y 4

,

.Xn 2]If

Si 3/2-

GOVERNMENT

Storage

/ o u

£

w

ESTABL ISHMEN T OF A SILET Z INDIA N RES ER VAT IO N^

d o c u m e n t s

• ArX 1 1980

f KAi

^

F < L L L L u f

'

A R Y

KAlXiHi, biM .u b... V un^(

, /

1

H E A R I N G

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFF AIR S 

UNITE D STATES SENATE

NINE TY -SIX TH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 2055

TO ES TA BL IS H A RE SE RV AT IO N FO R THE CO NF ED ER AT ED

TRIB ES OF SIL ET Z IN DIA NS OF OREG ON

JANU AR Y 30, 1980

~ m

< 5 3 *

_____ □

cr

-----= H

<

V)

68-263 0

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1980
*

1

fX

X

tJ. e ’ •> - x if e J G

4

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IND IAN AFFAIRS

JOHN MELCHER, Montana, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Haw aii WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine

DEN NIS DkCONCINI, Arizona MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon

Max I. Richtman, Staff Director

(n)

A

(

I
C O N T E N T S

Pago

S. 2055______________________________________________________ 3

W it n e s s e s

Ayer, Fra n, Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Inte rior___________ 9

Bensell, Arthur S., chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians____ 33

Beuter, John H., professor of forestry, Oregon State University________ 33

Prepared statemen t_________________________________________ 65

_ Blosser, William, planning division manager, CH2M Hill_____________ 33

* Prepared statement_________________________________________ 46

Donaldson, John R., director, Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of

Oregon-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101

Hatfield, Mark O., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon, prepared

statement__________________________________________________ 9

Hallett, William E., Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Department of the

Inte rior____________________________________________________ 9

Prepared statement_________________________________________ 12

Reeser, Ralph, Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Bureau

of Indian Affairs_____________________________________________ 9

Ricks, Pauline, vice chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians____ 33

Shively, Tex, Four Corners Rod & Gun Club, Salem, Oreg., prepared

statem ent__________________________________________________ 93

Strong, Stanley, council member, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.. 33

Waldrip, Doyce L., assistant area director, Bureau of Indian Affairs____ 9

A d d it io n a l M a t e r ia l S u b m it ted fo r t h e R ec ord

Letter to Paul B. Osterlund, attorney at law, Toledo, Oreg. from Charles 

F. Wilkinson, associate professor of law, University of Oregon, and 

Sharon Gordon, general counsel, Siletz Tribe______________________ 105

Letter to John R. Donaldson, Ph. D., director, Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Portland, Oreg., from Charles F. Wilkinson, associate professor of law, University of Oregon______________________________ 116

Editorial from the Oregonian, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 1979________________ 125

Article from the Oregon Journal, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 1979___________ 126

Article from the Statesman Journal, Sunday, Oct. 28, 1979____________ 127

Resolution No. 80-13 of the National Congress of American Indians____ 128

Resolution No. 20 of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians________ 129

•* Summary; proposed Siletz Reservation Plan ________________________ 130

, ( i n )

i

ESTABLISHMENT OF A SILETZ INDIA N

RESERVATION

WED NE SD AY , JA NUA RY 30 , 1980

* U.S. Senat e,

Select Committee on I ndian Affairs,

Washinglon, D.G.

* The committee met, pu rsuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 5110, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Joh n Melcher (chairman of 

the committee) presiding.

Prese nt: Senator Hatfield.

Stall' present: Max Richtman, staff director; Jo Jo Hunt, staff 

attorney; Susan Long, professional staff member; and Michael Cox, 

minority counsel.

Senator Melcher. The committee will come to order.

This morning, we are meeting in public hearing on S. 2055, a bill 

to establish a reservation for the confederated tribes of Siletz Indians 

of Oregon.

The bill was introduced on November 28,1979, by Senator Hatfield, 

and the purpose of our hearing this morning is to receive testimony 

from the administration, the confederated tribes, and other interested 

parties.

S. 2055 is a follow-up measure to the Siletz Ind ian Tribe Restoration Act, Public Law 95-195. Th at act provided for recognition to be 

extended to the tribe and for Federal Indian services and benefits to 

be furnished to the tribe and its members. However, any reservation 

for the tribe was to be established by a subsequent act of Congress.

The act further provided tha t the Secretary of the Interior negotiate with the tribe, or its representatives, concerning the establishment of a reservation and develop within 2 years of enactment a plan 

4 for the establishment of the reservation.

Upon approval of the plan by tribal officers, the Secretary was directed to submit the p lan in the form of proposed legislation. S. 2055 

is that proposed legislation, as recommended by the administration.

* It provides tha t all rights, title, and interests of the United States in 

certain parcels of land, containing some 3,630 acres, are to be held in 

trust for the confederated tribes. The land is to remain subject to all 

valid existing rights-of-way, licenses, leases, permits, and easements. 

This acreage is public domain lands currently managed as timberlands 

by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior.

The bill also provides for the Secretary of the Interior, acting at 

the request of the tribe, to accept any deed or other instrument conveying to the United States a parcel of land known as Government Hill 

and to hold such land in tru st for the confederated tribes. This tract 

contains approximately 36 acres.

(1)
2

The bill provides tha t the aforementioned lands, which are located 

in Lincoln County, Oreg., will constitute the reservation for the confederated tribes. It also provides t ha t no hunting, fishing, or trapping 

rights of any nature is granted by the establishment of the reservation 

and that the State of Oregon shall have civil and criminal jurisdiction 

with respect to the reservation in accordance with the provisions of 

Public Law 83-280.

At this time I will place a copy of the bill, S. 2055, in the record.

[The bill follows:]

*

9

4
96th CONGRESS O

1st Session Q* ZlU55

To establish a reservation for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon.

IN TH E SEN ATE OF TH E UN ITE D STA TES

November 28 (legislative day, November 15), 1979 

Mr. Hat fie ld introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Select Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To establish a reservation for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians of Oregon.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hou se of Bepr esenta2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, subject to all valid existing rights-of-way, reciprocal

4 road rights-of-way agreements, licenses, leases, permits, and

5 easements, all right, title, and interests of the United States

6 in the land described below is declared to be held in trust for 

7’ th e Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon:

8 Will am et te Mer idian, Oregon

9 ........- Township 9 South, Range 3 West

10 Section 13: Southeast quarter northwest quarter;- --
4

2

1 Section 14: Northeast quarter northeast quarter;

2 Section 15: Lot 2;

3 Section 20: East half east half northeast quarter, east

4 half northeast quarter southeast quarter;

5 Section 21: South half northeast quarter, southeast

6 quarter northwest quarter, north east quarter southwest quar7 ter;

8 Section 22: North half northw est quarter northeast

9 quarter, northeast quarter northwest quarter, south half

10 northwest quarter;

11 Section 23: Lots 3, 4, 5, southwest quarter northeast

12 quarter, northwest quarter southeast quarter;

13 Section 24: Northeast q uarter southwest quarter;

14 Section 25: Lot 3, lot 7, southeast quarter northeast

15 quarter, southeast quarter northwest quarter, east half south16 west quarter, southeast quarter;

17 Section 26: Southeast quarter;

18 Section 27: South half northeast quarter northeast quar19 ter, south half northeast quarter, south half southwest quar20 ter northwest quarter, southeast quarter northwest quarter,

21 north half southeast quarter;

22 Section 31: Lot 20, southeast quarter northeast quarter;

23 Section 32: North half lot 21;

24 Section 34: Ea st half west half northwest quarter, east

25 half northeast quarter southeast quarter, east half southwest

*

*

4
a

%

*

t

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

3

quarter southeast quarter, southeast quarter southeast quarter;

Section 35: North half southwest quarter, southwest 

quarter southwest quarter, northwest quarter southeast quarter, southeast quarter southeast quarter;

Section 36: Southwest quarter southeast quarter. 

Township 10 South, Range 9 West

Section 2: North half of lot 7, north half of lot 8;

Section 3: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 14;

Section 4: Ea st half east half southwest quarter, east 

half southeast quarter, east half northw est quarter southeast 

quarter, southwest quarter northw est quarter southeast 

quarter, southwest quarter southeast quarter;

Section 6: Ea st half southwest quarter southwest quarter;

Section 8: Lot 3;

Section 9: Lots 1, 2, 3, and the east half of lot 4;

Section 13: Southwest quarter southeast quarter;

Section 15: Lot 1;

Section 16: Southeast quarter southeast quarter;

Section 17: Lot 4;

Section 18: Lot 1;

Section 20: Lot 11;

Section 21: Lots 5 and 8;

Section 22: Lots 4, 5, and 17;
6

1 Section 24: Lots 1, 2, and 12;

2 Section 25: West half northeast quarter;

3 Section 26: Southwest quarter southeast quarter.

4 Township 10 South, Range 10 West,

5 Section 13: East half northwest quarter;

6 Section 14: Southeast quarter southwest quarter;

7 Section 15: South half northeast quarter and east half

8 southeast quarter northwest quarter;

9 Section 20: Lot 1 lying south of the south boundary of

10 the former Siletz Indian Reservation;

11 Section 23: Lot 6 and lot 7;

12 Section 24: Lot 8.

13 Township 10 South, Range 8 West

14 Section 18: Southeast quarter northw est quarter, south15 east quarter southeast quarter;

16 Section 20: South half southeast quarter;

17 Section 22: Southwest quarter northeast quarter;

18 Section 30: Lot 1.

19 Containing 3,630 acres, more or less.

20 Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior, acting at the re21 quest of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon,

22 shall, subject to all valid existing rights-of-w’ay, licenses,

23 leases, permits, and easements, accept any deed or other in24 strument conveying to the United States the land conveyed

25 to the city of Siletz on Ju ly 27, 1956, known as Government
0

*■

*

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

5

Hill, and hold such land in trust for the Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz Indians of Oregon. Such land is described as: 

Will am ette Mer idian, Oregon

Township 10 South, Range 10 West 

Section 4: South half of lot 32,

Section 9:

North half of lot 1,

North half of lot 2,

(except that portion of School Board Tract 62, 

described as:

Beginning at the 1/16 corner of the section line 

common to sections 4 and 9, this being the northwest 

corner of lot 2, and the true point of beginning, thence 

north 89 degrees 17 minutes east, 100 feet, thence 

south 0 degrees 01 minutes east, 660.31 feet, thence 

south 89 degrees 31 minutes west, 100 feet, thence 

north 0 degrees 01 minutes west, 659.84 feet, to the 

place of beginning),

Cemetery tract 61 described as:

Beginning at the section corner common to sections 3, 4, 9, and 10, thence south 0 degrees 34 minutes east, 664.74 feet, to the true point of beginning, 

thence south 89 degrees 31 minutes west, 1335.60 

feet, thence south 59 degrees 44 minutes east, 

1299.25 feet, thence north 89 degrees 45 minutes
8

6

1 east, 54.2 feet, thence north 0 degrees 34 minutes

2 west, 598.98 feet, thence north 89 degrees 45 minutes

3 east, 165 feet, thence north 0 degrees 34 minutes

4 west, 65.76 feet, to the true point of beginning.

5 Containing 35.03 acres, more or less.

6 Sec. 3. The lands described in the first section and

7 (upon conveyance to the Secretary) section 2 of this Act shall

8 constitute the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of Si9 letz Indians of Oregon and shall be subject to the Act of June

10 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), and other

11 provisions reapplied to such tribes pursuant to section 3 of

12 the Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act (91 Stat. 1415; 25

13 U.S.C. 711a). Such lands shall be subject to the right of the

14 Secretary of the Interior to establish without compensation

15 to such tribes, such reasonable rights-of-way and easements

16 as are necessary to provide access to or serve adjacent or

17 nearby Federal lands.

18 Sec. 4. The establishment of the Siletz Reservation

19 shall not gran t or restore to the tribe or any member of the

20 tribe any hunting, fishing, or trapping right of any nature,

21 including any indirect or procedural right or advantage, on

22 such reservation.

23 Sec. 5. The State of Oregon shall have civil and crimi24 nal jurisdiction with respect to the Siletz Reservation and

25 persons on the reservation in accordance with section 1360

26 of title 28 and section 1162 of title 18, United States Code.
9

Se na tor Melch er. We are going to he ar fro m the witnesses toda y 

in a pan el. We will he ar all of the testim ony first and the n ask questions of mem bers o f the pan el afterw ard.

I h ave on my witness lis t as t he first witnes s Com mission er W illiam 

E. Hal le tt, Com mis sioner of In di an Affairs; acc ompan ied by Ral ph 

Reeser, Fra n Ay er, an d Doyce W aldr ip.

Be for e we proceed, with ou t objection, Se na tor Hatfie ld’s pr ep ar ed 

sta tem ent will be inc lud ed in th e record at th is point.

[T he p repa red sta temen t fo llo ws:]

Statement of Senator Mark O. Hatfield

e

I am very pleased to welcome the members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians here today as well as representatives of the State of Oregon and 

all of you interested in S. 2055, the bill to create a reservation for the Siletz Tribe.

In 1977 a piece of legislation of great significance to the Siletz Tribe, the Siletz « Restoration Act, was enacted. Restoration of federal recognition to the Siletz people was the culmination of diligent efforts on behalf of the members to regain their tribal status. Included in the Restoration Act was a provision tha t a res­ ervation plan be developed by the Tribe and two years afte r the enactment of the act, the plan would be presented by the Secretary of the Interior to Congress for consideration. I have introduced as legislation the reservation plan which is the result of dedicated work by the Tribe, the BIA and many other concerned parties.

The plan authorizes the tran sfer of a tract of land in the City of Siletz known 

as Government Hill, from the City to the Tribe. Once the headquarters of trib al operations, it was donated by the federal government to the City at the time of the Tribe’s termination. The Siletz Tribe has plans to develop a tribal center on Government Hill which will consist of tribal offices, a medical and dental clinic, a community hall and recreation facilities.

The reservation plan also includes 3,630 acres of BLM land to be taken into tru st for the Tribe. This land will be harvested for timber at an annual rate of 

approximately $600,000 which will be used to fund tribal government functions.

The State of Oregon will retain civil and criminal jurisdiction on the reserva­ tion and in keeping with the language of the Restoration Act, the establish­ ment of the reservation will not g ran t or restore hunting or fishing righs to the Tribe.

The size of the proposed reservation is small compared to the 1.1 million acres which was once in their possession. However, it will adequately meet the Tribe’s needs to serve its people. It is my intention to see this legislation enacted soon, so tha t the Siletz Tribe might realize its capabilities of self-determination and 

so the federal government will have the opportunity to afford them tha t right.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. HALLETT, COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN 

* AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY

RALPH REESER, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, BIA; FRAN AYER, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, DE-

» PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND DOYCE L. WALDRIP, ASSISTANT AREA DIRECTOR, BIA

Mr. H allett. T ha nk you, M r. Ch air man, I am honored to have the 

op po rtun ity to present th e Dep ar tm en t’s p osition recom mending the 

enactm ent of S. 2055. I am also pleased to prese nt to you th e deleg atio n fro m th e confe derat ed tri be s of Siletz In dia ns: Mr. A rt hur 

Ben sell, trib al ch airm an ; Mrs. Pa ul in e Ricks, vice ch airperso n; Mr. 

Stan ley St rong , trib al council me mb er; Mr. W illiam Blo sser of the 

consult ing firm o f C H2 M H il l; an d Dr. J ohn H . Be uter, O reg on State 

Un iversity.
10

Mr. Chairman, in 1977, Congress passed and P resid ent Jimm y C arter signed the Siletz Restoration Act which reaffirmed the attitude 

and the ability of the United States to correct mistakes that have 

occurred in the past.

The Siletz people have endured much, and this plan, which is a 

requirement of the Restoration Act, exemplifies the capacity and the 

capability of the Siletz people.

We have a statement, Mr. Chairm an, th at we would like to submit 

for the record, and I would like to summarize that.

Senat or Melcher. With out objection, the entire stateme nt will be 

made a part of the record.

Mr. Hallett. Mr. Chairm an, except for the technical differences, B

S. 2055 is the same as the dr af t bill transm itted by the Departmen t of 

the Int eri or to the Pres iden t of the Senate by lett er dated November 1 9,19 79.

Senator Melcher. W itho ut objection, this also will be included in •

the record.

[Th e prepa red statement, letter, a nd dr aft bill appe ar a t th e end of 

Mr. Ha lle tt’s testimony.]

Mr. Hallett. On December 26, 1979, the Secretary trans mitted to 

this committee the complete Siletz Reservation Pla n document.

Section 7 of the Restoration Act provides for the establishment of 

a reservation for the tribe thro ugh the enactment of subsequent legislation tha t requires th e Sec retary o f the Inte rior to develop and submit 

within 2 years to the Congress, in the form of legislation, a plan for the 

establishment of the reservation. The plan we have approved and 

submitted to Congress, which is reflected in S. 2055, was join tly developed by the tribe and the Bureau of Ind ian Affairs with consultation 

throug hout the process with State and local people.

Prior to the submission to Congress, the pla n was reviewed throug hout the Department of the Inte rior and by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The first section o f S. 2055 declares 37 specified parcels 

totaling some 3,630 acres o f public domain lands located within Lin ­

coln County.

Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Secretary o f the In terior to accept 

the conveyance of a specified 36.55 acre tra ct of land known as Government Hill to hold such tra ct in tru st for the confederated tribes 

of Siletz Indians of Oregon. That tract is now owned by the City of 

Siletz. *

Section 3 of the bill provides tha t land held in tru st purs uant to 

sections 1 and 2 shall be the Siletz Reservation an d shall be subject to 

the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and o ther provisions extended 

or reextended to the Siletz Tribes by the R estoration Act. *

Section 4 of the bill ma intains the status quo re gard ing any hunting 

or fishing rights.

Section 5 of the bill provides tha t the Stat e of Oregon shall continue to have c riminal and civil jurisdiction on the Siletz Reservation.

We believe that S. 2055 represents a reasonable approach to the 

establishment of a reservatio n mandated by Congress and strikes an 

appro priate balance between the interests of the tribe and those of the 

local community, the State, an d th e Federa l Government.

Although there i9 an absence of real e state transac tions in t he area, 

the estimated value of the la nd to be included in th e reservation under
11

section 1 of the draft bill ranges from $300 to $750 per acre, with a 

total value of $1,890,000 to $2,722,000, excluding the value of the 

timber.

Tho land would provide the tribe with a continuing source of income from timber receipts in an annual gross amount of $630,000 a 

year. From that sum the tribe has agreed to pay 5 percent to Lincoln 

County for 25 years to replace revenues tha t would otherwise have 

accrued to the county under the Bureau of Land Management’s administration of land. Another sum of approximately $60,000 a year, or 10 

percent, would be deducted under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 406(a) 

to partially offset the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ management costs 

estimated at approximately $175,000 annually.

' It is the present policy that, with trib al concurrence, the amount

collected as timber sale administrative fees can be used for intensive 

forest management practices on the reservation. The value of the land

R

 to be included in the reservation under section 2 of the bill is estimated at $2,500 per acre with a total value of approximately $91,375.

Timberland was considered most suitable for inclusion in the reservation because of its abundance in Lincoln County. The continuing 

value of tim ber and its renewable nature, a tradition of timber-related 

employment in many tribal families, and a lack of controversy such 

as tha t surrounding land including water resources made it most 

suitable.

The public domain land would be included in the reservation under 

section 1 of the bill and is located in scattered parcels througho ut 

Lincoln County. The land does contribute to the Department of the 

Interior’s timber programs, but given the tribe’s plans to continue 

present timber use of the land, we believe th at inclusion of the land 

in the reservation is appropriate. Inclusion of this land would not 

have negative impacts that inclusion of forest lands or public lands 

would have.

Public land was considered more suitable fo r inclusion on the reservation than private land because of the difficulty of reaching a voluntary sale agreement for private land before the date of the submission of the reservation plan to Congress. Little private timberland is 

for sale in Lincoln County, and the appropriation of funds for the 

purchase of private land could cause prices to escalate. Inclusion of 

public land means tha t no land would have to be taken through the

0

 exercise of eminent domain and tha t no private land would have to

be removed from the local tax rolls.

The land to be included in the reservation under section 2 of the 

bill will permit the tribe to centralize tribal facilities and activities

* at a location to which the tribe has strong historic, cultural, and

emotional ties.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement.

[Testimony resumes on p. 33.]
12

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HALLETT, COMMISSIONER OF IND IAN AFFAIRS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE JANUARY 30, 1980, HEARING 

OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON IND IAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES SENATE,

ON S. 2055, A BIL L TO ESTABLISH A RESERVATION FOR THE CONFEDER ATED 

TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON.

Mr. Chairm an and Members of the Co mmittee , 1 am pleased to te stify 

in favor of ena ctm ent of S. 2055.

Except fo r tec hnical differen ces, S. 2055 is the same as the dr aft bill 

tra ns mitted by the Dep artm ent of the In te rio r to the President of the Senate *

by a letter dated November 19, 1979. On December 26, 1979, the Secretary

tra ns mitted to this Co mm itte e the comp lete "S ile tz Reservation Plan" docume nt.

The Siletz Indian Tribe Re sto ration A ct of 1977 restore d Federal rec ognition 

or acknowledgement of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon 

and made the tribal governing body and the trib al members again eligible for 

the special programs and services provided by the United States for Indians 

because of th eir status as Indians.

Section 7 of that Ac t provides for the establishment of a reservation 

fo r the tribe through the enactm ent of subsequent leg islation and requires 

the S ecretary of the Interio r to develop and s ubmit with in two years to the 

Congress, in the form of leg islation, a plan fo r the establishment of the res ervatio n.

The section also requires that the reserva tion land be lo cated in Lin co ln County,

Oregon, that the re be consultation with sta te and local groups, and t ha t the 

plan be approved by the tribe 's elected offic ia ls . The plan we have approved 

and submitted to the Congress, and w hich is reflected in S. 2055, was jo in tly

developed by the tribe and th e Bureau of Indian A ffairs with con sultation *

throughout the process w ith s tate and local groups. Prior to submission
13

- 2 -

to the Congress, the plan was reviewed throughout the Department of the 

Inte rior and by the Office of Management and Budget.

The fir st section of S. 2055 declares 37 specified parcels totalling some 

3,630 acres of public domain lands located in Lincoln County, Oregon, and 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to be held in trust for the 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon. Such lands w ill remain subject 

to any existing rights -of-w ay, licenses, leases, permits, and easements.

Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept 

the conveyance of a specified 36.55 acre tra ct of land known as Government 

Hill and to hold such trac t in trust for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

of Oregon. The trac t is now owned by the City of Siletz.

Section 3 of the bill provides that the lands held in trust pursuant to 

sections 1 and 2 shall be the Siletz Reservation and shall be subject to the 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and other provisions reextended to the 

Siletz Tribes by the Restoration Act.

Section 4 of the bill maintains the status quo regarding any hunting or 

fishing rights of the Siletz Indians by providing that the establishment of the 

Siletz Reservation does not grant or restore any hunting, fishing, or trapping 

rights.

. Section 5 of the bill provides th at the State of Oregon shall continue 

to have civil and criminal jurisdiction on the Siletz Reservation.

We believe that S. 2055 represents a reasonable approach to the establishment 

of the reservation mandated by the Congress and strikes an appropriate balance 

between the interests of the trib e and those of the local community, the State 

of Oregon, and the Federal Government.

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 2
14

- 3 -

Although there is an absence of real estate transactions in the area, 

estimates of the value of the land to be included in the reservation under 

section 1 of the draft bill range from $300 to $750 per acre, with a total value 

of approximately $1,089,000 to $2,722,500 excluding the value of timber.

The land would provide the trib e with a continuing source of income *

from timber receipts, in a gross annual amount estimated at $630,000. Of 

that sum, the trib e has agreed to pay 5% to Lincoln County for 25 years to 

replace revenues that would have otherwise accrued to the county under the 

Bureau of Land Management's administration of the land. Another sum, estimated 

at $60,000 annually, would be deducted, under the authority of 25 U.S.C. 406(a) 

to partia lly offs et Bureau of Indian A ffa irs management costs, estimated 

at approximately $175,000 annually. The value of the land to be included 

in the reservation under section 2 of the bill is estimated at $2,500 per acre, 

with a to tal value of approximately $91,375.

Timberland was considered most suitable for inclusion in the reservation 

because of its abundance in Lincoln County, the continuing value of timber 

and its renewable nature, a traditio n of timber-re lated employment in many 

triba l families, and a lack of controversy such as that surrounding land including

water resources.

The public domain land that would be included in the reservation under 

section 1 of the bill is located in scattered parcels throughout Lincoln County. •

The land does contribute to the Department of the Interior's timber programs

but, given the tribe's plans to continue the present timber use of the land, #

we believe that inclusion of the land in the reservation is appropriate. Inclusion
of this land would not have the negative effects that inclusion of Forest Service 

land or other public lands would have.

Public land was considered more suitable for inclusion in the reservation 

than private land because of the difficu lty of reaching a voluntary sale agreement 

for private land before the date for the submission of the reservation plan 

to the Congress. Little private timberland is for sale in Lincoln County and 

the appropriation of funds for the purchase of private land could cause prices 

to escalate. Inclusion of public land means tha t no land would have to be 

taken through the exercise of eminent domain and that no private land would 

have to be removed from local tax rolls.

The land to be included in the reservation under section 2 of the bill 

would perm it the trib e to centralize trib al facilities and activitie s at a location 

to which the trib e has strong historical, cultural, and emotional ties.

This concludes my prepared statement and we w ill be pleased to answer 

any questions the Committee may have.
16

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D C. 20240

W 1» J979

Honorable Walter F. Mondale 

President of the United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. President: *

Enclosed is a draft bill, "To establish a reservation for the Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon", submitted in accordance with 

Section 7 of Public Law 95-195 (25 U.S.C. 711e). We request that the bill 

be introduced and referred to the appropriate Carmittee.

The Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act of November 18, 1977 (91 Stat.

1415, P.L. 95-195; 25 U.S.C. 711) restored Federal recognition or 

acknowledgement of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon 

and made the tribal governing body and the tribal members again eligible 

for the special programs and services provided by the United States for 

Indians because of their status as Indians. Section 7 of that Act 

provides for the establishment of a reservation for the tribe through the 

enactment of subsequent legislation and requires the Secretary of t he 

Interior to develop and submit to the Congress b y November 18, 1979, in 

the form of legislation, a plan for the establishment of the reservation.

The section also requires that the reservation land be located in Lincoln 

County, Oregon.

The first section of the enclosed bill declares 37 specified parcels 

totalling seme 3,630 acres of public darrein lands located in Lincoln 

County, Oregon, and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to 

be held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 

Oregon. Such lands will remain subject to an y existing rights-of-way, 

licenses, leases, permits, and easanents.

Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept 

the conveyance of a specified 36.55 acre tract of land kncwn as Gove rnment Hill and to hold such tract in trust for the Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz Indians of Oregon. The tract is now owned by the city of Siletz.

Section 3 of the bill provides that the lands held in trust pursuant 

to sections 1 and 2 shall be the Siletz Reservation and shall be subject 

to the so-called Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 an d other provisions 

reextended to the Siletz Tribes by Public Law 95-195.
17

Sec tion 4 o f the b i l l ma intains the status quo regarding any him ti ng 

or fishin g ri g hts o f the S iletz Indians by pro viding th at the 

estab lishm ent o f the S ile tz Reservation does not gran t or re stor e any 

hu nting, fi sh in g , or trap ping ri g h ts .

Section 5 of the b i l l pro vid es th at the Sta te of Oregon sh a ll mnK nu c 

to have c iv il and crim in al ju ris d ic ti o n on the S ile tz Reserva tion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1360 and 18 U.S.C. 1162.

We belie ve th a t the d ra ft b i l l repres ents a reasonable approach to the 

establishme nt o f the rese rvation nandated by the Congress and strik og 

an ap prop ria te balance between the in te re sts o f the tr ib e and those 

o f the lo cal corr unity, the State o f Oregon, and the Federal Government.

tf Although there is an absence o f re al es tate tran sa ctions in the area,

estimate s o f the value o f the land to be inc lude d in the re se rvation 

under se ction 1 o f the d ra ft b i l l range from $300 to $750 per acre, 

w ith a to ta l value o f approximately $1,089,000 to $2,722,500. The 

land would provide the tr ib e w ith a co ntinuing source of income from 

tim ber re ceip ts , in a gross annual amount estima ted a t $630,000. Of 

th a t sum, the tr ib e has agreed to pay 10% to Linco ln Oounty fo r 25 

years to rep lac e revenues th a t would have oth erw ise accrued to the 

oounty under the Bureau o f land Management's ad m in istratio n o f the lan d. 

Another sum, estim ate d a t $60,000 annua ll y , would be deducted, under 

the auth ority o f Pu blic law 88-301 (25 U.S.C. 406 (a)) to p a rtia ll y 

o ff s e t Bureau o f India n A ff a ir s management co sts, estima ted a t 

approxima tely $175,000 an nu ally. Die value o f the land to be inc lud ed 

in the re se rvation under se ction 2 o f the b i l l is estima ted a t $2,500 

per acre, w ith a to ta l value o f app roxima tely $91,375.

Timberland was considered most su itable fo r in clu sio n in the rese rvation 

because o f it s abundance in Lin co ln Oounty, the co ntinuing value o f 

tim ber and it s renewable na ture, a tr a d it io n o f tim ber-re la te d 

employment in many tr ib a l fa m ilie s, and a lack o f controversy such as 

th a t surrounding lan d in cludin g wa ter resources.

Die public domain land th a t would be inclu de d in the re se rvation under 

se ction 1 o f the d ra ft b i l l is loca ted in sc attered pa rcels throughout 

Linco ln Oounty. Die land does co ntrib ute to the Department o f the 

In te rio r's tim ber programs but, giv en the trib e 's plans to continue 

the presen t tim ber use o f the lan d, we belie ve th a t in clu sio n o f the 

lan d in the re se rvation is ap prop ria te. In clusion o f th is land would 

no t have the negative effects th a t in clu sio n o f Forest Service land 

or Oregon and C alifo rn ia Ra ilroa d and Ooos Bay wagon Road (O&C) land 

would have.

Pub lic land was considered more suitable fo r in clu sio n in the re se rv atic n 

than private land because o f the d if fic u lt y o f reaching a vo lunt ar y sale 

agreement fo r private land before the date fo r the submission o f the 

re se rv atio n pla n to the Oongress. L ittle private tim berla nd is fo r 

sale in Linc oln Oounty and the appro pr iatio n o f funds fa r the purchase

2
18

of private land could cause prices to escalate. Inclusion of public 

land means that no land would have to be taken through the exercise 

of eminent domain and that no private land would have to be removed 

frcm local tax rolls.

The land to be included in the reservation under section 2 of the draft 

bill would permit the tribe to centralize tribal facilities and 

activities at an urban location to which the tribe has strong historical, 

cultural, and emotional ties.

We have also enclosed a statement describing the notification and 

consultation process involved in the development of the draft bill 

and the written comments we received on the proposal. We will shortly 

forward to the appropriate carmittees of the Congress a document

providing more detailed information rega rding the plan. r

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no 

objection to the submission of this proposed legislation frc m the 

standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

Enclosure
19

A BILL

To establish a rese rvation fo r the Confe derated Tribes of Sile tz Indians of 

Oregon.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Re pre sen tatives of the Un ited

States of Am erica in Congress assembled,

* Th at, subject to all valid existin g rig ht s- of -w ay, reciproc al road rights -o fway agreem ents licenses, leases, pe rm its, and easements, all right, ti tl e , and

♦ interests of the Un ited States in the iand described below is declare d to be 

held in trus t fo r the Co nfederated Tribes of Sile tz Indians of Oregon:

WILL AM ETTE ME RIDIAN, OREGON 

Township 9 South, Range 9 West 

Sec. 13, SEXNWX;

See. 14, NEXNEX;

Sec. 15, Lo t 2;

Sec. 20, EXEXNEX, EXNEXSEX;

Sec. 21, SXNEX, SEXNWX, NEXSWX;

Sec. 22, NXNWXNEX, NEXNWX, SXNWX;

Sec. 23, Lots 3, 4, 5, SWXNEX, NWXSEX;

Sec. 24, NEXSWX;

Sec. 25, Lo t 3, Lo t 7, SEXNEX, SEXNWX,

EX5WX, SEX;

Sec. 26, SEX;

Sec. 27, SXNEXNEX, SXNEX, SXSWXNWX, SEXNWX, NXSEX;
20

- 2 -

Sec. 31, Lot 20, SEK.NEK;

Sec. 32, Nh Lot 21;

Sec. 34, Eh WhN WK, EhNEKSEK., EhSWKSEK., SEKSEK; 

Sec . 35, NfcSWK, SWhSWK, NW hSEK , SEKSEK;

Sec. 36, SWK.SEK.

To wn sh ip 10 So uth, Ra nge 9 We st,

Sec. 2, Nh of Lo t 7, Nh o f Lot 8;

Sec. 3, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 14;

Sec . 4, EhEhSW K, EhSEK., EhNW KS EK , SWK.NWKSEK, 

SWKSEK;

Sec . 6, EhSWKSWK;

Sec. 8, L o t 3;

Sec. 9, Lots 1, 2, 3, and th e E h of Lot 4;

Sec. 13, SW hSEK;

Sec . 15, Lo t 1;

Sec. 16, SEhSEK;

Sec. 17, L ot 4;

Sec. 18, L ot I;

Sec. 20, Lot 11;

Sec. 21, Lots 5 and 8;

Sec. 22, Lots 4, 5, and 17;

Sec. 24, Lots 1, 2, and 12;

Sec. 25, WhN EK ;

Sec. 26, SW hSEh.
Township 10 South, Range 10 West,

Sec. 13, EhNWK;

Sec. 14, SEKSWK;

Sec. 15, ShNEK and EhSEKNWX.;

Sec. 20, Lot 1 lyin g south of the south boundary

of the former Sile tz Indian Reservation;

Sec. 23, Lot 6 and Lot 7;

Sec. 24, Lot 8.

Township 10 South, Range 8 West,

Sec. 18, SEKNWK, SEKSEK;

Sec. 20, ShSEK;

Sec. 22, SWKNEK;

Sec. 30, Lot 1.

Containing 3,630 acres, more or less.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interio r, acting at the request of the

Confederated Tribes of Sile tz Indians of Oregon, shall, subject to all valid 

existing rig hts-of-w ay , licenses, leases, permits, and easements, accept in 

tru st for the Confederated Tribes o f Sile tz Indians of Oregon, the land conveyed 

to the City of Siletz on July 27, 1956, known as Government H ill and described

as:

WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, OREGON

Township 10 South, Range 10 West

Section 4: South half of Lot 32,
22

- 4 -

Section 9: North half of Lot 1,

North half of Lot 2,

(except that portion of School Board T ract 62, described

as:

Beginning at the 1/16 corner of the section 

line common to sections 4 and 9, this being 

the northwest corner of Lot 2, and the true point 

of beginning, thence North 89*^7' east, 100 fee t, 

thence south 0^)1' east, 660.31 feet, thence south 

89?J1' west, 100 feet, thence north (POP west,

659.84 fe et, to the place of beginning),

Cemetery Tra ct 61 described as:

Beginning at the section corner common to sections 3, 4, 9, 

and 10, thence south CP34' east, 664.74 fee t, to the true 

point of beginning, thence south 89°31' west, 1335.60 feet, 

thence south 59°44' east, 1299.25 fe et, thence north 89°45’ 

east, 54.2 fee t, thence north 0 ^4 ’ west, 598.98 fe et, 

thence north 89°45' east, 165 feet, thence north 0°34' 

west, 65.76 feet, to the true point of beginning.

Containing 35.03 acres, more or less.

SEC. 3. The lands described in Section 1 and (upon conveyance to the 

Secretary) Section 2 of this Ac t shall constitu te the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and shall be subject to the Act of 3une 18,
23

- 5 -

1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 461, et seq.) and other provisions reapplied to 

such Tribes pursuant to Section 3 of the Sile tz Indian Tribe Restoration Act 

(91 Stat. 1415; 25 U.S.C. 711a). Such lands shall be subject to the right 

of the Secretary of the Interior to establish witho ut compensation to such 

Tribes, such reasonable rights-of-w ay and easements as are necessary to provides 

access to or serve adjacent or nearby Federal lands.

SEC. 4. The establishment of the Sile tz Reservation shall not grant 

or restore to the Tribe or any member of the Tribe any hunting, fishing, or 

trapping right of any nature, including any ind irect or procedural rig ht or 

advantage, on such Reservation.

SEC. 5. The State of Oregon shall have civ il and criminal 

jurisd iction with respect to the Siletz Reservation and persons on 

the Reservation in accordance with section 1360 of Title 28

and section 1162 of Title 18, United States Code.

*
24

C 3 I j

O F F IC E O F T H E G O V E R N O R

S T A T E C A P IT O L

S A L E M 8 7 3 I O

O cto b er 31 , 1979

H o n o ra b le C e c il D. A ndru s, S e c r e ta r y 

U n it e d S t a t e s D epart m ent o f I n t e r i o r 

O ffic e o f th e S e c re ta ry

W a sh in g to n , D. C. 202 40

D ea r S e c r e t a r y A ndru s:

I r e c e iv e d y o u r l e t t e r o f O cto b er 19, 197 9, a sk in g a b o u t th e 

p ro p o s e d S i l e t z R e s e rv a ti o n P la n w hi ch yo u w i l l be p r e s e n tin g 

t o C o n g re ss b e fo r e No vemb er 1 8 , 1979. As th e p la n i n d i c a t e s , 

th e C o n fe d e ra te d S i l e t z T rib e s have p a id c lo s e a t t e n t i o n to 

th e m an d ate o f P u b li c Law 95-1 95 t h a t a f f e c te d s t a t e an d lo c a l 

o f f i c i a l s an d o th e r i n t e r e s t e d c i t i z e n s be c o n s u lte d d u rin g 

th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e p la n . A t th e s t a t e l e v e l , an ad hoc 

c o m m it te e o f i n t e r e s t e d s t a t e agency o f f i c i a l s was fo rm ed to 

a s s i s t i n t h i s p ro c e s s an d a d v is e me o f an y a re a s w her e th e y 

b e l i e v e t h a t th e s t a t e 's i n t e r e s t s a re b e in g a d v e rs e ly a f f e c t e d .

A t t h i s p o i n t , no o b je c tio n s have been b ro u g h t to my a t t e n t i o n , 

b u t th e f i n a l m e e ti n g o f t h i s gro u p w i l l n o t be h e ld u n t i l 

N ov em be r 8 , 1 9 7 9 . As G o v ern o r, ho w ev er, I s tr o n g ly s u p p o r t 

th e p la n p r e s e n te d by th e C o n fe d e ra te d S i l e t z T r ib e s to you, 

and b e l i e v e t h a t th e t r i b e has c a r e f u l l y d e v e lo p e d a re a s o n a b le 

p r o p o s a l w hic h w i l l n o t o n ly m eet t h e i r b a s ic g o v e rn m e n ta l an d 

t r i b a l n e e d s , b u t w i l l be o f s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i t to th e lo c a l 

com m un ity and th e s t a t e o f O re gon.

Upo n l e a r n i n g o f an y f u r t h e r c o n c e rn s t h a t a re i d e n t i f i e d by 

my ad h o c c o m m it te e , I w i l l a d v is e you.

Tha nk y ou f o r t h i s o p p o r tu n ity to c o n s id e r th e S i l e t z R e se rv a ti o n P la n . I lo o k fo rw a rd to b e in g a b le to c o n ti n u e to work 

w it h th e D ep art m en t o f th e I n t e r i o r in r e a l i z i n g th e S i l e t z 

T r i b e 's o b j e c t i v e s .

G o v ern o r

VA :oc

*

ccs B ru c e B is h o p 

A rt B e n s e ll
25

COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

The Department of the Interior and the Siletz Tribe, in 

accordance with § 711e(c) of the Siletz Restoration Act, 

have undertaken extensive notification and consultation with 

all appropriate State and local officials as well as other 

identifiable interest groups during the development of the 

reservation plan. This consultation will continue and the 

written comments received by the Secretary from such persons 

and groups will be submitted to Congress at the time the 

proposed legislation is formally introduced. Numerous 

meetings as well as extensive written and telephone communications have taken place between Bureau of Indian Affairs 

officials, Tribal Council members, and the State and local 

officials and other interested parties. Every effort has 

been made to ensure that all parties have been well informed 

and afforded a continuing opportunity to comment and provide 

input in the development of the plan.

The following is a list of the officials, agencies and 

interested parties consulted during the reservation plan 

development to date. The Siletz Restoration Act Committee 

was appointed by Governor Victor Atiyeh at the Tribe's 

request to consult with the Department of the Interior and 

the Tribe during the development of the plan.

Topics addressed at the meetings listed below included 

potential and identified size and location of the proposed 

reservation; effect of establishment of the reservation on 

State and local tax revenues; civil and criminal jurisdiction 

issues; hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of the Tribe 

and its members; provision of State and local services to 

the reservation, the Tribe, an’d tribal members; and provision 

of Federal and tribal services to the reservation, the 

Tribe, and tribal members. As a result of these meetings, 

extensive staff to staff communication between the Department, the Tribe, and the State agencies was facilitated, so 

that the consultation process has been ongoing and not 

simply limited to these meetings.

The Honorable Victor Atiyeh, Governor, State of Oregon

* Meeting on April 9, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: The Hon. Victor Atiyeh; 

Arthur Bensell, Pauline Ricks, Edmund Ben, Lindsey 

John, Delores Pigsley, Siletz Tribal Council; 

Charles Wilkinson, Sharon Gordon, tribal legal 

counsel; Richard Ivey, CH2M HILL.
26

* Preliminary draft of plan mailed on August 10,

1 979.

Siletz Restoration Act Committee (State of Oregon officials:)

James Redden (Chairman), Attorney General 

John R. Donaldson, Director, Department of Fish 

and Wildlife

Leo T. Hegstrom, Director, Department of Human Resources 

Verne A. Duncan, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 

William S. Cox, Director, Division of State Lands

J.B. Bedingfield, Director, Executive Department 

Rudy Clements, Commission, on Indian Services 

Robyn L. Godwin, Director, Department of Revenue 

W.J. Kvarsten, Director, Department of Land Conservation 

and Development

J.E. Schroeder, State Forester 

Dell Isham, Senator, District No. 2

* Meeting held on May 18, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; James Burris, BIA; James

Redden, Attorney General; Clement E. Azure, Department 

of Human Resources; Bruce Bishop, Commission on 

Indian Services; Bill Cox, Division of State 

Lands; J.E. Schroeder, Department of Forestry;

Dell Isham, State Senator, District No. 2; Jon 

Yunker, Executive Department; Rollie Rousseau, 

Department of Fish & Wildlife; Jim Ross, Department 

of Land Conservation & Development; Robyn L.

Godwin, Department of Revenue; Randy Martin, Plans 

Coordinator, Lincoln County; Arthur Bensell,

Pauline Ricks, Edmund Ben, Lindsey John, George 

Baker, Delores Pigsley, Stanley Strong, Siletz 

Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, Sharon Gordon, 

tribal legal counsel; Marcy Schwartz, CH2M HILL.

* Meeting held on July 28, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; Bernard Topash, BIA; James 

Redden, Attorney General; Jan Haley, Division of 

State Lands; Jon Yunker, Executive Department;

John Donaldson, Department of Fish & Wildlife;

J.E. Schroeder, Department of Forestry; Robyn L. 

Godwin, Department of Revenue; Rudy Clements, 

Commission on Indian Services; Rollie Rousseau, 

Department of Fish & Wildlife; Bruce Bishop, 

Commission on Indian Services; Steve Evered, Rick 

Gray, staff representatives of Congressman Les 

AuCoin; Arthur Bensell, George Baker, Mary Fisher, 

Stanley strong, Lindsey John, Pauline Sicks,
27

I

Edmund Ben, Siletz Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, 

Sharon Gordon, tribal legal counsel; William 

Blosser, Marcy Schwartz, CH2M HILL.

* Continuous staff contact between consultants and 

staff of above departments.

* Preliminary draft of proposed plan mailed to members 

on August 10, 1979.

* Meeting with Fish & Wildlife Commission is scheduled 

for September 21, 1979.

* Lincoln County Commissioners

Albert Strand, Chairman 

W.S. Ouderkirk

* Andrew Zedwick

* Meeting held on May 9, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; James Burris, BIA; Arthur 

Bensell, Pauline Ricks, Siletz Tribal Council;

Sharon Gordon, tribal legal counsel.

* Appointment of Randy Martin, Plans. Coordinator,

Lincoln County, as official liaison with the 

Department of the Interior and the Tribe to work 

on the plan made by the Commissioners at the 

Tribe's request. Mr. Martin has been in continuous 

contact with staff in development of the plan.

* Preliminary draft of proposed plan mailed to 

commissioners on August 10, 1979.

City of Siletz

Roy Weaver, Mayor 

Gladys Faulkner, City Council 

Stephen Streeter, City Council 

Paul Zook, City Council

Ron Williams, City Council (resigned effective Aug. 1, 1979)

Leroy Yoder, Chairman, Planning Commission 

Richard Bennett, Planning Commission

Harvey Haproff, Planning Commission (resigned Sept. 1979)

* Robert Longyear, Planning Commission 

• James Strebig, Planning Commission

Grace Castle, Planning Commission

Verlin White, Planning Commission (new member, Sept. 1979) 

Victor Bucy, Planning Commission (new member, Sept. 1979)

* Michael Hart, Planning Commission (new member, Sept. 1979)

Paul Osterlund, City Attorney
* Meeting held May 15, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Roy Weaver, Mayor; Gladys 

Faulkner, City Council; Susan Youngman Long, staff 

to Senator Mark Hatfield; James Burris, BIA;

Arthur Bensell, Pauline Ricks, Siletz Tribal 

Council; Sharon Gordon, tribal legal counsel. -

* Meeting held on July 9, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; Roy Weaver, Mayor; Stephen 

Streeter, Paul Zook, Ron Williams, City Council; 

Paul Osterlund, City Attorney; Arthur Bensell, 

Pauline Ricks, Delores Pigsley, Edmund Ben, Lindsey 

John, Mary Fisher, Elouise Case, Stanley Strong, 

George Baker, Siletz Tribal Council; Sharon Gordon, 

tribal legal counsel; General Public.

* Meeting held on August 2, 1979 at which the following persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, 

Assistant Area Director, BIA; Bernard Topash, BIA; 

Roy Weaver, Mayor; Gladys Faulkner, Paul Zook,

City Council; Leroy Yoder, Richard Bennett, Harvey 

Haproff, Robert Longyear, James Strebig, Grace 

Castle, Planning Commission; Arthur Bensell,

Lindsey John, George Baker, Edmund Ben, Mary 

Fisher, Delores Pigsley, Stanley Strong, Pauline 

Ricks, Elouise Case, Siletz Tribal Council; Sharon 

Gordon, tribal legal counsel; Marcy Schwartz, CH2M 

HILL; General Public.

* Meeting with Planning Commission scheduled for 

September 13, 1979 to further discuss status and 

proposed uses of Government Hill property.

* Preliminary draft of plan mailed to or delivered 

August 10, 1979.

* Continuous staff contact during plan development. 

ia-Pacific Corporation

* Meeting held June 21, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; Robert E. Flowerree, Chairman 

and Chief Executive Officer, Georgia-Pacific 

Corporation; Arthur Bensell, Pauline Ricks, Siletz 

Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, tribal legal 

cou nsel.
29

Northwest Steelheaders Association, Trout Unlimited

Meeting held August 22, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: Doyce L. Waldrip, Assistant 

Area Director, BIA; Bernard W. Topash, BIA; Dick 

Taug, Natural Resources Director, Northwest Steelheaders Association; Ken Torkelson, Bill Mason,

Walt Younger, Norm Cleman, Bob Askey, Pat Loveland, 

Jim Reid, Bill Kremers, Richard Hanson, Corvallis 

Chapter, Northwest Steelheaders Association; R.P. 

Myers, Jerry W. Iverson, Tom Bayless, Charlie 

Brown, M.S. Morse, Paul E. Davis, Bill MacHugh, 

Albany Chapter, Northwest Steelheaders Association;

* Ken Donaldson, Trout Unlimited; Arthur Bensell, 

Pauline Ricks, Delores Pigsley, Lindsey John,

Edmund Ben, George Baker, Stanley Strong, Siletz 

Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, Sharon Gordon, 

tribal legal counsel; Marcy Schwartz, CH2M HILL.

<*

United States Forest Service

* Meeting held March 23, 1979 at which the following 

persons were present: R.E. Worthington, Regional 

Forester, U.S.F.S.; Merle Hofferber, Director,

Lands & Minerals, U.S.F.S.; Larry A. Fellows,

Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, U.S.F.S 

Vince Little, Area Director, BIA; Doyce L. Waldrip, 

Assistant Area Director, BIA; Bill Rifenbery, BIA; 

Bernard Topash, BIA; Arthur Bensell, Pauline 

Ricks, Siletz Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, 

Sharon Gordon, tribal legal counsel.

* Continuous staff contact between BIA staff, consultants, and Forest Service personnel during 

development of plan.

State and Local Social Service Agencies

* Personal, telephone, and written contacts made 

with the following agencies by staff during development of plan:

State of Oregon Mental Health Division 

State of Oregon Adult and Family Services 

State of Oregon Department of Education 

State of Oregon Children*s Services Division 

State of Oregon Corrections Division

* State of Oregon Employment Division 

State of Oregon Community Services Program 

Lincoln County Mental Health Clinic 

Lincoln County Adult and Family Services

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 3
30

Lincoln County Council on Aging 

Lincoln County Housing Authority 

Lincoln County School District 

Lincoln County Children's Services 

Lincoln County Manpower Consortium 

Lincoln County Corrections Division 

Lincoln County Employment Division 

Lincoln County Volunteer Services 

Lincoln County Vocational Rehabilitation 

Lincoln County Comprehensive Youth Program 

Siletz Vocational School 

Siletz High School

Siletz Drug and Alcohol Program 

Doited States Bureau of Land Management

* Meeting held on March 7, 1979 at which the following persons were present: Murl Storms, State 

Director, BLM; Vince Little, Area Director, BIA; 

Doyce L. Waldrip, Area Director, BIA; Ralph 

Gustafson, Forester, BIA; Arthur Bensell, Pauline 

Ricks, Siletz Tribal Council; Charles Wilkinson, 

Sharon Gordon, tribal legal counsel; Richard Ivey, 

CH2M HILL.

* Continuous staff contact between BIA, consultants, 

and BLM forestry staff, as well as continuous 

written and telephone communication between all of 

the above parties.

* Preliminary draft of proposed plan mailed to State 

Director.

Church Women United of Oregon

* Annual meeting of this statewide organization on 

April 18, 1979 included presentation regarding 

reservation plan by Pauline Ricks, Tribal ViceChairperson, and Sharon Gordon, tribal legal 

counsel.

* Abbreviated summary of reservation plan included 

in newsletters sent to 400 members of this organization on August 31, 1979.

Rotarians International, Newport and Lincoln City Chapters

* Meeting of Newport chapter on April 25, 1979 

included presentation regarding reservation plan 

by Arthur Bensell, Tribal Chairman.
31

Meetings of Toledo chapter on March 15 and May 2, 

1979 included presentation on reservation plan 

given by Arthur Bensell, Tribal Chairman.

National Tribal Chairmen's Association

* Annual meeting of this organization on July 30, 

1979 in Denver, Colorado, included presentation on 

reservation plan by Arthur Bensell, Tribal C hairman.

National American Indian Women's Association

* Annual meeting of this organization on May 23,

1979 in Yakima, Washington, included presentation 

on reservation plan by Pauline Ricks, Tribal ViceChairperson.

Northwest Affiliated Tribes Association

Annual meeting of this organization on August 28, 

1979 in Warm Springs, Oregon, included presentation 

on reservation plan given by Arthur Bensell,

Tribal Chairman; Pauline Ricks, Tribal ViceChairperson; and Sharon Gordon, tribal legal 

counsel.

Members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Orego

* General Council meetings were held on April 7,

May 5, August 4, and September 15, 1979 at which 

reservation plan details and development were 

discussed. General Council meetings are announced 

to all the members of the Siletz Tribe in advance 

in the tribal newsletter, and are open to all 

interested persons. The August 2 and September 15 

meetings included special lengthy presentations by 

Tribal Council members, tribal legal counsel, and 

consultants regarding the details of the proposed 

legislation and reservation plan, and opportunity 

for input of tribal members.

* Information, questions and answers, and regular 

reports regarding development of the reservation

. plan have been made to all tribal members in the

tribal newsletters published and mailed out in 

May, June, July, and August.

* Information sheets and background materials on the 

Tribe and reservation plan development have been 

made available in each of the tribal area offices 

in Siletz, Springfield, and- Salem.
32

Other Intere'st Groups

Pre liminary draf t of propos ed plan mai led to the 

foll owin g org ani zat ion s upon requ est during August 

and September, 1979.

Four C o m e r s Rod and Gun Club, Salem, Oreg on

Santiam Flycasters, Salem, Orego n

Oregon State Rifle and Pistol Association,

Oregon City, Oreg on

Isaac Walt on League, Corvallis, Oregon
33

Senator Melcher. Thank you, Mr. Hallett. Speaking for the Confederated Tribes, my order of testimony is, first, Ar thu r Bensell.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR S. BENSELL, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED

TRIBES OF SILETZ IN DIA NS; ACCOMPANIED B Y: PAU LINE RICKS,

VICE CHAIR MAN; STANLEY STRONG, COUNCIL MEMBER; WILLIAM BLOSSER, PLAN NING DIVISION MANAGER, CH2M HIL L; AND

JOHN H. BEUTER, PROFESSOR OF FORESTRY, OREGON STATE

UNI VER SITY

Mr. Bensell. Mr. Chairman, my name is Arthur Bensell, and I am 

a member of the Siletz Tribe, representing some 2,000 Indians on the 

central Oregon coast. We have traveled here to Washington, D.C. 

Two people from the tribe have accompanied me, and we are going to 

* present testimony as to what it means to the Siletz Tribe to receive a

land base.

Many of the things have happened before, such as the restoration 

plan, and now we are in the process of implementing the bill. At 

restoration, it was a very emotional time for us ; we were very proud 

when that bill was signed into law by President Carter.

Now, we are implementing the plan. My colleagues who are with 

me are going to tell why we know we should have a land base.

It is my pleasure to introduce at this time Mr. Stanley Strong who 

will tell what he thinks. Stanley has been very active in tribal affairs 

for a long time.

Stanley ?

Mr. Strong. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Stanley Strong. I am a Siletz Indian who 

was on the old tribal council before termination and is on the present 

trib al council.

I was bom in Siletz on November 9, 1908. I attended the Government school at the Siletz Government Hill for a year until it was 

closed. Then, all Indians went to the public school. Some had a hard 

tim e; they were shy and timid. I learned to play all sports and made 

good grades.

I loved to go fishing, hunting, trapping , and peeling cascara bark. 

It brought food and put money in my pockets. My dad was a logger, 

w

using horses in those days. He always managed to have a big garden—

and who helped him ? I did, of course. I also had to milk 12 cows and 

ship cream as a boy.

We had a few games, such as duckinaw, shinny, and so forth. Also 

» we learned games at school. We boys would much rather spear salmon

in a salmon house durin g the season. You find a riffle where the water 

is sw ift with an eddy or switchback current 4 to 5 feet deep and build 

a shade over and above the water. The shade allows you to see in the 

water. Spears are made of hardwood, bone, or deer Korns, or of iron. 

Th at was home and freedom. Indians would smoke eels, fish, and deer 

meat for hard months. We also canned lots of vegetables and fruits.

By the way, my mother canned over 800 quart jars of fruit, vegetables, and meat one year. That was a lot to eat.

But our land was taken. “No trespassing.”
34

My mother told me our forefathers were tricked into a meeting 

between Po rt Orford and Brookings, Oreg. That is where we were 

originally lived. The white man wanted our homeland. The soldiers 

drove our people by foot to the beach of Port Orfo rd through the 

waters to the boat. Some tried vainly to resist only to be gunbutted 

and beaten. Families were separated. Tears and blood stained the 

ground. Loneliness took its toll.

I know how brutal the army can get because I was a sergeant with 

five battle stars. Purple H eart, Silver Sta r, and a Bronze Arrow Head.

Yes, 1 fought for our country—the United States of America.

I ’m than kful we have dedicated men and women like our leaders 

here in Washington to help us. «

We need a land base so the elderly can have a home in their last 

years, and those who have faced disaster. You can’t always rent a 

place. They are not always available, or you don’t have money. People 

come in for funerals and special gatherings. They should be able to ♦

rest overnight before going home.

I prefer a land base instead of money. Look what has happened to 

other tribes—used car lots, liquor, and foolish spending took all of 

the money. Soon it was ail gone. We need something that will keep for 

the future, a place to anchor and hold fast.

Have you ever seen an a nt hill ? The ants all work speedily together, 

helping where help is needed, pushing this and tha t together. You 

wonder, can they make it and pu t it in the right place ? Yes, they can, 

and do. So also were the pyramids. So also can the American India n, 

if given the chance. I can see the future of Government Hill become 

active with education, resources, sports, religion, employment, and 

activities for all. Our tribe is beginning to live and wanting to take 

off from the launching pad of a land base.

We need a land base to erect permanent and lasting buildings.

With out a land base we are homeless and lost. We do not have a 

foundation. This would be bette r than money; it would mean something for the future.

I can imagine what desperation does; it makes criminals out of once 

decent people. Some people are forced to cheat and steal to live. We 

were given Government Hill and a reservation to live on, but the white 

man was sure he got it all back. This left us without a land base or 

home. We became foreigners in our own land. I t grieves me to see the 

land th at was ours be no longer ours. *

We need to prove ourselves as going forward hand in hand with 

the white man, as brothers. In years to come our grandchildren will 

believe in this because we built our tribe on a solid foundation.

We need a plan here at Siletz where we were raised. I t gives a feeling of home and security under the flag of the United States of 

America.

I thank you.

Mr. Bensell. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to introduce Pauline 

Ricks, vice chairman of our tribal council, who has been long inte rested in the Siletz Tribe. She will now tell us why she thinks we need 

a land base.

Pauline ?

Ms. Ricks. Mr. Chairman, my name is Pauline Bell Ricks, and I 

live at 2660 North 20th, Springfield, Oreg. I am a member of the
35

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and curre ntly vice 

chairman of the tribal council where I have served faithful ly since 

the tribe reorganized in 1973.

I bring you greetings from the only federally recognized tribe on 

the beautiful Oregon coast.

The identity regranted us by restoration in 1977 has been a beautiful 

experience for our tribal members. We can proudly say we are Siletz 

Indians, and it certainly has been a reb irth of the Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz.

Our chairman and trib al counsel have been working hard on the 

Siletz restoration plan. We have p ut forth a lot of effort in educating 

the State of Oregon, our Oregon congressional delegation, and our 

local community on the needs of our people and why we need a land 

base.

I am very proud to be here in our Nation’s capital as one of our 

tribal leaders. I respectfully present my testimony on the Siletz 

Indian Reservation plan, Senate bill 2055.

From the late 1800’s to termination in 1954, the Government Hill 

was the headquarters for our tribe. It was the site for the agency office 

and tribal buildings where all social, cultural, recreation, and tra ditional functions took place. There were a lot of activities in the early 

days on Government Hill.

There was a cannery where our Indian women took pride in preparing food for the winter. There was a school, a park , and other 

facilities to benefit the tribe. We had small cottages for our elderly 

and a health clinic to meet the medical needs of our tribal members. 

Our men took a lot of pride in the upkeep of the park and the 

cemetery.

We looked upon Government Hill as sacred grounds because it was 

a place where we gathered together as In dian people to meet all our 

spiritual needs. Our lives centered around Government Hill, and it 

was the foundation for our tribe. Our roots are buried there, for when 

our lives are over we are laid to rest in the sacred burial grounds 

located there amid the beautiful rhododendrons and timber.

At termination the Government Hill was transferred to the city of 

Siletz. Today it is heartbreaking to see that blackberries and brush 

have taken over. The buildings tha t the Government did not destroy 

are now deteriorated and on the ground. Our last log cabin that stood 

at the foot of the hill was a historical landm ark to our tribe. But it 

was recently burned to the ground. This tore the heart out of our 

trib al members, especially those tha t remembered their fathers and 

their grandfathers tha t took pride in building the cabin. I remember 

it well; my father was one of them.

But we are strong, and we are a proud race of people. We have 

pulled through world wars, the depression, and termination. Today 

we are prepared to start over.

Over the last year, we have had many meetings with the Siletz 

City Council and the Siletz Plannin g Commission about Government 

Hill. We have spent months talking with our non-Indian neighbors 

about our emotions for and dreams about Government H ill. We have 

had to explain a lot, and it has often been hard because many newer 

residents do not share our memories of our homeland. But our efforts 

paid off. In one of the largest turnouts ever in a Siletz city election,
36

the people in Siletz voted to give us back our Government Hill. Just 

last week we had a meeting where we agreed on the final details of the 

transfer.

Our friendship and cooperation with the city of Siletz and our nonIndian neighbors will continue in the future.

We have plans to rebuild our tribal headquarters on Government 

Hill, the only appropriate place. We plan to have a cultural and community center which will include a gymnasium, a kitchen, classrooms, 

and a much-needed daycare center. We have only one school in Siletz, 

and it cannot accommodate activities such as cu ltural classes or potlucks, tribal meetings, powwows, Indian basketball and baseball teams, 

and other tribal activities.

Our plan also includes outdoor recreation such as tennis courts, football fields, powwow grounds, and camping grounds for tribal members.

Some of the land will be left unimproved to teach our young people 

the traditional value of land. We will be able to take them on outings 

and teach them to dig roots and gath er materials for basketmaking. 

And we will be able to have a p rivate place for a sweat lodge, which 

is a religious tradition.

Our plans also include a health clinic to deal with our health problems: nutrition, medical, dental, alcohol, drug abuse, and mental problems. Our health problems are critical in Siletz simply because Siletz 

families cannot afford routine medical care.

In a recent study, we found tha t diabetes, cancer, and injuries were 

reported as leading causes of death. But the shocking report to our 

tribe was 44 percent of our trib al members die of cardiovascular 

disease. Our nearest health clinic is the Chemawa Indian School, 100 

miles away. Although we are grate ful for the existing program and 

assistance, we are not able to reach and help all of our people.

We need land ; we need timber; and we need a steady source of income that will enable the tribe to run our own programs. We do not 

want to become totally dependent on the Government or welfare.

With the establishment of our reservation, the Siletz Tribe will be 

provided with an independent source of revenue. Right now our tribe 

does not have adequate income to support our tribal government needs. 

We do not have the ability to pay our tr ibal chairman or tr iba l council members. Without our own source of income, our tribe cannot meet 

basic administrative costs, including local matching funds, maintenance, or contracted services such as socioeconomic studies or longrange planning assistance. Our tribe, as other federally recognized 

tribes, should have an independent ability to secure competent technical assistance and legal consultation. These are all needs related to 

establishing a self-sufficient, independent tribal government that will 

continue to exist for our people for coming generations.

Some of our tribal members are not eligible for all benefits. An i ndependent source of money is essential to help the maintenance, administration, and tribal council functioning so they can fulfill the 

needs of our growing tribe.

The unemployment levels for tribal members are high. In Lincoln 

County the unemployment rate is 44 percent among Indian people. 

Our timber operation would employ many of our tribal members. Our
goal is to improve the lives of our people and to help them sustain 

their sense of pride. We need sufficient income to provide a permanent 

existence for our tribal government.

The establishment of the reservation will also reflect that Indian 

people have a unique relationship with the land. Land is a focal point 

for tribal culture. We place a high traditional value on land. It is 

there tha t we gath er berries, sprouts, greens, and mushrooms to eat. 

Some of our tribal members still peel cascara bark, and they go out 

and pick ferns to sell to supplement their income. Many go out to the 

mountains to pick wild hazelnuts and dig roots to make baskets. We 

than k the Great Spirit every day for the many things tha t the land 

provides for us.

Senator Hatfield, I would personally like to thank you for the tribe. 

I would like to mention one of the things tha t you would be interested in. Many of our trib al members are out gathering roots and 

materials; they are attending basketry classes; and this is very importan t to our tribe and just one example of what has happened as a result 

of your act in 1977.

The establishment of the reservation would enable us to be a selfsufficient tribe in many ways: socially, economically, and culturally. 

An Ind ian without land is nothing. Our reservation will be a place to 

rediscover and to revitalize the identity and the pride of once again 

being members of the confederated tribes of Siletz.

I urge you to support this bill so tha t the Siletz Tribe will exist for 

coming generations.

Thank you.

Mr. Bensell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks.

Senator Melcher. Please proceed.

Mr. Bensell. I also carried with me, Senator Hatfield, a letter from 

Roy Weaver, the mayor of Siletz, which I would like to read. It is 

addressed to you. If I may, could I read it at this time ?

Senator Hatfield. Certainly.

Mr. Bensell [reading] :

Dear Senator Hatfield: The Siletz City Council has asked me, as Mayor of 

Siletz, to write this letter to you on behalf of the council. We would appreciate 

you including this letter in the record of the committee hearings which will be 

held on Wednesday, January 30,1980.

As you know, las t November the city council called for an advisory vote of the 

citizens of Siletz on the question of Government Hill. The results of that advisory 

vote favor tra nsfer of Government Hill to the tribe.

Since the vote, we have had a number of meetings with the tribe and its representatives. An extraordinarily fair and cooperative spirit has prevailed on both 

sides. We believe tha t we have reached a memorandum of understanding setting 

our agreement with the tribe. Our working relationship with the tribe is excellent 

in all respects.

This plan has the potential to be a very good thing for the City of Siletz. 

Although there was definitely conflict during the early stages, those disagreements have clearly faded during the last 2 months. Most citizens now seem to 

appreciate the wide range of benefits that it appears will result from the tribal 

plan. In short, it seems to us tha t the citizens of Siletz are now pulling together 

to establish a tribal complex on Government Hill tha t will benefit the entire 

community.

We hope tha t this bill will pass promptly so that plans can become a reality. 

Very truly yours,

R ot D. Weaver, Mayor of Siletz.
38

If I may, I will continue.

Senator Melcher. Surely.

Mr. Bensell. Mr. Chairman, the Siletz triba l council has been very 

busy since restoration on the many tasks facing our newly restored 

nation. The restoration act provided for an interim tribal government 

which would draft a constitution for the tribe. We worked hard to 

develop a document that would serve as the basis for our triba l government for generations to come. That constitution was adopted on June 2,

1979, and we feel—the Siletz people feel—this is a very good and 

workable constitution. I think it is being used in Ind ian country now 

as an example to update other constitutions where tribes have been 

busy for many years. So we thin k we have a very good constitution. *

We have established three Indian area offices to help serve our 

members scattered throughout western Oregon as a result o f termination. We have put tribal members to work helping each other as job 

counselors, health aides, and school and education assistants. We have »

set up committees to administer housing assistance programs fo r our 

elderly and low income. We have sponsored cultu ral and spiritual activities for our tribal members.

We are in the process of completing our enrollment ordinance and 

election ordinance. We are dedicated to establishing the finest trib al 

government we can for our people.

But the major task of our tri bal government has been to work with 

the Department of the Inte rior on this plan for the Siletz Indian 

Reservation presented to you as S. 2055.

The process of putting together a plan tha t would truly serve the 

needs of our people in the generations to come has been the overriding 

concern of the tribal council since restoration. Land is central to our 

purpose.

Many Bureau officials were tough and consistent in insisting tha t 

this be a workable plan. Difficult and often pain ful decisions had to 

be made along the way. This plan was not what we wanted; yet we 

felt forced to accept trade-offs in order to develop a plan that was 

workable to all concerned.

At the second annual restoration powwow in November 1978, we 

began discussing the needs of our people for a reservation. Early 

in 1979, we met with representatives from the Department of the 

Interior from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Portla nd area office.

Area director, Vincent Little, appointed assistant area director *

Doyce W aldrip to be involved with the project from the start. Other 

Bureau representatives have been involved deeply in the project as 

well. We were able to establish from the beginning that this would 

be a team effort between the Department and the tribe. *

Upon the advice of the area office, the trib al council hired CH2M 

Hill as professional planning consultant to the project. T his was done 

under the contracting procedure set by the Ind ian Self Determination Act. CH2M Hill has worked directly for the tribe in compliance 

with work plans and contracts developed with the assistance and 

approval of the Portlan d area office. A detailed work program for 

the project was drawn up with the tribe, the Bureau, and CH2M 

Hill all having critical areas of involvement.
39

I would like to say something about CH2M Hill. They are a very 

reputable worldwide consulting firm, and we were fortu nate th at they 

were based in our backyard. They were very accessible to us.

The planning has been long and difficult. Mr. Blosser from CH2M 

is going to explain this process.

Phase I of the plan included the preparing needed for detailed 

social and economic data about tribal members, an d a review of the 

history of our former coast reservation. It also included research 

into various potential trib al enterprises and economic development 

opportu nities for the tribe, as well as a detailed analysis of land 

ownership in Lincoln County.

This work was completed from March to May. The resultin g 

reports were used at a decisionmaking meeting on June 2 and 3 at 

which representatives of the tribe, the Bureau, and CH2M Hill 

were present. At this time, the land ownership inventory prepa red 

by the Bureau and CH2M Hill was interfaced with the tribal goals 

and the tribal enterprise profiles.

The concepts to be concentrated on were chosen at tha t point; 

namely, to survey in detail certain BLM-adm inistered public domain 

lands, and the resources and revenues necessary for the operation 

of minimal tribal facilities and programs.

Phase II of the planning process extended from Jun e through 

Jul y and focused on the selection of par ticu lar land parcels to be 

included in the reservation plan and on the development and review 

of a detailed profile of these lands. At this point, numerous Stat e 

and local governmental agencies as well as a number of special 

interes t groups had also become quite involved in the plannin g 

process, and their inpu t was invaluable in arriving at later decisions.

Phase II I of the plan included development of economic, 

environmental, social, and governmental impact analysis. Again, 

State agencies and local governmental bodies played a very im portant 

role in decisionmaking.

Phase IV consisted of prepari ng the proposed reservation plan.

As a trib al council, we had become experts in many areas: Land 

use pla nning, taxes, Federal timber revenue distributions, social a nd 

economic indicators, economic development, and politics.

We met in March with the State director of the Bureau of Land 

Management, Murl Storms, and with the regional forester for the 

Fores t Service, R. E. Worth ington . These meetings, arranged by area 

direct or Vince L ittle and at tended by him and other Bureau of In dian 

Affairs officials, resulted in a close and fru itfu l working relationship. 

The B ureau of La nd Management a pproved our plan at both the State 

and national level, which shows we have a reasonable plan.

The triba l council met in early Apr il with Gov. Vic A tiyeh to ask 

him to help us implement the consultation process. A t our request, he 

appoin ted a special commission of State officials to consult with the 

tribe and t he D epartment of the Inte rior du ring the p lanning process. 

The committee was chaired by attorney general James Redden, and 

included the following persons: John Donaldson, director, Fish and 

Wildlife Commission; Leo Hegstrom, director, D epartm ent of Human 

Resources; Vern Duncan, Stat e superintendent of public instructio n; 

William Cox, director, division of State lands; J. B. Bedingfield,
40

director, executive dep artm ent; Rudy Clements, member, commission 

on India n services; Robyn Godwin, director, department of revenue;

W. J. Kvarsten, director, department of land conservation and development; J. E. Schroeder, State forester; and Dell Isiiam, State 

senator, district two. We had very productive meetings w ith this commission as a whole on May 18, July 28, and November 8, during which 

detailed discussions of the planning were held, and constructive and 

helpful criticisms were made by the committee members.

We changed course on several significant aspects of the plan as a 

result of their input. We also were able to develop excellent staff-level 

cooperation as a result of the formal committee’s establishment. Lincoln County planners and Siletz City Council and Planning Coma

mission members also attended these meetings on occasion.

A number of meetings were held with the Siletz City Council and 

Plan ning Commission regarding the tran sfer of Government Hill 

back to the Federal Government to be held in tru st for the tribe. The 9

end result o f these meetings was the decision of the Siletz City Council to make the transfer. Tnis decision was based upon thorough study, 

a unanimous planning commission recommendation for the transfer, 

and a strong citizen vote of approval in one of the largest turnouts 

ever in a Siletz City election. The tribe and the city have now agreed 

upon exact conditions of the trans fer.

I would digress for a moment to pay tribute to Governor Atiyeh. I 

sat on the Commission of Indian Services in th e Sta te of Oregon with 

Victor, and when our first powwow was opened I introduced Vic as our 

next Governor of Oreg on; it happened. Victor knows Indian country, 

knows Indian people, and he has continued to support us in our efforts.

He says, “You have an open door to my office; come in any time.”

I would also pay tribute to the City Council of Siletz. Mayor 

Weaver was raised in Siletz, and it was through his efforts and those of 

the council tha t we were able to get the hill back for the tribe.

We have also had separate meetings with special interest groups such 

as the Steelheaders and Tro ut Unlimited. We have met with the Oregon Fish and W ildlife Commission. We have met with several service 

groups and church groups. I can report that where people have 

listened with an open mind we have gained the goodwill and support of 

the Oregon public wherever we have gone with this plan.

Importantly, we have addressed other Indian groups as well as our 

own tribal people. Again, we have found there to be widespread sup- *

port for the efforts of our tribe in regaining a very small portion of our 

former homelands.

An objection raised often is th at the land base is too small. But we 

have had to become realists and have had to make many compromises. *

As a result of the extensive consultation process set into motion bv the 

Siletz Restoration Act, we believe that we have developed a reservation 

plan that will meet the minimum needs of our tribe in the future and 

will assure a self-sufficient tribal government for our people.

We believe this reservation will be an asset to the State of Oregon 

and particularly to the county and local community where it is located.

We believe that the broad base of understanding, support, and cooperative spirit tha t has resulted from the planning process will continue 

to be a positive force for our tribe and our State.
41

The working relationship th at we now have with the State and its 

agencies is perhaps unparalleled in the United States. We are able to 

discuss matters before they become problems rather than fight about 

them later.

We have much hope for the future. Our hope is based upon the reestablishment of our land base so that the fu ture generations of Siletz 

Indians will always have a place to call home and a people to welcome 

them.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. It has been a pleasure. 

We thank you for the invitation to come here and present our testimony in favor of this very im portant piece of legislation for the Siletz 

people. Thank you.

Senator Melcher. Mr. Blosser of CH2M, do you have testimony ?

Mr. Blosser. Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Blosser. I am currently planning director of the planning division in the Portland, Oreg., office of 

CH2M Hill. I was the project admin istrator for our firm on this pro ject and involved throughout the entire process.

In my testimony I would like to discuss very briefly five questions 

tha t have come up occasionally about the plan: Fir st, what qualified 

CH2M Hill to assist the trib e; second, what was the procedure tha t 

we went through in formulating the plan; third, who was included in 

the process; fourth, what alternatives were considered; and, lastly, 

why is this plan the best one we could have come up with ?

I have also prepared some written testimony which is much more 

lengthy. I believe that has been given to the clerk and will be, with your 

permission, entered into the record.

Senator Melcher. With out objection, it will be included in the 

record at the end of your testimony.

Mr. Blosser. CH2M Hill is an alphabet-soup name of people 

founded in Corvallis. The firm was founded in about 1016; we currently have about 1,800 employees in 30 offices throughout the world.

Although our business is now worldwide in nature, our home base 

is still Oregon. We have about 500 employees in Corvallis and Po rtland. These employees cover a very wide range of specialties: All of 

the engineering disciplines, waste water, civil engineering, and so 

forth. But also, most importantly for this project, planners, economists, aquatic and wildlife biologists, mappers, surveyors, and 

architects.

The staff had a lot of experience also in working with Indian tribes 

and the BIA. One example is that we prepared the comprehensive plan 

for the Warm Springs reservation a couple of hundred miles east of 

the Siletz Reservation.

In short, I think t ha t the reason the Siletz Tribe came to us to work 

on this project was that we provided them with a supermarket of skills 

tha t they could draw on at any stage in the planning process.

When this whole thin g started, no one, including ourselves, quite 

knew how to form a plan for a reservation that did not yet exist.

The procedure for the plan was set out in very early 1979 when we 

first met with the tribe. At that point, the tribe had already taken 

some pretty important steps in establishing the process that they were 

going to pursue. I irst, they had formed a tribal government, which 

is pre tty critical because there they had, in the triba l council, a policymaking group tha t could decide what was going to happen. Second,
42

they had completed the first stage of their enrollment so we knew 

whom we were dealing with and how many tr ibal members. And third , 

and probably most important from our point of view as planners, they 

had completed an in-depth house-to-house survey and interview of 

tribal members living in the eight-county service area.

So, we had very good information on the economic, social, housing, 

and health conditions of th e triba l members at tha t time.

In our first work session with the tribe, which lasted two long, rainy 

days in Newport, we discussed where we would be goin g in the next 

few months with the planning process. At this time two rath er critical 

procedures were established. F irst, there was a very, very strong feeling on the pa rt of the trib e t hat th e planning process had to be a very 

a

open one ; they knew th at there was a lot of potentia l controversy over 

the establishment of a reservation and a lot of interest by a lot of 

groups in wh at would be happening.

So, it was decided tha t at each stage of the planning process all *

possibly interested groups would have a chance to look at the dra ft, 

and have a chance to comment on it, and have a chance to be consulted.

A key component of this was mentioned in previous testim ony: the 

establishment by Governor A tiyeh of the State agency task force. This 

was parti cularly critical from our point of view because this meant 

tha t all of our proposals were being considered at the highest levels of 

State government.

The second th ing tha t we established at tha t first meeting was tha t 

whatever we came up with had to be carefully documented, by as careful research as we could possibly do, given the time constraints. Tha t 

wa9 to be prim arily our role. A s planners and consultants, we were to 

be the hit men for finding and documenting whatever needed to be 

documented to justi fy the amount of land tha t would be requested 

in the reservation plan.

At the conclusion o f the work session, the next task we performed 

was to prepare the social profile of the tribe. The complete documentation on this was provided in the plan. I thin k all that needs to be 

said at this point is tha t tha t social profile portr ayed a tribe tha t 

needed very, very badly many of the services th at could be provided 

on a reservation.

After pre parin g th at social profile, we then met at w hat I would call 

the most critical meeting of the whole plan ning process w ith the triba l 

council, again for 2 days. We worked out th e tribe ’s short- and long- *

term goals. These goals, as you can read them in the plan, focused 

prim arily on social, economic, and health issues. They also established 

the two characteristics tha t the tribe was going to look for in establishing a reservation. *

The first was Government Hill. Tha t had to be a pa rt of the reservation. As Chairman Bensell has said, negotiations were begun with 

the city of Siletz and have been concluded, very happ ily, recently.

The second th ing was t ha t they needed a land base to provide income for sustaining tribal activities that could not be funded from 

other sources and also as a means to provide employment for trib al 

member's.

After this goal-setting session, we were directed to go back and 

put together a reasonable and necessary budget for what would be 

needed to be sustained on the reservation. The first thin g we did was to
43

work with the trib al members and the BIA to establish what trib al 

services would be provided in the next 10-year perio d: health, education, and welfare-type services.

We did detailed budgets of the manpower space needs. We even 

called in our architects to design roughly the buildings tha t would be 

needed to house these people so tha t we could make reliable cost 

estimates of th e costs to build the facilities we were talking about.

Second, we investigated in depth the possible and potential tribal 

enterprises tha t they could en ter into t ha t would give the tribe income 

to supp ort these activities. We attacked this in two ways. We first 

looked at what enterprises were realistic to be looked at in Lincoln 

County. This came down to prim arily timber-related things, resortrelated things, and aquaculture. Second, and probably most i nterestingly for many of us, we conducted a 1-day economic development 

conference in our offices in P ortl and to which many of the tribal members came, and at which we invited, and which was attended by, all 

of the Federal agencies tha t have majo r program s for Indians as 

well as a number of tribal members for o ther tribes who have experience in running and t rying to establish tribal enterprises.

A major conclusion that emerged from our investigation of potential 

enterprises in Lincoln County, as well as this economic development 

conference, was tha t all of the enterprises that employed significant 

numbers of people also required large investments of capital, posed 

very hig h risks of failure, and, above all, required very highly skilled 

and experienced management.

The tribe decided tha t at this point in its existence i t did not currently have the manage rial skills to take on any very large-scale enterprises. Rather, i t fe lt th at its key and most imp ortant goal at th is time, 

and probably for the next 5 years or maybe even 10 years, had to be 

to take care of the pressing social and health needs of its members.

Therefore , we went back to th e drawing b oard looking for an enterprise which was n ot h igh risk, did not require high levels of management skills which, a t this point, the tribe did not develop, and which 

would provide a steady, secure source of income so that the tribe could 

meet its first obligations to its people.

This enterprise, as we call it—and the only one tha t was realistic— 

was timber management and harvest. Th is enterprise fit very well with 

tribal experience. Many of the tribal members had been loggers and 

understand the forests. Stanley Stron g is one. Also, the BIA has 

tremendous experience in assisting tribes in managin g forests. So, 

the managerial skills were there in place.

The amount of land that was needed for this reservation was the 

next question: How much do you need ? We went back to our budget, 

which I indicated earlier we had developed, and we had come to the 

figure of around $600,000 as an annual income as being adequate to do 

the things the tribe needed. When I say adequate, I mean th is $600,000 

would provide money to cover the expenses of operating the tribes th at 

are not possible to be covered by grants and funds from BIA and other 

Government sources; second, money to help fund b uildin g the facilities that they wanted to build on Government H il l; and, last, some 

9eed moneys tha t could be used to establish enterpris es at a la ter time, 

seed money which could also be loaned to trib al members to establish 

thei r own businesses wherever they may live.
44

So, $600,000 became the goal we were shooting at to derive from 

the timber operations. Then, the next step was establishing how much 

timber would be necessary to provide this income.

Here, our economists and the BIA foresters did a very, very detailed and lengthy survey of all the land in Lincoln County. We mapped 

all the l an d: private and all of the various categories of public land.

We mapped the location of all recreation activities, potential dam sites, 

highly important fishing areas, critical endangered species h abitats: 

all possible things that might have an effect on what land would be 

desirable for including in a reservation.

One of the key people we talked to during this stage wyas Georgia 

Pacific. Georgia Pacific is the largest single private landowner in the 

area and one whose properties are scattered all over the county. We 

approached them on the basis: “Can we purchase land from you?”

This would avoid any requirement for dedicating public lands to the

tribe. w

Georgia Pacific was not very interested in this at all, raising the 

question that we might have to use eminent domain if we were to try 

to pursue that. But, most important, our foresters found that most 

of the Georgia Pacific land had very little mechantafole timber on it ; 

it had all been harvested in the last 20 years. So, that was not a very 

good alternative. And that same thing was true of almost all the other 

private land in the county.

The next two groups we talked to were the Forest Service and the 

BLM—the managers of the Federal Lands in the county. The Forest 

Service has extensive, very large and contiguous parcels of property 

in the county. Unfortunately, these parcels are also some of the most 

highly used for recreation purposes; they also include some of the best 

fishing areas for anglers. Also, timber harvests of the Forest Service 

lands retu rn about 25 percent of their revenues to the counties in the 

area. So, withdrawing Forest Service lands would have been a severe 

blow to the counties.

Second, BLM land. BLM manages two types of land, one of which 

we call O. & C. lands. These are lands which were returned to BLM 

management from the demise of an old railroad. These lands, unfortunately from our point of view, return 50 percent of their timber 

revenues to the counties, an even heavier blow were we to try to withdraw this land for the reservation.

The last lands tha t were available really, tha t did not impose a *

tremendous economic hardship on the counties and areas around, 

were the BLM public domain lands. It is these lands tha t the tribe 

is requesting to be included in the reservation, and only a portion of 

them that exist in the county. <

These lands return only 5 percent of their revenues to the county 

which, as was mentioned earlier, the tribes are willing to make up 

and continue to pay to the counties for 25 years. Also, very importantly from our point of view, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Departm ent found tha t there were no critical wildlife habitats or recreation values there and so forth. In other words, it caused no problem 

for them.

BLM public domain lands—we determined very quickly tha t about 

3,600 acres would be adequate to provide a fairly steady $600,000 

per year.
45

To confirm tha t we had the righ t amount of land, we hired Dr. 

Joh n Beuter of OSTT to review all of our calculations and figures. Dr. 

Beuter was chosen because he is a nationally recognized figure in 

forest economics. He will present his comments in a few minutes.

To conclude my comments very quickly, what I have tried to show 

in this testimony and the written testimony I have submitted, is tha t 

the process of developing this plan was a very thoughtfu l, deliberate, 

and, above all, a cooperative process. The tribe did not charge off 

and do it alone. I t was at every point reviewed carefully by everybody 

who could possibly have an interest in the State of Oregon and Fed ­

eral agencies outside of the State.

We made every attem pt we could to thoroughly research all of 

the alternatives. We made every attem pt to minimize any adverse 

economic, social, or environmental problems tha t migh t be caused 

by creating the reservation. I think in my 10 years of experience in 

working with other tribes and citizens’ groups on plans of this sort, 

this tribe has made the words “part icipa tory democracy” mean more 

for me than at any time before. It really involved people in the 

process.

The reservation plan tha t I think you have before you today is a 

good one, a superior one, and a very fair one.

I than k you, and I would be very happy to answer any questions 

you may have.

[Testimony resumes on p. 64.]

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 4
WRITTEN TESTIMONY

PREPARED FOR THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

INDIAN AFFAIRS ON 5.2055 FOR PRESENTATION ON 

30 JANUARY 1980

PREPARED BY WILLIAM R. BLOSSER, PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER, 

CH2M HILL

INTRODUCTION

This written testimony is prepared to supplement oral testimony presented to the committee. The testimony references 

the Siletz Indian Reservation Plan and the Support Data 

document presented to the committee with the oral testimony. 

This written testimony is divided into six sections:

1. Qualifications of CH2M HILL

2. Plan Preparation Process

3. Coordination and Consultation

4. Socioeconomic Profile of the Tribe

5. Alternatives Considered

6. Economic, Physical, and Jurisdictional Effects 

of Forming the Reservation

QUALIFICATIONS OF CH2M HILL

CH2M HILL is an international consulting firm of engineers, 

planners, economists, and scientists. The firm is employee 

owned, with more than 1,800 people located in 30 offices.

The company was founded in 1946 in Corvallis, Oregon, which 

lies just 20 miles east of the proposed reservation. Its 

500 employees in Oregon are intimately familiar with all 

parts of the state, and the staff includes all the specialist 

that are needed to undertake a complex reservation planning 

process. Further information on the general capabilities of 

the firm are provided at Tab H of the Support Data .

The firm has conducted a large number of economic development 

resource inventory, and comprehensive planning studies for a 

number of Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Recent studies include:

• A comprehensive development plan for the Warm

Springs Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. The plan 

addresses timber management and forest product 

manufacturing, recreational and convention center 

development, and resource conservation. Assistance 

provided included a detailed feasibility study of
on-reservation forest products manufacturing and 

feasibility studies of other economic development 

possibilities.

• A comprehensive inventory of reservation resources 

and development for the Confederated Tribes of the 

Dmatilla Indian Reservation. This study served as 

the first step in a comprehensive planning program 

for the reservation. CH2M HILL subsequently 

prepared a water need study that projects water 

need to the year 2020.

• An economic feasibility study and site plan for 

tourist development on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho.

• An economic feasibility study and site development 

plan for recreational development on the Spokane 

Indian Reservation in Washington.

• An estimate of the value of goods, services, and 

wages owed the Pribilof Aleuts on the basis of a 

claim under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 

1946. CH2M HILL was retained by the Aleut 

Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands, 

Pribilof Islands, Alaska.

• A water resources inventory of the Tule River 

Indian Reservation, Tulare County, California,

with recommendations for water resource conservation 

and development measures. CH2M HILL was retained 

by the Tribal Council of the Tule River Indian 

Reservation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

• A survey of sites for office structures in five 

villages for the Bristol Bay Native Association, 

Alaska.

• A feasibility study on a fish processing plant at 

Haydaburg, Alaska, for the Haida Native Corporation. 

This study examines the economic and financial 

feasibility of the plant and identifies the 

facilities that will be needed.

CH2M HILL has also prepared many comprehensive plans for 

cities and counties and conducted other related studies. A 

list of urban and regional planning experience is at Tab H 

of the Support Dat a. Since this list was assembled, we have 

prepared comprehensive plans for the Cities of Fairview, 

Dundee, Cornelius, and Silverton, Oregon.
48

CH2M HILL has extensive experience in preparing environmental 

impact statements and other environmental impact evaluation 

documents required by NEPA. Most of our work has been on 

specific projects, such as industrial plants, wastewater 

collection and treatment systems, airports, and highway 

projects. These normally address both the direct effects of 

the project on its environs and indirect effects on surrounding 

communities. We have also done many impact assessments on 

proposed plans. These include:

• A water pollution control and abatement plan for 

Skagit County, Washington

• A water resource management plan for the Cedar and *

Green River basins for the municipality of met ropolitan Seattle and the City of Seattle, Washington

• The Section 208 areawide water quality management

plans for the Columbia Region Association of ’•

Governments (now the Metropolitan Service District) 

in Portland, Oregon, and for the Lane Council of 

Governments in Eugene, Oregon

In all, we have prepared approximately 150 environmental 

impact statements, assessments, and other related documents 

required pursuant to NEPA and state environmental impact 

laws.

PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS

The formal reservation planning process began at the second 

annual powwow celebrating the Tri be’s restoration in November 

1978. Informal discussions about the reservation among 

tribal members and guests provided the Tribal Council with a 

general sense of the Tribe's interests and concerns.

The Tribal Council then began its consideration of the steps 

to be taken in the actual formulation of a reservation plan.

The Portland area office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) designated several staff representatives to work with 

the Tribe on the project. The need for additional assistance 

was identified.

In March, the Tribal Council engaged CH2M HILL as planning 

consultant to the reservation planning project. After 

receiving a detailed orientation by the Tribal Council,

CH2M HILL planners prepared a work program for the development 

of the plan. This work program, adopted by the Tribal 

Council, defined the approach to be taken and provided for 

the integration of work being done by the Tribal Council,

BIA, tribal legal counsel, and CH2M HILL, and for the <

3
involvement of various governmental agencies and interest 

groups at key points in the program. The work program is 

included at Tab A of the Support Data.

Twenty-four CH2M HILL professional staff participated in 

preparing the reservation plan. The list of these personnel 

are included at Tab L of the Support Dat a. The staff spent 

approximately 3,700 man hours on the project over an 8-month 

period.

Phase I of the plan development included the preparation of 

a socioeconomic profile of the Tribe (see Chapter 5 of the 

Plan) and a historical review of the Tribe (see Chapter 4 of 

the Plan). It also included the development of tribal goals 

and priorities, the research of various economic development 

opportunities for the Tribe, and the development of alternative 

reservation concepts. During this phase an economic development conference with state, Federal, and local agencies and 

with other tribes was conducted (see Tab B of Support Data).

See Tab J for other physical background data.

A key step in Phase I was the formulation of tribal goals 

(see Chapter 6 of the Pla n). The Tribal Council met in 

March 1979 to establish tribal goals relating to the reservation planning project. These were intended to provide 

direction to the consultant assisting the Tribe in the 

planning effort and to clarify the priorities of the Tribe.

Two major purposes of the reservation became clear: 1) to 

reestablish a "home" for the Tribe, a location where tribal 

facilities could be constructed and where tribal members 

could gather for activities, and 2) to provide a long-term 

source of income for the Tribe to ensure the permanent 

existence of its tribal government and to provide seed 

monies for tribal enterprises. Another priority that emerged 

was to choose land that would involve the least negative 

social, economic, and environmental impacts.

This work was completed from March to May. The resulting 

reports were used at a decision-making workshop during which 

the Tribal Council determined the reservation concept to be 

studied in greater detail. The reports were also discussed 

at General Council meetings and in tribal newsletters during 

this period. Local, state, and Federal governmental agencies 

and decision-makers were contacted by the Tribe and informed 

that the planning process was underway. These agencies and 

decision-makers supplied data to the tribal consultants on 

request. At the Tribe's request, Governor Victor Atiyeh 

appointed an advisory committee of state officials to facilitat 

consultation (see Appendix A of the Pl an ).
50

Phase II of the planning process extended from June through 

July and focused on the selection of land parcels to be 

included in the reservation plan and on the development and 

review of a detailed profile of these lands.

This data gathering and review process resulted in a series 

of refinements in the reservation concept itself and in the 

specific parcels of land to be included in the proposal.

Input from state and local governmental agencies, as well as 

a variety of interest groups, played an important role in 

the final decision of the 3IA and the Tribe on lands to be 

included in the reservation plan.

Phase III of the planning effort included the development of *

economic, environmental, social, and governmental analyses 

during August and September. Affected agencies and interest 

groups provided more detailed information on the proposed 

reservation lands and suggested various measures for mitigating 

perceived negative impacts. *

Phase IV consisted of preparing a proposed reservation plan, 

receiving comments from affected parties, revising the 

proposed plan, and completing a final plan for Department of 

Interior review and approv al.

COORDINATION AND CONSOLTATION

The formation of the Plan involved intensive coordination 

and consultation with tribal members, government officials, 

and interested citizens and citizen groups. This involvement 

was provided for in paragraph 711e(c) of the Restoration 

Act, and was pursued enthusiastically by the Tribe and the 

BIA. Numerous meetings as well as extensive written and 

telephone communications took place between Bureau of Indian 

Affairs officials, Tribal Council members, and the state and 

local officials and other interested parties. Every effort 

was made to ensure that all parties were well informed and 

had a continuing opportunity to comment and provide input in 

the development of the Pla n.

A list of the officials, agencies, and interested parties 

consulted during the reservation plan development is included 

in Appendix A of the Pl an. The Siletz Restoration Act 

Committee was appointed by Governor Victor Atiyeh at the 

Tribe's request to consult with the Department of the Interior 

and the Tribe during the development of the_Plan.

Topics addressed during the meetings attended by the Tribe 

and the consultant included potential and identified size 

and location of the proposed reservation; effect of establishment of the reservation on state and local tax revenues; *

.5
51

possible tribal enterprises; civil and criminal jurisdiction 

issues; hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of the Tribe 

and its members; provision of state and local services to 

the reservation, the Tribe, and tribal members; and provision 

of Federal and tribal services to the reservation, the 

Tribe, and tribal members. As a result of these meetings, 

extensive staff-to-staff communication between the Department, 

the Tribe, and the state agencies was facilitated, so that 

the consultation process has been ongoing and not simply 

limited to these meetings.

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE TRIBE

A key consideration in establishing the tribal goals and in 

determining the alternatives to be considered was the socioeconomic conditions of tribal members. To determine these 

conditions, the Tribe and the BIA commissioned an extensive 

• survey of tribal members by an outside consultant. Dsing

this data, CH2M HILL prepared a socioeconomic profile of the 

Tribe. Chapter 5 of the Plan details this profile. A 

summary is presented below.

There are currently 1,083 enrolled members of the Siletz 

Tribe and 613 tribal families. Of these Siletz families,

48 percent live within the eight counties designated as the 

service area for the Tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The largest concentration of these families lives in Lincoln 

County. Enrollment is expected to peak at 2,000; many of 

those yet to enroll live in Lincoln County.

Over one-third of Siletz families living inside the eight-county 

service area and 18 percent of those living outside the 

service area have incomes below the official United States 

poverty level. The median household income for Siletz 

families is less than one-half of the state average and the 

per capita income is only 38 percent of the state average.

Unemployment levels for tribal members are high. In Lincoln 

County, Indians have a 44-percent unemployment rate, and 

most of these Indians are tribal members. Additionally,

Indians are heavily under-represented in higher-ranked 

occupations and over-represented in lower-ranked occupations.

In Lincoln County, 20 percent of persons receiving public 

assistance are Indians. This over-representation in social 

*■ service caseloads is a measure of the need within the Siletz

Tribe for a broad range of special programs.

Many tribal members suffer from severe health problems.

, Cardiovascular disease is responsible for 44 percent of

deaths. Diabetes, cancer, and ulcers are other major causes

6
52

of death. Nutritional deficiencies are widespread and 

undoubtedly contribute to the high incidence of other problems.

Alcoholism affects nearly every Siletz family. Tribal 

members have difficulty securing routine health care, and 

there is no tribal facility to provide such care.

Nearly 20 percent of Siletz family housing within the service 

area has either substandard water facilities, or septic 

facilities, or both. Twenty-eight percent of Siletz families 

live in substandard housing, a figure significantly above 

the state average.

Nearly half of the adult tribal members did not complete *

their high school educations. This drop-out problem continues 

today among the young people.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

INTRODUCTION

The reservation planning process involved the balancing of 

tribal goals and needs with social, environmental, and 

political realities. As is documented in Appendix A of the 

Plan, the planning process included extensive involvement of 

Federal, state, and local governmental representatives and 

interested members of the public. The specific alternatives 

considered can be broken down into five broad categories: 

type of land; location of land; ownership of land; amount of 

land; and tribal enterprises. Alternatives that were 

eliminated from further detailed study are identified and 

reasons are given for their elimination. The alternatives 

that emerged as the proposed reservation plan are discussed 

in more detail under "Proposed Plan."

TYPE OF LAND

Economic Development Resources

Coast land with immediate potential for resort- or touristrelated businesses and urban land suitable for commercial or

industrial use were both considered. Little if any coastal

land is available in Lincoln County; when available, it is

extremely costly. Land suitable for commercial or industrial

use near cities is more available and generally less expensive,

but represents a higher risk investment. For this reason it

was eliminated from consideration. 4

Agricultural Resources

The Tribe also considered agricultural land. Such land is 

not available in sufficient quantities in Lincoln County to

7
provide a strong economic base to the Tribe. Furthermore, 

farming has not been a traditional activity of Siletz members. 

Water Resources

Land including or abutting major water resources abounds in 

Lincoln County. Despite their inherent beauty and the 

recreational opportunities they offer, these estuary and 

river lands were rejected for inclusion in the reservation.

Because of the controversy among commercial, sport, and 

Indian fishing interests in the Northwest, and concern for 

maintaining public access to streams, the Tribe felt a 

request for such lands would only stir opposition and obscure 

the issue of the pressing social needs of its members.

Although the Tribe would have preferred to include such 

lands, there appeared to be too little to be gained and much 

to be lost by selecting lands including or abutting major 

rivers.

Timber Resources

There is an abundance of high quality timberland in Lincoln 

County designated for this use by both county and state 

planning agencies. The continuing value of timber, the 

renewable nature of the resource, and the area's suitability 

for growing timber made timberland desirable as an economic 

base for the Tribe. In addition, there is a well-established 

tradition of logging and timber-related employment in the 

background of many tribal families. This land type, therefore 

emerged as the preferred alternative.

LOCATION OF LAND

The Tribe decided that location should not be the deciding 

factor in selecting land. However, because of strong h istorical, cultural, and emotional ties, a strong preference 

was felt for the Siletz area. The Tribe also has strong 

ties to Government Hill, which is the focal point for tribal 

activities and the site of the tribal cemetery. Acquisition 

of Government Hill was identified as one of the tribal 

goals.

The elimination of certain land areas because of type or 

ownership, as discussed above and below, was another factor 

in the final selection of preferred land location. The 

Tribe would have preferred a contiguous reservation or at 

least a contiguous parcel of timberland. This, however, 

would not be possible without unacceptable negative social, 

economic, and environmental impacts.
54

OWNERSHIP OF LAND

The ownership of land throughout Lincoln County is shown on 

Figure 4 of the Plan.

Private Land

Although private land in the Siletz area was considered for 

the site of the tribal center, it was ultimately rejected 

for a number of reasons. Most private land parcels of 

adequate size and privacy for the tribal center are located 

outside the City of Siletz and the City's proposed urban 

growth boundary. Developing outside this boundary would put 

the Tribe in possible conflict with the city, county, and 

the state land planning goals. A voluntary sale agreement 

between the Tribe and a private land owner (even on a 

contingency basis) was unlikely before the date set for the 

plan's presentation to Congress (November 18, 1979).

♦

The Tribe felt strongly that it did not want to disrupt 

land-use patterns by choosing rural land outside the urban 

area, removing land from the tax rolls, or requesting the 

Federal government to use eminent domain proceedings.

Eminent domain proceedings would adversely affect the lives 

of private property owners who have been the friends and 

neighbors of Siletz tribal members over the years. The 

Tribe also realized if it requested funds from Congress for 

the voluntary purchase of land, the request would escalate 

land values and make purchase negotiations with a fixed 

amount of money difficult.

From contacts made by the BIA and the Tribe, it became 

quickly apparent that private timberland is generally not 

for sale, and that much of it, especially in the Siletz 

area, has been recently logged.

Forest Service Lands

The U.S. Forest Service owns nearly 178,000 acres of timberland in Lincoln County. Most is consolidated in the northern 

and southern portions of Lincoln County, with relatively 

little acreage in the middle portion of the county.

Much of this land is in contiguous stands of merchantable 

timber. However, even if a relatively small amount of 

Forest Service land were selected for inclusion in the

reservation, the withdrawal would have a significant negative •

impact on the county budget. Under Federal law, the Forest

Service pays 25 percent of its timber revenues from lands

within the county to the county. This amounts annually to

between $3 and $4 million. The Tribe did not feel that it 0

9
could guarantee repayment of these lost revenues. There is 

also no Forest Service land in the Siletz area. Forest 

Service land in Lincoln County is heavily used for camping, 

hunting, and fishing. Even if the Tribe agreed to continue 

public access to these lands, the potential for a future 

change in tribal policy might have been interpreted as a 

negative impact by sports groups.

Bureau of Land Management O&C Lands

O&C land is located even farther away from Siletz than 

Forest Service land. Fifty percent of timber revenues from 

O&C lands are divided among the counties in which such land 

is located, making the economic impact of including such 

land in the reservation even more severe than that of Forest 

Service land withd rawal.

BLM Public Domain Lands

BLM public domain lands are located in relatively small 

parcels throughout the county, and are the closest public 

lands to Siletz. Only 5 percent of timber revenues from 

these lands accrues to the county. The Tribe felt that it 

could guarantee repayment of these revenues to the county 

from its income for 25 years. This land was therefore 

identified as the preferred ownership type.

Other Public Lands

Public land owned by the City of Siletz provided a site for 

a tribal center without many of the problems previously discussed in obtaining private land for this use. Government 

Hill, a 36-acre parcel in the City of Siletz, would provide 

both adequate space and privacy for the tribal center. It 

includes the existing tribal cemetery, was the headquarters 

of the former reservation, and is currently not developed 

except for a water tower and treatment plant. Uses projected 

for this site would fulfill identified needs in the City of 

Siletz and the Tribe.

AMOONT OF LAND

Small Reservation and Large Appropriation

The option of establishing a very small reservation and 

requesting a large appropriation for tribal investment was 

rejected by the Tribe. Indian people have a traditional 

relationship with the land. The Tribe viewed its proper 

role as a steward of the land to use and preserve its 

resources for future generations. It was necessary that the 

amount of land included be adequate to provide for tribal 

facilities and a perpetual tribal economic base.
56

Large Amounts of Timberland

One option seriously considered by the Tribe involved selecting

enough timberland to support a tribally owned and operated

sawmill (see "Tribal Enterprises" below). CH2M HILL's

analysis indicated that 35,000 to 50,000 acres of timberland

would be needed. The Tribe rejected this option because it

felt this encroachment on the private timber industry would

generate tremendous public opposition. This option would

also have necessitated including Forest Service land, since

there are only 15,000 acres of BLM public domain land in the

county. Over 35,000 acres of Forest Service land would have

been required and the withdrawal would have severely affected

both Forest Service personnel levels and revenues to the <

county.

Amount Identified as Necessary

In conformance with the tribal goals, the Tribe decided *

that, at an absolute minimum, income from its lands should

be adequate to: 1) support tribal government and service

programs, and 2) enable the Tribe to build facilities and

invest in business enterprises (see "Tribal Enterprises"

below). A 10-year economic projection was developed that

reflects these minimum requirements, and shows that an

annual tribal income of approximately $600,000 would be

necessary. CH2M HILL's analysis showed that about 3,600 acres

of BLM public domain timberland would meet these needs.

TRIBAL ENTERPRISES

In May 1979, the Tribe sponsored a conference on economic 

development to generate ideas for potential tribal enterprises 

and to learn about other tribes' experiences with these 

businesses. Tribal representatives also spoke with agency 

program directors about economic development funding.

Participants at the conference included representatives of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Farmer's Home Administration, Oregon Department of Economic Development, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Economic Development 

Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Small Business Administration, and the tribal consultant.

Based upon the conference discussions and the interests 

expressed by tribal members, the Tribal Council selected 

several industries as enterprises for further study. These 

included the resort, timber, and aquaculture industries.

The tribal consultant then developed profiles to provide the

Tribe with a general understanding of locational criteria

and the potential risks and opportunities of these industry *

11
groups (see Tabs B, C, and D of the Support Data for further 

information.

Logging Enterprise and Sawmill

Since the reservation will be located on heavily forested 

land, CH2M HILL investigated the operation of both a small 

logging enterprise and a sawmill.

A small logging enterprise would require the capital outlay 

of about $650,000 and employ about eight loggers and a 

part-time bookkeeper. The logging operation would only move 

the wood from the forested stand to the hauling truck. Most 

loggers in the area work about 200 days of the year (since 

weather is restricting) .

The need for skilled management in this type of operation is 

critical since the equipment is dangerous to operate. The 

logging manager must also be a skilled businessperson, with 

a knowledge of who will haul the logs at the cheapest rate 

and which mills are offering the highest prices.

The volume of logs harvested each year on tribal lands would 

not make the purchase of equipment economically feasible.

The equipment would sit idle most of the year while costly 

financing charges were paid. The cutting unit could only 

make a profit by competing with other loggers for timber on 

non-Indian lands. Competition is already stiff, since there 

is not a- great deal of timber left in the area. Most area 

loggers have many years of experience in family operations.

The tribal consultant recommended that, rather than establishing its own logging operation, the Tribe should contract 

with private logging firms for timber harvest.

Low harvest volume and competition for scarce resources also 

indicated that a tribally owned sawmill would not be profitable 

Although a sawmill capable of handling 100,000 to 200,000 

board feet per day would create 20 to 45 full-time jobs, it 

would require the capital outlay of $2.5-6 million. The 

mill might also sit idle frequently, for lack of logs.

The margin of profit in a mill is usually so small that good 

management and skilled mill workers are extremely critical 

to success. Even if the enterprise could find good managers, 

however, it would be adding milling capacity to an area 

already oversupplied for future demands.

Timberland Management

The alternative that was eventually adopted in the reservation 

involves the use of the 3,630 acres of timberland to be .
58

included in the reservation as a land base to assure a 

long-term income from harvesting forest products, chiefly 

timber. The BLM has managed these lands under the multiple 

use concept. Emphasis is upon timber production as the 

highest and best use of the land. The utility of the land 

for fish and wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and 

outdoor recreation is also recognized.

Timber Management and Sal es. Management of the Siletz

forest resources would be in accordance with Federal statutes

governing the management of Indian forest lands. The basic

documents governing operations are 25 CFR, Part 141 and

53 BIAM. The objectives of management are found in 25 CFR

141.3. *

Detailed timber inventory information on the lands proposed 

as the Siletz Indian Reservation is not available at present.

Projections can only be made from BLM data for lands throughout 

Lincoln County. A formal timber management plan will be *

prepared after a detailed, on-the-ground inventory has been 

made of the lands on the reservation. Such a plan will consider all of the aspects of timber management and their 

interrelationships with environmental and social concerns.

The management plan will carefully consider the Tribe's 

goals for the reservation. Close coordination between the 

BIA and the Tribe will be maintained. The inventory will be 

funded through the Portland area office of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and will commence with the restoration of the 

reservation.

In order to verify the methodology used in making the initial 

timber harvest projections, CH2M HILL retained Dr. John 

Beuter of Oregon State University. His initial analysis of 

the data is listed at Tab E of the Support D ata . His more 

recent analysis will be presented in this testimony to the 

committee.

While basically regulated by Federal law and agency guidelines, 

the BIA forest practices meet or exceed the standards 

established by the Oregon Forest Practices Act and Forest 

Practice Rules applicable to the Northwest Oregon Region. A 

staff consisting of a forest manager (GS 11-12), forester 

(GS 5-7-9), forestry technician (GS 3-4-5), and clerk-typist 

(GS 3-4) will manage the forest land on the reservation, and 

supervise timber sales and reforestation efforts (see Tab F 

of Support Data for a further breakdown).

Fire protection and smoke management services will be managed 

in much the same manner as the BLM is doing now. The standard 

harvesting procedure in the area has been ciearcutting. In 

recent years, the average size of clearcuts has dropped to *

13
23 acres on BLM lands in the Salem District. The revenue 

needs of the Tribe and the distribution of timber on the 

proposed reservation lands make continued use of small 

clearcuts a feasible and desirable harvesting option.

Regeneration of timber will be undertaken through the prompt 

replanting of cleared areas. The BIA anticipates an average 

density of 400 Douglas-fir seedlings per acre will maintain 

the timber resource. The actual planting density will vary 

with the capability of the land to grow trees. The higher 

the site index, the more seedlings will be planted on each 

acre.

In order to verify' the methodology used in making the initial 

timber harvest projections, CH2M HILL retained Dr. John 

Beuter of Oregon State University. His initial analysis of 

the data is listed at Tab E of the Support Data. His more 

recent analysis will be presented on this testimony to the 

committee.

While basically regulated by Federal law and agency guidelines 

the BIA forest practices meet or exceed the standards 

established by the Oregon Forest Practices Act and Forest 

Practice Rules applicable to the Northwest Oregon Region. A 

staff consisting of a forest manager (GS 11-12), forester 

(GS 5-7-9), forestry technician (GS 3-4-5), and clerk-typist 

(GS 3-4) will manage the forest land on the reservation, and 

supervise timber sales and reforestation efforts (see Tab F 

of Support Data for further breakdown).

Fire protection and smoke management services will be managed 

in much the same manner as the BLM is doing now. The standard 

harvesting procedure in the area has been ciearcutting. In 

recent years, the average size of clearcuts has dropped to 

23 acres on BLM lands in the Salem District. The revenue 

needs of the Tribe and the distribution of timber on the 

proposed reservation lands make continued use of small 

clearcuts a feasible and desirable harvesting option.

Regeneration of timber will be undertaken through the prompt 

replanting of cleared areas. The BIA anticipates an average 

density o 400 Douglas-fir seedlings per acre will maintain 

the timber resource. The actual planting density will vary 

with the capability of the land to grow trees. The higher 

the site index, the more seedlings will be planted on each 

acre.

Timber Sal es. The timber on the proposed reservation will 

be sold after a detailed appraisal of the timber present, 

based on an on-the-ground cruise, followed by competitive 

bidding. The timber to be cut will be designated by the
60

forest manager of the Siletz Reservation. As officer-in-charge, 

the forest manager is required to protect the land. By 

requiring specific procedures in all phases of the logging 

operation, the appropriate practices to conserve air, land, 

and water quality can be selected for each site.

Detailed provisions in the form of a sale contract will be 

established for each timber sale in accordance with the law.

This framework aids the application of professional judgment 

and expertise in order to harvest timber efficiently, safeguard the productivity of the land, and achieve compliance 

with all applicable rules and regulations.

Aquaculture

CH2M HILL examined the possibilities for ocean ranching and 

salmon production. The capital outlay for a hatchery with 

4-8 full-time employees would range from $2.5 million to 

$4 million.

Operation of a salmon hatchery and growing ponds was found 

to be impractical for the Tribe for several reasons. Hatchery 

management requires experience the Tribe could not provide 

or learn quickly. Biological uncertainties make the venture 

extremely risky for a firm without large financial reserves.

Finally, most of the permits for hatcheries in Oregon estuaries 

have already been issued. The Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife provided important fisheries information for this 

analysis, listed at Tab G of the Support Dat a.

Resort Industry

A full service resort, a rustic inn, and a KOA-style campground 

were profiled as possible enterprises in the resort industry.

Full Service Resort. A first class resort hotel proved to 

be impractical. Resort development requires a great deal of 

time, money, and knowledge. These enterprises have a great 

chance of failure unless they are planned and managed with 

extreme care. Although the overall cost of the resort was 

difficult to project, similar facilities have cost $8-10 

million. Acquiring a site on the coast, essential to high 

occupancy, would further raise these development costs. In 

the past, both management problems and high financing charges 

have sent several private resorts in the area close to

bankruptcy. 4

Rustic Inn. An inn with less elaborate facilities was also 

considered. A properly sited and managed inn might appeal 

to church, youth, social, and business groups desiring

low-cost lodging, food, and meeting areas. In addition to a *

15
61

variety of bedroom accommodations, the inn would have included 

large common rooms, a large kitchen, and some outdoor recreation 

areas. A staff of six could manage the inn and cook the 

meals.

Development costs for even a rustic inn would run $4-5 

million, according to the consulta nt’s estimates. As in the 

case of the more expensive resort, the management, location, 

and competition risks make the enterprise infeasible. Most 

rustic inns are located in areas of outstanding scenic 

attraction, such as by a lake, at the ocean, or on an alpine 

mountain with skiing nearby. An inn near Siletz would not 

0 show a profit even if it had triple the occupancy rate that

is common for that area. An inn would also have to compete 

with nonprofit facilities such as church and youth camps.

Campgro und. Although more elaborate tourist facilities

• would lose money, a KOA-style campground situated on or near 

the coast would probably be profitable. This was therefore 

selected as a preferred enterprise and was included in the 

10-year economic projections.

Business Loan Program

A low-interest business loan program for tribal members was 

identified as the second preferred enterprise. This program 

would serve the entire membership of the Tribe, and would 

increase self-dependence, reduce tribal unemployment, and 

stimulate local economies.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQOENCES

Throughout the planning process, the Tribe and the BIA were 

acutely concerned that adverse economic and physical impacts 

be minimized. The coordination and consultation process was 

a key element in assuring that all impacts were scrutinized 

carefully before the final plan was formulated. As a result, 

we believe this plan maximizes its potential positive impacts 

while avoiding adverse impacts. A brief summary of our 

findings follows (see Tab K of Support Data for further 

det ail ).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Establishing the reservation will create approximately 34.5

* full-time reservation-based jobs and 91 permanent, full-time 

jobs in the eight-county area over the next decade. Additionally, many temporary construction jobs will be created.

At the height of tribal facility construction in 1985-86,

t wages from tribal operations and construction will boost

Lincoln County personal earned income by $1.4 million. The

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 5

16
permanent increase in income after construction is completed 

will be about $.6 million per year.

Based on an 80-year rotation schedule and 1978 log values, 

it is projected that the timberlands in the proposed reservation can produce gross revenues of approximately $665,000 

per year, yielding a net revenue of approximately $600,000 

per year for the Tribe. The income from these sales will be 

used to cover the costs of the Tribe's governmental operations 

and investments.

Based on the assumed gross revenue of approximately $665,000 

per year, the Federal Government now receives annual timber 

revenues of approximately $632,000 from these lands. If 

they are transferred to the proposed reservation, the Federal 

Government will receive approximately $66,000 per year as a 

10 percent administrative deduction for management.

Lincoln County currently receives 5 percent of the timber 

sale revenues from public domain lands. The Tribe will be 

5 percent of its timber receipts from these lands to the 

county for a period of 25 years, after which it is anticipated 

that the county will have developed an alternative revenue 

source. There will be no fiscal impacts to the City of 

Siletz or the state from the transfer of Government Hill to 

be held in trust for the Tribe, since the land is now in 

public ownership.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS ON TIMBERLANDS

In managing the timberlands, the BIA will be governed by 

applicable Federal law, which requires sustained-yield 

management. The objectives in the applicable Federal 

regulations include: applying sound silvicultural principles, 

ensuring new forest growth, minimizing erosion, and preserving and developing grazing, wildlife, and other values of 

the forest. No negative environmental effects have been 

identified as a result of transferring the timberlands from 

BLM to BIA management by any of the state or Federal agencies 

consulted, including the State Fish and Wildlife Department.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS ON GOVERNMENT HILL

Government Hill will once again be the headquarters for the 

Siletz Tribe. The City of Siletz and the Tribe both will 

benefit from the use of cultural, social service, and 

recreational facilities to be constructed on the hill. The 

Tribe will work with the city to plan and fund facilities to 

meet both tribal and city needs.
63

JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS

Since most of the proposed reservation lands are now in 

Federal ownership, there is little actual jurisdictional 

change effected by the proposed legislation.

Under Public Law 280, state criminal laws and civil laws 

regarding the status and rights of individual persons will 

still apply to the reservation area. State regulatory laws 

will no longer apply to reservation lands. However, it is 

the policy of the Department of the Interior and the BIA to 

cooperate fully with State and local governments on matters 

of mutual concern. The BIA and the Tribe expect to enter 

into an agreement with the City of Siletz about such issues 

as planning, zoning, building code, and fire protection.

On most Indian reserv atio ns, tribal members have the right 

to be free of state regulation of hunting, fishing, and 

trapping, and therefore the tribal government usually has 

jurisdiction over these matters. However, it has not been 

determined whether the Siletz Tribe lost its hunting, fishing, 

and trapping rights at the time of termination. The proposed 

legislation is neutral and does not affect the issue. If 

the rights were terminated, they are not restored. The 

state currently enforces its hunting, fishing, and trapping 

laws on the public domain lands and Government Hill. It may 

continue to enforce these laws on the reservation until such 

time, if ever, that a determination is made regarding the 

issue.

18
64

Senator Melcher. Do you have any comments, Dr. Beuter?

Dr. Beuter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John Beuter. I have been a professional forester for 23 

years. I am now head of the department of forest management at 

Oregon State University.

I appear before this committee as a consultant asked to look at the 

analysis tha t appeared in the Siletz Reservation plan with regard to 

timber volumes and values over time.

The situation is t hat there are 3,500 acres involved in the reservation, of which some 2,300 have timber in the neighborhood of 110 years 

of age on it. When you have this situation, you have a lot of options 

for harvesting in the short run, going all the way from harvesting #

everything today to stretching it out to some period of time to preserve your growing stock for the future.

So there are two things of concern when one estimates the timber 

harvest ca pability : W hat can you do in the short run, and what is the 

long run sustainable harvest level ?

I looked a t the long run sustainable harvest level for the lands in 

question and estimate the potential to be somewhere between 2.8 million board feet a year and 3.8 million board feet a year. The Bureau 

of Indian Affairs had estimated about 3.2 million, so I would consider their estimate to be quite reasonable, .and that is with a moderate 

amount of timber management. This does not assume high intensity 

timber management to the best tha t we know how to do.

The second issue of how you might convert from the present state 

of the forest to a future sustainable level is as follows. As I mentioned, 

there are a lot of options for doing that. We looked at some rather 

conservative alternatives using a computer model that allows us to 

harvest the stand, grow i t into th e future, and see what happens, and 

also to constrain the harvest such th at we do not destroy the capability 

for future harvests.

It was found tha t in the next 50 years the harvest could vary between 2.1 million board feet and somewhere in the neighborhood of 

3 million board feet a year without destroying the long-run capability.

In other words, the harvest would tend off in the future toward the 

long-run sustained yield capability of about 2.8 million, which we 

selected as a sort of conservative future yield.

Then the next issue is the one of the cash flow th at would accompany such a harvest plan. Incidentally, the details of the harvest over *

time would be on table 2 of the testimony I have submitted.

Finally, we had to estimate what this might be worth and the cash 

flows that would accompany it. The Siletz Reservation plan had an 

estimate of somewhere in the neighborhood of $560,000 a year. All of •

the possibilities tha t I looked at, except for the first period on one of 

them, would have yielded that much money or more. I n fact, my estimation is t ha t the value will increase sufficiently over the next 30 or 

40 years that we would get up to roughly $1 million a year possible 

revenue off the lands in question.

Senator Melcher. Thank you. Without objection, your prepared 

testimony will be included in the record at this point.

[Testimony resumes on p. 74.]
65

UNITED STATES SENATE

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. BEUTER 

ON S .2 0 5 5 (SIL ET Z INDIAN RESERVATION ACT) 

JANUARY 3 0 , 19 80

My nam e i s Jo h n S . B e u te r . I h a v e b e e n a p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t e r 

f o r 23 y e a r s . I h av e a b a c h e l o r 's d e g r e e i n f o r e s t m an ag em en t and 

m a s t e r 's an d Ph'.D d e g r e e s i n f o r e s t e c o n o m ic s. M os t o f my r e s e a r c h 

e x p e r ie n c e h a s b een i n f o r e s t r e s o u r c e an d m a rk e tin g econom ic s a n a ly ­

s i s i n th e P a c i f i c N o rth w e s t. I h av e b een em plo yed by t h e U. 3 .

F o r e s t S e r v ic e , O re gon S t a t e U n i v e r s ity an d a s a p r i v a t e c o n s u l ta n t, 

b D u rin g th e p a s t t e n y e a r s I h a v e d one r e s e a r c h a n d ta u g h t f o r e s t

m an ag em en t a t O re gon S t a t e U n iv e r s i t y ; f o r th e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s I 

h a v e b een h e a d o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f F o r e s t M an ag em en t.

I a p p e a r b e f o r e t h i s c o m m it te e a s a c o n s u l ta n t a s k e d t o re v ie w th e 

tim b e r h a r v e s t an d re v e n u e e s tim a te s f o r t h e S i l e t z I n d ia n R e s e r v a tio n 

P la n . I n an e a r l i e r r e v ie w , su m m ari zed i n a Nov em be r 19 79 l e t t e r 

fr o m me t o CH 2M -HHI ( in c lu d e d a s A pp en d ix A t o t h i s te s tim o n y ) , I ex ­

p r e s s e d some r e s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t t h e m et hod u se d t o c a l c u l a t e th e p o te n ­

t i a l tim b e r h a r v e s t , t h e b a s i c f o r e s t r y d a ta a n d th e st u m p ag e p r i c e 

a s s u m p tio n s u se d i n th e R e s e r v a tio n P la n . I n r e s p o n s e t o my c o n c e r n s , 

t h e B u re au o f I n d ia n A f f a i r s (B IA ) h a s s in c e c o n d u c te d s e v e r a l a d d it i o n a l a n a l y s e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , th e y e s tim a te d s e v e r a l lo n g - r u n ti m b e r 

h a r v e s t s c h e d u le s u s in g t h e T im b er RAM c o m p u te r m od el d e v e lo p e d by th e 

U. S . F o r e s t S e r v i c e . T hey a l s o ma de a s tu d y o f stu m p ag e p r i c e s f o r 

tim b e r r e c e n t l y s o ld by t h e 3 u re a u o f L an d M an ag em en t i n t h e v i c i n i t y 

o f t h e p ro p o s e d r e s e r v a t i o n .

The r e s t o f my te s tim o n y to d a y i s b a s e d l a r g e l y on my re v ie w o f th e 

l a t e s t BIA a n a l y s e s . S in c e N ov em be r I a l s o h av e lo o k e d a t a e r i a l p h o to ­

g ra p h s o f th e p r o p e r ty i n q u e s t io n an d t a l k e d w ith Mr. R a lp h G u s ta v so n 

o f th e BIA who v i s i t e d some o f t h e p a r c e l s . 3 a s e d on t h e s e o b s e r v a tio n s , 

i t i s my ju d g m en t t h a t th e c u r r e n t tim b e r volu m es an d s i t e q u a l i t y u se d 

i n t h e a n a ly s e s o f tim b e r h a r v e s t p o t e n t i a l a r e r e a s o n a b le .

I w i l l a d d r e s s , i n o r d e r , p o t e n t i a l tim b e r h a r v e s t v o lu m es, an d n e t 

c a s h flo w t o t h e t r i b e .

* POTENTIAL TIMBER HARVEST VOLUMES

T h e re a r e tw o p a r t s t o my a n a l y s i s o f p o t e n t i a l tim b e r h a r v e s t 

v o lu m es: T he lo n g - r u n s u s t a i n a b l e y i e l d ( h a r v e s t ) an d th e h a r v e s t 

p o t e n t i a l i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n ( t h e c o n v e r s io n p e r io d ) fr o m th e p r e s e n t

* c o n d itio n o f t h e f o r e s t t o i t s f u t u r e m an ag ed c o n d i t i o n .

L o n g -r u n s u s t a i n a b l e y i e l d (LRSY) - LRSY i s d e f in e d by t h e in h e r e n t 

p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h e la n d an d t h e m an ag em en t p r a c t i c e s u s e d . I t i s th e 

volu m e o f tim b e r e x p e c te d on a p e r p e t u a l b a s i s o n ce th e f o r e s t i s 

b ro u g h t t o w hat i s b e lie v e d t o b e i t s f u l l y i e l d p o t e n t i a l .
66

2

I est im ate d LRSY in term s of two s i t e q u a li ty le v e ls and fo u r 

management in te n s ity le v e ls (T ab le 1, Appen dix 3 ). The r e s u lts rang ed 

from 2.5 m il li o n bo ard fe e t p er yea r to 3.3 .m ill ion bo ard f e e t per 

y ear. A cc or di ng ly , th e 3IA est im ate d h a rv e st p o te n tia l of 3-2 m i ll in n 

bo ard fe e t per year seems re aso nable in th e lo ng ru n.

Con ve rsion peri od h a rv e sts - Be cause th e re is co n si d era b le ma ture 

ti m ber volume now p re sen t on th e f o r e s t, many opti ons e x is t f o r 

sc he duling i t s h a rv e st. Sin ce th e pu rp os e of th is a n a ly s is i s to g et 

a fe e li n g fo r what might be do ne, ra th e r th an to meet a sp e c ific obje c tiv e , se v e ra l a lt e rn a tiv e s a re p re sen te d . The a lte rn a tiv e s r e f le c t »

a ra ng e of h arv est sc hed ul es ove r th e nex t 30 years gi ve n a s i t e 

qu ality/ m an ag em en t in te n s ity co m bi na tio n which in th e lo ng ru n wi l l 

r e s u lt in a LRSY of 2.8 m il li o n bo ard f e e t per y e a r. (See Tab le 1,

App end ix 3 .) Thi s is a t th e low end of th e ra ng e dis cu ss ed ab ov e and 

r e f le c ts low in te n s ity fo r e s t managem ent, namely p la n ti n g , p ro te c ti o n 

and f in a l h a rv e sti n g . No th in n in g , f e r t i l i z a t i o n , impro ved se ed li n g s 

or o th er in te n siv e p ra c ti c e s a re ass um ed, ex ce pt th a t e x is ti n g hard ­

wood st ands w il l be co nv er te d to D o u g la s-fi r duri ng th e co nver si on 

peri od of 80 y e a rs .

The an aly ses rang ed fro m sp e c if y in g th a t th e h a rv e st ov er th e nex t 

200 years can ne ver be belo w th e av era ge an nu al h arv est of th e f i r s t 

deca de (a ra th e r se vere c o n s tra in t), to fi n d in g th e maximum h a rv e st in 

th e f i r s t de ca de th a t w il l s a tis f y th e c o n s tr a in t th a t h a rv e sts ov er th e 

nex t seve n de ca de s w il l no t drop more th an fiv e perc en t from de ca de to 

de ca de . (T ab le 2, App end ix B.)

The r e s u lts of th ese an aly ses, which r e f le c t low management in te n s ity 

and a ve ry co n se rv ati v e a ttitu d e with re g ard to near- te rm h a rv e sti n g , 

show th e c a p a b ili ty of h arv esti n g between 2.1 and 3*0 m i l l i n n bo ar d f e e t 

per yea r ov er th e ne xt 80 years w ith ou t ev er dr op pi ng belo w 1.9 m il li o n 

bo ard f e e t in th e nex t 200 y e a rs . The most co n se rv ati v e ap pr oa ch ha s th e 

h a rv e st ris in g from 2.3 m il li o n bo ard f e e t per year duri ng 1980-19 90 to 

2.8 m il li o n bo ard f e e t pe r y ear by 2050, a t which p o in t LRSY is re ac hed .

The o th e r ap pr oa ch es show some bo un cin g arou nd in th e p ost -c onvers io n 

p eri o d , which is p ri m ari ly due to th e cr uden es s of th e comp uter a n a ly s is .

R efi nin g th e a n a ly s is to eli m in ate th i s anomal y is no t lik e ly to change 

s ig n ific a n tly th e re s u lts dis cu ss ed h e re .

Many more an aly ses a re p o ssib le . The most p e rti n e n t on es would 

be s e t up to mee t sp e c if ic ca sh flow o b je c ti v e s of th e tr ib e . However, 

even w itho ut th e se we hav e th e b a sis f o r est im ati n g some p n t.g n tia. 1 ca sh 

flow s ov er th e ne xt few dec ad es .

POTENTIAL GASH FLOWS FROM TIMBER HARVESTING

Of in te r e s t is th e n et ca sh flo w to th e tr ib e re s u lt in g from an nu al _

ti m ber h a rv e sts . Gross re ve nu e eac h y ear is simply th e volum e h arv est ed 

tim es th e stump age valu e. Net ca sh fl ow is gro ss reve nu e le s s fo r e s tr y - 

re la te d ex pe ns es .

The S ile tz In d ia n R ese rv ati on Pla n was pre pa re d w ith th e as su m ptio n 

th e tr ib e w il l pay 10 p erc ent of gro ss re ve nu es to th e 3IA fo r management of th e t r i b a l f o r e s t. A ll fo r e s t management c o sts in ex ce ss of
67

3

that amount, if any, are assumed, to be covered by funds appropriated to 

the BIA by Congress. The only other forestry-related expense for the 

tribe is a payment of five percent of gross timber revenues to Lincoln 

County, in lieu of property taxes. Thus, annual net cash flow to the 

tribe is assumed to be 85 percent of annual gross r evenues.

Current stumpage prices for Douglas-fir are based on observations 

of recent sales of Bureau of Land Management timber in the vicinity of 

the lands in question. Only sales of size and composition comparable to 

these expected on the Indian lands were included in the sample.

Current stumpage prices for red alder are based on recent price 

offerings for delivered logs by hardwood mills in the north coastal 

area, less estimated logging and transportation costs of $100 per 

k thousand board feet.

The current stumpage price for both species is used for the decade 

1980 to 1990. Prices in subsequent decades are increased to reflect the 

customary assumption that Douglas-fir Region stumpage prices will continue the past trend, increasing an average of two percent per year 

above the rate of inflation. The resulting stumpage prices for the 

period 1980 to 2030 are shown in Table 3» Appendix B.

Using these stumpage prices and the potential harvest volumes from 

Table 2, Appendix B, projections of gross revenues and net cash flow were 

made for the period 1980-2030. These are shown in Table 4, Appendix D.

In 1980 dollars, the net cash flow to the tribe is unlikely to be 

below $500,000 per year, and over time, is likely to rise to well over 

$1,000,000 per year. The net cash flow could fall somewhat from one 

decade to the next, depending on what proportion of the harvest is the 

lower-valued red alder. Also, in some cases total harvest falls from 

one decade to the next. However, the overall trend for net cash flow 

is to increase over time.

SUMMARY

The Siletz Indian Reservation Plan projects an annual timber 

harvest potential of 3*2 million board feet and estimated annual net 

cash flow (85 percent of gross revenues) of $565,000 per year.

In my judgment a long-run potential of 3-2 million board feet per 

year is a reasonable estimate, assuming a moderate degree of timber 

management. However, lower harvest levels may be chosen during the 

transition from the present forest to the managed forest of the future. 

Even if this occurs, it is likely the cash flow estimated in the Plan 

can be achieved, with minor decade to decade variation. In general, it 

« can be expected net cash flows will be even higher over the next 50

years than estimated in the Plan.
APPENDIX A

JOHN K. BEUTER 

2030 N. W. Robin Hood S tr e e t 

C o rv a ll is , Ore gon 97330

November 4, 1979

Ms. Marcy Sc hw artz 

CH2M-HUI

1600 S . W. West ern Blvd.

C o rv a ll is , Oregon 97330

Dear Ms. Sc hw ar tz:

As B ill B lo ss er re q u este d , I have re vi ew ed th e tim ber re so u rc e 

a n a ly sis of th e S ile tz R es erv ati on P la n . My re vi ew was li m it e d to 

re adin g th e tim ber re so u rc es se c ti o n of th e re p o rt, in te rv ie w in g 

Ralph Gus tavs on and 3ud M il le r of th e Bu rea u of In dia n A ffa ir s (t h e 

f o r e s te r s who pr ep ar ed th e ti m ber an al y ^ la ) and ch ec ki ng some of 

th e i r c a lc u la ti o n s . I d id not v i s i t th e p ro p ert y and made no att em pt 

to v e rif y th e tim be r in vento ry d a ta and s i t e q u a li ty as su m pt io n - - 

key v a ri a b le s in th e a n a ly s is .

The a n a ly sis of th e ti m ber re so u rc e and p o te n tia l h a rv e st i s a 

cr ud e f i r s t ap pr ox im at io n. ?.n "a ll ow able c u t" of ab ou t 3.2 m il li o n 

bo ard f e e t p er yea r is est im ate d in th e re p o rt. T his seem s a re aso nab le est im ate of what co ul d be h arv este d ov er th e nex t de ca de o r so . 

Assum ing th e tim be r in vento ry is not s ig n ific a n tly overe st im ate d (a n 

u n li k e ly p o s s ib ility ) , th is h a rv e st le v e l co uld not be const ru ed as 

o v erc u tt in g in th e co n te x t of tn e su sta in e d y ie ld o b je c ti v e im pl ie d 

by th e all ow able c u t a n a ly s is . In f a c t , a h ig h er h arv est may be po ss ib le un de r d if fe re n t management as su m pt io ns th an used in th e a n a ly s is .

The method used to c a lc u la te th e allow ab le cu t - - th e Kemp 

Form ula - - pr ovid es on ly a ve ry roug h est im ate of what mi gh t be 

harv est ed from th e la nds in q u e sti o n . The fo rm ul a was des ig ne d to 

est im ate sh o rt -t erm h arv est (up to te n y ears ) in a pro cess of co nv e rt in g an unre gula te d fo r e s t (une ve n d is trib u tio n of age and s iz e 

c la sse s of tim be r) to a more re g u la te d co n d it io n . I t key s on th e 

p re sen t co n d it io n of th e f o r e s t (t im b er siz e c la s s d is tr ib u tio n and 

volu me) and th e d esir ed ro ta ti o n age to pro vid e an ap pro xi m at io n of 

th e are a to be cut eac h y ear from th e o ld e st ag e c la s s e s . The fo rm ula 

pro vid es no in fo rm at io n ab ou t lo ng-r un su sta in a b le h a rv e st p o te n tia l. 

Nor do es i t pr ovid e in fo rm at io n ab out th e tr a je c to ry of h a rv e st du ri ng 

th e tim e i t ta k es to re g u la te th e f o r e s t. In s h o rt, th e Kemp Form ula 

pro vid es on ly a p ro v is io n a l sh o rt -t e rm h arv est le v e l. I t do es not ad ­

d re ss lo n g -r u n h arv est p o te n tia l which can va ry de pend ing on th e method 

of managem ent. Nor do es i t addre ss th e many op ti o n s which e x is t du ring 

th e tr a n s itio n from th e p re se n t f o r e s t to a d e sir e d fu tu re s t a te .

The key v a ri a b le s fo r th e ti m ber re so urc e a n a ly sis us ed to v e ri fy 

th e all ow able cu t are c u rr e n t in v en to ry , s i t e q u a li ty and management 

in te n s ity . The in vento ry pr ovi de d by th e Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) is ba se d on an exte nsi ve a e r i a l ph oto a n a ly s is (a ccord in g to
Gustavs on and. M ill e r). The s t a t i s t i c a l b a sis of th e a n a ly s ls i s not 

a v a il a b le so no est im ate of sa mpling e rr o r i s p o ss ib le .

The so urc e of th e s i t e q u a li ty as su m pt io n i s n o t a p p are n t. Ac cordin g to Gus tavs on and M il le r s i t e in de x 160 * was us ed — "b ased on in f o rmation pr ovid ed by GH2M -HIU." However, I c o n sid er th is a re aso nable 

esti m ate ba se d on my experi ence in th e a re a in q u e sti o n .

Management in te n s ity re f e rs to th e co m bi na tio n of fo r e s tr y 

p ra c tic e s which w il l in fl u e n c e fu tu re ti m ber gr ow th . Low in te n s ity 

im p li es l i t t l e in ve st m en t and lo w er y ie ld s ; hi gh in te n s ity im pli es 

h ig h er y ie ld s thro ug h ti m ely executi on of fo r e s tr y p ra c ti c e s and hi gh 

q u a li ty c o n tr o l th ro ugho ut a grow th cy cle ( r o ta tio n ) . The a n a ly s is fo r 

th e S ile tz pla n co n ta in s a m ix tu re of hi gh and low management in te n s ity 

as su m pti ons. For exam ple , i t i s assumed st ands wi l l be re g en era te d 

im m ed ia tely a f t e r f i n a l h a rv e st (a n as su mptio n th a t im pli es ve ry high 

in te n s ity ) , but th e assumed volum e y ie ld s a re ba se d on th o se ob se rv ed 

in w ild, un tend ed st an d s (a n as su m pt io n th a t im p li es ve ry low in te n s ity )

I have some re s e rv a ti o n s abou t th e fin a n c ia l re tu rn s to th e tr ib e 

est im ate d on page 91 of th e p la n . Tab le 26 id e n tif ie s $2 05 .61 as "BLM 

1968 lo g v a lu e ." From th e way th e fig u re is us ed to c a lc u la te tim ber 

valu e an d re ve nu es I ass um e th a t i s supp osed to be stu mp age valu e. **

I t is u n li k e ly th e tr ib e co uld o b ta in stumpage valu es as hig h as th e 

BLM be ca us e i t would be making sm a ll e r sa le s th an th e BLM cust om ari ly 

makes. The est im ate d an nu al h a rv e st of 3.2 m i n i n n bo ard fe e t Is much 

sm a ll e r th an some BLM s a le s . A ls o, th e h arv est fro m th e tr i b a l la nds 

in a giv en y ear i s lik e ly to be s c a tte re d among i t s p a rc e ls in ste a d of 

co n cen tr ate d in one p la ce as Is th e ty p ic a l BLM s a le . F in a lly , BLM 

s a le s ca n be harv est ed over a p e ri o d of two o r th re e y ears which pro ­

vid es some lee wa y fo r sp e c u la ti o n . With th e t r i b a l need f o r ca sh flo w 

and th e r e la tiv e ly sm al l volum e of ti m ber to be so ld , I t i s le s s li k e ly 

th e t r i b a l s a le s would be f o r lo ng p e ri o d s, th us d l m i n i s h l ng th e po ss i b i l i t y of sp e c u la ti v e b i d d in g .

The est im ate d fin a n c ia l re tu rn s do not r e f e r to c o sts of de ve lo pment (r o a d s, b ri d g es, e tc .) and f o r e s t manage ment (a d m in is tr a ti o n , s i t e 

p re p a ra ti o n , p la n ti n g , e t c . ) . I assume th e te n p erc en t paymen t to th e 

BIA i s in te nded to co ver some of th e se c o s ts , but wi l l not s u ffic e to 

cover a l l of them. I f any of th e se c o sts have to be bo rne by th e tr ib e , 

n e t re c e ip ts have to be re du ce d acco rd in g ly .

♦ D o u g la s-f ir s i t e in de x from McA rdle, R. E. and W. H. Meyer. The 

y ie ld of D o u g la s-f ir in th e P a c if ic Nor th w es t. USDA Te ch. Bui . 201. 

Rev ised May 196 1.

** Log val ue is u su all y us ed to den ote th e p ric e of lo g s d e li v e re d to a 

m il l; stu mp age va lu e d e sig n a te s th e n et val ue of st andin g ti m ber.
In summary, the timber resour ce anal ys is prov ide s a reason ab le 

estim ate of a sho rt-run ha rvest le v e l from the S ile tz Re servation. 

However, i t is based on a crude analy si s which do es n' t make eviden t 

op tio ns fo r management and fo rest development which cou ld prov ide 

d if fe rin g ha rvest le v e ls in the near fu tu re and the long -ru n. The 

fi n a n cia l analy si s li k e ly ov erestim ates the net re ce ip ts (i n 1978 

doll ars ) because i t ign ores development and management co st s and 

assumes hi gh er stumpage va lues than ar e lik e ly .

Pl ea se le t me know i f you have any qu estio ns about th is 

revie w.

Sin ce re ly yours,

John H. Beute r
APPENDIX B

Tab le s 1-4

Tab le 1. Long-Run S u sta in a b le Annua l H ar ves t L ev el s A ft e r 

R egula ti on, in m il li o n s of board, f e e t, S c ri b n er.

D o u g la s-f ir Management In te n s it y , (Ml) Le ve l

S ite In de x! Base 1 2 =L

170 2 .8 3 .2 3-5 3-3

160 2.5 2 .8 3-1 3.4

As sumption s and comments

1. Base le v e l y ie ld in clu d es f i n a l h arv est only , no re g en era ti o n 

la g , a l l a ld e r st an d s co nvert ed to D o u g la s-f ir duri ng th e co nv er si on 

p e ri o d .

2. Y ie ld s fo r management in te n s itie s one to th re e a re ba se d on 

d a ta us ed in B eute r, e t , a l . , 19 76 .2 Ga ins a re due to th e fo llow in g 

management p ra c ti c e s :

MI. 1 - Commercial th in n in g

MI. 2 - E arl y st o ck in g c o n tr o l and comm erc ial th in n in g

MI. 3 - Imp rov ed p la n ti n g st o ck , ea rl y st o ck in g c o n tr o l and 

comm erc ial th in n in g .

3. An 80 y ear ro ta ti o n i s assumed f o r a l l management in te n s ity 

le v e ls .

4. Y ie ld s a re f o r D o u g la s-fi r on 3>588 a c re s of com me rcial 

f o r e s t la n d .

From McArdle and Meyer. 196 1. The Y ield of D o u g la s-f ir in th e 

P a c if ic N or th w es t. USDA Te ch . 3 u l. 201 .

2 B eute r, Joh n H ., X. Norman John son and H. Lynn Scheu rman. 1976 . 

Timb er F or O re go n's Tomorrow. Oregon S ta te U n iv ers it y F o re st Re search 

L ab ora to ry , Res ea rc h B u ll e ti n 19 . I l l p.
72

Tab le 2. Th ree H ar ve st Flow T ra je c to rie s , av er ag e annu al 

h arv est in each de ca de , in m il li o n s of bo ard 

f e e t, S c ri b n e r.

Con ve rsio n P eri od (19 80 -206 0)

Peri od NDEF(2C0) NDEF(80) 5% D ec line

198 0-1990 2.3 2.6 3.0

1990-2000 2.3 2.6 2.9

200 0-2010 2.7 2.6 2.7

201 0-2 020 2.7 2.6 2.6

202 0-2030 2.7 2.6 2.5

203 0-2040 2.7 2.6 2.4

204 0-2050 2.7 2.6 2.2

205 0-2060 2.8 2.6 - 2. 1

Pos t- C on ve rs io n P eri od (206 0-21 80 )

Range of h arv est le v e l s .

HIGH 2.3 4.6 4 .8

LOW 2.8 2. 1 1.9

LRSY 2.8 2.8 2.8

As sumptions and comments

1. A ll ru ns r e f le c t "b as e le v e l" management -i n te n sit y .

2. NBEF(200) is n o n -d ecli nin g even flow fo r 200 y e a rs .

3. NDEF(80) is non-d ecli nin g even flow fo r 80 y e a rs .

4 . 5% D ec line max imi zes th e h a rv e st in th e f i r s t de ca de , su b je ct 

to not more th an a fiv e perc en t d ecli n e in to ta l h arv est from decade 

to de ca de ov er th e co nv er si on p eri o d .

4
73

Red Ald er

Tab le 3« Stum pag e P ri c e Sch ed ule , in 1980 d o ll a rs per MBF, 

D o u g la s-f ir Decade

1980-19 90 250 165 50

1990-20 00 305 200 60

200 0-2010 370 245 75

201 0-2020 450 300 90

202 0-2030 550 365 no

2030+ 550 365 110

As sump tions and comments

1. 198 0-1990 p ric e f o r 80 yea rs * D o u g la s-f ir is a co n se rv ati v e e s t i ­

mate ba sed on a st udy of BLM tim ber sa le s in la t e 197 9. ha ving s a le v o lumes ra ngin g fro m 500 MBF to 2.9 MMBF. Sam ple sa le s were in Ben ton, 

Dou glas , La ne, L in coln , and Till am oo k C ounti es.

2. P ri c e f o r D o u g la s-fi r le s s th an 80 years of ag e is ass um ed to 

be ab ou t tw o -t h ir d s of th a t f o r D o u g la s-f ir 80 yea rs * in eac h de ca de .

3. Red ad der stu mp age p ric e is ba se d on lo g s e llin g valu es in la te 

1979 of $1.50. Logging and tr a n s p o rta ti o n c o sts of $100 were assumed to 

a rr iv e a t $50 stu mpa ge .

4 . A r e a l 

a l l stu mp age.

p ri c e in c re a se of two p erc en t per year is assumed f o r

Tab le 4. Av era ge An nua l Gr oss Re ve nu es, by de ca de , 19 80 -203 0, 

in th ou sa nd s of 1980 dnl 1 a r a . F ig u re s in ( ) a re 

le s s 15 p erc en t to r e f le c t n et ca sh flow to th e 

tr ib e .

P er old

1980-19 90 

1990-20 00 

200 0-2 010 . 

201 0-2020 

202 0-2030

NDEF(200)

583(49 6)

69 1(5 87)

959(81 5)

1, 10 0( 93 5)

1, 283 (1 ,0 90)

NDEF(80)

656(55 8)

30 0(6 80)

57 8(49 1)

1, 180 (1 ,0 03)

1,4 42(1 ,2 26)

3% D ec line

761(6 47)

891(7 58)

625(5 31)

1,17 5(99 8)

1, 36 4(1 ,1 59)

A

As sumptions an d comments

1. Gross re ve nu es a re ba se d on volumes and valu es by s p e c ie s . Th us, 

i t i s p o ssib le f o r re ve nu es to change fro m de ca de to de ca de d is p ro p o rt io n ­

a te ly to th e t o t a l volumes in Tab le 2 as th e mix of D o u g la s-f ir an d re d 

a ld e r ch an ge s.

2. F ig u re s in ( ) r e f le c t 10 p erc en t of g ro ss re ve nu es to th e 

Bu reau of In dia n A ffa ir s f o r f o r e s t management, and fiv e perc en t of 

g ro ss re ve nu es to Lin co ln Co unty in lie u of ta x e s. Th us, net to th e 

tr ib e is 85 p erc en t of g ro ss re ven ues .

3. Th ese est im ate s r e f le c t "b as e le v e l" managemenx in te n s ity , 

com mensurate w ith th e volumes in Tab le 2. Highe r ca sh flow s a re lik e ly 

w ith th e hig h er manage ment in te n s itie s shown in Tab le 1.
74

Senator Melcher. How many members of the tribe are there? I 

judge the rolls have not been completed yet?

Mr. Bensell. At present, we have about 1,100 members enrolled. As 

soon as we get the enrollment ready we will open the roll again. We 

estimate tha t there will be approxim ately 2,000 tribal members in the 

near future.

Senator Melcher. The letter we received from the Department in ­

dicated there had been a series of hearings on which some statements 

were made and written comments received on the bill.

What written comments have you received, and has the committee 

seen them ? Are they included in the proposal ?

Mr. Waldrip. Yes, sir. I think there is a list in the back of the plan. 

I believe also tha t the most recent correspondence was brough t in by 

one of the witnesses from Governor Atiyeh.

Senator Melcher. Without objection, we will insert in the record at 

this point, Governor Atiyeh’s letter dated Jan uary 28 and the letter 

from the attorney general of the State of Oregon, Jam es Redden, and 

attachments.

[Testimony resumes on p. 81.]

[The material follows:]

*
75

O F F I C E O F T H E G O V E R N O R

S T A T E C A P IT O L

S A L E M 9 7 3 1 0

January 28, 1980

Honorable John Melcher, Chairman 

■4 Select Committee on Indian Affairs

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510

RE: S. 2055— Siletz Reservation Bill

Dear Senator Melcher and Members of the Select Committee:

I appreciate the invitation to appear before the Senate Select 

Committee on Indian Affairs to testify on S. 2055, and I wish I 

could do so in person. Since their restoration in late 1977, 

the Siletz Tribe has worked diligently to carry out the mandate 

in Public Law 95-195 that a reservation plan be presented to 

Congress.

The Siletz Reservation Plan proposes a reservation which can meet 

the long-range governmental objectives of the Tribe as well as 

the social and economic needs of its members. It uniquely proposes a reservation of scattered timberlands and Government Hill, 

rather than one large tract for all tribal endeavors.

S. 2055 will not satisfy everyone to whom it is presented. Some 

will argue that the Siletz Reservation should be larger, some 

that there should be none at all. Some wil l say that it should 

only address cultural needs, while others will argue for a stronger 

emphasis on economic development. Some will claim that the Tribe 

should have set its goals higher so that it could later settle 

for less.

This legislation represents a realistic appraisal of the needs of 

the Siletz Tribe in relation to the interests of other citizens 

of the City of Siletz, Lincoln County, the State of Oregon, and 

the United St ates. The Siletz Tribe has not only sought out the 

opinions of others who could be affected by the proposal, it has 

heeded their concerns, and their plan recognizes the political, 

social and economic realities facing the Siletz Tribe and its 

neighboring communities.

A

The opportunities for both public and governmental interests to 

be advised about the plan and to comment on its impact have been
76

H o n o ra b le Jo h n M e lc h e r 

J a n u a ry 2 8 , 1980 

P ag e 2

u n p a r a l l e l e d . I am h o p e fu l t h e in te r g o v e r n m e n ta l c o o p e r a tio n 

w h ic h h a s b e e n f o s t e r e d by t h i s e x p e r ie n c e w i l l c o n tin u e a s an 

e f f e c t i v e p a r t n e r s h i p among s t a t e , l o c a l , t r i b a l an d f e d e r a l 

i n t e r e s t s .

To my k n o w le d g e, no o t h e r I n d ia n t r i b e h a s e v e r had su c h an o p p o rt u n i t y t o p ro p o s e t o t h e U n ite d S t a t e s i t s v i s i o n f o r i t s r e s e r ­

v a t i o n . T h is o p p o r tu n ity h as a ls o c a r r i e d w ith i t s i g n i f i c a n t 

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I v ie w th e S i l e t z T r i b e 's a b i l i t y t o a c c e p t 

t h i s c h a lle n g e a s a p a r t i c u l a r l y n o te w o rth y a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e 

p r i n c i p l e s o f I n d ia n s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Th e S i l e t z R e s e r v a tio n 

P la n r e p r e s e n t th e S i l e t z T r i b e 's d e te r m in a tio n a b o u t w h a t i t s 

r e s e r v a t i o n s h o u ld b e , an d i t i s one w ith j u s t i f i a b l y w id e s p re a d 

s u p p o r t in O re g o n .

O re gon A tto rn e y G e n e ra l Jim R ed den w i l l b e d e s c r i b i n g f o r th e 

S e l e c t C om m it te e th e d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f an ad hoc c o m m it te e w ho se 

o b j e c t i v e was to i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l n e g a tiv e im p a c ts on t h e s t a t e , 

i t s a g e n c ie s , an d p ro g ra m s fr o m th e r e s e r v a t i o n p l a n , so I w i l l 

n o t e l a b o r a t e on t h e i r f i n d in g s f o r y o u . The o utc om e o f t h e i r 

r e v ie w , h o w ev er, was t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t e i n t e r e s t s w i l l be 

p r e j u d i c e d by th e e s t a b l is h m e n t o f a S i l e t z R e s e r v a tio n a s d e s c r ib e d 

i n t h e p l a n .

T h is c o n c lu s io n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t t o me b e c a u s e o f th e 

c o n c e rn s o f some p e o p le t h a t t h e e s t a b l is h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a t i o n 

m ig h t e s t a b l i s h , o r en h an ce t h e T r i b e 's c la im t o , s u p e r i o r h u n tin g 

an d f i s h i n g r i g h t s . A lt h o u g h p r e lim in a r y d i s c u s s i o n s a r e under w ay 

t o r e s o l v e p o t e n t i a l c la im s f o r o f f - r e s e r v a t i o n h u n tin g an d f i s h i n g 

r i g h t s th e S i l e t z T r ib e may ow n, t h i s is s u e i s s e p a r a te fr o m th o s e 

r a i s e d by t h e R e s e r v a tio n P la n i t s e l f . R e g a rd le s s o f t h e outc om e 

o f t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s , th e r e q u ire m e n t i n t h e S i l e t z R e s t o r a t io n 

A ct t h a t no h u n tin g o r f i s h i n g r i g h t s o r p r o c e d u r a l a d v a n ta g e s w i l l 

b e g r a n te d by th e T r i b e 's r e s t o r a t i o n o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f a r e s e r ­

v a t i o n d o e s n o t ch an g e i f S . 20 55 bec om es la w .

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , an d d ra w in g fr om my kno w le d g e and a n a l y s i s o f 

th e S i l e t z R e s e r v a tio n P la n an d i t s o b j e c t i v e s , I e n d o r s e S . 20 55 

and am h o p e f u l t h a t i t w i l l b e a p p ro v e d by C o n g re s s in t h e n e a r 

f u t u r e .

•»

V ic to r A ti y e h 

G o v ern o r

VA:oc

c c : Jim Red de n

A tto r n e y G e n e ra l 

B ru ce B is h o p

C om m is sion on I n d ia n S e r v ic e s

A
J A M E S A . R E D D E N

ATTORNCV GE n CRAL

77

D E PA R TM EN T O F J U S T IC E

State Offic e Buil o in o

SAL EM. OREG ON 97 310

Ti l IF kOn i (SO3) 3 7« *4 0 0

Jan uary 2 5 , 1980

Th e H onora ble Jo hn M elc h er, Ch airm an 

S e l e c t Com m itt ee on In d ia n A f f a i r s 

U n it ed S t a t e s S en a te

* W as hin gt on , D .C . 20510

Dea r S e n a to r M elc h er:

T h is l e t t e r i s in re sp o n se to y o u rs o f Jan uary 7, 19 80. You 

w ro te to me a d v is in g me o f th e h e a r in g on S. 2055 w hic h i s sc h ed u le d 

f o r J an u ary 30 , 198 0 a t 10 :0 0 a. m . I t wa s my ho pe th a t I c o u ld be 

p r e s e n t a t t h a t h e a r in g , b u t t h a t i s n o t p o s s i b le . I am s u b m it ti n g 

t h i s l e t t e r te s ti m o n y in l i e u o f a p e r s o n a l ap p ea ra n ce.

As yo u kn ow , P u b li c Law 9 5 -19 5 , p a ssed in 19 7 7 , p ro v id e d th a t 

th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e I n t e r i o r o r h i s a u th o r iz e d r e p r e s e n t a t iv e was 

r e q u ir e d to n o t i f y and c o n s u lt w it h a p p r o p r ia te s t a t e o f f i c i a l s in 

th e devel op m ent o f a p la n f o r a r e s e r v a t io n f o r th e S i l e t z T r ib e .

Th e S e c r e ta r y wa s a ls o g iv e n th e d u ty to wor k w it h l o c a l gove rn m en ta l 

o f f i c i a l s .

G over nor A ti y e h ask ed th a t I c h a ir an ad hoc co m m itte e o f s t a t e 

o f f i c i a l s w h ic h co m m itte e w ou ld c o n s t i t u t e th e " a p p ro p ria te o f f i c i a l s 

o f th e s t a t e o f O re go n" s e t fo r t h in P u b li c Law 9 5 -19 5 . I s u g g e s te d 

t h a t th e memb ers be th e heads o f th o s e s t a t e a g e n c ie s mos t c l o s e l y 

a s s o c ia t e d w it h th e i s s u e s . As a r e s u l t , th e ad hoc co m m itte e co n ­

s i s t e d o f a s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r , th e D ir e c t o r o f th e D ep ar tm en t o f F is h 

and W i l d l i f e , th e D ir e c t o r o f th e D ep ar tm en t o f Human R e so u rce s, th e 

S t a t e S u p e rin te n d e n t o f P u b li c I n s t r u c t io n , th e D ir e c t o r o f th e D iv is io n 

o f S t a t e Lan ds, th e D ir e c t o r o f th e E x e c u tiv e D ep ar tm en t, th e D ir e c t o r 

o f th e Co m missio n on In d ia n S e r v i c e s , th e D ir e c t o r o f th e Or eg on Dep art m en t o f Rev en ue , th e D ir e c t o r o f th e D ep ar tm en t o f Lan d•C on serv at i o n an d Dev el op m en t and th e S t a t e F o r e s t e r .

Our co m m itte e h e ld th r e e m e e ti n g s . A t th o s e m e e ti n g s , r e p r e - 

< s e n t a t i v e s o f th e S i l e t z T r ib e , a c t in g f o r th e S e c r e t a r y , a d v is e d

us o f th e r e s e r v a t io n p la n . D uri ng th e c o u rse o f and as a r e s u l t o f

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 6
78

The H onora ble John M el ch er 

Jan uary 25, 1980 

Pag e tw o

th o s e m eeti n gs s e v e r a l ch anges w er e made in th e o r i g i n a l p la n . The 

f i n a l p la n has be en su b m it te d to yo u r Com m itte e.

P u b li c Law 95-1 95 do es n ot g r a n t to th e named s t a t e o f f i c i a l s 

an y d u ty o f a p p ro v a l o r r i g h t o f r e j e c t i o n o f an y su ch p la n . We f e l t 

t h a t th e l o g i c a l c o n c lu s io n o f th e s e h e a r in g s wa s ou r l e t t e r re p o r t 

t o th e G over nor who s u g g e s te d th e co m m it te e.

I am a tta c h in g my l e t t e r t o th e H onora ble V i c t o r A tiy e h , 

G o v ern o r, under d a te o f De cem ber 5 , 19 7 9 . I wou ld d e s ir e th a t 

t h i s l e t t e r be in c o rp o ra te d in t o th e te s tim o n y .

I r e g r e t t h a t I am u n a b le to a tt e n d th e co m m itte e m eeti n g 

b u t I do w is h yo u to know th a t a p p r o p r ia te s t a t e o f f i c i a l s , in c lu d ­

in g th e u n d e rsig n e d , w ere k e p t a d v is e d o f th e p ro g re s s o f th e p la n , 

as w e ll as o f th e f i n a l p la n .

JAR : jp 

e n c lo s u re

V ery t r u l y y o u r s ,

Jame s A. Red den 

A tt o rn e y G en era l
79

D E P A R T M E N T O F J U S T IC E 

State Offic e Buil o in o

SA LEM. ORCOO N B73 IO

TtUR KOMt Is03 ) 37 «-4 40 0

Dec em be r 5 , 1979

Th e H o n o ra b le V ic to r A ti y e h 

G overn or

25 4 S t a te C a p ito l 

Sale m , O re gon 97 31 0 

D ea r G overn or A tiy e h :

S e v e r a l m onth s a g o , yo u a sk e d t h a t I c h a i r a co m m it te e c o n s i s t i n g , 

g e n e r a ll y , o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f s t a t e a g e n c ie s w ith an i n t e r e s t in 

th e S i l e t z R e s e r v a tio n P la n .

F e d e ra l la w , r e l a t i v e to th e c r e a ti o n o f a r e s e r v a t i o n f o r th e 

S i l e t z , r e q u ir e s t h a t s t a t e an d l o c a l o f f i c i a l s be a d v is e d o f th e 

P la n t o be s u b m itt e d .

Th e P la n , i t s e l f , w i l l be s u b m itt e d i n s h o r t o r d e r and h a s b een 

d is c u s s e d b e f o r e t h e a b o v e -m e n ti o n e d co m m it te e on t h r e e s e p a r a te 

o c c a s io n s .

At o u r m ost r e c e n t m e e ti n g , t h e f i n a l r e p o r t wa s re v ie w e d , an d 

I a sk e d i f an y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f an y o f th e a g e n c ie s in v o lv e d had 

an y o b j e c t io n s . No o b j e c t io n s w ere r a i s e d , a lt h o u g h th e r e p r e s e n ­

t a t i v e o f t h e F is h an d W il d l if e C om m ission s t a t e d t h a t th e Com mission 

h ad s e v e r a l c o n c e rn s b u t h ad n o t y e t fo r m a lly a c te d on th e P la n . 

C u r r e n tly th e y a r e a tte m p tin g to wor k th e s e is s u e s o u t w ith th e 

S i l e t z T rib e th ro u g h a l e t t e r o f u n d e r s ta n d in g . U n f o r tu n a te ly an y 

f i n a l a c t i o n by th e co m m it te e w i l l come a f t e r th e P la n i s s u b m itt e d .

I th in k i t i s f a i r to s t a t e t h a t no new o b j e c t io n w i l l be v o ic e d , 

a lt h o u g h th e F is h an d W ild lif e C om m ission may e x p re s s som e c o n c e rn s .

Th e l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d re s s e s th e q u e s tio n o f f i s h i n g , 

h u n tin g an d t r a p p i n g r i g h t s . No new r i g h t s a r e c r e a te d by th e 

l e g i s l a t i o n o r th e co mm enceme nt o f th e r e s e r v a t i o n , a lt h o u g h an y 

p r e - e x i s t i n g r i g h t s w ould c o n ti n u e to e x i s t . I t i s n o t kno wn i f 

th e S i l e t z have su c h r i g h t s , an d o n ly e x te n s iv e i n v e s t i g a t i o n an d 

l i t i g a t i o n can d e te rm in e t h a t i s s u e . At th e p r e s e n t tim e , no ne o f 

th e s e r i g h t s a r e o f c o n c e rn t o th e S i l e t z , n o r do th e y in te n d to 

com mence an y s te p s to p ro v e th e e x is te n c e o f th e s e r i g h t s .
80

Th e H o n o ra b le V ic to r A ti y eh 

De ce mbe r 5, 1979 

Pag e tw o

We h av e n o t r e c e iv e d a re s p o n s e t o a ro ugh d r a f t o f t h i s l e t t e r 

c i r c u l a t e d e a r l i e r to V ern e D un ca n, Wes K v a rste n o r S e n a to r D e ll 

Is ham . I as su m e t h a t t h i s means th e in d iv i d u a ls a g re e w ith th e 

te n o r o f th e l e t t e r o r w i l l re sp o n d to y o u , p e r s o n a l l y , w ith t h e i r 

o b j e c t i o n s .

In su mmary, I th in k i t i s f a i r t o s t a t e t h a t th e mem be rs o f 

y o u r c o m m it te e, a c t i n g on b e h a lf o f th e v a r io u s a g e n c ie s th e y r e p r e ­

s e n t , ap p ro v e th e R e s e rv a tio n P la n .

V er y t r u l y y o u r s ,

JA R :j p

CC: C om m itte e t o Rev iew t h e

S i l e t z R e s e rv a tio n P la n 

B ru ce B is hop

A rth u r S . B e n s e ll 

S te v e E v ere d 

T ex S h iv e ly
81

Senator Melcher. Was there any opposition to the plan?

Mr. Waldrip. Sir, there were what we are viewing as side issues 

raised regarding the question of fishing, but in the meetings I attended—and being the Bureau and the Department’s representative 

on this, I attended most of the meetings—as Chairman Bensell mentioned, once the plan was understood I heard no opposition to it, 

except this—what I am again describing because I view this as a 

neutral—thing on hunting and fishing as a peripheral issue.

Senator Melcher. What about costs that the BIA might incur in 

regard to roads, and so forth.

Mr. Waldrip. Mr. Chairman, in the situation of the 37 tracts, they 

are situated in an area tha t has been heavily logged over the years 

by Georgia Pacific. There is a good network of forest roads there. We 

have contacted Georgia Pacific about cooperative arrangements, which 

is very common in that area—utilizing other adjacent landowners’ 

r

roads. You are responsible for maintenance.

There are, I believe, only two or three tracts tha t are as f ar away 

as one-half mile from any existing logging road. So the matter of 

access is not a major problem.

Senator Melcher. Do you have to maintain those roads?

Mr. Waldrip. Yes, sir, while you are using them. You enter into a 

use agreement with adjacent owners.

Senator Melcher. And that will remain an obligation of the Fed ­

eral Government?

Mr. Waldrip. No; that will be a part of the stumpage.

Senator Melcher. In terms of the bill, is that made clear?

Mr. Waldrip. I think you asked another question about the cost of 

forest management ?

Senator Melcher. I did not ask about that particularly, but any 

other costs. I was just generalizing—“other costs.”

First of all, is it clear in the bill that the stumpage will pay for 

the roads—whatever maintenance or construction is necessary ?

Mr. Waldrip. I do not thin k it is explicit in the bill, but this is a 

practice in Indian country. The roads that are necessary to get the logs 

out are part of the stumpage.

By the way, the roads were factored into this projection we used at 

205.

Senator Melcher. The tribe does not have to agree to that, even 

K

though tha t is a Federal practice. Are you saying tha t the tribe must

agree to it or will have to agree to it, or for practical reasons, will have 

to agree to it? Would the tribe normally follow the same procedure 

in timber sales as the Federal Government does, whether it is BLM 

« or the Forest Service?

Mr. Waldrip. Yes; the BIA would actually be the person administering the contract.

Senator Melcher. What about other Government costs ?

Mr. Waldrip. We estimate that the cost of the regular forestry operation—by that, I mean B IA forestry—to be $75,000 to $80,000. We 

think the Commissioner has enough money in his total budget to cover 

tha t for Siletz. By that, I mean we have not requested additional 

funds from Congress; we think there is enough to do that.

Senator Melcher. When termination occurred, were there some 

parcels of land—tribal lands or allotments—which were held for individual members of the tribe ?
82

Mr. Hallett. Yes, sir.

Senator Melcher. How much was involved, in acres?

Mr. H allett. I think there were about 76 allotments totaling 5,390 

acres at the time of termination. Trib al land dwindled down to about 

2,958 acres.

Senator Melcher. Will tha t become part of the reservation or not?

Mr. Hallett. No; just the two specified parcels of 37 separate tracts 

and one tract of 36 acres.

Senator Melcher. I s it trust land ?

Mr. Waldrip. Sir, it was not trust land. That land was liquidated 

on termination.

Senator Melcher. Oh, tha t was liquidated. So there is no trust 

e

status remaining on that land ?

Mr. Waldrip. There are a few individuals who did hang on to their 

allotments, but not very many.

Senator Melcher. And the status of that —whatever i t is—will not 

be changed by the bill ?

Mr. Waldrip. No, sir.

Senator Melcher. All right. These are very scattered pieces of 

land, and I understand the reason why you have selected tha t in the 

proposal. But also, I believe, the part of the bill on criminal would be 

concurrent jurisdiction with the State.

Ms. Ayer. The reservation would be under Public Law 280, under 

State jurisdiction.

Senator Melcher. So tha t is different from concurrent jurisdiction ?

Ms. Ayer. In the opinion of the Department of the Interior, the 

tribe under Public Law 280 does have within its powers still, the authority to exercise concurrent criminal and civil jurisdiction.

Senator Melcher. It would be a nightmare, I thin k to have some 

hybrid form of jurisdiction on this land. What would be the status 

of this if we passed this bill and then we passed, as it is reported to the 

Senate and signed into law, the recodification of the criminal code?

Ms. Ayer. This land is Indian country. And th at is what the codification deals with. So the Federal criminal laws would apply, th at is, the 

Major Crimes Act and the General Crimes Act, on this reservation.

Senator Melcher. Section 165 or 166-----

Nls. Ayer. Excuse me, Senato r; that is not true because Public Law 

280 gave back to the States all tha t jurisdiction. So, to the extent tha t 

this is a checkerboard area, the prim ary jurisdiction, both criminal and *

civil, would be exercised on the checkerboard reservation and the nonIndian owned lands. So, there will not be a checkerboard problem 

there.

Senator Melcher. You mean it would be State jurisdiction? •

Ms. Ayer. Tha t is right.

Senator Melcher. Wha t would be the effect if, as reported in the 

Senate bill, the tribe later chose to assume jurisdiction over their 

reservation land and the Secretary of the Inte rior agreed?

Ms. Ayer. I think so, Senator, but their concurrent jurisdiction 

would go to offenses like those between India ns—to the minor kinds 

of offenses.

I think the important question is what kind of jurisdiction the tribe 

is planning to exercise. I thin k they have th at fairly well laid out in 

their plan. I think that is minimal. They are not planning to exercise 

any.
83

Senator Melcher. I gather that. It seems to be pretty clear. But my 

question is: W hat would be the outcome i f tha t law were passed, as it 

has been reported to the House, if the tribe at a later time decided tha t 

they did not want State jurisdiction? Would they not just approach 

the Secretary of the Inte rior and say, “We want to assume criminal 

jurisdiction,” and ask the Secretary to approve tha t?

Ms. Ayer. The only way the tribe could get rid of State jurisdiction, 

if it decided to do so, would be if the State retroceded. Th at is in the 

control of the State.

Senator Melcher. Are we talking about the same thing? Are we 

talking about the section in the recodification tha t would allow the 

tribe to assume criminal jurisdiction if the Secretary agreed to it?

Ms. Ayer. I t has been some time since I reviewed that codification. I t 

does provide for retrocession at the tribe’s request.

Senator Melcher. So, the effect, then, would be that the State would 

r

not have anything to say about it, would it ?

Ms. Ayer. I guess that is right.

Senator Melcher. I thin k it is im portant to point this out. I know 

what the intention of the tribe is. I think we might as well face this 

issue now because it is going to be before the Senate very shortly.

As I read th at, it means that if the tribe decides to do tha t and gets 

the Secretary to agree with them, the State is out of it and has nothing 

to say about it. It would be a weird arrangement.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?

Senator Melcher. Surely.

Senator Hatfield. Th at would be t rue of any Indian land. All we 

are doing is classifying Indian land—land which has not previously 

been Indian land. I would hope that this would not be held in any kind 

of special category against any other rights that would be bestowed 

upon Indian lands by futu re acts of the Congress.

We have other Indian land in Oregon today which has entered into 

agreement. The Indian tribe of Warm Sprin gs entered into agreement 

with the local officials for the policing and jurisdiction of t ha t land. 

But if the Congress of the United States should recodify to bestow 

upon “Indian land,” anywhere it might be in the United States, certain authority tha t now is vested or is being performed by State 

and local governments, I would hope th at they would not discriminate 

against the Siletz lands.

* I think it would have to be considered along with the general category of what we call “Indian land.” And I agree with the chairman 

tha t it is an issue which is going to cause some difficulties in the adjustment if tha t should occur, or it may be tha t the Siletz would

< choose not to make that request. B ut I do not think tha t should be a

right denied the Siletz if it is bestowed upon any other Indian land.

Senator Melcher. I think there is logic to your statement, Mark. The 

unusual circumstance about this land, however, is th at it is extremely 

scattered. Nobody, unless the tribe is going to identify all these scattered parcels of land as being reservation, would know when they were 

on the reservation or when they were off the reservation. Or is there 

some method to determine t hat ? I assume there will not be.

Senator Hatfield. I assume, Mr. Chairman, tha t after they take 

this forest land under their management, the trees will be so much 

greater, bigger, and more distinctive-----
84

Senator Melcher. That we would automatically recognize them. I 

see.

Mr. Waldrip. Senator, could I make a comment?

Senator Melcher. Yes.

Mr. Waldrip. The area we are talking about—it is very unlikely 

tha t i t would be used for anything other than growing timber, except 

the traditional root gathering and this sort of thing.

If I understand the jurisdiction issue, the concern would be a matter 

of trespass, and I am not sure t hat tha t would be affected either way.

For instance, on such things as timber trespass, we still use Federal 

remedies, regardless of whether i t is Public Law 280 or where a tribe 

has jurisdiction.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrup t, we have a 

checkerboard situation under BLM ownership today which we have 

been hoping and struggling to try to consolidate by land trades and 

so forth. So that same question of jurisdiction exists now in terms of w

Federal, State, and local, based on the checkerboard ownership of 

BLM in our State and other Western States.

Senator Melcher. I do not think we have any problem with criminal 

jurisdiction, however.

Senator Hatfield. We have not had.

Senator Melcher. No, I do not think there is any problem. The State 

just has criminal jurisdiction.

Senator Hatfield. Jurisdiction does separate on the borders of 

those checkerboard ownerships.

Senator Melcher. The one example is trespass.

Senator Hatfield. That is the main one.

Senator Melcher. I am sure that trespass is a common problem 

which has to be dealt with. B ut there are so many things involved with 

criminal jurisdictio n; it is a nightmare. Of course, I know it is not the 

intention of the tribe to assume criminal jurisdiction, but the problem 

becomes much more complicated if the tribe does assume it in terms of 

very scattered parcels of land.

Now, the tribe has no intention, as I understand the tribe’s testimony and the bill, of assuming any jurisdiction over fish and game on 

the land ?

Mr. Bensell. No, sir.

Senator Melcher. Does th e tribe feel it has any rights on lands 

once occupied by the tribe tha t have not been extinguished in that *

regard ?

Mr. Bensell. Mr. Chairman, I think t hat on the land we are ta lking about, none of the land we were looking at even bordered the 

Siletz River. We had one piece that touched the river. In order to not *

have any fight over that land, we did not include it in our reservation 

plan. So, at present, we do not intend hu nting and fishing.

Senator Melcher. Senator Hatfield ?

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

that my formal statement be placed in the record following the chairman’s opening statement.

Senator Melcher. Certainly. Th at has been done.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few 

observations.
85

First of all, I think a very significant letter, t hat has been made a 

part of the record already,1

 addressed to me from the Mayor of Siletz, 

is probably the most important piece of evidence indicating the 

change of attitude of the people of the area, because of the very 

laborious and careful handling of this whole issue by the tribal leadership and the BIA district officer. I recall very vividly facing the ire 

of the local citizenry when I introduced the bill initially for the p urpose of Federal recognition to the extent tha t I lost all the precincts 

in that area in the election of 1978 in my own home county.

So, there has been some rather significant turn around on the p art of 

the local citizenry because I do not believe any mayor could have 

signed this letter 2 years ago and stayed as a resident in the community for very long—perhaps at least u ntil nightfall.

I think it is also indicative of the fine counsel which has been received by the Indian tribes from many sources. I think much credit 

is due the State officials, the local officials, and all.

A certain professor, a very retiring person from the University of 

Oregon law school, probably deserves as much credit as anyone, with 

long hours of research, counsel, and wise counsel; he has provided 

good wisdom.

I would like to again emphasize the point which seemingly has 

been raised so frequently tha t it lingers even now in the minds of 

some. Tha t relates to the question of hunting and fishing rights. There 

are times when I believe c ertain sources or certain individuals, particularly the Fish and Game Commission of the State of Oregon, gave 

so much focus to this misleading misinformation about the initial bill, 

the bill which related to the restoration and the recognition of the 

tribe and even to this bill through both their legal counsel and the 

officials of the commission, the commissioners themselves.

I think it is well to lay to rest once and for all any of that kind of 

misinformation perpetrated, and designed in some instances. First 

of all, section 4 of the bill says:

The estab lishm ent of the Siletz Reservation shall not gran t or resto re to the 

trib e or any member of the trib e any hunting, fishing, or trapping righ t of any 

nature, including any indirect or proc edural rig ht or advantage on such 

reservation.

Tha t is about as clear a language as I believe can be produced to 

convey the idea we had in mind when we stated this, both in the bill 

on Federal recognition and now in the bill setting up the reservation.

In order to underscore that particular thesis, I asked the Library 

of Congress, American Law Division, to make an analysis of the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make th at analysis a p art of the record 

at this point.

Senator Melcher. Without objection, it will be made a p art of the 

record at this point.

[The material follows:]

1

 Appe ars on p. 37.
86

WASHINGTON, D.C . 20540

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Con gr es sion al Re search Service

Dec em be r 10 , 1979

<

TO : H o n o ra b le Mark H a tf ie ld

A tte n tio n : Susa n Lon g

FROM : A m er ic an Law D iv is io n w

SUBJECT: S i l e t z In d ia n H u n ti n g and F is h in g R ig h ts

T h is i s in re s p o n s e to y o u r in q u ir y w h e th e r a b i l l (S . 20 55 ) 

e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e s e r v a ti o n f o r th e C o n fe d e ra te d t r i b e s o f S i l e t z In d ia n s 

o f O re go n wou ld c r e a t e o r enhance any h u n ti n g an d f i s h i n g r i g h t s on beh a l f o f th e t r i b e .

The C o n fe d e ra te d t r i b e s o f S i l e t z I n d ia n s o f O re gon w er e te r m i1 /

n a te d in 195 4. F e d e ra l r e c o g n itio n an d b e n e f i t s w ere r e s to r e d in 19 77 ,

2 /

b u t c r e a t i o n o f a r e s e r v a t i o n was l e f t fo r a s u b se q u e n t A ct o f C o n g re ss .

S. 20 55 wou ld e s t a b l i s h t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n by s e t t i n g a s id e c e r t a i n la n d s 

to be h e ld in t r u s t fo r th e t r i b e and d i r e c t i n g th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e In tc n o T

to a c c e p t t i t l e to o th e r la n d s in t r u s t f o r th e t r i b e .

At th e ti m e o f th e c o n s id e r a tio n and p a ss a g e o f th e r e s t o r a t i o n 

l e g i s l a t i o n , th e I n t e r i o r D epart m ent ha d n o t y e t d e te rm in e d w h a t, i f any,

A

1_/ 25 U .S .C . 691 e t s e q . (1 9 7 6 ).

2 / 25 U .S .C . 711, 71 1e (1 977 S u p p .) .
87

CRS-2

3 /

s u p e r io r h u n ti n g an d f i s h i n g r i g h t s th e t r i b e had r e s e r v e d t o th em .

The r e s t o r a t i o n s t a t u t e w as, t h e r e f o r e , in te n d e d t o be " n e u tr a l on th e

is s u e o f h u n ti n g an d f i s h i n g r i g h t s , n e i t h e r e x tin g u is h in g an y r i g h t s 

4 /

th e t r i b a l me mb ers may h a v e n o r c o n f e r r in g an y new r i g h t s . " The la n ­

gua ge o f th e Ac t e x p l i c i t l y p ro v id e s th a t i t " s h a l l n o t g ra n t o r r e s t o r e 

an y h u n tin g , f i s h i n g , o r tr a p p in g r i g h t o f an y n a t u r e , in c lu d in g an y in ­

d i r e c t o r p ro c e d u ra l r i g h t o r a d v a n ta g e , to th e t r i b e o r an y membe r o f 

5 /

th e t r i b e . . . "

S. 2055 r e p e a t s th e h u n tin g , f i s h i n g , an d tr a p p in g r i g h t s d i s ­

c la im e r . S e c ti o n 4 p ro v id e s t h a t th e " e s ta b lis h m e n t o f th e S i l e t z R ese rv a tio n s h a l l n o t g ra n t o r r e s t o r e t o th e t r i b e o r any membe r o f th e t r i b e 

an y h u n tin g , f i s h i n g , o r tr a p p in g r i g h t o f an y n a t u r e , in c lu d in g any in ­

d i r e c t o r p ro c e d u ra l r i g h t o r a d v a n ta g e , on su ch r e s e r v a t i o n ."

3 / The S i l e t z an d o th e r w e s te rn Ore go n t r i b e s e n te r e d in t o a t r e a t y 

w it h th e U n it e d S ta te s in 1855, w hic h was n e v e r r a t i f i e d by C o n g re ss.

S ee, S. R e p t. 83-1 325 (1 9 5 4 ) . The te rm s o f th e t r e a t y , h o w ev er, w er e en ­

fo r c e d , an d in exchange f o r th e c e s s io n o f la r g e t r a c t s o f la n d , th e t r i b e s 

w er e r e s e t t l e d on la n d to be " h e ld an d re g a rd e d as an In d ia n r e s e r v a ti o n " 

an d w hi ch " s h a l l be s e t a p a r t . . . f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u se o f su ch In d ia n s 

as a r e , o r may h e r e a f t e r b e , lo c a te d th e r e o n ." S e e , S. Doc . No . 25, 53d 

C ong., 1 st S e s s . 898, Se e a l s o , S. R ep t. No. 9 5 -3 8 6 , 9 5 th C o n g ., 1st 

S e s s . 3 (1 9 7 7 ).

4 / S. R e p t. No. 9 5 -3 8 6 , 95th C o n g ., 1 st S e s s ., 3 (1 9 7 7 ). Se e a l s o ,

H. R e p t. No. 95-6 23, 9 5 th C o n g ., 1 st S e s s. 4 (1 9 7 7 ).

_5/ 25 U .S .C . 7 1 1 a (c ) (1 977 S u p p .) . Se e a l s o , 25 U .S .C . 7 1 1 e (d )(2 ) 

(1 977 S u p p .) (a n y p la n d e v e lo p e d f o r e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a t i o n " w ill 

not g ra n t o r r e s t o r e t o th e t r i b e o r an y membe r o f th e t r i b e any h u n tin g , 

f i s h i n g , o r tr a p p in g r i g h t o f an y n a t u r e , in c lu d in g an y i n d i r e c t o r p ro - 

41 c e d u r a l r i g h t o r a d v a n ta g e , on such r e s e r v a t i o n . " ) .

4
88

CRS-3

Thu 6 , th e in te n t and la n g u a g e o f b o th th e r e s t o r a t i o n a c t and

th e r e s e r v a t i o n b i l l i s n e u t r a l w it h r e s p e c t to h u n ti n g and f is h in g r i g h t s .

6 /

W hat ev er r i g h t s may have s u rv iv e d th e te r m in a tio n a c t w er e m ea nt to 

be u n im p a ir e d by th e r e s t o r a t i o n a c t . C o n v e rs e ly , i f no r i g h t s e x is te d 

o r s u rv iv e d te r m in a tio n , th e r e s t o r a t i o n a c t d id n o t g ra n t o r r e v iv e su ch 

r ig h t s .

The b i l l e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e s e r v a t i o n c a r r i e s fo rw ard th e s e p ro - 

77

v i s i o n s . In th e a b se n c e o f e x p l i c i t r e s e r v a t i o n o f h u n tin g an d f is h in g

r i g h t s , i t h a s b een h e ld t h a t la n g u a g e in th e in s tr u m e n t c r e a t i n g a r e s e r - 

8 /

v a tio n n e v e r th e le s s i m p l i c i t l y re s e r v e d su ch r i g h t s . H ow ev er , S. 205 5 

c o n ta in s an e x p l i c i t p r o v is io n to th e c o n tr a r y , n e g a tin g an y im p lic a tio n 

w hi ch m ig ht be dr aw n from th e m er e f a c t o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f th e r e s e r v a ti o n 

i t s e l f . S e c ti o n 5 o f th e b i l l does p ro v id e f o r s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v er 

th e r e s e r v a ti o n p u rs u a n t to P u b li c Law 280 an d P u b li c Law 28 0 s p e c i f i c a l l y 

p ro v id e s th a t i t s p r o v is io n s s h a l l n o t " d e p riv e an In d ia n o r any In d ia n

6 / The C ourt in Menom ine e T rib e o f In d ia n s v . U n it e d S t a t e s , 391 

U .S . 40 4 (1 968) h e ld t h a t th e h u n ti n g an d f is h in g r i g h t s o f th e Menomin e e s wer e n o t a b ro g a te d by a te r m in a tio n a c t . C f. K im ball v . C a lla h a n ,

590 F.2 d 786 (CA 9 1 9 7 9 ), c e r t , d e n ie d , 48 USLW 32 18 (O c to b e r 2, 1 9 79).

7/ The r e s t o r a t i o n b i l l a ls o p ro v id e d t h a t no f u tu r e e s ta b li s h m e n t 

o f a r e s e r v a ti o n was in te n d e d t o g ra n t h u n tin g an d f is h in g r i g h t s . 25 

U .S .C . 7 1 1 e (d )(2 ) (1 977 S u p p .) . S e e , n o te 5, s u p r a .

f5/ In Meno minee T r i b e , s u p r a , th e C ourt a g re e d th a t t r e a t y la nguage 

e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e s e r v a t i o n " t o be h e ld as In d ia n la n d s a r e h e ld " in c lu d e d 

th e r i g h t to h u n t an d f i s h . 391 U .S . a t 4 0 6 . Co mp are th e la n g u a g e in 

th e u n r a t i f i e d S i l e t z t r e a t y , n o te 3, s u p r a .

*

♦
9 /

t r i b e , b a n d , o r co m m un ity o f an y r i g h t , p r i v i l e g e , o r im m un ity a ffo r d e d 

u n d er F e d e ra l t r e a t y , a g re e m e n t, o r s t a t u t e w it h r e s p e c t t o h u n tin g ,

t r a p p i n g , o r f is h in g o r th e c o n t r o l , l i c e n s i n g , o r r e g u l a t i o n t h e r e o f . " 

H ow ev er , t h a t p r o v is io n m e re ly s e e k s t o p r e s e r v e e x i s t i n g r i g h t s an d 

th e im p o s itio n o f P u b li c Law 280 j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a r e s e r v a t i o n i s not 

a g r a n tin g o r r e s t o r i n g o f r i g h t s .

T h e r e f o r e , n e i t h e r th e r e s t o r a t i o n a c t n o r th e r e s e r v a ti o n b i l l

w ou ld see m t o be a s o u rc e o f S i l e t z h u n ti n g o r f i s h i n g r i g h t s . We exp r e s s no o p in io n on th e q u e s tio n w h e th er t h e 1855 u n r a t i f i e d t r e a t y r e ­

s e rv e d h u n tin g an d f i s h i n g r i g h t s . The r e s t o r a t i o n a c t an d r e s e r v a ti o n 

b i l l do n ot p u rp o r t t o im p a ir an y su ch r i g h t s i f th e y e x i s t . Both p ie c e s 

o f l e g i s l a t i o n m e re ly s t a t e t h a t th e y by th e m s e lv e s do n o t g ra n t o r r e ­

s t o r e r i g h t s an d th e la n g u a g e t h e r e i n wou ld seem t o be e f f e c t i v e in 

a c h ie v in g c h a t p u rp o s e .

R ic h ard C. Ehl ke 

L e g i s l a t i v e A tt o rn e y

9 / S e e , 28 U .S .C . 1360(b ) (1 9 7 6 ).
90

Senator Hatfield. And I will quote from the last paragraph of that 

particular analysis by the best legal authority tha t w’e could obtain, 

from the standpoint of the Congress.

Therefore, neither the Restoration Act nor the reservation bill would seem to 

be a source of Siletz hunting or fishing rights. We express no opinion on the 

question whether the 1855 unratified trea ty reserved hunting and fishing rights.

The Restoration Act and reservation bill do not purport to impair any such 

rights if they exist.

Those are pre-existing rights.

Both pieces of legislation merely state tha t they, by themselves, do not grant 

or restore rights, and the language therein would seem to be effective in achieving that purpose.

That is from the American Law Division of the Library of Congress.

In addition to that, the Department of Justice—and I might say 

in all fairness so did the attorney general of the State of Oregon— 

take up this misstatement of fact and misinterpretation by his assistant attorney general assigned to the fish and game commission, that 

is, former attorney general, Air. Johnson and the present attorney general, Air. Redden.

In the letter, Air. Chairman, tha t is a part of the record, I would 

like to quote a paragraph. This is dated December 5, 1979, to the 

Governor of the State of Oregon from the attorney general, Air.

Redden: 1

The legislation specifically addresses the question of fishing, hunting, and 

trapping rights. No new rights are created by the legislation or the commencement of the reservation, although any pre-existing rights would continue to exist.

Again, tha t is a very clear statement of both the intent of the bill, 

and I might say the legislative record is replete with tha t thesis, tha t 

observation, and tha t confirmation of what I have stated on both the 

Restoration Act and the reservation bill.

We had hearings which I sat through hour after hour, and, as the 

author of both bills, I made very clear in those public hearings through 

public testimony that neither bill in any way provided procedural 

rights or any new rights to the tribe. The restoration bill was only for 

the purpose of health and education benefits, and the reservation bill as 

well, very explicitly states no hunting and fishing rights are bestowed.

That is to be negotiated, as is nowy

 being done, with outstanding leadership, I might observe, at this point on the part of the fish and game 

commission, Air. Jack Donaldson. *

I would like to follow through and ask Air. William Hallett, the 

Commissioner of B IA : Do you see any ambiguity in the language of 

the bill regarding hunting and fishing rights! Would you agree with 

the thesis that I have stated, that this bill does not in any way bestow ♦

new rights, or additional rights, or procedural rights, or any kind of 

rights, or does it encumber pre-existing rights tha t might be interpreted or might be determined by some other process other than 

throu gh the restoration and the reservation bills ?

Air. Hallett. Yes, Senator, I agree. I think the record is clear 

on that.

Senator Hatfield. Thank you.

Let me ask the same question of Air. Art Bensell, tribal chairman.

You have publicly before, in the hearings before this committee and

1

 See p. 79.
91

oth erwise, stated this thes is. Do you reaffirm th is today as you review 

the wo rding, the int entio n, the implications, and the innuendoes, and 

nua nces of this b ill, the reservation bil l ?

Mr. Bensf.ll. Sen ato r, I affirm t hat th at is correct.

Se na tor H atfield. We ll, as I said, I th ou gh t we h ad pu t t hat to rest 

some tim e back , bu t again I noted in the press in Oregon a sports 

w rite r ju st a few weeks ago ag ain raised this old conundrum, th at 

somehow we were be stowing some new righ ts upon his trib e.

I would like to ask Mr. Hal le tt, too, if y ou, in yo ur experience and 

throug h yo ur very able assis tan t in the Po rtla nd di str ict, in sit tin g 

dow n and pl ot tin g out a plan for a res erv ation, hav e fou nd th is to 

9

be a uniq ue cha llen ge? Ev en thou gh you were no t as perso nally in ­

volved in th is pa rtic ul ar re ser vation, wou ld you not say t hat th e t ribe’s 

acceptance of th is tas k, th ei r work, an d th ei r associatio n wi th your 

rep res entat ives relate s to th e concept of self-deter mina tio n which the 

r Con gress has set fo rth an d the ad minist ratio n has set as a goa l fo r

trib al and In di an relati on ships ?

Mr. H allett. Se nator , the plan subm itted by the Siletz people in 

coo peration wi th an d wo rking with the Bu reau staff, I think, goes 

bey ond s elf-de term ination; it a ddresses the g oal of the self-sufficiency 

of the com munity . I th in k the capacity and capa bility of the people 

inv olved are reflected in th is pla n. It is a model fo r me to prese nt the 

Dep ar tm en t’s position rec ommending enact me nt of th is pa rticul ar 

plan. I thi nk i t is a model we could use in the dev elopm ent of existing 

reserv atio ns.

Se na tor H atfield. I ap prec iate yo ur comments. I wh ole heartedly 

agree t hat this cou ld serve as a model, pe rh ap s as a cha llen ge to other 

In dia n t rib es in pu rsui ng t hi s course of s elf-d etermina tio n and in th e 

op po rtu nitie s to create a new life, a new f utur e, fo r th ei r nation.

Do you an tic ipate, Mr. H al le tt, any ju ris dictio na l pro blems o n the 

res erv ation ?

Mr. H allett. No, I do not.

Se na tor H atfield. H ow does th e Bu rea u of L an d Ma nag em ent feel 

abou t giving up 3,600 acres ?

Mr. H allett. I am not sure. I would have to re fe r to Mr. W aldr ip.

Mr. Waldrip. Se na tor , I happened to be wi th th e trib e when we 

briefed th e Assist an t Se creta ry fo r La nd and W at er ; he was repr esen ted by BLM. Th ey int erp ose d no objections. We go t absolutely 

< splen did coopera tion fro m Murl Storm s an d his staff in the developme nt of th is process in Oregon.

Se na tor H atfield. So th at you con sulted with th e BL M all alo ng 

th e way ?

♦ Mr. Waldrip. Yes, an d at our brie fing s with the De pa rtm ent.

Se na tor H atfield. Actu all y, if we look h ist orically a t t hi s s itu ati on , 

I believe t he S iletz at one time h ad jurisd ictio n ove r and owners hip of 

about 1,100,000 acres ; 3,600 acres is a v ery sm all com pen sation in compa ris on t o the total acr eag e of land which they once owned.

Ha ve p rojec tio ns been made to pro vid e the seed ling stock fo r re fo restation , Mr. W al dr ip ?

Mr. Waldrip. Yes, sir , on ou r othe r reserv ations, we have cooper ativ e arr an ge men ts with the F or es t Service and o ther peop le who ra ise 

nu rsery stock. W e r eally do not a nticipate a m ajor prob lem.
92

On rare occasions, in isolated situations, you might find tree stock 

not available, but generally there has been no problem, both on the west 

side of the Cascades and the east side. In the process there, you simply 

order your tree stock at the time you plan a sale, and have them available at the time you need to plant them.

Senator Hatfield. May I tur n to the assistant solicitor for a moment to ask th at same basic question th at I asked of the commissioner 

and the tribal chairman.

Do you see any kind of procedural rights or any other benefits or 

rights, other than pre-existing rights th at have remained undisturbed, 

given to this tribe in this reservation b ill; and if you have studied the 

restoration bill, would you comment on it as well ? 

r Ms. Ayer. Yes, Senator, I have studied the restoration bill and the 

reservation bill. We have generally, at the In terior Department in the 

Solicitor’s office. It is our opinion that this bill leaves unaffected any 

rights th at the tribe may have, th at is, tha t it neither gives back or re- *

turns to them any rights which they may have lost, and it does not 

operate as an independent grant or conference of any special rights on 

them in this bill.

Senator Hatfield. There are no new rights, but i t does not di st urb 

any pre-existing rights ?

Ms. Ayer. Yes, sir, I think we can state th at unequivocably.

Senator Hatfield. I just wanted to make additional record of that.

I suppose on tha t subject we should introduce into th e record at this 

point, Mr. Chairman, the letter from Tex Shively of the Four Comers 

Rod & Gun Club concerning this subject.

Senator Melcher. Without objection, it will be made a pa rt of the 

record at this point.

[The material follows:]
93

TESTIMONY

Before Senate Committee on Siletzr Indian Affairs

I, Tex Shively, do represent the Four Corners Rod and Gun 

Club of Salem, Oregon, in the matter of the establishment of 

a reservation for the members of the Siletz Tribe of Oregon.

The purpose of this commentary is one of clarification and 

constructive criticsm of ideas promulgated by the Siletz 

Indian leaders, the Federal Government and Engineering Firm 

CH2M Hill. The basic concern to be expressed in this discussion 

is one of equity. Equity in all aspects of the formation of

the Siletz Indian Reservation will insure the success of

this venture in perpetuity. Without just consideration for 

all aspects of the establishment of this entity, community 

and statewide dissatisfaction will mar potentials for the 

future. That would be tragic and avoidable. The Four

Corners Rod and Gun Club sees two main issues as central to

the theme of equity in the formation of the aforementioned 

reservation. First, I propose that the fishing, hunting and 

trapping rights of the membership of the Siletz Indian Tribe 

be no greater and no less than any other citizen of the 

State of Oregon. This is an essential point in the minds of

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 7
94

Page 2

sportsmen throughout the state. If the killing of any fish 

or animal is regulated by the State of Oregon or the Federal 

Government, then all applicable laws will pertain to all 

citizens of this state without excepti on. In establishing 

the reservation no guarantees should be made concerning 

additional rights outside of the laws now in force. If such 

a committment should be made, the energies of this organization

▼

both in a physical and fiscal sense shall be committed in

the opposition of the formation of the Siletz Indian Reservation

in total. w

The second point of issue centers around the establishment 

of the reservation in a "checkerboard" fashion as opposed to 

a contiguous acreage. At this time, a number of parcels of 

land, ranging from 3£ to 40 acres, are proposed. This 

method of establishing a reservation poses problems in the 

area of enforcement of hunting and fishing rules and regulations.

The area designated as the potential reservation is surrounded 

by publicly and privately owned land. With enforcement of 

rules pertaining to hunting and fishing being considered a 

prerequisite of a stable and coordinated animal population, 

such a division of lands would make enforcement of laws an

unworkable task. The areas of enforcement would defy the 

letter of the law and promote an almost unavoidable circumstance 

of creating poachers out of hunters.

To counter our points of opposition, I would like to offer 

some suggestions. The first again deals with hunting and

♦
95

Page 3

fishing. I propose a statement in the treaty that would 

specify the process of procurement of both fish and animals 

for any purpose whatsoever. Outside of the routine hunting 

and fishing laws permiting specified killing of certain 

species, a statement must be devised making any additional 

procurement possible only through commercial means. This is 

in keeping with the obligation adopted by Oregonians in the 

creation of certain laws. Those laws should not be abrogated 

under any circumstance.

Concerning the "checkerboard" shape of the proposed reservation, 

I recommend a different approach. The establishment of a 

reservation of approximately five hundred to one thousand 

continguous acres would provide a more significant contribution 

to the Siletz Indian Tribe. The use of that land by the 

entire tribe would allow the developement of a Medical 

Center, Heritage Center, Tribal Council Chamber and Educational 

Facility. I see this as a more efficient utilization of land 

in keeping wit h the focus of a tribe as rich in heritage and 

as tragic in history as the Siletz Indian Tribe.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

Sin cerely,

/ - X A I C y

Tex Shively.
96

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Bensell, are you working with the city of 

Siletz in expand ing the water and sewage system on Government 

Hil l?

Mr. Bensell. Yes, we have a very cooperative arrangement with 

the city. We had numerous meetings, and it depends on the Siletz 

City water system a nd the sewer system which are about at capacity 

now.

We agree th at we will try to assist them in developing and u pdat ing 

the water and sewer systems. We are looking into grants . I thin k 

the Indian Hea lth Service has some gra nts available, and we are 

looking into the possibility of getting those gran ts so tha t we can 

participate with the city.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Bensell, a number of people have criticized 

this plan, have raised questions as to why you chose a plan, an 

economic enterprise, tha t provided so few jobs to tribal members.

Mr. Bensell. Really, Senator, we thou ght tha t was a lot of jobs. 

A lot of jobs tha t we do not have at the present time. They were 

created, and there is a possibility tha t throu gh enterpris es and 

purchase of land tha t we will increase tha t number of jobs.

We anticipated at the beginning tha t there would be about 30 

jobs or more created immediately, and within the next few years 

maybe 90 jobs. That does not include construction jobs tha t will be 

necessary when we begin to develop th e Government Hill.

Senator Hatfield. Would you give an indication of what kind 

of jobs you are talking about?

You have timber to sell. All you have are some timbe r cruisers, 

and this timber is going to be sold to existing sawmills in all 

probability. There is no I ndia n mill like the re was at Warm Springs.

Mr. Bensell. Actually, we looked into the possibility of gettin g 

a sawmill developed, but the amount of land tha t was necessary 

to mainta in a mill was not there. But we thin k tha t maybe in the 

futur e we can buy land and maybe reforest. Looking down the pike 

maybe a number of years, again, we can create jobs.

With regard to most of the jobs we are looking at, most of our 

people are not trained people. As Paulin e mentioned in he r testimony, 

the dropout rate in the Siletz school is about 44 percent. Tha t is 

tremendous. But now, since restoration, we have a few people in 

college, and we are trai ning people for jobs. Not manual labor— 

impo rtant jobs. When they become trained, we hope we will have 

jobs for those people to retur n to the Siletz Reservation.

Senator Hatfield. Describe some of the 30, or 60, or whatever 

jobs you are counting on with this enterprise.

Mr. Bensell. Im mediately, we are looking at clerks, maintenance, 

and jobs of tha t type, and actually maybe some people working out in 

the timber area. Most of our people are tra ined in t ha t now. They are 

very capable loggers. W ith our own operation, maybe we can provide 

tha t kind of job for our people.

Senator Hatfield. I would like to use this occasion to really push 

you into realizing th at objective.

I recall having worked for many years with Warm Spring s, and 

the idea of setting up th e resort was the dream of the leadership—th at 

this would be an oppo rtunity to provide jobs for Ind ian people. F or 

a long time, the only jobs they had were cleaning out the bedrooms and
97

the toilets and waitin g on tables. They did not have the train ed personnel to manage and be supervisors, so they brought in the nonIndi ans for tha t purpose. But as tha t enterp rise began to grow, they 

became dependent upon th at kind of leadership, and they tended to lag 

in thei r drive to have trained Ind ian personnel to take over other tha n 

the menial tasks.

I am not demeaning th e menial tas ks; they are as impo rtant to perform in making an e nterprise successful as the management jobs. B ut 

there was quite a b it of discontent in the Ind ian tribe, as you know, for 

the simple reason tha t all you saw were th e white faces the re in the 

management, supervisory, and leadership roles for too long a time.

When the dollar s are coming in, and you are balancin g the books, 

and you take on t ha t business perspective, there is a tendency to lose 

the o ther goal of ge tting India n traine d personnel in there. I hope this 

does not happen with the Siletz.

Mr. Bensell. We hope so, too, Senator.

Senat or Hatfield. I th ink, frank ly, the whole plan is weak on t ha t 

point. I must say to you I am impressed with the pl an generally, a nd I 

know you are having to work with existing circumstances. Bu t I th ink 

the plan is basically weak as it relates to the jobs now and the jobs 

down the road th at could be created fo r Ind ian persons.

I think with innovation, creativ ity, and leadership, you can create 

those jobs, bu t you are going t o have to be constantly pressing for t ha t 

and keep th at goal before you because you are going to get into tha t 

business operation, and you are going to begin to look at tha t ledger, 

and i f th at ledger is making money you do not like to dis turb the status 

quo ; you are doing something and i t is w orking well. But you are still 

going to find yourself with a preponderance of non-Indian people a t 

the top levels of han dling th at enterprise.

Mr. Bensell. We hope that does not happen.

Senator Hatfield. Th at is my view. I may be wrong, but I am only 

raisi ng it to indicate to you my hope and desire to see you constantly 

press forwa rd to get the India n personnel into those jobs of leadership 

and not just leave th em at the gate watching t he roadway or d igging 

out the trenches along the roadway for drainage.

Mr. Bensell. We have put that into our management manual, tha t 

our tribal people have jobs the y are capable of doing, and we are encouraging them. We have people now going to college. Just this past 

sprin g we had an attorn ey graduated from college. We have a person 

in medical school at Har vard. Tha t will be the first doctor we will 

have.

Senator, you will recall tha t i t was our purpose when we started restorati on to help our people become better citizens and not depend 

upon welfare but go into jobs tha t will make them better citizens of 

our community.

Senat or Hatfield. I know t ha t is your intention, and I just want to 

encourage you in pursuing it, and move it from the manual to actual 

reality.

Mr. Bensell. We will, Senator.

Senat or Hatfield. WTiy did you choose unrelated, scattered parcels 

rather than contiguous parcels o f land ?

Mr. Bensell. I thin k Mr. Blosser tried to address tha t a little. I 

thin k it was a political thin g to begin with. The amount of revenue
98

tha t would be returned to the county was very small from the type of 

land we selected. We had a process of eliminating O and C lands and 

Forest Service lands because of the large amount of money going back 

to the counties.

We anticipated tha t we would have a lot of political opposition to 

the plan, so we selected those particu lar pieces. We had at the beginning thought tha t we would gradually get those pieces together, 

but with our consultation with the Governor’s task force, they opposed 

tha t type of thing immediately because there were so many problems 

created in getting the lands contiguous. Maybe they will have to someday, but this was the best land and an income piece of property that 

was very beneficial to the tribe.

Senator Hatfield. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I gave an accolade a while ago, I know, to a m an; I 

described his profession, but I did not indicate his name. Charles 

Wilkenson is the man I wanted to identify as the counselor on many 

occasions to this program. I am sure the leadership of the tribe would 

want to recognize his fine contribution, as well as that of Sharon 

Gordon, his co-counsel, and Don Miller of the Native American Rights 

Fund, who has worked with the tribe since restoration.

Mr. Bensell. We appreciate having them.

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Melcher. The last question tha t Senator Hatfield asked 

you dealt with scattered parcels, and you answered, “it was because of 

less opposition you agreed to the scattered parcels.” However, it is 

apparent that management of those scattered parcels is not going to 

be as advantageous to the tribe in the future as if the land were 

contiguous.

Is it not true tha t there are numerous parcels of the same acreage 

which would be available on a contiguous basis if O and C lands were 

used?

Mr. Bensell. There is a lot of th at land, but not really close to the 

Siletz agency. They are farth er away.

Senator Melcher. The O. & C. lands are ?

Mr. Bensell. Yes, they are far the r away. There is a small parcel 

about 2 miles from our agency now.

Senator Melcher. But they are fragmented too ; you could not get 

a continguous piece out of O. & C. lands closeby ?

Mr. Bensell. No, sir.

Senator Melcher. Thank you very much.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question I would 

like to ask Mr. Beuter.

Do you anticipate any problem of getting seedlings for the restocking of this area ?

Mr. Beuter. No, Senator, I do not, in the sense that under any o f 

the harvest flow situations that we projected, it is unlikely tha t the 

tribe would be c utting more than 50 acres in any year. At 400 or 500 

trees per acre, we are not talking about tha t many seedlings. So, I 

would anticipate very little problem.

Now, on a year-to-year basis, everyone has problems occasionally— 

if there is a bad seed year or something like tha t—but nothing unusual. I would not anticipate anything unusual for the tribe.
99

Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much. T hank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Melcher. I have one question for Fra n Ayer.

In the FLPMA Act of 1976, we tried to preserve the status quo on 

Federal lands in regard to huntin g and fishing rights. I assume we did 

preserve the status quo, did we not ?

Ms. Ayer. That is my opinion, Senator. That language and the 

language that is in the restoration bill is essentially the same.

Senator Melcher. I s essentially the same as what ?

Ms. Ayer. That in the reservation bill. That is, it does not gra nt or 

restore hunting and fishing rights to the tribe.

Senator Melcher. Yes, but I am now talking about Public Law

* 94-579, the so-called FLPM A Act, the Federal Land Management 

Policy Act of 1976.

Ms. Ayer. I am sorry, Senator, but I am not familiar with that. 

I thought you were refe rring to the Restoration Act.

* Senator Melcher. No, I was not. You have not reviewed FL PMA 

on hunting and fishing on Federal land 2

Ms. Ayer. No, Senator.

Senator Melcher. Maybe we ought to ask you to do that because 

it is a very recent act of Congress. What we strived to do in th e act 

was maintain the status quo on Federal lands and the State’s righ t 

to harvest game, control the fishing season, and control the hunting 

season, and so on.

Ms. Ayer. What I would like to do, Senator, is have our assistant 

solicitor for lands and minerals take a look at tha t and submit somethin g for you.

Senator Melcher. We would like th at because, that being the most 

recent act tha t was passed concerning the very land we are talking 

about here—BLM lands being part of the public domain—I thin k 

it should be reviewed to see whether changing the status of the land 

from public domain to Indian land makes any difference. I assume 

it does no t; I am just asking this to be reassured again.

Ms. Ayer. We will do that.

Senator Melcher. Thank you. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Bensell. Thank you.

Senator Melcher. Without objection your response will be included ‘ in the record at this point.

[The requested material follows:]
100

U N IT E D ST AT ES

DEPARTM ENT OF THE IN TE R IO R 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

1 5 I960

H onora ble Jo hn M el ch er 

U n it e d S ta te S e n a te 

W ashin gto n, D.C . 20 510

RtC’D FEB '1 9 8 0

Dea r S e n a to r M elc her:

I am p le a s e d to re sp o n d to th e q u e s ti o n w hic h you a sk ed i n th e J a n u a ry 30, 

1980, h e a r in g on S .2 055 b e fo re th e S e n a te S e le c t Com m itte e on In d ia n 

A f f a ir s .

My re v ie w o f th e F e d e ra l La nd P o lic y an d Manag em en t Act of 19 76 d is c lo s e d 

th a t in t h a t Act C ongre ss p re s e r v e d th e c i v i l an d c r im in a l j u r i s d i c t i o n 

of s t a t e s o v er n a tio n a l r e s o u r c e la n d s .

*

S .2 055 p ro v id e s in S e c tio n 4 t h a t th e e s ta b li s h m e n t of th e S i l e t z R e s e rv a tio n s h a l l not g r a n t o r r e s t o r e an y h u n tin g , f i s h i n g , o r tr a p p in g 

r i g h t of any n a tu r e , in c lu d in g any i n d i r e c t o r p ro c e d u ra l r i g h t o r 

a d v a n ta g e . I t i s my o p in io n t h a t t h i s la n g u a g e h a s th e e f f e c t of 

le a v in g u n a ffe c te d th e p r e s e n tl y e x i s t i n g s t a t u s o f S i l e t z h u n tin g an d 

f is h in g r i g h t s . Th e la n g u a g e i s s u f f i c i e n t to g u a ra n te e th e n e u t r a l i t y 

of t h i s b i l l a s i t r e l a t e s to any p o s s ib le y e t to be e s t a b l i s h e d h u n tin g , 

f is h in g o r tr a p p in g r i g h t s of th e t r i b e .

An In d ia n h u n tin g , f i s h i n g , o r tr a p p in g r i g h t i s b o th p r o p r ie t a r y an d 

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . S .2 055 i s v e ry e x p l i c i t t h a t no su ch r i g h t of an y 

n a tu r e an d no i n d i r e c t o r p ro c e d u ra l r i g h t o r a d v an ta g e a c c ru e s to 

th e t r i b e from th e e s ta b lis h m e n t of t h i s r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e re fo r e , th e 

s t a t u s quo w ill be m a in ta in e d on th e new r e s e r v a t i o n la n d s w hi ch wer e 

fo rm e rly p u b li c do m ai n la n d s in t h a t th e s t a t e w i l l be a b le to c o n ti n u e 

to r e g u la te h u n tin g , f i s h i n g o r tr a p p in g u n le s s and u n t i l su ch r i g h t s 

a r e e s ta b lis h e d s e p a r a te an d a p a r t from t h i s b i l l .

S in c e r e ly ,

M. F ran c e s Ay er 

A s s is ta n t S o l i c i t o r 

J u r i s d i c t i o n , T a x a ti o n 

and C iv il R ig h ts 

D iv is io n of I n d ia n A f f a ir s
101

Se na to r Melcher. We ha ve on e o th er w itness, Dr . Jo hn R . Don aldson, di rector of th e D ep ar tm en t o f Fi sh an d W ild lif e, St at e o f O reg on.

Se na tor H atf iel d w ill now tak e o ver th e ch air .

Se na to r H atfield (a ct in g ch ai rm an ). Tha nk you , Mr. Ch air ma n.

I wo uld lik e to welco me you to t he comm ittee . W e would ap prec iat e 

very mu ch y ou r su mm ari zin g y ou r te stim ony .

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DONALDSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

FISH AND WILDLIFE, STATE OF OREGON

Mr . Donaldson. Tha nk you , Se na tor Ha tfi eld . I t is a ple asu re to 

be be for e yo u a ga in, as a lwa ys.

I come here at th e dir ec tio n of ou r comm issio n. I have a ver y sh or t 

sta tem en t. I apologi ze fo r no t ha vi ng i t t o you i n adv ance. I will make 

the se copies av ail able to you an d I will begin by read in g it very 

qui ckl y so th at you are aw are of wh at its te xt is, an d th en I hav e a 

few com ments th at I wou ld lik e to ad d at th e end , if 1 may . I will be 

ve ry br ief .

I t is ad dre sse d to th e H on or ab le J oh n M elch er :

Dear Mr. Cha irman: The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has not taken 

a formal position on S. 2055 to establish a Siletz Indian Reservation in Lincoln 

County, Oregon. However, the Commission as well as many sportsmen and 

commercial fishermen are vitally concerned with the bill’s effect on the management and allocation of the fish and wildlife resources on the proposed reservation. In addition, the legislation has again raised the critical question of 

special Indian fishing and hunting rights tha t may have survived termination 

of the tribe in 1954.

Our staff is currently discussing with the Siletz tribe two specific issues: (1 ) 

tho State’s authority for continued management of fish and wildlife on the proposed Siletz Reservation, and (2 ) cultural and subsistence fishing and hunting 

opportunities for trib al members t ha t would constitu te those rights which may 

havo survived termination.

The Commission is hopeful tha t both of these issues can be resolved satisfactorily by agreement of both part ies in the very near future. However, a successful resolution of these points is dependent upon a procedural approach tha t 

can assure “finality” and preclude any f urth er contest involving these two issues. 

We are presently examining the merits of a consent decree in federa l district 

court as one approach to validating an agreement.

We respectfully request th at the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs 

allow time for the Commission to review these unresolved questions with 

the tribe and concerned public so th at a satisfa ctory course of action can be 

determined.

Sincerely,

H erbert F. Lun dy ,

Chairman, Fish and Wildlife Commission (Sta te of Oregon).

Mr. Ch air man , I too k to he ar t very closel y th e com men ts you made 

a lit tle ea rli er relat ive to hu nt in g an d fish ing righ ts wh ich hav e been 

so con fus ed an d misun derstood in th e St ate of Ore gon by man y.

As you rem ember, at th e tim e of res toratio n, th e commiss ion took a 

ve ry stro ng p osition o n th e so-c alle d McK een am endm ent fo r th e dis ­

sol uti on o f an y hu nt in g an d fishin g rig ht s wi th th at res torat ion . As 

tho bi ll proc eed ed, we ve ry defin itely reco gnized th at th at was no t a 

po ssibi lity an d th at th e bi ll was ve ry cle ar th at it di d no t give any 

ad di tio na l ri gh ts o r any proc ed ur al ad va ntag e t o th e Siletz In di an fo r 

tho resto ra tio n of a ny righ ts t hat ma y have s urv ive d ter mina tio n.

I can ass ure you th at th e directo r, th e staf f, the att orne ys , an d the 

commiss ion ar e ver y, ver y cle ar on t hat . T he re is no mi sund ers tan din g.
102

We recognize with the reservation tha t tha t is going to apply again. 

Thus, we are not making any attem pt to further that sort of an argument at this particular time with thifc legislation.

The concerns still remain as to what will happen post-reservation. 

The concerns are coming from the same people again : the sports fishermen and the commercial fishermen to the greatest degree. They are 

frustrate d by this question, as 1 am sincerely aware the Siletz are 

frustrate d by the same issue. They wish it would go away; we wish 

it would go away; it does not seem to go away; it is continually 

exacerbated.

I am personally very pleased tha t we have entered into this with 

the Siletz at the present time. I see definite progress and can report 

to you tha t as recently as las t Friday we had a rather testy meeting. 

These groups were in attendance. They expressed their views, and 

Mr. Wilkenson very adequately and sufficiently explained the direction 

in which we were going. The staff responded to a draft tha t was 

available at tha t time. Our concerns were in it. We made progress.

Most im portantly, I think I need to report to you, sir, that many 

of the user groups tha t were there understood, and I think were 

recognizing for the first time, there may be a definite advantage 

in proceeding with this sort of approach. Tha t is, to my awareness, 

the first real breakthrough I have seen in this unresolved issue.

The commission’s position remains tha t they are waiting to see the 

results of staff work, working with the Siletz, as to what the technical 

details of this agreeemnt would be, and to get the legal input as to 

what a consent decree really means. I think we are all realistic that 

nothing is forever in this world and tha t the best intentions of 

parties at this time may, at some future date, come into contest— 

failure of either party to live up to the agreement. Then it becomes 

an issue before the courts again. Tha t is just how things are.

But the potential is quite great. I commend the Siletz people and 

the legal leadership of Professor Wilkenson for proposing such a 

very vigorous and realistic approach to the whole issue.

The position of the Department is tha t we valiantly want to 

maintain management authority as, again, a fractured management 

authority on such a situation as the checkerboard reservation would 

be chaotic and unregulatable.

We hope there, th rough a definition of limited hunting and fishing 

rights, to arrive at a point of realistic control and the continuation of 

State management. This is very apparent in the d rafts we have been 

reviewing.

The next step will be within 30 clays to have the discussions of 

last Friday shared, written down, and under session. Again let me 

point out tha t this is in the full view of the public. It has not been 

an open hearing yet, but at t hat time it will be before the commiss'on. 

We have invited in the leaders of various user groups to develop 

this plan together.

I would be very willing to try to answer any questions you may 

have, but tha t is the position of our commission and the status of 

the discussions with the Siletz people on hunting and fishing.

Senator Hatfield. Mr Donaldson, I appreciate the fact tha t none 

of us can operate within a vacuum unaffected by events tha t occur 

around us.
103

Do you not agree that some of the concerns expressed by individuals 

and organizati ons in Oregon, and perhaps even by the commission, 

have been influenced to some degree by the events takin g place on the 

Columbia River and to the nort h of us in the Stat e of Washington, 

relating to India n fishing rig hts, as it affects their viewing and ability 

to see the Siletz Restora tion and Reservation Acts as clearly as they 

might otherwise?

Mr. Donaldson. I thin k that is a very f air statement, Senator H at ­

field. We have been considerably tied up in litigation relative to those 

issues. The Klama th In dia n issue is another one where termination took 

place; the land was sold, and right s were maintained. Tha t is one of 

the cases tha t we see.

w And it is the opinion o f th e attorn ey general of the State o f Washington tha t they could have these rights survive, and tha t down the 

line concerns the users.

Senator Hatfield. Mr. Donaldson, is it not also t rue tha t if we had

* never introduced the Restora tion Act or the Reservation Act—if 

neithe r one of these bills had ever seen the ligh t of day—you could be 

faced with t his same, precise, exact question based on the 1855 trea ty ?

Mr. Donaldson. Absolutely.

Senator Hatfield. So, do you not agree tha t the explicit language 

in both bills and the legislative record, and the independent analysis, 

and the solicitor's judgme nt, as well as the author of the bill, have all 

indicated the bill’s legislative inten t to be to bestow no new, or any 

procedural, or any other benefits upon this Indian tribe, at the same 

time not seeking to extinguish any preexistin g right s ? Do you agree 

with th at ?

Mr. Donaldson. Absolutely; I ind icated t hat in my statement, I will 

say this again. I will answer your question by saying, “yes, I understand tha t to be the case, without any question.”

The question tha t has come up relative to this new approach is tha t 

we are looking at a defined righ t, and this has caused people some 

grea t concern. They say, “We understood it said there would be none, 

and now here you come.” Well, this is a separate issue we are bringing 

up. I t is not a p art of legislation; it is a p art of litigatio n. We begin to 

enter a consent decree, a suit, and hope to put these issues to rest in a 

very positive and constructive fashion.

Senator Hatfield. I would like to observe t ha t I have sat throug h 

and have reviewed othe r sessions of groups where the personalities, or

* the biases, or the prejudices of parties have made solutions almost 

impossible to come by. Bu t I would like to make th e observation t hat, 

in my opinion, knowing the leadership of the Siletz Tribe, knowing

*

their temperament, their long record of patience and forbearance, 

knowing of the totally scholarly and outsta nding legal counsel of 

Charles Wilkenson who is counseling them, knowing of your leadership and your outsta nding background in this field, knowing the general context of the whole St ate of Oregon, i f we cannot resolve these 

issues u nder these best of circumstances, I will give up mv faith in humanity.

Mr. Donaldson. I t hink tha t is a very true statement.

Senator Hatfield. I do not mean it as a challenge, but just as an 

observation. If people of good will and intelligence and the virtues of
104

pati ence and all the oth er virtue s th at you peop le have can not come 

up with some kin d of ham mered ou t agreem ent, I do not know o f any 

circ umstan ce in which we co uld hop e to have agreem ent in these long 

and tedious are as of In di an rig ht s and In dian treaties.

I expect som ething ou tstan din g, superb, and mod el-like for the 

whole Nation to follow, and I think the pro cedure is prov ing that. 

Now, the results must be the fr ui ts of the procedure.

Mr. Donaldson. I appre cia te your comments, Senator.

The position I have ma intain ed constant ly in rel ati on ship to the 

tribe is to try to resolve them as amicably as possible, witho ut going 

to cou rt. There are always two losers in co urt; you can have two 

winners outside. We were tryi ng to work , an d still are, under the 

Belloni decision on the Col umbia Riv er. We have ou r agreem ent 

there; it has its problems, bu t it is a ma jor step forw ard . I think 

it is an even more exc itin g op po rtu nity.

Senator H atfield. If we ha d had this procedure, we mi gh t neve r 

have ha d the Belloni decision. I do not th in k the court s are alw ays 

tho best e quip ped to make po litica l deter minations and pol itic al compromises, whereas I think th at in this kin d of fra me wo rk we can 

make those decisions and make bette r decisions.

I wa nt to say this too. I hav e been most pleased by the form at and 

inf orm al support and activ ity on the par t of the Fe de ral agencies. 

I wa nt to pledge you my continued intere st in th is in whate ver role 

I can play . Bu t the BIA at the are a level and righ t on thr ou gh , the 

BLM, and the private agencies and oth er resource gro ups, includ ing 

the eng ineerin g firm at Co rva llis and academic peo ple in the fores try 

are a—all these people have rea lly repres ented some of the finest 

citize nry we have in the region. Am ong st such people I think we can 

get the answers.

Mr. Donaldson. Let us hope th at we can.

I would like to make a final comm ent. There is still going to be 

a ra th er difficult public rel ations position to ca rry forw ard here. To 

sell this is going to take some pati ence and e nerg y. If th is is the direc ­

tio n in which the commission decides to go—I can say I person ally 

think this is a very viable way —we will make every effo rt to do th at 

and possibly use you r good offices to help in th at .

Se nator Hatfield. I comm end all of you fo r conti nuing to think 

with your head s ra th er th an your gla nds, and I hope th at continues 

on throug h the process.

Mr. Donaldson. Th an k you.

Senator H atfield. Th e committee will sta nd adjou rned, subject 

to the call of the Chair.

[Whereup on, at 12:33 p.m., the he aring was adjou rned, sub ject to 

the call of the Ch air.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

School ot Law

UNIV ERSIT Y OF OREGON 

Eugene. Oregon 97-iO?

503/686-3W"

August 31, 1979

Paul B. Osterlund 

Attorney at Law 

217 S. Main Street 

P .0. Box F 

Toledo, OR 97391

Dear Mr. Osterlund:

The Siletz Tribal Council has asked us to reply directly 

to your letter of August 13th because of the several legal 

issues that are raised in your letter. We have discussed the 

contents of this letter at length with the Tribal Council and 

the answers are authorized by them.

Before answering the specific questions whic h you have 

asked, we would like to make a few general comments.

Several people in the town of Siletz, including some mem ­

bers of the Planning Commission, have expressed concern over 

deterioration of the relationship between tribal members and 

non-Indian citizens of Siletz. The Tribal Council has asked 

us to make it clear that the Tribe respects and shares those 

concerns. Restoration of the Tribe to full federal status is 

still ve ry recent and new. The manner in which the Cit y and 

the Tribe, itself a permanent government, relate to one another 

is just beginning.

The Tribe wants to emphasize that it stands one hundred 

percent in favor of a close and cooperative working ar rangement between the City and the Tribe. There are ma ny different 

ways in which such cooperation can work to the benefit of both 

groups. At its most basic level, everyone will benefit by 

simply being good neighbors.

We appreciate, for example, the prompt manner in which the 

Planning Commission has acted on the request for the transfer 

of G overnment Hill. Such promptness is especially appreciated 

because of the time pressures which the Tribe faces. The Tribe 

similarly wants to continue proceeding on a cooperative basis.

One other issue cuts across several of the questions which 

you have asked of the Tribe. It relates to questions such as

an e qua l op po rtu nity affirma tive action e mp loy er
106

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 2

whether the City could have joint ownership of Government Hill 

with the Tribe or whether the City could retain ownership while 

the Tribe constructs its own buildings on Governme nt Hill.

There are several problems with such an approach, but one 

is paramount. Most federal funding for reservation development is based on the principle of trust ownership, that is, 

land owned entirely by an Indian Tribe which is held in trust 

for the Tribe by the United States. That kind of land owner- *

ship is found on virtually every reservation in the country 

and is the basis for much of federal policy toward Indians.

Departures from that kind of title mean that the Department of 

Interior woul d oppose the proposal and that Congress would

probably not approve the plan. Furthermore, even in the un- *

likely event that such an approach is acceptable, many of

the federal programs and funding sources would inevitably be

unavailable to the Tribe because such programs require tribal

trust land.

Finally, the Tribal Council has asked us once again to 

emphasize the importance of Government Hill to the future of 

the Tribe. As you know, the BLM timber land which is part of 

the reservation plan is not appropriate for a tribal governmental center; the lands are too remote and are not suitable 

for such construction. The tribal center is, of course, the 

heart of the reservation plan. Government Hill has always 

been the center of tribal operations. It has housed tribal 

offices, tribal meetings, the health clinic, housing for the 

elderly, and BIA offices. Tribal members have deep and special feelings about Government Hill, much as non-Indians might 

have about a homestead that has been in the family for generations. Just as this unique tribal area was transferred 

without charge to the City when the Tribe was terminated, we 

hope that the City will return it to the Tribe now that tribal 

status has been restored.

We wil l turn to our answers to your questions.

1. Documented history of the legal title and ownership 

of Government Hill.

The Department of Interior title office has conducted 

extensive research on this issue. Our answer is based upon

the findings it has made. ’

Government Hill was originally owned by certain aboriginal 

Indian Tribes that lived on the central Oregon coast. In 1855, 

along wit h some 1.1 million acres of land which surround it,

Government Hill was set aside as an Indian reservation for a *

270
Paul B. Osterluna 

August 31, 1979 

Page 3

large confederation of tribes, mostly from southern Oregon, 

which became known as the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indi ­

ans of Oregon. The reservation was created by the Executive 

Order of November 9, 1855.

Portions of the large reservation were taken away from 

the Indians by the government in 1865 and 1875, but that section which contain ed Government Hill was not affected. In 

fact, the language of the 1875 act stated that the remaining 

portion containing Government Hill wa s "set apart as a permanent reservation for the Indians . . . " Act of March 3, 1975.

In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act.

The Act was a scheme designed to destroy the reservation system and the Indian way of life. As a result of its passage, 

between 1887 an d 1934 over 90 million acres of tribal lands 

throughout the United States were lost to Indian tribes. In 

1934, the Indian Reorganization Act was passed which halted 

the issuance of allotments and the policy.

Under the allotment policy, the federal government made 

an agreement with the Indians in 1892, and Congress approved 

the agreement by the Act of August 15, 1894. The agreement 

provided that allotments would be issued to indivdual Indians 

and only five sections of land would remain in tribal ownership. Under the allotment schedule that the federal government issued on October 24, 1894, the allotments were described, 

the five sections were reserved for tribal use, and certain 

other lands, including Government Hill, were designated as 

"Government reserve" for administrative purposes of the federal 

government. (The remainder of the reservation land was ceded 

to the federal governm ent under the agreement, and was subsequently opened to homesteading.)

The designation of tribal land as "administrative reserve" was done often during the late nineteenth and early 

twentieth centur ies . It is a technical designation and was done 

at that time because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had a policy 

of requiring that federal buildings be built on federal land, 

not tribal land. Land designated as administrative reserve, at 

Siletz and elsewhere, continued to be treated as tribal land.

At Siletz, for example, there was no significant change in the 

use of the land after 1894 other than the fact that some additional federal buildings were constructed.

The policy of technically designating land as administrative reserve has now been abandoned. In fact, at many if not 

most reservations, including Wa rm Springs, land formerly designated as administrative reserve has now been transferred
108 •

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 4

back to the Tribe. This is a recognition that there was no 

intent to alter or limit tribal use of such land. On Go vernment Hill, for example, tribal members conducted a wide range 

of activities as discussed in the introduction to this letter.

In the Tribe's new reservation, there will be no land 

designated as administrative reserve for the reasons discussed 

abo ve.

r

Government Hill continued to be owned by the federal 

government and administered for the use and benefit of the 

Siletz people until 1956, when it was donated to the City of 

Siletz under the terms of the Siletz Termination Act, a copy 

of which is attached. The legislative history relating to the *

disposition of federally owned lands indicate that the Agency 

tract, day school tract, and the ce metery tract aggregating 

39.23 acres "should be fee patented to the organization composed of members of the present Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians, as soon as Congress approves enabling legislation 

therefore and when such members incorporate as a legal body 

under state laws of Orego n." The act provided the Secretary 

with discretionary authority to convey the property to the 

Tribe, or a public or non-profit body. There are no indications of a tribal corporation created under state law and in 

existence prior to conveyance of the property to the City.

2. A rough plot plan sketch showing how the Tribe conceptually intends to develop Government Hill. Does the Tribe 

contemplate there being live in residential units as part of

its plan for Government Hill?

The engineering/planning firm of CH2M Hill is preparing 

a rough site plan which will show how the Tribe would like to 

develop Government Hill. The site plan will not be completed 

before mid-September. We will supply it to the City of Siletz 

as soon as it is completed. The facilities that the Tribe 

would like to construct on the Hill are as follows:

(1) Community utilities, probably including sewer, water,

1/2 mile road, gravel parking, paved parking.

The sewer would be a community septic system or line 

from Siletz. The water would be supplied by a 

water tower and distribution close by or a line

from Siletz. The site plan and other documentation •

being prepared by CH 2M Hill will give more specific

details.

(2) A community hall, whic h would include a large

meeting room, kitchen, museum area, four class or *

meeting rooms, and day care center.

(3) An office and clinic building which would house 

the tribal office, the BIA office, and a medical 

and dental clinic.

- 272 -
109

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 5

4

(4) A recreation hall which would include a gymnasium, 

showers, locker rooms, stage, and kitchen, as well 

as a social hall/meeting room.

(5) Outdoor recreation facilities, which would include 

a children's playground, picnic facilities, a baseball field, football field, and two tennis courts.

The Tribe would like to reconstruct some housing for its 

elderly on Government Hill at a future time. Whether it would 

be feasible to do so depends both upon the space demands and 

utility demands. The CH2M Hill engineers will be able to give 

us a much more specific answer as to whether this would be 

possible after the site plan for the above facilities is completed. The Tribe does not want Governm ent Hill to lose its 

character as an open space with recreation areas, trees, and 

other outdoors characteristics, so the answer to this question is also dependent upon the space requirements of the 

facilities envisioned in the short-range goals. Housing would 

definitely be a long-term planning project. As discussed 

below, the Tribe will discuss any such project with the City 

of Siletz at the time p lanning begins.

3. A financial forecast indicating what kind of funding 

is necessary for implementing the Tribe's conceptual plan for

development of Governm ent Hill.

Over the next ten years the Tribe estimates that the following expenditures will be required to develop the facilities 

described in Question 2 above. The funding would come from 

Tribal income, interest, and federal grants, as well as business loans:

Planning and Design 

Community Utilities 

Community Hall 

Office and Clinic 

Recreation Hall 

Outdoor Recreation

(1980-81): $ 200,000 

(1981-82): 3,000,000 

(1981-82): 1,345,000 

(1982-83): 797,000 

(1985-86): 3,000,000 

(1986-87): 300,000

4

4. If the City were to transfer Government Hill to the 

Federal Goveriynent in trust for the Tribe, would the Tribe object to the City reserving from that transfer, easements and 

parcels of property now use d for accommodating public facilities and any additional easement or access rights and additional 

property that would be needed to accommodate future expansion

of those facilities?

♦ The Tribe has no objection to a transfer which would reserve to the City the easements and parcels now used for the

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 8

- 273 -
no

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 6

water tower and treatment plant.

The Tribe needs to know specifically what and how much 

property would be involved in accommodating future expansion 

of these facilities before it could agree to a transfer reserving additional easements, access rights and additional 

property beyond that currently used. If the acreage is reasonably small, as we understand it would be, the Tribe would 

be willing to consider such a proposal.

5. Would the Tribe and/or the Federal Government by 

agreement or other means agree to a transfer of Government

Hill from the City subject to the Planning and Zoning Ordinances of the City of Siletz and to local and state buildingcodes?

As we have discussed above, this kind of provision would 

be unacceptable to the Department of Interior and Congress. 

Although the federal government almost always cooperates with 

local governments, federal land is not technically subject to 

local zoning ordinances and building codes. Federal regulations do, however, provide strict requirements for construction 

which exceed all local building codes. In addition, federal 

policy is to consult closely with local governments.

The Tribe definitely is willin g to follow such an approach 

here. There are many cities in the United States which have 

Indian land in them, and almost all cities have some federal 

land in them, if only a post office. As mentioned, we see no 

problem with building codes because federal regulations fully 

cover that issue. On the question of zoning, we will be glad 

to submit plans to the Planning Commission regarding any development of the Government Hill property.

Furthermore, we would be willing to enter into a formal 

written agreement with the City of Siletz. Such an agreement 

woul d provide that the Tribe would (a) meet the standards of 

the City's building code; (b) meet the standards of the City's 

planning and zoning ordinances; and (c) include other provisions 

concerning land use which are mutually acceptable by both the 

City and the Tribe. Such an agreement would be approved by 

the Secretary of Interior and would be enforceable by the Sec ­

retary of Interior. This kind of approach has been taken in 

other areas with Indian land within city limits, including the 

Umatilla Reservation near Pendleton.

We cannot overemphasize the fact that the Tribe is, and 

always will be, determined to use Government Hill in an environmentally sound manner. The site plan which the Tribe will 

submit to the Planning Commission will demonstrate that. Gov274
I ll

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 7

ernment Hill is a place of great importance to the Tribe and, 

like the City, the Tribe has every interest in maintaining its 

environmental quality and compatability with the surrounding 

area.

6. What assurance would the citizens of the City of 

Siletz have to insure that the facilities provided on Government Hill by the Tribe would be reasonably available to the 

community of Siletz for public uses? Does the Tribe anticipate

there would be a charge by the Tribe for public use? Would

the Tribe object to the concept of jointly owned and operated

public recreation facilities in cooperation with the City?

The Tribe is willing to agree that the facilities on Government Hill will be reasonably available to the community of 

Siletz for public use. Tribal buildings have traditionally 

been available to local citizens. The Tribe encourages such 

use and wants to share the facilities with the community.

There would be many, perhaps most, uses by the community 

which woul d not involve any charge. Most importantly, we are 

sure that many young people from the community will want to 

use the recreational facilities; many will want to attend 

Indian culture, language, or history classes at the new tribal 

center. As is the case now, there will undoubtedly be many 

potlucks and pow-wows to which the community will be cordially 

invited. The Tribe encourages such uses and there will seldom 

if ever be any charge for them.

It is probable that the Tribe will want to charge reasonable fees for some community uses which do not involve the 

Tribe. As the Planning Commission knows, most public bodies 

do charge reasonable rates for use of their facilities. At 

this time, the Tribe proposes to charge a reasonable rental 

for private groups generally. The Tribe will, however, make 

an exception for governmental bodies such as the City of 

Siletz; for uses by local governmental units, the Tribe will 

charge only a fee necessary to cover actual operational exp enses.

The last part of your question raised the possibility of 

a jointly-owned project. This approach is eliminated by the 

fact that the Department of Interior has extremely strict requirements for accepting Indian land in trust, thus making such 

an arrangement impossible. As noted above, if the land were 

not Indian trust land, many federal funding sources would be 

unavailable. The Tribe would use its trust ownership of the 

land to obtain certain federal assistance, and will also use 

its income from tribal enterprise to pay for the costs of

- 27 5 -
112

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 8

development.

7. Are there any economic advantages that would accrue 

to the City of Siletz in transferring Government Hill to the

Federal Government in trust for the Tribe? If so, specifically

what are those advantages? Advantages to the community of

Siletz? If so, what are they?

The immediate advantage to the City government is that 

public recreation facilities and meeting rooms, day care center, 

community hall, kitchen, picnic sites, recreation hall, and 

so forth would be constructed and maintained and made available 

to the City and its citizens at no cost for such construction 

and maintenance to the City.

As a federally recognized Indian tribe with trust land, the 

Tribe will be eligible for studies sponsored by EDA an d other 

federal agencies concerning the provision of municipal services. 

This would include, for example, studies concerning the City of 

Siletz's water supply system. We understand that the draft comprehensive plan by the City of Siletz indicates that the existing water supply will be adequate only until 1985; therefore 

it would appear that such a water supply study would be to the 

benefit of the City and the Tribe. A joint application for funding for such a study by the Tribe and the City would almost certainly be looked upon favorably by federal agencies, including 

EDA. Similar joint enterprises, such as for roads and sewers, 

are also realistic possibilities.

The less apparent but no less important advantage to the 

City would be the positive economic impact that the undertaking 

of such projects will have on the local area as a whole. CH2M 

Hill is finalizing an economic study that we will provide to 

you immediately upon its completion. It indicates that at the 

very least there will be 83 permanent new jobs created in Lincoln County over the next decade as a result of the establishment of the reservation, with a corresponding increase in personal income and spending. Many other temporary jobs will also 

be created, such as those in connection with construction of 

the tribal facilities.

8. Fire protection, how will the Tribe provide for it?

Fire protection for Indian communities has been worked out 

on a number of other Indian reservations. The Tribe will contribute its fair share to the volunteer fire department. All 

facilities will be built up to local, state, and federal stan-

- 276 -
113

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 9

dards, and will be fully equipped with sprinkler systems and 

other preventive mea sures.

9. Are there any economic advantages to the Tribe in 

acquiring Government Hill as opposed to another piece of land

in the immediate vicinity of the City of Siletz? If so, specifically what are those advantages to the Tribe?

10. Will the community of Siletz derive specific moral, 

cultural and recreational benefits from transferring Government

Hill to the Federal Government in trust for the Tribe. If so,

what are those benefits?

The cultural and recreational benefits are made fairly clear 

simply by a listing of the many facilities that will be located 

on Government Hill, as described above. There is no doubt in our 

minds but that the people of the City of Siletz, most especially 

young people, will benefit enormously from the opportunities 

which the tribal center will offer to Indians and non-Indians 

alike. Those opportunities cannot be realized unless Government 

Hill is transferred back to the Tribe. We do not know exactly 

what is meant by "moral" benefits to the City, except that we 

presume that the City would feel some moral obligation to return 

to the Tribe the cornerstone of its former reservation and focal 

point of its cultural identity which the City received at no cost

11. At the bottom line what does the Tribe need from the 

City of Siletz for its plan for Congress short of a conveyance

of Government Hill?

Government Hill is the focal point of the reservation plan. 

The details of the conveyance need not be completed in order to 

present the pla n to Congress on November 18, 1979. The Tribe, 

however, woul d be placed at a serious disadvantage if an agreement as to the principle of making the transfer is not reached 

by early November.

12. As specifically as possible what laws would apply to 

Government Hill if the City transferred the Hill to the Federal

Government in trust for the Tribe?'

1. Under "Public Law 280," the criminal laws of the State 

of Oregon, Lincoln County, and the City of Siletz would apply 

on Government Hill just as they do elsewhere. These include 

traffic laws as well as regular criminal laws (burglary, assault, 

forgery, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, evading an

277
114

Paul B. Osterlund 

August 31, 1979 

Page 10

officer, etc. ). The Hill could not be used as a place for anyone to "hide out" from the law, as officers of the City, County, 

and State would have the same rights to enter there as they do 

elsewhere. See generally, "An Analytical Approach to Criminal 

Jurisdiction in Indian Country," at pages 385-88 of Getches,

Rosenfelt and Wilkinson, CASES AN D MATERIALS ON FEDERAL INDIAN 

LAW (1979). A copy of these pages is attached.

2. All of the civil laws of the State of Oregon that have

to do with the rights and status of individual persons would apply to people and incidents on Government Hill. These include +

family law matters (such as divorce and juvenile d elinquen cy),

tort matters (such as lawsuits about car accidents), and contract

matters (such as collection suits over unpaid bills and lawsuits

about broken agreements). Again, the Hill would not be a place

where someone could "hide out" frorasthe authorities or their «

personal obligations to others. The leading case on jurisdiction

under Public Law 280 is Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373

(1976) .

3. Most local and state civil laws which have to do with 

regulation of activities would not apply. State or local property taxes woul d not apply to property on the Hill. (Of course, 

they do not now apply either, since the Hill is public property.)

State and local zoning laws would technically not apply but all 

of the provisions of those laws would be met fully by means of 

the agreement between the Tribe, the City, and the Department

of Interior. The same is true of local and state buildi ng codes.

Bryan v. Itasca County also deals with this subject.

* * * *

We will plan to attend the meeting on September 6th and 

will be pleased to offer any additional information that we have 

at our disposal at that time. The reacquisition of Government 

Hill is the number one priority of the Siletz Tribe. We hope 

very much that the Planning Commission will agree to recommend 

transfer of the land back to the Tribe.

The Tribe looks forward to a permanent, productive relationship of full cooperation with the City of Siletz and its 

cit ize ns.

Very truly y ours,

CFW/mc

cc: Arthur Bensell

(continued next page)

Charles F. Wilkinson 

Associate Professor of Law

Sharon Gordon

General Counsel, Siletz Tribe

4

278
115

Paul B. Osterlund 

Augus t 31, 1979 

Page 11

cc: (continued)

Roy Weaver 

Leroy Yoder 

Richard Bennett 

Harvey Haproff 

Robert Longyear 

James Strebig 

Grace Castle

bcc: Pauline Ricks

Delores Pigsley 

Edmond Ben 

George Baker 

Elouise Case 

Mary Fisher 

Stanley Strong 

Lindsey J oh n'

Don Miller 

Marcy Schwartz 

William Blosser 

Bruce Bishop 

Robert M. Landauer 

Dave Sitterson 

Doyce Waldrip 

Bernard Topash

279
116

September 19, 1979

John R. Donaldson, PhD

Director «

j-nartment of Pish and Wildlife 

Office of the Director 

,06 S.W. Mill Street

P.0. Box 3503 

Portland, Oregon 97208 

Dear Jack:

The Siletz Tribal Council has asked me to respond to 

your letter to Art Bensell, dated September , 1979-

You raised nine questions in the letter. 3efore addressing them specifically, I would like to make a few 

.••"neral observations in order to place the specific answers 

in context.

You and the Commission have now received the proposed 

nian. As you can see, the plan is structured around the 

concept of providing for a permanent, self-sustaining tribal 

government. The focal point of tribal activities will be 

approximately 36 acres in the town of Siletz, known as 

"Government Hill." Government Hill will house tribal headquarters, a new health clinic, a tribal museum, a game room 

for young people, a day care center, a kitchen, a gymnasium, 

outdoor athletic fields, and other facilities. The complex 

will be available for the benefit of the general public. The 

timbex'lands east of Siletz, now public domain land administered by the BLM, will provide an area for hiking, camping, 

root gathering, and other tribal activities. It would also 

provide timber revenues to maintain the tribal complex on .

Government Hill. ’

The future quality of tribal government is directly 

tied to the proposed reservation. The Siletz Tribe is the 

only federally recognized Indian tribe in the country without 

a reservation. Like other tribes, the Siletz need both a 

homeland, for a tribal center and for tribal activities, 

and resource lands to provide some sustaining economic support. Thus both Government Hill and the timberlands are 

essential to establish a viable reservation that will provide 

for permanent tribal government.

- 288 -
117

John R. Donald son 

Septemb er 19, 1979 

Page 2

The creati on of the res rev atlon Is of sore consi der abl e 

Importa nce, from an econom ic standpoint, to both Indi ans and 

non -In dia ns In the city of Siletz and Linc oln County. The 

timber ope rat ion and the complex on Gov ern men t Kill would 

dir ect ly cre ate 3^ jobs, some of them held by Indians and 

some by non-Indians. The reservation wou ld indirectly es ­

tab lish ano the r 55 jobs in Lin coln County, making a total of 

app rox ima tel y 90 new jobs created by the reservation. In 

addi tion, the plan contemp lat es over $8 million of constr uc4 tion. That will create addit ion al Jobs and, with the mu ltip lie r effe ct so pronounced with con str uct ion funds, will 

produc e a sig nif ica nt posit ive effe ct on the eco nom y of 

Lin coln County.

♦ The plan has rec eiv ed widespread support. It has beQ .n

end ors ed by the Portl and Or eg on ia n, the Oregon Jo ur na l, and 

the Lin coln Cou nty news papers.

’•'y per cep tio n is that there is wide rec ogn iti on that this 

bill does not inv olve hunting or fis hin g rights. I gather, 

howe ver, from your let ter that there are new membe rs on the 

Com mis sion who were not inv olv ed with the Sil etz Res tor ati on 

Act of 1977. We can app reciate their des ire to be bri efed 

cn the hun tin g and fis hing issue and wil l the ref ore briefl y 

summar ize the development of the issue dur ing the passage 

of the 1977 act.

As ori ginal ly introdu ced by Con gre ssm an Wyatt, the Sile tz 

Res tor ati on Bill wou ld have fully restor ed all hun ting and 

fis hin g righ ts of tri bal memb ers. Ther e was, howe ver, stro ng 

opp osi tio n by the Commission to that ori gin al bill. As a 

result, the trib e voluntarily agr eed to a redraft ing of the 

bil l so that it w oul d be compl ete ly neu tra l on hunti ng and 

fis hin g rights ; in oth er word s, the bill neither est abl ish ed 

any new righ ts nor extinguished any righ ts that the tribe 

might poss ibly have ret ain ed aft er terminat ion. Alt hou gh the 

Commi ssion took the position that all fis hin g righ ts should 

be ext ing uished, the tribe met wit h the Com mis sio n in 1975 

bef ore the bill was reintroduced by Con gre ssm an AuC oln and 

Sen ator Hatfield. The tri be accep ted several dra fti ng sugges tions of the Commission to mak e it as cle ar as pos sib le 

that the bill was neutral on this issue.

As finally adop ted, the act provid ed that the creation 

4 of any res erv ati on wou ld have no effect whatsoe ver on hun tin g

and fis hin g rights. The pro vis ion , which amo unt s to a su bsta nti al vic tory for the Com mission, provid es as follows:

- 289 -
118

John R. Donaldson 

September 19, 1979 

Page 3

"The establishment of such a reservation will not 

grant or restore to the tribe or any member of the 

tribe any hunting, fishing, or trapping right of 

any nature, including any indirect or procedural 

right or advantage, on such reservation." 25 U.S.C.

§ 711e(d)(2).

This compromise was reached after a long and exhaustive 

legislative process. In purely political terms, it was the 

only way that the bill could have passed. Congressman AuCoin 

and Senator Hatfield were not willing to reestablish all 

tribal hunting and fishing rights, since they correctly p erceived widespread sentiment against such a proposal from 

sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, and the Commission.

On the other hand, the extinguishment of all political rights 

would also have meant that the bill could not be passed. Many 

citizens, Indian and non-Indian alike, felt that singling out 

the Siletz would be unfair and morally wrong. Other Indian 

tribes would understandably oppose such an unprecedented abrogation of important tribal rights. Perhaps most importantly, 

the rights (if they exist) are constitutionally vested property rights and would require a payment by the United States 

if extinguished. No one knows if the rights exist or, if they 

do, how extensive they are. The Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Interior were all 

unwilling to agree to any such payment, much less one which 

is completely undetermined in scope. As a result, the compromise, neutral language was adopted.

Although the provision is straightforward on its face, 

the fact that the act did not establish hunting or fishing 

rights was widely documented in the record of the Siletz 

Restoration Act. Both committee reports stated that the 

act was "neutral." The Department of Interior testified to 

the same effect. The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, concluded as follows in a memorandum dated 

June 18, 1976:

"In sum, therefore, it seems clear that neither 

the cited cases nor the language of S. 2801 provide any basis for an assertion that the creation 

of a reservation may itself be held to create 

hunting or fishing rights."

Senator Hatfield and Congressman AuCoin, the two principal 

authors of the bill, both made uneouivocal statements that 

the act would not grant any hunting or fishing rights. Tribal leaders and tribal attorneys made several statements to

*

290
119

John R. Donaldson 

September .19, 1979 

Page *4

that effect in the record.

We mentioned earlier that the Siletz Tribe may now have 

some hunting or fishing rights. Two tribes, the Menominee 

Tribe of Wisconsin and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon, obtained 

court rulings that their hunting and fishing rights continued 

after termination. See, Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United 

Sta tes , 391 U.S. *4 0*4 (1968); Kimball v. Callah an, *4 93 7.2d 

56*) ("9th Cir. 197*4). Both of those tribes had negotiated

♦ treaties specifically establishing the extent of their rights 

and both court opinions relied heavily on the individual 

legislative histories of the Menominee and Klamath termination acts. The Siletz, of course, have different circumstances and were terminated under a separate act. The geo-

♦ graphical extent of any Siletz rights is completely unclear, 

but it would probably be confined to a very small area of 

land since, as the history in the proposed plan shows, the 

Siletz reservation was greatly reduced in size at the time 

of termination. The executive order establishing the Siletz 

reservation created no off-reservation fishing rights such 

as those held by the Columbia River tribes and the tribes In 

western Washington.

The Siletz Restoration Act and the proposed plan, then, 

make the creation of the reservation completely independent 

of hunting or fishing rights. Whether or not the rights exist on 

those specific acres of land, the status quo will be mai ntained whether or not a reservation is ever established; the 

creation of a reservation will add nothing. Congress has the 

power to establish special Indian hunting and fishing rights 

but the phrase "reservation" has no magic to it. In this 

case, Congress has made it clear that it is establishing 

no rights on this reservation. Therefore this Is an Indian 

reservation which has no hunting or fishing rights attached 

to it unless they survived termination in 195*4 - The creation 

of a reservation today is a neutral act and does not establish hunting or fishing rights.

As you are well aware, the tribe has acted in complete 

cooperation with the Department and the Commission at all times. 

.There has been no assertion of hunting or fishing rights, 

either by individuals or by the tribe. The tribe has no plans 

to take action to establish those rights. The state has teen 

regulating tribal members at all relevant times and has been 

+ regulating the lands covered by the proposed plan. The state

should continue to regulate tribal members and the land covered by the plan after the reservation is established. That 

will.provide a continuity of management and a maintenance 

of the status quo.

- 291 -
120

John R. Donaldson 

September 19, 1979 

Page 5

We very much appreciate your cooperative attitude to 

date. Although the Commission vigorously opposed the Siletz 

Restoration Act of 1977, we hope that years of earnest and 

good faith cooperation have made old antagonisms a thing of 

the past. Those issues have been resolved. The tribe has no 

objection to continuing state regulation of the lands in 

question and we hope that the Commission will come out in 

strong support of this progressive legislation which is so 

important to the Siletz Tribe and its members.

1. Would a reservation, if established by Cor.rress, be 

limited to those lands as described within the reservation

bill? Could the Siletz Tribe with approval of the Secretary

of the Interior obtain additional reservation lands by nurcha se, trade, donation, etc.? If so, would those additional

lands have the same reservation status as the lands described

withir. the reservation bill? If it is not the desire of the

Siletz Tribe to obtain additional lands, what language is required in the reservation bill to assure this tribal oolicy?

Yes, the reservation would be limited to those lands 

described in the bill. They would be the only lands that 

would be Indian country within the meaning of 13 U.S.C. § 1151.

Yes, the Siletz Tribe with approval of the Secretary of 

Interior could obtain additional land and have it accepted into trust by the Secretary of Interior under under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 467, which 

gives the Secretary authority to add lands to existing reservations .

Yes, any additional lands added to the reservation would 

have the same reservation status as the lands described in the 

reservation bill. This means, among other things, that any 

lands added to the reservation in the future would not grant 

or restore any hunting or fishing rights. We intend to make 

that issue completely clear in the legislative history.

Although the tribe has no specific plans to obtain additional lands in the future, it is possible that the tribe 

would want to acquire lands by purchase or trade. That is a 

perfectly proper activity of governments, such as state and 

local bodies, and of corporations. Indian tribes have the 

right to acquire lands under the Indian Reorganization Act 

because they conduct both governmental and business activities. 

It would be inappropriate to select out the Siletz Tribe and 

deny it the right to acquire land, when that right is important to all governments and businesses, including Indian tribes.

If the tribe does acauire land In the future and seeks 

to have it taken into trust by the Secretary of Interior, there

292
121

John R. Donaldson 

September 19, 1979 

Page 6

would be consultation with interested persons, including the 

Commission. We have indicated to the Northwest Steelheaders 

that we think it appropriate that such consultation should be 

specifically mentioned in the legislative history, ar.d continue to hold that view. We repeat that taking of additional 

land into trust would not establish hunting or fishing rights 

on such land, since the Siletz Reservation cannot have hunting 

and fishing rights unless they existed before the reservation 

was created.

4

2• Would the State of Oregon, •specifically the Department of Pish and Wildlife, retain existing authority for fish 

and wildlife management, including regulation of harvest by

both Siletz Tribal and non-Tribal members on reservation 

* lands ?

Since the hunting and fishing rights of the Siletz 

Tribe have never been litigated, there is technically a question as to whether the Department has authority to regulate 

harvest by tribal members. The Department is now regulating 

tribal members and non-tribal members on all areas in question. The tribe has no objection to the Department continuing its present regulation on the area in question, although 

the tribe cannot waive any rights that it may have. Continuing regulation by the state would mean that the status quo 

would be preserved.

3. If the response to Question -2 is Yes (the State would

retain existing management authoritv, including regulation of harvest), then what language within the reservation bill is

required to assure State authority on reservation lands? If

the response to Question 2 is No (the Siletz Tribe would obtain management authority including regulation of harvest).

then vjhat plan does the Siletz Tribe have for management of

the fish and wildlife resources on reservation lands? Vho

would enforce the Tribe's regulations and what court wouId

process violations? What role would this Denartrr.ent have in

management of reservation fish and wildlife resources?

Language which would "assure state authority on reservation lands" would be the same as abrogating the tribal rights, 

because the tribal rights amount to the right to be free of 

state authority. As mentioned above, and as was established 

during the passage of the 1977 act, the tribe cannot agree to 

any language which would abrogate the rights since such language would make the bill unpassable. Since the tribe presumes 

that the state wishes to continue to manage the fish and wildlife resources on reservation lands, just as it is now, the 

tribe has no plans to regulate harvest. The tribe is willing 

4 to cooperate with the state in facilitating management of the

resour ce.

293
122

John R. Donaldson 

September 19, 1979 

Page 7

*•• Does the Siletz Tribe desire a ceremonial and subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on reservation lands or 

other nearby lands? If the response Is Mo, what language In

the reservation bill Is required to assure this tribal policy?

The tribe has no plans to establish a ceremonial and 

subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife and is not now e ngaging in such activities. As indicated above, language in 

the bill in this regard would be inappropriate.

5• Does the Siletz Tribe desire a commercial fishery on 

reservation land or other nearby lands? If the response is

No, what language in the reservation bill is required to assure

this tribal policy?

♦

The tribe has no plans to establish a commercial fishery 

on reservation land or other nearby lands. The Tribal Council 

believes that the Siletz River cannot now, and never will, 

support a commercial fishery. As mentioned above, language 

in the bill on this subject would be inappropriate for the 

same reasons that it was inappropriate in 1977.

6. Is the existing BLH policy of public access on the 

public domain lands for fishing, hunting, berr y-picking,

etc, affected by reservation status? If Yes, how does the

Siletz Tribe desire to regulate public uses on reservation

lands?

♦

Yes, the tribe intends to continue the existing BLK 

policy. The tribe has no present plans to regulate these 

kinds of uses, since we presume that the state will continue 

to enforce many of its laws on the reservation. If private 

persons were to abuse the lands and if state enforcement were 

adequate, it might be necessary to make provision for federal 

or tribal patrols.

7• Would federal, state or local environmental laws, 

addressing habitat protection such as the Forest Practices Act,

Water Quality Act, Water Rights Law, land use planning and

zoning laws Including LCDC state goals, etc, apply to the reservation lands? If the response is No, what plan does the 

Siletz Tribe have to Implement similar environmental protection regulations? How would those regulations be adopted and 

enforced?

These issues are discussed at length in the sections on 

jurisdiction and timber management in the proposed plan. The 

Department of Interior will manage the lands on a conservative, environmentally sound rotation of approximately 80 years. 

The tribe and the Department of Interior will agree to meet or 

exceed the requirements of the State Forest Practices Act.

4

4

- 294 -
123

John R. Donaldson 

September 19, 1979 

Page 8

In regard to the Government Hill land in the City of Siletz, 

the tribe will reach an agreement with the City of Siletz as 

to the use of the land in question.

Several Indian tribes in the United States conduct timber 

harvesting operations, as will the Siletz Tribe after the 

reservation is established. Those timber practices are established and approved by the Department of Interior, and are 

widely known to be conservative and environmentally sound.

♦ As the proposed plan amply demonstrates, the Department of 

Interior and the Siletz Tribe intend to follow the standards 

set by Indian tribes nationally and to maintain tribal re ­

sources in a conservative and environmentally sound manner.

S . If the Siletz Tribe wishes to construct a res ort , 

campground~7~private salmon hatchery, etc, would the proposed 

facility require local and state approval under exlstlr.p state 

law if a) the facility were located on reservation lar.cs, 

b) the facility were located on non-reservation lands?

If such facilities are located on reservation lands they 

would probably not be subject to state approval but would be 

subject to approval by the Department of interior. If the 

facilities were located on non-reservation lands they would 

probably be subject to applicable state regulation.

The tribe has studied the possibility of a private salmon 

hatchery, in large part because of your personal recommendatio 

that such a project should be studied. After study, the tribe 

concluded that such a capital-intensive project with such 

minimal and uncertain short-term returns would be unfeasible 

for the tribe.

9- Congress when enacting the Siletz Restoration Act 

of 1977 provided that persons of one-fourth blood or more of

Siletz Indian descent could qualify for tribal membership and

subsequent benefits. Recent action by the Siletz Tribe lowered its membership qualifications to one-eighth blood of 

Siletz Indian descent. What authority does the Siletz Tribe

have to further adjust the qualifications for tribal membership?

One of an Tndian tribe's most basic areas of authority, 

as a government, is to establish qualifications for tribal

♦ membership. See, e. g. , Cherokee intermarriage Cases, 203 U.S. 

76 (1906). The determination of membership qualifications is 

a difficult and highly personal tribal decision. Like all

295
John R. Donaldson 

September 19» 1979 

Page 9

other Indian tribes, the Siletz Tribe has authority to increase, lower, or otherwise alter its membership Qualifications .

We will look forward to meeting with you and with the 

Commission on September 24th and discussing these questions 

further.

Very truly yours,

Charles F. Wilkinson 

Associate Professor of Law

CFW/mdc

cc: Representative Les AuCoin 

Senator Mark Hatfield 

Governor Victor Atiyeh 

Governor's Task Force
125

Founded Ok 4 .1850. Established u a dally Fab. 4 .1861. Sunday Oregonian established Ok 4 .1881. Published dally and

Sunday by the Oregonian Publishing Co., Oregonian Bldg., 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, Oregon 97201.

FREO A. STICKEU President and Publisher

X RICHARD HO KES, Editor

ALBERT L M cCR EADY. Managing Editor BOB E. M OOR E. Advertising Director

ROBER T M . LANDAUER , Sen ior Associate Editor TUESDAY, AUGUST 2 8.19 79 PATRICK L MARLTON, Circulation Olrec

Siletz need a home

The Siletz Indian Tribe must have a reservation on the central Oregon Coast. A tribe without land Is like a native bird shorn ol Its nesting

area.

The unique status of the Siletz as th e'on ly

landless, federally recognized trib e among 481 In

the nation calls for a remedy. The tribe needs

land, as much to nurture its members' spiritual

reb irth as to provide a modest income for tribal

programs.

The Siletz Tribe is a confederation, formed In

the 18S0s under U.S. ca va lry duress, of four

major trib es — the T lllamooks, Chetcos, Tu-toonay and Alseas — and 17 oth er tribes and

groups. They were assigned a reservation, with

agency headquarters at Sile tz. Th e trib e once

owned more than a million acres of land along

the central Oregon Coast. Some payment was

made for much of the land, but at least 600,000

acres w ere taken w ith ou t p ay men t

In 1977, Congress restored its recognition of

Siletz tribal status. This had been terminated In

1954, after a request from a council meeting of

only 30 Indians, and withou t a ballot, among the

appro xim ately 900 then on the rolls.

Congress also ordered, in the Siletz Restoration Act o f 1977, that the Departm ent of Interio r

develop a plan, in the form of proposed legislatio n, to r a Siletz reservation, and file it w ith

Congress by No v. 18, 1979, less than three

months from now.

Preliminary drafts show the plan's tw o basic

elements to be a 36-acre pkrcel, known as G overn me nt Hill, In the town of Siletz and 3.66 6

acres of public domain timber land, now adm inistered by the Bureau of Land Management, to

provide annual tribal Income of approximately

$600,000.

The tribe proposes that Lincoln County continue to receive, for 25 years after establishment

of a reservation, the 5 percent of revenues from

sale of tim ber on public land that BLM now

pays.

Th e act would provide that no hunting, fishing or trapping rights would be established on

the reservation, and state hunting, fishing and

trapping law s wo uld apply there as in the rest of

the state. The summary states, "It has not been

deter mined w het her the tribe lost its hunting

and fishing rights at the time or term ination, and

the plan does not affect that issue. If the rights

we re not lost, they would remain in effect; If the

rights were terminated , they would not be restored.”

During the next tw o months, the tribal plan

must be exam ined minutely by federal, state and

local Interests. As a ma tter of equity, however,

the Siletz — w ith 1,083 certified members and

perhaps 60 percent more expected to enroll —

should have restored to them land for a tribal

home on the central Oregon Coast

- 3 1 1 -

5 8 -2 5 3 0 - 8 0 - 9
126

Oregon Journal, W ednesday, Sept. 5 ,1 979 Oregon

Jo u rn al op in ion

Siletz should get back

part of their homeland 4

A centu ry ago the Siletz Indians 

owned a 1.1 million-acre reservation on the Oregon Coast. Throu gh 

a federal policy of ineptness, unratifled trea ties, removal and term ination, the reservation was disbanded. 

The Siletz were victim s of a cruel 

hoax that they probably never understood.

Now the Siletz Indians, whose 

triba l rig hts w ere restored In 1977, 

are on the verge of receiving a 

small reservation near the tow n of 

Siletz.

The reservation would be minute compared to what the tribe has 

lost. Sut it would be a tribal home, 

a place where culture and trad ition 

could be re-establish ed and even tually a place where health and educational se rvices could be obtained.

The tribe is negotiating w ith the 

city of S iletz for 27 acres Known as 

"Govern me nt Hill," where agency 

headqu arte rs once were located but 

which now Is overgrown. But the 

bigger chunk of land for the reservation Is 3,666 federal acres administered by the Bureau of Land Managem ent.

The bill w hich would create the 

res erv ation will be Introdu ced in 

Congress this fall. It provides tha t 

no hu nting, fishin g or tra pp ing 

righ ts would be established on the 

reservation or by the tribe.

Tribal leaders have neg otiated 

with federal, state and local governments to re-establish the reservation. Lincoln County, for example, 

now receives 5 percent of the revenues from the public domain lands. 

. The trib e proposes to pay 5 percent 

of Its timber revenues to the co unty 

for 25 years.

The tr ib al rol l counts abou t 

1,100 members of tribes which once 

lived on the reservation or who are 

des cen dan ts. Possibly as many as

2,000 persons could qualify for tribr 

al status. Most of the Indians now 

are sca tte red thr ou gh ou t Oregon, 

mainly the Willamette Valley.

Twenty-five years ago the federal gov ern ment tried a policy of 

tribal term ination, a doctrine which 

has since been reversed In favor of

revitalizing Indian culture.

The Siletz should have a portion 

of the ir homeland retu rned . The 

1977 law directed the secreta ry of

Interior to return to Congress within two years with a plan to create a 

reservation. It's simple justice that a 

reservation should be formed.

*

4

♦

- 3 1 2
Stoltuno n Journol, Solsm, Ore., Sunday, October 28, 1979, 3F

Restoration

Who could really imagine (hat a people

who once owned 1.1 million acres ol land

in western Oregon are homeless or landless? Such is the case of (he Siletz In ­

dians.

Native Amencuns in the United States

have been treated us a vanishing people

(or a long lime. They have endured genocide, resettlement, ostracism and termination It has not been any different

for the Siletz Indians.

"The Siletz tribe was subjected to

each of the most unfortunate Indian policies of (he United Slates government, including unratified and broken treaties,

taking of executive order reservation

lands, removal and allotment. The finalblow in 1954 was termination, a formal

denial of the existence of the tribe by tlie

federal government. All of these policies

have been repudiated by tlie governmentnow But the result of the Siletz tribe wasthe loss of all of Its land, and at least

H/'.UOO acres (hey never received any

compensation at all."

IN Il 7t, A PO RT LA ND official of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs sta ted that

when an Indian reservation was closed,

the Indians were told that they were

white. This was in line with the policy of

ending their trust status with the government and designating them as first class

citizens.

of Siletz reservation is long overdue

Calvin | 

henry

Through the work of Sen Ma rk Halheld and Rep. Les AuCoin, the Siletz

Restoration Act of 1977 was passed This

act established once again the Siletz as a

federally recognized Indian tribe.

The Siletz Restoration Act was another recognition that United Stales is

not a melting pot, but a salad bowl. That

all groops of people contribute to thecharacter ol this country And it won't beany less true for the Siletz Indians in

western Oregon

Of the O l federally recognized tribes,

only the Siletz has no land base. Perhaps

this will change very soon, il (he progressto establish the reservation plan is not

held up by the city of Siletz, Ore.

THE SE CRE TA RY OF the I me n or is

required by (he Siletz Restoration Act to

develop a plan to establish a reservation

for the tribe. This plan should be submitted to Congress by Nov 18 But it might

be delayed by the c ity of Siletz.

The plan is modest at most, but calculative in its approach to Congress to ask

just for what is really needed It is another first for Oregon in the way it is

being set up. The state of Oregon would

continue to have control over many civil

matters and over all c riminal matters unthe reservation. All stale laws regarding

hunting, fishing and trapping would be infull force. Most reservations retain these

jurisdictions.

And Confederated Tribes ol Siletz Indians, as il is now known, has done its

political liomework us well. According toArthur Bensell, the tribal chairinun, they

have had many reservation plan meetings with state and federal agencies.

Meetings have been held with the Lincoln County Commission and the Siletz

City Council. Private corporations likeGeorgia Pacific have been involved. All

of these entities except the city of Siletz

have given their blessings to the plan

THE PL AN CAL LS FOR the reservation to be made up of 3.GGG acres of public

domain land now being administered by

the Bureau ol Land Management. These

acres are in scattered parcels near Siletz. And a 35-acre parcel ol land, knownas Government Hill, is in ihe city of Siletzand is an issue of contention.

Government Hill, from late Ihe IHiWs

until term ination, was tlie headquarters

of (lie Siletz Reservation. When Hie reservation was term inated, il was donated Io

the city by the federal government. It

contains the burial grounds of ihe Siletz.

And the reservation plan reflects that it

is to be the headquarters of the tribe.

Other needed facilities will be located

there.

The tribe and its attorneys worked

closely with the Siletz Planning Commission while it studied the proposal to

transfer Government Hill back to us

original owners. This commission voted

unaminously in favor of the plan Ih e Siletz City Council was expected to approve it too, but a petition from 80 residents demanded a public vote, which will

lake place Nov. I. To gel around the state

election laws, the city is calling it an information poll.

BEN SE LL IS HO PING that the people

of Siletz will vote m favor of the transfer

of Government Hill lie doesn't know

how Ihe failure of Siletz to approve theplan will affect Congress' action on theplan Nov. 18. Maybe there won't be a

need to know.

Perhaps this is only a small compensation to pay for what has happened to a

people in western Oregon And the renewed contributions ol the Siletz Indians

to the area are just beginning.

•

Cslvla H tsry , • CarvalMi m M » l. wriwa • SaaUay

catuoui I f i Im SiaKMBM Jetmul.

to
128

RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 13

SILETZ TRIBE RESERVATION STATUS

WHEREAS, th e S i l e t z R e s to r a tio n Act o f 197 7 (l ’.L . 9 5 -1 9 5 ) r e s to r e d 

f e d e r a l r e c o g n itio n to th e S i l e t z T rib e an d r e q u ire d th e 

S e c re ta ry o f th e I n t e r i o r to p re p a re an d p r e s e n t to C o ngre ss 

a p la n f o r th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a t i o n f o r th e T rib e , 

s a id p la n to be p re s e n te d by No vemb er 1 8 , 1979; an d

WHEREAS, th e S i l e t z T rib e once ha d a r e s e r v a t i o n w hic h in c lu d e d mo re 

th a n 1. 1 m illio n a c r e s o f pri m e ti m b e rla n d on th e O re go n 

c o a s t , b u t now i s f u l l y f e d e r a l ly re c o g n iz e d t r i b e to ha ve 

no r e s e r v a t i o n a t a l l ; an d

4

WHEREAS, th e me mb ers o f th e S i l e t z T rib e h av e u rg e n t n eed s w hic h o n ly 

T rib a l gover nm en t ca n f u l l y a d d r e s s , n am ely , s e v e re un em pl oy ­

m ent, h e a l t h p ro b le m s, a lc o h o lis m , p o v e r ty , s u b s ta n d a rd 

h o u s in g , an d e d u c a tio n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s ; and

WHEREAS, th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a t i o n w i l l a s s u r e th e T r i b e ’ s 

gover nm en t o f a perm an en t an d in d e p e n d e n t e x i s te n c e , so i t 

w i l l be a b le to wo rk fo r th e common good o f i t s mem bers and 

c u ltu r e f o r e v e r ; and

WHEREAS, th e S i l e t z T rib e h as p ro p o sed th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a m odes t 

r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t w i l l e n a b le i t to m ee t th e min imu m n eed s of 

i t s m em be rs , r e t a i n i t s T r ib a l i d e n t i t y , an d be a ho m el an d 

f o r i t s mem be rs f o r e v e r .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, t h a t th e N a tio n a l C o n g re ss o f A m er ic an 

In d ia n s f u l l y s u p p o rts an d e n d o rs e s th e S i l e t z T r i b e 's p ro ­

p o s a l t h a t "G ov er nm en t H i l l " an d th e ap p ro x im a te 3 ,6 6 6 a c re s 

o f p u b lic do m ai n la n d in L in c o ln C o u n ty , O re gon, be ta k e n in to 

t r u s t an d d e s ig n a te d a s th e R e s e rv a tio n o f th e C o n fe d e ra te d 

T rib e s o f S i l e t z I n d ia n s o f O re gon.

♦

*
Jf fii lia ie d C ribts of lb rt b w ts t 7ndiatjs

RESOLUTION NO. ^ C '

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, The S i l e t z R e s to r a tio n A ct o f 197 7 (P .L . 95 -1 95) 

r e s to r e d f e d e r a l r e c o g n itio n to th e S i l e t z T rib e an d re q u ire d 

th e S e c r e ta r y o f th e I n t e r i o r to p re p a re an d p r e s e n t to C ongre ss 

a p la n f o r th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a ti o n f o r th e T r ib e , s a id 

p la n to be p re s e n te d by No vemb er 18, 19 79 ; an d

WHEREAS, Th e S i l e t z T rib e on ce ha d a r e s e r v a tio n which 

in c lu d e d mo re th a n 1 .1 m illio n a c re s o f pri m e ti m b e rla n d on th e 

O re go n c o a s t, b u t now i s th e o n ly f u l l y f e d e r a ll y re c o g n iz e d 

t r i b e to ha ve no la n d b a se a t a l l : an d

WHEREAS, Th e me mb ers o f th e S il e tz T rib e hav e u rg e n t needs 

w hi ch o n ly T r ib a l govern m ent can f u l l y a d d re s s , nam ely , se v e re 

unem pl oy m en t, h e a lth p ro b le m s, a lc o h o li s m , p r o v e r ty , su b sta n d a rd 

h o u sin g , an d e d u c a tio n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s ; an d th e e s ta b li s h m e n t of 

a r e s e r v a ti o n w i l l in a sm a ll way co m pensa te th e T rib e fo r i t s 

en or m ou s an d u n p a r a lle le d lo s s o f la n d ; and

WHEREAS, Th e e s ta b li s h m e n t o f a r e s e r v a ti o n w ill a s s u re th e 

T r i b e 's govern m ent o f a p erm anent an d in d e p e n d e n t e x is te n c e so 

i t w ill be a b le to wo rk f o r th e common go od o f i t s memb ers and 

c u lt u r e f o r e v e r ; and

WHEREAS, The S il e tz T rib e has p ro p o sed th e e s ta b li s h m e n t o f 

a m od es t r e s e r v a ti o n t h a t w ill e n a b le i t to m ee t th e minimum 

need s o f i t s m em be rs, r e t a i n i t s T rib a l i d e n t i t y , and be a hom ela n d f o r i t s me mbers f o r e v e r ,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, th a t th e A f f i l i a t e d T rib e s 

of N o rt h w est In d ia n s f u l l y s u p p o rts and e n d o rs e s th e T r ib e 's 

p ro p o s a l t h a t "G ov er nm en t H ill " an d th e i d e n t i f i e d 3 ,6 66 a c re s 

o f p u b lic do m ai n la nd in L in c o ln C ounty , O re go n, be ta k e n in to 

t r u s t and d e s ig n a te d as th e R e s e rv a ti o n o f th e C o n fe d e ra te d T ri b e 

of S i l e t z In d ia n s o f O re gon.

E x e c u ti v e D ire c to r
130

CONFEDERATED TR IBES OF SILE TZ IND IAN S 

P .O . Box 54 9 

SIL ET Z, OREGON 97380

4

PROPOSED SILE TZ RESERVATION PLA N: SUMMARY

4

10 A u g u s t 19 79

1
131

PROPOSED SILE TZ RESERVATION PLAN: SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The S ile t z R e s to r a tio n A c t o f 1977, 25 U .S .C . §§ 7 1 1 -7 1 1 (e ) 

r e q u ir e s th e D e p a rt m e n t o f I n t e r i o r to d e v e lo p a p la n to 

e s t a b lis h a r e s e r v a tio n f o r th e S ile t z T r ib e o f O re gon. The 

A c t is a tta c h e d as A p p e n d ix A. The p la n w i l l be in th e fo rm 

o f pro p o se d le g is l a t io n an d m ust be f i l e d w ith C ongre ss no 

la t e r th a n Nov em be r 1 8 , 1979. The f o llo w in g is a summ ary o f 

th e T r ib e 's p ro p o s e d p la n . The a tta c h e d docum ents w i l l 

p r o v id e f u r t h e r b a ckg ro u n d in fo r m a t io n .

♦ D u rin g th e l a s t s ix m onth s th e T r ib e , th e B ure au o f In d ia n 

A f f a i r s , and t r i b a l c o n s u lta n ts ha ve en ga ge d in a th o ro u g h 

s tu d y o f t r i b a l n e e d s , econom ic is s u e s , re ve n u e flo w s , and 

o th e r fa c t o r s r e le v a n t to th e p ro p o se d r e s e r v a t io n . Much o f

• th e econom ic an d la n d -u s e a n a ly s is ha s be en do ne by CH2M 

H IL L , a le a d in g in t e r n a t io n a l e n g in e e rin g f ir m . The S ta te 

D ir e c t o r o f th e B ure au o f La nd M anag em en t, M u rl S to rm s , an d 

h is s t a f f ha ve be en v e r y c o o p e ra tiv e in p r o v id in g access to 

p u b lic la n d d a ta . The T r ib e ha s c o n s u lt e d e x te n s iv e ly w ith 

nu m ero us s ta te an d lo c a l o f f i c i a l s who ha ve be en b r ie fe d on 

th e o u t lin e o f th e p la n as s e t f o r t h h e re . T h is p la n n in g 

p ro c e s s ha s r e s u lte d in a r e a l i s t i c an d f u l l y s u p p o rta b le 

p la n t h a t can be im p le m e n te d w ith o u t a d v e rs e im p a c t on an y 

a f f e c te d p a r t ie s .

HIST OR ICAL OVERVIEW

The S ile t z T r ib e once ow ned a r e s e r v a tio n o f 1 .1 m il lio n 

a c re s a lo n g th e s c e n ic an d t im b e r - r ic h O re go n c o a s t. T oday, 

h o w e v e r, th e T r ib e is la n d le s s . T h is v i r t u a l l y

u n p re c e d e n te d lo s s o f la n d o c c u rre d because th e T rib e was 

s u b je c te d to each o f th e m ost u n fo r tu n a te F e d e ra l In d ia n 

p o lic i e s , a l l now d is c r e d it e d : u n r a t if ie d t r e a t ie s , 

a b r o g a tio n o f e x e c u tiv e o r d e r r e s e r v a t io n s , re m o v a l, and 

a llo t m e n t . F in a lly , th e T rib e was s e le c te d o u t f o r 

te r m in a tio n in 1954. In th e 1 9 7 0 's th e T r ib e re o rg a n iz e d 

a n d , a f t e r a lo n g le g i s l a t i v e ca m p a ig n , becam e th e sec ond 

In d ia n T r ib e to ha ve i t s F e d e ra l r e c o g n it io n r e s to r e d . A 

summary o f th e T r ib e 's h is t o r y is a tta c h e d as A pp en dix B.

The T r ib e was n e v e r com pensate d f o r 60 0,0 0 0 a c re s t h a t wer e 

ta k e n fr o m i t s fo rm e r r e s e r v a t io n . The S ile t z T rib e is one

# o f th e fe w t r ib e s to ha ve s u ffe r e d such an en or m ous la n d 

lo s s w ith o u t an y c o m p e n s a ti o n w h a ts o e v e r.

TR IBAL NEEDS

Tod ay unem plo ym ent among t r i b a l me mb ers re m a in s a t 37 

p e r c e n t. F a m il y in co m e is le s s th a n h a lf o f t h e ir no n - 

In d ia n n e ig h b o rs . In a d d it io n , a lt h o u g h r e s t o r a t io n ha s 

b ro u g h t b a d ly ne ed ed b a s ic pro gra m s to th e T rib e and i t s

- 1 -
132

mem be rs , many needs o f th e T ri b e an d i t s govern m ent a re 

s t i l l ummet. A s tu d y o f t r i b a l nee ds i s a tta c h e d as 

A pp en di x C.

THE PLAN'S PURPOSE

A c e n t r a l p u rp o se o f th e p la n i s to a s s u re s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y 

o f th e t r i b a l g o v ern m en t. The p la n is d e s ig n e d to p ro v id e 

t r i b a l h e a d q u a r te rs an d s u f f i c i e n t re v e n u e so t h a t th e 

t r i b a l gover nm ent w ill be a s s u re d o f a pe rm an e- t and 

in d e p e n d e n t e x i s te n c e . To do t h i s , th e T ri b e i s se e k in g th e 

r e tu r n o f a v e ry sm a ll p a r t o f i t s fo rm er r e s e r v a t i o n .

In a d d i t i o n , th e p la n r e f l e c t s th e f a c t t h a t In d ia n p e o p le 4

hav e a uniq ue an d s p e c ia l r e l a t i o n s h i p to th e la n d . The

lo n g te rm s u r v iv a l o f t r i b a l i s m h in g e s on th e e s ta b lis h m e n t

o f a r e s e r v a tio n s u f f i c i e n t to se rv e as th e f o c a l p o in t f o r

t r i b a l c u l t u r e . The im p le m e n ta ti o n o f t h i s r e s e r v a tio n p la n

w ill p e rm it th e c o n tin u a tio n an d r e v i t a l i z a t i o n o f im p o rta n t

t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s su ch as camas r o o t g a th e r in g and

b a s k e tr y , as w ell as p ro v id e a p la c e f o r s o c i a l an d

co m mun ity a c t i v i t i e s , h o u sin g f o r th e e l d e r l y an d b u r ia l o f

th e d ea d .

THE PLAN'S BASIC ELEMENTS

A lt hough a g r e a t am ou nt o f r e s e a r c h an d a n a ly s i s ha ve go ne 

in to t h i s p la n , th e p ro p o sed l e g i s l a t i o n i s in f a c t v e ry 

b r i e f . The l e g i s l a t i o n w ill ha ve o n ly th e fo ll o w in g 

co m p o n en ts :

1. E s ta b li s h m e n t o f a F e d e ra l In d ia n r e s e r v a tio n com pri se d 

o f :

A. A 3 6 -a c re p a r c e l in th e tow n o f S i l e t z , known as 

"G ov er nm en t H i l l . "

B. 3 ,6 6 6 a c r e s o f p u b lic do main la n d , now a d m in is te re d 

by th e BLM.

2 . The a c t wo uld e x p r e s s ly p ro v id e t h a t no h u n tin g , f is h in g 

o r tr a p p in g r i g h t s wo uld be e s ta b l is h e d on th e 

r e s e r v a tio n .

3. The a c t wo uld a ls o p ro v id e t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n wo uld be

govern ed by th e te rm s o f P u b li c Law 28 0. 4

SPE CIF IC ISSUES

G ov er nm en t H ill

-------------------------- 1

G ov er nm en t H ill is a 3 6 -a c re s i t e on th e e a s te r n ed ge o f th e 

C it y o f S i l e t z . From th e l a t e 1800's u n t i l te r m in a tio n , i t 

was th e h e a d q u a r te rs o f th e fo rm er S i l e t z C o ast

- 2 -
133

R e s e rv a tio n . A t th e ti m e o f t e r m in a t io n , in 1956, i t was 

d o n a te d to th e C ity o f S ile t z by th e F e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t.

In 1975, th e C it y t r a n s f e r r e d th e 9 a c re s w h ic h make up th e 

t r i b a l ce m e te ry to th e P a u l W ash in g to n C em ete ry A s s o c ia tio n , 

an O re gon n o n - p r o f it c o r p o r a tio n made up o f t r i b a l

mem be rs. The T rib e is in th e p ro c e s s o f n e g o tia tin g w ith 

th e C ity f o r a v o lu n ta r y t r a n s f e r o f th e re m a in in g 27 a c re s 

back to th e T r ib e . F u r th e r b a ckg ro u n d on G overn m ent H i l l is 

in A pp en dix D.

P u b li c Do main Land

* I t is n e c e s s a ry t h a t th e r e s e r v a tio n p r o v id e an econom ic 

ba se so t h a t th e re w i l l a lw a ys be a fu n d in g s o u rc e f o r 

t r i b a l g o ve rn m e n t o p e r a tio n s and p ro g ra m s . The T rib e an d 

B IA p e rs o n n e l ha ve c o n s tru c te d a 1 0 -y e a r p h a s in g p la n f o r

* b u ild in g t r i b a l f a c i l i t i e s , p r o v id in g g o v e rn m e n ta l s e r v ic e s , 

an d d e v e lo p in g t r i b a l e n t e r p r is e . To a c c o m p li s h th e s e 

g o a ls , an a n n u a l t r i b a l in co m e o f a p p ro x im a te ly $6 00 ,0 00 

w i l l be r e q u ir e d . The p h a s in g p la n is d e t a ile d in A pp en dix 

E.

The 3 ,6 6 6 a c re s o f p u b lic dom ain la n d s a re lo c a te d ne a r 

S il e t z , and c o n s is t o f s c a tte r e d p a r c e ls in a v e ry r u r a l 

a re a . Th es e la n d s a re fo r e s te d and a re s u ita b le f o r tim b e r 

s a le s and r e c r e a tio n as w e ll as t r a d i t i o n a l t r i b a l 

a c t i v i t i e s such as g a th e r in g f e r n , camas r o o t an d m a te r ia ls 

f o r b a s k e tr y . Ba se d on an 8 0 -y e a r r o t a t io n s c h e d u le and 

19 78 lo g v a lu e s , i t is p r o je c te d t h a t th e s e la n d s ca n 

p ro d u c e re ve n u e s o f a p p ro x im a te ly $6 1 0 ,0 0 0 p e r y e a r . The 

lo c a t io n o f th e la n d s is show n in A p p e n d ix F , an d th e tim b e r 

re ve n u e in fo r m a tio n is c o n ta in e d in A p p e n d ix G.

A nn ua l C ost to th e F e d e ra l G overn m ent

T here w i l l be c o s ts to th e F e d e ra l g o ve rn m e n t r e s u lt in g fr o m 

th e t r a n s f e r o f th e la n d s an d e s ta b li s h m e n t o f th e 

r e s e r v a t io n . The lo s s o f tim b e r re v e n u e s w ould be $6 44 ,0 00 

a n n u a ll y , and th e p r o je c te d c o s t o f new r e s e r v a tio n s e r v ic e s 

w o u ld be $1 9 8 ,0 0 0 a n n u a ll y . Th es e f ig u r e s a re d e t a ile d in 

A p p e n d ix H.

Im p a c t on S ta te an d L o c a l G overn m ents

* The T r ib e do es n o t fo re s e e any a d d it io n a l c o s ts o f s e rv ic e s 

b e in g p ro v id e d by th e s t a t e an d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts ; r a t h e r , 

th e re w i l l be a le s s e r b u rd e n on s t a te and lo c a l pro gra m s 

du e to th e p r o v is io n o f F e d e ra l s e r v ic e s to t r i b a l members

f an d t h e ir f a m ilie s . I t is e s tim a te d t h a t $ 1 ,2 4 9 ,9 0 0 p e r

y e a r w i l l be s p e n t in th e a re a th ro u g h v a r io u s F e d e ra l 

p ro g ra m s as a r e s u lt o f h a v in g a f e d e r a lly re c o g n iz e d t r ib e 

an d r e s e r v a tio n lo c a te d in L in c o ln C o u n ty , as d e t a ile d in 

A p p e n d ix I . E q u a ll y im p o r ta n t w i l l be th e r o le o f th e

- 3 -
134

econom ic a c t i v i t i e s o f th e T r ib e i t s e l f in s t im u la t in g th e 

ec on om y o f th e a re a by c o n s tr u c tio n o f f a c i l i t i e s , p r o v id in g 

e m p lo ym e n t, and d e liv e r in g s e r v ic e s . L in c o ln C o un ty 

c u r r e n t ly re c e iv e s 5 p e rc e n t o f th e re ve n u e s d e r iv e d fr o m 

th e s a le o f tim b e r on p u b lic dom ain la n d s . The T r ib e 

p ro p o s e s th a t i t w i l l pay 5 p e rc e n t o f th e re v e n u e s i t 

re c e iv e s fr o m tim b e r s a le s fr o m th e r e s e r v a tio n la n d s to th e 

C ounty f o r 25 y e a rs . A t t h is tim e , i t is a n t ic ip a t e d th a t 

th e C ounty w i l l ha ve d e v e lo p e d an a lt e r n a t e re ve n u e s o u rc e .

The s t a t e - f e d e r a l r e la t io n s h ip w i l l be a ffe c te d o n ly

s l i g h t l y by th e c r e a tio n o f th e r e s e r v a tio n because p u b lic

dom ain la n d s a re n o t now s u b je c t to m ost s ta te la w s , a

s it u a t io n t h a t w i l l c o n tin u e a f t e r th e t r a n s f e r . S ta te *

la n d -u s e p la n n in g la w s and tim b e r man ag em en t p r o v is io n s w i l l

n o t a p p ly to th e r e s e r v a t io n , j u s t as th e y do n o t now

a p p ly . The T rib e h a s , h o w e v e r, ag re e d to com p ly w ith th e

m inim um re q u ir e m e n ts f o r tim b e r h a r v e s tin g e s ta b li s h e d by *.

th e S ta te Board o f F o r e s tr y . The BLM p r e s e n tly ha s a

s im i la r l e t t e r ag re e m ent w ith th e s t a t e . The La nd

C o n s e rv a tio n and D evelo pm ent C om m issio n ha s n o t y e t ra is e d

any la n d -u s e is s u e s c o n c e rn in g man ag em en t o f th e la n d by th e

T r ib e , b u t th e T rib e w i l l c o n tin u e to d is c u s s t h is is s u e

w ith t h a t s ta te a g e n c y . I t is u n lik e ly t h a t e n v ir o n m e n ta l

is s u e s w i l l be r a is e d because th e T r ib a l C o u n c il is

d e te rm in e d to c o n s e rv e t h is la n d by m anagin g i t on a

c o n s e r v a tiv e , s u s t a in e d - y ie ld b a s is w ith a r o t a t io n p e rio d

o f 8 0 -1 0 0 y e a rs .

S ta te h u n tin g and f is h in g la w s w i l l re c e iv e s p e c ia l 

tr e a tm e n t. N o rm a ll y s ta te h u n tin g and f is h in g la w s do n o t 

a p p ly to t r i b a l la n d s . In t h is c a s e , h o w e v e r, th e a c t w i l l 

s p e c if ic a lly p ro v id e th a t th e c r e a tio n o f a r e s e r v a tio n 

" s h a ll n o t g r a n t o r r e s to r e to th e T rib e o r any member o f 

th e T rib e an y h u n tin g , f is h in g o r tr a p p in g r ig h t s o f an y 

n a tu r e , in c lu d in g any in d ir e c t o r p ro c e d u ra l r i g h t o r 

a d v a n ta g e , on such r e s e r v a t io n . " I t ha s n o t be en d e te rm in e d 

w h e th e r th e T rib e lo s t i t s h u n tin g and f is h in g r ig h t s a t th e 

ti m e o f te r m in a tio n , and th e p la n do es n o t a f f e c t t h a t 

is s u e . I f th e r ig h t s were n o t l o s t , th e y w ould re m a in in 

e f f e c t ; i f th e r ig h t s were te r m in a te d , th e y w ould n o t be 

r e s t o r e d . In any c a s e , th e T r ib e ha s no in t e n t io n o f 

r a is in g t h is is s u e a f t e r th e r e s e r v a tio n is e s ta b li s h e d and 

w is h e s to work c o o p e r a tiv e ly w ith th e S ta te D e p a rt m e n t o f 

F is h and W ild lif e .

4

* * * * * * * *

F or f u r t h e r in fo r m a tio n , c o n ta c t A r th u r B e n s e ll, T r ib a l

C h a ir m a n , C o n fe d e ra te d T rib e s o f S il e t z , P.O . Box 549, 

S il e t z , O re go n 97380; (5 0 3 ) 4 4 4 -2 5 2 8 . #

’

- 4 -
135

APPENDIX 

A

SILE TZ INDIAN TR IBE: RESTO RATION OF

FE DE RA L SUPERVISION [N EW ]

4♦

§ 711. Definitions

For the purposes of sections 711 to 711 f of this title —

(1 ) the term "tribe " means the Confederated Tribes of Siletz

Indians of Oregon;

(2 ) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior or

hla authorized representative;

(3 ) the term "In terim Council" means the council elected pursuant to section 71 le of this title;

(4 ) the term "member", when used with respect to the tribe,

means a person enrolled on the membership roll of the tribe, as

provided la section 711b of thia title; and

(5 ) the term “final membership roll" means the final membership roll of the tribe published on July 20, 1956, on pages 5454-

5462 of volume 21 of the Federal Register.

Pub.L. 95-195. | 2. Nov. 18, 1977, 91 Stat. 1415.

Sh ort T it le . Section 1 of Pub.L. 06-195

provided: "That this Act [enacting seetloaa 711 to T ll f of thia tltlcl may be

cited aa the Sllata Indian Tribe Raatoratioa Act'."

Legislative History. For legislative

history and purpose of Pub.L. 96-193, aee

1977 U.SCoda Cong, and Adm.Nawa, p.

3700.

8 711a. Federal recognition— Extensioa; laws applicable; eligibility

for Federal services and benefits

(a) Federal recognition Is hereby extended to the tribe, and the provisions of sections 461. 462. 463. 464, 465. 466 to 470, 471 to 473, 474.

475, 476 to 478. and 479 of thia title, except aa Inconsistent with specific provisions of sections 711 to 711f of this title, are made applicable to

the tribe and the members of the tribe. The tribe and the members, of

the tribe shall be eligible for all Federal services and benefits furnished

to federally recognized Indian tribes. Notwithstanding any provision to

the contrary in any law establishing such services or benefits, eligibility

of the tribe and Its members for such Federal services and benefits shall

become effective upon November 18. 1977. without regard to the existence of a reservation for the tribe or the residence of members of the

tribe on a reservation.

R a s te ra tla a a t ri g h ts » < p ri v il e g e s

(b) Except as provided in subsection le) of this section, all rights and

privileges of the tribe and of members of the tribe under any Federal

treaty. Executive order, agreement, or statute, or under any other authority. which were diminlahed or lost under sections 691 to 708 of this

title, are hereby restored, and such sections 691 to 708 of this title, shall

be inapplicable to the tribe and to members of the tribe after November

18. 1977.

4*

I l s s t l s g . r is h ls g s r ( r s p p ls g r ig h t s s a g ( r lh a l r e s e r v a tle s s ss c r e s to re d

(c) Sections 711 to 711f of this title shall not grant or restore any

hunting, fishing, or trapping right of any nature, including any indirect

or procedural right or advantage, to the tribe or any member of the

tribe, nor shall It be construed as granting, establishing, or restoring a

reservation for the tribe.

K t f e r t p r o p e r t y r ig h t s s r s h llg s t ls s s . r s s t r s c t s a l r ig h t s s r

• b llg a ils e a , s r s h llg s t ls s s f s r ta x e s

(d ) Except as specifically provided In sections 711 to 71 If of this title,

nothing in sections 711 to 71 If of this title shall alter any property right

or obligation, any contractual right or obligation, or any obligation for

taxes already levied.

Pub.L. 95-195. } 3. Nov. 18. 1977, 91 Stat. 1415.

Le gislative H is to ry . For tr gix la tire 1977 C.S .Code Cong, and Ad m.Xew s. p.

histor y and pu rp ose of Pu li.L . 90-193. see 3700.

§ 71 l b . M em be rs hi p ro ll— O p en in g; d u ly o f Se cr et ary , In te ri m Cou ncil , an d tr ib al o ff ic ia ls

(a ) The final membership roll is declared open. The Secretary, the

Interim Council, and tribal officials under the tribal constitution and

bylaws shall take such measures as will insure the continuing accuracy

of the membership roll.

- 5 -
136

P rr r v q a L s It r a f a r t a e la s le a

(b ) (1 ) Until af te r the In itia l election of trib al officers und er the

trib al constitution and bylaws, a person shall be a mem ber of the tribe

and his name sha ll be placed on the membership roll If he Is liv in g and

If —

(A ) his name Is listed on the fin al membership ro ll;

(B ) he was entitled on August 13, 195 4, to be on the fin al membership ro ll but his name was not listed on that r oll; or

(C ) he Is a descendant of a person specified In subparagraph

(A ) or (B ) and possesses at least one -fourth degree of blood of

members of the tribe or th eir S llett Indian ancestors.

(2 ) After the In itia l election of trib al officials und er the trib al constitu tio n and bylaws, the provisions of the trib al con stitution and bylaws

sha ll govern mem bership in the tribe.

V s rtfle a tla a • ( de se ea daw cy , i f « . aa S b la aS i ■ s t e a li f la a U Ir • (

S e tc ra a la a tl o a i pw ssesslea a t • a r a ila e a t re ta rd s

aa S m a la ria l*

(c ) (1 ) Before election of the In te rim Council, verification of de- 4

scendency. age. and blood sha ll be made upon oath before the Secretary

and his determ ina tion thereon sha ll be fin al.

(2 ) Afte r election of the In te rim Council and before the In itia l election of the trib al officials, verification of descendancy, age, and blood

shall be made upon oath before the In te rim Cou ncil, or its authorized

represe ntative. A member of the tribe , with respect to the Inclusion ♦

of any name, and any person, with respect to the exclusion of his name,

may appeal to the Secretary, who sha ll make a fin al determ ination of

each such appeal with in nin ety days afte r an appeal has been filed with

him. The determ ina tion of the Secretary with respect to an appeal under this paragrap h shall be fin al.

(3 ) After the in iti al electio n of trib al officials, the provisions of the

trib al constitution and bylaws shall govern the ve rification of any requirements for mem bership in the tribe, and the Secretary and the In ­

terim Council shall deliver their records and files, and any other materia l relatin g to enrollm en t matters, to the trib al gov erning body.

F ra aeh le eaeest

(d ) Fo r purposes of sections 711c and 711d of this tit le , a member

who is eighteen years of age or old er Is entitled and eligib le to be given

notice of. attend, particip ate in. and vote at, general council meetings

and to nom inate candidates for, to run for any office In. and to vote In.

elections of members to the In te rim Council and to other tri ba l councils.

Pub.L. 95 -1 95. 5 4, Nov. 18. 197 7. 91 Stat. 1416.

Legislative nistsr y. For legislative U>77 U.S.Code Cong, and Adm.Xews. p.

history and purpose of Puli.L. 95-105. see 3700.

§ 711c. Interim Council— Nomination and election of members; notice; meetings; ballot requirements; approval by Secretary

(a ) W ith in fo rty -five days after November 18. 197 7, the Secretary

sha ll announce the date of a general council meetin g of the trib e to nom ­

ina te candidates for election to the In terim Council. Such gen eral council meeting sha ll be held with in sixty days af te r November 18, 1977.

W ith in forty- fiv e days af te r such general council meetin g the Secretary

sha ll hold an election by secret ballot, absentee balloting to be permitted,

to elect nine members of the tribe to the In terim Council fro m among

the nominees sub mitted to him from such genera) council meeting. The

Secertary sha ll assure th at notice of the time, place, and purpose of

such meetin g and election sha ll be provtded to members described In section T llb fd ) of this title at least fifteen days before such gen eral meeting and election . The ballot sha ll provide for writ e-in votes. The Secretary shall approve the In te rim Council elected pursua nt to this section

if he Is satisfied that the requirements of this section relatin g to the A

- 6 -
nominating and (le ction proceaa ha re been met. It he la not ao satisfied,

he aha ll hold another election und er thia aectlon. with the (ene ral council

meeting to nom inate eandtdatee (or election to the In te rim Cou ncil to be

held with in sixty days af te r auch election.

f ”»w c rw « f C e a a eil

(b ) The In te rim Council sha ll represent the tribe and its members

In the im plem entatio n or sections 711 to 71 If of thia title and aha ll be

the acting trib al gov erning body un til trib al of rid ala are elected puraua nt to aectlon 711d(c | of thia title and aha ll ba re no powers other than

thoae given to It In accordance with aectlona 711 to 71 If of thia title.

Th e In te rim Council aha ll ha re fa ll au th or ity and capacity to receive

granta fro m and to make contracta with the Secretary and the Sec reta ry

of Hea lth . Educa tion, and W elfare with respect to Fede ral aervlcea and

ben efits fo r the trib e and Its mem be n and to bind the trib al governing

body aa the successor In Intere et to the In te rim Council for a period

extend ing not more than aix months af te r the date on which the trib al

gov erning body takes office. Except aa provided In the preceding sentence,

the In te rim Council ahall have no power or au th or ity after the time

when the duly-elected tri ba l gov erning body takes office: Provided. Th at

no au th or ity to make payments under sections 711 to 711f of thia title

sha ll be effective except to such extent or In auch amounts as are provided In advance in appropriation Acts.

C m a d l v a c a n c ie s ! a s t lc c i m c e t l a c e lc e tle n

(e ) W ithin th irty daya afte r receiving notice of a vacancy on the

In te rim Council, the In terim Cou ncil sha ll hold a gen eral council meeting for the purpose of electin g a person to fi ll such vacancy. The In ­

terim Council sha ll provide notice of the time, place, and purpose of

such meeting and election to members described in section 711 b(d ) of

thia tit le , at leaat ten days before auch general meeting and election. The

person nom inated to fill such vacancy at the gen eral council meeting

who received the highest num ber of votes in the election shall fi ll auch

vacancy. ‘ •

Pu b.L . 95-1 95. | 5. Nov. lg . 1977. 91 S ta r 141 6.

Lre lsiaXlv* H lste ry . For le gis la tive 1977 t'.AC od s Cong. and Ad m. Xs ws , p.

histor y sa d pur poae of Pub -L. KJ-1B5. se e 3700

8 71 Id . Tribal constitution and by laws— Electio n; tim e and procedure

(a ) Upon the written request of the Interim Council, the Secretary

sha ll conduct an election by secret ballot, pursua nt to the provisions of

section 476 of this title, for the purpose of ado pting a constitution and

bylaws for the tribes. The election sha ll be held with in sixty days after

the Secre tary has—

(1 ) reviewed and updated the fin al mem bership roll for accuracy. in accordance with section 711 b (a ). ( b )( 1 ) , and (c )(1 ) of

this title.

(2 ) made a fin al determ ination of all appeals filed under section

7 1 1 b (e )( 2 ) of this title, and

(3 ) published in the Fede ral Register a ce rtific ation copy of

the membersh ip ro ll o f the tribe.

F t a - e le c t la a d ls tr lb a t ft a a s f p ra p a s e d e s a s t lt a t ls a a a d b y la w s a a d b r ie f

I m p a r t i a l d e a c r ip t la a i e e a a e l t a t l e a b y I a t c r i m C a a a e il w it h

a s e m b e rs a f t r ib e

(b ) Th e In te rim Council sha ll dra ft and distrib ute to each member

described in section 711b(d ) of this title , no later than th irty days before the election under subsection (a ) ol this section, a copy of the

proposed constitution and bylaws of the tribe, as drafted by the In terim

Cou ncil, along with a br ief, im pa rtial description of the proposed constitu tio n and bylaws. The members of the In te rim Council may fre ely

consult with members of the tribe concern ing the text and description

of the constitution and bylaws, except that such consu ltation may not
138

ba carried on within fifty feet of the polling places on the date of the

election.

M a jo rit y vate aeers aary fa r aU ap tl aa a t rs n s tlta tla n and b y la w s

(c) In any election held pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,

the vote of a majority of those actually voting shall be necessary and

sufficient for the adoption of a tribal constitution and bylaws.

E le c ti o n o f tr ib a l o ffic ia ls nro vIS ed fa r la e a n a ll ta ll e B aaS b y la w s i

b a ll o t re aB lresseats

(d) Not later than one hundred and twenty days after the tribe adopts

a constitution and bylaws, the Interim Council shall conduct an election

by secret ballot for the purpose of electing the Individuals who will serve

as tribal officials as provided In the tribal constitution and bylaws. For

the purpose of this election and notwithstanding any provision in the

tribal constitution and bylaws to the contrary, absentee balloting shall be

permitted.

Pub.L. 95-19 5. I 6. Nov. 18. 1977, 91 Stat. 1417.

Lecls la tlre His to ry . For le ftsls tive 19T7 U.S-Co dr Coeg. and Ad m.Xew s. p.

histo ry sa d purpose of Pub.L . to -106. see 3700.

g T ile. Reservation— Establishm ent

(a) Any reservation for the tribe shall be established by an Act of

Congress enacted after November 18, 1977.

P is s l s e c e tls tls a w it h tr lb e i a p p ro v a l by tr ib a l o ffle la la i

sabaslt ta l ts Caa wre ss

(b) Inasmuch as the reservation of the tribe has been terminated,

the Secretary shall negotiate with the tribe, or with representatives of

the tribe chosen by the tribe, concerning the establishment of a reservation for the tribe and shall. In accordance with subsections (c) and (d)

and within two years after November 18, 1977, develop a plan for the

establishment of a reservation for the tribe. Upon approval of such plan

by the tribal officials elected under the tribal constitution and bylaws

adopted pursuant to section 711d of this title ,-th e Secretary shall submit

such plan, in the form of proposed legislation, to the Congress.

N o tif ic a tio n an d consult ati on

(c) To assure that legitimate State and local Interests are not prejudiced by the creation of a reservation for the tribe, the Secretary, in developing a plan under subsectton (b> of this section for the estab lishment of a reservation, shall notify and consult with all appropriate officials of the State of Oregon, all appropriate local governmental officials

In the State of Oregon and any other Interested parties. Such consultation shall Include the following subjects:

(1) the sli e and location of the reservation;

(2) the effect the establishment of the reservation would have

on State and local tax revenues;

(3 ) the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the State of Oregon

with respect to the reservation and persons on the reservation;

(4) hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of the tribe and members of the tribe, on the reservation;

(5) the provision of State and local services to the reservation

and to the tribe and members of the tribe on the reservation; and

(6) the provision of Federal services to the reservation and to

the tribe and members of the tribe and the provision of services by

the tribe to members of the tribe.

P re v ta la a a a t pla n

(d) Any plan developed under this section for the establishment of

a reservation for the tribe shall provide that—

(1) any real property transferred by the tribe or members of

the tribe to the Secretary shall be taken in the name of the United

States in trust for the benefit of the tribe and shall be the reservation for the tribe;

8»8

- 8 -

*
139

(2 ) the establishment of such a reservation will not grant or

restore to the tribe or any member of the tribe any hunting, fishing. or trapping right of any nature, including any indirect or procedural right or advantage, on such reservation;

(3 ) the Secretary shall not accept any real property in trust for

the benefit of the tribe or its members unless such real property

is located within Lincoln County, State of Oregon;

(4 ) any real property taken in trust by the Secretary for the

benefit of the tribe or its members shall be subject to all rights

existing at the time such property is taken in trust, including liens,

outstanding Federal, State, and local taxes, mortgages, outstanding

Indebtedness of any kind, easements, and alt other obligations, and

shall be subject to foreclosure and sale in accordance with the laws

of the State of Oregon;

(5 ) the transfer of any real property to the Secretary in trust

for the benefit of the tribe or its members shall be exempt from

all Federal. State, and local taxation, and all such real property

4 shall, as of the date of such transfer, be exempt from Federal. State,

and local taxation; and

(S) the State of Oregon shall have civil and criminal jurisdiction

with respect to the reservation and persons on the reservation In

accordance with section 1360 of Title 28 and section 1162 of Title

Ssasenseas

(e) The Secretary shall append to the plan a detailed statement describing the manner In which the notification and consultation prescribed by subsection (c) of this section was carried out and shall Include any written comments with respect to the establishment of a reservation for the tribe submitted to the Secretary by State and local officials and other Interested parties In the course of such consultation.

Pub.L. 95-195, } 7, Nov. 18. 1977. 91 Stat. 1418.

L e g is la tiv e H is to ry . For legislative 1077 U.S.Coda Cong, and Adm.News. p.

history and purpose of Pn b.L SS-IPS, see 3700.

g 71 If . Ro les and regu latio n*

The Secretary may make such rules and regulations as are necessary to

carry out the purposes of sections 711 to 711f of this title.

Pub.L. 95-195. | 8. Nov. 18. 1977. 91 Stat. 1419.

L eg is la tiv e H is to r y . For legislative 1S77 U.S.Coda Cong, and Adm.News. p.

history sad purpose of Pu b.L 83-1SS. see 3700.

- 9 -
APPENDIX B

HISTOR ICAL PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION

R ecent a r c h a e lo g ic a l fin d s on th e O re go n c o a s t ha ve 

c o n fi rm e d t h a t n a tiv e A m erican p e o p le were l i v i n g h e re 

th o u sa n d s o f y e a rs ago. The t r ib e s an d ba nd s w h ic h liv e d 

a lo n g th e c o a s t a t th e ti m e o f th e Le w is and C la rk 

e x p e d it io n w ere th e d i r e c t d e s c e n d e n ts o f th e s e a n c ie n t and 

o r i g in a l in h a b it a n t s . The y had liv e d in th e same p la c e s and 

in th e same wa ys s in c e ti m e im m e m o ria l.

In th e 1 8 5 0 ’ s , th e U n it e d S ta te s g o ve rn m e n t tr e a te d some o f 

th e s e p e o p le as on e g ro u p , m ovin g them to li v e to g e th e r on 

on e s t r e t c h o f c o a s tla n d . The y became know n as th e 

C o n fe d e ra te d T r ib e s o f S ile t z In d ia n s o f O re go n (th e S ile t z 

T r ib e ) .

Tod ay th e S ile t z T r ib e is la n d le s s . As s u c h , i t is u n iq u e 

among th e 48 1 f e d e r a lly re c o g n iz e d In d ia n t r ib e s .

B ut th e S ile t z T rib e once owned 1 .1 m il lio n a c re s o f p rim e 

tim b e r and r e c r e a tio n la n d . T h e ir 120 m il e lo n g , 20 m il e 

w id e s t r i p o f c o a s ta l la n d en co m pas se d o v e r t h r i t y p e rc e n t 

o f th e O re go n c o a s t. The C oast R e s e rv a ti o n in c lu d e d some o f 

O re g o n ’ s g r e a te s t and m ost fa m ou s n a tu r a l a s s e ts : O tte r 

Rock, Y aq uin a B ay, S eal R ock, Cape P e rp e tu a , m ost o f th e 

d ra in a g e o f th e S ile t z an d A ls e a R iv e r s , and th e s it e s on 

w h ic h a re now lo c a te d th e In n a t O tte r C r e s t, th e 

E m ba rc ad ero , th e In n a t S pa nis h H ead, an d S a li s h a n (w h ic h is 

i t s e l f named a f t e r on e o f th e S ile t z t r ib e s ) .

One q u e s tio n ha s r e p e a te d ly be en a s k e d : How d id th e T r ib e 

e v e r lo s e such a la r g e and v a lu a b le re s o u rc e ? The s h o r t 

a n s w e r, e x p la in e d in more d e t a il b e lo w , is t h a t by chance 

a lo n e th e S ile t z T rib e was s u b je c te d to ea ch o f th e m ost 

u n fo r tu n a te and il l- a d v is e d In d ia n p o lic ie s ad op te d by 

C ongre ss d u r in g d i f f e r e n t e ra s .

The se p o lic ie s - u n r a t if ie d t r e a t ie s , e x e c u tiv e o rd e r 

r e s e r v a t io n s , re m o v a l, a llo t m e n t , and te r m in a tio n - a re a l l 

now d is c r e d it e d by th o s e who d e a l w ith In d ia n a f f a i r s . B ut 

th e wisdo m o f h in d s ig h t is o f l i t t l e h e lp to th e S il e t z .

Ea ch o f th e s e p o lic ie s was im posed up on th e T r ib e , an d ea ch 

o f them m eant t h a t hu ge chunks o f la n d wer e lo s t to th e 

T r ib e . The T r ib e re c e iv e d m in im a l paym ent f o r some o f t h is 

la n d , b u t a t le a s t 600,0 00 a c re s wer e ta k e n w ith o u t any 

paym ent a t a l l .
141

UN RA TIFIED TREATIE S

In th e e a r ly 1 9 th c e n tu r y , th e m ain n o n - In d ia n p re s e n c e in 

O re go n was th e B r i t i s h H u d so n 's Bay Co mpa ny. The r e la t io n s 

betw een th e In d ia n s an d th e Company w ere u n ifo r m ly p e a c e fu l.

B ut in th e 1 8 4 0 's , a m a ssiv e m ig r a tio n o f A m eri can s be ga n 

com in g in t o th e In d ia n la n d s o f th e O re gon t e r r i t o r y . By 

th e O re go n T re a ty o f 18 46 , th e B r it is h w it h d re w t h e ir c la im s 

to th e a re a , an d A m eri can s o v e r e ig n ty was e s ta b lis h e d . The 

In d ia n way o f l i f e w o uld n e v e r be th e sa me.

Th e O rg a n ic A c t w h ic h e s ta b li s h e d th e O re gon T e r r it o r y in

4 18 48 c o n fir m e d an d g u a ra n te e d In d ia n t i t l e to t h e ir p r o p e r ty

"s o lo n g as such r ig h t s s h a ll re m a in u n e x tin g u is h e d by 

t r e a t y betw een th e U .S . and such I n d ia n s ." B ut in 1 8 50 , th e 

O re gon D o n a ti o n La nd A c t was passed w h ic h a ll o w e d w h it e

4

s e t t le r s to ta k e v a s t a re a s o f th e I n d ia n s ' la n d s , d e s p ite

th e f a c t t h a t no t r e a t y had be en s ig n e d w ith an y O re gon 

In d ia n s .

D u rin g th e 1 8 5 0 's , f i r s t An so n D a rt an d th e n G e n e ra l J o e l 

P alm er were a p p o in te d by th e P re s id e n t to be s u p e r in te n d e n t 

o f In d ia n a f f a i r s in O re gon. The tw o men n e g o tia te d many 

t r e a t ie s w ith v a r io u s t r ib e s and ba nd s in w e s te rn O re g o n .

I t was G e n e ra l P a lm e r who n e g o tia te d an d s ig n e d th e t r e a t y 

o f A ug ust 11, 1 8 55 , w h ic h f i r s t d e s c rib e d th e t r a c t o f some 

1 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c re s know n as th e C oast R e s e rv a tio n . The c h ie f s 

and headmen o f many bands agre ed by th e te rm s o f th e t r e a t y 

t h a t t h e ir p e o p le w o u ld , w it h in on e y e a r , move fr o m th e 

la n d s o f t h e i r a n c e s to rs to th e m ost ru g g e d p o r tio n o f th e 

O re gon C o ast ( t h a t w h ic h was in G e n e ra l P a lm e r's v ie w th e 

m ost u n d e s ir a b le to th e w h it e s e t t l e r s ) . In r e t u r n , th e 1.1 

m i l l i o n a c re s w ould be d e s ig n a te d as an In d ia n r e s e r v a tio n 

f o r th e e x c lu s iv e us e o f th e In d ia n s . A d d it io n a lly , th e 

U .S . w ould p r o v id e s u b s t a n t ia l sum s to a s s is t th e In d ia n s in 

d e v e lo p in g fa rm s , s a w m il ls , s c h o o ls , b la c k s m it h shops and 

th e li k e on th e new r e s e r v a t io n ; to pay f o r d o c to rs and 

te a c h e rs an d o th e r e m p lo y e e s ; a n d , p e rh a p s m ost im p o r t a n tly , 

to p ro v id e fo o d an d c lo t h in g and s h e lt e r to th e In d ia n s on 

th e r e s e r v a tio n u n t i l th e y c o u ld become s e lf - s u s t a in in g .

The t r e a t y was s ig n e d by G e n e ra l J o e l P a lm e r, as d u ly 

a u th o r iz e d by th e P r e s id e n t o f th e U n it e d S ta te s .

* N e it h e r G e n e ra l P alm er n o r an y o f th e c h ie f s who s ig n e d th e

t r e a t y knew t h a t i t w o u ld n e v e r be r a t i f i e d by th e S e n a te ; 

in d e e d , th e In d ia n s ha d no way o f kno w in g w hat r a t i f i c a t i o n 

was. The t r e a t y d id n o t a u t o m a t ic a lly become la w when

t

s ig n e d by a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e P r e s id e n t; r a t h e r , th e

U n it e d S ta te s S enate had to "a d v is e and c o n s e n t" to i t 

b e fo re i t c o u ld become la w . A lm o s t a l l In d ia n t r e a t ie s were 

p ro m p tly a p p ro v e d by th e S e n a te . Many o f th o s e a p p ro ve d ha d 

be en s e n t to th e S enate by G e n e ra l P alm er an d An so n D a rt.

58-253 0 - 80 - 10

- 1 1 -
H is to r y t e l l s us t h a t th e f a i l u r e o f th e Senate c o m m it te e to 

r e p o r t th e t r e a t y o f A ug ust 11, 1 8 55 , o u t to th e Senate was 

" a c c id e n ta l an d u n in t e n t io n a l. " B u t th e consequences to th e 

S ile t z T rib e were n o th in g s h o r t o f d e v a s ta tin g .

REMOVAL

M ost In d ia n r e s e r v a tio n s a re lo c a te d on th e a b o r ig in a l la n d s 

o f th e t r ib e s , t h a t i s , th e la n d s on w h ic h th e t r ib e s ha d 

a lw ays li v e d . Some t r ib e s were n o t so lu c k y . The y were 

f o r c ib ly "r e m oved " to la n d s more c o n v e n ie n t to th e U n it e d 

S ta te s . Many t r ib e s , f o r e x a m p le , w ere re m ove d fr o m t h e ir 

own la n d s to w hat is now th e S ta te o f O klah om a. The se 

fo rc e d re m o v a ls were d e s c rib e d by la t e r h is t o r ia n s by such 

names as " th e t r a i l o f te a r s " and "th e lo n g w a lk ." The 

le a d in g s c h o la r on In d ia n h is t o r y r e f e r r e d to re m o va l as a 

" t r a g ic phase o f A m erican h i s t o r y . "

The t r e a t y o f A ugust 11, 1855, gave th e In d ia n p e o p le who 

were to becom e th e S ile t z T rib e on e y e a r to move to th e 

r e s e r v a t io n . B ut th e b lo o d y " e x te r m in a tio n " p o lic y o f th e 

Ore go n s e t t le r s c u t t h a t ti m e s h o r t. Un even b a t t le s , 

am bush es, an d o u t r ig h t m assacre s o f In d ia n s by s e t t le r s 

fo rc e d G e n e ra l Palm er to o rd e r th e re m o va l o f th e In d ia n s to 

th e r e s e r v a tio n in F e b ru a ry , 1856. There was much lo s s o f 

l i f e a lo n g th e way du e to e x h a u s tio n , d is e a s e , and a tta c k s 

by s e t t le r s . There was a ls o lo s s o f ho pe , and th e w i l l to 

1 i v e .

A p re s e n t-d a y S ile t z t r i b a l member know s th e s t o r y o f th e 

" t r a i l o f t e a r s , " as ta u g h t to h e r by h e r g ra n d m o th e r:

K i- Y a -N a -H a re m em be re d how th e y were t o ld to 

ta k e o n ly th e c lo th e s th e y had on t h e i r backs 

because when th e y g o t to S ile t z new c lo th e s 

and much fo o d w ould be g iv e n th em . She be ga n 

to c r y f o r sh e saw h e r p e o p le g a th e re d up l i k e 

h e rd s o f sheep. Some f a m ilie s were even 

b ro k e n u p , maybe a m o th e r in on e bunch an d h e r 

c h ild r e n in a n o th e r bu nch. Many f le d to th e 

m o u n ta in s , f o r th e y d id n o t w ant to le a v e 

t h e ir ho mes . B u t th e y wer e h u n te d down by th e 

w h it e s o ld ie r s and s h o t. Th ey le a rn e d v e ry 

q u ic k ly t h a t i f th e y w ante d to li v e t h a t th e y 

da re d n o t p r o te s t .

Our t r a i l o f te a rs began. K i- Y a -N a -H a was n o t 

on e o f th e on es th a t ro d e on th e s h ip o r 

wagon, f o r she re mem be rs w a lk in g m ost o f th e 

way . She t o ld o f women b e in g a b u se d , m is u s e d , 

and even k ic k e d aro und by th e w h it e s o ld ie r s , 

e s p e c ia lly i f a m o th e r t r ie d to p r o te c t h e r 

yo ung d a u g h te rs . I f men came to th e re s c u e o f 

t h e ir f a m ilie s , th e y were b a d ly b e a te n and in
143

some cases s h o t and l e f t , f o r th e y were n o t 

a ll o w e d to s to p and b u ry an yo ne t h a t d ie d 

a lo n g th e w ay. She a ls o re m em be re d l i t t l e • 

c h ild r e n b e in g k ic k e d a ro un d i f th e y f e l l to o 

f a r b e h in d .

The S ile t z p e o p le fa re d l i t t l e b e t t e r when th e y re a ch e d th e 

C oast R e s e rv a tio n . Bec au se th e re was no t r e a t y , th e In d ia n s 

w ere n o t e n t it le d to re c e iv e an y s u b s is te n c e a n n u it y fr om 

th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t. The In d ia n a g e n ts ' p le a s f o r 

a s s is ta n c e w ent u n an sw ere d. Bec au se th e t e r r a in and 

c o u n tr y s id e were d i f f e r e n t fr o m t h e ir h o m e la n d s, th e In d ia n s 

c o u ld n o t g a th e r th e a c o rn s , camas r o o t , an d o th e r n a tiv e 

. p la n ts th e y had liv e d on f o r so man y c e n t u r ie s . The ru g ge d

an d h a rs h tim b e rla n d o f th e r e s e r v a tio n was u n s u it e d f o r 

a g r ic u lt u r e . The r e s e r v a tio n becam e a d e a th camp. The 

s t o r y goes o n :

* When th e y g o t to S il e t z , sh e t o ld o f how 

h u n g ry , how t ir e d and w e a ry , and y e s , how 

h e a r t s ic k , f o r h e re th e y were on th e m os t 

ru g ge d p a r t o f th e c o a s t. La nd s were n o t 

c le a r e d . The c li m a te was d i f f e r e n t , i t was 

l i k e g o in g to a f o r e ig n c o u n tr y . She 

re m em be re d a l o t o f p e o p le d y in g fr o m many 

d i f f e r e n t d is e a s e s un kn ow n to h e r , p ro b a b ly 

c h ic k e n p o x , t u b e r c u lo s is , sh e d i d n 't kn ow.

For sh e a lw a y s b e li v e d m ost o f them d ie d o f 

d e p r e s s io n , h e a r tb r e a k , an d m is tre a tm e n t.

EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATION

A f t e r s e n d in g th e t r e a t y o f f to W a sh in g to n f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n , 

G e n e ra l Palm er p e rs u a d e d th e S e c re ta ry o f th e I n t e r i o r to 

re q u e s t t h a t th e P r e s id e n t im m e d ia te ly s e t a s id e th e same 

la n d s d e s c rib e d in th e t r e a t y as a r e s e r v a tio n f o r th e 

In d ia n s . T h is c o u ld be do ne by e x e c u tiv e o r d e r , an d w ould 

p r o te c t th e la n d s fr o m s e ttle m e n t p e n d in g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f 

th e t r e a t y . The P r e s id e n t so o rd e re d , on Nov em be r 9 ,

1855. S in ce th e t r e a t y was n e v e r r a t i f i e d , i t was th e 

e x e c u tiv e o r d e r w h ic h becam e th e le g a l b a s is f o r th e 

r e s e r v a t io n .

The t r i b a l p e o p le c o u ld n o t know th e im p o r ta n t le g a l 

d iff e r e n c e s betw een th e e x e c u tiv e o rd e r and th e t r e a t y i t 

" r e p la c e d ." In d ia n t r e a t ie s a re th e "s upre m e la w o f th e 

la n d " an d a s s u re t h a t t r e a t y la n d and r ig h t s w i l l be 

c o n s t it u t io n a l ly p r o te c te d . E x e c u tiv e o r d e r s , to th e 

c o n t r a r y , g u a ra n te e no " v e s te d " p r o p e r ty r ig h t s . E x e c u ti v e 

o rd e r la n d ca n be - a n d , in th e case o f th e S ile t z T r ib e ,

♦ was - ta k e n w ith o u t th e paym ent o f f u l l v a lu e .

The C o ast R e s e rv a ti o n was d e s ig n a te d by re fe r e n c e to a map 

d r a fte d a t th e d ir e c t io n o f G e n e ra l P a lm e r. The map showed

-1 3 -
144

th e b o u n d a rie s o f th e r e s e r v a tio n to be a s t r i p o f la n d 

a b o u t 120 m il e s n o rth and s o u th by 20 m il e s e a s t an d w e s t, 

c o n ta in in g a b o u t 1 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c re s betw een th e su m m it o f th e 

C oast Range and th e O re go n c o a s t.

The la n d w h ic h in G e n e ra l P a lm e r’ s v ie w ha d o ffe r e d "s o fe w

a t t r a c t io n s to th e w h it e s , " was n o t to be e x c lu s iv e ly In d ia n

c o u n try f o r lo n g . Upon th e in s is t e n t demand o f w h it e

s e t t l e r s , who saw th e a t t r a c t iv e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f a m a jo r

h a rb o r a t Y aq uin a Bay and d e v e lo p m e n t o f an o y s te r b u s in e s s

th e r e , on De cembe r 21, 1865, th e P r e s id e n t s ig n e d an

e x e c u tiv e o rd e r w h ic h c u t th e C oast R e s e rv a ti o n in t o tw o

p a r ts . T h e r e a fte r , th e s o u th e rn s e c tio n was c a lle d th e

A ls e a R e s e rv a ti o n and th e n o r th e r n s e c tio n th e S ile t z *

R e s e rv a ti o n . Out o f th e m id d le , th e P re s id e n t op ened to

w h it e s e ttle m e n t a t r a c t a b o u t tw e n ty -tw o m il e s n o r th and

s o u th by e ig h te e n m il e s e a s t and w e s t.

♦

By a s tr o k e o f th e p e n , some 24 0,0 0 0 a c re s were lo s t to th e 

S ile t z T rib e f o r e v e r , w ith o u t t h e ir c o n s e n t, and w ith no 

c o m p e n s a ti o n .

G e n e ra l Palm er urg ed th a t th e In d ia n s be g iv e n ti m e to move 

o f f th e are a to be w it h d ra w n fr o m th e r e s e r v a t io n , and 

in s is t e d th a t p ro p e r a rr a n g e m e n ts be made to com pensate th e 

In d ia n s . N e it h e r re q u e s t was h o n o re d . The g o ve rn m e n t ga ve 

no c o m p e n s a ti o n to th e In d ia n s f o r t h is m a ssiv e lo s s o f 

la n d , v illa g e s it e s , o r re s o u rc e s . Nor was t h e i r c o n s e n t 

s o u g h t o r o b ta in e d .

The O re go n s e t t le r s became ev en more e a g e r f o r In d ia n la n d s 

as a r e s u lt o f t h is a c t io n . In 1870, th e s t a t e le g is la t u r e 

passed a m e m o ri a l re q u e s tin g t h a t th e f e d e r a l g o vern m ent 

a b o lis h th e e n t ir e C oast R e s e rv a ti o n and move th e s u r v iv in g 

In d ia n s e a s t o f th e C ascades. T h is an d o th e r p re s s u re was 

a g a in s u c c e s s fu l in c a u s in g a r e d u c tio n o f th e R e s e rv a tio n .

On M ar ch 3, 1875, C ongre ss passed an a c t w h ic h p ro v id e d t h a t 

th e A ls e a R e s e rv a ti o n w ould be c lo s e d , and a ls o re d uce d th e 

S ile t z R e s e rv a ti o n s u b s t a n t ia lly . B ut th e a c t r e q u ir e d 

"T h a t th e s e In d ia n s s h a ll n o t be re mov ed fr o m t h e ir p re s e n t 

r e s e r v a tio n w ith o u t t h e ir c o n s e n t p r e v io u s ly h a d ." And i t 

d id d e s ig n a te th e S ile t z R e s e rv a ti o n as a "p e rm a n e n t 

r e s e r v e ."

The t r a n s c r ip t o f th e m e e ti n g betw een th e In d ia n s l i v i n g on *

th e A ls e a R e s e rv a ti o n and th e In d ia n a g e n ts on Ju ne 17 ,

1875, to d is c u s s th e p r o v is io n s o f th e new a c t r e v e a l th a t

n o t on e In d ia n ga ve c o n s e n t to th e re m o v a l; in f a c t , a l l

p re s e n t in s is t e d t h a t th e y w ould n o t mov e. T h e ir r e s is ta n c e #

d id them no g o od . The la n d was im m e d ia te ly op en ed to w h it e

s e ttle m e n t. The In d ia n s were re m ov ed to S i l e t z , o r s a d ly

a tt e m p te d to r e t r e a t to fo rm e r ho m ela nds. The f i f t e e n y e a rs

-1 4 -
145

♦

o f la b o r s p e n t c l e a r in g Y ac h ats P r a i r i e , b u ild in g f e n c e s , 

h o u se s, and b a rn s w en t uncom pensa te d.

A g ain , by a c tio n ta k e n th o u sa n d s o f m il e s aw ay , some 360,0 00 

a c r e s wer e l o s t to th e S i l e t z T ri b e f o r e v e r , w it h o u t t h e i r 

c o n s e n t, an d w it h no c o m p e n sa ti o n .

ALLOTMENT

In th e 1 8 8 0 ’s , C o n g re ss ad o p te d th e p o lic y o f a llo tm e n t and 

a s s i m i l a t i o n , e x e m p li fie d by th e Dawes A ct o f 18 87 . Th os e 

t r i b e s s e le c te d f o r th e e x p e rim e n t wou ld no lo n g e r h o ld la n d 

in th e way th e y ha d s in c e ti m e im m em ori al, w it h th e t r i b e 

ow ning a l l th e la n d f o r th e use o f a l l i t s p e o p le .

In s p i t e o f th e f a c t t h a t in d iv id u a l o w n ers h ip was unknow n 

among I n d ia n s , t r i b a l la n d wou ld be t r a n s f e r r e d from th e 

t r i b e to in d iv id u a l m em be rs . I t was th o u g h t t h a t th e y wo uld 

b e n e f i t from th e c a p i t a l i s t i c sy ste m .

Bu t th e r e a l a t t r a c t i o n to many w h it e p e o p le o f th e p o lic y 

was t h a t th e a llo tm e n t p o lic y d i c t a t e d t h a t In d ia n la n d n o t 

so a l l o t t e d wou ld be d e c la re d " s u r p lu s ." T h is m ea nt t h a t 

th e t r i b e wou ld be s tr ip p e d o f i t s t i t l e an d t h a t th e la n d 

wou ld be op en ed f o r h o m est ead in g by w h it e s e t t l e r s .

N in e ty m il lio n a c r e s o f In d ia n la n d th ro u g h o u t th e U n it e d 

S ta te s were l o s t th ro u g h th e a llo tm e n t p o lic y . Many In d ia n s 

s o ld t h e i r a llo tm e n ts o r l o s t them a t ta x s a l e s b ec au se 

a l lo tm e n ts , u n li k e t r i b a l la n d , be ca me ta x a b le .

Te dd y R o o s e v e lt b e s t d e s c r ib e d th e a llo tm e n t p r o c e s s ; "Th e 

G en era l A ll o tm e n t Act i s a m ig hty p u lv e r iz in g m ac hin e to 

b re a k up th e t r i b a l m ass . I t a c t s d i r e c t l y up on th e fa m il y 

and th e i n d i v i d u a l s ."

4

♦

The re m a in in g S i l e t z R e s e rv a ti o n was g r e a t l y d im in is h e d by 

th e is s u a n c e o f in d iv id u a l a llo tm e n ts and d e c l a r a t i o n o f 

la n d as " s u r p lu s ." The e r a was on e o f c o r r u p tio n , la n d 

g r a b s , and lo o t i n g . By now, ti m b e r was re c o g n iz e d as a 

v a lu a b le r e s o u r c e . D is h o n o ra b le w h it e s wou ld f i l e 

"h o m est ead s" o n ly to be p a id f o r t h e i r c la im s by c o r r u p t 

ti m b e r co m pan ie s an d la n d s p e c u l a t o r s . Su ch c la im s were 

f i l e d to s u r p lu s la n d s and ev en p a r c e ls t h a t ha d be en 

a l l o t t e d to I n d ia n s .

By th e en d o f 1892, 536 a llo tm e n ts ha d bee n f i l e d by o r on 

b e h a lf o f I n d ia n s . B efo re a l lo tm e n t, th e S i l e t z R e s e rv a ti o n 

c o n ta in e d 225,5 80 a c r e s ; a f t e r a llo tm e n t th e In d ia n s h e ld 

o n ly ab o u t 46,0 0 0 a c r e s . A ll th e u n a llo te d la n d s p assed 

in t o th e " p u b lic do m ain ."

-1 5 -
146

T h is ti m e th e re was an ag re e m ent n e g o tia te d betw een th e 

In d ia n s and th e go vern m ent to com pensate them f o r t h is 

ta k in g o f t r i b a l la n d s . Under i t s te rm s , th e In d ia n s ga ve 

up 19 1 ,7 9 8 a c re s in exchange f o r $ 1 4 2 ,6 0 0 . Th ey wer e th u s 

p a id 74 c e n ts an a c re f o r some o f th e f in e s t v i r g i n 

tim b e rla n d s on th e O re go n c o a s t. As a r e s u lt o f a 19 55 

c o u r t c a s e , h o w e v e r, t r i b a l me mbers re c e iv e d an a d d it io n a l 

$2 p e r a c re f o r th e la n d s , s t i l l s u b s t a n t ia lly le s s th a n i t s 

w o rth a t th e ti m e o f th e ta k in g . O n ly f iv e s e c tio n s o f 

tim b e rla n d an d n in e a c re s f o r a s a w m il l and lu m b e r-y a rd wer e 

re s e rv e d f o r th e T r ib e .

In 1910, C ongre ss passed an a c t a u th o r iz in g th e s a le o f th e t

la n d s re s e rv e d un de r th e 18 92 a g re e m e n t. A nd, as ti m e w ent

b y , th e t r u s t s ta tu s o f many o f th e a ll o tm e n ts was l o s t ,

m eanin g t h a t th e y passed in t o n o n -In d ia n ha nd s. E x a c tly how

th e s e re m n a n ts o f th e once m a g n ific e n t r e s e r v a tio n were lo s t

is in many cases an unansw ere d q u e s tio n , s in c e la n d re c o rd s ♦

a re m uddle d and in c o m p le te .

By 1954, t o t a l t r i b a l la n d s ha d d w in d le d to 2 ,5 9 8 a c re s .

T here were 76 in d iv id u a l a ll o tm e n ts w h ic h s t i l l had t r u s t 

s t a t u s , c o n ta in in g 5,3 90 a c re s .

TERMINATION

In th e 1 9 5 0 ’ s , C ongre ss tu rn e d to th e m ost e x tr e m e p o lic y in 

a l l o f th e h is t o r y o f In d ia n a f f a i r s . " T e r m in a tio n " w ould 

becom e th e u ltim a te "e nd to th e In d ia n p ro b le m ." The 

essence o f th e te r m in a tio n p o lic y was th e s e v e rin g o f th e 

t r u s t r e la t io n s h ip betw een th e f e d e r a l g o ve rn m e n t an d th e 

v a r io u s In d ia n t r ib e s . T rib e s w ould be c u t o f f fr o m a l l 

f e d e r a l b e n e fits w h a ts o e v e r. Much ne ed ed h e a lth and 

e d u c a ti o n s e r v ic e s w ould be d is c o n tin u e d . F e d e ra l econom ic 

s u p p o rt w ould be c u t o f f . F in a lly , a l l t r i b a l la n d w ould be 

s o ld to th e h ig h e s t b id d e r .

When i t becam e a p p a re n t th a t te r m in a tio n ha d a lm o s t 

c o m p le te ly d e s tr o y e d t r i b a l l i f e among te rm in a te d t r ib e s , 

th e p o lic y was d r a m a t ic a lly r e je c te d an d re v e rs e d .

P re s id e n ts Ke nn ed y an d Johnson denounced i t . P re s id e n t 

N ix o n c a lle d i t " w ro n g ." B ip a r tis a n le a d e r s h ip in b o th 

p a r t ie s a g re e d . In 1974, C ongre ss a c te d to re p u d ia te th e 

p o lic y once and f o r a l l by e n a c tin g th e In d ia n S e lf - 

D e te rm in a tio n A c t.

T e rm in a tio n was im posed on o n ly th re e p e rc e n t o f a l l In d ia n 

t r ib e s . The S ile t z T rib e was w it h in t h is u n lu c k y g ro u p .

Known as P u b li c Law 58 8, th e te r m in a tio n a c t f o r w e s te rn <

O re go n In d ia n s r e s u lte d in th e s a le o f th e re m a in in g t r i b a l 

la n d s . One e x c e p tio n was th e 39 a c re s know n as G overn m ent 

H i l l w h ic h was d o n a te d to th e C ity o f S ile t z .

- 1 6 -
147

The t e r m in a tio n a c t a ls o had a s e r io u s im p a c t on a llo tm e n t 

la n d s . F or th e f i r s t tim e , th e s e la n d s were s u b je c t to 

p r o p e r ty ta x e s . The In d ia n s ha d n e v e r p a id ta x e s an d fe w 

had th e means to do s o . By 1 9 6 0 , many o f th e la s t la n d s 

t h a t had b e lo n g e d to In d ia n s f o r c e n tu r ie s passed o u t o f 

In d ia n o w n e rs h ip du e to no n-p aym en t o f ta x e s .

Th e e f f e c t o f te r m in a tio n up on th e S ile t z T r ib e was 

pro no unce d and d e v a s ta tin g . As S te p hen Dow Beckh am ha s 

r e la t e d in h is h i s t o r y , The In d ia n s o f W este rn O re g o n :

H undre ds o f In d ia n s in w e s te rn O re go n were 

s im p ly c a s t lo o s e in 19 56 and were s e t a d r i f t 

in a se a w h ic h th e y d id n o t kn ow. Th ey c o u ld 

f in d n e it h e r d ir e c t io n o r fo o d . A nd, ab ov e 

a l l e ls e , th e y ha d no p la c e to w h ic h to go 

ho me. A lw a y s , in th e p a s t, when an In d ia n 

e l e f t th e r e s e r v a tio n o r th e a llo t m e n t , th e re

wa s th e s e c u r it y o f kno w in g t h a t th e re was a 

p la c e to come back t o . W it h te r m in a tio n t h a t 

s e c u r it y was go ne f o r e v e r .

SILE TZ RESTORATION ACT

R e c o g n iz in g th e s e v e re e 'f fe c ts o f te r m in a tio n on t h e ir 

p e o p le , le a d e rs o f th e S ile t z T r ib e w ork ed to re o rg a n iz e i t 

in th e la t e 1 9 6 0 ’ s . The y f i l e d as a n o n - p r o f it c o r p o r a tio n 

u n de r s ta te la w in 1973. The T r ib e w ork ed to r e s to r e th e 

T r ib a l c e m e te ry , to d e v e lo p a lc o h o l r e h a b ili t a t i o n and 

man po wer p ro g ra m s , and to p ro v id e o th e r s o c ia l s e r v ic e s to 

i t s p e o p le . I t became a p p a re n t to th e t r i b a l le a d e r s h ip , 

h o w e v e r, t h a t th e o n ly way to succeed in r e v e r s in g th e 

tre n d s o f p o v e r ty , a lc o h o li s m , an d d e s p a ir was to r e ­

e s t a b lis h f e d e r a l r e c o g n it io n o f th e S ile t z T r ib e .

F our y e a rs o f in te n s iv e e f f o r t s r e s u lte d in passage o f th e 

S ile t z R e s to r a tio n A c t, w h ic h was s ig n e d in t o e f f e c t by 

P r e s id e n t C a r te r on Nov em be r 18 , 1977. The A c t p ro v id e s 

t h a t once a g a in th e T r ib e and i t s e n r o lle d mem bers a re 

e l i g i b l e f o r th e a s s is ta n c e and b e n e fits t h a t th e fe d e r a l 

g o ve rn m e n t e x te n d s to a l l f e d e r a lly - r e c o g n iz e d t r ib e s . The 

T r ib e ha s re g a in e d i t s p o s it io n as a s o v e re ig n p e o p le wh ose 

own g o ve rn m e n t a ls o is a b le to p ro v id e s e r v ic e s to i t s 

p e o p le and to p r o v id e a p ro u d sense o f u n it y an d i d e n t i t y 

f o r i t s m em be rs.

4

THE RESERVATION PLAN

The T r ib e d id n o t r e g a in any p a r t o f i t s fo rm e r la n d s by th e 

0 19 77 A c t. In s te a d , th e A c t p ro v id e d t h a t w it h in tw o y e a rs

o f i t s passage (b y Nov em be r 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 ), th e S e c re ta ry o f th e 

I n t e r i o r m ust r e p o r t back to C ongre ss w ith a p la n f o r th e 

c r e a tio n o f a r e s e r v a t io n f o r th e T r ib e . A c c o rd in g to th e

- 1 7 -
148

A c t , th e r e s e r v a t i o n m us t be l o c a t e d w it h in L in c o ln C o u n ty , 

O re go n ( a l l o f w hic h was o n ce w it h in th e C o a s t R e s e r v a t i o n ) .

Th e r e s e r v a t i o n w i l l c o n s i s t o f la n d l e g a l l y ow ned by th e 

f e d e r a l g o v ern m e n t an d h e ld in t r u s t f o r th e u se and b e n e f i t 

o f th e T r i b e . The f e d e r a l go v ern m e n t th u s h a s a c o n t in u in g 

o b l i g a t i o n to o v e r s e e and h e lp th e T r ib e t o man ag e an d 

u t i l i z e th e l a n d 's r e s o u r c e s in th e b e s t way p o s s i b l e . I t 

a l s o me ans t h a t th e la n d w i l l n e v e r be l o s t f o r n on -p aym en t 

o f t a x e s an d t h a t i t b e lo n g s to th e T r ib e a s a w h o le .

Th e c r e a t i o n o f a r e s e r v a t i o n f o r th e S i l e t z T r ib e w i l l in 

som e s m a ll m easu re co m p en sa te t h e s e 'w e s t e r n O re go n In d ia n s 

f o r th e t a k in g o f t h e i r hom ela n ds o v e r th e y e a r s . More 

i m p o r t a n t l y , i t w i l l s e r v e a s a p o s i t i v e f o r c e in th e 

p r e s e n t and th e f u t u r e : f o r e v e r g u a r a n t e e in g t h a t t h e r e 

w i l l be a p l a c e to com e home t o .

NOTE

Two e x c e l l e n t h i s t o r i e s o f th e c o a s t a l I n d ia n s h a ve been 

w r i t t e n by S te p h e n Dow Bec kh am . The y a r e Th e In d ia n s o f 

W e ste rn O re gon (1 9 7 7 ) and Req uiem f o r a P e o p le ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The 

fo rm e r d i s c u s s e s th e h i s t o r y o f th e C o a s t R e s e r v a tio n in 

d e t a i l in c h a p t e r s 9 - 1 1 . The c a s e s o f A ls e a Ban d o f 

T il la m o o k s v . U .S . (5 9 F . Supp. 93 4) and T il la m o o k Ban d o f 

T i l l a m o o k s v U. S. (3 I n d . C l . Comm. 52 6) b o th c o n t a in 

e x t e n s i v e h i s t o r i c a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . Th e l e g i s l a t i v e 

h i s t o r i e s o f b o th th e t e r m in a t io n a c t an d th e S i l e t z 

R e s t o r a t io n A ct a r e a l s o h e l p f u l . In g e n e r a l , f e d e r a l - 

t r i b a l p o l i c y i s r e v ie w e d and p r o p o s a ls f o r re fo rm a r e made 

in th e c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t u d y , F in a l R e p o rt o f th e A m er ic an 

In d ia n P o l i c y R evie w Com m is si on ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

4

- 1 8 -
149

APPENDIX C

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE TRIBE

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to analyze the current socioeconomic condition of the members of the Confederated Tribes 

of the Siletz Indians. Data on tribal members and their 

families was drawn primarily from a 1978 survey of tribal 

members conducted by Social and Environmental Research 

Associates (SERA). This survey was divided into two sections, 

one relating to tribal members living within the Tribe's

• 8-county service area (Figure 1); the other for those living 

outside the service area. While the same survey questions 

were used for both groups, the data gathering methods differed.

< For the tribal members within the 8-county service area,

SERA interviewers contacted each tribal household and conducted an in-depth interview to assess the family's housing, 

economic, educational and health needs. Ninety percent of 

the tribal members' households were interviewed. The remaining 

10 percent either chose not to participate, were not located 

at the address recorded, were temporarily out of the area, 

or were in an extended care facility. Outside the 8-county 

area, the SERA survey was conducted by mail. Fifty-seven 

percent of the mailed surveys were returned.

The information on tribal members and their families included 

in the report is divided into two groupings - those living 

inside the service area and those living outside. This was 

done for easier comparison of tribal data with other county 

and state data. Additionally, the two survey methodologies 

used by SERA were likely to have produced results of varying 

accuracy. On one hand, personal interviews were conducted 

with nearly all of the first group's households and care was 

taken to ensure that the respondents understood the questions 

being asked. This tended to increase the reliability of the 

information received. The direct mail survey, on the other 

hand, had a lower level of response (although well above the 

level usually experienced) and because the questionnaire was 

complicated, probably received a higher response rate from 

the well-educated, higher income families. Nonetheless, the 

mailed questionnaire is the best information available on 

this group of people.

For both groups of data, the percentage of responses recorded 

for each question was applied to the tribal membership as a 

whole. For example, if 66 percent of the survey respondents 

indicated an "in town" residence location, it was assumed 

that 66 percent of all of the tribal households in the

* 8-county area were located in towns.

-19-
Data on Lincoln Count y and the State of Orego n were obtained 

from numerous social service agencies through their state, 

regional, and local offices. Specific data sources are 

indicated on each table. Data are not available by tribe, so 

this information may include non-Siletz Indians as well. In 

Lincoln County, however, these figures are fairly represen tative 

of the Siletz Tribe since Siletz Indians constitute 75 percent 

of all Lincoln County Indians. This percentage is based 

upon the current Siletz Triba l roll and the 1975 survey of 

Indians in Lincoln County conducted by the Siletz Comprehensive 

Employment and Training Act (CETA) program.

Some information was only a vailable for a category of minority 

groups called "other races" that included Ame rican Indians, 

Oriental, and other races. Again, in Lincoln County, these 

figures are representative of the Siletz Indian popula tio n 

since the American Indian portio n of the "other races" 

category is 75 percent of the total. This per centage is 

based upon the State Employment Division's Lincoln C ounty 

Labor Mark et information for 1979 Affirmative Action programs.

Because of the blood qu ant um requirem ents associated with 

eli gibility for various Federal programs and for tribal 

membe rship, it is sometimes nec ess ary to differentiate 

between tribal members, and their spouses and children who are 

not m embers of the Tribe. For the purposes of this study, 

however, such dist inctions were not drawn since the Siletz 

Tribal needs encompass the needs of its members as well as 

their families. For this reason, the terms "Siletz Indian 

population" and "Siletz Indian people" as used in this 

repor t include tribal members as we ll as their families.

POPULATION

Number and Locatio n of Families

There are currently 613 Siletz Indian families. Of these, 

291 (48 percent) live within the 8-county service area and 

321 (52 percent) live outside the service area. These 

households include a total pop ulation of approxima tel y 2,005 

people. At this time, 1,083 (54 percent) are certified 

triba l members.

Over three -quarters of the Siletz Indian families are town 

dwellers, residing either in or near towns or suburbs.

Table 1 presents detailed information on the types of areas 

in whi ch tribal families live.

The largest conce ntration of Siletz Indian families is in 

Lincoln County. These families represent 44 pe rcent of the 

families in the service area and 21 percent of the total 

number of Siletz Indian families. Mario n County follows,
151

with 25 percent of the service area families residing in 

Salem. Of all Siletz families, 457 (49 percent) live in 

Oregon and 576 (62 percent) of all Siletz Indian families 

live in the West ern U nited States (Oregon, California, Idaho 

and Washingt on ). More detailed informat ion on household 

locations is presented in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 1

GENERAL L OCATION OF

TRIBAL HOUSEHO LDS, 1978

NUMBER

TOWN /SU BU RBS 192

NEAR TOW N 65

RURAL 34

ISO LATED 0

TO TAL 291

SOURCE: SERA SURVEY. 1978

8-C OU NTY SERVICE OU TS IDE SERVICE

AREA AREA

<*» NUMBER (* )

66.0 222 69 2

22.3 52 16.1

11.7 36 11.2

— 11 3.5

100.0 321 100.0

Age

The Siletz Indian population is r elat ively young, with an 

average age of 25 years. The average age in the United 

States in 1974 was 31.1) The lower average age of the 

Siletz Indian people may indicate a lower-than-average life 

expectancy, an a bov e-average b irth rate, or a combination of 

the two. A summa ry of information on the age of the Siletz 

Indian population is included in Table 4.

*

Fami ly Size

Within the 8-county service area, the aver age Siletz Indian 

family size is 3.1 persons. Outside the service area, 

the average famil y size is slightly larger - 3.4 persons.

This is substantially larger than the 1978 average household 

size in Lincoln County, 2.3 persons per household, as d etermined 

by the Lincoln County Housing Study c ondu cted by Richard L. 

Ragatz Associates, Inc. It is also larger than the average 

household size for the Unit ed States in 1973, recorded at 

3.0. (The 1978 Unit ed States average hous ehol d size is 

prob ably lower than 3.0 but no 1978 data is available.)

This is probab ly related to the larger per centage of the 

Siletz Indian population under the age of 18 (that live at 

home and tend to swell the size of fam ilies), and the relatively 

small percentage of Siletz Indian people above the age of 65 

(that often live in s ingle-family households and therefore 

lower the average family si ze ).

*

T5— :----------

Indian Health Trends and Servic es , United States Department 

of Health, Education and Welfare, Publi c Health Service, Health 

Services Administration, 1976, p. 4.

-21-
TABLE 2

LOCATION OF SILETZ INDIAN FAMILIES IN

8-C OUNTY SERVICE AREA, 1978

COU NTY

NUMBER

OF

FAM ILIES

FAMILIES

IN

SERVICE

AREA

[291]

<*>

BENTON 8 2.7

LANE 30 10.3

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD 25 8.6

LINCOLN 127 43.8

SILETZ 65 22.3

TOLEDO 23 79

NEWPORT 10 3.4

OTHER 29 10.0

LINN 11 3.8

MARION 77 265

SALEM 74 254

POLK 16 5.5

TILLAMOOK 5 1.7

YAMHILL 4 1.4

NOT AVAILABLE 13 4.5

TOTAL 291 100.0

SOURCE SERA SURVEY. 1978

TOTAL

FAMILIES

[812]

( * )

NUMBER

OF

PEOPLE

[3.1 PERSONS/

FAM ILY]

PEOPLE

IN

SERVICE

AREA

[902]

(* >

TOTAL

PEOPLE

[2.005]

( * )

1.3 25 2 8 1.2

4.9 93 10.3 4.6

4.1 77 8.5 3.8

20.8 384 43.7 19.7

10.7 202 22.4 10.1

3.8 71 7.9 3.5

1.6 31 3.4 1.6

4.7 90 10.0 4.5

1.8 34 3.8 1.7

12.6 239 26.5 11 9

12.1 230 25 5 11.5

2.6 50 5.5 2.5

0.8 15 1.6 0.7

0.7 13 1.4 0.7

2.1 40 4.4 2.0

47 6 902 100.0 45.0

TABLE 3

LOCATION OF SILETZ IND IAN FAMILIES

OUTSIDE SERVICE AREA, 1978

FAMILIES__________ ____________PEOPLE

STATE NUM BER

OUTSIDE

SERVICE

AREA

[321]

( * )

TOTAL

[•12 ]

( * ) NUMBER

OUTSIDE

SERVICE

AREA

[1103]

(%)

TOTAL

[2.005]

(* >

ALASKA 6 1.9 9 15 1.4 .7

ALABAMA 6 1.9 9 23 2.1 15

ARIZON A 2 7 3 8 .7 4

CAL IFORNIA 48 15.0 7.8 151 13.7 7.5

COLORADO 3 9 5 6 5 .3

FLORIDA 1 .3 2 5 4 2

HAWAII 1 3 2 4 , 

4 2

IDAHO 6 1.9 9 24 2.2 1.2

KANSAS 1 3 2 4 4 2

LOUISIAN A 1 .3 2 4 4 2

MARYLAND 1 3 .2 4 4 2

MASSAC HUSETTS 1 3 2 3 3 .1

MONTA NA 2 .7 3 6 5 3

NEW MEXICO 1 3 2 3 3 2

NEW YORK 1 3 2 3 3 2

OKLAHOMA 2 7 3 7 6 3

OREGON 188 51.8 27.1 545 49.3 27 2

PORTLAND 38 11.8 6.2 115 10.4 5.7

TENNESSEE 1 3 2 1 .1 .1

TEXAS 2 .7 3 4 4 2

UTAH 1 .3 2 4 4 2

VIR GIN IA 3 4 5 6 5 .3

WA SHINGTON 65 20 4 10.6 273 24.7 13 6

total 321 100.0 52.4 1,103 100.0 55.0

SOURCES:

SILETZ TRIBAL ROLL. 1979

SERA SURVEY 1978 - 2 2 -
153

*

TABLE 4

AGE OF THE SILETZ INDIAN POPULATION

AND THE GENERAL POPULATION, 1978

AG ES

SIL ETZ IN DIA N

POPULATIO N

GENERAL

POPULATIO N

U.S.'

PM

8-COUNTY

SERVICE

AREA

( * )

OUTSIDE

SERVICE

AREA

( * )

LINCOLN

COUNTY

(* )

OREGON*

(*»

<4 13.3 9 .7 -I 26.4 29.2 8.4

5-17 2 5 3 31 .6 J 25 .6

18-64 5 8 4 55.5 57.1 59.9 56 1

65 + 3.0 3.2 16.5 10.9 9.8

*

• OREGON AND UNITED STATES AGE INFORMATION IS BASED ON

1970 DATA.

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY. 1978

SOCIAL A CC OU NT ING FOR OREGON: SO CIO -ECONOMIC

IND ICA TORS 1978. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUM AN RESOURCES.

COMM UNITY SERVICES PROGRAM. PP 38 ANO 254

1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION. GENERAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS FOR OREGON. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES: TRENDS AND PROSPECTS

1950-1990. CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS. UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. P 80

HEALTH

Information regarding the health status of the Siletz Indians 

is currently available for only those families residing within 

the 8-county service area and is based upon data gathered in 

the SERA survey and analyzed in the Tribe's 1979 Tribal Specific 

Health Plan.

Major Health Problems

A comparison of the ranked order of health problems requiring 

immediate attention with the ranked order of reported family 

histories of health problems, shows that the first four health 

problems listed in each category are the same. These are dental, 

vision, cardiovascular, and ear/hearing problems. Other problems 

with a high incidence of occurrence are stomach problems/ulcer, 

injuries, cancer, diabetes, allergies, arthritis/rheumatism/ 

bursitis, and obesity. Of all the problems mentioned, 

cardiovascular problems are by far the most serious threat 

to the lives of Siletz Indians.

High incidence of serious health problems among the Siletz 

Indians has been directly correlated to factors of economic 

deprivation, environmental and employment health hazards, 

poor nutrition and lack of primary health care in the 1979 

Tribal Specific Health Plan.

»

4

-23-
Primary Heal th Care

Health problems of the Siletz Indians are compounded because 

man y of the Siletz families cannot affor d routine medi cal 

care, routine dental care, and major healt h care such as 

hospitaliz ation. Hospita lization data indicate that the 

average length of stay for the Silet z Indians (11.5 days) is 

more them double the service area average of 5.4 da ys .’) 

Furthermore, the admission rate of Siletz Indians is 92 

admissions per thousand individuals as compared wit h an 

Indian Healt h Service establish ed average of 181 admissions 

per thousand Indians across the Uni ted States. These data 

suggest that the Siletz Indians are not going to the hospital 

until their health problems beco me serious, which accounts 

for the low admission rate. Once in the hospital, the 

severity of their problems requires extensive care whic h 

accounts for the longer than average length of stay.

Birth an d Death Rates

Birth and deat h rates for the Siletz Indian pop ulation are 

pres ented in Table 5. The bir th rate pres ented for the 

Siletz Indian population is actu ally a survival rate. The 

figure was derived from a count of the individuals betw een 

the ages of 0 and 4 year s old. The total number of individuals 

under the age of 5 years old was divided by 5 to determine 

the average numbe r of surviving children born each year.

This average was then divi ded by the total number of individuals 

in the population and mul tip lie d by 1,000 to get the survival 

rate per thousand ind ivi duals. The birth rate for the 

Siletz Indians is approxima tel y mi dway between that of the 

U.S. gene ral population at the low end and that of the 

general Nativ e American population at the h igh end of the 

range.

The death rate used in this table is a "crude death rate."

The total numbe r of deaths that o ccurred in a 1-year period 

was divided by the total population and multiplied by 100,000 

to ob tain the death rate per 100,000 individuals. The death 

rate per 100,000 for the Siletz Indians is more than double 

the death rate per 100,000 Indians from the gener al Indian 

population.

Lead ing Causes of Death

Cardiovascular problems, injuries, diabetes, cancer, and 

ulcers were all reported as causes of death among the Siletz 

Indians durin g the period from 1976-1978. The percentages 

of deaths due to accide nts (8 percent) and diabetes (4 percent) 

are higher for the Siletz Indians than for the Weste rn

"Tribal Specific Health Plan, Confederated Tribes of the 

Siletz India ns," Social and Envir onmental Research A sso ­

ciates, Inc., June 1979, p. 45.
155

TABLE 5

BIRTH AND DEATH RATES AMONG SILETZ INDIANS, ALL NATIVE

AMERICANS, AND THE GENERAL POPULATION, 1978

SILETZ

IND IANS

ALL NATIVE

AMERICA NS*

U.S. GEN ERAL

POPULATIO N*

BIRTHS PER 1.000 26 66 32.90 17.30

DEATHS PER 100.000 1.551 696 -

CARDIOVASCULAR DEATHS 44.0 0* 26.84 * _

•THESE FIGURES ARE FROM 1974 RATHER THAN 1978.

*

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY. 1978. s

“IND IAN HEALTH TRENDS ANO SERVICES." 1978 EDITION (1974 OATAl. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION AND WELFARE.

Oregon population as a who le (6.7 percent and 1.6 percent, 

res pec tiv ely ).1 ) Car diovascular problems account for 44 percent 

of all the deaths among Siletz Indians reported for this 

2-yea r period and are by far the leading cause of death for 

the Siletz Indian people.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Whil e there are many social problems that affect the Siletz 

Indians, just as there are for any group within the larger 

society, this section of the report attempts to highlight 

those social problems that have the greatest impact on the 

lives of young children and their families. These problems 

tend to h ave the mo st influence on the life opportunities of 

future Siletz generations. They include alcohol and drug 

abuse, arrangements for the care of children away from their 

families, and mental health.

Alcohol and Drug Abuse

The excessive use of alcohol often underlies a var iet y of 

social and medic al problems. It is now considered both as 

an illness and as a contributing factor to c ondi tions resulting 

in death. Deaths attributed to alcoho lis m increased 71 percent 

from 1966 to 1973 am ong American Indians as c ompared with a 

rise of 25 percent in the United States population as a 

whole.2) Fatal accidents, the leading cause of deat h among 

Ame rican Indians, most often occur in co nnection with the

1 ) Healt h Systems Plan, Western Oreqo n Health Aqency, 1977.

2)

Alc oho lis m Deaths and Death Ra te s, Vital Events Branch,

Office of Program Statistics, Division of Research Coordi ­

nation, Indian Health Service, February 1975.

-25-
156

excessive use of alcohol. Cirrhosis of the liver, whic h 

accounts for half of the alcoho lis m deaths, is the fourth 

leading cause of death among American Indians, while it 

ranks tenth in the general United States pop ula tio n.1)

While "hard" statistical data is no t available on alcohol 

abuse among the Siletz people, there is no question that it 

presents a problem for the integrity of Siletz families and 

the Siletz community as a whole. With out ex ception, the 

social service agency staffs serving Siletz Indians who w ere 

interviewed for this study indicated alcoholism as a major 

social pro ble m affecting tribal m embers and their families.

In its 1978 State Plan for Alcohol Problems, the Orego n 4

State Offic e of Programs for Alcohol and Drug Problems

estimated that in the 8 counties included in the Siletz

service area, an averag e of 36 percent of American Indians

over the age of 18 have alcohol problems. In Lincoln County,

app roximately 53 percent of this group are estimated to have 1

problems w ith alcohol abuse. These figures represent the

primary perso ns with alcohol pr ob le ms , and do not reflect

the indirect problems experienc ed by other family members.

The State Alcohol Program staff members also repor t that 

more of the American Indians with alcohol problems have 

severe p roblems than w oul d be indicated by similar statistics for the general population.

The magnitu de of the alc oholism problem in the Siletz Tribe 

has also been emphasized by the Orego n Indian Commission on 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse in its 1975 State Pl an .2 ) The Indian 

Healt h Service expe nditures related to the treatment and 

prevention of alcoholism among the Siletz peop le from November 

1977 to June 1979 totals about $9,400. This represents 

about 8 percent of the total expe nditure for the Siletz 

health services duri ng this period.

In relati on to total tribal needs, the critical significance 

of excessive drinking lies in its impact on family life; it 

neg atively affects not only the dr in ke r, but also the members 

of his or her family. It is a major precondition for child 

neglect and a primary rati onale for the separation of Siletz 

Indian children from their families. The Siletz Indian 

Alcohol and Drug A buse Pro gra m staff estimates that 70 percent 

of all situations wher e India n children are "adopted out" 

from Indian families are dir ectly related to alcohol problems.

________________ A

^Indian Health Trends and Services, 1974 Edition, op.cit., 

p T T H -----------------------------

2)

1975 State Pl an , Oregon Indian Commission on Alcohol and *

.Drug Abuse, pp. 44-45.

-26-
157

Separation of Children From Families

Federal or state agencies intervene in family life when 

norma l famil y and comm unity support systems fail. Families 

are assumed to be responsible for rearing their children and 

this right of the family is respected by law unles a child 

is abandoned, orphaned, neglected, abuse d or has committed a 

crime. Government intervention is aimed at securing the 

"best interests" of the child. Yet, in the past few years 

there has been a growing uneasiness among Indians about the 

ways in whi ch this principle has been interpreted and the 

biases of some int erp ret ati ons .1 ) For this reason, the 

provision of foster care and arrangem ents for a doption of 

American Indian children is an extr emely volatile issue 

* among the American Indian population.

Twenty-five percent of all Indian children are either in 

foster homes, adoptive homes, or boar ding schools and are 

4 removed from homes at a rate 5 to 25 times highe r than

non-Indian chi ldr en.2 )

The general situation described above that exists at the national 

level also appears to exist in Oregon. The Oregon Children's 

Services Division (the agenc y whic h administers substitute 

care services) reports that in 1978 it served appr oximately 

1,227 Indian adults and children out of a total case load of 

57,000. Services to Indian people thus constitute 2.2 of 

the total while the Amer ican Indian populat ion constitutes 

only .6 p ercent of the Oregon population. The Indian population 

was served at a rate of 3.6 times that of the general population. 

Approximately 30 percent of the children's services provided 

to Indian families were those rela ted to family foster care 

services as comp ared with 17 percent of the services provided 

to the general population as a whole. In Lincoln County,

16 percent of the children in foster homes in 1978 were 

Indian children, alth ough American Indians constitute only 

1.3 percent of the total county population.

Menta l Health

The BIA Needs Ass essment report states that until a "definitive 

epidemiological study long sought by mental heal th specialists 

who work with Native Amer icans is un dertaken, information 

regarding the nature and distribution of mental illness 

amon g Native Americans will be fragmentary and unr eli abl e."3)

4

*

"Young Native Americans and Their Families: Education Needs 

Assessment and Recommendations," United States Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Offic e of Indian Educational Programs, 1976, pp. 71-73 

(referred to as BIA Repo rt ).

2 } Ib id ., p. 72.

BIA Report, op .c it ., p. 90.

58-253 0 - 8 0 - 1 1

-27-
158

Of the 28,000 patients served annually in the Indian Health 

Services Mental Health programs, approximately 20 percent 

are under 15 years old. Drug abuse, running away from 

school, suicide attempts and threats, unwanted pregnancies, 

and alc oholism were the major problems faced by this group.

In the opinion of an IHS psychologist, few of these problems 

are c ulturally specific -these are problems simil ar to those 

found among all y outh .1)

Cultural conflict is viewed as the prim ary cause of emotional

disorders and a major obst acle to effective treatment in

most exam inations con cerning the mental heal th of American

Indians. May and Dizmang speak of the social disorgan ization

brought about by forced change and the b reakdown of traditional 4

soci ocultural system s.2) They speculate that the pressure

to "be like everyone else" and to remain an Indian at the

same time creates cultural conflict so intense that it may

lead to self-destruction. Meyer speaks of the disorie ntation

expe rienced by Indian people mov ing from the rigi d cons ervatism *

of traditional values and lifestyles to the dom inant culture.

These factors affect all A merican Indians, regardless of 

their specific location. They may have particular significance 

for the Siletz Tribe which is in the process of reestab lishing 

its cultural identity.

The Community Mental Health Program at the State of Oregon and the 

Lincoln County level serve very few Americ an In di an s. In 

1978, a total of 270 American Indians were served in all of 

Oregon's Community Mental Healt h programs. Mental heal th 

workers interviewed for this study indicated that the lack 

of Indian participation in the programs does not reflect a 

lack of need for services. The clinical supervisor of the 

Lincoln County Mental Heal th Clinic states that, for the 

mos t part, local area peop le do n ot understand what mental 

health services are and, even if they did, the services are 

ofte n located too far away for people to take advantage of 

them.

This inter pretation of the low participation of Indian 

people in community mental heal th programs is subst antiated 

by the experience in the Umat illa County Mental Healt h 

Program. The use of the pro gra m by Indian peop le grew only 

when its administ ration was taken over by IHS and w hen its 

facilities were moved to the res erv ati on. 3)

BIA Report, op .c it ., p. 95.

21 * 

P.A. May and L.H. Dizmang, "Suicide and the American Indian,"

Psychi atric An na ls , 1974, £, pp. 22-27.

3 )Lincoln County Mental Heal th Clinic, interview with clinical

supervisor, May, 1979. 4

-28-
159

Social Service Program Partici pation

Althou gh the three major categories of social problems have 

been discussed above, it also seems important to include a 

brie f mention of the overall American Indian p articipation 

in a variety of o ther social service programs. In a general 

way, these p articip ation rates can serve as an indicator of 

the n eeds of the Indian pop ulation in re lati on to the needs 

of the general population. These data are presented in Table 6 

With only one exception (employment app lic ants), it indicates 

that American Indians participate in county- and statelevel social service programs at a rate of 1.5 to 10 times 

their proportion in the pop ulation as a whole. Especially 

. striking are the statistics on publi c assistance. In Lincoln

County, 106 American Indians of a total of 525 (20.2 percent) 

received some form of publi c assistance payments in April 

1979. Ninety-e ight of these are "aid to dependent children," 

"singl e-p are nt," or "inc apacitated fathers" funds. This 

"overrepresentation" in social service caseloads can be 

view ed as a gauge of need among the Siletz Tribe for a broa d 

range of special programs.

TABLE 6

INDIAN PARTICIPATION RATES IN

SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS, 1978

LINCOL N CO UNTY OREGON

PA RTICIPATION PA RT ICIPAT ION

PERCENT PERCENT

INDIAN INOIAN

PROGR AM TOTAL INDIAN <*l TOTAL INOIAN <*>

CO MM UN ITY MENTAL HEALTH 648 12 1.9 25.536 270 1.1

ALCO HO LIS M PROGRAM — — — 14,675 954 6.5

EMPLOYME NT APPLICANT S 4.681 38 8 271.233 2.652 1.0

PUBLIC H OU SING 60 Units 4 Units 6.7 — — —

SECT ION 8 HO US ING ASSIS TANCE 100 Units 5 Units 5.0 — — —

CH ILD REN S SERVICES — — — 57,000 1.227 2.2

PUBLIC ASSISTAN CE 1.713 106 6.2 136.536 3.158 2.3

CO RREC TIO NS 145 4 2.8 — — —

NOTE;

AMERICAN INDIANS ARE 1.3% OF THE LINCOLN COUNTY POPULATION AND 6% OF THE

OREGON POPULATION.

SOURCES

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUM AN RESOURCES STATISTICS ON PROGRAM

PARTICIPATION. 1978

STATE OF OREGON LABOR MARKET INFORMA TIO N FOR 1979 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

PROGRAMS. STATE OF OREGON ANO LINCOLN COUNTY. STATE DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION

-29-
HOUSING

Tenure and Type of Structure

Among Siletz Indian families, approximately the same percentage 

own their homes as rent their homes. Within the 8-county 

service area there is a slightly high er percentage who rent; 

outside the service area is a higher percentage who own.

Within the service area, where families were per sonally 

interviewed, over 8 percent share d homes with another family. 

The specific relation ship b etw een the two groups in terms of 

payment for shelter was not recorded. Table 7 presents this 

informat ion as well as c omparisons with Lincoln C ounty and 

Western Unite d States tenure statistics.

Over two-thirds of Siletz Indian families live in sin gle ­

family structures. This is comparable to the gene ral housing 

pattern in Lincoln Coun ty and the Western Unit ed States. A 

higher pe rcentage of Siletz Indian families live in mobile 

homes than households of the general population. Detailed 

data on type of housing structure is also presented in 

Table 7.

TABLE 7

HOUSING PATTERNS AMONG SILETZ INDIAN FAMILIES

AND THE GENERAL POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS, 1978

SILETZ INDIAN GENERAL POPULATION

FAMILIES HOUSEHOLDS

OUTSIDE

SERVICE

AREA

(*>

SERVICE

AREA

<*)

LINCOLN

COUNTY

<%>

WESTERN

U.S.-

(*)

TENURE

OWN HOME 43.5 56.4 20.4 38.9

RENT HOME 47.3 43.6 79.6 61.1

SHARE HOME 8.8 N.A. N.A. N.A.

TYPE OF STRUCTURE

SIN GLE FAMILY 668 73.9 77.1 63.0

MULTIP LE FAMILY 17.9 11.6 8.5 31.4

MOB ILE H OME 14.5 13.0 11.7 5.6

CAMPER, CAB IN. OTHER 8 1.5 2.5 N.A.

• THIS DATA IS FROM ,975 RATHER THAN 1978

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY, ,978

HOUSING DATA BASE FOR LINCOLN C OU NT Y. RICHARD L. RAGATZ ASSOCIATES. INC..

,978

ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY: ,975. UNITED STATES AND REGIONS. GENERAL HOUSING

characteristics, united states department of commerce, bureau of the

CENSUS. CURRENT HOUSING REPORTS. SERIES H-,S0-7SA.
161

Housing Condition

The Indian Healt h Service (IHS) is currently conducting a 

surve y of housing conditions among Siletz Indian families as 

a part of its sanitation facilities program. The purpose of 

the survey is to document the need for capital improvements 

that will provide a po table wate r supply and a safe means of 

waste disposal for homes with substand ard facilities. In 

addition to inspecting the water supply and sanitary sewer 

facilities, the IHS sanitarian is also surveying the structural 

condition of the homes.

The survey sample w as limited to those homes not receiving

. both city sewer and city w ate r services, since it was assumed

that such services would be standard. Of the Siletz Indian 

families livin g within the service area, 27.1 percent do not 

recieve city wa ter services and 33.6 percent do not receive 

city sewer services, as compared with 30.3 percent and 

37.6 percent res pectively outsid e the service area. The 

survey sample thus includes approximately one-third of the 

families living within the service area.

Alt hough the survey is only part ially completed, the p reliminary 

results show a hi gh degr ee of substandard housing conditions 

among Siletz Indian families. Even if all housing units not 

included in the study sample w ere standard (which is un likely),

18 percent of the Siletz hous ing withi n the service area

wou ld have either subs tandard water facilities, septic facilities,

or both.

For the homes surveyed, 8.4 perce nt of the units are substandard 

and beyo nd feasible rehab ilitation, 19.3 percent are in marginal but rehabilitatable condition, and 5.9 p ercent are in 

standard or g ood condition. These d ata and comparable data for 

Linc oln C ounty and Oregon are included in Tab le 8.

The comparison shows that even disregarding the conditions 

in two-thi rds of the Siletz Indian hous ing stock within the 

service area, the percentage of substandard housing units 

and units in need of repair is greate r than that of the 

housing units of the general population - 27.7 percent for 

the Siletz Indians, 23.8 perc ent for L inco ln County, and 

10.0 percent for Oregon.

FAMI LY INCOME

Medi an and Mean Family Income

4 The m ost general measure of a group's overall economic position

is income. A number of studies have been comp leted in 

recen t years that compare the income of Indian peopl e with

-31-
162

TABLE 8

HOUSING CONDITIONS AMONG SILETZ INDIAN

FAMILIES AND GENERAL POPULATION

HOUSEHOLDS, 1978

SILETZ INDIAN

HOUSING UNITS

SERVICE A RE A1

CONDITION (*)

GENERAL POPULATION

HOUSING UNITS

LINCOLN

COUNTY 2 ORE GO N3

(*) (*•)

STRUCTURAL CONDITION

STANDARD* 5.9 76.2 90.0

REHABILITATABLE" 19.3 1 27.7 SUBSTANDARD* 8.4 J

UNKNOWN 66.4 0 0 i

WATER ANO SEPTIC FACILITIES

STANOARD 18.0 N.A. N.A

SUBSTANDARD 82.0

DEFINITIONS:

STANOARD — MEETS STATE SUILOING CODE REGULATIONS.

REHABILITATABLE - REPAIRS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE 'STANDARD" RATING

WOULD COST LESS THAN HALF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SUBSTANDARD — REPAIRS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE "STAN DARD1

' RA TING WOULD COST

HALF OR MORE THAN HALF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SOURCES:

1. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES PROGRAM SURVEY. MAY. 1979

2. HO USING DATA BASE FOR LINCOLN COUNTY RICHARD L. RAGATZ ASSOCIATED.

INC.. 1978.

3. OREGON STATE HOUSING D IVISIO N UPDATE OF 1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION OATA,

INTERVIEW WITH STAFF SENIOR PLANNER. MAY. 1979.

F

that of the general population and othe r ethnic groups. In 

1975, Levitan and Johnston repo rted that the "overall Indian 

average incom e is ... the lowest among any ethnic gr ou p. "1)

This national trend is also exempl ifi ed in the case of the 

Siletz Indians. The 1978 Siletz Indian medi an household 

income within the service area ($7,820) represents only 

55 perce nt of the 1977 Linco ln Coun ty figure ($14,118) and 

47 percent of the 1977 state figure ($16,768). This income 

discre pan cy is even m ore pro nou nce d with regar d to per 

capi ta income income. The 1978 Siletz Indian per capi ta for 

the service area ($2,640) represents only 38 percent of the 

1977 Oreg on per capita income ($7,007) and the United States 

average per capita income ($7,019). These perc entages would 

undoub ted ly drop further if 1978 county, state, and national 

income data were available. A detailed brea kdown of Siletz 

family income is presented in Table 9.

Levit an and Johnston, Indian Giving; Federal Programs for 

Native Amer ic an s, John Hopkins University Press, 1975, p. 11.

-32
TABLE 9

SILETZ INDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND 

GENERAL POPULATION HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1978

GENERAL

SILETZ INOIAN FAMILIES POPULATION

•COUNTY OUTSIDE

SERVICE SERVICE

AREA AREA

<*) <*>

LINC OL N

COU NTV

<$ZOOO 23.4"} 108

$2,000-3,999 6.4 ( 394 2.9

$4,000-5,999 9.6 J 7.2

$6,000-7,999 12.1 T 8.6

$8,000-9.999 84 26.1 9.3

$10,000-11.999 5.6 J 10.1

$12,000-13.999 6.0 1 6.5

$14,000 + 28.5 J

34.5

446

18.7

33.7

476

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY. 1978

HOUSING DATA BASE FOR LINCOLN COUNTY, RICHARO L. RAGATZ ASSOCIATES.

INC 1978

In co m e S o u rc e s

A p p ro x im a te ly t w o - t h ir d s o f th e f a m ilie s in s id e th e s e r v ic e 

a re a as w e ll as o u ts id e th e s e r v ic e a re a d e r iv e t h e i r in com e 

p r i m a r ily fr o m w ages. Th e re m a in in g o n e - t h ir d o f th e f a m ilie s 

r e c e iv e in com e fr o m a c o m b in a tio n o f d i s a b i l i t y c o m p e n s a ti o n , 

p u b lic a s s is ta n c e , r e tir e m e n t o r s o c ia l s e c u r it y , an d s e l f - 

e m p lo ym e n t. T h is l a t t e r g ro u p has th e lo w e s t in co m e . A b o u t 

10 p e rc e n t o f th e f a m il ie s r e c e iv e unem plo ym ent c o m p e n s a ti o n , 

an in com e s o u rc e a v a ila b le o n ly t o wa ge e a rn e r s . A mor e 

d e t a ile d su mmary o f in com e s o u rc e in fo r m a tio n i s p re s e n te d 

in T a b le 10.

TABLE 10

INC OM E SOURCES FOR 

SILETZ INDIAN FAM ILIES, 1978

SIL ETZ INDIAN

FAMIL IES

•-C OUN TY OUTSIOE

SERVICE SERVICE

AREA AREA

INCO ME SOU RCE S (*) (* )

WAGES 67.0 670

SELF-EM PLOYMENT 10.0 11.0

UN EM PLOY ME NT C OM PE NS AT ION 10.0 10.0

DISA BILITY COM PE NS ATION 11.0 5.0

PUBLIC ASSIS TANCE 14.0 9.0

RE TIRE ME NT /SO CIAL SECURITY 14.0 9.0

SALE S/INV ESTM EN TS' 3.0 6.0

• TH IS CATEGORY REFERS PRIMARILY TO THE SALE OF PERSONAL OR REAL

PROPERTY SUCH AS H OMES OR BOATS.

NOTE:

THE PERCENTAGES IN T HIS TABLE OO NOT AD D TO 100 * BECAUSE A

SINGLE FAMILY COULD RECEIVE INCOM E FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES IN

MOST CASES. THOSE FAMILIES DERIVING INCOME FROM WAGES DIO NOT

RECORD A SECO ND SOURCE

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY 1978 - 3 3 -
164

Adequacy of Income

Over one-third (35.5 percent) of the Siletz Indian families 

living inside the service area and 18 percent of those 

living outside the service area had incomes below the official 

Unit ed States 1978 poverty level. The poverty level was 

est ablished at $5,180 for 3-person nonfar m families by the 

Community Services Administration as a method for u pdating 

1970 census data. The most recent comparable figures are 

1975 figures whi ch indicate that 8.9 percent and 1 .4 percent 

of Oregon and United States families, respectively, had 

incomes bel ow the poverty lev el. 1)

When asked about the adeq uacy of their income to provide 

food, clothing, and shelter, nearly 40 percent of the families 

inside the service area and over 30 perc ent of the families 

outside the service area repo rted a "marginal," "inadequate" 

or "very inadequate" income. An even greater percentage of 

families have difficulty mee tin g their me dical and denta l 

care needs. Specific informat ion on income shortages and 

the poverty level information discus sed above are summarized 

in Table 11.

i

TABLE 11

POVERTY LEVEL AND INCO ME SHORTAGES

AMONG SILETZ INDIAN FAMILIES, 1978,

AND GENERAL POPULATION HOUSEHOLD , 1975

(

SIL ETZ INDIAN

FAM ILIES

GEN ERA L

POPULATIO N*

8-COUNTY

SERVICE

AREA

OUTSIDE

SERVICE

AREA OREGON U.S.

(*) (* ) (*) <%)

% BELOW POV ERTY LEVEL 35.5 18.0 8.9 11.4

INCOME SHORTAGES

FOOD 34.0 26.0

CLOTHING 37.0 37.0

HO USING 23.0 28.0

MEDICAL 420 43.0

DENTAL 60 0 48.0

• THESE FIGURES ARE FROM 1975 RATHER THAN 1978 IT IS LIKELY THAT

1978 FIGURES WOULD INOICATE A LOWER PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS

BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL SINCE THE TREND FROM 1970 TO 1975 WAS

DOWNWARD

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY. 1978

SOCIAL A CC OU NTING FOR OREG ON. SO CIO -ECO NO MIC INDICA TORS.

OREGON Department of human resources, state community

SERVICES PROGRAM. ,978. p 38.

Social Accounting for Oregon, Soci o-Economic Indicators

Oregon Department of Human Resources, State Comm unity

Services Program, 1978, pp. 8 and 38.

-34-
165

EMPLOYMENT 

Unem ployment Rate

The problem of high unemployment among American Indians is 

documented in the 1976 BIA Needs Assessment report. It states 

that the 1973 unemployment rate for reservation Indians was 

37 percent and that, in the same year, the unem ployment rate 

for the country as a who le was 4.9 percent. For black workers, 

it was 8.9 perc ent .-*)

These high national rates of American Indian unem ployment are 

reflective of the Lincoln County American Indian population as 

well. The Oregon Indian Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

1975 State Plan cited a statewide unemploy ment rate of 34 perc ent 

t for Americ an Indians, and the Siletz Title III Manpower Program

(CETA) estimated a 44-percent une mployment rate in the Lincoln 

Count y Indian w ork force. The CETA estimate was based on a survey 

of the Indian population in the county as well as local school 

enrollment and labor force participation data.

Labor Force Participation

HEW reports that groups which have poor prospects for obtaining 

well -paying jobs tend to "drop out" of the labor force and stop 

seeking emp loy men t.3) American Indians are an example of this. 

Census data for 1970 show that American Indians had the lowest 

labor force par ticipation rate of any group in the United States. 

Only 63 percent of men 16 years old or olde r were in the labor 

force as c ompared with 77 percent in the United States .4 ) The 

situation was similar at the Orego n State and Lincoln County 

levels. The 1970 "other races" labor force participation rate 

for men 16 years old or o lder was 53.8 percent in Oregon and 

63.6 percent in Lincoln County, as compared to 74.6 percent and 

67.2 percent for the total population in these two areas, 

respectively.

The HEW report states that the "low participation rate is not 

a product of an absence of desire for work. Give n the exce ssively 

high unemploy ment rate, the low part icipation rate is probably 

only an acceptance of reality. Knowing that jobs are una vai lable, persons simpl y give up tryin g."5)

1 ^BIA Report, op .c it ., p. 24.

2)A detailed me tho dol ogy for this unemployment rate estimate 

is presented in A Profile of the Confeder ated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians of Or eg on , Plan ning Support Group, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 1978, pp. 12-14.

. 3 A Study of Selected Socioec onomic Characte ristics of Ethnic

Minorities Based on the 1970 Census, Vol. Ill: American India ns,

HEW Publication No. (05) 75-122, p. 13 (referred to as HEW

Report).

4) 1970 Census of Population General Social and Economic Character- 

‘ istics , United States Department of Commerce, Burea u of the

Census.

HEW Report, op .c it ., p. 49.

-35-
Occupation

Table 12 shows the occupational distribution of the total 

United States population and the American Indian population 

as presented in a United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) report on socioeconomic charac ter istics of minorities.1 ' The occupational groups have been 

ranked from 1 to 9 on the basis of the median incomes of 

each group that prevailed for the United States population 

as a whole. The broken line separates the occupations above 

and below the national median. For males, 4 occupations 

were above and 7 below the median; for females, 3 occupations 

were above and 8 below the median.

As can be seen from Table 12, Indians are overrepresented in 

the lower ranked occupations and under represented in the 

higher ranked occupations compared to the total United 

States population.

The degree of overrepresentation in the lower ranked o ccu pations as shown in Table 12 may understate the actual situation 

because major occupational groups are a composite of many 

suboccupations. For example, the c ategory of Professional 

and Technical Workers includes high-salaried neurosurgeons 

and lower paid social workers and teachers. This is true 

for other categories as well. The lowest paying suboccupation's 

in some high-ranked groups actually pay less than some 

suboccupations in lower ranked groups. Since Indians tend 

to have the lower paying suboccupations in each general 

category, the distributions shown in Table 12 probably 

underestimate the extent to whic h A merican Indians work at 

lower paying jobs compared to the total United States popu ­

lation. 2 )

These findings are supported by recent Oregon data (see 

Table 13). Information on the occupations of employed 

persons in 1978 was compiled by the Oregon State Employment 

Division for the state and for each county. While separate 

data for American Indian worker s are not available, data for 

the "other races" category include American Indians.

In Lincoln County, where American Indians constitute 75 percent 

of the "other races" category, it was reported that over 

half of the employed persons in this group were either 

laborers or service workers. The "other races" group had 

3 times the percent of service workers, about 1-1/2 times 

the percent of service workers, and about 1-1/2 times the 

percent of agricultural workers as the Lincoln County population 

as a whole. This "other races" group also had a significantly

A Study of Selected Socioeconomic Chara cteristics of Ethnic

Minorities Based on the 1976 Census Vol. Ill; American Indians

HEW Publication No. (05) 75-122 (referred to as HEW repor t).

This discussion is taken from BIA Report, op .c it ., pp. 22-24. 2)
167

TABLE 12

MAJOR OCCUPATIO NS OF MALES AND FEMALES

IN THE UNITED STATES AND

AMERICAN IND IANS, 1970

RANK

US.

TOTAL

( * )

INDIAN

TO TAL

( * )

OC CU PA TIO NS : MALE

1. PROFESS ION AL ANO TEC HN ICAL WORKERS 14.3 9.0

2. MANAGERS A ND A DM INIST RA TO RS 11.2 5.0

3. SALES WORKERS 6.9 2.4

4 CRAFTSMEN. FOREMEN AND KIN DR ED WORKERS 21.0 22.0

TOTAL: 1-4 53.4 33.4

5 CLERICAL WORK ERS 7.6 5.7

6. OPE RATIVES 20.0 24.0

7. SERVICE WORKERS 8.0 10.0

8. LABORERS. EXC EPT FARM 6.6 13.0

9 FARM MANAGERS AND LABORERS 4.5 8.0

TOTAL: 5-9 46.7 60.1

OC CU PA TIO NS : FEMALES

1 PROFESS ION AL AN O TE CH NICA L WORKERS 16.0 11.0

2. MANAGERS ANO AD MINISTRA TO RS 3.6 2.4

3. CLERICAL WORKERS 35.0 25.0

TOTAL: 1-3 546 38.4

4. CRAFTSMEN. FOREMEN. AN D KIN DRED WORKERS 1.8 2.1

5. O PER ATIVES 14.0 19.0

6 LABORERS, EXCEPT FARM 1.0 1.3

7 SALES WORK ERS 7.4 4.0

8. SERVICE WORKERS 20.0 33.0

9. FARM MANAGERS AND LABORERS 8 2.3

TOTAL: 4-9 45.0 61.7

S O U R C E :' *

A STUDY OF SELECTED S O C IO E C O N O M IC C H AR A C TER IS TIC S O F ET H N IC M IN O R IT IE S

BA SE D O N TH E 1970 C ENSUS. VO L. Ill: AM ERIC AN IN D IA N S. HEW PU B L IC A TIO N N O l05l

4

f

- 3 7 -
168

greater percentage of workers in the professi onal and technical 

occupations than did the population of Lincoln County as a 

whole. However, in the more deta iled breakdown of specific 

jobs within the professional and technical occupations, all 

"other r.aces" category persons were included as "other 

professi onal workers." None were me dical or h ealth workers, 

teachers, or special technicians. Many of these people may 

be employed as admin istrators of Siletz Tribal programs.

The "other races" workers were employed at about one-third 

the rate of the Lincoln County population as a whole in 

clerical, foreman and craftsmen occupations, and at about 

one-half the rate as operatives. No "other races" people

were employed as managers alth ough manag erial workers ,

comp rised almost 12 percent of the total number of workers *

in Lincoln County.

Table 13 summarizes the information on occu pations of employed

persons in Lincoln County. Data for the state are provided T

for comparison, although they have limited v alue for this study

since only 40 percent of the "other races" represents American 

Indians and only a small numb er of those are Siletz Indians.

Job Applicants

The State Employment Division compiles information on minority 

job applicants. The March 1979 file of m inority job applicants 

in Lincoln County confir ms the occupation data presented in 

the previous section. Of the 24 minority persons with

experience in the "current" file, 14 (58 percent) applied 

for wor k in service, sales and agricultural occupations.

The rema inde r applied prim arily in building trades and 

mis cellaneous job categories.

TABLE 13

OCCUPATIONS OF EMPLOYED PERSONS, 1978

LIN CO LN C OUN TY OREGON

TOTAL OTHER RACES TOTAL OTHER RACES

OCC UP AT IONS (•» (* ) (») w (») w (#) <*)

PROFESSIO NAL. TECHNICA L 1,352 9.38 37 15.15 161.351 14 60 2.259 15.70

MANAG ERS 1,726 11.97 0 0 103.824 9.39 934 6.49

SALES 1.096 7.80 18 7.38 83.506 7.55 418 2.91

CLERICAL 1.887 13.09 11 4.50 194,150 17.56 2.330 16.20

CRAFTSMEN. FOREMEN 1.668 11.57 10 4.10 138.868 12.56 972 6.76

OPERATIVES 1,748 12.12 16 6.56 115.671 10.46 1.735 12.06

TRANSPORT 501 3.47 0 0 46,173 4.18 277 1.93

LABORERS 1.352 9.38 77 31.56 64.825 5.86 1.037 7.21

SERVICE 283 19.63 68 27.87 154.598 13.98 3.401 23 63

AGRIC ULTURAL 258 1 79 7 2.87 42.635 3 86 1.023 7.11

TO TAL 14,420 100.00 244 100 00 1,105.599 100.00 14.386 100.00

SOURCE:

STATE OF OREGON LABOR MARKET INFORMATION FOR 1979 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIO N PROGRAMS. STATE OF

OREGON AND LINCOLN COUNTY. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUM AN RESOURCES. EMPLOYMENT DIV ISION

-38-
EDUCATION

Although the direct determin ants of income are occupation 

and employment status, the basic underlying d eterminant is 

education. There are striking diff erences betw een the educa ­

tional profiles of American Indians and the general population.

As of 1970, the m edian number of school years completed by the 

United States general population was 12.1 as compared with 10.4 

for all American Indian mal es and 10.5 for Am eric an Indian 

females."') While both rural and urban Indians have shown 

improvement at all educ ational levels since 1970, disp arities 

still are bel ieve d to exist.

These dispa rities are well illustrated in the educational data 

available for the Siletz Tribe. In 1970, 62.2 percent of all 

persons 18 years of age or older in Oregon had graduated from 

high school. In 1978, only 55.3 p erce nt of Siletz Indians 

18 year s old or older wi thi n the 8-county service area have 

grad uated from high school. The Siletz people have not yet 

reached the average educatio nal level that the rest of the 

state population ha d achi eved by 1970.

The Siletz people in 1978 had completed college at a rate of 

less than half of that of the gener al population in Lincoln 

County and the State of Oregon in 1970. Detailed information 

on college attendance is included in Table 14."

TABLE 14

SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY

SILETZ IND IAN S, 1978 AND

THE GENERAL POPULATION, 1970

SILE TZ IN DIAN S GEN ERA L POPULATIO N

OUTSIOE

SCHOOL YEARS

SERVICE

AREA

(*>

SERVICE

AREA

(* )

LINCOLN

COUNTY

<*>

OREGON

<*>

U.S.

(* )

1-3 YEARS COLLE GE 6.3 9.7 11.5 13.3 17.1

4 + YEARS COLLE GE 4.5 10.1 7.4 11.8 34.0

NOTE: THIS TABLE INCLUDES DATA FOR PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE OR

OLDER.

• GENERAL POPULATION DATA IS FOR 1970 RATHER THAN 1978

SOURCES:

SERA SURVEY. 1978

1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION. GENERAL SOCIAL ANO ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS. UNITED STATES ANO OREGON SUMMARIES. UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF C OMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

POPULATION OF THE UN ITE D STATES TRENDS AN D PROSPECTS 1960-1990.

CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS. UN ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, p. 186

D

HEW Report, op .c it ., p. 40.
The high school dropout rate is hig h among Siletz children.

Nearly 20 perce nt of all of the A merica n Indian students in 

Lincoln County attend the Siletz School, so it provides an 

excellent case study of the dropout problem. A summary of 

dropout rates for the total high school pop ulation and the 

Indian population is presented in Table 15. It shows that 

over a per iod of 5 school years (1975-1979), Indian students 

have dropped out at almost twice the rate of n on-Indian 

students (17.7 percent to 9.6 percent, respectively).

Of the 19 students who drop ped out during the 1975-1979 

period, only 3 are employed, desp ite the fact that there are 

relatively well-pay ing jobs in the Siletz area that require 

no formal education (logging, mill work, seafood processing).

Of the 12 women dropouts, 3 are employ ed and 9 have small 

children. One of these women is married. Of the 7 men 

dropouts: 1 is in the militar y service, 1 is dead, 1 is in

prison, and 1 has been plac ed by the court syste m into an alcohol 

and drug abuse program. Twelve of the 19 dropouts still 

live in the Siletz area and, according to the Siletz School 

Indian counselor, all but 1 are involved with alcohol and 

drugs. While these statistics repr esent only a small percent 

of all Siletz dropouts, they reflect the problems endemic to 

American Indian youth that are considered in the "Social 

Problems" section of this report.

TABLE 15

INDIAN AND NON-INDIAN DROPOUT RATES,

SILETZ HIGH SCHOOL, 1975-1979

ENROLLMENT

INOIAN NON-IND IAN

NO N- IN DI AN DROPOUTS

DROP- NON-INOIAN

OUTS ENROLLMENT

INOIAN DROP OU TS

ALL

DROP- INOIAN

OUTS ENROLLMENT

YEAR TOTAL (•> (* ) (») <%> <•> <*> <%> (») ( * ) (*»

1974-75 128 25 19.5 103 80.5 13 65.0 ' 12.6 7 35.0 28.0

1975-76 129 22 17.1 107 82.9 11 68.7 10.3 5 31.3 23.6

1976-77 129 18 14.0 111 86.0 10 90.9 9.0 1 9.1 5.5

1977-78 117 18 15.4 99 84 6 15 75.0 15.2 5 25.0 27.7

1978-79 135 24 17.8 111 82.2 2 66.7 1.8 r 33.3 42

TOTAL 638 107 16.8 531 83.2 51 72.9 9.6 19 27.1 17.7

•IN AD DIT ION TO THIS DROPOUT TWO EIG HTH GRAOE IJUNIOR

HIGH SCHOOL i BOYS ALSO DROPPED OUT

NOTE:

THE YEARS W ITH THE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER IND IAN DROPOUT

RATES 1976-77 AND 1978-791 ARE YEARS IN WHICH THE SAME

INOIAN COUNSELOR HAO BEEN ON STAFF FOR TWO

CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

SOURCE:

SILETZ HIGH SCHOOL INDIAN COUNSELOR
APPEND IX D

GOVERNMENT H IL L

G overn m ent H i l l is a 36 a c re s i t e on th e e a s te rn ed ge o f th e 

C it y o f S i l e t z . From th e la t e 1 8 0 0 ’ s u n t i l 19 5 6, i t was th e 

f o c a l p o in t o f th e fo rm e r S il e t z R e s e rv a tio n . The

g o ve rn m e n t b u ild in g s w ere lo c a te d th e r e , in c lu d in g th e 

agency h e a d q u a rte rs , h e a lth c l i n i c , h o u s in g f o r th e e ld e r ly , 

t r i b a l c a n n e ry , r e c r e a t io n a re a , t r i b a l c e m e te ry , and 

s c h o o l. Today th e b u ild in g s a re g o n e , th e H i l l is

o v e rg ro w n , and o n ly th e t r i b a l c e m e te ry re m a in s .

Th e mem bers o f th e S il e t z T rib e f e e l s t r o n g ly a b o u t t h e i r 

h i s t o r i c a l an d c u l t u r a l t ie s to th e H i l l , as e x p re s s e d by 

t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s :

G overn m ent H i l l ha s a v e ry s p e c ia l m eanin g to 

o u r t r i b a l m em bers. When we t h in k o f S i l e t z , 

i t me an s home and G overn m ent H i l l .

A l l th e go od ti m e s c e n te r a ro u n d G ove rn m ent 

H i l l . We re m em be r o u r t r i b a l b u ild in g s where 

o u r C o u n c il m e e ti n g s w ere h e ld , th e In d ia n 

Womens C lu b . . . a l l o f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l and 

s o c ia l f u n c t io n s .

We ha d a C annery w here th e In d ia n women ca nned 

f r u i t an d v e g e ta b le s f o r w in t e r u s e , as w e ll 

as w ild b la c k b e r r y ja m w h ic h was s o ld 

c o m m e rc ia ll y . T here was a p a r t f o r

b a rb e c u e in g and an o u td o o r p la tfo r m f o r o u r 

In d ia n d a n c in g . T here w ere hom es f o r o u r 

e ld e r ly . G oin g eve n f a r t h e r b a c k , th e re was a 

b o a rd in g s c h o o l.

O ur b u r i a l g ro u n d s a re th e r e . G overn m ent H i l l 

i s a s a c re d p la c e to u s , a p la c e w here t r i b a l 

mem be rs can come to g e th e r as In d ia n p e o p le , 

and c a r r y on o u r t r a d i t i o n s .

These t r a d i t i o n s ta k e th e fo rm o f p o tlu c k s , 

Po w-Wow s, s p i r i t u a l encam pm ents , and s o c ia l 

e v e n ts . As In d ia n p e o p le , we ne ed t h i s to 

s u r v iv e . We g a in s tr e n g th fr o m on e a n o th e r.

Many m em ories a re b u rie d deep in o u r h e a r ts ! 

T h is is why G overn m ent H i l l s h o u ld be re tu rn e d 

t o i t s r i g h t f u l ow ners - th e C o n fe d e ra te d 

T rib e s o f S il e t z In d ia n s o f O re g o n .

G overn m ent H i l l was d o n a te d to th e C it y o f S il e t z in 19 56 by 

th e fe d e r a l g o ve rn m e n t u n d e r th e a u t h o r it y o f th e S il e t z 

t e r m in a tio n a c t. The deed c o n v e y in g th e p r o p e r ty c o n ta in e d
th e r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t th e p r o p e r ty be us ed f o r a p u b lic use 

"fro m w hi ch memb ers o f th e t r i b e w ill d e riv e b e n e f i t s . " At 

th e ti m e o f th e t r a n s f e r , th e me mb ers o f th e S i l e t z T ri b e 

u n d e rs to o d t h a t th e C it y wo uld m a in ta in th e ro ad to th e 

c e m e te ry , c r e a t e a p a r k , kee p up th e p ic n ic g ro u n d s and 

b a rb e c u e p i t , and m a in ta in th e h e a lth c l i n i c , c o u n c il h a l l , 

c o t t a g e s , and h i s t o r i c lo g c a b in whi ch once house d th e 

B ur ea u o f In d ia n A f f a i r s .

In 1975, th e C it y tr a n s f e r r e d th e 9 a c re s whi ch make up th e 

t r i b a l cem e te ry to th e P aul W as hin gto n C em et er y A s s o c ia tio n , 

an Ore go n n o n - p r o f it c o r p o r a tio n mad e up o f t r i b a l

mem be rs. The re m a in in g 27 a c r e s a re s t i l l h e ld by th e 

C ity . T her e is a C it y w a te r to w er on th e p r o p e r ty , an d th e 

o ld h e a lth c l i n i c w hi ch i s in ad vanced d i s r e p a i r . None o f 

th e o th e r b u ild in g s re m a in .

The T rib e i s in th e p ro c e s s o f n e g o tia tin g w it h th e C it y o f 

S i l e t z f o r a v o lu n ta ry t r a n s f e r o f th e la n d back to th e 

T r ib e . The C it y wou ld be a b le to r e t a i n th e use o f th e 

w a te r to w e r.

The T rib e wo uld l i k e to r e c o n s tr u c t i t s t r i b a l h e a d q u a rte rs 

on th e H i l l , alo n g w it h co mm un ity f a c i l i t i e s an d r e c r e a ti o n 

c e n t e r . The T ri b e w ill be a b le to use t h i s la n d a s i t s 

r e q u ire d c o n tr ib u tio n f o r c e r t a i n f e d e r a l ag ency g r a n ts th a t 

w i l l a s s i s t in f a c i l i t y c o n s t r u c ti o n . The se f u n c tio n s w ill 

s e rv e a s re s o u rc e s f o r th e co mmun ity as a w hole .
58-253 0

00o

•

SILETZ RESERVATION PLAN: 10-YEAR ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

1987-88 1988-99 1989-90 19 79-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-88 1988 -87

TRIBAL EXPENSESTRIBAL GOVERNMENT

TRIBAL OFFICE STAFF $79,000 $79,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95 000 $95,000

OFFICE OPERATIONS 29.000 29.000 29.000 29.000 29.000 29.000 29 000 29.000 29.000 29 000COUNCIL EXPENDITURES 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000 75.000FACILITY OPERATIONS ANO MAINTENANCE 10,000 10.000 77.000 96.000 98.000 98.000 222.000 234.000 234.000 234.000

TOTAL $193,000 $193,000 $276,000 $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 $421,000 $433,000 $433,000 $433,000

TRIBAL FACILITIES

PLANNING ANO DESIGN $200,000

COMMUNITY UTILITIES $3 000,000

COMMUNITY HALL 1.345.000

OFFICE ANO CLINIC $797,000

RECREATION HALL $3,000,000

OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES $300,000

TRIBAL ENTERPRISES

CAMPGROUND $575,000

BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM 150.000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

TRIBAL BUDGET

SOURCES OF FUNDS

TIMBER SALES $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610,000 $610 000

INTEREST — 58.000 82.000 41.000 48.000 57.000 78.000 46.000 48 000 57 000 70.000BORROWING — — 869.000 159.000 115.000 600.000 60.000

GRANTS — 2.607.000 478.000 345.000 1.800.000 180 000 __ TRIBAL ENTERPRISES — — — — — 26.000 56.000 84.000 117.000 155 000 194 000

RESERVE FUND — 576.000 817.000 413.000 480.000 557.000 781.000 456.000 315.000 249.000 230 000

FACILITY RENTAL - - - 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000

TOTAL $610,000 $1,244,000 $4,985,000 $1,701,000 $1,610,000 $1,262,000 $3,937,000 $1,448,000 $1,102,000 $1,083,000 $1.116 000

USES OF FUNOS

AMORTIZATION OF OEBT — - - $114,000 $135,000 $150,000 $150,000 $228000 $236,000 $236 000 $236,000

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT — $193,000 $193,000 276.000 297.000 297.000 297 000 421.000 433.000 433.000 433.000

TRIBAL FACILITIES — 200.000 *4.345.000 *797.000 *3.000.000 *300.000 _ TRIBAL ENTERPRISES — —- — — *575.000 — 150.000 150.000 150 000 150.000

RESERVE FUND 576.000 817.000 413.000 480.000 569 000 781.000 456.000 315.000 249.000 230.000 263 000PAYMENT FOR LINCOLN COUNTY 34.000 34 000 34.000 34.000- 34,000 34.000 34.000 34.000 34 000 34 000 34.000

TOTAL $610,000 $1,244,000 $4,985,000 $1,701,000 $1,610,000 $1,262,000 $3,937,000 $1.448 000 $1.102 000 $1 083 000 $1,116,000

Tribal Funds *$86 9 000 *$160,000 *$115,000 *$600,000 ‘ $60 000

Borrowed 869.000 159.000 115.000 600.000 60.000

Grantisi 2.607.000 478.000 345.000 1.800.000 800.000

$4,345,000 $797,000 $575,000 $3,000,000 300.000

NOTE:

All figures i re indicaied in constant 1978 dollar* and are rounded Io the nearest $ 1.000

— I

GO

APPENDIX w
174

SILE TZ RESERVATION PLAN

A s s u m p ti o n s Use d in D e v e lo p in g 1 0 -Y e a r E conom ic P r o je c tio n s

1 . The T r ib e 's in co m e s h o u ld be a d e q u a te to s u p p o rt t r i b a l 

g o ve rn m e n t and s e r v ic e p ro g ra m expenses n o t fu n d a b le 

th ro u g h g r a n ts , an d s h o u ld e n a b le th e T rib e to b u ild 

f a c i l i t i e s and in v e s t in b u s in e s s e n t e r p r is e s .

2 . P r o je c tio n s r e f l e c t g o a ls an d p r i o r i t i e s a d o p te d by th e 

T r ib e . W h ile t im in g , it e m s to be fu n d e d , an d c o s ts 

c o u ld v a ry c o n s id e r a b ly , th e p r o je c t io n s a tte m p t to 

p ro v id e a r e a l i s t i c s c e n a rio f o r a c c o m p li s h in g th e s e 

g o a ls .

3. T r ib a l g o ve rn m e n t expe nse s a re base d up on e s tim a te s 

p ro v id e d by th e B IA o f a d m in is t r a t iv e s t a f f , o f f i c e 

o p e ra tio n and m a in te n a n c e c o s ts . O n ly th o s e c o s ts t h a t 

c a n n o t be fu n d e d th ro u g h g ra n ts a re in c lu d e d .

4. F a c i l i t y c o s ts a re based up on b u ild in g s q u a re fo o ta g e s 

p ro v id e d by B IA and c o n s t r u c t io n c o s t e s tim a te s p re p a re d 

b y CH2M H IL L a r c h it e c t s and e s tim a to r s . I t is assumed 

t h a t th e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be c o n s tru c te d on G overn m ent 

H i l l in S i l e t z . U t i l i t y c o s ts a re a d e q u a te to fu n d 

c o n n e c tio n s to th e c i t y se w er and w a te r syste m s o r 

d e v e lo p m e n t o f a co m m u n ity s e p tic s y s te m , w a te r to w e r 

an d w a te r d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s te m .

5. V a rio u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t r i b a l e n te r p r is e s w ere 

re v ie w e d by CH2M H IL L . The cam pgro und e n te r p r is e ha s a 

re a s o n a b le chance o f su c c e s s i f a s i t e w ith acce ss to 

Hig hw ay 101 can be p u rc h a s e d ; th e o th e r p o s s ib le 

e n te r p r is e s w ere fo u n d to be in f e a s ib le and a re n o t 

in c lu d e d in th e p r o je c t io n s . The f ig u r e s f o r ca m pgro und 

e x p e n d it u re s and in co m e a re base d on a 1 0 -y e a r cash flo w 

a n a ly s is o f a K O A -type o p e r a tio n p re p a re d by CH2M

H IL L .

6. The b u s in e s s lo a n pro g ra m is to be a d m in is te re d by th e 

T rib e an d w i l l p r o v id e lo w - in t e r e s t lo a n s to p r iv a t e 

b u s in e s s e s ow ne d by t r i b a l m em bers. The se lo a n s a re 

p ro je c te d a t an in t e r e s t r a t e o f 7 p e rc e n t and r e tu r n s 

a re p r o je c te d a t 6 .5 p e rc e n t. The re m a in in g . 5 p e rc e n t 

is re s e rv e d to fu n d p ro g ra m a d m in is t r a t io n . R e tu rn s 

fr o m lo a n s made by th e T rib e a re r e f le c t e d in th e 

" in t e r e s t " c a te g o ry o f "s o u rc e s o f fu n d s " in th e 

a tta c h e d t a b le .

7. T im ber s a le re v e n u e s a re based up on th e B IA 's e s tim a te 

o f th e num ber o f b o a rd fe e t o f tim b e r on th e BLM p u b lic 

dom ain la n d s in T9SR9W, T10SR8W, T10SR9W, and T10SR10W 

(fr o m c u r r e n t BLM d a t a ) , th e Kemp fo rm u la f o r a ll o w a b le

)

-4 4 -
175

c u t , an 8 0 -y e a r r o t a t io n and 19 78 lo g v a lu e s . I t is 

a ls o assumed t h a t 10 p e rc e n t o f th e g ro s s tim b e r s a le 

re ve n u e w i l l be p a id to BIA f o r m anagem ent.

8. T im b e r s a le s a lo n e do n o t p ro v id e enough in co m e to 

s u p p o rt t r i b a l g o ve rn m e n t and d e v e lo p m e n t o f t r i b a l 

f a c i l i t i e s and e n t e r p r is e s . In o rd e r to p ro v id e 

a d d it io n a l in co m e i t i s as sumed t h a t t r i b a l f a c i l i t i e s 

and th e cam pgro und w i l l be fin a n c e d a c c o rd in g to th e 

f o llo w in g fo rm u la :

T r ib a l F unds: 20%

B o rro w in g : 20%

i G r a n t( s ) : 60%

T h is is n o t u n r e a l i s t i c s in c e th e T rib e is e l i g i b l e f o r 

a v a r i e t y o f g ra n ts fr o m EDA, HUD, and FmHA. Some o f 

th e g r a n t p ro g ra m s fu n d 100 p e rc e n t o f p r o je c t c o s ts , 

o th e r s 50 p e rc e n t and o th e r s a le s s e r p e rc e n t. Th e 60 

p e rc e n t f ig u r e p r o je c t s an o v e r a ll a v e ra g e o f g r a n t 

fu n d s to be o b ta in e d r a t h e r th a n an a s s u m p ti o n t h a t 60 

p e rc e n t o f e v e ry p r o je c t w i l l be fu n d e d by g r a n ts .

9. I t is assumed t h a t th e b o rr o w e d p o r t io n o f f a c i l i t y and 

cam pgro und fin a n c in g w i l l be a t a 10 p e rc e n t in t e r e s t 

r a t e o v e r a 15 y e a r p e r io d . I n t e r e s t on " re s e r v e fu n d " 

s a v in g s a re a ls o p r o je c te d a t 10 p e rc e n t.

10. F a c i l i t y r e n t a l is e s tim a te d a t $8 p e r sq u a re f o o t .

T h is in com e r e p r e s e n ts r e n t to be p a id by th e B IA to th e 

T rib e f o r us e o f o f f i c e s p a c e . W h ile us e o f th e 

f a c i l i t i e s by th e S il e t z co m m u n ity is e x p e c te d , no 

in co m e is p ro je c te d fr o m t h is u se .

11. The T rib e w i l l make a n n u a l paym ents to L in c o ln C o u n ty o f 

5 p e rc e n t o f th e v a lu e o f tim b e r s a le s so t h a t th e s e 

re v e n u e s a re n o t l o s t to th e C o u n ty when th e la n d is 

t r a n s f e r r e d fr o m BLM o w n e rs h ip to be h e ld in t r u s t f o r 

th e T r ib e . The se a re r e f le c t e d in th e "p aym e n ts to 

L in c o ln C o u n ty " c a te g o ry o f "u s e s o f fu n d s " in th e 

a tta c h e d t a b le .

(

- 4 5 -
176

C

SILETZ RESERVATION 

ESTIMATED TRIBAL EXPENDITURES

PLAN

(1 979 DOLLARS)

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT EXPENSES

T r ib a l O f f i c e S t a f f

1 C e r t i f i e d P u b lic A c c o u n ta n t 2 0 ,0 0 0

1 B o o k k e ep e r 1 0 ,0 0 0

2 B o o k k e e p e rs ( t o be ad d ed in 1 9 8 2 -8 3 ) 2 0 ,0 0 0

F r in g e b e n e f i t s (1 2 .5 % ) 6 ,2 50

L eg a l s e r v i c e s 3 0 ,0 0 0

P la n n in g s e r v i c e s 1 5 ,0 0 0

S u b t o t a l 9 5 ,2 50

O f f ic e O p e r a tio n s

P a p e r 3 ,0 0 0

T e le p h o n e ( 1 ,0 0 0 p e r m o n th ) 1 2 ,0 0 0

P o s ta g e (5 0 0 p e r m o n th ) 6 ,0 0 0

P r i n t i n g 1 ,0 0 0

M is c e lla n e o u s s u p p l i e s 2 ,0 0 0

N e w s le tte r 5 ,0 0 0

S u b t o t a l 2 9 ,0 0 0

T r ib a l C o u n c il

1 T r i b a l C h air m an 1 2 ,0 0 0

1 S e c r e t a r y 1 3 ,5 0 0

F r in g e b e n e f i t s (1 2.5 % ) 3 ,1 8 7

P e r die m e x p e n s e s ($ 30 p e r m e e tin g /

68 m e e tin g s p e r y e a r / 8 c o u n c i l m em be rs 1 6 ,3 2 0

T r a v e l re im b u rs e m e n ts (1 7 < f/ m il e ) 3 0 ,0 0 0

S u b t o t a l 7 5 ,0 0 7

I

F

F a c i l i t y M a in te n a n c e and O p e r a tio n 

1 9 7 9 -8 0 O f f ic e 

C om m un ity h a l l

1 6 ,7 2 0 s q . f t . a t $4 p e r s q . f t .

1 0 ,0 0 0

6 6 ,8 8 0

New o f f i c e an d c l i n i c

7 ,7 6 0 s q . f t . a t $4 p e r s q . f t .

( t o r e p l a c e 1 9 7 9 -1 9 8 0 o f f i c e ) 3 1 ,0 4 0

O u td o o r r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s

L i g h t s , g r o u n d s k e e p in g , r e p a i r , i n s u r a n c e 1 2 ,0 0 0

k

>

- 4 6 -
R e c re a tio n h a l l

3 0,9 0 0 s q . f t . a t $4 p e r s q . f t 123,6 00

S u b to ta l 233,5 20

TOTAL TRIBAL GOVERNMENT EXPENSES 432,7 77

TRIBAL FACIL ITIES

P re lim in a ry p la n n in g and d e sig n 

Comm unity u t i l i t i e s

200,0 00

Sewe r

W at er

1 /2 m il e ro a d 

G ra v el p a rk in g 

Pav ed p a rk in g

* 1 ,2 4 3 ,0 0 0

**400,0 00

127 ,0 0 0

120,0 00

C o n ti n g e n c y (35%)

60,0 00

1 ,0 5 0 ,0 0 0

S u b to ta l 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

* Comm unity s e p t i c sy ste m o r l i n e fr om S i l e t z . Pa ym en t f o r 

tr e a tm e n t wo uld be a d d i t i o n a l .

** W at er to w er an d d i s t r i b u t i o n c lo s e by o r l i n e from 

S i l e t z .

Comm unity h a l l - 1 6 ,7 2 0 s q . f t . in c lu d in g la r g e m eeti n g 

ro om , k itc h e n , mu seu m, fo u r c l a s s o r m eeti n g ro om s, 

da y c a re c e n te r

E n g in e e rin g an d s i t e p r e p a r a tio n 75,0 00

C o n s tr u c ti o n "746 ,000

L an d sc ap in g 75,0 00

F u rn is h in g 100,0 00

C o n ti n g en cy (35% ) 349,0 00

S u b to ta l 1 ,3 4 5 ,0 0 0

O ffic e and C lin ic - 7 ,7 6 0 s q . f t . in c lu d in g 4 ,3 2 0 sq . f t . 

t r i b a l o f f i c e , 1 ,4 4 0 s q . f t . BIA o f f i c e , 2 ,0 0 0 s q . f t . 

m ed ic al and d e n ta l c l i n i c

E n g in e e rin g an d s i t e p r e p a r a tio n

C o n s tr u c ti o n

L andsc apin g

F u rn is h in g

C o n ti n g en cy (35%)

4 5 ,0 0 0

450,0 00

4 5 ,0 00 

50 ,0 00 

206, 500

S u b to ta l 796 , 500
O utd o o r r e c r e a ti o n f a c i l i t i e s - in c lu d in g 2 te n n i s c o u r t s , 

b a s e b a ll f i e l d , f o o t b a ll f i e l d

E n g in e e rin g an d s i t e p r e p a r a tio n 2 0 ,0 0 0

C o n s tr u c ti o n 203,5 00

C o n ti n g en cy (35% ) 78,0 00

S u b to ta l 301,0 00

R e c re a tio n h a l l - 3 0 ,9 0 0 s q . f t . in c lu d in g gym na si um ,

s t a g e , k itc h e n , m e e ti n g ro o m /s o c ia l h a l l , fo u r c l a s s 

o r m eeti n g ro om s, sh o w e rs, lo c k e r room s

E n g in e e rin g an d s i t e p r e p a r a ti o n 169,0 00

C o n s tr u c ti o n 1 ,6 6 8 ,5 0 0

L an d sc ap in g 170,0 00

F u rn is h in g 225,0 00

C o n ti n g en cy (35% ) 781,5 00

S u b to ta l 3 ,0 1 4 ,0 0 0

TOTAL TRIBAL FACILITY COSTS 8 ,4 5 6 , 500
179

SILETZ RESERVATION PLAN 

SCHEDULE OF NET INCOME FOR 

A 1 50-S IT E CAMPGROUND

1

T o ta l C o s ts ^

Year A nnual C u m u la tiv e

1 6 7,0 00 6 7,0 00

2 6 6,0 00 1 3 4 ,0 0 0

3 76,0 00 2 0 9 ,0 0 0

4 7 6,0 00 2 8 5 ,0 0 0

5 76,0 00 3 6 1 ,0 0 0

6 7 6,0 00 4 3 2 ,0 0 0

7 76,0 00 513,0 00

8 7 6,0 00 589,0 00

9 7 6,0 00 6 65,0 00

10 7 6,0 00 741 ,0 0 0

T o ta l Re ve nu e

A n n ua l C u m u la tiv e

C u m u la tiv e

In co m e

$ 9 3 ,0 0 0 $ 9 3 ,0 0 0 + 2 6 ,0 0 0

9 7 ,0 0 0 1 9 0 ,0 0 0 + 56,0 00

1 0 3 ,0 0 0 2 9 3 ,0 0 0 + 8 4 ,0 0 0

1 0 9 ,0 0 0 4 02 ,0 0 0 + 1 1 7,0 0 0

1 1 4 ,0 0 0 516,0 00 + 1 5 5,0 0 0

115 ,0 0 0 631,0 00 + 1 9 4 ,0 0 0

1 1 6 ,0 0 0 74 7 ,0 00 +23 5,0 00

1 1 6 ,0 0 0 8 6 3 ,0 0 0 + 2 7 4 ,0 0 0

1 1 6 ,0 0 0 9 79 ,0 0 0 + 3 1 4,0 0 0

1 1 7 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 9 6 ,0 0 0 +3 55,0 00

1

NOTE: F ig u re s a re ro u n d e d to t h e n e a r e s t $ 1 ,0 0 0 .

1

 In c lu d e s a m o r t iz a tio n o f b o rr o w e d c a p it a l in e q u a l a n n u a l p a ym e n ts .

S o u rc e : CH2M H IL L

J

- 4 9 -
180
181

APPENDIX G

SILETZ RESERVATION PLAN

Tim be r Rev en ue s

A ve ra ge an n u al ti m b e r re v e n u e s from th e 3 ,6 6 6 a c r e s o f BLM 

ti m b e rla n d in T9SR9W, T10SR8W, T10SR9W, an d T10ST10W we re 

c a lc u la te d on th e b a s is o f th e e s ti m a te d nu mb er o f board 

f e e t o f ti m b e r on th o s e p a r t i c u l a r a c r e s , th e Kemp fo rm ula 

f o r a ll o w a b le c u t , an 8 0 -y e a r r o t a ti o n and 19 78 lo g 

v a lu e s .

T o ta l ti m b e r re v e n u e s : §677 ,8 88

T o ta l lo s s to F e d e ra l govern m ent (95% ): 64 3, 99 4

T o ta l lo s s to L in c o ln Cou nt y (5% ): 33,8 94

Ti mbe r re v en u e p e r a c re ($ 6 7 7 ,8 8 8 /3 ,6 6 6 a c r e s ) : $ 1 8 4 .9 1 /a c re

The BLM owns 27 p e r c e n t o f a l l la n d in th e S ta te o f 

O re go n. The Sa lem D i s t r i c t o f th e BLM man ag es o v e r 400,0 00 

a c r e s o f la n d . The lo s s o f 3 ,6 6 6 a c re s w ill am ou nt to le s s 

th a n a 1 p e rc e n t re d u c tio n in i t s t o t a l la n d a r e a .

The T r i b e 's an n u al n e t ti m b e r re v e n u e s were c a lc u la te d on 

th e assu m p ti o n t h a t BIA r e c e iv e s 10 p e rc e n t o f th e g ro s s 

re v e n u e .

T o ta l re v e n u e : 

Les s BIA f e e : 

N et to t r i b e :

$678,0 00

67, 800

$610,2 00

4

0

-5 1 -
APPENDIX H

SILETZ RESERVATION PLAN

C o st to F e d e r a l G o v ern m en t f o r R e - E s ta b l is h in g 

R e s e r v a t io n f o r S i l e t z I n d i a n s

A nnual E x p en ses o r L o ss o f R ev en ue

L o ss o f ti m b e r r e v e n u e s fr o m BLM la n d $ 6 4 4 ,0 0 0

C o st o f new s e r v i c e s to b e p r o v id e d on th e 

R e s e r v a tio n :

M e d ic a l S o c i a l W ork er 3 0 ,0 0 0

M e n ta l H e a lth ( i n c r e a s e s t o $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

in 1 9 8 2 -1 9 8 4 ) 1 5 ,0 0 0

Com mun ity H e a lth R e p r e s e n t a t i v e 4 5 ,0 0 0

Com mun ity H e a lth N u t r i t i o n

( i n c r e a s e s t o $ 9 0 ,0 0 0 i n 1 9 8 3 -8 4 ) 8 ,0 0 0

Y outh Camp 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSE $ 8 4 2 ,0 0 0
SILETZ RESERVATION PLAN

E xp e cte d E x p e n d it u re s f o r S e rv ic e s to S ile t z In d ia n s ^ - 

( E ig h t-C o u n ty S e rv ic e A re a )

1980-1 981 1981-1 982 1 982-1 983 1 9 8 3 -1 9 8 4 2

A lc o h o l ism •

S ta te $ 3 4 ,0 0 0 $ 3 4 ,0 0 0 $ 3 4 ,0 0 0 $ 3 4 ,0 0 0 In d ia n H e a lt h S e rv ic e 3 4,0 00 3 4,0 00 3 4 ,0 0 0 3 4 ,0 0 0

E d u c a tio n 2 2 5 ,0 0 0 2 2 5 ,0 0 0 22 5,0 00 2 2 5 ,0 0 0

H ou sin g 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

E n ro ll m e n t 2 5,0 00 2 5 ,0 0 0 2 5,0 00 2 5 ,0 0 0

FmHA 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0

V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n 9 4 ,0 0 0 9 4 ,0 0 0 9 4,0 00 9 4 ,0 0 0

B IA A d m in is tr a tio n 1 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 0 2 ,0 0 0H e a lt h

D e n ta l 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 M e d ic a l 1 9 2 ,5 0 0 1 9 2 ,5 0 0 1 9 2 ,5 0 0 1 9 2 ,5 0 0 M e d ic a l S o c ia l W ork er 3 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 M e n ta l H e a lt h 1 5 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 C om m unity H e a lt h R e p re s e n ta tiv e 4 5 ,0 0 0 4 5,0 00 4 5 ,0 0 0 4 5,0 00 C om m unity H e a lt h / N u t r it io n 8 ,0 0 0 8 ,0 0 0 8 ,0 0 0 9 0,0 00

Y o u th Camp 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

CETA 9 9 ,0 0 0 9 9,0 00 9 9,0 00 9 9,0 00

STOWW 1 9 ,8 0 0 1 9 ,8 0 0 1 9,8 00 1 9 ,8 0 0

C om m unity Food N u t r it io n 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0 3 ,3 0 0

TOTAL $ 1 ,2 4 9 ,9 0 0 $ 1 ,2 4 9 ,9 0 0 $ 1 ,3 3 4 ,9 0 0 $ 1 ,4 1 6 ,9 0 0

AP PEND IX

^1 979 d o lla r s

F o r y e a rs 1984 th ro u g h 1 99 0 , th e f ig u r e s a re th e same as show n f o r 1 9 8 3 -1 9 8 4 . 

SOURCE: B ure au o f In d ia n A f f a ir s