Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Special Park Use Management Plan

In 1987, Superintendent Kuiper and his staff began drafting a "Special Park Use Management Plan" to bring LARO policies into line with the recently released Servicewide guidelines in NPS-53. The park released the draft for review in February 1989, providing copies to commissioners in the surrounding counties, various user groups, and individuals. LARO staff held public meetings with the Lake Roosevelt Property Owners Association, Lake Roosevelt Development Association, Seven Bays Homeowners Association, Save Our Shorelines Association, three yacht clubs, and two fishing clubs. All meetings gave the Park Service a chance to provide information on the draft plan and offered citizens a chance to comment. LARO also distributed more than one hundred fifty copies of the draft and extended the comment period from March 10 to September 15. Despite this, there were just fifty-six written comments showing opinion roughly split, with twenty-nine in favor of the new plan and twenty-seven opposed. During this review period, LARO placed a moratorium on new applications for special use permits. [55]

LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan laid the groundwork for a total revision of the leases and permits allowing private use of lands within the NRA. The plan stressed the Park Service policy to end all private uses that were either incompatible with public uses or not in the best interest of the public. In addition, Congress had mandated that the Park Service conserve resources to "leave them unimpaired for future generations," and LARO management had determined that most special uses caused impairment. The park saw a conflict between the more than two hundred special use permits and the significantly increased visitation that impacted both resource management and public relations. Given this background, LARO arrived at a management goal: "to protect the natural appearance of the lakeshore and restore the public shoreline to natural open space for use by the general public." [56]

This goal meant a radical change for LARO and its permittees. The plan called for no further special use permits that did not meet the guidelines of NPS-53, along with a phasing out of those existing permits that failed these standards. Only permits deemed compatible would be renewed. Given these tough standards, any improvement that suggested private ownership was scheduled for phase-out, including all boat docks (both private and group), boat houses, gasoline storage tanks, stairways, patios, lawns, landscaping, fences, fireplaces, sheds, and flag poles. In addition, all grazing and agricultural permits would be phased out, the first by 1995 and the second by early 1998. The only special use not targeted was private water-withdrawal systems that would be allowed under permit as long as the facilities were unobtrusive. After all, withdrawal of water for agriculture had always been compatible with Reclamation's project purposes. [57]

Example of stairway encroachment on LARO lands, September 1991. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO.HQ.PAO).

To soften the effect of these drastic changes, LARO proposed a phase-out period for all uses scheduled for termination. Although such phasing out did not meet NPS-53 guidelines, the Park Service viewed this as a compromise as well as a way to allow owners to amortize their investment. For instance, following termination of the current permit, all private docks would be extended for one five-year period, ending no later than 1997; any group dock could be extended for two five-year periods, with all terminated by 2002. Lawn permits had a shorter extension of only two years. Many other uses, such as stairways and firepits, were listed as special conditions, due for removal by the end of the first permit extension. The park also recognized that the loss of private docks would put subsequent pressure on public facilities. Special Congressional appropriations, championed by Congressman Tom Foley, resulted in $1.9 million in FY1991 and 1992 to help build six new boat launch ramps and retrofit and expand nine existing ones. These new facilities provided better access than docks during times of lower lake levels. They also partly mitigated the "pending inconvenience in access" for some adjacent landowners. [58]

In addition to a total revision of permitted uses, the Special Park Use Management Plan provided for significantly increased fees. Applicants for a new or renewed permit now had to pay a minimum administrative fee of $225, with additional expenses if the permit required an environmental or archaeological assessment. LARO based fees for boat docks on moorage rates at other locations in the West and arrived at a suggested fee of $250 per year. Park Service Deputy Regional Director William Briggle revised the rates, however, to soften the blow. Under the new formula, the owner of a private dock would pay $225 for the first year and $100 each year thereafter. Identical rates applied to individuals using a community dock with multiple ties, with each tie assessed an annual fee. Revised rates for mooring buoys were $175 for the first year and $50 for the next four years. Families with leases on summer cabin sites also had new rates, based on a 1988 appraisal by Reclamation. Sherman Creek sites had an annual fee of $1,050, while lakeside lots at Rickey Point went for $850 and secondary lots for $550. [60]

By 1990, the only industrial use remaining on park land and water was the Boise Cascade lumber mill at Kettle Falls. Despite the decades-old permit for that site, LARO moved to cancel the lease because the industrial use was no longer consistent with the purpose of the NRA. The agency terminated the log storage in the lake, which was no longer used, and started a phase-out of log storage on public lands. Under the plan, the permit would be renewed in 1990 and again in 1995, only if all conditions were met, with operations ending in 2000. Figuring the annual lease fee at 5 percent of the appraised value, LARO raised the fee to $2,838, with an additional $225 administrative fee charged the first year. The mill, located on adjacent private lands, had only a small part of its operations on federally-owned lands. Still, the Park Service met great resistance in its effort to get all mill operations, which no longer needed water access, off federal property. The controversy was eventually resolved through a land exchange completed in November 1996. [61]

As LARO reduced special uses in the park, it also concentrated efforts on controlling encroachments and trespasses. Some problems with adjacent landowners stemmed from years of use, and residents naturally complained when told to remove lawns and other private development on federal lands. These issues formed the basis of a protracted disagreement between the Park Service and the residents of the Riverview Area Association in 1986-1987. In the years since the start of the development in 1959, residents had encroached onto park lands with lawns, sprinklers, a parking area, pumps, and a fire ring. Some of this was a result of legitimate misunderstanding of the property lines, and it was not until Reclamation resurveyed the boundary that many owners realized they were using federal lands. As the group negotiated for a renewal of their special use permit for a dock in 1986, LARO told them that conditions would include reducing the amount of lawn and removing other forms of trespass, including their unpermitted swimming platform and diving board. All of this was part of the park's move to restore shore lands to their natural condition to encourage use by the visiting public. Association members objected to both Park Service actions and logic, claiming that the American public, including LARO visitors, preferred green grass to weeds. They were willing to remove the fire ring and the dock but insisted that all other improvements were for the safety and enjoyment of the public. They warned of appeal, if necessary, through both Park Service and political channels. Superintendent Kuiper was willing to compromise on several points, including a mowed path and a strip of grass in front of the cabins and by the dock. In addition, he offered twelve boat slips and three mooring buoys under special use permit. Despite these concessions, the group appealed up the Park Service chain of command, hiring a lawyer to further their cause. This time, however, the National Park Service Director backed LARO staff. He noted that the compromise lawn area was sufficient and declined the Association's request for further privatization of park lands. Instead of a dock, the community is now served by nine mooring buoys. [62]

LARO staff started to inspect park lands in 1988 to document encroachments and soon realized that the situation was worse than suggested by earlier reports. By the middle of the year, they had found more than five hundred cases and estimated there might be another three hundred. The numbers rose faster than expected, and by late 1989 the park had found 750 trespasses by 145 individuals and expected to locate over 1,500 more by the time the surveys were completed. [63]

The regional office sent an Operations Evaluation Team in 1989 to review encroachment and trespass issues at LARO. One member, impressed with the scope of the problem, commented, "While the more recent efforts have been noble, it may be too little, too late." He found a number of difficulties that contributed to the problems at the park. These included lack of staffing; staff burnout; lack of communication with adjacent county planners; sporadic communications with local realtors; problems in identifying who was responsible for the encroachment; no reporting system; increasing organization of adjacent property owners to lobby politicians; lack of boundary markers in some areas; and difficulty in distinguishing between permitted uses and those in trespass. To help remedy these problems, he recommended that the park institute a "Good Neighbor" policy, getting to know adjacent owners and homeowners associations, realtors, planners, and other county staff to educate them and begin improving relationships. He also suggested mapping all permitted uses and computerizing the data. Finally, he recommended staff increases to include a full-time GS-13 Assistant Superintendent trained as a Realty Specialist, along with three GS-7 seasonal rangers for eight months to do the necessary field work that the regular staff could not assume. [64]

Land encroachment at LARO. House and yard to left of dark line in photo are on private land; deck and garden to right of line are on LARO land. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO.HQ.PAO).

LARO had already taken some of the "Good Neighbor" steps recommended during the regional office review to head off problems with adjacent owners and developers. For instance, in 1977 the Stevens County Planning Commission asked Superintendent William Dunmire to comment on a subdivision proposed at Snag Cove. He recommended covenants and restrictions to protect the scenic quality of the shoreline and also suggested that the boundary be clearly marked to prevent inadvertent trespass. In addition, he proposed that the developer notify buyers that they could not develop the lakeshore but they could apply for a community dock. LARO staff commented similarly when a subdivision was proposed for the area near the old Lincoln mill in 1984. They encouraged setbacks of approximately twenty-five feet to prevent lawns and gardens from encroaching on park lands, along with a clear statement to prospective buyers concerning use of federal property. When Gary Kuiper took over as Superintendent, he warned realtors in neighboring towns against advertising properties as having frontage on Lake Roosevelt, a misrepresentation that contributed to encroachments. This problem, however, continued for a number of years. [65]

The Park Service and Reclamation cooperated in 1989 to develop a Trespass Action Plan to help the agencies be consistent in dealing with cases of inappropriate use of federal lands. It included some of the ideas recommended by the regional office. The plan involved basically a three-pronged approach. The first part, the Good Neighbor Initiative, gave priority to marking park boundaries, along with inventorying lands for encroachments, identifying individuals responsible for the trespass, tracking these trespasses and prioritizing them, and finally initiating legal action where needed. The second part of the plan centered around improved communications and education efforts with surrounding landowners, developers, realtors, and community officials as well as special-interest groups. The final part was concerned with the mitigation of encroachments and trespasses, including removal, monitoring, and potential legal action. It also encouraged development of a plan to deal with major encroachments, such as docks, that were abandoned or scheduled for removal by the Park Service. Estimated costs of implementing the plan totaled $163,000 per year for five years, with another $49,000 for administrative costs. Following approval of the plan, Reclamation agreed to mark boundaries and provide realty assistance, while LARO undertook inventory and identification of trespasses, established a public relations program, and initiated mitigation procedures. Costs were to be divided, with totals projected at $100,000 annually. Two seasonal rangers documented several hundred encroachments during 1992 and 1993. [66]

As a last resort, LARO prosecuted violators. Most involved major encroachments, such as Michael Malone's multiple trespasses on park land at Hunter's Creek in 1987. These included a barbed-wire fence running across government land and into the lake; construction of a boat ramp; clearing with a bulldozer and spraying with herbicide; construction of concrete steps and a wooden bridge; fill material bulldozed into the creek; installation of a concrete pad for a caretaker's house; and finally, posting a no trespassing sign on park lands. Although Malone admitted he knew about the encroachments installed by his contractor, and he agreed to cooperate, he ended up appealing his case to the highest levels of the Department of the Interior and Congress. LARO completed its investigation and turned it over to the U.S. Attorney. The case was not resolved until 1992 when Malone signed a pre-trial diversion agreement that stipulated removal of encroachments, site restoration, and payment of $3,373 to cover administrative fees. Malone met the terms of the agreement and LARO staff notified the U.S. Attorney's Office in December 1992 that the Park Service was satisfied with the restoration. [67]

By 1992, the U.S. Attorney advised LARO officials that they should, whenever possible, use pre-trial diversion agreements to resolve disputes, thus avoiding court proceedings. As in the Malone case, these required that the encroachments be removed and the area restored to Park Service approval, along with a fine to compensate the agency for costs of the investigation and restoration. At least two other national park units had established special donation accounts to accept court-ordered restitution, enabling the park to then use the money for operational expenses. LARO established just such an account to take advantage of several cases involving sizeable fines. The park was able to resolve most encroachments through informal negotiations with the adjacent landowners, avoiding the need to take the cases to court. Of fifty people contacted by early 1993, all but six agreed to remove the trespass; those refusing faced legal action. Another fifty people reached the following year complied with the Park Service request to remove encroachments. [68]