A Study of Impacts to Significant Resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Opportunities Lost as a consequence of the Construction of the Bonneville Dam and The Dalles Dam
Courtesy of the Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared For:
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Portland District, North Pacific Division
Post Office Box 2946
Portland, Oregon 97208-2946
ACOE Purchase Order #DACW57-9-M-1412
Prepared By:
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Department of Natural Resources
Cultural Resources Program
Post Office Box 638
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Authors:
Thomas E. Bailor
Paul L. Minthorn
Editors:
Jeffery P. Van Pelt
Michael J. Farrow
Crew Leaders:
Dorothy Moses
Lloyd Barkley
May 16, 1994
Abstract
As part of the on-going planning process for the Treaty Access and In Lieu Fishing Sites Project (project) this study will be used to assist in moving the “In Lieu” project from the planning phase(s) to construction. In 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District agreed to fund the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to provide a documented report outlining the impacts to resources as a consequence of constructing the Bonneville and The Dalles Dams. The following study will focus on the natural and cultural resources lost or impacted as a consequence of the construction of the Bonneville Dam and The Dalles Dam. The use of elders as oral informants in an interview format constitutes the study method.
Special Acknowledgments
The tribes extend a special recognition of the most important resource involved in this project, our elders, without whose help this project could not have proceeded. The elders possess the crucial information upon which to conduct this important research and to aid the Tribes in cultural preservation. The elders did more than simply provide information, they taught. For their time, patience and efforts, on behalf of the people, to the elders we extend our appreciation and our hearts, cahts ee yow yow.
Introduction
In the 1930s, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) was directed by Congress to study the feasibility of constructing and operating dams on the Columbia River. The Corps completed studies that indicated it was feasible to construct the dams, and in 1933, on the first structure was begun. Construction of the Bonneville Dam resulted in the inundation of ancient fishing sites along the river from the dam site to The Dalles, Oregon.
In 1939 an agreement between the United States and the Tribes was reached regarding replacement of soon to be inundated sites with replacement sites, “in lieu” of the lost sites. The United States agreed to replace sites (lands) totaling 400 acres. It was not until 1988 that Congress was able to fully act on the commitment made to the Tribes in 1939.
As the legislation (P.L. 100-581) and legislative history indicate, the “in lieu” sites are clearly intended to replace access to the Columbia River for fishing and ancillary activities. This report however is intended to provide additional information, a brief review of the opportunities lost to tribal fishermen as a consequence of constructing the Bonneville Dam and other projects. The construction of dams on the Columbia River not only destroyed ancient customs and cultures (cultural genocide), it destroyed an ecosystem which supported the economic stability of the region (salmon fishing). This report is also intended to provide a brief review of the resources lost as a consequence of the construction of the dams. This report was undertaken in conjunction with the planning process of the “In Lieu Site Task Force”. The report will focus on the written literature with oral interviews with Tribal elders as the primary source of information.
Background
The construction of the Bonneville and The Dalles Dams did much to impact a traditional fishery that has been used by local tribes since time immemorial, most of whom are no represented by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). The fisheries along this area on the Columbia River were unique. The entire Columbia River Basin of 260,000 square miles was at one time pristine anadromous fish habitat.
The swift waters of the Columbia River, seasonally delivered smolts to the ocean and directed the returning fish to their spawning grounds in a cycle that has lasted forever. All of this was funneled through the Columbia River Gorge, the unique geology creating ideal fishing locations that have been used continuously from time immemorial until the construction of the Dams on the Lower Columbia. Every year “eager Indians waited for the big fish at every rapid along the 700 mile run to the spawning beds (Relander 1953:21).
Celilo Falls has been described as the most productive inland fishing site in native North America (Hewes 1947). The ten mile stretch of the Columbia River between Celilo Falls and The Dalles has also been described as one of the greatest fisheries in the whole river (Hunn:148). The construction of dams destroyed these ancient fisheries with the uncounted thousands of years of cultural traditions that accompanied fishing and ancillary activities. These activities included inter-Tribal trade of which the bounty and resources of the Great Plains, the Great Basin, Plateau and Coastal cultures were brought to The Dalles. The CTUIR and other Sahaptin Tribes still view trade and commerce (contemporary trade) as central to economic and political self sufficiency, the new trading partners are seen along the Pacific Rim.
In November 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed PL 100-581 Title IV – Columbia River Treaty Access Sites Section 401. This legislation authorized the COE to fulfill the United States’ promise to the four tribes for acquisition and development of treaty fishing In Lieu Sites. The primary purpose of the legislation is to provide an equitable satisfaction of the United States’ commitment to provide lands for Indian treaty fishing activities in lieu of those inundated by construction of Bonneville Dam. The law designates 23 sites within the Bonneville, the Dalles and John Day Pools to be set aside and developed for fishing sites. The five existing sites are to be upgraded and improved. The law (Section 401 (b)) also requires the COE to identify, acquire and develop 6 additional sites in the Bonneville Pool for In Lieu Sites. These 6 sites are to be acquired (purchased) from willing sellers.
On March 14, 1989, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe agreed that the four Tribes would work together in developing the In Lieu Treaty Fishing and Access Sites. The four Tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the United States Army Corps of Engineers agreed to create a Task Force to conduct planning and implementation activities.
As part of the ongoing consultation process associated with the Public Law 100-581 and the development of Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites; the CTUIR entered into an agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, lost to members of the CTUIR, due to the construction of Bonneville Dam and the raising of the Bonneville Pool. The same agreement identifies these same tasks for the construction of The Dalles Dam, the flooding of Celilo Falls, and the impacts the subsequent Celilo Pool. The CTUIR expect federal and state agencies, private individuals, and Tribal actions to consider the effect of their projects on prehistoric, historic, cultural and treaty protected resources.
The CTUIR presume these expectations on compliance with federal law, federal treaty obligations and the fiduciary standard of conduct required of federal agencies in their dealings with Indian Tribes. These requirements are consistent with the CTUIR’s “Comprehensive Plan (1979:24), CTUIR Resolutions 71-42, 88-17, and 94-20 the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1992 (36 CFR 800 60.4), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1974, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Executive Order 11593.
The protection of cultural values and resources is required by Tribal policy and is considered to be not only in the best interests of the Tribal membership but also in the interests of all citizens, and of course the historic record. The CTUIR seek protection of all resources protected by treaty, or as may eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as a Traditional Cultural Property or otherwise and that resources considered significant to members of the CTUIR, and the historic record are not inadvertently harmed or destroyed.
Through discussion between the COE and the CTUIR, it was agreed that direct Tribal involvement in project planning and implementation was necessary and appropriate, and that the CTUIR could provide technical assistance in project planning and development (Tribal project funded through COE Purchase Order #DAC57-94-M-1412). The need to identify such aforementioned impacted resources is important as part of this project planning process.
A proposal was developed in which six tasks were identified for this project. The tasks were; Identify Tribal elders and members from the CTUIR who are knowledgeable about culture, fishing and resource usage along the Columbia River; conduct a file and literature search of tribal records and archival material; Develop research questions and presentations for oral history interviews; conduct interviews with knowledgeable Tribal members; conduct data and informational analysis; and the completion of draft and final reports (see COE Purchase Order#DACW57-94-M-1412).
On behalf of the CTUIR, this project was undertaken by the Cultural Resources Program Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Cultural resources task work was managed by Thomas Bailor Cultural Resources Technician III. Field work was conducted by Lloyd Barkley Cultural Resources Technician I, and Dorothy Moses, Cultural Resources Technician I. Field work for this project was conducted during the month of April, 1994.
Prehistoric Background
Salmon has always played a significant role in the CTUIR way of life. Before the arrival of the non-indian peoples to the Columbia River basin, there was a significant dependence on Salmon for religious, ceremonial, subsistence, and economic purposes. The annual salmon runs were accompanied by ceremonies such as the First Salmon Ceremony, which were believed to ensure the continued return of the Salmon. The seasonal round way of life was timed with availability of resources at certain places at certain times of the year.
Archaeologically there is significant evidence of the importance of Salmon and other fish to the peoples who used the areas where the Bonneville and The Dalles dam are now located. Cressman’s research at the Roadcut site discovered that the area around The Dalles was occupied 10,000 years ago (Cressman 1960). There is archaeological evidence, in the form of subterranean pithouses, suggests that a more sedentary life style developed approximately 5,000 years ago (Ames and Marshall 1981). This lifestyle depended upon salmonids, and fish and game which with plant foods were dried and stored for winter consumption. This way of life went on uninterrupted until the arrival of non-indians to North America.
An extensive trade network developed along the Columbia River. Salmon the major contribution in the trade system simply because of the abundance and because it could be dried and stored for winter. Near present-day the Dalles, Oregon, the natural basalt once formed narrow rapids and channels formed one of the best fishing locations on the Columbia River and in North America (CRF&WP 1986:39). The constant wind provided an ideal means of drying the fish.
It was reported in the earliest references that “this area was a great trade center and Indians from other regions came to trade, fish, and gamble”; “3000 or more Indians would gather at the upper end of the Long Narrows during the fishing season” (Spier and Sapir 1930, Ross 1904). Lewis and Clarke observed 107 stacks of dried salmon pounded into pemmican estimated at 10,000 lbs of fish that was to be used for winter provisions and for trading with other tribes (Thwaites 1905). These fish were stored on fish-skin lined baskets and were cached for future use (Ibid).
The observations of Lewis and Clark emphasized on the abundance of resources and the aboriginal trade system did little at the time to express the religious and ceremonial significance of the salmon or other important resources to the Indian people. Lewis and Clark probably did not experience the ceremonies associated with the first salmon of the season.
At several times in their accounts of their travels Lewis and Clark reported eating Salmon. While traveling on their journey Lewis and Clark reported opening such caches along the Snake River for food. The owners were reportedly absent hunting during that season. Soon there after they did arrive at a native camp and a market was soon established and a plentiful supply of dogs secured, with the hares, and sage hens brought in by the hunters, once more replenished their shrunken larder” (Thwaites 1905:40). Even by the time Lewis and Clark made their way to the Columbia River, European manufactured goods had penetrated even thus far; scarlet and blue blankets were amongst items described during their journey.
Historical Background
As recent as 1832 the first non-Indian commercial ventures in the Salmon runs along the Columbia were begun (Gile 195 :141). In 1834 the Columbia River Fishing and Trading Company was in operation. By 1841 Salmon was being purchased and traded by Hudson’s Bay Company. It was during this period that the Indians on the lower Columbia began to work with non-Indians, seining the shallow waters near the mouth of the river. Most of the salmon up to this point in time was prepared as pemmican by Indians, and used for food and barter or was salted and packed into barrels for shipping. Although, the Salmon industry has been on the Columbia for over 150 years it should be noted that “the first sizeable incomes came from planking which was made in the sawmills” (Warren 1977:66).
“Manifest Destiny” facilitated by the Louisiana Purchase would soon begin to bring people across the continent in search of open spaces and abundant resources. Governor of the Washington Territories, Isaac A. Stevens and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian Affairs, initiated, negotiated and signed treaties with northwest interior Indian Tribes. A Treaty Council was concluded on June 9, 1855 near present-day Walla Walla, Washington. This Council was held at a traditional council grounds in the Walla Walla Valley between the United States and representatives of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the CTUIR. The Treaty was formally ratified by the United States Senate in October of 1859.
The 1855 Treaty’ defines the basis of the CTUIR’s interests and responsibilities with respect to natural and cultural resources within the Columbia River system. The Treaty outlined the cession of certain lands by the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Tribes to the United States and a reserved tract of land for a Tribal homeland. The Treaty also provided, tribal access to off-reservation lands for economic (resource gathering) and traditional activities, including religious purposes, food and medicine gathering, hunting, and the right to access all usual and accustomed fishing stations.
The CTUIR’s right to take fish that pass their usual and accustomed places is a confirmed by numerous court decisions. See e.g.. Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F.Supp, 899 (D.Or. 1969), aff’d, United States v. Oregon, 529 F2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976); Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passen~er Fishin~ Vessel Ass’n. 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (Passenger Fishing Vessel). In addition to binding state governments (see Passenger Fishing Vessel 443 U.S. at 682 and n.25), the treaties are also binding on private citizens (see e.g. United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371(1905)), and of course, the federal government. Passenger Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. at682; see also Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation v. Alexander, 440 F. Supp. 553 D.Or. 1977).
See Treaty between the United States and the Walla Walla, Cayuses and Umatilla Tribes and Bands of Indians ~ Washington and Oregon Territories, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945, ratified March 8,1859. These three Tribes Constitute the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
The 138 years since the treaties were signed have witnessed a truly startling number of methods by which the quantity of fish available for the taking could be reduced and the use of and access to fishing sites could be impacted. The courts have responded to these threats to treaty rights by declaring a policy that treaty rights cannot be defeated by technology or other methods not anticipated by the treaty signatories. For example, in United States V. Winans, 198 (1905), the defendant constructed a fish wheel along the Columbia River and excluded the Indians from one of their usual and accustomed fishing places. Commenting on the effects of improved fishing devices, the Court noted that:
“…. wheel fishing is one of the civilized man’s methods, as legitimate as the substitution of the modern harvester for the ancient sickle and flail. It needs no argument to show that the superiority of a combined harvester over the ancient sickle neither increased nor decreased rights to the use of land held in common. in the actual taking of fish white men may not be confined to a spear or crude net, but it does not follow that they may construct and use a device which gives them exclusive possession of the fishing places, as it is admitted a fish wheel does…”
Id. at 382. Thus, although improved technology may be brought to bear on the fishery, that technology cannot be allowed to imperil the rights secured to the parties to the treaty. The Court’s intent is clear: absent specific treaty abrogation legislation from Congress, Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. at 413 (1968), no one may use any method to deprive treaty fishermen of their fair share of the anadromous fish or access to usual and accustomed fishing places. These reserved rights have subsequently been affirmed by numerous court decisions and must be respected by federal and state governmental agencies. Indeed, the landmark decision in United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371(1905), the court held:
“The right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of the larger rights possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed…. in other words, the treaty right was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them -a reservation of those not granted…. They (treaty rights) imposed a servitude upon every piece of land as though described therein…. The contingency of the future ownership of the lands, therefore, was foreseen and provided for – in other words, the Indians were given a right in the land – the right of crossing it to the river -the right to occupy it to the extent and for the purpose mentioned… .And the right was intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees.”
Id. at 381, 382
Courts have invoked the Winans doctrine on numerous occasions. In 1977, the Corps of Engineers was enjoined from building a dam that would have flooded treaty-protected usual and accustomed fishing places, see Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Alexander 440 F.Supp. 553 (D.Or. 1977). In Confederated Tribes, the Court found:
“Some of the Indian fishing stations on Catherine Creek will be inundated by the reservoir which the dam will create…. Such flooding will deprive the Indians of the right to occupy the fishing stations and of their right to access for that purpose. Whatever the merits of the government’s mitigation program, the treaty right to fish at all usual and accustomed stations will be destroyed as to those stations within the reservoir…. In order to nullify treaty rights in this way, Congress must act expressly and specifically. The right to destroy Indian rights will not be inferred from a general project authorization such as that for this dam…. Specific congressional authority is required for such action by defendants…”
Id. at 555, 556
It is most likely that any one party negotiating the Treaty was able to see the changes that would occur over the next century. However, it is certain that Stevens understood the importance of fish to the Indians he negotiated treaties with. Every Treaty that he negotiated east of the Cascades contained clauses retaining the Indians fishing rights (Schilling 1972:20). It is also clear how long the Treaty would last and who it was with. “The treaty will last as long as the snows on the slopes of Mt. Adams, as long as the river flows, as long as the sun rises and sets. It is the word of the Great White Father” (Schilling 1972:)
Industrial History along the Columbia River
Canning had begun as part of the industrial revolution and by 1863 canning technologies for seafood had been developed. “In 1864 the first Pacific salmon was canned on the Sacramento River” by William Hume and Andrew Hapgood (Giles :142). The Salmon Runs along the Sacramento River were not particularly successful at that time and after investigation Humes and Hapgood moved their operation to the Columbia River. By 1883 there were forty packing plants on the Columbia River.
With the canneries came the fish wheel era on the Columbia River. In 1884 the Seufert Brothers built a fish wheel at Seufert, Oregon. Three years later they had completed building their fishwheels, at the same time F.M. Warren had began to build fishwheels on the Columbia which were very successful. A company called Everding & Farrel built a cannery at The Dalles. later this cannery was taken over by the Seufert’s who had began shipping salmon. In 1896 the Columbia River Packers Association was formed.
1900, linen gillnets towed by sail boats had begun to be used as the primary commercial harvest method. European markets had begun to open and grow and a new freezing process greatly facilitated the industry. Around 1910 the sailboats were replaced by gas engines. This brought about ocean trolling and harvest, and by 1920 considerable amounts of fish were taken this way. During the years coinciding with events during World War I, the salmon to European and other countries expanded.
During the years from 1879 to 1935 there were approximately 79 stationary fish wheels on the Columbia (Donaldson and Cramer 1971:111). It was during this period that several fishing controversies had developed. During this time a case went before the United States Supreme Court over the location of a fishwheel site. The plaintiff was a tribal member whose usual and accustomed fishing site was impacted by this fish wheel. The courts held up the treaty of and decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Further during this period open hostilities over commercial fishing method, profits, and regulations flared. The fishwheels were so effective that “a few fishwheels took more salmon in 24 hours as did the average gillnet fisherman took in 4 years” (Donaldson and Cramer 1971:112). As early as 1884 fish wheels were criticized as murderous machines and should be banned. By 1926 fishwheels were outlawed in Oregon and in Washington by 1934.
The Bonneville Dam was one result of what is now known as the “master plan” a report that was prepared by the Board of Engineers and Harbors prepared in 1932. It is important to point out that in that report only one paragraph regarded salmon in which it noted that; “provision for passage of fish over the dams or other provision therefore will require more definite determination” (Bullard 1968:45) In the same year during a campaign speech President Roosevelt promised “the next great hydroelectric development to be undertaken by the federal government would be on the Columbia River” (Tollefson 1985:111). In 1933 Roosevelt announced the approval for construction of Bonneville Dam.
It seems surprising today, yet the reality is that the federal government did not conduct much thinking about fish then. Fish ladders were not included in the original plans for Bonneville Dam (Bullard 1968:45). If not for conservationist and fishing industry lobbies “hundreds of miles of Northwest American waters would be barren of salmon and steelhead today” (Bullard 1968). However, the country was in the depths of the Great Depression and the dams were being built as much for anything else jobs, and after the outbreak of World War II national defense (Tollefson 1985:112).
After the construction of Bonneville Dam many tribal fishing sites were lost. It is obvious that Bonneville Dam and the subsequent dams had impacts on the fishing above its location, has continually and steadily declined, except for a few peaks in the salmon runs since the dams construction (Zucker 1938:167). At one time there were 40 fish packing plants on the Columbia River by 1954 there were nine. Choice Chinook salmon made up the “backbone of the Columbia River salmon pack, but these choice Chinooks too, were finally destroyed along with the Columbia River fishing and cannery business” when the dams were built (Seufert 1980:6).
The construction of the Bonneville and Grande Coulee Dams brought about profound changes in the region. Cheap electricity was available over a large area through an elaborate system of powerlines. This created jobs and industry. This expansion of energy infrastructure fueled the electrical power needs of the nations war effort (the United States entered WWII December 7, 1941). A tremendous amount of electrical power was essential for the war effort. The Columbia River Dams contributed to the war effort by providing energy to the aluminum, aircraft, and ship building industries, munitions depots such as the Umatilla Army Ammunition Depot and of course the nations atomic weaponry development at Hanford, Washington.
By the time The Dalles Dam was proposed there were many dams in the Columbia Basin. The dam was however recommended as “providing vitally needed power for the Pacific Northwest defense industries, as well as improving slack water navigation up the Columbia (Tollefson 1985:318) This was the era of the Cold War, when national paranoia was ramped; when fear and greed influenced many decisions. The electricity from The Dalles dam made power available for the second major expansion of the region’s aluminum industry since the war” (Tollefson 1985:318).
During the negotiations prior to the construction of The Dalles Dam members from the CTUIR actively voiced concern about the construction of that dam. Sam Kash Kash, then Chairman of the Umatilla Business Committee testified to the fact that “the Indians objected to an arbitrary valuation to the Celilo Falls Fishery” (Schilling 1972:47). He stated “we won’t accept, we reject any offer regardless of whether you bring your gold in hay racks or whatever you bring it in, we don’t want money, we want our rights” (Schilling 1972:47).
A “protest” was signed by James Kanine of the Walla Walla’s, Anthony Red Hawk of the Cayuse’s, and James Billy of the Umatilla’s, was presented to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers at a meeting in The Dalles, Oregon on April 25, 1945 (Schilling 1972:48). The “protest” dated March 20,1945 “insisted that the construction of The Dalles, and Umatilla (McNary) dams were in violation of the 1855 Treaty because the impounded waters would inundate the Indian’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds” (Schilling 1972:48).
This second major expansion of the aluminum industry cost the Tribal people living along the Columbia, the fishing industry and the nation dearly. The United States government paid the Indians 24 million dollars for the loss of their ancient fishing sites (Schilling 1972:62, Tollefson 1985:318). But that price is but a token for the priceless value of Celilo Falls and the Columbia River Gorge fisheries to the Indian peoples in the Pacific Northwest.
This period of the dams is where the “In-Lieu” fishing site agreements came into existence. As part of the agreements developed during the dam negotiations in which the fish were seen as insignificant in the wake of national defense, fishing access sites were to be created, “In-lieu”, of the fishing sites and processing areas lost. In November 1988, fifty years after the Construction of Bonneville Dam, Public Law 100-581, Title IV, which directs the COE to develop Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites (COE-P 1992).
The period of history surrounding the dams had profound impacts on Tribal members living on arid within the CTUIR. This is the period in which oral histories are able to provide insight into the impacts of the destruction of ancient tribal fisheries on the CTUIR way of life. By discussing these issues with knowledgeable tribal members and elders we are able to identify some of the impacts of the building of Bonneville and The Dalles dam on the CTUIR, on resources and opportunities lost, and on the region.
Oral Histories
As primary focus of this project was conducting oral histories. The project area was the Bonneville and The Dalles projects and subsequent pools. The objective of the oral histories was to gather information that could provide further insight into the impacts of the two aforementioned lower Columbia River dams on CTUIR culture, as well as to identify resources and opportunities lost due to the inundation of the subsequent pools.
Oral history work was consisted of several different tasks including; identify tribal members knowledgeable about the project area; conducting a file and literature search on the subject property; developing research questions and presentations for oral history interviews; conducting interviews; data analysis; and report preparation.
A file and literature search was conducted using CTUIR archival materials, Pendleton and The Dalles public library systems. The information was then used to develop general a genet understanding of the history of the project area and to develop questions about the project An interview format was developed consisting of approximately 90 interview questions and topics (attached to report), for a 2 hour interview, with topics primarily oriented to gathering personal information, environmental data, cultural data, and other information useful for the Tribal program.
Videotapes about the subject property were also viewed as part of this project. Video clips of Celilo Falls were obtained from the Oregon Historical Society. Videos are intended to be used as an educational tool and as a research vehicle for stimulating the memories of the informants.
Individual interviews, interviews with couples, and interviews with focus groups were conducted as part of this process. Nineteen elders were interviewed individually or in couples. Based upon the results of the first interview, availability, and convenience, several elders were selected as primary informants to travel to the subject project area to attempt to stimulate more memories. Two day trips were taken as focus groups to the subject project area with six elders able to attend.
Oral History Results
The following is a summary of interviews conducted as part of this project. For more detailed information, please see original notes and recordings on file at the CTUIR Archives, located at the CTUIR, Mission Oregon. For more information please contact the CTUIR Cultural Resources Protection Office. As part of this project approximately 35 tribal elders were identified as knowledgeable about CTUIR Tribal culture; possibly knowledgeable about the project area, and available to participate. For personal reasons, several elders declined to participate. Others could not be contacted or were not available to participate because of work schedules or prior engagements and/or responsibilities. Nineteen tribal elders were actually consulted for information. Tribal elders consulted as part of this project includes the following Tribal members listed below next to their Tribal affiliation.
| Cecelia Bearchum | Yakama/Cayuse/Walla Walla/Wishcum/Palouse |
| Alphonse Halfmoon | Umatilla/Nez Perce |
| Elizabeth Jones | Umatilla |
| Marcus Luke | Yakama |
| Jay Minthorn | Umatilla/ Yakama/Nez Perce |
| Percy Brigham | Umatilla |
| Kathleen Gordon | Cayuse/Walla Walla |
| Lucy Minthorn | Yakama |
| Bill Northover | Yakama |
| Elias Quaempts | Umatilla/Klickitat |
| Chuck Sam | Walla Walla |
| Inez Spino Reeves | Umatilla/Warm Springs |
| Jasper Shippentower | Umatilla/Walla Walla/Nez Perce |
| Willard Showaway | Yakama/Umatilla/Cayuse |
| Eva Watchman | Umatilla/Walla Walla/Rock Creek/Nez Perce |
| Louis Spino | Umatilla/Warm Springs/ Yakama |
| Lillian Spino | Umatilla/Warm Springs/Yakama |
| Shirley Patrick | Yakama/Rock Creek |
| Wish Patrick | Walla Walla |
As part of the interview process and to protect the best interest of Tribal elders and the CTUIR, consent forms containing the following clauses were signed by informants. It was understood by the informants that the said material will be archived by the CTUIR as part of its oral history collection for use by Tribal members and CTUIR cultural resources staff; a grant of copyrights to the CTUIR; a grant of duplication for archival purpose and for enhancement of CTUIR culture; and a transfer of ownership of the tape to the CTUIR. Further it was understood that the tapes and information would only be used by in-house personnel employed by the CTUIR.
Information gathered was primarily directed toward the Bonneville and The Dalles Dam pools. The Columbia River was inevitably the focus of the interviews, especially on the field trips when we encounter the Columbia 40 miles west of Pendleton, 2 hours east of the actual project area. We were also able to gather preliminary information on the Umatilla Army Depot. When working with Tribal elders, it is not always possible nor appropriate to limit the scope of oral history interviews (Bailor 1994). Information for this project area was gathered in several Categories primarily; personal information, environmental information, cultural information; and additional information. Data gathered pertains to the Columbia River, the Four Treaty Tribes and others; fish and fishing sites; traditional village locations and family lineage, root digging and berry gathering areas; Celilo Falls, The Dalles, Cascade Locks and other points along the Columbia River Gorge; seasonal round way of life; World War II, Hanford, Umatilla Army Depot; U.S. Indian Policy; Chemawa Indian School; life on the Umatilla Indian Reservation and more. Although not an intention or goal of this research project, information gathered may be applicable to research necessary for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
The Tribal elders interviewed were directly impacted by the construction of both Bonneville and The Dalles projects. These people were alive during the early Part of this century and experienced many of the important historical events that affected the development of the region and the nation. Events such as the Great Depression, the depression relief effort, the construction of Bonneville and Grande Coulee Dams, World War II, the Cold war, and the construction of more dams especially The Dalles, McNary, and the Snake River darns.
Many of the questions are closely related and the interview format was designed for approximately 2 hours. In reality, an actual interview would require per interview; an average ~4 hours of staff preparation prior to the interview for scheduling and equipment preparation; ~4 hours to actually conduct an interview, that would actually produce 1.5-4.0 hours of audio recorded information and additional notes; and ~4 hours to follow up the interview and duplicating the audio tape for archival purposes.
The information that these people provided is invaluable. Many of the topics discussed and information gathered for this project acts as a catalyst, stimulating memories and emotions/ Elders enjoyed the experience, even though the memories make them sad, however in general they believe the experience is good (Bailor notes 4126/94). Due to the wide range information gathered during this research it is necessary to summarize the Oral history information to address the research needs of this project. Namely, the identification of impacts due to the construction of the dams on CTUIR culture and other impacts on resources and opportunities lost due to the construction of the dams two subject dams and subsequent pools Bonneville and The Dalles projects.
It is clear, that the inundation of the land by the backwaters of the Bonneville and The Dalles Dams destroyed fishing sites used by native peoples since time immemorial, impeded the passage of migrating fish, upstream and downstream and destroyed the ecosystems and habitat necessary for anadromous and resident fish populations. The loss of these resources and others has had major impacts on the CTUIR way of life. In many ways the local Indian economy was crushed when Celilo Falls and vicinity was flooded, however the impacts to the culture is far more profound than economics.
Some of the tangible natural resources lost or impacted by the subject dams that were identified as part of this project includes fish such as salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, suckers, whitefish, fresh water mussels and eels. “Many of the prime Chinook are no longer available, we didn’t need clipped fins, all the fish were wild” (J.Minthorn 4/8/94). “I don’t see as many Bluebacks either I feel they are declining” (J.Minthorn 4/8/92) “Whitefish still come in but not like they used to. They used to run like salmon. Another sucker that I don’t see anymore was what they called the red-horse sucker” (red stripe down their sides) (C.Sam 4/6/92). There have been impacts to several species however the major impact has been the decimation of the major anadromous fish runs.
Many elders believe the Blueback salmon is declining and that eels should be listed as endangered so that we can begin protecting them. “We used to go down to the river and catch eels there is nowhere to catch eels”(L. Minthorn 3/29/94). Elders know that the fish are no longer as plentiful or as large as they once were, it is obvious, especially with oral traditions telling them of runs when the salmon were so thick you could almost walk across them to the other side of the river (E. Quaempts 3/23/94). Many elders believe the dams are a primary cause of the decline of the fisheries. The dams have impacted valuable spawning habitat for anadromous fish and altered natural events such as flooding and scouring which aid in creating spawning habitat. Passage at the dams for anadromous fish (upstream or downstream) is impossible for most and difficult for the few which are able to pass. Elders are concerned that there is not effective offshore and lower Columbia fishing regulation and management to protect the fish and they are unsure that enough is being done to recover and restore the fisheries (Bailor notes 4/26/94).
The Bonneville and The Dalles Dams changed the Columbia River ecosystem from a riverine environment to a more lacustrine setting. This has caused warmer waters and changes in plant and animal communities. Tribal elders agree that fish were more abundant prior to the construction of the dams. Runs of Chum salmon, Coho, and Bluebacks were thick and there were more sturgeon (P.Brigham 3/30/94). For several years after the construction of the dams the pools were muddy and it was several years before the fish acclimated to the changed conditions (W.Patrick: 3/29/94). Because plant communities had changed with the dams certain special plants were no longer available where they once grew. The quality of the water in the river was altered. “We used to drink water out of the river; we used to go to the river or canal and throw a bucket in the canal to get our drinking water” (E. Watchman 3/29/94, M. Lukes 417194).
Prior to the dams Indians fished all along the river, it was a means of supporting their families as food and as commodity. “People used to live all along the river, some fished all year around from Lewiston, Idaho to Bonneville Dam, all they did was fish” (E.Quaempts 3/23/94). “Early in the season when the fish start running we would generally get what we needed for the family, We’d store salmon in the freezer, before that we’d dry them, can them, salt them, so that we always had salmon for ourselves. Once we would accumulated all that, we’d fish commercially” (B. Northover 4/5/94). Fishing, however, was not just a livelihood it was a traditional way of ~e. The building of the Dalles Dam affected all Indians; “it was one of the biggest blows we ever had”; some people committed suicide because they could no longer make a living P. Brigham 3/30/94). The construction of the dams destroyed many Tribal members livelihood but it directly impacted the people who lived along the river. “The construction of the dams robbed us of our heritage” (E.Watchman 3/29/94).
The end of Celilo Falls and the surrounding fishing and gathering locations, also brought an end to a gathering of people that had been at Celilo for countless generations. The destruction of such a traditional cultural property that had such religious, ceremonial, cultural, and traditional importance is nothing short of brute-force cultural genocide. At annual gatherings at places such as Celilo Falls and The Dalles Tribal culture flourished. Important knowledge was transmitted, religion propagated, traditions carried out, ceremonies practiced, relationships kindled, and tribal identity reinforced. The loss of the fisheries from The Dalles to Celil0 was a detrimental blow to Indian culture along the Columbia River.
Many Indians gathered at Celilo Falls to fish in their traditional manner, however, ” after the dams were built I stopped fishing, so did my father; we never did fish after that” (W. Showoway 4/8/94). Traditional Tribal fishing methods now primarily used in tributary streams such as dip netting, hooking (hook and line) or gaffing have been impacted by inundation. “I hardly places where people can fish now with dip nets and set nets” (E.Watchman 3/29/94). Due to the circumstances Tribal members have not used these methods for fishing (or have severely scaled-back) for many years, nor has their been adequate fish in recent years to fish these ways. The member Tribes of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC] have undertaken regulatory measures over the years to compensate for the loss of fisheries caused by the dams by restricting harvest. The Tribes attempt to compensate required that harvest levels be reduced in ever-increasing numbers until the vast majority of fisheries w gone. Elders now worry that new generations of tribal members may never have opportunities to fish in traditional ways.
Tribal members left because of the decline of the fish and pollution caused by the dams (P.Brigham 3/30/94). For several years after the construction of the dams the pools were muddy and it was several years until the fish seemed to acclimate to the dams (W.Patrick 3/29/94) Essentially, the resources identified by the tribes as significant in the Treaty of 1855 were decimated one century after the Treaty was signed. “It was no longer a Columbia River but a bunch of lakes” (J.Minthorn 4/8/94).
The impacts to the fisheries caused a loss of commerce and tradition for Indian people. There has been the loss of trade with Indians and with non-Indians. No longer do Tribal representatives from the far distances of the region come to The Dalles/Celilo area for trading traditional foods and wares for fish. Tribal members used to trade fish for dried meat and plants from different areas throughout the Columbia Plateau and surrounding areas such as for dried clams from the coast or coush from the mountains. The opportunity is no longer available for Tribal members to trade fish for other important subsistence foods, or even non-Indian agricultural products. Fishermen would trade fish for local agriculture products such watermelons and other agricultural products (J.Minthom 4/8/94).
No longer are tribes able to adequately make capitol resources by selling fish to canneries or tourists. The income of women was directly impacted by the construction of the dams. The Indian and non-Indian Fisheries and fishing opportunities have been decimated by the inundation of the Celilo Pool. “Since fishing has become more commercialized, a lot of women used to make money by packing or carrying the salmon in gunny sacks. That is how a lot of women used to earn their money” (E. Watchman 3/29/94).
Since the construction of the dams tribal diet has been changed arid altered. “The usual amount (of salmon gathered) was 20 gunny sacks full, weighing about 50 pounds. They would bring that home for their winter use and trading for whatever” (A.Halfmoon 4/7/94) “When we came home we would have gunny sacks upon gunny sacks of fish” (E. Watchman 513/94). There has been the loss of traditional foods such as fish in ample supplies for subsistence use. “Even our meat we would string it behind the stove arid let it dry. When we needed it we would soak it in water over night arid it would be like fresh meat in the morning. Nowadays you have to run to the grocery store if you need anything. “(E.Watchman 3/29/94).
Many tribal members no longer pack and prepare fish in their traditional ways. “There was no freezer then so we had to dry everything” L.Minthorn 3/29/94). Canning was probably a revolution in the Indian way of life and could be considered traditional to many Tribal members. Preparing food for winter is an important part of Indian life. “What my grandmother didn’t can she dried” (E. Quaempts 3/23/94). “My aunt did a lot of salting of salmon arid canning, arid of course my grandmother did a lot of drying” (B.Northover 4/5/94). “It seems to me that we don’t dry as much salmon as we used to” (E.Watchman 5/3194). Far less pemmican is prepared. The scarcity of available resources such as salmon many of the traditional food preparing methods such as packing fish or pemmican in salmon skin lined bags are no longer practiced. Elders believe that fishing helped Indians survive in hard times such as the depression. “When times were good we would got to town and get hamburgers, but when times were tough and money was short we ate eels” (M. Luke 4/26/94). Natural and cultural resources (such as fish arid eels) are integral to traditional cuisine preparation, handling and storage and the availability of such resources are essential to cultural preservation.
The elders spoke of the way the Indians managed their fishing prior to the restrictions the Tribes now must impose on their people today because of the current status of the Columbia River fisheries. The elders spoke of the traditional chiefs such as Chief Tommy Thompson who lived at Celilo Falls who managed the fishing at the falls in an unbroken traditional religious system established countless generations prior to their fishing at Celilo. If the fish were not running good the Chief would ban all fishing for a period of time to ensure enough fish would pass to spawn (M.Lukes 4/26/94).
Due to the dangerous nature of fishing the fast waters of the Columbia there was the regulation of children. “If there were kids out there, they weren’t allowed to fish because of the size of the fish, they wouldn’t be able to hold on to the fish. Children had to demonstrate responsibility as well as ability before they were allowed to fish” (A.Halfmoon 4/7/94). There was a small spring run-off/creek nearby where kids would fish (M.Lukes 4/26/94). Family is very important to the Tribes and although economics of the times influenced people fishing attitudes the Tribes still looked after family and other Tribal members. “A truck would come from Chemawa (Indian School) and all the fishermen would donate fish to that truck for the school. Chemawa had a small cannery” (C. Sam 4/6/94).
There is spiritual significance of Celilo Falls to the Indian people who fished there. There is the utmost respect for the creator arid all life including the lives of both the fish and the fisherman. “Anybody fell in the river and presumed drowned they would stop fishing until the body was found and the proper respects paid or memorial held” (E.Watchman 3/29/94) Sundays were closed to fishing and not a bead was stitched either (A.Halfmoon 4/7/94, C.Bearchum 4/5/94).
Even though, the Tribes did regulate their fishing at Celilo Falls it is hard to imagine that the Treaty signatories envisioned the status of the Columbia River fisheries today. Today the Treaty Tribes must negotiate with governmental agencies for fishing seasons and regulate Tribal members fishing. Some Tribes require members to register their fishing sites, other Tribes do not. The decline in fish and the regulation of fishing has led to conflicts amongst members.
There are situations in which tribal members enrolled on one reservation cannot fish with children enrolled on another (K.Gordon 4/8194). This has caused fewer fish to return up river and has caused increased competition amongst tribal members and with non-Indians. “It is terrible; at one time we would all fish together; now we fight each other (M.Luke 4/7/94). “We have to almost fight (with other tribes and non-Indians) for fish today, we have had to make cuts in the amount of ceremonial and subsistence fish we can harvest” (3. Minthorn 4/8/94). There were even times when physical conflicts amongst Tribal members. “His own cousin hit him in the head (with a board) and knocked him out” (E.Quaempts 3/23/94). Basically his wouldn’t let him fish at his usual and accustomed fishing area because of his Oregon license plate.
Elders reflected a period in our local history when racism was prevalent. The memories of elders recounted a time when prejudice was reflected by signs at stores and restaurants prohibiting and/or discouraging Indians from entry. Some are concerned that these types of sentiment are still present today. It is felt the decline in salmon and the increased competition for fish may have further fueled such racism (even in light of the fact that the Zone 6 fishery is probably the most regulated fisheries in the world).
It is also important to mention the loss of access to many traditionally used areas. The rising of the waters flooded traditionally used access routes. Further the creation of the lakes created a waterfront real estate frenzy that is still occurring today along the Columbia. This has in some cases led to conflicts between Indians and the non-Indian community. The creation of the dams helped to create additional boundaries for Indians to deal with when accessing traditional fishing areas, such as private property.
Many types of traditional use areas were inundated with the construction of the Bonneville and The Dalles dams (including village sites, religious sites and burial sites). Village sites were some of the elders interviewed for this project were born were flooded as part of the dam construction (Bearchum 3/17/94). Camps that had been used for generations vanished under the waters. Fishing sites that had supported the development of a flourishing culture also vanished to beneath the pools.
Important ceremonial and religious sites were flooded. Rock formations and other natural landmarks associated with “Coyote” creation stories and the Indian world view were flooded (W. Patrick 3/29/94).Celilo Falls was dynamited in places and flooded. Rock art, sacred and significant to Indian peoples, at places such as Petroglyph Canyon; that were left in place for generations since they were created; were dynamited and/or broken from the cliffs where they belong. Many were taken to places, that are some cases yet to be determined, or flooded, no longer to be used or viewed. Cemeteries such as Memaloose Island, used for generations were “salvaged” by archaeologists and pothunters; burials, funerary, related items and objects spread throughout the region and United States. Others were flooded by the pools created by the dams.
Tribal elders felt that the Corps of Engineers had planned the Dams and had never adequately consulted with Tribes or anyone else. “Many of the dams were constructed prior to the establishment of formal tribal committees and governments as we know tribal government today” (A. Halfmoon 4/7/94). To provide resources for Tribal representatives to attend meetings, Tribal members would pass a hat around (Bailor notes 1-25-94). A few meetings were held in The Dalles, however, many of the meetings were held in Portland, Oregon and some were held out of state and the Tribes were not always able to attend. Subsequently, the Tribes were forced to accept the United States decisions. Finally, many elders reject that the settlement on The Dams was inadequate and unfair. Members of the CTUIR did not want compensation for fish they simply wanted the rights that had been reserved during the Treaty of 1855.
Conclusions
The impacts of Bonneville Dam and The Dalles Dams cannot be simply looked at as the loss of fishing sites and resources. The impacts of construction of dams on the mainstem of the Columbia River impacted the entire 260,000 square miles of the Columbia Plateau and everyone who lives on the river. Certainly there are some positive attributes to the construction of Bonneville and Grande Coulee Dams to aide the country during the Great Depression, and their contributions to the World War II effort. However, the construction of other dams along the Columbia River caused the loss of fish, fish habitat, plants, plant habitat, and impacted resource opportunities. Further the greatest damage attributed to the dams was the impacts to CTUIR culture. The impacts of the Bonneville and The Dalles Dams must be viewed in light of all impacts cumulatively – 150 dams within Columbia River Basin, with 50 proposed new facilities 2
A seasonal way of life that had been practiced since time immemorial was no longer available to Indian peoples. The fact is that fisheries have been severely impacted by the construction of the subject dams. There are insufficient fish in the Columbia River. A “right” that had been reserved by the Treaty of 1855 was not upheld. Usual and accustomed fishing sites that have been used for many generations are no longer available to tribal members. The places in which the fish was cured by the wind are submerged. Due to the change in the ecosystem plants
2 see Columbia River Tributaries Review Study, Columbia-North Pacific Region, Water and Land Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division (November 1990).
important to the CTUIR are less available in areas where they were once abundant. Further Tribal elders all talk of once drinking water directly from the Columbia River. This can no longer be done.
Tribal members are not free to exercise the rights that were reserved by them as part of the Treaty of 1855. The opportunities lost by the construction of the 2 subject dams could be construed from many angles, however, the damage to the fisheries is paramount. The Salmon Industry on the Columbia has been destroyed by historical mismanagement. A well managed salmon industry on the Columbia River is priceless. It is estimated that if fish were restored in the Umatilla Basin alone would bring 8 million dollars annually to the Columbia Basin and ocean fisheries.3 The opportunity to reestablish many aspects of the culture that have been damaged by U.S. assimilation policies is not available because many places central to traditions and cultures are currently submerged.
The opportunity for tourism was destroyed with the flooding of Celilo Falls and the surrounding rapids. One critic of The Dalles Dam asked what would the value be of a place such as Celilo Falls, unparalleled in the United States be to the 1980’s tourist (Bullard 1968:59). Salmon were traded and sold to tourists. Baskets were made and traded or sold. The opportunities are simply forever gone. All that is left is federal legislation to locate and develop fishing access sites to replace ancient fishing sites inundated by the backwaters of Corps of Engineers Columbia River Projects. Although such “in lieu” sites might provide access to the Columbia River, mere access alone does not make whole again, the ancient fishing cultures (fishing, processing, trading and ancillary activities) of Tribal river life. Access to the Columbia River does not restore the salmon fish runs which provided sustenance, economic barter and a religious base. Mere in lieu access is simply that, access to the Columbia River.
The resources impacted by Columbia River Dams include the right of Tribal people to practice religious observances which pre-date the United States Constitution by several millennia. The opportunities include the religious, economic and social needs of the CTUIR. The original landscape provided for the needs of the Indian people and probably would have into the next millennia if not for the Dams.
3 see Bureau of Reclamation Planning Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Umatilla Basin Project (1988).
