Good Morning Spoko's
I need a little help today with my on going battle to keep my cabin at Lake Roosevelt. Below is a copy of an email that I sent out which covers the issue.
A busy schedule and a loss in my own family has me a little late on this, sorry. My family and several others appreciate any who would be willing to help. Thanks in advance. EW
BB, Prayin for your dad
Sawyer, hang in there, take the high road for your girls man, you'll have no regrets
Em, Thanks again
Tim, Nice........
oh ya, barge made it no probs. pics to follow.
Here is what I emailed:
Hello All, and thank you for taking the time to respond to this. As most of you know, we and 25 other cabin owners are in a battle for the right to keep our cabins on Lake Roosevelt.
Our most current hurdle is getting public response to a current set of draft alternatives that the NPS has compiled.
In the interest of keeping it short, I would ask that you make comment to this NPS site http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=318&projectID=22345&documentId=28306
choosing alternative A "take no action" as your preferred alternative. There are 4 alternatives that range from take no action to removing us immediately. If you would like to read the complete descriptions, they can be found here
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=318&projectId=22345&documentID=28306
Please follow the first link to the public comment input form and state that you would like to see alternative A used as the preferred alternative along with any other comments or supporting justification as to why cabins and cabin owners should be allowed to remain on Lake Roosevelt as part of a diverse recreational opportunity.
The due date for responses is short (Tomorrow Wed. the 19th at midnight) so your quick attention is appreciated.
Thank you.
Eric n Kelly
ps Below is our comment if you would like to review or use any part of it in your own words.
With regard to the vacation cabin draft alternatives I would like to select Alternative A "Take no action". To that alternative I would like to see a deletion of the line restricting cabin use as a year around residence. Cabins have been allowed this status by the NPS for over 40 years now with no past issue, enforcement, or concern. To restrict "off season" usage makes no sense given the fact that much of the need and purpose for this EA is based on the concern of privatization appearances to public users who do not occupy or recreate on the lake or anywhere near the cabins in the off season. During the off season months it is not uncommon to see no boat traffic other than hatchery personnel for weeks at a time. I think it is clear that the recreating general public has no concerns about occupancy of these cabins during winter, spring, or fall months especially given the over whelming response in the general scoping comments that there were no concerns even in the summer months.
To force a few cabin owners to become homeless for no apparent benefit or impact is thoughtless. A few cabin owners have resided in these cabins many of which for decades with NPS acceptance. The NPS should be compelled to prove what conditions or situations have changed in the last year to warrant such a devastating proposal and life impacting change over historically accepted uses.
The list of benefits for a few year around occupancies is easily understood and ranges from building / site maintenance to local security. Those of us who have been allowed to reside in our cabins for years should be allowed to continue or be Grandfathered with any drastic change in usage enforcement being implied to future owners who are made aware clearly up front of this change in enforcement prior to buying. For me, they ability to reside there as many had before me, and still do, was the basis for my decision to make the initial investment as well as my most recent investment in rebuilding after a fire. It was clear to me by talking with neighbors at both locations that this type of usage had been allowed for decades.
I also feel it is important to lengthen the lease term to 20 years just as the BOR has recently done at Lake Conconully. This type of lease term is far more capable of allowing cabin owners to invest in and update many of the issues identified in option A. It would be hard for a cabin owner to justify a $10,000 septic upgrade based on the remainder of a 5 year lease with no assurances beyond that. Septic is but one example of the investments that cabin owners are willing to make provided the lease term substantiates the investment. These issues were discussed in the alternatives meetings with solid approval yet did not make the draft alternatives.
In the case of Sherman Homes specifically, I think it is clear that the geography of the site and limited NPS ownership foot print makes it a non-candidate for public access in a safe or effective manner. There is not room based on the steep topography surrounding the sites to have safe public infrastructure or any possibility for expansion into the Sherman Creek Game Preserve. These issues along with the original goals of the BOR to use cabin sites as a part of a diverse recreational opportunity should not be changed or terminated for no apparent cause. There is much opportunity for all other types of recreational uses on the Lake without sacrificing one for another.
Cabin sites and owners have existed in harmony with other users and uses on the lake for over 50 years. It has only been recently that these sites and uses have come into question based on an East Coast study of heavily populated areas that were gated to public usage. The conditions sited in the finding that the Superintendent refers to has nothing in common with the conditions or usage on Lake Roosevelt now or in the immediate future. If the BOR was able to determine with its own staff that no greater public need existed for 88 cabins on the small waters of Lake Conconully last year it becomes suspect that NPS has not been able to do the same given 70% fewer cabins on lake that is so much larger than Conconully that I can not estimate the difference. Lake Roosevelt has to be at least 100 times larger in area and available public shoreline than Conconully.
As a descendant of Colville Tribal parents I have seen native people who are original inhabitants including my own family removed from the waters and shorelines of the Columbia once already without regard for traditions and historic life styles or uses. I think it is clearly a shame that this same type of situation seems to be occurring again for me and my family. Just as in the past, we are good stewards of the land and care takers of the local resources. For this we may be asked to leave for no real purpose putting an end to a decade’s long tradition of local culture, use, and traditions that have provided positive experiences for cabin owners, guests, visitors, and simple passers by, all of which are recreating members of the general public.
Based on this, taking no action or alternative "A" with the above changes is the only way for the NPS to honor the historic traditions, local customs, personal commitments, past accepted uses, and the pledge for a diverse recreational opportunity for all on Lake Roosevelt.
Thank You.
