Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

Reaction to the Special Park Use Management Plan

Given all the proposed changes, public relations played an important part for all sides in the special use campaign at LARO. Kuiper and his staff chose their words carefully when they defined special uses as "privatization of public lands," suggesting that users were taking something for themselves that really belonged to everyone. "It was very effective to use that," remembered Kuiper. In addition, they worked to educate those whose support they needed. They first had to explain the complex situation at LARO to the regional office so staff there could respond when confronted with the issue. To further this end, they hosted a Superintendents' conference at the park and took attendees out on Lake Roosevelt in houseboats. As they cruised along the shoreline, they asked the visitors to tell them where the boundary was. With development, docks, and associated encroachments, the line was hazy — but the scope of the problem was clear. LARO personnel took the same trip in April 1991 with staff from various congressional offices to acquaint them with the land management issues facing the Park Service at Lake Roosevelt. Rep. Tom Foley backed LARO staff as they worked to implement the federal guidelines handed down through NPS-53. That summer, Foley met with a group of ranchers, adjacent property owners, and county commissioners, all of whom wanted him to help them stop the implementation of the Special Park Use Management Plan. LARO officials briefed Foley before the meeting. After listening to his constituents, he still backed the LARO plan with its long phase-out period. "From that day on, we charged ahead," said Kuiper. [69]

Despite LARO's efforts at public relations, changes in the system of special use permits and reduction of encroachments generated complaints that have continued for years. Some alleged that local Park Service management was unresponsive to the public and allowed no input on its Special Park Use Management Plan. Others suggested that LARO was enforcing more severe restrictions than mandated by NPS-53. One person maintained that Park Service policy did not distinguish among places designated as wilderness, national parks, or national recreation areas, applying the same restrictions to all when this was inappropriate for the use. Permittees, of course, had their own complaints that included restrictions on their lifestyles, limited access to the lake front, and increasing congestion at public launching facilities. LARO officials responded to complaints with letters and press releases that reiterated their theme of returning public lands to public uses, away from private uses that benefit just a select few. [70]

Throughout the years of controversy, LARO management had its vocal supporters as well, individuals who wrote letters and spoke at public meetings. When District Ranger Steve Castro-Shrader spoke to a large crowd at the Seven Bays Homeowners Association in 1987, discussing encroachments and restrictions on off-road vehicles, he did not hear any negative comments or questions. He found the people supportive of the Park Service in its efforts to deal with uses that had gotten out of control. Supporters understood LARO's catch-phrase about privatization of public lands. For instance, one man explained that private docks force the public to look for other beaches. "That's essentially turning public property into private property by intimidation," he suggested. Some wanted LARO to enforce NPS-53 more strictly, suggesting that docks should be terminated in no more than three years instead of the twelve year phase-out period. When compared to fees of up to $1,200 per year for a private boat slip rental, Park Service charges were seen as too lenient. Finally, a number of individuals wrote to their congressional delegation to voice support for local LARO staff and their work with enforcement of permits and general management of the park. [71]

Grazing and agricultural permits were among the first to be scheduled for termination, with no additional extensions proposed beyond the original 1995 and 1998 dates. In 1991, LARO still managed thirteen grazing permits that covered 290 cattle, 7 horses, and 27 sheep. The livestock left waste on beaches and campgrounds, posing threats to both the water supply and visitor enjoyment. Fees generated by these permits brought in less than $1,500. Ranchers who leased the NRA shore lands felt threatened by the Park Service's move to terminate grazing because their leases included access to water, and they appealed to their congressional delegation. During at least two meetings with LARO personnel in 1991, cattlemen expressed their concerns and the Park Service reiterated its policy of allowing water withdrawals from the lake for agricultural purposes. They also discussed fencing as a potential solution. LARO had already enclosed the area around Plum Point, leaving a corridor to provide stock access to the lake, and the group talked about fencing other sensitive areas such as Hunters and Hawk Creek. The park agreed to appoint a committee to develop a solution to the grazing issue, but it held to its original five-year phase-out. The following year Superintendent Kuiper asked Washington Senator Slade Gorton for a funding increase to help resolve the problem with cattle. He requested a multi-year $100,000 base funding increase for fencing to reduce conflicts between livestock and other uses of the reservoir area; Congress did not approve this increase, however. [73]

LARO crew installing a cattle guard on east bank of Sanpoil Bay, 1957. Photo courtesy of National Park Service, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (LARO.HQ.MENG).

LARO extended grazing leases until March 1997. Park officials, however, remained concerned about the repercussions, so several months before the termination date they began "preparation for what . . . [would] most likely be the next round of resistance by special interests." This included working on position papers to ensure that park personnel maintained consistent responses to the issue. They also began to look in depth into the issues surrounding grazing, such as who was responsible for fencing, what were the legal rights to public water sources, what options did the permittee have if his lease were terminated, and what would the economic impact be on the permittees. They found that there were still ten special use permits covering more than two hundred cattle, four horses, four llamas, and twenty-one sheep. Federal agencies were exempt from the open-range law, meaning that it was the responsibility of adjacent landowners to fence the boundary. LARO Ranger Gig LeBret noted that, at least in the Gifford area, the park had done no fencing since 1992 because of lack of funding and changes in priorities. He had talked about fencing with some landowners, "but when word got out we were going to fence the public out, management let it die." Permittees seemed to be willing to hold out to see what would happen if they refused to give up their grazing uses. [74]

A few weeks before the expiration of grazing permits, LARO Superintendent Vaughn Baker wrote to all permittees to inform them of the imminent, but well-known, termination of their permits. He explained that LARO could not legally allow grazing on park lands, but he understood the ranchers' need to access water. The public disliked livestock in recreational areas; the Park Service worried about damage to riparian areas and water quality; and ranchers were concerned about the cost of fencing. Baker asked in his letter, "What can we do, working together, to address these issues and concerns?" He suggested such possibilities as developing water sources away from the lake, installing systems to withdraw water from the lake, and cooperating on fencing. "We'd like to explore these with you in lieu of initiating trespass actions after the permits expire," he offered. At least one rancher responded to Baker's overture, agreeing to discuss possibilities later that spring. [75]

The grazing issue was not immediately resolved, and LARO personnel continued to work with ranchers to find appropriate solutions. Park officials were especially concerned with the possibility that, without the permits, some ranchers might be forced to sell out to developers, a prospect that would change the rural character of the lands surrounding Lake Roosevelt. In late February 1998, LARO considered giving the remaining permittees Interim Letters of Authorization to continue use of public lands for no longer than two years, allowing them additional time to find alternative sources of water. None of the permittees requested such letters, however. [76]

The congressional delegation maintained its interest in the grazing situation. While both the Senate and House removed a requirement that LARO renew grazing leases, the Congressional Committees on Appropriations were "deeply concerned" about the Park Service's change in its historical grazing policy in the park. The committees directed LARO to submit a report by July 1, 2000, on the history of grazing and all other uses of lands now administered by LARO since 1935 under the Columbia Basin Act and since 1946 under the Tri-Party Agreement. In addition, the committees directed that beneficial uses at LARO, including grazing, may remain under permit until the Park Service determines that "the permitted facility or activity is in conflict with a new or expanded concession facility." If such a conflict occurs, LARO may terminate the permit. [77]

Fees increased for all special park uses, including the Hellgate Youth Camp located between Jones Bay and Hanson Harbor. The area Boy Scouts, through a special use permit issued to the Wilbur Amateur Athletic Association, had established a camp on forty-three acres of park land in the late 1940s. The annual fee initially was $25 but later increased to $50. LARO South District Ranger Gil Goodrich met with local scout officials to discuss the camp early in 1991. He indicated that the Association might need to give up part of the forty-three acres, and some at the meeting suggested they could reduce to ten acres as long as they could keep use of the beach, road, and surrounding area for scout activities. A while later the scout committee reconsidered and decided they were unwilling to give up any of their camp and would fight to keep it all. Goodrich initially assessed the group $33 per acre (or $1,419), plus a $100 administration fee and $25 annual billing fee, but he later told them he had used incorrect figures and the real cost would be based on $110 per acre, or a 5 percent return on the appraised value of $2,200 per acre. This brought the total to $4,730 plus $125 in fees, a considerable increase from the previous $50 per year. [78]

Adults involved with the scout camp complained to Rep. Tom Foley early in 1992, calling the large fee increase "capricious and despotic!" They predicted an end to the youth camp that had long served a small community. The Park Service defended its actions, however, saying that it had been trying to negotiate a memorandum of agreement with the scouts since January 1991, but camp officials were not willing to meet. The agency believed the camp needed only two acres for a total cost of $220 plus the administrative and billing fees, and it was willing to reduce the fees in an effort to support the youth program. But LARO did not believe it was in the public interest to reserve forty-three acres for a camp that was used just four or five times each year since the scouts could have access to the remainder of the original camp as well as the entire NRA. The parties resolved their differences in 1993 with a memorandum of agreement covering approximately two acres for just $25 per year, the basic administrative fee. LARO was willing to waive the use fees with the stipulation that the campers would undertake projects to benefit the public. [79]

Like the Hellgate Youth Camp, Camp Na-Bor-Lee faced similar fee increases, but it agreed to a new memorandum of agreement with the Park Service early in 1992. A renewal MOA in 1997 set the annual fee at $100, with an additional $100 administrative fee for the first year and a $25 annual billing fee. If the camp had paid a fee based on current market value, it would have been $350 per acre, but the agreement stipulated that the difference would be considered as part of the assistance offered to Camp Na-Bor-Lee by the federal government. In return, the camp agreed to reinvest this amount into improvements that were approved by the Park Service. [80]

LARO also reassessed vacation cabin sites during this period. Kuiper asked for help from the regional office to reappraise the lots in 1987 because the rates for cabins had remained unchanged since 1977. Reclamation conducted this reappraisal in 1988, but cabin rates continued at $450 per year until passage of the Special Park Use Management Plan in 1990. Kuiper suggested that the Park Service needed to analyze other possible uses for the sites and proposed establishing a committee to look into long-term uses of the area. He recognized that if the committee recommended termination of the leases, there would be local controversy and congressional interest. Since then, there has been no basic change in policy. Cabin sites were reassessed in 1997, and leases remain subject to five-year renewals. [81]