Lake Roosevelt NRA: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

Today's Crescent Bay Lake, located near the town of Grand Coulee and Grand Coulee Dam, was created in 1942. During the 1930s, a long conveyor belt carried overburden excavated during construction of the dam to Rattlesnake Canyon. The canyon was diked in 1942 to prevent raw sewage from Grand Coulee from entering Lake Roosevelt, and this formed Crescent Bay Lake. The depth of fill is over one hundred feet in many parts of the shore lands around Crescent Bay Lake; only the base of the rock quarry is not a waste dump site. Because it was polluted by sewage, for many years locals called the body of water "Lake Urine" and "Poop Lagoon." The lake is fed by springs and by discharge from the under-drain system of the feeder canal, and at full pool it is twelve feet higher than Lake Roosevelt. As early as 1942, the Park Service was including Rattlesnake Canyon in the list of areas proposed for recreational development along the new reservoir, although acknowledging that a sewage disposal plant would be needed to eliminate the pollution. A drawing prepared for LARO in 1944 of the proposed "Coulee Dam Marina Development Site" showed marina administration buildings, cabins, and a campground along the shores of Crescent Bay Lake and a swimming beach, boat docks, a parking lot, storage and repairs building, a picnic area, and a vista house and associated parking lot on the shores of Lake Roosevelt between Crescent Bay Lake and the left end of Grand Coulee Dam. [122]

LARO Superintendent Claude Greider promoted the development of concession facilities and administrative headquarters at South Marina (Crescent Bay) in the late 1940s. In 1948, the proposed facilities at South Marina had changed slightly from the 1944 plans to include a boat terminal, picnicking, parking for dam visitors, and a concessionaire's building. The facilities were to be constructed by the government but operated by private interests. Park Service hopes for early development of the site were dashed, however, at the end of 1948, when Greider learned that Reclamation was establishing a concrete plant and putting into operation an old sawmill at South Marina, making the site unusable for recreational purposes for the next four years. Greider, dismayed at having to revamp the entire six-year development program for the Coulee Dam district with no advance warning or consultation, accused Reclamation of "grossly irregular" actions and of violating the terms of the Tri-Party Agreement. Reclamation personnel responded that although they were remiss in not notifying the LARO Superintendent sooner, the site was essential to their operations. Greider told the Park Service Regional Director, "The Park Service is being definitely told where to head in." [123]

Although Reclamation was able to withdraw its commitment for the sawmill, the concrete plant remained an issue. The contest of wills over the concrete mixing plant at the South Marina was taken to the level of the Directors of the Park Service and Reclamation because it was seen as a breach of the 1946 Tri-Party Agreement. Park Service personnel felt they should have been consulted before the contract was signed; Reclamation maintained that project needs took precedence over recreational needs on all federal lands. By March 1949, the Park Service acknowledged that their plans for South Marina would have to be either delayed or modified. [124]

By the summer of 1950, LARO and Regional Office staff decided that the South Marina should no longer be considered for headquarters or even for major development, mostly because a geologic report indicated that practically all of the ground could be subject to sliding and because of the continuing sewage disposal problems. Greider recommended that the land be returned to Reclamation and that the headquarters building be located in Coulee Dam proper. The land was returned to the Reclamation Zone in 1951. Then, the Park Service turned its attention to making Spring Canyon the main developed area at the lower end of the lake. LARO's Mission 66 prospectus did not even mention South Marina or Crescent Bay. [125]

In 1961, Reclamation asked whether the Park Service would like to have the South Marina returned to them. At that point, the sawmill was closed and its permit about to expire, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs had been told that they could have a log dump site next to the mill if they so desired. LARO Superintendent Homer Robinson felt the area did not offer much recreation potential but that it could provide an excellent marina site for a concessionaire. The Regional Office recommended against the transfer, saying, "From past experience we question very seriously concessionaire interest in the development of a marina at this site." [126] In 1963, Robinson decided that LARO would in fact like to administer the "sawmill site," mostly because the Park Service anticipated increased visitation to the area because of the construction of the proposed third powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam. [127]

The sawmill lease of thirteen acres at Crescent Bay expired in 1964. The Grant County Port District expressed the desire to develop a privately operated marina on the site, but then the sawmill was leased in 1965 to the Biles-Coleman Lumber Company of Omak for twenty-five years. [128]

The transfer of 240 acres of land - Crescent Bay Lake and its shore lands not including the land leased for industrial purposes - back to the Park Service finally occurred in 1968. LARO Superintendent David Richie noted that the lake had been developed as a fishery by the state, with a boat ramp and parking area at the southeast end of the lake, but that it had "little to offer for any other recreational activity," and he hoped to work out an agreement whereby the State Game Department would continue to manage the lake. Under the agreement, Reclamation assumed responsibility for controlling the water pollution of Crescent Bay Lake. [129]

In 1968, Spokane architect Kenneth Brooks was hired by Reclamation to prepare plans for development of the region as part of the third powerhouse construction project. His proposal for Crescent Bay was rather imaginative, but it did not fit in at all with Park Service plans. He suggested building a new high school/convention center on the southeast end of the lake along with an observatory and planetarium. This proposal was not acted upon. [130]

The state poisoned the "scrap fish" in Crescent Bay Lake in 1960 and restocked it with trout. In 1969, the state again poisoned the lake with rotenone, followed by a planting of rainbow trout. Most of these fish died, however, and the state planted more fry in 1971. These, too, died off because of low dissolved oxygen levels, despite pumping of oxygen into the lake in the winter. The general public was not much interested in fishing in the lake anyway, partly because of its known contamination by sewage and because of the "mud-like taste of Crescent Bay fish." In 1975, after these discouraging losses, the state discontinued its management of Crescent Bay Lake as a trout fishery. [131]

In the mid-1970s, LARO staff began to find that the Spring Canyon facilities, which could not be expanded, were often overcrowded. Some 1,500-2,000 people packed into the Spring Canyon developed area on summer Sundays. LARO also began to consider building a visitor center on the sawmill site at Crescent Bay, which was on land that was still administered by Reclamation. In 1976, mill operator Crown Zellerbach decided to close its operations permanently, and LARO formally requested transfer of the land for use as a recreation site. They felt this would relieve the pressure on Spring Canyon and would provide boat moorage that would be "the foundation for concession facilities we have not been able to offer on a decent scale." [132] A Park Service landscape architect prepared design alternatives for the site, and the Denver Service Center set aside funds to prepare a more formal conceptual site plan for the area. As of 1977, LARO was envisioning the following at Crescent Bay: visitor contact station, picnic and play areas, comfort stations, parking, launch ramp, floating courtesy docks, moorage for Park Service and Reclamation boats, and fish cleaning station (but no swim beach). Concession facilities would include a marina that could hold as many as 200 boats, refreshment facility, and perhaps a restaurant. Down the road, LARO would consider adding a major visitor center and relocating headquarters and the district office and maintenance shops to the site. The subsequent Development Concept Proposal (DCP) even suggested a "water feature" shaped like Lake Roosevelt that could be used as an interpretive tool. The Park Service did not support breaching the Crescent Bay Lake dam and allowing year-round connection to Lake Roosevelt because of the effects drawdowns would have on Crescent Bay Lake. [133]

Reclamation agreed to turn over approximately twenty acres of land to the Park Service to facilitate recreational development of the site. The 1978 DCP received much favorable local reaction. The sawmill facilities were removed, and in 1978 the land was reclassified as Recreation Zone. The proposed development was incorporated into LARO's construction schedule, with work to commence in fiscal year 1985. The Park Service portion of the development would cost $3.3 million. LARO's 1980 General Management Plan included plans for the following: visitor contact station, park headquarters, Park Service maintenance area, two boat launch ramps, non-motorized boats only on the lake, playground, picnic area, outdoor amphitheater, paved path to Grand Coulee, landscaping, two comfort stations, 300-vehicle parking area, study of a trail to Spring Canyon, and encouragement of a full-service marina. [134]

Despite strong support from the Park Service Regional Office for the 1978 DCP for Crescent Bay, it did not get high national priority and did not receive federal funding. New LARO Superintendent Gary Kuiper tried again for federal funding in 1981, but this possibility became more and more remote because the Park Service was being told to seek private funding sources for projects that would be attractive to private developers. Following the advice of the Regional Solicitor's office, in 1983 LARO issued a Statement of Requirements for development of the thirty-five acres at Crescent Bay as a Park Service concession. No proposals were received by the closing date. [135]

But the Park Service continued to see Crescent Bay, a somewhat sheltered inlet, as a good place to establish a marina that would service boaters at that end of the reservoir. LARO reissued the Crescent Bay solicitation in early 1984, and this time five parties expressed an interest. The two finalists then tried to secure financial backing, and soon only one was seen to be economically viable. LARO expected to sign a thirty-year concession contract for a $12 million development with that company, Dixon, Carter and Associates of Granby, Colorado (Crescent Bay Limited Partnership). The proposed facilities at that point included a fifty-room hotel, small convention facility, one-hundred-unit motel, recreational vehicle park, fast-food franchise, marina complex with houseboat and motor boat rentals, launch ramps, gas sales, 108 boat slip rentals, swim beach, water slide, and convenience store. Because this and the other proposals differed from those in the 1980 General Management Plan, presentations were once again made to local groups. The Park Service completed an Environmental Assessment for the project in October of 1984, and Dixon/Carter hired a marketing consultant and an accounting firm to help in the planning process. [136]

The Crescent Bay project began to fall apart in the spring of 1985, however. The Park Service Associate Director for Park Operations raised questions about the proposed concession contract, including the waiving of a franchise fee in exchange for building public facilities. The developer claimed it had spent $100,000 before the Park Service informed it of the need for a franchise fee, which the developer called "bait and switch advertising." Then, according to Dixon/Carter, since each new draft contract contained a higher fee requirement, it became increasingly difficult to interest investors in the project. [137]

In 1985 the CCT also became involved. Their attorney voiced the complaint that plans for Crescent Bay, which by then were quite large in scale, had "proceeded without so much as a nod to the Tribes." The CCT formally requested sixty days for the Park Service to address the tribes' concerns about the effects of the multi-million-dollar development on the tribes and on the surrounding environment before signing the concession contract. The CCT and the developer then began negotiations directly with each other on specific concerns. The contract was signed in October 1985, establishing multiple phased-construction deadlines. Meanwhile, LARO's relations with the tribes, particularly the CCT, improved when LARO staff began to deal directly with the tribes rather than going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. [139]

The National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation are sister agencies to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and we, at least at Colville, feel you share in this responsibility. However, in our meetings and negotiations with you [Reclamation] and the Park Service your tendency to overlook this responsibility frustrates the Tribal and Agency Personnel. An example of this oversight is the National Park Services' [sic] handling of the Crescent Bay Development without regard to the Tribes resources and sovereign powers. The Colville Business Council and my staff become very frustrated when the Tribe is forced to "end run" to Washington, D. C. to ensure the Trust Responsibility in protecting the Tribes' resources and sovereign powers.

-- George M. Davis, Superintendent, Colville Agency, 1986 [140]

In 1986, the Park Service extended Dixon/Carter's contract one year. The developers continued negotiations with the tribes, but they were still having trouble raising the necessary funding, which the developers attributed to the unsettled jurisdictional and environmental issues created by the Park Service. Ed Wimberly of Breckenridge, Colorado, negotiated for the contract in early 1988 after the developers had been refused another extension (Wimberly bought the existing concession at Kettle Falls at this time). The CCT asked that Wimberly pay 1 percent of the gross receipts from the Crescent Bay project to help fund the management of Lake Roosevelt. [141]

Wimberly chose not to discuss concerns about the effects of his proposed Crescent Bay development on the natural and cultural resources of the area with the CCT, so the tribes were forced to file written comments with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CCT continued to emphasize that they supported construction of a major marina complex at Crescent Bay, but not without considering the impacts of the entire project, including off-site impacts. They believed the 1984 Environmental Assessment was "inadequate in the extreme." Some of the tribes' broad concerns included impacts on the reservation, adjacent archaeological sites, wildlife, fire danger, tribal management of Lake Roosevelt, and fishery and planned hatchery programs. On-site concerns included fuel spillage, sewage, water pollution due to removal of toxic fill, bald eagles, landslide potential, and traffic congestion. [142]

By the summer of 1988, the concession contract was in dispute between the seller, Dixon/Carter, and the prospective buyer, Ed Wimberly. Wimberly was concerned because he did not have all the permits he needed, particularly one from the Corps of Engineers. Dixon/Carter still held the contract, which was extended to February 1989. They signed an agreement with the CCT in December 1988 that required paying a fee to the tribes. Over the next several months, the Park Service granted several extensions of the contract for the developers to complete financing. The Park Service terminated their contract in the summer of 1989, however, when they failed to meet the financial and planning requirements for phase one. The $19 million project was once again on hold, and the developers were bitter about the whole process. Dixon/Carter, who claimed to have spent some $450,000 on the project, requested that a Congressional oversight committee investigate the "misrepresentation and fraudulent actions" of the Park Service in the offering, negotiation, and administration of the Crescent Bay contract. This investigation never occurred. [143]

The Park Service planned to put a new Statement of Requirements out for bid in 1990, but this was delayed because the Secretary of Interior placed a hold on all concession contracts Servicewide until several concessions-related issues were resolved. In January 1991, the Crescent Bay solicitation was revised to reflect the Secretary's initiatives. A consultant prepared financial feasibility studies of five concession projects nationwide, including Crescent Bay. This feasibility study, which made recommendations on scope of development, investment required, franchise fee, and length of contract, was completed in 1993 or 1994. In March 1994, the Park Service issued a prospectus once again. This time two bids were received, but only the one submitted by the CCT was considered responsive. [144]

In 1995, however, the CCT withdrew their offer when they learned that only limited modification of the required investment and final project details would be allowed and that no deviation from standard contract language would be permitted. They felt it was too risky if they were not guaranteed the right to renew a fifteen-year contract, were granted no possessory rights, and had to install and pay for the infrastructure. LARO Superintendent Gerry Tays worked with the Secretary of the Interior's Office and gained approval to negotiate a contract with the tribes. The tribes envisioned the Crescent Bay development as primarily a marina with boat-slip rentals, houseboat rentals, a gasoline dock, and other facilities. Transportation to a proposed development on the reservation side of the lake might be part of the role of the Crescent Bay marina. The negotiations did not move forward fast enough, however. In October 1998, Congress changed the concession law to preclude sole-source contracts. The process had to start over once again. [145]

Despite all the grand plans that have been drawn up for the Crescent Bay area since the 1940s, there are still only minimal visitor facilities at the site. At the end of the 1990s, Park Service facilities at Crescent Bay on Lake Roosevelt included a vault toilet, a sixty-foot-wide concrete launch ramp, and a skid dock. Crescent Bay Lake has a small launch ramp and dock, and only non-motorized craft are allowed on the lake. During the summer, LARO personnel lead regular guided canoe trips during which they talk about human impacts on the area. LARO staff feel that marina facilities are necessary to serve visitors at the south end of Lake Roosevelt. Both alternatives in the 1998 General Management Plan allow for construction of a marina at Crescent Bay. [146]

Major recreational development of Crescent Bay has been proposed since the early 1940s. Over the decades, a wide variety of challenges have prevented this from being accomplished. The real difficulty lies in the funding of marina facilities. The facilities are very expensive, and the rate of return is marginal. When you add Park Service concession policies to the mix, it becomes almost impossible to raise private money to develop marinas. [147] The up-and-down history of Crescent Bay is more complex than that of most other proposed recreational sites within LARO, but it illustrates the complicated situation facing LARO managers in planning park facilities.

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was chronically short of funds from the 1940s through the 1960s, the period when plans moved from drawings to reality as the Park Service constructed many recreational and administrative facilities. Because of the tight budgets, LARO staff learned to seek out government-surplus materials, equipment, and buildings, and they came up with ingenious ways to stretch the available dollars. Most of the physical evidence of these determined efforts to scrounge for needed materials no longer exist, but re-use of government surplus was an important factor in the recreation area's ability to move forward with its plans for developing the area. It also speaks to the staff's drive, initiative, and ingenuity in getting things done.

Between the 1960s and the 1990s, the scope of work for LARO's maintenance division increased dramatically, and staffing levels responded in kind. Fort Spokane, for example, had one permanent, one long-term seasonal, and two summer seasonal maintenance employees in 1967-1968. In 1999, these numbers had jumped to three full-time, three subject-to-furlough, and ten seasonals. Long-time maintenance employee Ray Dashiell commented on the "huge increase in staff and workload and things to do" in the 1980s and 1990s. "A place like Keller Ferry thirty years ago had a couple of pit toilets and some informal camping — now it has flush toilets and amphitheaters." Many new facilities have been added in the past few decades, such as wider and longer boat launch ramps, docks, and new boat-only campgrounds. [148]

Concessions at LARO until the 1980s were generally small-scale operations. Within the past two decades, however, three marina facilities have become quite extensive. Houseboats were successfully introduced by concessionaires to Lake Roosevelt visitors in 1987 and have become increasingly popular. The park has talked about and planned for a major development of the Crescent Bay area using government and/or private funds since the early 1940s, but this has still not materialized.