Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

1990 Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement

The final round of meetings began late in 1988 and continued for a year and a half until the new agreement was signed. While many of the issues, such as disagreement over the size and jurisdiction of the Indian Zones, had been concerns since the start of negotiations, this time the tribes and agencies were able to compromise enough to reach a final agreement. Many of the meetings took place in Washington, D.C., with a DOI official as chairman. The other members of the negotiating team were from the regional level of government, joined by the chairmen of the tribal councils. [132]

Three individuals worked to resolve the contentious issues for the Park Service and the tribes, resulting in the preparation of a final agreement. Alan Stay, CCT attorney, wrote the final document with recommendations from John Rydzik, a local BIA official (who had formerly worked for the CCT and retained their trust), and Kelly Cash, LARO's negotiator. The collaboration of these individuals in fine tuning the language resulted in a document that could be sent to Washington, D.C., for final approval. [133]

Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr., signed the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement on April 5, 1990. The agreement addressed many concerns raised by the tribes for several decades: reservation boundaries had not been changed by acquisition of lands for Grand Coulee Dam, and the tribes retained "certain governmental authority and responsibility" within these exterior boundaries; the tribes retained the right to exercise governmental authority within their reservations; and the tribes could assert regulatory authority over issues such as fish and wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources on their reservation lands. In addition, the agreement recognized the tribal argument that development in one part of the reservoir affected areas and/or cultural resources in other areas. The Park Service also scored an important victory with the official recognition in the agreement of LARO as an existing unit of the National Park system. [134]

The five parties to the agreement, all referred to as "governmental parties," included the Park Service, Reclamation, BIA, CCT, and STI. The agreement allowed these parties to coordinate management of the lake and surrounding federal lands, identified in the agreement as the Lake Roosevelt Management Area, "and to plan and develop facilities and activities on Lake Roosevelt and its freeboard lands." Like the Tri-Party Agreement, this one divided the reservoir area into three zones: Reclamation, Recreation, and Reservation. As before, Reclamation was given management responsibilities for the Reclamation Zone and the Park Service for the Recreation Zone. Unlike the earlier agreement, however, the Reservation Zone was turned over to the tribes for management, with each tribe responsible for its own reservation lands and the BIA available for assistance. The agreement called for periodic meetings to coordinate management activities and an annual meeting to monitor compliance. In addition, it set up a process to resolve disputes among the parties. The Park Service and the tribes agreed to "review, coordinate, communicate and standardize the management plans, regulations and policies" and permits to provide uniform management. Although the National Environmental Policy Act already required federal agencies to accept public input on planned activities, the parties placated other governmental entities by acknowledging the need to take comments from state and local governments as well as citizens' groups and individuals. [136]

The parties reached compromise on the issue of funding, agreeing to share budget, cost, and technical information. Each party, however, was responsible for securing funding for its own management responsibilities. In the event that extra funds became available, the agencies pledged to make "an equitable portion" available to the tribes for their compliance work. While the agencies did not agree to implement an Indian preference for employment, they did agree to notify the tribes of opportunities to contract with the agencies for projects or services. [137]

The agreement also addressed cultural resources. This issue was so important to the tribes that the team drafting the new agreement recognized that most points were not open to negotiation. Under the Cooperative Management Agreement, all parties agreed to develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan to identify and protect resources, as well as develop a procedure for returning artifacts, removed under governmental authority, to the tribes for curation. The federal agencies also agreed to notify and consult with the tribes while planning "any survey, monitoring, or removal of Indian Resources" from the reservoir lands. In addition, the tribes would have the chance to participate and/or undertake these activities themselves. [139]

A local ceremony celebrated the new agreement. Jude C. Stensgar, CCT Chairman, invited Superintendent Gary Kuiper to a signing ceremony on April 20, 1990 - Earth Day - at Grand Coulee Dam. Stensgar praised the agreement that recognized both the CCT and STI as equal management partners at Lake Roosevelt. He believed that all citizens, both local residents and visitors, would benefit from the government-to-government relationship established by the agreement. Close to two hundred people attended the ceremony, which featured Indian drumming, dancing, and singing. [140]

Conclusion

Years of hard work by dozens of federal and tribal officials finally reached fruition with the signing of the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement, also known as the Multi-Party Agreement. The end of negotiations finally freed LARO staff to carry out other responsibilities at Lake Roosevelt. The Multi-Party Agreement has not resolved all issues at the NRA, of course. During ten years of operating under its provisions, the parties have worked through many jurisdictional and management concerns, with no legal challenge to the agreement. A few disagreements, such as jurisdiction over the south half of the Spokane Arm, remain unresolved. Still other issues, such as cultural resources management, pose continuing challenges. The five parties are equal partners now, each with its own management responsibilities. The action of one affects the others, and the coming years will further test how well they work together to manage the varied resources of Lake Roosevelt.