Land Rights Network
American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400 - Battle Ground, WA 98604
Phone: 360-687-3087 - Fax: 360-687-2973
E-mail: alra@pacifier.com
Web Address: http://www.landrights.org
Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE - Washington, DC 20003

Bureau Of Rec.(BOR) Is Removing All Private Use On Fed. Lands

Deadline Tuesday, October 16th.

Attention all permittees on all Federal lands nationwide.

Thousands of permittees and homeowners to lose their homes.

Great economic damage will occur to local communities.

Forest Service and BLM are next.

The Bush Administration and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne are allowing the mass dislocation of thousands of people.

Federal Register Comment Deadline is Tuesday, October 16th.

Action Items: You must help immediately. Here's how:

-----1. Call both your Senators to request that they ask for a 90 Comment Period extension for Comments for Federal Register, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 429 Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities, and Water Bodies dated in the Federal Register Wednesday, July 18, 2007. Call any Senator at (202) 224 3121.

-----2. Call your Congressman to urge him to request a 90 extension to the Comment Period. All Congressmen may be called at (202) 225-3121.

-----3. In the next two days you will receive a Comment Questionnaire from the American Land Rights Association. Please fill it out and send it to the BOR. Make sure you fill the blank space out with your personal comments. Your handwritten or typed personal comments make this document much more valuable. Your comments need to be sent to:

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center
Attn: Richard Rizzi, (303) 445-2900
Mail Code: 84-53000
PO Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225

(Deadline: Postmark Tuesday Oct 16th.

E-mail: landuserulecomments@do.usdr.gov
Fax: (303) 445-6470

Below is an extraordinary letter sent in by Laura Woodward from the Nelson Reservoir in Montana about what we call the Bush policy of Cultural Genocide. I have included her letter in this e-mail verbatim because it explains the issue so well and is so well done. It quotes specific BOR officials and defines clearly what BOR and other agencies are planning to do to you.

While this letter talks about Nelson Reservoir in Montana, the concepts and concerns are applicable to many Bureau of Reclamation lakes nationwide. But they also affect 15,000 cabin permittees in the National Forests and many other kinds of permittees in other Federal areas.

The new Bureau of Reclamation Policy applies to cabins, boaters, concessionaires and all kinds of other users.

Please let me request that you take a few minutes to read Laura's letter. It documents the intent of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Government in general for all land agencies. Unfortunately, it appears the Bush Administration is throwing its allies and supporters to the wolves.

This letter documents the intent of the Federal Government to implement a policy of removing all private use off Federal land eventually. They call it removing exclusive use. So if you are a Forest Service, BLM, or BOR cabin permittee, rancher, miner, or other permit user on Federal land, your time to fight is now. There is no later.

Here is Laura Woodward's letter: (September 25, 2007)

Mr. Rizzi: (BOR)

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed wording regarding the prohibited use of private cabin sites in the Federal Register dated Wednesday July 18, 2007.

After receiving a letter dated July 31, 2007 from the Area Manager, of the Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation, I made several phone calls because the letter was unclear as to how it affected the cabin site permit holders at Nelson Reservoir.

The first person I called was Peter Stevenson because his name was provided as a contact in the event there were any questions. He directed me to the Federal Register, Subpart H 429.31; 429.32; and 429.33. His interpretation of the wording indicated the private cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir would most likely not be renewed when they expire.

My next call was to Richard Rizzi, who thought the proposal was more for concessionaires than private cabin site permit holders. He referred me to Jerry Jacobs in Billings.

I called Mr. Jacobs at Mr. Rizzi's request. After introductions, Mr. Jacobs informed me of his own personal philosophy - "no private, exclusive use of public lands." He said he felt very strongly against private use of public lands and asked me if I thought it was fair we had exclusive use of our cabin site.

He went on to say he does not believe the Bureau will allow private use of public lands much longer. He said the intent of the regulation was to eliminate all private use and the Bureau was taking a hard handed approach toward the renewal of all permits. He also said the Bureau was having trouble with public access at a lake in California and this incident has prompted the Bureau to implement a "blanket" policy for all private use of public lands; not just the concessionaires, but private cabin site permit holders as well.

When I asked him his background to this information, he told me he was on the panel that made the recommendations for the changes to the Federal Register. He also recommended I read Title 43 - Public Lands: Interior Part 21 - Occupancy of Cabin Sites on Public Conservation and Recreation Areas Dated October 1, 2005. This document had also been recommended to me by Mr. Stevenson.

Before I address the items in the Federal Register and Title 43 Section 21, I would like to know:

How a person with prejudices as strong as Mr. Jacobs be allowed to represent the future of cabin site permits on Nelson Reservoir? It seems to me, after our conversation, Mr. Jacobs has a personal opposition toward the cabin site permit holders' use of the land. This is definitely a conflict of interest; and I would like it noted that his recommendations have been made with bias.

Why is the Bureau implementing a "blanket" policy? Circumstances are so vastly different from the California situation to Nelson Reservoir; had Mr. Jacobs been a fair-minded representative, he could have pointed out these differences and recommended provisions in the Federal Register to protect our cabin site permits.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the differences during this comment period.

In my conversations with the Bureau representatives above, I asked them what plan was in place for the long-term use of the land if the cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir were not renewed. They both stated most likely the land would be turned over for grazing. To me, this statement is irresponsible on so many levels; I am requesting a written response to each of the specifically addressed issues below by the appropriate Reclamation Regional Director (hereafter referred to as Director) who is responsible for making the final determination.

Nelson Reservoir has 106 recreational cabin site permits which encompass approx 26.4 acres. Although I am not a rancher, I have been told this amount of acreage would serve approximately 1.25 cows.

After review, will it remain the Director's determination to leave the wording as it is in the Federal Register and replace 106 recreational cabin permit holders with grazing for 1.25 cows?

And by making this determination, will it remain the Director's position that grazing use will promote better recreational opportunities at Nelson Reservoir?

Title 43 Section 21.4 (2) states in part "Whenever the Authorized Officer determines the public need for use of a recreation or conservation area has grown to a point where continued private cabin site use is no longer in the public interest, the procedures set forth in paragraph (b) of this section will be invoked . . . "

Private cabin site permit holders at Nelson Reservoir are not denying public needs or access to the recreational or conservation area:

Shoreline at high water mark - approx. 31.4 miles
Private cabin site permits - approx. 2.17 miles

After review, will it remain the Director's determination the public needs, access, or use is denied at Nelson Reservoir?

Our most recent Permit for Seasonal Recreation Site at Nelson Reservoir dated May 1, 2007 - Section 1 General states: "The cabin site permit program is designed to generate fair-market-value revenue for the US and to provide increased recreation opportunity at the reservoir."

Average annual cabin site permit income to BOR - $350 x 106 = $37,100
Average number of improvement permits a year approximately $2,500
Total average annual income to BOR approximately $ 39,600

Does the Director have an alternate program or budget for public or recreational projects that will generate higher revenue than cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir?

Does the Director have a programs or budgets to show how the BOR will handle future site operations and maintenance such as mosquito and weed control, fencing, trash collection, shore line protection, road maintenance, etc.?

Will it be the Director's determination to eliminate approximately $40,000 a year in cabin site permit revenue for the revenue of 1.5 cows?

Our most recent permit for Seasonal Recreation Site at Nelson Reservoir dated May 1, 2007 - Section 17 (b) & (c) also states: "If the permitted cabin site is needed for public recreation purposes or for any project purposes, termination to be in accordance with provisions . . . "

(Other reasons for termination are listed in our permit; however those reasons deal with the permittee's non-compliance with the stipulations of the permit.)

Only two stipulations are listed for the Director's recommendation to terminate permits. I have not heard either of one of those reasons given by any representative of the Bureau. In fact, the only reason given for termination of cabin site permits has been because a few representatives of the Bureau either no longer approve of the permits' use or no longer wish to deal with private use of public lands.

I would like it noted Federal guidelines recommend the values held by the individuals who hold the permits count; not the values of a manager, planner, or any other representative of the Bureau.

Has the Director thoroughly investigated the reasoning behind the change in prohibited uses in the Federal Register?

Please Note: Within the space of 2-1/2 months (from May 1, 2007 - the date of our permit agreement to July 18, 2007 - the date of the Federal Register) the reason for termination of private cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir has changed from one of proposed project or recreational purpose to one of personal ideologies by those who have been instrumental in dictating policy.

Federal Register - IV - 1 (1) states in part: "The rule will not adversely affect in any material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or safety, or State, local, and tribal governments or communities".

Cabin site permit holders, extended families, and guests average approximately 1,000 people or more.

Per United States Census 2000 Demographic Profiles

Total population of Saco - 224
Total population of Malta - 2,120
Total population of Phillips County - 4,601

After review, will the Director make the determination, by leaving the wording as it is in the Federal Register, to eliminate a community 5 times the size of the nearest town, ½ the size of the county seat, and ¼ the size of the entire county; with the position there is no economic, productive, job-related, or community impact to the area?

And if so, will the Director have studied the predicted decline in sales, employment, tax revenues, and general consumer spending prior to the final determination on the termination of the private cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir?

Federal Register Subpart H S 429.32 (b) states in part: "Rare exceptions may be authorized and use authorizations issued with the approval of the Commissioner's Office."

What will be the Director's determining factors for rare exceptions for authorized use?

Will the Director have examined and addressed the economic, environmental, cultural, historical, social, and recreational impacts to the area before his determination for termination of cabin site permits at Nelson Reservoir?

In the case of Nelson Reservoir, as in any local community, we are concerned about our regional economic development. Our concerns center on job opportunities increases to income levels, and our social viability and general economic prosperity.

The continuation of the individual cabin site permit holders, their families, and guests represent many benefits from the area's public recreation. If you remove the permit holders and a portion of the extended users from the area, what will be the result? There will be a negative regional economic impact; not only resulting in the removal of primary gains generated by the permit holders, but also the secondary gains that circulate throughout the community.

Federal guidelines recommend regional economic impacts, based on the decision of managers, not contribute to the decline of the general welfare and / or national, regional, or local economic development of any particular area. It is not difficult to see the direct effect the termination of Nelson Reservoir cabin site permits will have on the purchase of goods and services in the local community.

Keep in mind the "public day user" who brings a picnic lunch from home has a lower regional output on sales, goods, and services. If cabin site permits are terminated and public day users are the remaining users of the facility one or two times out of the year; the result will be a negative economic impact to the region.

Based on the above, the Director should consider opening more area at Nelson Reservoir for permitted cabin sites instead of terminating the existing ones.

I am requesting the Director re-word the language in the Federal Register dated July 18, 2007 to allow the cabin sites at Nelson Reservoir the certainty of permit use for many years into the future so we can continue to keep the area alive and viable for our families, friends, and the publics' continual recreational enjoyment.

I, along with the other cabin site permit holders at Nelson Reservoir, our friends, guests, out of town and out of state visitors; respectfully ask you to address all issues in this letter and to take into consideration the economic, recreational, cultural, and social values of this area when you make your final determination.

Laura Woodward
Lot #52 Nelson Reservoir
Saco, MT. 59621

You can Join American Land Rights or Donate:

-----You can help the Land Rights Network and American Land Rights send these e-mails and faxes to more people by making a contribution online. Go to www.landrights.org  and go to the homepage. There you will find a secure link marked >Join< and also one marked >Donate< where you can either join or make a contribution to support American Land Rights. Thank you in advance for your support.

Thank you for your help.

Chuck Cushman
Executive Director
American Land Rights Association
ccushman@pacifier.com

-----Please forward this message as widely as possible.

It is incredibly important for you to do this. By working together we can get millions of copies of this e-mail distributed.

To unsubscribe, please reply and put unsubscribe in the subject line.