriously cloud the conduct of the BPA-funded surveys. [92]

The level of discord increased early in 1995 when the CCT, through its representative on the Lake Roosevelt Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, refused to acknowledge that the Park Service had a management role in the Recreation Zone. LARO staff believed that the committee was hampered by a lack of understanding of federal roles at Lake Roosevelt. The BPA PA required the parties to prepare a Cultural Resource Management Plan for Lake Roosevelt and also stipulated that the federal agencies conduct surveys, evaluate activities, and prepare action plans. The Park Service believed that these stipulations supported its role in coordinating the inventory of cultural resources and the preparation of the management plan. It was pointed out that Reclamation had specifically requested the Park Service Regional Archeologist to coordinate the Lake Roosevelt surveys and that all parties had agreed to that role. Following a meeting with tribal representatives, the CCT attorney suggested that Reclamation and the Park Service try to lay this jurisdictional dispute to rest by writing to the Colville Business Council. In a clearly stated letter, the agencies said that both the law and the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement directed the Park Service "to assume all administrative and management authorities and responsibilities over those Federal, non-Tribal lands behind the Grand Coulee Dam that were not required for Columbia Basin Project purposes," identified in the agreement as the Recreation Zone. Responsibilities included, among others, enforcement of NAGPRA and ARPA. The letter directed the CCT and other LRCMA parties to work directly with the Park Service, the federal manager of the Recreation Zone, to implement both the Multi-Party Agreement and the PA. [93]

Similar jurisdictional concerns continued throughout the 1990s as the tribes raised questions, either directly or indirectly through BPA documents, concerning Park Service responsibilities as the federal land manager. Each time this happened, either Reclamation or the Park Service explained that the 1990 Multi-Party Agreement divided the shore lands of Lake Roosevelt into Reclamation, Recreation, and Reservation zones, with Reclamation, the Park Service, and both the STI and CCT designated land managers in their respective zones. Just as the Park Service could not unilaterally undertake actions in another zone without the permission of the land manager, neither could Reclamation nor the tribes take action in the Recreation Zone without Park Service permission. Furthermore, as the designated federal land managers, both Reclamation and the Park Service were responsible for implementation of all federal laws within their zones, including NAGPRA, ARPA, NHPA, and NEPA, and had responsibility for oversight for all actions connected with those laws. While the Park Service had responsibility for the protection of cultural resources, the operations of both Reclamation and BPA affected these resources, giving those agencies responsibility under federal law to mitigate adverse effects. "What this means," explained the Bureau's Regional Director, "is that Reclamation and BPA, as its power partner, need to coordinate their cultural property management activities with NPS when working in the Recreation Zone. This includes obtaining the required authorizations or permits." [94] While the Park Service and Reclamation were unified in this position, BPA continually undercut it by providing funding directly to the tribes to conduct surveys and testing within the Recreation Zone, with little if any consultation with the Park Service. [95]

On cultural resource issues, Park Service relations with both tribes continued to deteriorate in 1995. The tribes questioned the Park Service's management of BPA funds under the MOA and suggested that the agency spent money on projects that were neither planned nor agreed to by representatives of all managing parties. For instance, the CCT complained that the Park Service tested a site on Lions Island without prior consultation with the tribes, who were suspicious that the agency had ulterior motives in its selection of that particular site. The CCT archaeologist noted that the Park Service was looking into recreational development at Lions Island, causing him to question the criteria used to select projects to be funded with BPA money. Park Service Regional Archeologist Thomson responded to this charge by noting that the Lions Island survey was planned and given highest priority in direct response to the request of the CCT representative in the early planning stages of the MOA. In addition, the tribes complained to BPA that the archaeologist hired by LARO with BPA funding had not been consulting with or assisting the tribes as originally agreed. The Park Service defended its new archaeologist, Ray DePuydt, saying that as far as the park and regional office knew, he had responded to all requests related to the PA in a timely and professional manner. Neither tribe had needed his assistance since they contracted with others to survey their tribal lands, and furthermore, any work that DePuydt did on LARO lands was paid for with Park Service funding. [96]

Another issue that concerned the tribes was a perceived lack of effort on the part of both Reclamation and the Park Service to protect archaeological sites at Lake Roosevelt. During the early 1990s, LARO personnel clearly recognized the need to increase patrolling of shore lands to protect exposed sites during drawdowns. Budget cuts during this period limited their options, however. Superintendent Kuiper asked Reclamation for funding in 1990, noting that the Park Service had already dropped community projects, slashed maintenance programs, and eliminated lifeguards during the summer in an effort to stay within budget limits. "This leaves us in a very vulnerable position with the continued responsibility to protect these archeological resource[s] without the funds to do so," he stated. Unfortunately, Reclamation had no money for routine patrols but promised to try to help in case of emergency. In an appeal to the regional office the following year, LARO listed long-term protection of archaeological sites as its second most important funding priority. [97]

In June 1991, the regional office brought two specialists in archaeological site stabilization to assess damage from erosion at selected sites in the Pacific Northwest Region. At LARO they examined three sites at Kettle Falls and a fourth at China Bend. In each case, they suggested ways to mitigate erosion through vegetative plantings, supplemented in some places with geotextile fabric and wire. LARO did not act upon their recommendations. Federal agencies and tribes continued to discuss site stabilization at Lake Roosevelt during the 1990s, with particular concern for the burials at Kettle Falls. After monitoring the site for years, the CCT asked Reclamation to stabilize the site in 1996. The agency's technical team from Boise discussed various alternatives, but Reclamation personnel at Coulee Dam developed the final design. Work included removal of some burials; cutting back the slope; and bank stabilization with gabions and reno blankets. [98]

Bruce Didesch, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Tribal Liaison for the U.S. Attorney in Spokane, met with John Keys, Reclamation Regional Director, in July 1995, to discuss the issues surrounding cultural resources at Lake Roosevelt. Keys agreed that Reclamation was responsible for any impacts to sites from operations of the project, especially graves that washed out through wave action. The agency has routinely funded burial recovery at the reservoir. For instance, Reclamation provided a grant to the STI in June 1994 for test excavations at Coyote Spit, across the Spokane River from Mill Creek. The agency amended the grant during the year to ensure recovery of the burials at the site. BPA also listened to tribal concerns and assigned its Manager of Environmental Analysis in BPA's Environment, Fish and Wildlife Group to work with both the tribes and federal agencies "to identify the best way of reaching the cultural resources results we all desire." [99]

Compounding the Park Service's problems with the tribes during this period was a prolonged dispute between the agency and the STI over disposition of burials at Mill Creek. The problem began in April 1995 when a local resident found bones exposed at Mill Creek and called to inform the STI. Staff from the tribe's cultural resource division then undertook recovery of the burial, which was on LARO lands, without getting clearance from the Park Service. While work was in progress, Robert Sherwood, STI Cultural Advisor, notified Karen Taylor-Goodrich, LARO Chief of Resources Management, that he had sent a crew there to conduct surface collection. Sherwood admitted that he had not gone through proper clearance procedures with either the STI or the Park Service. Taylor-Goodrich sent LARO Archaeologist Ray DePuydt to the site to monitor the work. He asked the tribal crew to inform the park before taking any action in similar situations in the future. Nearby residents promised the tribe that they would watch the site and report any future human remains, a move DePuydt believed was positive. [100]

LARO could not dismiss the incident lightly since the Park Service had federally mandated responsibilities under ARPA and NAGPRA, as well as policy directives on how to deal with burials. The agency would have been negligent under these laws if it did not exercise appropriate oversight on how the burials were handled. Therefore, Superintendent Gerry Tays wrote a brief letter to Warren Seyler, Chairman of the Spokane Business Council, acknowledging mutual concern for the protection of cultural resources but adding, "we cannot abide the Tribes unilateral actions on lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service." He asked that no further action be taken until they could negotiate a mutually agreeable course of action. [101]

The STI did not respond favorably and took its grievances to William Walters, Acting Regional Director. Tribal member James Sijohn explained that they had tried to contact archaeologists in the regional office and had tried to contact Tays but could reach only Taylor-Goodrich. They believed that this situation called for immediate action and suggested, "We cannot wait for an opening in the schedules of bureaucrats while the remains of our ancestors are inundated, washed downriver, or scavenged by beachcombers." He pointed out that the Park Service had known about this sensitive site since 1960 and did not appear to heed the tribe's concern about its protection. The tribe believed that the agency acknowledged neither its responsibility to protect the site nor the STI's right and authority to manage and protect its own cultural resources. (Contrary to Sijohn's assertion, the Park Service had tried in the past to get ARPA funds to increase patrols in the area.) The "curt" tone of Tays' letter had offended the tribe, and Sijohn asked for a retraction, apology, and formal acknowledgement that the STI had the right to collect human remains and associated objects found on the shore lands of the reservation, along with a letter of intent to cooperate in the future. [102] Walters responded with a letter of apology for any misunderstandings and said that the Park Service hoped to increase collaboration with the STI for site protection. He and Tays believed that the agency needed to work with the tribe to develop protocols under terms of NAGPRA to deal with similar situations in the future. Left unresolved, however, was the STI's refusal to acknowledge requirements that the Park Service work within the federal and state laws, as well as its responsibility to manage these lands under the Multi-Party Agreement. [103]

Earlier in 1995, the Park Service had accepted the STI proposal for the tribe to conduct a cultural resources survey, funded by the BPA PA, on Spokane tribal lands around Lake Roosevelt during the spring drawdown that year. The tribe felt confident of the abilities of its cultural resource staff, supplemented by consulting elders who were to assist in the appropriate handling of sacred sites along with interpretation of other sites. The Park Service did not question professional qualifications of the crew since the surveys were on tribal lands. By early summer, the STI was pleased with its "incredibly successful field season" during which crews recorded seventy-two archaeological and historical sites and removed two burials endangered by fluctuating lake levels. The tribe reported that crews had gotten valuable experience in identifying and recording sites, and had gained knowledge of their history and culture as well through their work and interaction with elders. [104]

Following the success of the first field season, the STI wanted to expand its BPA-funded survey for 1996 onto Park Service lands traditionally used by the tribe. Superintendent Tays explained that the guidelines would have to change before that could occur. During the survey on tribal lands, the Park Service had tried to be flexible with the design and implementation of the project to allow the work to be done "according to what the Tribe determined to be appropriate for reservation lands." Unfortunately, Tays said, the Park Service could not be as flexible on lands it administered because it had to enforce federal laws requiring that such surveys be conducted by crews that met the professional qualifications mandated by Section 112 of the NHPA; these qualifications are established by 36CFR61 and the Secretary's Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. His primary request was for a change in qualifications of the STI staff to ensure that they met the same professional standards required of a Park Service employee or contractor, as required by the stipulations of the PA as well as ARPA standards. [105] The STI refused to comply, saying that this requirement amounted to a double standard that, in effect, required contractors working on federal lands to meet a higher standard than those working on tribal lands. The Park Service Deputy Regional Director agreed that there was essentially a double standard, but he explained that while the Park Service has mandated standards for its lands, it could not override tribal sovereignty to impose these on STI lands. The tribe complained to National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy and also asked BPA to intervene by cutting off funding to the Park Service and contracting directly with the tribe. [106]

The rift between the Park Service and the tribes continued to widen during 1995. Superintendent Gerald Tays acknowledged complaints from the tribes and suggested that both the Multi-Party Agreement and the PA contained provisions for resolving such disputes. He offered to meet with members of the Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee "in an open and frank discussion" of tribal concerns to see if they could reach a mutually agreeable solution. "In my view, allowing this wound to fester will only make the healing that much more difficult and a satisfactory resolution less attainable," he wrote. [107] The issues were not resolved, however, and BPA responded to tribal concerns by freezing funding and all non-essential work for the PA in September 1995 and extending the funding suspension in December. [108]

After months of "highly controversial negotiations" among the federal agencies, tribes, Solicitor's Office, and U.S. Attorney's Office, the Interagency Agreement was significantly altered in late 1995 to allow the tribes to conduct cultural resource surveys on their areas of traditional use and occupancy, including lands managed by the Park Service. The contracts provided direct funding to the tribes and were administered through an MOA among the Park Service, Reclamation, and BPA. By the end of the year, Colville Business Council Chairman Matthew Dick, Jr., reported to BPA that he was pleased that the federal agencies had responded positively to tribal concerns. BPA formally notified the Park Service of contract termination for the original MOA in May 1996. BPA has continued to provide funding for cultural resource management to the tribes since then, with agreements renegotiated each year. [109]

With the termination of the Interagency Agreement, the Park Service was forced to defend its mandated responsibilities for cultural resources at Lake Roosevelt. The draft Statement of Work for the 1996 survey under the PA gave BPA a role that was considered inappropriate by Superintendent Tays as well as by cultural resource specialists Stephanie Toothman and Jim Thomson of the Seattle Support Office (formerly regional office). Tays reminded the agency that BPA was responsible only for mitigating the adverse effects on cultural resources from the agency's operations at Grand Coulee and Lake Roosevelt; protection and preservation of these resources within the Recreation Zone were the responsibility of the Park Service. [110]

Channeling BPA funds directly to the tribes raised other jurisdictional issues. The tribes claimed that since they had never given up rights to cultural sites or associated artifacts in their traditional areas of use and occupancy, they did not have to consult with federal land managers when working on federal lands. They also disagreed with the Park Service over its role in approving applications for ARPA permits. Naturally, the Park Service and Reclamation disagreed with this interpretation and insisted that ultimate responsibility lay with the federal land manager, as specified in Sections 110 and 112 of the NHPA. Tays insisted that the Park Service be given both review and approval status for the design and implementation of the surveys and any action plans. In addition, the Park Service required that the surveys be conducted by qualified professionals, as specified in Section 7.8 (a) of ARPA and Sections 10.3 (b) (1) and 10.4 (d) (1) (v) of NAGPRA. The 1991 Programmatic Agreement also specified that all cultural resource work had to be "performed in accordance with accepted archaeological practices as defined in 36 CFR Part 800, Section 110 Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines." The agreement further stipulated that all supervisory personnel had to "meet the professional qualifications detailed in the Secretary of the Interior's 'Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation,' 48 Fed. Reg. 44716, 44738 (1983)." LARO asked to have all artifacts and data turned over to the agency upon completion of the survey; in return, the Park Service agreed to expedite the transfer of artifact ownership to the tribes. The Park Service also offered to support the tribes in their efforts by providing professional archaeologists to work with tribal crews, at no cost to the tribes. Tays also provided assurance that all site data would be kept confidential. The staff of the Seattle Support Office fully supported and advised Tays and his staff on the legal responsibilities involved. [111]

As the controversy escalated, LARO and Regional Park Service personnel realized the broad negative effect it was having on relations among the signatory parties to the 1990 Cooperative Management Agreement. Despite Tays' request, the tribes did not attempt to resolve the dispute through channels set up in the agreement and instead circumvented the established procedure by negotiating directly with BPA, which was not party to the agreement. BPA, in following its own agenda to maintain the support of the tribes for its own undertakings, continued to undercut the legal management responsibilities of Reclamation and the Park Service by not insisting that the tribes work with the other agencies. The tenuous balance of power agreed upon in 1990 was undermined with the addition of another federal agency that usurped roles of other agencies. "The potential for the five parties to act independently and challenge the premises of the Cooperative Management Agreement has increased dramatically as a result of the conflict over the cultural resources project," warned one LARO official. [112]

Both the STI and CCT moved toward greater independence with their cultural resource responsibilities in 1996 when their applications for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices were approved. Such offices were authorized by Title XL of Public Law 102-575 (October 30, 1992), one of the 1992 amendments to NHPA. Under this legislation, tribes were allowed to assume the duties of the SHPO on tribal lands if they established their own Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), with a designated historic preservation officer and an approved plan for implementing a program of historic preservation. [113]

In an effort to find common ground on the difficult issue of burial recovery, the Park Service, Reclamation, and BPA agreed to develop a burial management plan by March 1996, in time for the spring drawdown. Reclamation Archeologist Lynne MacDonald took the lead in the project and soon realized that, with the short time allowed, it would not be possible to write a plan that would suit all parties. MacDonald instead worked out a plan for the 1996 season agreeable to the CCT, Park Service, BPA, and Reclamation. She also prepared a plan for the STI but withdrew it when she learned that the tribe had included burial recovery as part of its work plan, with BPA contracting for any necessary work. Under the STI plan, the tribe agreed to contact BPA immediately when any human remains were found, followed by notification to the Secretary of the Interior or local LARO officials within forty-eight hours. The STI claimed ownership of any remains that were definitely Native American, and it agreed to protect any non-native remains until federal officials could arrive. Any unexposed remains were to be left undisturbed until the tribe obtained an ARPA permit and proof of formal consultation. [114]

Despite the new policy, burial removal continued to be a contentious issue for the Park Service and the STI. In April 1996, LARO Archaeologist DePuydt monitored a tribal crew as it removed a burial at Mill Creek. He reported to his superior that the crew did not follow standard archaeological procedures and lacked appropriate reverence for their task, a claim disputed by the STI. Following this excavation, the STI requested an ARPA permit to test for additional burials there, claiming ownership of the remains under NAGPRA. Representatives from the tribe's cultural department agreed to have the work supervised by a qualified archaeologist and to follow scientific procedures suggested by DePuydt. They added, however, that they did not forfeit their right "to excavate any Spokane human burials according to tribal custom." They said that they followed scientific procedures in removing burials, but they did this by choice rather than being forced to by federal requirements. The archaeologist would advise the tribe, but their elders would make any decisions during the burial recovery. [115] DePuydt had asked the STI's archaeologist for clarification on archaeological procedures, such as screening and taking soil samples, since the proposed ten-meter trench constituted mitigation. Subsequently, LARO withheld approval for the ARPA permit pending receipt of an acceptable research design that would briefly describe previous research conducted at the site as well as data to be collected and analyzed for the final report. [116]

The hurdle posed by the formal permit process frustrated the STI, especially since DePuydt had told the tribe earlier that, in this instance, they could bypass the formal ARPA application by submitting a brief plan for testing the location, something that he could review in half an hour. He recommended that any testing be done by trowel instead of shovel to protect the burials. Spokane Business Council Cultural Representative James Sijohn complained to Acting LARO Superintendent Richard L. Winters that the stringent Park Service requirements not only resurrected "a sense of bureaucratic hostility" that had dominated relations in the past but also revealed "an institutional barrier within your agency designed to frustrate cooperative relations between the National Park Service and Indian Tribes." [117] Winters apologized for continuing delays and expressed regret that they had not been able to rebuild a close cooperative working relationship that he believed both sides wanted and needed. He used the Park Service's mandated legal requirements as the land managing agency to justify the request for additional work plans. Because the Mill Creek site was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Park Service had to mitigate adverse effects by ensuring that any excavations there met the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines. [118]

To diffuse criticism from the tribes and meet a recognized need, the Park Service requested increased funding for its patrolling of shore lands during spring drawdowns. LARO Chief Ranger Gil Goodrich asked for $44,500 in ARPA funds to pay for four seasonal rangers from March to June 1997. LARO got part of its request and was able to fund rangers who coordinated work with tribal staff. An MOU with the CCT in 1997 allowed LARO to deputize tribal rangers who could enforce Park Service regulations within the park. The CCT initially hesitated about participating in planning for these patrols until LARO assured the tribe that rangers would have ARPA training so they would deal with sites in an "appropriately respectful manner." LARO believed that ARPA patrolling worked well during the 1997 season. Each tribe was given $5,000 for patrolling, to be used on both personnel and equipment. The Park Service in turn spent $15,424 for three seasonal rangers and $4,590 on equipment, which included remote surveillance to monitor activity at isolated sites. [119]

The turmoil over cultural resource management at Lake Roosevelt contributed to the transfer of LARO Superintendent Gerald Tays in the spring of 1996. As the tribes pushed for more involvement in archaeological surveys and excavations on Park Service lands, Tays and his staff consistently required that they comply with applicable federal law. "ARPA and NAGPRA were enacted to protect everybody, tribes most importantly," Tays recalled. In his opinion, "they were flagrantly violating the provisions of those laws." His strong stance angered the tribes, but Tays was willing to take the heat. He believed his choices were clear-cut, making his decisions "easy. . . . The results may be difficult, but the choices are pretty easy. The law is very specific in those cases about what's required." Tribal complaints, along with political pressure from governmental officials concerned over other issues at Lake Roosevelt, combined to convince the Park Service that Tays could no longer serve effectively as LARO superintendent. [120]

Tays' successor, Vaughn Baker, arrived in 1996 with a mandate from the Regional Director to achieve a reconciliation among the agencies and tribes at LARO. During his first weeks on the job, he met with a variety of individuals and groups around the lake and was concerned with what he heard. "I'm finding a perception on the part of many people that over the past few years the NPS wasn't . . . listening to the concerns of these other parties," he said. "It seems to me like lots of 'lines in the sand' have been drawn on a whole variety of issues." [121] In dealing with cultural resources, Baker hoped to direct the talks away from "authorities and jurisdictions" to focus instead on ways to achieve common goals through cooperative efforts. [122]

One issue that did not lend itself easily to compromise was the STI's insistence that all site locations be kept confidential, even from the federal land managers. Superintendent Baker pointed out that the Park Service and Reclamation needed locational information so they could provide protection for sites on their lands. Fred York, Regional Anthropologist, backed Baker and emphasized that federal land managers needed locational information to fulfill their obligations. On the other hand, he said that withholding site locations from the public was critical for site protection. He suggested that the agencies and tribes work together to identify what information could be withheld from the public. The issue remains largely unresolved. [123]

The Park Service, Reclamation, and BPA attempted to resolve some issues concerning ARPA permits with the signing of an MOA in 1998. It was designed to meet the requirements for ARPA permits for those conducting archaeological surveys on Park Service lands at Lake Roosevelt that season. The MOA constituted a blanket permit that coordinated interagency actions and outlined other actions that would meet ARPA requirements to ensure that the Park Service fulfilled its duties as the federal land manager. The agreement required annual work plans, approved by the Park Service, prior to the start of field work; it stipulated review by the Park Service of all draft reports; and it required all contractors to meet professional standards as outlined by the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 1983." [124]

Baker and his staff continued to formalize a plan to deal with burials, or inadvertent discoveries of human remains, based on provisions outlined in NAGPRA (Subpart B, Section 10.4); the park had followed these same procedures for many years. By early March 1997, Baker sent a memo to his staff outlining a procedure to be followed if bones were found. He emphasized the need to protect the remains while treating them with respect, the importance of immediate notification of all appropriate parties, and the need to keep locations confidential from the public. He clearly outlined procedures and listed all persons to contact. The Law Enforcement Coordinator would serve as LARO liaison with tribal law enforcement personnel, while the LARO Archaeologist would consult with the appropriate cultural resource specialists with the CCT and STI as well as with Reclamation. Baker sent copies of the memo to both tribes for their approval before circulating it among LARO staff. James Sijohn, STI Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, expressed his appreciation for this gesture and hoped that it represented a new era of consultation and cooperation. He reiterated the STI concerns that the tribe remain in control of all Spokane burials, making the determination if and how to remove any exposed bones. He conceded, however, that no work could be done on non-exposed remains without an appropriate ARPA permit. The CCT generally approved of the plan and felt reassured that site locations would be kept confidential. The tribes did request, however, that no action be taken at a burial on Park Service lands until the CCT could decide what needed to be done to comply with cultural and spiritual beliefs. [125]

In April 1997, the STI and the Park Service drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning protocols for handling inadvertent discoveries of human remains in which they agreed to consult with each other to determine how to treat the burial. The tribe agreed to use standard professional archaeological practices if they chose to remove the bones and associated artifacts. To aid in determining cultural affiliation, any remains would be subjected to minimal non-destructive analysis. With tribal permission, Native American remains would be analyzed to determine age, sex, stature, pathologies, and additional significant traits. All Euroamerican remains would receive similar analysis. The following spring, LARO notified the STI of bones found at Moccasin Bay. The bones turned out to be from an elk, but tribal representatives expressed appreciation to the Park Service that the agency had followed the procedures called for in the MOU. [126]

Conclusion

In the more than fifty years since the establishment of the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, cultural resource management has evolved from a minor concern for Park Service managers to one that, at times, has dominated relationships with the other managing partners. The greater importance of the issue mirrors not only the increased legislation that governs federal actions concerning cultural resources, but also shows the growing involvement of the Indian tribes in managing their own resources, including the physical remains of their cultural and spiritual heritage. The challenge for federal and tribal land managers now is to find the balance that ensures protection of the resources while satisfying agency and tribal managerial needs and mandated requirements.