RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE
OF FEDERAL RECREATION LANDS:
A HISTORY, REVIEW OF REGULATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Katelyn Suzanne DeMello
B.S., California State University, Sacramento, 2004
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
in
URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE
OF FEDERAL RECREATION LANDS:
A HISTORY, REVIEW OF REGULATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
A Project
by
Katelyn Suzanne DeMello
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Sudhir Thakur, PhD.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Katelyn Suzanne DeMello
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this Project is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the Project.
_____________________________________________
Monica Lam, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate and External Programs
College of Business Administration
iii
_____________________
Date
Abstract
of
RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE
OF FEDERAL RECREATION LANDS:
A HISTORY, REVIEW OF REGULATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
by
Katelyn S. DeMello
In December 2008, the federal government issued regulation allowing for the
conditional continuation of residential private exclusive use (PEU) existing on
recreation lands administered by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) that alternately aligns and conflicts with certain aspects of
federal regulation and directives previously issued. In complying with this new federal
regulation and in considering past known issues, Reclamation must meet its
responsibilities to the American public by ensuring the following:
1) That compatibility determinations are conducted consistently and in a
transparent manner involving public input;
2) That sufficient identification, addressing, and monitoring of environmental and
health and safety risks is conducted; and
3) That the public receives fair compensation for the private exclusive use of its
recreation lands.
In order to establish the current situation and implementation status and to
develop an appropriate strategy to correct past deficiencies and ensure future
iv
compliance, interviews were held with Reclamation policy and program officials.
Additionally, a literature review was conducted of federal legislation and regulation,
Reclamation policy and directives, strategic plans and financial and audit reports issued
by the Department of the Interior and its offices. The resulting recommendations are
meant to help Reclamation fully comply with the 2008 federal regulation and help strike
a balance between the private exclusive use of public recreation lands and the public
need for these lands.
______________________ , Committee Chair
Sudhir Thakur, PhD.
______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This product would not be possible without generous cooperation by the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Office of
Inspector General (OIG). I would like to thank those Reclamation officials interviewed
for sharing with me their insight and experiences dealing with residential private
exclusive use matters and the nuances of federal policy development and
implementation. While policy implementation by these persons may have differed
throughout the country, the intent and dedication to meet their mission remained
universal. Additionally, I would like to thank the OIG for providing me with the
opportunity to continue their examination of residential private exclusive use issues
affecting the public’s recreation land.
On a personal note, I give my deepest thanks to my family for their unwavering
encouragement and support of all my pursuits whether they are academic, professional
or personal. I would especially like to thank my sister, who has kept my sanity firmly in
tact these past years while I pursued my graduate degree.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables........................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS ................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Project ....................................................................................................... 3
Results in Brief ............................................................................................................ 3
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 6
2. IDENTIFICATION AND ROLES OF KEY PLAYERS .................................................... 8
The Federal Players ..................................................................................................... 8
The Nonfederal Players ............................................................................................. 12
3. INCEPTION OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE ................................. 13
Violations Begin Early (1950s) ................................................................................. 13
Attempts by Federal Government to Address Violations Fail (1960s) ..................... 14
Call for Change (1990s to 2000) ............................................................................... 15
4. REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES ............................................................................ 17
Applicability .............................................................................................................. 17
Existing Residential PEU .......................................................................................... 18
Compatibility Determination..................................................................................... 19
Government Oversight .............................................................................................. 21
Reporting Requirements............................................................................................ 24
5. CURRENT EXTENT OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE .................... 26
Nationwide ................................................................................................................ 26
Case Studies .............................................................................................................. 31
Residential PEU Violations ....................................................................................... 35
Lake Berryessa .......................................................................................................... 36
Canyon Ferry ............................................................................................................. 40
vii
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 44
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................
45
Action 1: Clearly Identify When a Compatibility Determination is Required
on a More Frequent Basis.......................................................................... 45
Action 2: Identify a Standard Set of Activities to be Involved in the
Compatibility Determination..................................................................... 47
Action 3: Identify Documentation and Reporting Requirements .............................. 49
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPLIANCE REVIEWS ..................... 50
Action 1: Identify a Minimum Set of Features for Inspection .................................. 50
Action 2: Utilize Independent Professional Inspectors from Outside Reclamation .. 51
Action 3: Document the Review Process and its Findings........................................ 52
FAIR COMPENSATION ................................................................................................ 53
Action 1: Identify that Concessionaires have Proper Land Use
Authorizations in Place ............................................................................. 54
Action 2: Identify Land Use Authorization Fees are Based on Current Fair
Market Value ............................................................................................. 54
Action 3: Require Nonfederal Managing Partners and Concessionaires Annually
Report Critical Financial Data on Residential PEU Sites ......................... 57
Action 4: Require Electronic Fund Transfers be Established as Existing Use
Authorizations are Modified or Renewed. ................................................ 59
Appendix A. Recommendations........................................................................................... 60
Bibliography …………………………………………………………...…………………….61
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1: Interior Bureaus Identified by Land Management Responsibilities.............. 9
2.
Table 2: Timeline of Compatibility Requirements and Frequency ........................... 20
3.
Table 3: Reviews Required of Reclamation .............................................................. 23
4.
Table 4: Residential PEU Identified by Reclamation ............................................... 28
5.
Table 5: Thirteen Questions Identified by Reclamation’s Land Use
Authorizations Directive ............................................................................ 48
6.
Table 6: Annual Compensation Denied to Public Due to Fee Rates......................... 56
7.
Table 7: Proposed Financial Data Requirements to be Reported Within
RUDR Form ................................................................................................ 58
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1: Line of Federal Reporting and Operation .................................................. 11
2.
Figure 2: Map of Reclamation’s Five Regions ......................................................... 27
3.
Figure 3: Residential PEU Activity ........................................................................... 30
4.
Figure 4: Residential PEU Impact ............................................................................. 30
5.
Figure 5: Recreation Maps for Lake Berryessa (Left)
and Canyon Ferry Lake (Right).................................................................. 32
6.
Figure 6: Mobile Homes Along Lake Berryessa Shoreline, 2002............................. 33
7.
Figure 7: Mobile Home Community Within Lake Berryessa, 2002 ....................... 33
8.
Figure 8: Mobile Home Community at Kim’s Marina,
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, 2010 ................................................................... 34
9.
Figure 9: Mobile Home Community at Goose Bay Marina,
Canyon Ferry Reservoir, 2010 .................................................................. 34
10.
Figure 10: Unauthorized Mobile Home Improvements and
Sewage Discharge Violations at Lake Berryessa, 2001 .......................... 36
11.
Figure 11: Before Removal of Abandoned Mobile Home, Lake Berryessa, 2010 ... 39
12.
Figure 12: After Removal of Abandoned Mobile Home, Lake Berryessa, 2010 ...... 39
13.
Figure 13: Satellite Image of Some of the 265 Cabins (and Private Docks)
Along Canyon Ferry Lake Shoreline, 2010.............................................. 40
14.
Figure 14: Recreation Lands Acquired with Canyon Ferry
Conservation Trust funds ......................................................................... 43
x
1
Chapter 1
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Background
With the 1944 enactment of the Pick-Sloan Flood Control Act (P.L. 78-534), the
federal government recognized the interests and rights of the states in determining the
development and control of watersheds and water utilization within their borders. This
legislation identified 49 “basins” (i.e. land areas encompassing multiple states that
border a specific river) and authorized the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau
of Reclamation (Reclamation) to construct “projects” (i.e. dams and levees) for the
purposes of hydropower, water supply, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
However, the recreation component of such projects would not receive full
consideration until 1965 with the enactment of the Federal Water Project Recreation
Act (P.L. 89-72). As Reclamation does not have a fully mandated recreation authority,
the Federal Water Project Recreation Act instead authorized and encouraged
Reclamation to enter into management agreements with state and local public agencies
(nonfederal managing partners) to help meet public recreation demands.
Problem Statement
Since the 1950s, the American public has been unable to enjoy full access to
some of these public recreation lands due to the presence of residential long-term
private exclusive use (PEU) activity. This denied access was due to leasing activities by
some of the nonfederal managing partners and Reclamation falling short on its oversight
responsibility to ensure that management activities by its partners did not adversely
2
impact environmental resources or the public’s visitor experience to the recreation
areas.
Residential PEU originated as some of the nonfederal managing partners used
their own permitting systems to lease federal recreation land to private individuals.
Leases issued by these nonfederal managing partners granted the lessee the right to
place private property on a site for a fixed period, but did not convey ownership of land
or any permanent rights of occupancy. While leasing authorized the construction of
minimal residential dwellings for the purpose of short-term seasonal occupancy,
violations were quick to ensue. Individuals constructed cabins and mobile home
improvements surpassing authorized specifications and added other unauthorized
improvements such as concrete foundations (for mobile homes), wooden decks, and
private boat docks.
By the 1960s, Interior formally recognized the adverse impact these activities
were having on the public’s opportunities for water-based recreation opportunities.
Despite the issuance of federal regulation and internal guidance (known as directives),
Reclamation has not been fully successful in systematically addressing residential PEU
issues created by these leasing practices. By the late 1990s and into 2000, Interior’s
oversight agency, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reviewed Reclamation’s
management of residential PEU activities and identified issues regarding both the
restriction of the public’s access to recreation lands as well as the presence of
environment and health and safety risks.
3
Purpose of Project
In December 2008, the federal government issued Title 43 Code of Federal
Regulation Part 429 (Part 429) allowing for the conditional continuation of residential
PEU existing on these public recreation lands. Conditional continuation depends on
whether the residential PEU activity within a given recreation area successfully fulfills
two requirements: (1) the activity is determined to be compatible with public need and
project purposes; and, (2) the activity passes compliance reviews specific to
environmental, health and safety, and financial elements.
In consideration of Part 429 and those issues already known to Reclamation, this
study identifies critical management areas where Reclamation must act. Resulting
recommendations aim to help Reclamation meet its regulatory requirements and
consistently and transparently ensure the balance of private exclusive use of public
recreation lands with the public need for these lands.
Results in Brief
Reclamation’s implementation activities, both at a national and at a localized
level, indicate that it has not sufficiently addressed residential PEU issues due to
insufficient regulation and lack of central oversight. While Reclamation’s Land
Resources Division (LRD) has historically been responsible for development of policy
and directives specific to land resource uses, management of residential PEU activities
is decentralized as implementation decisions are delegated to Reclamation’s many
regional, area, and field offices. This decentralized and unguided policy
implementation process has led to inconsistent and noncompliant land use
4
authorizations by the federal government and its nonfederal managing partners that has
compromised both the public’s right to access public lands and has created
environmental problems.
Since as early as the 1960s, federal regulation and Reclamation directives
require that Reclamation conduct a compatibility determination to identify whether
residential PEU activity within a given recreation area should be terminated. Through
compatibility determinations, Reclamation is to identify whether residential PEU
activity conflicts with either the public’s need for recreation lands or Reclamation’s
need for project lands. However, Reclamation has not consistently completed or
documented its compatibility determinations. Depending on the type of residential PEU,
compatibility determinations must be conducted at least once every 5 or 20 years. In
2002, Reclamation issued its directive on Land Use Authorizations and identified 13
specific questions for consideration within the compatibility determination’s formal
planning process. Despite the presence of this policy implementation guidance,
Reclamation did not enforce their use. Among those program officials interviewed, only
half had conducted a formal compatibility determination.
Pursuant to Part 429, all residential PEU authorizations are to be inspected at
least once every 5 years looking at environmental and health and safety risks. Aside
from requiring that the reviews occur, neither federal regulation nor Reclamation
directives explicitly identify what is entailed in an environmental or health and safety
compliance review. This lack of specific guidance has resulted in Reclamation
conducting such reviews in an inconsistent and sometimes undocumented manner. In
5
many cases, environmental and health and safety reviews conducted by Reclamation
officials were done so in a collateral manner via “walk throughs” as time allowed. As
such, environmental and health and safety inspections are not always holistic (that is,
sites are reviewed sporadically and piecemealed rather than a complete inspection of the
“community”) or consistent in what is examined and how it is documented. In contrast
to this approach, some recreation areas instead contract with state or county inspectors
to conduct environmental and health and safety checks. Such inspections examined the
PEU sites at a single time as a community with violations documented at a site-specific
level.
In addition to environmental and health and safety compliance, residential PEU
activity must be reviewed at least once every 5 years in terms of whether they meet
financial obligations. Fees charged for land use authorizations are a means for private
individuals to provide the public with the fair market value for the private exclusive use
of public lands. Those fees charged by Reclamation or its nonfederal managing partners
are to be identified within use authorizations; that is, permits, licenses or leases.
However, there is concern that residential PEU sites indirectly authorized via
concession contract do not have land use authorizations in place and thus lack a legal
basis for fee charges or collection. There is also concern regarding the use of outdated
fee rates. In review of the past two management returns of recreation areas to
Reclamation from a nonfederal managing partner that involved residential PEU activity,
Reclamation has identified and subsequently increased fee rates to reflect current fair
market value. Due to the use of outdated fee rates by these two nonfederal managing
6
partners, the public was denied over $500,000 compensation annually for the restricted
use of their lands.
Recommendations
Without the benefit of a strong centralized oversight office, Reclamation may
not fully meet those management controls required by Part 429. As such, Reclamation
should identify the LRD as its central oversight office for those activities specific to
compatibility determinations and compliance reviews. As an oversight office, the LRD
should be responsible for identifying a standard set of minimum activities and
documentation requirements for regional, area, and field offices to use in completing
compatibility determinations and environmental, health and safety compliance reviews.
LRD should also act as a check-and-balance by selectively reviewing determination and
review findings prior to the renewal or denial of use authorizations by the regional
offices. In addition, the LDR should serve as the body to resolve conflicts and land use
challenges related to policy implementation between regional offices and all other
nonfederal entities involved.
Specific recommendations for LRD’s oversight strategy for successfully
meeting those requirements set forth by Part 429 are organized within the three
following areas:
A. Compatibility Determination
1. Clearly identify the determination frequency that best serve public
interests.
7
2. Identify a minimum set of standard activities to be involved in the
determination.
3. Identify documentation and reporting requirements.
B. Environmental and Health and Safety Compliance Reviews
1. Identify a minimum set of standard features for inspection.
2. Utilize independent professional inspectors from outside Reclamation.
3. Document the review process and its findings.
C. Fair Compensation
1. Identify that concessionaires have proper land use authorizations in
place.
2. Identify land use authorization fees are based on current fair market
value.
3. Require managing partners and concessionaires annually report critical
financial data on residential PEU sites.
4. Require electronic fund transfers be established as existing use
authorizations are modified or renewed.
A complete matrix of recommendations by category, action item, responsible office,
and suggested time for completion is found in Appendix A.
8
Chapter 2
IDENTIFICATION AND ROLES OF KEY PLAYERS
There are five key players involved in residential PEU activities as they occur
on the federal estate. On the federal side, the Department of the Interior and its Bureau
of Reclamation have primary jurisdiction over certain land and water areas as
designated through legislation. On the nonfederal side, Reclamation’s nonfederal
managing partners and commercial businesses provide crucial management and support
for recreation activities, while the general public is the primary user of those recreation
resources.
The Federal Players
Federal lands are added or deleted through Presidential, Congressional, or
Secretarial action (United States, Agency Financial Report, 61-62). In 1849, federal
legislation created Interior and charged it with the responsibility of conserving and
preserving the nation’s natural and cultural resources. Reclamation is one of Interior’s
eight bureaus whose mission it is to carry out this legislative mandate. In 1944, the
enactment of the Pick-Sloan Flood Control Act charged Reclamation with the
responsibility to administer specific land and water areas for the purpose of flood
control, water supply, hydropower, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Reclamation is one
of Interior’s four bureaus considered to be a land management agency.
A list of Interior’s bureaus and identification of land management
responsibilities are shown in Table 1.
9
Table 1: Interior Bureaus Identified by Land Management Responsibilities
Interior Bureaus
Bureau
Land Management
Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
No
Bureau of Land Management
Yes
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
No
Bureau of Reclamation
Yes
National Park Service
Yes
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
No
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Yes
U.S. Geological Survey
No
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Agency Financial Report (62).
Within its Fiscal Year 2009 Agency Financial Report, Interior identifies all of its
land management agencies as having a responsibility for the administration and
interpretation of how to best manage the natural and recreational resources of its public
land (61-62). However, unlike its Interior land management agency counterparts,
Reclamation does not have a fully mandated recreation authority. Per the Reclamation
Recreation Management Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), however, Reclamation is charged
with "ensur[ing] the protection, comfort, and well-being of the public (including the
protection of public safety) with respect to the use of Reclamation lands" and
"ensur[ing] the protection of resource values." Reclamation’s 308 recreation areas
historically see a total estimated annual visitation rate of 90 million (United States,
GPRA Strategic Plan, 18-19).
Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the nation and second largest
producer of hydroelectric power in the western United States. Established in 1902,
10
Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including the Hoover
Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee on the Columbia River. Reclamation’s
mission is to meet the “increasing water demands of the West while protecting the
environment and the public's investment in these structures” (United States, About Us).
Among other areas of water management interests, Reclamation also looks to identify
and bring together the variety of interests competing for the limited water resources.
This pursuit for balance is also identified and supported within Interior’s strategic plan
(27).
Reclamation is led by its Commissioner, who reports to the Secretary of the
Interior via the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. Under the direction of the
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and Budget and the Director for
Policy and Administration, Reclamation’s Land Resources Division (LRD) is
responsible for the development of policy and directives specific to land resources. The
LRD delegates implementation authority to Reclamation’s five regional offices, with
subsequent area and field offices responsible for carrying out daily operations. All of
Reclamation’s regional, area, and field offices are located within the Western States.
Figure 1 illustrates Reclamation’s line of reporting and operation.
11
Secretary
INTERIOR
Assistant Secretary,
Water & Science
Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner,
Policy, Administration and Budget
RECLAMATION
Director,
Policy and Aministration
Policy
Development
Land Resources Division (LRD)
Implementation
Authority
Northwest
Mid
Pacific
Upper
Colorado
Lower
Colorado
Great
Plains
Daily
Operations
Area
Offices
Area
Offices
Area
Offices
Area
Offices
Area
Offices
Field
Offices
Field
Offices
Field
Offices
Field
Offices
Field
Offices
Pacific
Figure 1: Line of Federal Reporting and Operation
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation Offices.
12
The Nonfederal Players
There are two primary nonfederal groups that play critical and distinct roles in
recreation activities on Reclamation’s land: the nonfederal managing partner and the
concessionaire.
Through the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation is
legislatively directed to partner with other state or local public agencies to manage
recreation at Reclamation project areas. As Reclamation’s nonfederal managing
partners, these state and local agencies provide facilities, goods, and services in support
of public recreation opportunities; in turn, Reclamation is to oversee the activities of its
nonfederal managing partners. Reclamation currently has 66 nonfederal partners
managing 159 developed recreation areas (United States, Managing Partners).
Additionally, both Reclamation and the nonfederal managing partners may enter
into contracts with commercial businesses to provide these support activities. These
commercial businesses, referred to as concessionaires, provide this support and services
in return for revenues generated from recreation sites in the form of user fees. For
example, user fees can be charged for activities such as day use, camping, or fishing.
Finally, it is the American public whose role is instrumental as they are the users
of the recreation resources on these recreation areas. Federal legislation and regulation
are consistently drafted and enacted to give consideration to the general public’s
interest, especially as it relates to recreation and environmental activities.
13
Chapter 3
INCEPTION OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE
Two primary federal water legislative acts laid the foundation for the residential
long-term private exclusive use on federal recreation lands. The Pick-Sloan Flood
Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) served to recognize the interests and rights of the
states in determining the development and control of watersheds and water utilization
within their borders. This legislation identified 49 “basins” (i.e. land areas
encompassing multiple states that border a specific river) and authorized “projects” that
entailed the construction of dams and levees for hydropower, water supply, flood
control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. However, the recreation component of such
projects did not receive full consideration until 1965 with the enactment of the Federal
Water Project Recreation Act (P.L. 89-72). In addition, as Reclamation does not have a
fully mandated recreation authority, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act instead
authorized and encouraged Reclamation to enter into agreements with state and local
governments to provide management support for project recreation areas.
Violations Begin Early (1950s)
Residential PEU began in the 1950s as Reclamation’s nonfederal managing
partners used various permitting systems to lease federal recreation land to private
individuals. Leases issued by these nonfederal managing partners granted the lessee the
right to place private property on a site for a fixed period, but did not convey ownership
of land or any permanent rights of occupancy. While leasing authorized the
14
construction of minimal residential dwellings for the purpose of short-term seasonal
occupancy, violations were quick to ensue as there were no specific implementation
regulations, guidelines or directives and Reclamation itself fell short of its oversight
responsibilities of its nonfederal partners’ management activities. These factors fostered
an environment where individuals constructed cabins and mobile home improvements
surpassing authorized specifications and likewise added other unauthorized
improvements such as concrete foundations (for mobile homes), wooden decks, and
private boat docks. Moreover, while both the 1944 and 1965 water legislative acts
forbade any restriction of public access to recreation areas, these leases saw multiple
violations as the lessees began to build fences and other obstructions on their leased
land and thus limited or completely restricted public access to prime public recreation
lands.
Attempts by Federal Government to Address Violations Fail (1960s)
The Federal Government was aware of these lease violations, and by the late
1960s Interior Secretary Stewart Udall proposed to phase out the dwellings so that the
sites would not become “permanently dedicated to private use to the detriment or
exclusion of possible future public users” (United States, 1995 Audit, 2). In 1967, with
the issuance of Title 43 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 21, Udall’s exit strategy
focused solely on cabin sites. For substantial improvements made prior to 1967, the
federal government identified a 20-year amortization deadline as this was deemed a
reasonable amount of time for which cabin owners could realize their investments.
Leases with improvements made subsequent to 1967, however, would only be phased
15
out after first being identified by Reclamation as being land that was inconsistent with
the public need. For these improvements, either the federal government identified a
deadline of the end of a permit term or a 5-year extension from the date of the public
need determination.
However, Title 43 CFR Part 21 was ineffective in removing residential PEU
because of three loopholes, two of which existed due to the presence of nonfederal
managing partners. First, in August 1967, a Reclamation Field Official issued an
opinion stating that the CFR did not apply to those residential PEU sites authorized by
permits issued by a nonfederal managing partner (United States, 1995 Audit 13).
Second, nonfederal managing partners continued approving improvement permit
requests thereby creating an environment of continuous improvement and indefinite
occupancy for the sites. Third and finally, Reclamation had not clearly identified or
defined what constituted “public need.” Without this definition, Reclamation was
missing the key component necessary for the determination of whether residential PEU
should be removed. Thus, with the actions of the nonfederal managing partners and the
lack of actions by Reclamation, residential PEU continued to occur.
Call for Change (1990s to 2000)
In 1995 and 2000, Interior’s OIG issued two audits examining Reclamation’s
management activities of its recreation areas. In 1995, the OIG found that Reclamation
had limited success in its attempts to eliminate or reduce residential PEU as
Reclamation had yet to establish definitive guidelines for determining what constituted
public need or to develop an amortization system. As such, the OIG recommended that
16
Reclamation incorporate the requirement for federal policies into new and existing
management agreements, develop definitive guidelines for identifying public use need,
and establish an amortization system.
In 2000, the OIG again looked at Reclamation’s management activities and
reviewed those newly adopted policies and directives developed by Reclamation as a
result of the 1995 audit. Additionally, the 2000 audit focused on the health and safety
aspect of residential PEU activity. The OIG found that while Reclamation’s newly
developed criteria provided an adequate framework when fully implemented, that
Reclamation had not effectively managed its existing concession operations. These
criteria also guided Reclamation in its concession contract management activities that
include circumstances prohibiting such use, unauthorized building improvements, and
impact of such use in degrading land quality. As such, the OIG recommended that
Reclamation establish and implement oversight and review processes to ensure
compliance with existing contract provisions. At the time of the audit’s end in May
2000, Reclamation had concurred with this recommendation with actions planned but
not yet taken.
17
Chapter 4
REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES
Starting in the late 1990s, Reclamation began to develop internal policy and
directives for its management of acceptable land uses on its recreation lands, including
how the Reclamation would handle private exclusive use activities. As Reclamation’s
authority and expertise is not primarily in recreation management, it worked with and
borrowed language from another of Interior’s land management agencies, the National
Park Service. Resulting from these activities, Reclamation issued the following three
primary directives in 1998, with updates issued in 2002:

Land Use Authorizations (LND 08-01),

Concessions Management by Reclamation (LND 04-01), and

Concessions Management by Non-Federal Partners (LND 04-02).
Reclamation’s actions regarding the monitoring and removal of residential PEU activity
is dictated by these directives unless superseded by other federal regulations.
Applicability
The applicability of these policy and directives on residential PEU sites is
dependent on a single major factor: what type of authorization instrument is used by
Reclamation. Reclamation authorizes residential PEU either through permits, licenses,
or leases to individuals (i.e. a direct authorization), or indirectly through the approval
for concessionaires to lease to individuals. In the case of a direct authorization, the
majority of use authorizations issued will generally be in the form of permits and
licenses. Permits are used for short-term authorizations generally lasting less than three
18
years, while licenses are used for longer term authorizations. Leases, permits and
licenses are not to exceed term lengths of 25 years as any time longer is not considered
to be in the best interest of the public (United States, “Land Use Authorizations” 1-2, 911).
Whatever the instrument used, however, policy and directives remain consistent
in their prohibition of new residential PEU, requirement for Reclamation oversight, and
consideration for environmental impacts. However, it is Reclamation’s direction for the
phasing out of existing residential PEU that is contradicted depending on what
authorizing instrument is in place.
Existing Residential PEU
Reclamation’s ability to continue authorization of existing residential PEU is
possible due to the issuance of multiple federal regulation and Reclamation directives
starting as early as the 1960s. (See Table 2 for a timeline of issuance of these regulation
and directives). Initial authorization came in 1967 with the issuance of 43 CFR Part 21
(Part 21) that was specific only to cabin sites. Over three decades later, within its Land
Use Authorization directive issued in 1998 and updated in 2002, Reclamation extended
this authorization to any residential PEU directly authorized by Reclamation to an
individual through permit, lease, or license. In 2008, this authorization extended to all
residential PEU through the issuance of federal regulation 43 CFR Part 429 (Part 429).
This federal regulation effectively trumped all existing Reclamation directives and
policy at the time that asserted the mandatory phase-out of existing PEU authorized
through concession contracts.
19
The ability to extend authorization for residential PEU is conditional upon two
key criteria stipulated within Part 429. That is, any removal action by Reclamation is
dependent upon a two-level review that first looks at the use’s compatibility with public
need and project purpose, and then looks at the presence of environmental and/or health
and safety risks.
Compatibility Determination
Within the federal regulations and Reclamation directives, the continuation of
existing PEU is dependent first upon Reclamation’s determination that the sites are
compatible with public need and project purpose. This compatibility determination is
first required by Part 21 (1967), with the process for these determinations later clarified
by Reclamation’s Land Use Authorization directive (2002) and by Part 429 (2008).
While the directive and Part 429 seek to clarify what is required in making the
compatibility determination, the primary difference is who has the burden of proof.
Unlike Reclamation’s Land Use Authorizations directive that places the burden on
residential PEU sites to show that there is a significant public need and benefit for their
continued existence, Part 429 simply requires that these sites be compatible with public
needs and project purpose. Part 429 likewise requires that the compatibility
determination include public involvement using mechanisms such as public meetings
commenting on resource management plan development, recreation demand analysis
studies, and project feasibility studies.
By nature of regulation, the occurrence of Reclamation’s determination of land
use compatibility is infrequent. Whereas Part 21 requires Reclamation to examine the
20
compatibility of cabin sites every 5 years, Part 429 broadens this examination to all
residential PEU to occur at least once every 20 years. This 20-year time length is based
on the reasoning that land use authorizations themselves are not to exceed 20 years.
Table 2 shows the timeline of requirements and frequency for Reclamation to
use within its compatibility determination.
Table 2: Timeline of Compatibility Requirements and Frequency
TIMELINE OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION REQUIREMENTS & FREQUENCY
Year
Regulation or
Directive
Type of PEU
Affected
Frequency of
Determination
Public
Involvement
1967
2002
2008
43 CFR Part 21
LND 08-01
43 CFR Part 429
Cabins
Residential PEU
authorized via direct
authorizations
(i.e. Non-Concession)
All Residential PEU
Not stated
Once every 20 years, except
where 43 Part 21 requires
more frequent.
(i.e. Cabins)
While a formal
planning process is
required, public
involvement is not.
Public process must include
one or more public meetings.
Examples include resource
management plan
development, recreation
demand analysis studies, and
project feasibility studies.
Once every 5 years
None Required
Sources: National Archives and Records Administration, Title 43 CFR Parts 21 Sec. 21.1-4 and Title 43
CFR Parts 429 Subpart H. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Land Use Authorizations,
Directives and Standards LND 08-01” (1-4).
21
Government Oversight
If Reclamation determines that residential PEU sites are compatible,
Reclamation must then examine the sites in terms of environmental and health and
safety risks. Additionally, Reclamation must also examine whether persons have met
their financial obligations through payment of use authorization fees. Per Part 429,
Reclamation must conduct these reviews at least once every five years, with any
deficiencies to be corrected by the use authorization holder within a minimum of 90
days from the report date. If the permit owner is unable to meet this deadline, the use
authorization is to be terminated. In the case of non-renewal or termination, then the use
authorization holder is responsible for returning the property to as near as possible to its
original undisturbed condition.
In addition to these five-year compliance reviews required by Part 429,
Reclamation also requires more frequent contract compliance reviews for its
concessions. Unlike concessions managed by nonfederal managing partners that receive
a single annual review by Reclamation, a concession managed by Reclamation itself
receives multiple reviews throughout the year that are considered to be either local or
external in nature. Local reviews, conducted twice annually with one review occurring
in the high recreation season, are conducted by the Reclamation office directly
responsible for the concession’s oversight (that is, the “direct office”). In contrast,
external reviews, conducted at least once within a 5-year period, are conducted by a
team of technical experts composed of employees who are not from the direct office and
may also include specialists from outside Reclamation. Whatever the managing entity
22
or type of contract compliance review, any deficiencies found by the reviewers are
reported to the managing entity with a timetable for correction included.
With the issuance of its Recreation Program Management directive in 2009,
these local and external reviews are similarly required for direct authorizations but are
not as frequent. Instead of annual reviews, direct land authorizations are to receive a
local and an external review on a 10-year life cycle.
Table 3 shows a complete listing of all reviews required of Reclamation.
23
Table 3: Reviews Required of Reclamation
REVIEWS REQUIRED OF RECLAMATION
(in order of regulation or directive effective date)
Regulation or
Directive
(Issue Date)
43 CFR Part 21
Occupancy of Cabin
Sites on Public
Conservation and
Recreation Areas
(1967)
43 CFR Part 429
Use of Bureau of
Reclamation Land,
Facilities, and
Waterbodies
(2008)
LND 08-01
Land Use
Authorizations
(2002)
LND 04-01
Concessions
Management by
Reclamation
(2002)
LND 04-02
Concessions
Management by NonFederal Partners
(2002)
LND 01-03
Recreation Program
Management
(2009)
Type of
Authorization
Type of Review
Frequency
Direct
Authorization
for cabins only
Compatibility with
Public Use Need
1 every 5 years
Compatibility with
Public Use Need
1 every 20 years
Environmental, Health & Safety,
Financial Obligations
1 every 5 years
Review of technical sufficiency
looking at land, operation and
maintenance, safety, finance and
environmental factors.
Creation of
authorization
instrument
Direct
Authorization
& Concession
Direct
Authorization
Compatibility with
Public Use Need
Throughout
duration of the use
authorization
instrument (i.e.
upon application,
periodic during
issuance, and upon
expiration)
2 local reviews
conducted
annually; and, 1
external review
conducted once
every 5 years
Concession
Compliance with contract terms
and Reclamation policy,
directives, and guidelines specific
to concession operations and
administration.
Concession
Concession operations and
administration
Annual
Direct
Authorization
& Concession
Business practices, planning
documents, management
agreements, security plans, health
and safety requirements
1 local and 1
external within a
10-year cycle
Sources: CFRs published by the National Archives and Records Administration. Directives (LNDs)
published by Reclamation.
24
Reporting Requirements
While nonfederal managing partners and concessionaires have not historically
reported to Reclamation the extent of residential PEU occurring on Reclamation lands,
Reclamation has implemented a new tracking system to capture this data. Beginning in
May 2009, Reclamation brought online the Recreation Use Data Report (RUDR)
System to track recreation and financial features of recreation areas managed by
Reclamation and its nonfederal managing partners and concessionaires. Currently,
annual completion of the RUDR form by nonfederal managing partners and
concessionaires is required for only those agreements and contracts entered into or
modified after January 2009 in compliance with Reclamation’s Recreation Program
Management directive. Under existing agreements and contracts entered into prior to
2009, participation is voluntary. To help mitigate double counting of features, each
entity is to provide information only on those recreation areas for which they are
responsible. Nonfederal managing partners and concessionaires are to submit a
complete the RUDR form no later than December 31 (United States, “Recreation
Program Management” 20).
The RUDR forms identify that the information reported within it provides
Reclamation with a mechanism to evaluate and improve the recreation services and
programs that it provides (United States, RUDR Forms 7-2534 and 7-2535 1). In
addition to basic administrative information such as contract and agreement
identification numbers and approval/expiration dates, the RUDR form also identifies
recreation land features such as total project lands, total reservoir surface area, total
25
recreation land area, total wildlife land areas, and reservoir shoreline. The forms further
identify visitation rates, inventory of recreation facilities, designated areas,
opportunities, and rankings of most popular recreation activities within the area.
Within this broader data collection of recreation features, managing partners and
concessions are to identify the quantity and type of exclusive use along with a brief
description of the use and the general location. Additionally, Reclamation or its
nonfederal managing partners are to note the last Reclamation review and inspection
date conducted in compliance with the Reclamation’s Recreation Program Management
directive. Specific to concessions, Reclamation or its nonfederal managing partner are
to also note the type of review (i.e. local or external), as well as any significant findings.
26
Chapter 5
CURRENT EXTENT OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE USE
As is the case with any policy, true effectiveness is proven by implementation.
In order to identify whether Reclamation has made progress in addressing residential
PEU activity, implementation is first examined holistically at the national level and then
locally using individual case studies. As the 1995 and 2000 OIG audits highlighted
egregious deficiencies at California’s Lake Berryessa and Montana’s Canyon Ferry
Reservoir, these recreation areas were selected as the case studies for further
examination.
Nationwide
Since 1998, Reclamation policy and directives regarding concessions
management required that Reclamation or its nonfederal managing partner comply with
federal regulations and identify a timetable for the removal of existing residential PEU
upon modification to an existing contract or issuance a new contract. However, the
majority of residential PEU activity on Reclamation-managed sites are authorized by
individual leases with Reclamation and thus is not subject to this policy and its
directives. Instead, prior to the 2008 issuance of 43 CFR Part 429, those sites directly
authorized by Reclamation through permit, lease, or license were allowed to continue so
long as Reclamation determines that there is a significant public need and benefit for the
PEU and that the land is not needed for other public or project purposes.
27
On the surface, it appears that Reclamation has made progress in the removal of
residential PEU activity on its Reclamation-managed recreation areas; however, closer
review shows that such progress has not occurred. In June 2010, Reclamation provided
a list of six Reclamation-managed recreation areas for which residential PEU occurred.
These six recreation areas are located within only two of the Reclamation’s five
regions: the Great Plains and Pacific Northwest regions. (A map of Reclamation’s five
regions is shown in Figure 2.) Reclamation was unable to identify data for those
recreation areas managed by its nonfederal managing partners as the partners have not
historically reported this information.
Figure 2: Map of Reclamation’s Five Regions
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, About Us.
28
Within those six recreation areas currently managed by Reclamation, 43 mobile
homes and 275 cabins exist. This is a decrease from the 1,656 mobile homes and 681
cabins reported in the 1995 OIG audit for those recreation areas managed directly by
Reclamation (United States 17). While appearing as progress in removing PEU sites,
this decrease is due to three major factors, only one of which is a reflection of
Reclamation’s systematic change in its policy and directives. These factors are
addressed below.
Table 4 shows a comparison of residential PEU activity occurring within these
six recreation areas, as well as two additional recreation areas that will be discussed.
Table 4: Residential PEU Identified by Reclamation
Region
Count
Pacific
Northwest
1
RESIDENTIAL PEU IDENTIFIED BY RECLAMATION:
Comparison of 1995 to 2010
1995
2010
Recreation Area
Mobile
Mobile
Cabins
Cabins
Homes
Homes
Conconully Lake
100
81
2
Owyhee Reservoir
72
61
Lease
3
Fresno Reservoir
24
24
Permit
4
Canyon Ferry
265
5
Nelson Reservoir
108
6
Seminoe Reservoir
Great
Plains
43
Not Noted
Subtotal (as reported by Reclamation)
Great
Plains
Mid
Pacific
7
Lake Tschida*
8
Lake Berryessa*
112
117
0
License
Concession
106
Permit
3
Permit
275
43
110
114
Permit
0
Concession
1496
Grand Total
681
1656
*= Not identified within Reclamation’s initial 2010 reporting.
43
Instrument
385
157
Sources: Data for 1995 obtained from Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Report No. 95-I-870 (17). Data for 2010 provided by Reclamation.
29
The first of those three factors giving a misleading indication of Reclamation’s
progress was due to Reclamation transferring its management of Lake Tschida in
December 2009 to a nonfederal managing partner. Thus, while not initially reported
with the six Reclamation-managed sites, Lake Tschida’s over 200 cabin and mobile
home sites remain on the public land with no plans for removal. The second factor
comes from the 1998 enactment of the Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-277, Title X) that authorized the transfer by sale of the 265 cabin sites located
within the Canyon Ferry Reservoir to the individual cabin owners. As such, the 265
cabin sites are effectively 265 private in holdings within Reclamation’s recreation area.
The third and final factor is the Mid Pacific Region’s Lake Berryessa, which is the only
site that reflects Reclamation’s policy for the phasing out of residential PEU. In a June
2006 federal record of decision resulting from an extensive multi-year public process,
Lake Berryessa began the process of completely removing its nearly 1,500 mobile
homes from the recreation area.
Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison of residential PEU activity as reported in
1995 and then in 2010. Figure 3 is a strict comparison of residential PEU activity as
reported by the Reclamation. Figure 4 adapts this comparison in terms of residential
PEU impact, taking into consideration Canyon Ferry, Lake Tschida, and Lake
Berryessa.
30
ON
RESIDENTIAL PEU ACTIVITY
RECLAMATION-MANAGED RECREATION AREAS
(as reported by Reclamation)
272
Cabins
681
2010
1995
43
Trailers
1656
0
500
1000
Number of Sites
1500
2000
Figure 3: Residential PEU Activity
Sources: Data for 1995 obtained from Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General, Report No. 95-I-870, (17). Data for 2010 provided by Reclamation.
RESIDENTIAL PEU IMPACT
649
Cabins
681
2010
1995
160
Trailers
1656
0
500
1000
Number of Sites
1500
2000
Figure 4: Residential PEU Impact
Sources: Data for 1995 obtained from Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General, Report No. 95-I-870, (17). Data for 2010 provided by Reclamation.
31
Case Studies
On the surface, California’s Lake Berryessa and Montana’s Canyon Ferry
Reservoir are similar to many other basin projects across the nation that the federal
government built with the primary intention of flood control, water supply, and
electrical power generation with recreation considered only after construction was
complete. Lake Berryessa is 23 miles in length with 165 miles of shoreline and is one of
the largest bodies of fresh water in California (United States, Berryessa Facts); Canyon
Ferry is 26 miles in length with 96 miles or shoreline (United States, Canyon Ferry
Information). For both recreation areas, Reclamation contracts with concessionaires that
provide support for recreation opportunities that include boating, fishing, swimming,
camping and day-use activities.
Recreation maps for both reservoirs are shown in Figure 5.
32
Figure 5: Recreation Maps for Lake Berryessa (Left) and Canyon Ferry Lake (Right)
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Visitor Information and Canyon Ferry Information.
In addition to those recreation services offered to the general public, both
recreation areas also included residential PEU activity. Lake Berryessa’s seven
concessions were home to approximately 1,500 mobile homes; Canyon Ferry’s two
concessions were home to just over 40 mobile homes. Canyon Ferry also held 265 cabin
sites that were authorized via direct use authorizations between the individuals and
Reclamation.
33
Figures 6 through 9 show examples of residential PEU activity occurring on
Lake Berryessa and Canyon Ferry.
Figure 6: Mobile Homes Along Lake Berryessa Shoreline, 2002
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Figure 7: Mobile Home Community Within Lake Berryessa, 2002
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
34
Figure 8: Mobile Home Community at Kim’s Marina, Canyon Ferry Reservoir, 2010
[Sewage drain violations (bottom left) due to capacity and proximity to mobile homes.]
Source: Photo taken by author.
Figure 9: Mobile Home Community at Goose Bay Marina, Canyon Ferry Reservoir, 2010
[Not pictured: Canyon Ferry Lake shoreline to direct left of road shown.]
Source: Photo taken by author.
35
Residential PEU Violations
In 1995 and again in 2000, the OIG audits highlighted widespread violations
occurring at both Lake Berryessa and Canyon Ferry. Health and safety violations
included electrical wiring, fire safety, propane fuel storage, grounds and housekeeping,
and hazardous waste. Additional violations also included the occurrence of
unauthorized mobile home improvements such as concrete sea walls, retaining walls
and stairways along the shoreline (United States, 2000 Audit 11-12). The 2000 OIG
audit also found that Lake Berryessa mobile home sites had the potential for soil
contamination from underground storage tanks and had experienced the discharge of
effluent from sewage ponds since as early as 1996 (13). By February 2001, the State of
California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Notice of Violations of State
and County wastewater discharge laws for six of the seven Lake Berryessa concessions
after finding that the mobile home sites had been making gray (sink/bath) and black
(toilet) water discharges into the lake or onto the ground (United States, Reclamation
and the State).
An example of unauthorized mobile home improvements and wastewater
discharge violations is shown in Figure 10. Unauthorized mobile home improvements
include housing structure build around the mobile home, wood retaining walls, stairway
to the shoreline, and a sewage pipe discharging onto the ground.
36
Figure 10: Unauthorized Mobile Home Improvements and Sewage Discharge Violations at
Lake Berryessa, 2001
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Lake Berryessa
With concession contracts coming due in 2008 through 2009, Reclamation’s
MidPacific region began preparing for the expiration of its seven Lake Berryessa
concessions contracts in early 2000. To prepare for a shift in acceptable land uses on its
recreation land, the MidPacific region began developing an encompassing Visitor
Services Plan that included the review of potential commercial services, an
environmental impact study in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
and extensive public comment. After experiencing years of shifting politics,
37
Reclamation issued a record of decision in June 2006 calling for the removal of all
existing residential PEU (United States, Record 5). In working within an Interior
interagency team composed of the National Park Service and Bureau of Land
Management, Reclamation developed and issued a prospectus in September 2006 to
advertise requests for proposals for businesses looking to operate one or more of Lake
Berryessa’s seven concession areas.
Two interested parties were against the removal of Lake Berryessa’s nearly
1,500 mobile home sites: concession operators and mobile home owners. To compound
this opposition, the mobile home owners originated from throughout the State thus
inciting political interest spanning across California districts. Stemming from the 2006
record of decision and prospectus issuance, those opposing the mobile home removal
filed lawsuits against Reclamation in the court of federal claims. Concessionaires were
the primary claimants in the lawsuits as they were seeking reimbursement for their
general use facilities such as stores and public restrooms. Of those lawsuits filed against
Reclamation, mobile home owners filed only one.
Reclamation addressed these legal matters in consult with the Federal
Department of Justice; in all cases, the lawsuits were dismissed because claimants could
not meet the Fifth Amendment’s definition of a “Taking”. Additionally, the suit filed by
“Berryessa for All,” the group of mobile home owners, was dismissed as a nuisance
lawsuit as they had no contractual or legal relationship with Reclamation.
While the lawsuits remained active, Reclamation was unable to open any
prospectus bids; upon dealing with the lawsuits. Once these lawsuits were satisfied,
38
Reclamation opened the bids and selected two operators. Reclamation scheduled the
contracts with these operators as each existing interim contract expired. However, the
contract process was later halted due to a fatal flaw in the prospectus process that
allowed for a cost reimbursement for which Reclamation did not in fact have authority.
On the advice of their lawyers, Reclamation amended the contracts to remove the
capital cost reimbursement language and then restarted the prospective process.
This halt and then restart resulted in a shutdown of the concession areas as the
interim contracts came to term with no new contracts in place. However, this shutdown
in the contract process actually benefitted Lake Berryessa as it allowed Reclamation the
time to clean those concession areas left with abandoned mobile homes, cars and boats,
as well as hazardous materials and sewage ponds. According to Reclamation, the Mid
Pacific Region used a total of approximately $5.7 million in stimulus monies from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) to contract with local
cleanup crews to demolish and/or remove abandoned property.
Figures 11 and 12 are a before and after example of the activities for one such
abandoned mobile home that had unauthorized improvements in the form of a wooden
deck. While not clearly visible within the picture, this mobile home was within close
proximity to the shoreline.
39
Figure 11: Before Removal of Abandoned Mobile Home, Lake Berryessa, 2010
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Figure 12: After Removal of Abandoned Mobile Home, Lake Berryessa, 2010
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
40
Canyon Ferry
Unlike Lake Berryessa that saw the complete removal of residential PEU sites
from its recreation area, residential PEU sites on Canyon Ferry have essentially
remained unchanged to date. Specifically, the 43 mobile homes continue their
authorization through concessions while the 265 cabin sites now compose 265 separate
in holdings (or, private land surrounded by the federal estate) due to the legislatively
mandated sale of the federal land to the cabin owners. A satellite image of some of the
265 cabins and private docks along Canyon Ferry Lake’s shoreline is shown in
Figure 13.
Figure 13: Satellite Image of Some of the 265 Cabins (and Private Docks) Along Canyon
Ferry Lake Shoreline, 2010
Source: Google Maps, Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
41
The 43 mobile home sites continue to exist within two concessions: Kim’s
Marina and Goose Bay. Kim’s Marina operates under a 20-year concession contract
issued in January 2006 while Goose Bay’s concession contract comes due in December
2010 and is currently in the process of issuing its prospectus. Recreation demand is
primarily an issue for Kim’s Marina as it is shoe-horned in between private lands as
opposed to Goose Bay that is a more remote location. Under its current contract, Kim’s
Marina holds a clause that demands the removal of the mobile homes by 2013 (i.e.
about 7 years from the contract issue date). However, this removal may be affected by
federal regulation 43 CFR Part 429, which allows for the conditional continuance.
As for Canyon Ferry’s cabin sites, change in land ownership stemmed not from
the public’s outcry over the exclusive use of public lands, but rather the outcry of the
cabin owners over the paying of what they perceived to be unfair lease rates. Since the
1980s, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (Association), an interest group
formed by the cabin lease holders, had attempted to initiate the sale of the 265 leased
lots. With the 1993 management return of the recreation area from the State of Montana
to Reclamation, this push gained significant momentum. Within this management shift,
Reclamation prompted the update of lease rates into compliance with fair market values
that increased the annual rates from approximately $600 to approximately $2,250.
Prompted in large part by their dissatisfaction with the increased lease rates,
attorneys for the Canyon Ferry cabin owners worked with the Montana Congressional
delegation and congressional staff in the creation of the Canyon Ferry Reservoir,
Montana Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277, Title X). Through this Act, the Secretary of the
42
Interior was authorized to transfer by sale the ownership of the leased land to those
private individuals who held the lease. Under the legislation, the required elements for a
taking – that is, due process and just compensation – were present but this time,
reversed so as to accommodate the situation of a private entity taking public land. To
fulfill its requirement of both substantive and procedural due process, the federal
government outlined in the Canyon Ferry legislation and published in an October 2001
Federal Register publication its intent for sale (substantive) and the process by which
Reclamation was to administer the sale (procedural).1 To provide the public with just
compensation for its loss of recreation lands, the sites were sold at fair market value.
Additionally, the 1998 Canyon Ferry legislation mandated a mechanism that
would provide “in-kind” restitution for the loss of public lands. Specifically, Section
1007 of the legislation mandated that the cabin sale revenues be placed into a
“charitable permanent perpetual public trust” whose earnings would be used to purchase
other public lands within Montana for the purpose of restoring and conserving fisheries
and wildlife habitats, enhancing public recreation opportunities, and improving public
access to land. The legislation further identified that lands and interests in land
purchased by trust monies become property of the Departments of Interior or
Agriculture, or the State of Montana. Reclamation completed the sale of all 265 cabin
lots by 2005 that established the initial trust balance of nearly $15 million. By 2007, the
trust balance had reached $20.3 million.
1
The Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal
agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.
43
As shown in Figure 14, a total of 17 acquisitions were funded through 2006,
with their acquisition adding 7,509 acres for public use at an approximate total value of
$1.7 million (Montana 3).
Figure 14: Recreation Lands Acquired with Canyon Ferry Conservation Trust Funds
Source: Montana, Montana Fish & Wildlife, 3.
44
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In reviewing Reclamation’s policy implementation, both at a national and at a
localized level, it is apparent that Reclamation has not sufficiently addressed residential
PEU issues on public recreation land. While Reclamation’s Land Resources Division
has historically been responsible for policy development, management of residential
PEU activities is decentralized as policy implementation decisions are delegated to
Reclamation’s regional, area, and field offices. Without the benefit of a strong
centralized oversight office, Reclamation may not fully meet those management
controls required by federal regulation Title 43 CFR Part 429.
In consideration of Part 429 and those known issues, Reclamation should
identify the LRD as its central oversight office for those activities specific to
compatibility determinations and compliance reviews. Moreover, given that the LRD is
implementing its first complete year of the RUDR system, the timing to assume central
oversight is reasonable and appropriate. As an oversight office, the LRD should be
responsible for identifying a standard set of minimum activities and documentation
requirements for regional, area, and field offices to use in completing compatibility
determinations and compliance reviews. Furthermore, the LRD should act as a checkand-balance by reviewing determination and review findings prior to the renewal of use
authorizations by the regional offices.
45
Specific recommendations for LRD’s oversight strategy for successfully
meeting those requirements set forth by Part 429 are organized within the three
following areas: compatibility determinations, environmental and health and safety
compliance reviews, and fair compensation. A complete matrix of recommendations by
category, action item, responsible office, and suggested time for completion is found in
Appendix A.
Compatibility Determinations
Despite the presence of requirements to do so, Reclamation has not consistently
completed or documented its compatibility determinations or the extent to which the
public was involved in the process. In order to ensure that Reclamation conducts a
transparent compatibility determination that meets federal requirements, Reclamation
should act on the following to clarify and standardize its determination process:
1. Clearly identify when a compatibility determination is required on a more
frequent basis.
2. Identify a standard set of activities to be involved in the compatibility
determination.
3. Identify documentation and reporting requirements.
Action 1: Clearly Identify When a Compatibility Determination is Required on a More
Frequent Basis
Reclamation must clearly identify when a compatibility determination is
required on a more frequent basis. Currently, frequency is determined by what type of
residential PEU is involved and what type of use authorization instrument is in place.
46
Part 429 requires that the compatibility determination be made “at least once every 20
years, except where [Title 43 CFR] part 21 requires a more frequent review” (emphasis
added). With this exception, cabins site permits are still subject to the more frequent 5year determination while mobile homes and any residential PEU authorized via
concessions contract are subject only to the 20-year frequency.
Given potential changes in recreation or population demographics, however, this
extension of time between determinations is not in the best interest of the American
public. Reclamation found as much when, in January 2007, it issued a practitioner’s
guide for estimating recreation demand. Specifically, authors Haas et al., (2007)
identified that “the recreating public continues to grow in number and diversity as new
technologies and choices of how to enjoy the outdoors expand…Predicting any human
endeavor is tenuous, given unforeseen events and considerable uncertainty” (1). Given
this knowledge, the 20-year timeline appears only to serve the interests of those select
individuals who made the personal decision to financially invest in private
improvements on federal lands.
As Reclamation is responsible for addressing the public’s water-based recreation
demands, Reclamation should exercise its ability to increase the frequency of these
determinations as necessary by monitoring recreation activity annually reported within
its RUDR system. Specifically, the LRD should monitor whether significant changes
occur within a given recreation area in terms of annual visitation or inventory of
recreation facilities, designated areas, and opportunities. If the LRD identifies such,
47
then the LRD should require the regional office conduct a compatibility determination
prior to renewing residential PEU authorizations.
Action 2: Identify a Standard Set of Activities to be Involved in the Compatibility
Determination
Reclamation must identify a standard set of minimum activities to be involved in
the compatibility determination in order to ensure a consistent and transparent process.
In 1995, the OIG identified that Reclamation was unable to identify what constituted a
public need and recommended that Reclamation act to make this a clearly defined
concept. In 2002, Reclamation’s directive on Land Use Authorizations and identified 13
specific questions for consideration within the determination’s formal planning process
(4, 5). Table 5 identifies these 13 questions.
48
Table 5: Thirteen Questions Identified by Reclamation’s Land Use Authorizations Directive
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IN CONDUCTING COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION
Question
Purpose
1.
Is the land needed for project purposes such as water development?
Project
2.
Is public demand exceeding the carrying capacity of existing
recreation facilities?
Recreation
3.
Is private or semi-private use inhibiting public use or enjoyment of
land?
Recreation
4.
Do National, State, or local planning documents (such as a
Resource Management Plan or Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan) identify the need for additional activities or
facilities that can be met on these lands?
Recreation
5.
Does the economic benefits of public use exceed those of
continuing private or semi-private use?
6.
Can public use and access be reasonably directed to another area?
Recreation
7.
Are adjacent public use facilities in need of expansion?
Recreation
8.
Is the scenic quality of the resource being degraded?
9.
Does private or semi-private use conflict with the preservation of
the natural characteristics of the shoreline?
10. Is private or semi-private use resulting in negative environmental
impacts?
Economic Benefit
Recreation/ Environment
Environment
Environment
11. Is access to shoreline obstructed by private or semi-private use?
Recreation
12. Would the quality of visitor experience be enhanced by reducing or
eliminating private or semi-private use?
Recreation
13. Has the area been maintained in a safe, clean condition, and in
accordance with the terms of the use authorization?
Health and Safety
Source: Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, “Land Use Authorizations, Directives and
Standards LND 08-01” (4-5).
Despite the presence of these questions for consideration, Reclamation did not
enforce their use. Instead, without providing formal oversight, Reclamation’s LRD
delegated the compatibility determination responsibility to its regional, area and field
offices. Among those officials interviewed, it was identified that only half of the six
49
Reclamation-managed recreation areas experienced a formal compatibility
determination. As all six of these recreation areas had use authorizations modified or
renewed after 2002, however, all were subject to complete a formal planning process
using those 13 questions. Officials for the remaining Reclamation-managed recreation
areas indicated that their compatibility determination was based on existing knowledge
of the recreation area and a judgment call by their office.
In interviews with Reclamation policy officials, they acknowledged that formal
determinations were not consistently made and thus Part 429 focused on public
involvement requirements to provide a form of transparency. While Part 429 supersedes
Reclamation directives, Reclamation should still require that determinations consider
those initial 13 questions posed within its 2002 Land Use Authorization directive.
Although public involvement helps to include rightfully vested parties – that is, the
public – into the determination process, the 13 questions identify a standard minimum
basis that all residential PEU communities must meet, no matter the state they are
located in, when the authorization was originally approved, or where they are in
proximity to the shoreline.
Action 3: Identify Documentation and Reporting Requirements
In order to ensure transparency of the determination process, Reclamation must
identify requirements for documenting and reporting. As stated previously,
Reclamation’s requirement to conduct formal planning did not yield consistent
implementation from its regional, area, and field offices. As such, to provide centralized
oversight, the LRD should require that the offices report the date of determination and
50
brief summary of results within its RUDR system. Additionally, the offices should
document its process and findings resulting from the compatibility determination, as
well as retain for archival any planning materials or public comments received.
Environmental and Health and Safety Compliance Reviews
Concessions are to have annual inspections of its operation and recreation
activities, while all residential PEU authorizations are to be inspected at least once
every 5 years looking at environmental and health and safety risks. In order to ensure
that residential PEU sites on public recreation lands under Reclamation’s jurisdiction do
not adversely affect the land in terms of environmental and health and safety risks,
Reclamation should act on the following when conducting compliance reviews:
1. Identify a minimum set of standard features for inspection.
2. Utilize independent professional inspectors from outside Reclamation.
3. Document the review process and its findings.
Action 1: Identify a Minimum Set of Features for Inspection
Reclamation must first identify a minimum set of features for inspection to
provide a base standard by which all residential PEU sites must meet. Aside from
requiring that the reviews occur, neither federal regulation nor Reclamation directives
explicitly identify what is entailed in an environmental or health and safety compliance
review. According to the LRD, these compliance reviews have not been further
examined within its directives as each recreation area differs in physical features such
as presence of cabin versus mobile home, location on or off shoreline, type of drainage
system, or presence of general use areas.
51
Despite differences in residential PEU sites within recreation areas, Reclamation
should consult with technical staff and other qualified professionals to identify standard
features that at minimum are to be inspected. For example, environmental features may
include examination of residential PEU impact on shoreline degradation, water and soil
quality, and presence of invasive species. Similarly, general health and safety features
may include the examination of sewage and drainage systems, as well as electrical
wiring, propane tank placement, and other fire hazards.
Action 2: Utilize Independent Professional Inspectors from Outside Reclamation
After identifying a minimum set of features for inspection, Reclamation should
utilize independent professional inspectors from outside the Reclamation. The use of
such inspectors lends legitimacy to the compliance review, as well as allows
Reclamation resources to be used on other mission activities. In many cases,
Reclamation officials conduct reviews in a collateral manner via “walk throughs” as
time allowed. As such, inspections are not always holistic (that is, sites are reviewed
sporadically and piecemealed rather than a complete inspection of the “community”) or
consistent in what is examined and how it is documented. In contrast, some recreation
areas contract with state or county inspectors to conduct environmental and health and
safety checks. For example, Canyon Ferry uses State and County professionals to
inspect health and safety, electrical, water, and sanitation issues at its Goose Bay
Marina.
Interestingly, the inspectors for Canyon Ferry found a number of health and
safety issues that were reoccurring as Reclamation had identified similar issues since as
52
early as 2000. Specifically, Canyon Ferry mobile homes habitually violated safeguards
for electrical components (exposed wires needing covering or be placed underground)
and propane tanks (too close proximity to mobile homes and roads, not structurally
sound in the case of vehicular impact, and not free of brush and other combustibles).
However, unlike the earlier reviews conducted by Reclamation, these inspections are
now documented by State and County officials and thus hold a greater weight when
enforcing compliance by the use authorization owners. Historically, Reclamation has
had little recourse to address noncompliance. That is, while noncompliance is grounds
for termination of land use authorizations, Reclamation officials interviewed could not
identify a single termination due to such grounds; however, they could identify land use
authorizations that saw multiple violations.
Action 3: Document the Review Process and its Findings
Finally, Reclamation must consistently document the compliance review process
and its findings to both ensure transparency and monitor reoccurrence in future
inspections. While it is recommended that Reclamation utilize independent professional
inspectors from outside, Reclamation is responsible for identifying the scope of work
(that is, the objective of the inspection) as well as for receiving the inspectors’ results.
Both activities by Reclamation should be well documented to ensure transparency in the
case of public inquiry. While the RUDR system has a component to identify the date of
the most recent review as well as a brief summary of findings, regional offices should
document and archive these reviews and any findings in their entirety. Inventory of
completed compliance reviews is necessary because successful passing of these
53
inspections is required for the regional offices’ approval for the continuation of the land
use authorizations.
Fair Compensation
In addition to reviewing environmental and health and safety compliance,
residential PEU activity is to be reviewed at least once every 5 years in terms of
whether they meet financial obligations. Historically, residential PEU was used as a
way to ensure financial health of those entities working with seasonal recreation areas.
However, as was the case with Lake Berryessa prior to the removal of its approximately
1,500 mobile homes, this alternative income stream may motivate some concessions to
focus support activities catered specifically to tenants rather than the general public.
Fees charged for land use authorizations are a means for private individuals to
provide the public with the fair market value for the private exclusive use of public
lands. In order to ensure that the American public receives fair compensation for the
private exclusive use of their recreational lands, Reclamation should act on the
following:
1. Identify that concessionaires have proper land use authorizations in place.
2. Identify land use authorization fees are based on current fair market value.
3. Require nonfederal managing partners and concessionaires annually report
critical financial data on residential PEU sites.
4. Require electronic fund transfers be established as existing use authorizations
are modified or renewed.
54
Action 1: Identify that Concessionaires Have Proper Land Use Authorizations in Place
As they provide a legal basis both for occupancy and for payment of financial
obligations, Reclamation should identify whether concessionaires have proper land use
authorizations in place with their tenants when conducting compliance reviews. While
direct land use authorizations by Reclamation have lease, permit, and license
instruments in place, there is concern that this is not the case for those uses indirectly
authorized via concession contract. For example, according to a Canyon Ferry
Reclamation Field Office official responsible for oversight of the recreation area and
concessions, one of the operators functions without formal agreements between the
operator and the tenants. Thus, while the operator sends annual bylaws, fee charges, and
bills for health and safety inspections to tenants, there is no documented consent by the
tenants.
In order to ensure legal occupancy of residential PEU sites on recreation areas
managed by concessions, Reclamation should require its officials include a review of
land use authorizations when conducting financial compliance reviews. Such inspection
of the use authorizations should include its presence, as well as whether terms and
conditions reflect Reclamation directives as they relate to fee rates, timing of
collections, and penalties for default.
Action 2: Identify Land Use Authorization Fees are Based on Current Fair Market
Value
Financial compliance reviews should likewise identify that current land use
authorization fees are based on a current appraisal identifying fair market value of the
55
residential PEU sites. Use authorizations are to be based on fair market value (FMV); as
the lessees owns any improvements on their sites, the value used in calculating these
lease rates is assessed for only the land itself. The federal government’s use of FMV in
calculating the value of public lands is used as “the courts early adopted, and have
retained, the concept of market value as the measure of just compensation” to fulfill the
United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement in the case of a Taking
(Interagency 5). Per Part 429, this value may be adjusted as deemed appropriate by
Reclamation to reflect current conditions.
In two most recent instances where nonfederal managing partners returned
management of recreation areas to Reclamation, both resulted in Reclamation
increasing fee rates after identifying that they were not based on current FMV. For
Canyon Ferry, a 1993 change in management from the State of Montana to Reclamation
resulted in an increase in annual rates for its 265 cabin sites from approximately $600 to
$2,250. It was this rate increase, in combination with longstanding conflicts between
Reclamation and the cabin owners, which is attributed as the ultimate push for the
legislatively mandated sale of the federal lands to the private cabin owners in 1998.
In a second example, a turn back of management from the county irrigation
district to Reclamation in 2002 at Conconully Lake in Washington resulted in fee rate
increase for its 81 cabin sites. While cabin owners were initially paying an annual fee
rates ranging from $700 to $1,200, Reclamation subsequently increased rates to reflect
current FMV ranging from $1,875-$3,300. According to the Field Manager, while
Conconully Lake saw similar uproar by its cabin owners and subsequently their
56
Congressional delegates, this recreation area is not likely to see that same fate as
Canyon Ferry. Canyon Ferry sites are surrounded by federal lands considered to be
excess within the recreation area. In a 2002 environmental assessment conducted in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Reclamation determined that
transference of the land from public to private property “ would not have a significant
impact on the quality of the human environment” (United States, Finding 9).
Conversely, Conconully Lake sites are sandwiched between the shoreline and private
land; thus, conversion from public to private land would significantly impact public
recreation in the long term.
As seen in Table 6 below, the use of outdated fee rates by Reclamation’s
nonfederal managing partners for Canyon Ferry and Conconully Lake denied the public
over $500,000 compensation annually for the restricted use of their lands.
Table 6: Annual Compensation Denied to Public Due to Fee Rates
ANNUAL COMPENSATION DENIED TO PUBLIC DUE TO FEE RATES
Canyon Ferry Lake
Conconully Lake
Annual fee rate used by managing partner
Annual fee rate used by Reclamation
to reflect current FMV
Number of PEU Sites
Total annual compensation denied to
public
GRAND TOTAL (annual)
$ 600
$ 700 to $ 1,200
$ 2,250
$ 1,875 to $ 3,300
265
81
$ 437,250
$ 95,175 to $ 170,000
$532,425 to $607,250
Source: Compiled by author using data provided by Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
57
Given these known cases where management return to Reclamation has resulted
in identification of outdated fee rates, Reclamation should identify the basis for fee rates
when conducting financial reviews to ensure that the American public is receiving
current and fair compensation for the restricted use of their lands.
Action 3: Require Nonfederal Managing Partners and Concessionaires Annually
Report Critical Financial Data on Residential PEU Sites
In line with identifying during the 5-year compliance reviews that fee rates are
current, Reclamation should also require that nonfederal managing partners and
concessionaires annually report specific fee rates and revenues earned on residential
PEU sites. RUDR forms are due to the LRD by December 31. According to
Reclamation, while the RUDR system is meant to provide a holistic look at recreation
data, the system is also meant to provide Reclamation with an identified universe of
residential PEU activity occurring on all public lands no matter the managing entity.
Presently, the RUDR system is able to identify financial information for recreation
activities at only a broad level and cannot be used to identify which portion is specific
to residential PEU. In order to identify financial data specific to residential PEU
activity, Reclamation should require that its nonfederal managing partners and
concessionaires provide within its annual RUDR form those revenues generated through
fee collections, fee rates used and the basis for those rates. By requiring that specific
financial data for residential PEU activity be identified within the RUDR system,
Reclamation’s LRD is able to provide a means of oversight above that of the regional
level that fair compensation is met.
58
Including previous discussion on the importance of Reclamation identifying that
fee rates are based on current FMV, Table 7 provides a list of proposed financial data
reporting requirements. These proposed elements are either absent from current
requirements or are a variation on an existing requirement.
Table 7: Proposed Financial Data Requirements to be Reported Within RUDR Form
PROPOSED FINANCIAL DATA REQUIREMENTS TO BE REPORTED WITHIN RUDR FORM
(RECLAMATION, MANAGING PARTNER AND CONCESSIONAIRES)
Variation
Variation
Not Present
Variation
Exclusive Use
(Use and
Quantities)
Fee Rate
($ per year)
Fee Basis
Revenues
(in total $)
Mobile Homes Number
Use Authorization
(Residential –
Mobile Homes)
Date of Appraisal
Based on receipts
collected
Cabins - Number
Use Authorization
(Residential – Cabin)
Date of Reclamationdirected adjustment and
justification
Based on receipts
collected
Source: Adapted by author using Reclamation’s RUDR Forms 7-2534 and 7-2535.
It is noted that while Reclamation’s Recreation Program Management directive
requires that managing partners and concessionaires complete the RUDR form, that
their participation may still be considered voluntary. Within its instructions to its
nonfederal managing partners and concessionaires, Reclamation begins with a
Paperwork Reduction Act disclaimer that notifies the entities that response is voluntary
and that no action can be taken against the person(s) for refusing to supply the
information requested (1). At this time, however, Reclamation policy officials believe
59
that there should be little pushback from nonfederal managing partners and
concessionaires regarding the data collection as both have historically provided other
types of data to Reclamation.
Action 4: Require Electronic Fund Transfers be Established as Existing Use
Authorizations are Modified or Renewed
On a final note, it is strongly recommended that Reclamation take a more
proactive approach when it comes to fee collection. Both federal regulation and
Reclamation directives identify failure to meet financial obligations as a reason for
termination of land use authorizations. Despite this, however, Reclamation has
experienced issues in terms of fee collection.
In discussion with various Reclamation officials, it was identified that only one
of the recreation areas examined, Conconully Lake, utilized electronic bill payment for
fee collection. Using this technology, Conconully Lake has been able to mitigate
nonpayment as electronic bill payment is established at the time the use authorization is
issued. License owners are required to identify the frequency of payment (either annual
or bi-annual), as well as what account funds are to be drawn. In turn, the funds are then
transferred directly to the U.S. Treasury at the time of payment. Given the success at
Conconully Lake, Reclamation is encouraged to utilize and require electronic transfers
going forward as use authorizations are modified or renewed.
60
APPENDIX A
Recommendations
RESPONSIBLE
OFFICE
SUGGESTED TIME FOR
COMPLETION
Clearly identify when a
determination is required on
a more frequent basis.
LRD
Immediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
Identify a minimum set of
standard activities to be
involved in the compatibility
determination.
LRD
Immediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
3.
Identify documentation and
reporting requirements.
LRD
Immediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
1.
Identify a minimum set of
standard features for
inspection.
LRD
Immediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
Utilize independent
professional inspectors from
outside Reclamation.
Regional Office
Intermediate Action
Needed
3.
Document the review
process and its findings.
LRD and
Regional Office
Intermediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
1.
Identify that concessionaires
have proper land use
authorizations in place.
Regional Office
Intermediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
Identify land use
authorization fees are based
on current fair market value.
Regional Office
Intermediate Action
Needed &
Ongoing Maintenance
Require nonfederal
managing partners and
concessionaires annually
report critical financial data
on residential PEU sites.
LRD and
Regional Office
Immediate Action
Needed
Require electronic fund
transfers be established as
existing use authorizations
are modified or renewed.
Regional Office
Intermediate Action
Needed
CATEGORY
ACTION ITEM
1.
Compatibility
Determination
Environmental
and
Health and Safety
Compliance
Reviews
2.
2.
2.
Fair
Compensation
3.
4.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Pub. L. 89-72. 9 July 1965.
Google Maps. Canyon Ferry Reservoir. 29 September 2009. < http://maps.google.com>.
Haas, G.E., M.D. Wells, V. Lovejoy, and D. Welch. Estimating Future Recreation
Demand: A Decision Guide for the Practitioner. United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Program and Policy Services, Denver
Federal Center. Denver, Colorado, 2007.
Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, The. Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions: Washington, D.C. 2000. Chicago: the Appraisal
Institute in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice. 2000.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Foundation. Montana Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Trust: Annual Report, Fall 2007. Web. 29 September 2009.
< http://mtconservationtrust.org/docs/MFWCTannualreport.pdf>.
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. “Notice
of Realty Action--Competitive Bulk Sale of Federal Land. Vol. 66, Number 202.
FR Doc 01-26308.” Federal Register. 18 October 2001. Web. 29 September
2009. <http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2001-10-18-01-26308>.
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999. Title
X – Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana Ac. Pub. L. 105-277. 30 September 1999.
112 Stat. 2681
Pick-Sloan Flood Control Act of 1944. Pub. L. 78-534. 22 December 1944. H.R. 4485.
United States. Dept. of the Interior. Agency Financial Report. Washington: US Dept. of
Interior, 2009.
United States. Dept. of the Interior. GPRA Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2007 – 2012.
Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2009.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. About Us. 5 August 2010.
Web. 8 October 2010. < http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/ >.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Berryessa Facts. 8 October
2010. Web. 8 October 2010.
<http://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/berryessa/facts.html>.
62
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Canyon Ferry Information.
Web. 8 October 2010. < http://www.usbr.gov/gp/mtao/canyonferry/>.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. “Concessions Management,
Policy LND P02.” Reclamation Manual. Washington: US Dept. of Interior,
2002.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. “Concessions Management
by Non-Federal Partners, Directives and Standards LND 04-02.” Reclamation
Manual. Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2002.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. “Concessions Management
by Reclamation, Directives and Standards LND 04-01.” Reclamation Manual.
Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2002.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Concession Prospectus. 15
May 2009. Web. 27 May 2010.
< http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/prospectus.html#5 >.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Finding of No Significant
Impact: Cabin Lease Lots Sale, Canyon Ferry Unit, Montana. Washington: US
Dept. of Interior, 2002.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. “Land Use Authorizations,
Directives and Standards LND 08-01.” Reclamation Manual. Washington: US
Dept. of Interior, 2002.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Managing Partners. 28 May
2009. Web. 8 October 2010. < http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/ >.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation and the State
of California Address Pollution Problems at Lake Berryessa, Media Tour
Scheduled. 26 February 2001. Web. 8 October 2010.
< http://www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/news_info/releases/mp_01_017.pdf>.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation Offices.
29 October 2010. Web. 9 November 2010.
< http://www.usbr.gov/main/regions.html#orgchart>.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Record of Decision Future
Recreation Use and Operations of Lake Berryessa. 2 June 2006. Web. 27 May
2010. < http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=2745>.
63
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. “Recreation Program
Management, Directives and Standards LND 03-01.” Reclamation Manual.
Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2009.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Recreation Use Data
Report, Part I, Form 7-2534 – Managing Partners. Washington: US Dept. of
Interior, 2010.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Recreation Use Data
Report, Part I, Form 7-2534 – Managing Partners: Interpretive Guide for Filling
Out the Questions. Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2010.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Recreation Use Data
Report, Part II, Form 7-2535 – Concessionaires. Washington: US Dept. of
Interior, 2010.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Recreation Use Data
Report, Part II, Form 7-2535 – Concessionaires: Interpretive Guide for Filling
Out the Questions. Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2010.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Visitor Information. 18
June 2010. Web. 8 October 2010.
<http://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/berryessa/visitor_info/index.html>.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General. Audit Report:
Concessions Managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Report No. 00-I-376).
Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 2000.
United States. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General. Audit Report:
Recreation Management Activities at Selected Sites, Bureau of Reclamation
(Report No. 95-I-870). Washington: US Dept. of Interior, 1995.
United States. National Archives and Records Administration. “Title 43: Public Lands:
Interior, Part 21– Occupancy under permit of privately owned cabins on
recreation areas and conservation areas.” Code of Federal Regulation.
Washington: 1967.
United States. National Archives and Records Administration. “Title 43: Public Lands:
Interior, Part 429 – Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities, and
Waterbodies.” Code of Federal Regulation. Washington: 2008