Lake Roosevelt Administrative History

NRA Name Change

The move to change the name of Coulee Dam NRA was under way by 1968. Chief Ranger Charles Woodbury complained about the confusion among tourists over a name shared by the recreation area, dam, and town. Although he thought that a change in brochure design might help, he believed that the best solution was a change in name. The regional office, however, turned down the request, noting that the reasons were not "sufficiently compelling to justify the name change." [102] Woodbury's suggestion was echoed later by two separate university studies of the park. Among their many conclusions were the recommendations that the NRA be renamed. One suggested Roosevelt Lake NRA while the other liked Upper Columbia NRA. Superintendent David Richie agreed with the need to change the name, saying that people, including local residents, saw the name "Coulee Dam" as referring only to the area immediately around the dam. He suggested either Roosevelt Lake or Lake Roosevelt NRA but worried that these might encounter political problems with the Republican administration. He offered Columbia or Upper Columbia NRA as alternatives. [103]

Nothing further was done to change the name until the late 1980s, when those supporting a change included not only LARO staff but also local civic groups and regional counties. By then, they recognized the problem of tourists who drove all the way to the Coulee Dam only to find that their campground was one hundred miles upriver. Superintendent Kuiper convinced the Regional Director to commit in writing to renaming the park, but still the change remained elusive. Superintendent Gerald Tays took on the cause when he arrived in 1993. He worked with the Washington and regional offices as well as the local managing partners, area Chambers of Commerce, and mayors. All agreed with the change, so he submitted it to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. [104]

Vaughn Baker carried on the effort after being appointed Superintendent in 1996. In talks with the Secretary's office, Tays had already determined that the change did not require approval from either Congress or the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, as some had thought. The CCT stalled the process for a brief period by suggesting changing the name of the lake to reflect the area's Indian heritage, but the Park Service declined to be a part of such a complicated process. Baker reminded the tribes that their own concessionaire, Roosevelt Recreation Enterprises, used that name, and he told them that the Park Service just wanted to change the name of the NRA to reflect that used by the public. As objections faded, Baker approached the Regional Director and suggested that they just go ahead with the change. They had hoped to have the process completed by October 1996 to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the park, but instead the change did not become official until January 1, 1997. The park began using the new name before that, however, changing the brochures three years earlier and some signs by 1996. [105]

Boundary Adjustments

The initial boundaries of the area that became LARO were not drawn with recreation in mind. Instead, they encompassed the land that Reclamation deemed necessary for the protection of the Grand Coulee Dam project. Within the Indian reservations, this was a narrow strip of ground between the high-water level of 1,290 feet and an unmarked boundary twenty feet higher in elevation. The boundary in other areas was often more irregular, reflecting either the initial purchase of whole parcels instead of a narrow strip below the 1,310 level, or purchase of additional lands in later years. Differences in terrain provided a wider strip of land in relatively flat areas and a narrower band in steeper ones. Reclamation initially was allowed to purchase additional lands only in areas of potential landslides — not useful additions for recreational development. The Park Service, on the other hand, had no authority to buy any land, considerably reducing possibilities for expansion of the park. [106]

This lack of authority did not stop the Park Service from coveting its neighbors' lands during the initial development stage of the NRA. As soon as LARO staff had identified the areas with greatest potential for recreational development, the agency hoped to acquire land adjacent to eleven of these to protect them from encroachments. The initial request for approximately 750 acres in 1944 had more than doubled two years later with the addition of nearly 370 acres at Fort Spokane and another 60 acres proposed for donation at Spring Canyon. In addition, LARO Superintendent Greider was especially concerned about the potential for unsightly development on private land along Highway 25 between Bissell and Evans. He asked Reclamation to purchase approximately 325 acres there to protect the park from "''shacky' roadside-lakeside developments." This request was supported by the National Park Service Director's office, which appealed to the Commissioner of Reclamation in September 1947. The Park Service considered these small tracts a nuisance because "if 'improved' with hot-dog stands, gas stations, and the like," they would negate the effectiveness of the recreational development at the park. [107]

Despite the requests for land, the Regional Counsel for Reclamation determined in October 1947 that the agency had no authority to acquire the lands listed by the Park Service. The agencies nonetheless continued to pursue the issue. By early 1948, Reclamation noted that it could purchase these lands if it could justify the procurement in connection with project operations. In addition, if any of the lands were within three hundred feet of the high-water mark, there could be funds available to acquire them. Greider immediately prepared maps showing lands that fell within this limit. The Park Service's Washington Office continued its involvement since the issue extended to other reservoirs where the agency had recreational responsibilities. Conrad Wirth, then Chief of Lands, noted that there was considerable variance in how the different Reclamation Regions applied the criteria for land acquisitions, with some able to help recreational needs more than others. Persistence paid off, and Greider reported in August 1949 that Reclamation was acquiring thirteen small tracts for a total of 513 acres. Classified by Reclamation as "control areas," these were lands requested by the Park Service to protect important recreation sites as well as preserve roadside strips from "unsympathetic uses." In addition, Reclamation was trying to purchase another 966 acres of potential slide areas. [108]

This acquisition program continued into at least the 1960s as Reclamation attempted to get title to lands that were up to three hundred feet above high water, in potential slide areas, or extended to the nearest subdivision line. The agency got funding for such purchases in FY1961 and FY1962, allowing it to obtain 1,200 acres of Indian lands, about half the land it intended to acquire. These tracts cost a total of $80,000, but private lots were starting to sell for even higher prices and Reclamation worried that if it had to pay similar prices, Indians and others who had been compensated at lower rates might complain. The Park Service continued to look into ways it could acquire land on its own at LARO. Superintendent Wayne Howe suggested in 1971 that Congressional legislation to establish the NRA might provide specific authority to acquire lands. This would help the park purchase available lands to expand facilities, protect against encroachments, and improve the alignment of the boundaries. This has not happened to date. [109]

Land issues have continued to challenge LARO management. After more than a decade of trying to resolve some difficult situations with neighboring landowners, the Park Service announced a modification of its land policy in the 1998 draft GMP. LARO acknowledged that the phase-out of special use permits had created serious problems for some landowners, who had depended on permitted use of federal lands to access and utilize their property. Some wanted to continue using lands formerly under special use permit and asked for ways to obtain title to the land in question. The Park Service and Reclamation agreed that in areas where there was little recreational potential, the agencies would consider an exchange, sale, or grant of easement, on a case-by-case basis. [110]

Acquisition of Land at Spring Canyon

The Park Service began negotiating for additional land at Spring Canyon as early as 1943. The agency proposed putting a recreational area there but owned only thirty-five acres of suitable land. The large tract of land surrounding the government's holdings was owned by a group of local men who had formed the Columbia City Development Company to promote a new town on the site, designed to replace the town of Grand Coulee. They saw Park Service plans as favorable to their own since Spring Canyon would enhance their development. In July 1943, Reclamation, the Park Service, and the Development Company discussed a gift of approximately seventy acres to Reclamation to allow sufficient land for a recreation area. Because the Park Service could not assure the men of a timetable for developing facilities there, the company decided to make its gift contingent on future development by LARO. The agreement proved more challenging to work out than anticipated since the federal government was not able to accept a gift predicated on potential development. Despite this, the government signed a five-year agreement in January 1944 with Julius and Mable Johnson (principals in the company) and the Columbia City Development Company. Herbert Maier of the regional office described it as "a clever five-year-option-to-accept-a-donation — if it works out!" [111]

The five-year limit passed and the Johnsons died before LARO was able to fund any development at Spring Canyon. Johnsons' heirs, however, deeded eighty-eight acres to the U.S. in July 1952, allowing a right-of-way for a two-mile road as well as approximately sixty acres to provide enough land to develop the campground, picnic area, and swimming beach. When the Park Service announced the donation of land, it acknowledged that the gift now made it possible to ask Congress to fund the development of Spring Canyon, the most important area at the south end of the lake. Later donations allowed LARO to build a road into a boat launch area. [112]

Land Issues at St. Paul's Mission

Washington State Parks acquired St. Paul's Mission in 1951 but soon found it difficult to monitor the remote site. The Park Service began informal administration in 1973, and the following year State Parks transferred the building and 3.25 acres of land to Reclamation for administration by the Park Service as part of LARO. About the same time, the Park Service began talks with Washington Water Power Company (WWP) over a possible donation of part of the company's land next to St. Paul's Mission. After considering various ideas, the company donated between three and five acres of land to Stevens County around 1978 for the site of an historical center. The Park Service initiated discussions with WWP, starting in 1983, to see if the company would be willing to trade some of its land surrounding the mission to Reclamation. The first proposal fell through in 1984, but two years later negotiations for another exchange looked like a better possibility. By 1987, however, WWP had determined that the lands proposed for exchange were not suitable, and it withdrew its offer. The company stated that it was not interested in exchanging lands per se but was concerned with the long-term management of the property in connection with the mission. It agreed to grant a license or easement to the Park Service for an access road, satisfying the immediate needs of the NRA. [113]

Boise Cascade Mill Land Exchange

Early LARO managers had to contend with a variety of industrial and agricultural uses on federal lands, allowed first by Reclamation, the initial land manager, and later by the 1946 Tri-Party Agreement. There were four sawmills along the lakeshore by the early 1940s, but only the Boise Cascade mill at Kettle Falls remained in 1990, permitted under the only industrial special use permit at the NRA. At that time, LARO's Special Park Use Management Plan determined that such industrial operations could not be justified under the 1986 NPS-53 policies. It recommended that the log storage area in the lake be terminated immediately, with additional storage on federal lands phased out over the next ten years. [114]

Boise Cascade officials were alarmed by the proposed cancellation of their log-storage area and told the Park Service in October 1990 that they would be unable to continue operations of their plywood mill without retaining some of the federal land then in use. They proposed a land exchange to allow them to retain a minimum of 6.7 acres of land. Four of the twelve potential parcels were of interest to the Park Service; two were next to or near the NRA boundary in the Kettle River valley, while two others adjoined the Summer Island Campground. The Park Service quickly narrowed the list down to two seventy-acre pieces along the Kettle River containing good wildlife habitat and offering potential for mitigation efforts. If the exchange were to fail, the Park Service remained willing to offer Boise Cascade a long-term lease on approximately seven acres to help the company remain a viable business with an impact on close to five hundred jobs. [115]

While the parties involved favored the exchange, they soon found that they lacked legal authority to complete it. By September 1991, Reclamation learned that it was not allowed to negotiate independently with Boise Cascade. Other exchange options through the Bureau of Land Management or General Services Administration would be lengthy, so officials decided their best option was pursuit of congressional support for a special authority. Boise Cascade, the Park Service, and Reclamation discussed the issue with Senator Slade Gorton in 1991, and by late October Reclamation agreed to forward proposed legislation for his consideration. [116]

The potential exchange caught the attention of a local environmental group, Citizens for a Clean Columbia. It ran a facetious advertisement in two local papers announcing that parcels on the Lake Roosevelt shore were available for exchange with land elsewhere, at the going rate of "about ten acres to one." It claimed that environmental contamination of the land was not an obstacle to the exchange and suggested that those interested should call various Park Service employees at LARO. At least two individuals called to see about an exchange, but the Park Service quickly squelched the hoax. The man who placed the ads continued to protest the Boise Cascade exchange through more conventional means, asserting that the mill was a major source of pollution. [117]

Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray introduced Senate Bill 1324 in the U.S. Senate on July 30, 1993. The bill authorized the exchange of approximately 7 acres of federal land for close to 136 acres of land belonging to Boise Cascade Corporation. At a hearing on the bill in March 1994, John Keys, Pacific Northwest Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation, stated that the Department of the Interior would ensure that all cultural resource surveys and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act would be completed after the bill passed Congress but prior to the actual exchange. He urged that an amendment be added to protect the government from assuming liability for any hazardous waste on either piece of land. The bill eventually passed, and the exchange was completed by late 1996. [118]