ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

San Juan Island National Historical Park

National Park Service Seattle, Washington

PLEASE RETURN TO

TECHNICAL INFORMATION Cwt

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
San Juan Island National Historical Park

Administrative History

wz,

Kelly June Cannon

Prepared for the National Park Service

Seattle Support Office

November 20, 1997
Table of Contents

L Introduction

H. Historical Background

The Central Coast Salish

Explorers, Fur Traders, and Settlers

HI. Preserving American and English Camps

IV. San Juan Island National Historical Park Management

Development Planning

Master Plan, 1969

Lands Acquisition

Carl Stoddard, 1969-1974

Centennial of Boundary Dispute

American Camp By-Pass Road

Segismand Zachwieja, 1974-1980

General Management Plan, 1979

Frank Hastings, 1980-1984

Richard Hoffman, 1985-1991

Road Relocation

Friday Harbor Administrative Office

A New Maintenance Facility

Robert Scott, 1991 to Present

V. Resource Management

Historic Resource Study

Historic Structures Report: Architectural Data

Blockhouse

Barracks

Commissary

Hospital

The Crook House

The Redoubt

Officers' Quarters

Laundress' Quarters

Robert's Plaque and other features

Historic Landscapes

1

7

7

9

31

43

45

50

54

60

60

61

63

75

79

79

80

80

83

83

91

93

93

95

95

97

99

100

102

102

104
English Camp Formal Garden 104

Historic Landscapes of San Juan Island N.H.P. 107

Consideration for Grassland Vegetation Management 108

Historic Landscape Study 109

Pilot Planting Project 116

Archaeological Resources 117

University of Idaho 117

University of Washington 120

Guss Island 122

Archaeological Overview and Base Map 122

Additional Studies 123

Collections Management 125

Natural Resources 127

Water 127

Rabbits 128

Birds 129

Clams 130

Research Permits 130

Resource Management Plans 130

Interdisciplinary Planning Team 132

VI. Interpretation and Visitor Use 135

Interpretive Prospectus, 1971 135

Interpretive Prospectus, May 1984 143

Interpretive Programming in Action 146

English or British Camp? 153

VII. Public and Interagency Relations 155

San Juan Trail Riders 155

Relations within the Service 155

Canadians and Britain 156

The Lummi 157

Washington State 158

San Juan County 159

VIII. Conclusion 161

IX. Bibliography 163

X. Appendices 165

ii
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
Chapter One: Introduction

In 1853, events on the island of San Juan, in the Northern Puget Sound region of

Washington State, led to the dispatch of British and American troops. Arriving at the

island to defend the rights of their settlers, the two sides faced off with considerable

firepower. When news of the events leading up to the stand-off reached seats of

government in Washington, D.C. and London, they were aghast: the two nations were

engaged in a dispute over the shooting of a settler's pig. San Juan Island National

Historical Park commemorates what would become known as the Pig War of 1859, the

subsequent joint occupation of the island (1853-72) by American and British troops, and

the final settlement of the jurisdictional dispute that ignited the confrontation.

Prior to designation as a national historical park, the military campsites had been

given National Historic Landmark status and were acquired by the Washington State park

system. The park came into national stewardship in 1966 when President Lyndon B.

Johnson signed the park's enabling legislation into law. San Juan Island N.H.P. was

established for the purpose of "interpreting and preserving the sites of the American and

English camps on the island, and of commemorating the historic events that occurred

from 1853 to 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon

Territory boundary dispute, including the so-called Pig War of 1859." (80 Stat 737) Since

1966, San Juan has worked to find its place and its voice in the Pacific Northwest region,

and to meet ever-changing expectations ofNPS management and public needs.

The San Juan archipelago lies north of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, between the

southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and the United States mainland. The

park is located on San Juan Island, the second largest in the chain and home to Friday

Harbor, the San Juan County seat. The island is accessible through the Washington State

ferry system or commercial and private plane and boat.

The park is comprised of three separate units: American Camp, 1,223 acres on the

southern tip of the island; English Camp', 529 acres on the northwestern corner of the

' The question has been raised in the past decade of whether the appropriate name for the military

encampment occupied by the Royal Marines should be English Camp or British Camp. This topic will be

discussed later in this document. The current accepted name for the site is English Camp, and for that

reason the author has used that title.

1
REGIONAL MAP

Vicinity mapfrom the 1986 Historic Landscape Study by Cathy Gilbert, NPS Seattle

Office.

2
i4Ai 0'AL aAR4 'iE.F7IG`G

ecre T tOL H2AR7

'0111 i Nh'LL'GR

aiY ,.^nlr^

ar-LE ro,'r

SAN JUAN ISLAND

T

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION

CULTURAL RESOURCE DIVISION

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE STUDY DR AWN BY cnLtR DATE

DRAWING NO.

438 80018

SHEET

OF

ON MICROFILM
island; and the General Services Administration (GSA) leased administrative office and

visitor contact space located on Spring Street in Friday Harbor. The park has a variety of

resources, ranging from historic structures to public beach to archaeological collections.

American Camp, with views across the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Griffin Bay,

contains two restored historic structures from the period of military occupation: one

Officers' Quarters and one Laundress' Quarters. The site is a mixture of driftwood-filled

beach, rocky coves, windswept prairie, and forest. Standing near Eagle Cove, one can

look west and see the tip of Vancouver Island, south to the Olympic range, and east to the

mainland. The European rabbit abounds, providing prey for bald eagles and other

raptors. Other wildlife includes deer and the occasional fox. Orcas (killer whales) can

sometimes be seen from the shore. Archaeological resources include the sites of several

other U.S. Army structures and camp features, the site of a mid-19th century Hudson's

Bay Company farm, and prehistoric American Indian seasonal village sites.

At English Camp, located on the shore of Garrison Bay, four restored structures

from the period of military encampment still remain: the Blockhouse, the Barracks, the

Commissary, and the Hospital. In addition, stone foundation remnants of other camp

housing can be located on the hillside overlooking the camp. An early twentieth century

house overlooks the camp; the only reminder left of the Crook family homestead. Young

Hill stands to the east of the camp, where a British Royal Marine cemetery is the final

resting place for 7 marines and one civilian. To the north of the camp are Bell Point and

Westcott Bay. The waterfronts along Westcott and Garrison bays are prime clam habitat,

while the surrounding forests are home to a variety of wildlife, including deer. Guss

Island located several hundred yards off shore in Garrison Bay, holds sacred importance

to the Lummi Indians. Prehistoric ceremonial and seasonal village sites are located

within the camp boundary and on the small island.

Purpose of Study

This history is intended to give the reader a general understanding of the park: the

events it commemorates, the movement to recognize and preserve its historic sites, and

the development, research, and planning that has occurred at the park since its inception.

By providing a historical context for past management decisions, current and future park

4
staff will have a better understanding of how the park was created and reached its current

level of operation. This understanding will, in turn, assist park staff in making informed

decisions as they guide the park into its next decade.

In 1995, the author completed an assessment of park files for the creation of the

park's administrative archive. This included a search of regional repositories, regional

NPS files, and the National Archives and Records Center. Unfortunately, the all-toooften-heard story of files being thrown out to save space applies to San Juan Island

National Historical Park. Large gaps in the written record of park management have left

some management decisions unexplained.

5
CHAPTER TWO

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Chapter Two: Historical Background

The history of San Juan Island contains the stuff of good popular history:

absconding with livestock, drawing of guns, and angry words. Traditionally, the islands

were home to an Indian people, the Central Coast Salish. During the era of exploration

by European nations, Spanish, British, French, Russian, and later, Americans, entered the

region, making it a part of an international fur trade. By the mid-19th century, the

northwest became populated with a new breed: the settler. Nearing the close of the

frontier, borderlands like the one shared by England and the United States were the site of

power flexing and law breaking as those countries tried to bring these disputed territories

under their control.

It is this borderland history that the park represents, the interaction of Salish

peoples with Euro-American explorers, traders, and settlers, and the conquest and

division of a continent between European and American governments.

Central Coast Salish

The San Juan archipelago is part of the traditional area of the Central Coast

Salish, which collectively is made up of five component language groups: Squamish,

Halkomelem, Nooksack, Northern Straits, and Clallam.' These five groups traditionally

occupied the southern end of the Strait of Georgia, the lower Fraser Valley, and lands in

and around the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including portions of the Olympic Peninsula and

the entire San Juan archipelago. Within those five groups, there are several different

associated groups. The Northern Straits, which by the mid-nineteenth century had six

identifiable groups, occupied the islands: the Sooke, the Saanich, the Semiahmoo, the

Songhees, the Lummi, and the Samish.2 The Songhees, Saanich, Lummi, and Samish all

had winter villages in the islands. Two other groups from the islands are believed to have

joined the Lummi during the period of European settlement: the Klalakamish from the

north end of San Juan Island and the Swallah from East Sound on Orcas Island.3

' For the purposes of this document, the spelling of "Clallam" follows the North American Handbook of

American Indians. Presently, two other accepted spellings exist, Klallam or S'Klallam, the later being used

in treaties between the tribe and the United States Government.

2 Wayne Suttles. "Central Coast Salish", North American Handbook ofAmerican Indians, Volume 7,

(Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 1990), p. 456

' Suttles, p. 456

7
Northern Straits Salish were semi-sedentary, moving as seasons changed.

Subsistence was based on a combination of fishing, hunting, and gathering. Fishing,

primarily of salmon varieties, was of particular importance as seasonal runs provided

numbers of fish, which were dried for winter stores. Hunting on sea included seals and

porpoise, and on land, deer, elk, black bear, beaver, and in some cases mountain goats

were taken. Gathering included a variety of mollusks, crabs, and sea urchins, as well as

over 40 different seasonal plants, which provided food, medicines, and materials for

crafts. Camas was of particular importance to the Straits Salish, who maintained camas

beds utilizing reseeding and burning methods, and preserved their harvest for year round

use.4

Salish groups had established winter villages, which consisted of one or more

longhouses. These structures had a permanent framework of posts and beams with

removable roof and wall planks. Summer homes were huts, with slabs of cedar bark.

Northern Straits tradition during the early nineteenth century indicates that villages began

developing defensive structures and designs into village construction, including trenching

and wall building around the entire village.5

The basic social structure for the Salish was the household, which usually was

composed of several related families. Kinship was bilateral rather than lineal, with both

maternal and paternal relations holding similar status in terms of social organization and

kinship. On a larger level, one household with several dependent households formed a

local group or community. Individuals were identified by the group they resided with;

the primary bond in local groups was a shared culture and language, not a unified

political structure.6 The concept of tribe would not come into being until relations with

non-Indian settlers and the United States and Canadian governments necessitated such

political entities. Conflict among villages was common, usually precipitating raids on the

offending village.

The Salish relied heavily on canoes for transportation and subsistence activities.

Carved from large cedar logs, the Salish constructed at least five different canoe styles.

4 Suttles, p. 459

Sutties, p. 462

a Daniel L. Boxenberger, San Juan Island Cultural Affiliation Study, San Juan Island N.H.P., Pacific

Northwest Region, p. 16

8
The Salish also engaged in various forms of art, mostly carving of house posts, grave

monuments, tools, and ceremonial masks. The Salish also produced several types of

basketry: burden baskets with an open lattice style for gathering shellfish and roots;

tightly coiled berry baskets; and flexible cattail bags for dried fish. Blankets were

woven from wool of mountain goats or a breed of wool dog (now extinct) or from

fireweed cotton. Salish also wove cedar mats for house construction, mattresses, and

canoe mats.

Local groups were divided among worthy people, worthless people, and slaves.'

The Salish participated in forehead flattening at early ages, with the exception of children

born of slaves. Life ceremonies were celebrated around signs of puberty (menstruation or

voice change) and marriages were negotiated. Feasts and potlatches were held around

major life events or crises, usually held by all the houses of a village who invited villages

from around the area. Special ceremonies were held for the first salmon, the spirit dance,

cleansing ceremonies, and, in some villages, for secret societies.9 At death, Salish were

wrapped and placed in a raised canoe or box, with rituals held years later in which the

body was re-wrapped and given a display of hereditary privileges, after which the

deceased's name could again be spoken.10

The Lummi belief system places special importance on San Juan Island,

particularly on a small island located in Garrison Bay called Guss Island. The Lummi

believe this small island to be their place of origin into this world. This site holds sacred

value that still remains with the tribe today.

Explorers, Traders, and Settlers

The Northwest coast area was "discovered" through sea-faring and overland

expeditions by explorers and fur traders. Charles Barkley discovered the Strait of Juan de

Fuca in 1787. In 1791-92, Spanish expeditions led by Manuel Quimper and Francisco de

Eliza entered the region. George Vancouver's British expedition charted the region in

1792, and was followed by other Spanish explorers. After the turn of the century, traders

7 Suttles, p. 470

8 Suttles, p. 465

9 Suttles, p. 467-469

10 Suttles, p. 465

9
began arriving from the east. In 1808, Simon Fraser of the Northwest Fur Company

discovered the Fraser River Valley. In the extended trade patterns of the Northwest

Indian groups, the Salish of the region already possessed European goods by the time of

the explorer's arrival. Trade goods were not the only thing that arrived ahead of their

purveyors : disease had already made its appearance . The first smallpox epidemic among

the Central Coast Salish probably occurred as early as the 1770s."

Between 1824 and 1845 , the Hudson' s Bay Company (BBC) began establishing

settlements in the Northwest region, including Fort Langley on the Fraser River, Fort

Vancouver on the Columbia River, and, in 1843, Fort Victoria at the southern tip of

Vancouver Island . Until the late 1840s, the region' s non-Indian population had remained

small, born of the international fur trade . However, the discovery of gold in British

Columbia changed the nature of the area for good. Gold seekers, mostly Americans,

came in droves, and when they did not find their fortune they began to settle the region

and look for a different means of making a living.

As the frontier began shrinking the issue of territorial ownership consumed the

United States. In April 1846, the U.S. declared war on Mexico over Texas and the

southwest borderlands . Diplomatic relations with England over the Pacific Northwest

were considerably different than relations with Mexico. Peaceful negotiations for settling

the division of the Oregon Country were already underway. England originally offered

the Columbia River drainage basin as the boundary between the U.S. and Canada, which

would have given them approximately half of present day Washington State. American

settlers in the Pacific Northwest rallied for the U.S. to claim all of the Oregon Territory,

to the 54° 40' parallel . But policy makers in Washington , D.C. were dealing with more

pressing issues . Advocates for Texas annexation believed conflict with England over

Oregon would weaken American defenses against Mexico. This applied also to those

rallying for annexation of California . Northern merchants were interested in maintaining

good trade relations with England, which they held more valuable than the disputed

portion of Oregon Country.12

11 Suttles, p. 471

72 George Brown Tindall, David E. Shi . America: A Narrative History, 3d ed., (New York: W.W. Norton&

Company, 1993), p. 350

10
The deciding factor in the boundary settlement debate was President James Polk.

Polk had previously offered the 49th parallel as the boundary line, but the British had

refused . The Hudson' s Bay Company' s (HBC) northwest headquarters, Fort Vancouver,

lay well below the 49th parallel on the Columbia River . Following the English refusal,

Polk revoked the offer and renewed claim to the whole of Oregon, clear to the 54° 40'

parallel . Congress, after pressure from Polk and much debate, passed a resolution

demanding that the British vacate all of the Oregon Country in one year.

Polk's actions forced the British hand . England was also unwilling to go to war

and offered a draft treaty in June 1846 , setting the boundary at the 49th parallel.

Maintaining good relations with the United States was of far more interest to the British

government than a small portion of their remote North American landholdings . The HBC

had also anticipated the loss of Fort Vancouver, establishing Fort Victoria in 1843 to

replace Vancouver as their Northwest headquarters . Polk had said that the only way to

beat " John Bull " was to look him straight in the eye and his calculations were right.

While agreeing to the 49th parallel , both sides agreed that all of Vancouver Island

would remain British and that a water boundary would need to be established since the

island dipped below the 49th . This process would throw the islands into a "no-man's

land" of ownership . Only the HBC seemed to be particularly worried about the fate of

the San Juan Islands in establishing a water boundary . HBC Governor J.H. Pelly wrote to

Foreign Secretary of State Earl of Aberdeen regarding British possession of the islands,

advising him to negotiate the Rosario Strait as the water boundary line. Despite this

advice, negotiators used vague language with two plausible interpretations. The

negotiators were interested in concluding and signing a treaty, allowing small details like

the islands to be worked out later . 13 For that reason, the treaty determined the boundary

between the United States and British Columbia as the 49th parallel , turning south at the

middle of the channel separating Vancouver Island from the continent, then heading west

down the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Pacific Ocean. There are, however,

two straits that could be interpreted as the dividing line: the Haro and the Rosario.

" J. Tim O'Gorman. "The History of the Pig War", San Juan Archaeology, Vol. 1, University of Idaho,

Moscow, 1983, p. 34

11
During the 1840s, development by British citizens on Vancouver Island extended

to the San Juans. In July 1845, HBC officials from Victoria erected a wooden tablet near

the southeast point of San Juan Island proclaiming British possession of the island. 14

HBC officials were well aware that the islands would end up disputed if Great Britain did

not firmly proclaim their intentions with the islands, but during the 1840s the HBC

concentrated their efforts establishing a presence on Vancouver Island. By 1850 or 1851,

HBC officials established a seasonal fishing station on the southern end of San Juan

Island. From 1845 onward, British authorities treated the islands as British territory.

In 1853, HBC officials began more permanent settlement on San Juan Island by

sending Charles Griffin to develop a sheep farm. Livestock shipped to the island

included 1,369 sheep, three horses, some cows, and one boar.15 Construction started with

a headquarters building and a house for his residence. Griffin was accompanied by at

least two men to assist completion of construction plans . By spring of 1854, he had

established a garden. In response to the threat of Americans, he erected a flagpole to fly

the British flag. Griffin named the farm Bellevue.

Over the next several years, Griffin continued to develop Bellevue Farm. When

the boundary commission appraised the NBC's operations in 1859, employees numbered

eleven at Bellevue, with twelve to fourteen employees located elsewhere on the island.

The farm had seven small houses, a barn, outhouse and shed, and about forty-six acres of

land under cultivation. Griffin reported to having 4,000 sheep, 40 cattle, and a few

horses.16 In six years, the operation had grown substantially. American tax assessors,

considering the islands part of their jurisdiction, estimated the size and value of the HBC

operation much higher than Griffin's reports.

In the meantime, following the treaty of 1846, Americans considered the islands a

part of the United States. Organized in 1848, the Territory of Oregon delineated counties

incorporating the San Juan Islands into Island County. Five years later, when the new

territory of Washington was created, the islands were incorporated into Whatcom

County. In May 1854, Whatcom County officials began to assert authority over San Juan

14 Erwin Thompson, Historic Resource Study, San Juan Island N.H.P., 1972, p. 2

19 Thompson, p. 167

16 Thomson, p. 169

12
Island. The existence of Bellevue Farm spurred the county to try and establish a legal

authority by placing a U.S. customs official on the island.

In April of that year, Griffin received word that the Americans were coming to

seize the island. Upon reporting this to the Governor of British Columbia, James

Douglas, Griffin was instructed to fly the British flag along the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

On May Day, Douglas himself visited in a show of authority. With Douglas was British

customs official James Sangster , who Douglas left stationed at Bellevue Farm in order to

establish a legal authority.

On May 3, U.S. customs collector Isaac Ebey arrived on the island with Henry

Webber and three men.17 Ebey and Webber paid Griffin and Sangster a visit the

following day and informed them that Webber would be the U.S. customs official for the

island. Sangster replied that he would have to arrest Webber; Ebey merely remarked that

he hoped the English treated him well. This began a series of moves and countermoves

of political maneuvering, but no serious action.

On May 6, Ebey and Webber again visited Griffin. At this point, Ebey demanded

an inventory of livestock from Griffin, who refused to give such information. The

following day, Sangster tried to serve a summons for arrest on Webber. When the

accompanying constable, a Mr. Holland, attempted to seize him, Webber drew a revolver

and pointed it squarely at Holland's head. 18 The group was unarmed, and upon

requesting arms to take Webber, Griffin refused. Thus the summons went unserved. The

next day, Webber and Sangster both left for their respective headquarters to report the

incident and request new instructions. Webber returned in two days with instructions to

stay, but Sangster did not return. Griffin had requested Gov. Douglas send an official

back only if he felt it was absolutely necessary. He was anxious to avoid a conflict, and

so was Douglas . Douglas instructed Griffin to treat Webber as though he was a "private

person, living under the protection of Her Majesty's Government.i19 Webber and Griffin

developed a cordial relationship, and Webber depended on Griffin and the HBC farm for

security from Indian raids.

17 Thompson, P. 5

Is Thompson, p. 5

19 Thompson, p.6

13
Things remained relatively quiet until the following October when Whatcom

County Sheriff Ellis Barnes visited the island, sent by Whatcom County Commissioners.

He arrived at Bellevue Farm on the 190' and presented Griffin with a tax bill of $80.33.

Griffin refused to pay. Three weeks later, Barnes returned and attempted to collect a

second time. When Griffin again refused, he was informed that notices for a livestock

sale at the farm had been posted and that Barnes intended to liquidate enough sheep to

collect the $80.33.

Barnes returned on December 9th and informed Griffin that the sale had been

postponed. On December 24, he again renewed his intent to sell at auction some of the

farm's sheep, but again did not carry out his threat. Griffin and Douglas continued

operations and in January, they began plans to expand the farm's pasture and crops.

Douglas' confidence grew when Washington Territorial Governor Stevens visited him in

Victoria to state his position that the island dispute was best left to their respective

national governments for settlement.

However, on March 30, 1855, Barnes again arrived at Bellevue Farm and

demanded payment. When Griffin refused again, Barnes set about finding and

confiscating BBC sheep. The next morning, Griffin was summoned by one of his men

and arrived in time to see Barnes and his men leaving with some of his livestock.

Tallying up the damage, Griffin established that Barnes took 34 rams and 410 ewes and

lambs, valued at 1,400 British pounds. After factoring in loss of production, labor costs

to round up their remaining livestock, and added security measures, Griffin estimated the

whole affair cost the HBC 2,990 pounds, roughly $15,000 U.S. dollars.20 The U.S.

Congress rejected Griffin's estimate as exaggerated.

At this point, U.S. Secretary of State William Marcy became aware of the

political struggle going on in the region and gave Territorial Governor Stevens explicit

instructions that local officials were not to commit any act that deliberately created

conflict . Marcy believed that the dispute over the islands was a legitimate one that would

require future arbitration between England and the United States. Stevens followed

Marcy's orders, letting the issue go until arbitration was available.

20 Thompson, p. 6

14
The discovery of gold on British Columbia's Fraser River, like all gold strikes,

brought a huge influx of people to the region. Many arrived seeking their fortunes, but

few usually found it . Those who did not either left the region or began looking for

another means of making a living . Many took homestead claims to try their hand at

farming . That is how several Americans, including one Lyman Cutlar, came to settle and

farm on San Juan Island.

Following the posturing of 1854-55, Great Britain and the U. S. established a joint

boundary commission to survey the 49th parallel, from the Rocky Mountains to the

Pacific for the purpose of clearing up any discrepancies in the treaty, including the

placement of the water boundary. The U. S. assigned Archibald Campbell ; the British

assigned Lt . Col. John S. Hawkins, Royal Engineers, and Capt . James C. Prevost, Royal

Navy. The commission players would later play a role in Pig War events and settlement.

From 1856 to 1859, no altercations developed on San Juan, although no one

forgot for a minute that nothing had been settled . Douglas was consumed with matters on

the mainland and Vancouver Island, dealing with the influx of miners and traders seeking

to sell to the miners . Douglas attempted to enforce a license system for all miners and

traders . Victoria had become a city overnight and was brimming with Americans.21 At

Douglas ' request , detachments from the Royal Navy and Royal Engineers were sent to

the area to provide additional law enforcement.

While the joint commission surveyed and completed its reports, the HBC

continued its operations as normal . However, the American population around them was

growing, much to Griffin' s dismay . American surveyors made trips to the island to lay

out claims for settlement .22 Under Douglas ' order, Griffin continued to treat them with

respect and as settlers under the British flag . By June 1859, there were between 18 and

25 Americans living on San Juan Island . With an increase in American homestead

claims on the island, Bellevue began to lose acreage to " squatters ." The farm would

continue to operate, but began losing its production value as settlement of the island's

prime grazing land increased . In 1862, Robert Firth, Sr. succeeded Griffin as the

21 O'Gorman, p. 39

2 2

Review comments to the author from Park Ranger Mike Vouri , July 1997

15
manager of the farm, and shortly thereafter the farm was leased to Firth and ceased

operations for the HBC.23

The previous years of tension and words between the English and Americans

were a contributing factor to the Pig War, although it wasn't really a war at all. This is

said very lightly and with hindsight, for the forces and firepower of the troops involved

was considerable, and the situation could very well have ended with considerable damage

and loss of life. Other contributing factors included Douglas' attitude towards American

settlement and British policy. He felt that the British government had been weak in the

face of American settlement and it had cost a significant portion of the Oregon Country.

He regarded Americans settling in the area very unfavorably and as a continued threat to

British possessions.

In return, the Americans mistrusted and disliked the HBC and British

government, which they considered to be one and the same. Despite evidence to the

contrary, popular belief held that the HBC instigated Indian raids on Americans in the

Puget Sound. Americans following the gold rush into British Columbia were not

appreciative of the restrictions placed on them by Douglas, including not allowing trade

without a license from the HBC. While later revoked, the restrictions placed on

Americans in competition with the HBC furthered the belief that the HBC operated as

one with the British government.

Tensions that developed over legal authority and taxes, the attitudes of Douglas

and American settlers in the region, and the fact that the boundary commission by 1859

had reached no agreement all laid the foundation for conflict. All that was needed was a

reason for action and someone to make the first move.

On the morning of June 15, 1859, Lyman Cutlar, who had homesteaded near the

Bellevue farm, found an HBC pig in his potato patch. Having previously seen the animal

and warned Griffin to keep his animals off his property, Cutlar shot and killed the pig.

Cutlar went directly to Griffin and informed him of his actions, and offered to pay the

cost of the animal . Griffin then stated the cost of the pig to be $100, which Cutlar found

to be unreasonable and refused to pay.

zi Review comments to the author by Park Ranger Mike Vouri, July 1997

16
Later that same day, the chief factor of the HBC territory, A.G. Dallas, arrived

aboard the steamship Beaver. Griffin informed him of the loss and a party consisting of

Dallas, Griffin, and others sought Cutlar out. From this point forward, British and

American stories diverge. Misinformation and exaggeration would aid in creating a

conflict where none existed. Cutlar insisted that Dallas had demanded $100 for the pig

and threatened to arrest him. Dallas claimed to have threatened nothing of the sort, that

he had treated Cutlar with the patience the HBC had always shown squatters and had not

demanded any money from him.24

Soon the story became more harrowing, as told by the U. S. customs collector,

Paul Hubbs. According to his version, Dallas arrived on a British warship, and

threatened to return with more warships as well as having Northern Indians raid the

island and run the Americans off. According to Dallas, Cutlar saved himself only by

threatening to open fire on them.

The British had no such intentions. The only effect the story had on Governor

Douglas was to prompt him to assign a civil magistrate, John de Courcy, to the island to

judge the incident and deal with American trespassing. Following June 15, nothing much

happened. The feelings between the Americans and the HBC remained the same. On

July 4th, the settlers raised the American flag in defiance of their British neighbors. This

would prove a very fateful move.

General William Harney, commanding officer of the Department of Oregon, U.S.

Army, was touring the area and stopped on the island when he saw the American flag.

Harney would provide the main impetus for the military response to the situation.

Speculation about Harney's actions during this time period range greatly, from political

motivations to dumbwittedness. His conduct during the Mexican War showed a

propensity for cavalier behavior that put him into insubordination situations and even a

court-martial. Whatever Harney's reasons and motivations, his reaction to American

settlers' version of events led to the landing of American troops.

Harney was livid at the settlers' story; of course, he was getting Paul Hubbs'

exaggerated version. The settlers requested protection from any retaliation by the British

and Northern Indians and Harney directed them to submit a written request to him for an

z" O'Gorman, p. 44

17
U.S. Army 3rd Artillery, Camp Pickett, 1859
army detachment for protection . Upon receiving the petition on July 11 , Harney assigned

Captain George Pickett and Company D, 9th infantry , currently stationed at Fort

Bellingham, to go to the island and establish a military presence. Pickett's orders were to

keep all Indians off the island and protect American settlers from them. He also briefed

Pickett in the Cutlar affair and ordered him to resist all attempts by British officials to

fine, arrest, or prosecute Cutlar in the matter.25

Of course, Harney sent these troops as a message to the British . On July 27,

Pickett landed at the southern end of the island . Griffin visited the camp to try to

ascertain Pickett's motives ; it was clear to him that the American captain intended to stay

and he sent word immediately to Douglas . Later the same day the HMS Satellite arrived

carrying Magistrate de Courcy, who confronted Pickett and ordered him to leave the

island . Pickett responded that he was following his commander' s orders and would not

leave. He also introduced Henry R. Crosbie, who had been assigned to the island as the

American civil magistrate . The two magistrates realized the potential consequences of

the situation and resolved to wait for word from their superiors 26

For Governor Douglas, there was one important question for which he did not

know the answer. Had the governments of the U. S. and Britain solved the ownership

issue and word from his government not yet reached him? American mail reached the

Washington territory much faster than British mail was reaching Victoria , and it was

possible that Pickett was on orders from Washington, D.C. The Satellite , armed with 21

guns, remained off shore of the American' s camp. Douglas sent Captain Geoffrey

Homby, commanding the HMS Tribune , to relieve the Satellite . Douglas ordered Hornby

not to interfere with Pickett and the troops already landed, but not to allow any other U.S.

forces to land.

Despite orders from Harney and Douglas, the players actually on San Juan

prevented an escalation to violence by properly assessing the situation . The British

forces in Griffin Bay could have blown Pickett and his infantry to smithereens . Pickett's

force consisted of 60 men, one 6-pound cannon, and three howitzers . The English

n

O'Gorman, p. 46

26 O Gorman, p. 46

19
combined force was 64 large caliber guns and 650 men. Pickett requested reinforcements

and an additional company arrived on July 31.

Despite outnumbering the Americans, Captain Richards of the boundary

commission and de Courcy advised Douglas not to force a confrontation; Douglas

remanded his previous orders and did not confront the American reinforcements. The

Legislative Council of British Columbia agreed not to attempt to force Pickett off the

island. But Douglas could not accept American troops stationed on the island, viewing

the offense as an insult to the British. Although he had agreed not to confront the

Americans, he sent the HMS Plumper to the island with a detachment of Royal Marines.

Douglas ordered Captain Hornby to land the marines and establish a joint occupation of

the island to protect British subjects' claims and honor.27

The island became an area of great interest locally. Papers around the region

proclaimed pro-American or pro-British sentiments and as many as 500 people visited the

island.

Hornby met with Pickett to try and ascertain his orders, try and persuade him to

leave, and to inform him of his intent to land and form a joint occupation. The two met

on August 3. Pickett replied to Homby's line of questioning by stating he was merely a

subordinate following the orders of his general; he did not know on whose orders the

general was acting, he could only assume that it was from Washington. Regarding a joint

occupation, Pickett stated that he was in no position to make such a decision and would

therefore resist any attempt by the Marines to land.

Hornby left the meeting without an agreement for joint occupation. Despite

seriously outnumbering the Americans, Hornby had decided before meeting Pickett that

he would not land his troops, feeling the situation did not warrant an armed conflict.

Pickett, in the mean time, was trying to figure out what authority Harney had acted under

and he admired Hornby's restraint in trying to ascertain clearly the situation, knowing that

he could do very little if Hornby tried to land his troops. Pickett wrote to the general to

inform him of the day's events and request further orders.

Harney, after dispatching Pickett, began a series of correspondence with the War

Department to legitimize his decision. His letters were gravely exaggerated, trying to

27 O'Gorman, p. 48

20
make the HBC the villain . Harney ordered Pickett not to allow any joint occupation of

the island . In addition, Harney sent Lt. Col. Casey with his command, raising the number

of American troops to 461. The Massachusetts arrived and three of the ship ' s guns were

brought on the island and placed on an earthen fortification.

On August 5, Admiral Robert Baynes, commander of the British Pacific Fleet,

arrived in Esquimalt on the 84-gun HMS Ganges. Baynes agreed with Homby' s decision

not to force Pickett off. Douglas was in an increasingly untenable position , having no

word from authorities in London to guide his action . The Legislative Assembly

demanded at least some kind of action to assert British authority. But Baynes was not

about to allow any kind of armed conflict and reduced the navy' s presence . He ordered

two of the ships in Griffin Bay to depart, leaving only the Tribune to watch the American

activities.

Meanwhile, Douglas received a letter from Harney explaining the landing.

Douglas learned not only why the landing occurred but also that Harney was acting on

behalf of American settlers and not under the authority of the U. S. government . Douglas

immediately wrote to Lord Lyons, British Ambassador in Washington, and informed him

of Harney's actions and the island situation . Lyons had already heard of the incident

through the papers and approached the Secretary of State .2 8 No one in Washington,

including President Buchanan, was pleased with Harney' s actions . To remedy the

situation, the president assured Lyons that the U. S. was not attempting to force a

boundary settlement and sent General Winfield Scott to settle the matter.

Not only was it a blow to Harney to have his situation seen as a liability to be

corrected , it was further insulting that Scott was sent to correct it. Scott and Harney had a

history together, one that involved Harney ' s court-martial during the Mexican-American

War. Previous letters to Harney from the war department informed him that he would be

within the rights of the U.S. government to block attempts by the British to enforce

jurisdiction over the island.

From late October into November, Scott and Governor Douglas negotiated a

withdrawal of reinforcements and a joint military occupation of the island until their

respective governments could settle the water boundary through arbitration . Although

28 O'Gorman, p. 55

21
Douglas was reluctant to agree to a military occupation and had offered a joint civil

occupation, he finally agreed to the military occupation. The agreement allowed each

country to have no more than one hundred men encamped on the island . Captain L.C.

Hunt was left in charge of Company A, 4th infantry and Pickett was ordered back to

Bellingham.

Scott' s agreement was not popular with residents of Washington Territory, who

felt he had sold out American possession of the island, but officials in Washington, D.C.

were pleased with the compromise. England believed that by allowing British troops to

land, the United States was concurring that the sovereignty of the islands was still in

question. They, too, were agreeable to the terms negotiated by Scott and Douglas.

One hundred of Her Majesty's Royal Marines, under the command of Captain

George Bazelgette, landed on San Juan Island on March 21, 1860. They chose a site on

the shore of Garrison Bay, on the northwestern corner of the island, to build a camp.

General Harney, who had not been reprimanded or removed from his command as Scott

thought he should, made another rash move. Angry over the landing of the Royal

Marines, Harney ordered Pickett back to the island to replace Captain Hunt. He

instructed Pickett to show Bazelgette his orders, which stated that because Scott left no

orders with him to allow British troops to land, the agreement was not valid and he would

allow them to stay only because Douglas agreed not to try and remove American troops.

In addition, Harney's orders declared the islands a part of Washington Territory and the

British would be subject to the laws of the territory, having no authority themselves, and

that cases involving British citizens would be remanded to Admiral Baynes and Governor

Douglas. Hunt immediately wrote to General Scott informing him of Harney's actions

and declaration that the British had no authority on the island.

At the same time, Douglas and Admiral Baynes sent word to Lord Lyons in

Washington regarding the actions, which violated the 1859 agreement . Harney had

pushed the limits of tolerance for his actions. President Polk and Buchanan had

previously managed to save face with the British without undermining Harney's position

or removing him from his command. This later attempt to enforce American jurisdiction

following the negotiated temporary settlement would not be so easy to explain . General

Harney was relieved of his command and ordered back to Washington, and his orders to

22
English Camp, c. 1860
Pickett rescinded. Then the agreement negotiated between Scott and Douglas proceeded.

General Scott concluded that the only reason war had not erupted over the island was the

"forbearance of British authorities. ,29

During the conflict, the island became a hot destination, first by tourists looking

to witness any action, but then by more settlers and entrepreneurs. With two military

encampments on the island, the population of San Juan Town (or San Juan Village as it is

sometimes called), located on the edge of Griffin Bay next to American Camp, grew.

With the lack of a formal civil authority and both military camps concerned more with

each other, illegal activity in the form of liquor trade and prostitution abounded. Captain

Hunt had very little success in controlling this activity, and both commanders wanted to

limit the involvement of their troops in undesirable activities.

When planning the joint occupation, neither side probably anticipated that it

would take 12 years to settle the water boundary question and that there would be a need

for some kind of civil magistrate system. In order to deal with any lawlessness occurring

on the island, the British and American commanders agreed to a joint military rule of the

island, with British citizens coming under British laws and Americans under American

law. Under this arrangement the commanders ruled the island in somewhat of a military

state until 1872, each having jurisdiction over both their country's settlers. A great deal

of cooperation and social interaction occurred between the two camps, including several

social functions at English Camp that brought socialites over from nearby Vancouver

Island.3o

When the Royal Marines established camp, they erected tents and began

construction of a storehouse for their supplies, a garden, and a small cookhouse. More

formal construction at the site began later that summer, when requests for supplies and

permission to build winter quarters were granted. That September, bids were let for

construction of an early barracks building and a utility building for storage and bathing,

which were completed near the end of October.31 Work also began on officers' quarters

and a formal cooking building, which was also completed that fall. In October, they

established a lime kiln near Roche Harbor.

29 O'Gorman, p. 60

w Thompson, p. 206-207

3i Thompson, p. 203

24
English Camp, c. 1870
No further construction is recorded until 1867, when Bazelgette began

complaining that the current living quarters had outlived their temporary nature. After a

survey by the regional senior officer, it was agreed to let construction on a new quarters

for the camp captain. Bazelgette would transfer before the new quarters were

constructed . His replacement, Captain William Delacombe, arrived at Garrison Bay with

his wife and three children. As the officers' family needs changed, so did construction

needs at the camp. Following building of the quarters for Delacombe and his family,

work began on quarters for one of the junior officers, who had married and whose family

was also with him. Both contracts were let to area builders.

Between 1860 and 1867, many other structures were completed, including the

blockhouse (guardhouse), the hospital , the commissary, a blacksmith shop, a stable,

library/schoolroom, wharf and pier, flagpole, formal garden, sentry boxes, the cemetery,

and wells. For a complete listing and identification of sites, refer to the historic base map

for English Camp on page 69 and 88.

When Captain Pickett first landed American troops on the island in 1859, they set

up a tent camp on the edge of Griffin Bay, near the Hudson's Bay Company wharf.

Later, around July 30, Pickett moved the camp to the south side of the peninsula, next to

a spring and away from the direct line of fire of the British naval guns in Griffin Bay.

Around August, the army began erecting some wooden structures at the camp, all

constructed from materials taken from buildings dismantled at Fort Bellingham.32 These

structures included a barracks and hospital. With the arrival of Colonel Casey and more

troops, the camp was moved again. Casey believed the site at the spring was too exposed

to the wind and weather, and chose to move the camp to the north slope of the ridge

above the HBC Company farm. Here there was a small stand of trees that would shelter

the companies from the weather and provide a location on the ridge for the six guns

brought off the Massachusetts.

On August 25, the army began construction of a fortification for the emplacement

of eight 32-pound guns. The Redoubt, as it would later be called, provided coverage of

water access to the southern tip of the island . 33 However, when General Scott arrived and

sz Thompson, p. 129

33 Thompson, p. 132-133

26
the joint occupation was negotiated, Scott ordered a halt on construction of the Redoubt.

The guns were placed back on the Massachusetts, and the army forces were reduced to

one company. Five gun platforms constructed on the ridge now lay empty. The army

men began calling it "Robert's gopher hole" after the army engineer who designed and

supervised its construction, Lt. Henry M. Robert .34

No formal construction plans exist for Pickett's construction at the third and final

site, but the written record indicates that officers' quarters, laundress' quarters, and a mess

room and kitchen were constructed and a flagpole erected.35 After Pickett's removal and

the start of the American Civil War, construction plans were not a high priority. In 1865,

buildings were freshly painted and a new arch constructed over the military cemetery.

In 1867, the same year that construction of more solid structures took place at

English Camp, the U.S. Army began building better and more permanent structures. In

1859 when the joint occupation was negotiated and the detachments began construction

of facilities, neither group realized that their stay would last so long. Both camps had

built temporary structures and after six years were in need of improvements if troops

were to remain.

To that end, the U.S. Army brought over more dismantled structures and materials

from the now abandoned Fort Bellingham for use at American Camp. In all, two sets of

officers' quarters, an adjuntant's office, noncommissioned officers' mess, a set of

laundress' quarters, a new hospital, quartermaster storehouse, commissary storehouse,

blacksmith shop, a two-story barn and stable, a granary, mess hall, and additions to other

buildings were completed.36

Research indicates that the army built no less than 34 structures. Structures

included the blockhouse/guardhouse, enlisted and officers' quarters, a bake house,

barracks, messroom and kitchen, two hospitals, storehouses, a blacksmith shop, granary,

carpenter shop, school and reading room, bath house, telegraph office, shoemaker shop,

cemetery, roothouses, the flagstaff, and the Redoubt, among others.37 For a complete

34 Thompson, p. 159. Robert would later be known for Robert's Rules of Order.

35 Thompson, p. 136

36 Thompson, p. 140

" Thompson, p. 148

27
American Camp, c. 1870. Photograph courtesy of the Provincial Archives,

HP015273/A-05967.

28
listing and identification of sites , refer to the historic base map for American Camp on

page 67 and 87.

The water boundary issue was eventually placed in the hands of the Emperor of

Germany for arbitration , along with other claims issues generated from the Civil War.

Both countries were allowed to plead their case and on October 21, 1872, the emperor

declared in favor of the Haro Strait and the United States . On November 23, the British

marines evacuated the island . Not having specific orders regarding disposition of the

buildings at the camp, the British commander turned all structures and lands over to the

commander of American Camp. The army placed a small detachment of men on site for

a guard and protection until 1874 , when the American troops were recalled . English

Camp lands were vacated when the army reduced its landholdings in 1875 .38 This would

coincide with the arrival of a settler named William Crook, who moved his family into

one of the officers' quarters and took up residence, receiving homestead certification

from the U. S. government in 1883.

British citizens on the island requested assistance in settling land claims; most did

not want to leave their homes. President Grant issued a proclamation forbidding land

sales until all British claims had been settled . 39 In 1873 , 72 Britons had requested

American citizenship in order to keep their homes.

Of the decision , the retired James Douglas felt great disappointment : the islands

he wanted to fight for so badly had indeed slipped through the British grasp and into

American hands.

38 Thompson, p. 209

39 Thompson, p. 122-123

29
CHAPTER THREE

PRESERVING AMERICAN AND ENGLISH CAMPS
Chapter Three : Preserving American and English Camps

The first public recognition of the two military camps came on October 21, 1904,

when the University of Washington State Historical Society held ceremonies to dedicate

two stone monuments, one at each camp, in recognition of the peaceful settlement of the

boundary dispute. At English Camp, a monument was placed on the hillside next to the

remains of the Captain's Quarters. At American Camp, a monument was placed at the

Redoubt. Among those in attendance were the president of the University of

Washington, E. D. Warbass, John McMillin, retired General George Dandy, and

Commander V. L. Cottman of the U.S.S. Wyoming, which anchored in Griffin Bay. The

Puget Sound Artillery Band of Port Townsend provided music for the ceremonies.'

The two camps never faded from public memory as the sites of military

occupation. From the moment the two contingents vacated the island the sites were

known as American and English camps. Buildings at the camps were utilized for homes

or other uses. In the spring of 1894, the captain's residence at English Camp was

purchased and used as a summer residence by a Mr. Rogers of New York. Unfortunately,

the home burned to the ground that October.2 On June 22, 1921, Chester Kitsop and

Francis Mullen were married in ceremonies held on the Redoubt. At English Camp,

where Englishman William Crook had filed a homestead claim, his family would live in

the Barracks building twice, once after their own house burned down. From the turn of

the century forward, people stopped at English Camp where Jim Crook, who was two

when his father settled at the site, would provide a tour of the grounds. Crook was also

paid an annual stipend by the British government, starting around 1913, to maintain the

small English Camp cemetery.3

Interest in national recognition of the San Juans began in 1935, when NPS

landscape architect Emerson Knight, Region 4, participated in a survey of the islands to

determine their eligibility as a National Seashore Recreation Area. In 1937 Knight

produced a report which concluded that the entire San Juan chain, with over sixty-four

islands totaling 114,046 acres, be purchased and set aside as a National Recreation Area

Friday Harbor Journal, February 19, 1970, front page

2

The Islander, October 11 , 1894, p. 3

3 Patricia Erigero and Barry Schnoll, Historic Structures Report : Crook House, San Juan Island N.H.P.,

1984, p. 42

31
The officer's residence at English Camp, which burned down in 1894.

32
for its intrinsic natural, educational, inspirational, and scientific values.4 The report

provides a breakdown of private and public owned lands, an appraised value of

approximately 2.5 million dollars for all the islands, and the recommendation that all

residents be given life tenure on their property. Knight states that he does not think it

would be a problem purchasing lands used for agricultural or sheep production or buying

out the resident fishermen, but that it would be difficult removing people from their

summer residences and vacation homes.5 However, Knight concluded "the dream of

creating the San Juan Islands, priceless in their natural endowments and excellence, into

some form of National Recreation Reserve, is a vivid one recommended for fulfillment. "6

No action was taken to fulfill Knight's dream of a national reserve; however,

action to preserve the military camps under the Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission did begin. In 1951, the state purchased approximately 5 acres, which

included the Redoubt, from Robert and Lillie McRae for the sum of ten dollars.7 From

1951 until 1963, Washington State continued efforts to purchase lands for a state park(s)

centered on the historic sites . Their first purchase at English Camp came in October

1953, purchasing the parcel immediately south of the camp, including 1800 feet of

frontage on Garrison Bay, from Adda McMillin and the Roche Harbor Lime Company.

In 1953, the commission offered Jim Crook and his sister Mary Crook Davis $20,000 for

their twenty acres at English Camp, life tenure, and $50 per month to serve as caretakers

of the property.8 The offer was not accepted.

Negotiations continued until September 1963. At this point, the parties involved

were Crook and his sister Rhoda Anderson (Mary was killed in an automobile accident in

1959). An appraisal had been completed on behalf of the commission, which valued the

property in 1962 at $106,000, which the commission felt was an acceptable purchase

price.9 Crook had previously agreed to selling the property with the option that the

commission could buy the property for 5% of the appraised value with the remainder to

4 Emerson Knight, San Juan Islands: A Report, January 21, 1937, National Park Service, p. 8

s

Knight, p. 7

6 Knight, p. 18

Deed dated March 24, 1951

$ Minutes of meeting, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, July, 1953

9 Minutes of meeting, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, March. 1962

33
The Crookfamily on the front porch of their house, c. 1900.

34
be paid through state legislative appropriations . 10 The property at English Camp was

purchased for $122,000, approved by the Washington State Legislature.

During this same period of time, Washington Senators Warren G. Magnuson and

Henry M. Jackson were promoting recognition of the sites as a national monument within

the NPS. In 1958, they introduced Senate bill 3969.. Later incarnations of the bill were

introduced: S. 1441 in 1964 and in January 1965, S. 489. In the House, Washington

Representative Lloyd Meeds introduced an identical measure in 1965, HR. 2623. The

bills were all approved for submission to the Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs.

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission supported national

recognition from 1964 forward. Their primary interest was in preserving and celebrating

these two historical sites.11 If the NPS was willing to take on responsibility for the sites,

the commission was willing to convey title to the properties they owned. While

Washington State did have development planned , they would be the first to admit, as

state parks commission representative Joe Hamel did during the 1965 public hearing on

the proposed park, that the NPS had better resources and funding with which to preserve

and interpret the historic sites and structures than the state.

It was common practice, post-1950, for the NPS to request feasibility studies of

potential park sites prior to their full approval. This process allowed the NPS greater

control over the sites entering the system . In addition , it enabled the NPS to properly

assess the site and its development needs to ensure that enabling legislation did not limit

their needs in any way. In 1958, following S. 3969, the NPS director requested time to

study the area before the Secretary for Public Land Management made any

recommendations to the Senate on legislation involving the San Juan sites.

In 1959, the National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings surveyed the camps;

closer studies were completed in 1961 by NPS Western Region staff. The NPS staff

presented an oral report to the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites,

Buildings and Monuments at its September meeting, whereupon the sites were approved

for National Historic Landmark status.

° Minutes of meeting, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission , February 26, 1962

Interview with Charles Odeegard, February 24, 1997

35
English Campjust prior to park establishment

36
Following National Landmark status, members of the NPS Western Regional

Office set about documenting and writing a formal proposal for a national park site on the

island. Charles B. Browne, John E. Doerr, John A. Hussey, Alfred C. Kuehl, and Ronald

N. Mortimore were assigned to the study, which was written by Regional Historian

Hussey. The document examined historical events at the park in terms of their relevance

to national historical events, the authenticity of the sites, and recommended land

acquisitions and boundaries for the proposed park. The study also provided basic

background information regarding climate, location, and existing land use patterns.

The report found that San Juan Island National Historical Park, a name that the

team chose as more preferable than Pig War National Monument, was "both feasible and

desirable." 12 The study confirmed the authenticity of the site, and offered three

recommendations for commemoration: the historic sites known as English and American

Camps would be established under NPS administration under the boundary

recommendations listed in the plan's appendices; that the development of the area for

public use be focused on interpretation and preservation of the sites and their settings;

and that authorization and land acquisition be accomplished as soon as possible to protect

the area from potential incompatible uses that would make later acquisition more difficult

and expensive.13 The report also advised that the island was in a period of land use

transition, moving from traditional rural patterns to "a concentration of vacation home

sites."14 In addition, the proposal provided historical information regarding other

historical sites to be included, where known, within the park boundary as relevant to

historic events: San Juan Town, Lyman Cutlar's potato patch, and the Hudson's Bay

Company farm.

In short, the proposal was very positive, not only recommending that the park be

created but that Congress and the NPS not delay in establishing and acquiring the lands

necessary for the park's creation. The immediate lands owned by Washington State

would not be a problem for the NPS to acquire, since the state approved of federal

12 John Hussey et. al., San Juan Island National Historical Park, Washington: A Proposal, National park

Service, March 1965, p. 1

13 Proposal, p- 1

" Proposal, p. 1

37
Remains ofBellevue Farm, Hudson's Bay Company, c. 1964.

38
establishment of a park. But much of American Camp remained in private hands, as did

much of the surrounding acreage at English Camp.

On April 17, 1965, in Friday Harbor, the Subcommittee for Parks and Recreation

held a public hearing . In attendance was Subcommittee Chairman Senator Alan Bible of

Nevada, Senator Len Jordan from Idaho, and bill sponsors Magnuson, Jackson, and

Meeds . Representing the NPS was Assistant Director Theodore Swen, John Hussey,

Western Region Director John Rutter, and Olympic National Park Superintendent

Bennett Gale.

At the hearings, approximately 30 to 35 people were heard or entered written

statements for the record regarding the proposed park . As a whole, the island was

overwhelmingly supportive of the park . Representatives of the parks commission, the

state ferry system (whose representative promised residents that the system would

upgrade ferry service to accommodate the anticipated jump in visitation ), the department

of commerce and economic development , and the Washington State Legislature, which

had passed a joint resolution requesting federal approval of the park, attended.

Three San Juan County Commissioners, Carleton Nash, T.J. Blake, and Russell

Hawkins, spoke to the county's position . Following public hearings on the matter, the

commissioners stated that a majority of islanders supported the park, but had some

reservations . Concerns of loss of tax revenue was prevalent , especially since the return

revenue expected from visitation did not guarantee returns for the other islands operating

under the county government . But the main concern was for the county roads system and

the increased traffic on them.

Other island organizations entered statements of support , including the Chamber

of Commerce, whose representative made a point of saying that the chamber represented

the broad mix of islanders, from retirees on fixed incomes to business people . A variety

of environmental and outdoor clubs , including the Sierra Club, showed their support for

the park in consideration of the natural environments that would be preserved under the

proposed boundary . Friday Harbor Mayor James E. Brown entered his support , stating

he was relieved to have a representative of the state ferry system available at the hearing

to address the issue of increased visitor traffic . Several local citizens also entered

statements of support, including two of the landowners , Kenneth Dougherty and Fern

39
Ingoldsby, whose lands were identified in the proposals . Both landowners offered

support of the park but requested that certain portions of their lands be left out and remain

in their possession. Dougherty also expressed the sincere hope that they would be given

fair value for their lands.

While no one stood and voiced opposition at the hearing, written statements of

opposition were received for the record . A petition signed by 137 islanders objecting to

the park was placed on record as well as a few letters. Those opposed to the park

expressed concern over higher taxes, the inadequacy of county roads and utilities to

support a large park, concern over increased law enforcement needs, and greater

pollution . They pointed out that a large portion of the population were retirees on a fixed

income who could not afford higher taxes. One letter simply stated that most who lived

on the island did so to escape the masses that the National Park Service would now be

thrusting on them. Several of the names on the petition belonged to owners of lands

identified in the park proposal and who were unwilling sellers.

By and large, islanders wanted to see the sites preserved and interpreted. The

scope and size that the NPS would bring to the park was greater than some had

envisioned. No one expected landowners who had planned to build their vacation home

or their retirement home to be happy that their land was chosen for inclusion within a

national park. The main issue facing islanders was already developing before the NPS

became involved : the shift from a small rural economy and community to one of

increased vacation opportunity and rising land values . Most islanders wanted to resist

this shift in land use, and a national park attracting 50,000 estimated visitors its first year

would speed that shift along . But islanders also recognized that the shift would occur

regardless, and the scope of the parks would enable the preservation of some of the most

worthy spots on the island for use by the public, free from residential development. It

was the preservation, not only of historic sites that islanders felt a lot of pride for, but also

the preservation of open natural spaces that would remain public for islanders to enjoy,

that ultimately motivated their support.

Passage ofthe federal legislation creating San Juan Island National Historical

Park occurred easily . Senator Bible commented following the hearings that the

40
unanimity of support shown by islanders at the hearing surprised him. 15 The National

Park Service agreed that the site was of national historical value and worthy of

preservation . Local support and NPS support combined with the position and influence

held by senior Senators Magnuson and Jackson during the late 1960s ensured the success

of Senate Bill 489.

In September 1966, Congress approved the creation of San Juan Island National

Historical Park and appropriated funds up to, but not to exceed, $3,542,000 for lands

acquisition . 16 The NPS began lands acquisition proceedings and assigned Olympic

National Park Superintendent Bennett Gale as NPS representative for the new park unit

until a superintendent and managerial staff was hired . The park was and still is the

largest area of public land to be created on the island.

15 The Everett Herald, April 19, 1965

1 6

80 Stat. 737

41
CHAPTER FOUR

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
Chapter Four: San Juan Island National Historical Park Management

Since its creation in 1966, park staff has worked to define the park, its goals, and

its operating needs. Early in the planning stages, it was determined by a NPS Western

Regional Office planning team that the staffing levels at the park would be kept low and

would rely on regional office staff for technical assistance support. By comparison to

other parks in the region with similar types of resources and acreage, the park staff has

remained small. This results in a management situation where staff serves in different

roles as needed.

Since the management record for the park is incomplete, there are management

decisions for which the reasoning behind them remains unknown. There are, however, a

few general characteristics of park management that are identifiable over the years. The

first characteristic is the feeling that, even though the park has existed for thirty-three

years, it seems new. To some NPS staff, both at the park and in the region, the park still

feels and operates like a new park that has yet to come fully into the system. In

interviews with past superintendents, the idea that the park still felt like a new park when

they came "on board" was a recurring theme.

The island environment also shapes park management, in ways that other parks in

the region have not experienced. Location adds a special twist to park management on

several levels. First, the rural quality of the island and its small population sometimes

leads to difficulty getting or maintaining supplies and equipment. There are no superwarehouse stores on the island, and prices for certain materials can be higher than on the

mainland. The nature of the island tourist economy and the vacation property market

also lends to a higher cost of living. An additional factor career NPS staff considers in

looking at openings with the park is the lack ofjob opportunity available for spouses or

other family members around the islands. The park hasn't traditionally attracted high

levels of career NPS personnel for positions outside of superintendent and chief ranger.

A good percentage of staff has come from the island or nearby mainland communities.

On a larger scale, there is something to be said for "island time," meaning action

on the island can move at a slower pace. In 1985, the regional office sent a study team to

the park to review the management structure and make recommendations on how the

park could be more effectively managed. When Deputy Regional Director Bill Briggle

43
wrote to Superintendent Hastings to inform him of the study team's arrival and

intentions, he noted that he asked Darryll Johnson, the regional sociologist to "analyze

the impact of insular living on the staff, their attitudes , productivity, etc., in hopes of

gaining greater understanding of an island work environment and the possible problems

facing our people while on such an assignment. "' The concept is an intangible and the

true level of its impact over the years is elusive. The only thing known for certain is that

the concept was considered at regional levels of management and that thousands of

people "escape" to the island every year to enjoy its attitudes and environment. It is the

reason people retire there.

The island environment can be said to influence another characteristic of park

management: the attitudes ofNPS staff from other offices. One can reason that island

time is partially responsible for the perception that the park is a "sleepy" park, with not

much activity occurring. This is not true; there is plenty going on, and plenty that could

be going on given appropriate staffing and funding levels.

That the park is perceived as sleepy is derived from research interviews of NPS

park staff and their observations about the NPS staff at region, Washington, D.C., and

even at other parks. There is the almost unanimous opinion among park staff that, for

many years, the park was treated as a great place to get to visit. All park staff referenced

this in some way or another. NPS personnel invited to the park for the purpose of

assessing park needs would see the park, tour the island, and then leave. Park staff

expressed difficulty in getting further response after such visits, and some honestly were

left with the impression that the trip in itself was really the goal, and not to resolve any of

the park's problems or issues. This is not meant to imply that all staff visiting the island

have not followed through with assistance ; it is only meant to convey a message that was

consistent in park staff interviews completed for this history.

The Pacific Northwest region is home to three big natural parks, Olympic, North

Cascades, and Mount Ranier. It is a consistent theme in the region that all the small

historical parks, San Juan among them, has a difficult time receiving a commitment from

upper management at the regional and national levels in the shadow of these three

' Letter from Deputy Regional Director William Briggle to Superintendent, San Juan Island N.H.P.,

December 1984

44
dominant parks . So while regional technical staff tried to assess, program, and lobby for

management needs at the park, they are equally frustrated by the lack of support and

lobbying power coming from upper management.

Frustration has also been an intangible force at work at the park and was evident

in 80% of the interviews the author conducted. Job satisfaction is based on a feeling of

achievement and accomplishment; this is true for any work environment. A great deal of

park planning has never been implemented, despite work by the staff to get support and

funding for a variety of projects and programming. The general feeling the author

observed is that staff basically operated on survival mode, that a majority of their time

was spent trying to maintain basic operations , but not generally making progress on

issues or projects . This atmosphere is a stressful one and it results in burn out of

personnel . The idea that park staff believed that upper level NPS management was not

listening has also contributed to this problem.

With those characteristics underlying the basic framework of park management, a

review of park development shows that the park has spent a majority of its history trying

to define itself, its goals and programming needs under the shadow of the region's big

three parks and the frustration created by the lack of support from upper management in

implementing recommended planning efforts.

Development Planning

The first step taken by the National Park Service following passage of the 1966

legislation was to develop a plan of action. A planning team of individuals from the

western regional and Denver Service Center offices was assigned to develop a master

plan, which was approved in October 1967. Bennett Gale would continue to serve as the

NPS representative until 1969, when Superintendent Carl Stoddard was hired. The

regional office and the Denver Service Center would continue to play a major role in the

completion of initial development outlined in the park's master planning document.

Master Plan, 1967

The master planning document for San Juan Island N. H.P. is a standard National

Park Service document , offering basic statistical information about the site and

45
identifying major planning issues/problems, and offering solutions to aid in the

establishment and formal dedication of the park. The plan offers and prioritizes

recommended actions for initial site development.

Primary objectives for San Juan were listed as follows: acquire lands identified as

necessary for interpretation, protection, and development; develop a program of

restoration and stabilization at both camps to preserve the historic settings; develop

necessary facilities for the interpretation of the historic story; develop a program to

maintain and protect the historic scene and structures; utilize the recreational opportunity

of the park, provided that it does not conflict with the park's basic purpose; and

encourage and preserve through local interest and action the complementary stories and

artifacts of the San Juan Islands. The plan also provided a scope of collections statement,

an interpretive theme, and an architectural theme.

In summarizing the plan's programming intent, it states the general operating

mission of the park to be the preservation and interpretation of the historic story ofjoint

occupation and the "Pig War." To this end, the park would complete certain stabilization

and limited restoration of the historic scene, and develop visitor access and parking,

interpretation, picnicking, and camping at both American and English Camp sites. The

plan also called for: establishment of a small maintenance area; limited residential

development; and the establishment of a contact station in Friday Harbor, with placement

of administrative headquarters in town. Finally, the summary suggests that the basic

components of this development should be completed by October 21, 1972, the

centennial anniversary of the peaceful settlement of the boundary dispute. This occasion

would serve as the formal dedication of the park.

Following this summary, the plan introduces factors that would affect all

development of the park and which would continue to guide park planning. In addition to

a budget limitation of $3,542,000 for lands acquisition, planning would also be shaped by

promises given during public hearings to limit recreational facilities to auto and boat

campgrounds, restore English Camp structures and the American Camp Redoubt, and

provide Jim Crook with life tenure for his house plus use of three surrounding acres.2

2

Jim Crook passed away in March 1967, just prior to the plan' s approval . Life tenure for the house and

three surrounding acres was granted to his sister Rhoda Anderson, Crook' s sole heir. Anderson passed

away in 1972.

46
Jurisdiction would be coordinated through cooperative agreements with local government

or private individuals. These items form the basic minimum planning needs to be met

and achieved through this planning document.

The document identified major problems facing site development and outlined

solutions and existing opportunities for park development in the following specific

management areas : lands acquisition , development, research needs, resource

management, maintenance and protection, and visitor use.

For lands acquisition, the plan pointed out the following problems: the NPS did

not actually have title to any necessary lands yet; the title to tidelands adjacent to the

proposed park boundary was divided between private and state ownership; no initial

contact point in Friday Harbor existed; and boat use between Guss Island and English

Camp could impact the historic scene. Recommended solutions included:

• acquire lands identified in boundary establishment planning

• acquire control of tidelands adjacent to the park through agreements, easements,

purchase, or donation

• obtain suitable space near the ferry landing as an information office and

administrative headquarters

• obtain scenic rights and restrict water use at English Camp and Guss Island

Research needs identified for park programming dealt strictly with the location

and appearance of historic structures. The plan called for a research study to determine

the following information : locate all historic structures ; determine their size, appearance,

and use; identify existing structures which were intrusive elements on the historic scene;

identify historic structures which were removed from the park; and provide information

to guide restoration of the structures, remains, and the historic scene.

The only natural resource management need identified is one that should surprise

no one familiar with the island: rabbits, and lots of them. The document called for the

development of a control and action plan to reduce and eventually eliminate the problems

of over grazing and burrowing by rabbits at American Camp, which threatened to destroy

the native habitat typical of the historic scene and perhaps undermine the stability of

historic structures.

47
With regards to maintenance and protection, fire was identified as a threat to the

park, particularly to all historic structures. The plan recommended coordinating

cooperative agreements with local and state agencies for mutual assistance in case of a

fire, as well as for staff fire training, visitor programs in fire safety, and the installation of

fire suppression systems in park buildings.

The plan identified certain visitor uses at the sites to be detrimental and

destructive to the historic setting. In addition, no interpretive facilities were in place, no

personnel or management were available for visitor safety or resource protection, and no

overnight facilities were available. The plan recommended the limitation of visitors to

compatible use only, development of interpretive facilities at both American and English

Camps, development of on-site residences for park staff to provide 24-hour protection,

and the development of a limited number of campsites for auto and boat users.

A number of items were identified as deficient or nonexistent. Proper utilities did

not exist at either site to accommodate NPS development. Water, sewer, power, and

telephone needs and sources had to be identified. Burial of all power lines to eliminate

impact on the historic setting would be necessary. Specific needs included roads,

parking, and trails at both camps; seasonal employee quarters; maintenance facilities;

redirection of incompatible county roads; elimination of Crook family buildings intruding

on the historic scene; and the placement of floats on all docks and possible dredging to

accommodate boat use.

After identifying what needs existed to establish and begin basic park operations,

the document prioritized those needs, breaking them into three categories: preconstruction, construction, and operational.

For pre-construction, the document recommended acquisition of lands;

acquisition of office space in Friday Harbor; assignment of staff to provide practical and

immediate interim park operations; stabilization of structures at English Camp; and

preparation of an interpretive prospectus and request for bids for structural and site

rehabilitation, construction, and an exhibit plan.

Under the construction phase, the park would begin site rehabilitation, historic

building restoration, and park service facilities construction, acquisition of remaining

lands, fulfillment of staffing needs, and preparation of the interpretive devices called for

48
I

VAC.no.

ne/

..... ^§ row..

..n..

AMERICAN

CAMP

LAND

OWNERSHIP

AND USE PLAN

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

WASHINGTON

Ladd ownership and use map, 1969 Master Plan

ON MICROFILM
under the interpretive prospectus. Completion of any shoreline developments and the

beginning of full park operations would also fall under the construction phase.

Under the final , operational phase, the park would develop a program of longterm maintenance providing preservation and protection of structures and grounds,

acquisition of any inholdings, and hiring of staff for full park operations.

With a planning document in hand, the NPS moved ahead with development for

the park. First and foremost, the NPS needed to acquire title to the lands identified for

inclusion in the historical park.

Lands Acquisition

Unfortunately for public relations matters, fifteen of the tracts acquired by the

NPS ended in condemnation proceedings , and took until 1972 to complete. As noted by

NPS historian John Hussey in the park' s proposal document, changing land use patterns

meant the lands being acquired by the NPS were prime residential and vacation property.

Owners knew that land values were on the rise; the demand for seasonal vacation

property was growing.

On June 16, 1965, private property owners identified in the American Camp and

English Camp acquisitions were as follows:

American Camp Owners Acres

* 1, 2, 3 Kenneth Dougherty ( 1/3 each)

George J . Franck ( 1/3 each)

Richard N. Franck ( 1/3 each)

4 Fredrick W. Whitridge (improved)

5 F.V. Landahl

6 Harold J. Jones

Leslie M. Bitner

Roland F. Gray

9 Randall V. Green

10 Orville R. Clary

* 11 T.J. R. Corps (improved)

75

440.79

77.75

1.20

49.46

20

2.32

1.70

1.95

281.62

50
* 12 Maynard Monette 26

13 Clifford L. Dightman 81.08

14 Floyd L. Foreman (improved) 5

15 James F . Bolster 3.37

* 16 Jack D. Havens 4.30

* 17 Alfred Kallicot 1.38

* 18 Colby Crabtree 2.76

* 19 F.H. Golm 1.38

* 20 D.C. Walker 3.45

21 Elizabeth McCain 3.62

22 R.K. Smith 1.50

* 23 L.L. Kelly 3

* 24 Brian Griffin 2.76

25 Edward O'Conner 3

* 26 Charles Schmidt 2.50

27 Lieth Wade 2.70

* 28 Harold J. Rodgers 60

29 C. Turick 20

30 Raynold V. Dickhaus 1.51

31 Alton R. Boyce 2.01

32 Norris Bartley (improved) .92

33 William V. Catlaw 1.48

34 John Y. Fleming 31.76

Total private property - American Camp 1,217.27

English Camp Owners Acres

1 Jim Crook (improved) 184.98

2 Harly S. Jones 78.92

3 Agnes Jamison (improved) 1.40

* 4 Roche Harbor Lime and Cement Co. 80

51
5 Fern Nicoll Ingoldsby 73.90

Total private property - English Camp 419.20

* Indicates condemnation proceedings

Condemnation proceedings for tracts of non-willing sellers totaled 548 acres and

were settled in federal district courts in Seattle, Bellevue, and Friday Harbor. At issue

was the value of the properties: fair market value for the acreage did not necessarily

equate to the dollar value that could be gained if properties were subdivided and sold as

residential lots. To gain a perspective of the development plans that were alternately

considered, the Jas. F. Bolster Agency in Bellingham at one time was prepared to sell

100' x 500' foot and 100' x 200' foot lots for the T.J.R Corps property along the stretch

of American Camp's southern edge at $17.00 per frontage foot. Plans called for 66

individual lots.3

Washington State park lands were required under federal legislation to be

donated, not purchased. In 1967, the Washington State legislature approved donation of

their properties under the following conditions: that the National Park Service had ten

years to develop the site or it would revert to state ownership and that title to tidelands

remained with the state. The state parks commission also requested that the NPS help

facilitate a land transfer between the state and the Department of the Interior for lands

bordering state park property elsewhere in the Washington.

In all, the park acquired 1,752 acres at a total cost of approximately 3.5 million

dollars.4 In any condemnation situation, there are going to be ill feelings on behalf of

those losing their property. San Juan Island was no exception, and the landowners in

condemnation proceedings, most of who remained on the island, provided a source of

anti-park sentiment on the island. This resentment has quieted as time has passed.

3 Map of Bolster Agency proposed development, no date

Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1972

52
L

Detail ofdevelopment residential lots, Bolster Agency, no date

53
Carl Stoddard, 1969-1974

Carl Stoddard was a resource manager at the Western Regional Office prior to his

tenure at San Juan. As the park's first superintendent, Stoddard's primary tasks were

outlined in the pre-construction phase of the master plan. First and foremost was the

completion of lands acquisition. In addition, an office and staff needed to be established

to begin basic park operations.

During the 1970s, Stoddard's staff numbered 3 to 4 employees, with 2 or 3

seasonals and approximately 12 to 15 Volunteers In Parks (VIPs). Office space had been

arranged through General Services Administration (GSA) in the Carter Building on

Spring Street in Friday Harbor in 1967. Later that year, a trailer arrived to serve as

seasonal housing and was placed in a trailer park in Friday Harbor.5

A debate ensued over whether or not the park should have an administrative

office in Friday Harbor, as suggested in the master plan. In his master plan comments,

Regional Director John Rutter gave several reasons why he did not think that offices

needed to be in Friday Harbor on GSA-leased property. First, he estimated that most

arrivals on the island would be in cars and parking at an information station would create

traffic congestion. Second, staffing levels were not going to be large enough to cover

three stations. Third, he believed "any Superintendent worth his salt" would be in town

developing the necessary public relations contacts.6 However, planning for offices at

either camp site to replace the office space in Friday Harbor would not occur until the

lease for the Carter Building space was terminated in 1977. Even then, it would be

temporary and last minute planning.

The need for a maintenance facility was met when the Jameson property was

acquired at English Camp. The property was an improved lot with a house and shed.

The shed building was modified to serve as the park's maintenance facility.

Stoddard wrote the first management objectives for the park, which were

approved in 1970. The management objectives reiterated the park's legislative objective

and those commitments the NPS made during public hearings. The document provides

an assessment of park resources and environments, and identifies resources relocated

Letter to Joseph Rosenkranz from Acting Superintendent S.T. Carlson, October 27, 1967

a

Comments on Master Plan by John Rutter, May 1967, p. 4

54
(bnn»issary prior to restoration, 1970.
outside the park boundaries (possible American Camp structures and the English Camp

Hospital). Stoddard's management objectives established park visitation at 25,000 a

year, with half of the summer visitation arriving by boat at English Camp.7

The document lists several objectives for general management, resource

management, and visitor use. For general management, the park was to be managed as a

small park, relying on the Seattle regional office for assistance . Management would

oversee lands acquisitions and the park would provide year-round visitor services,

maintain close relationships with local, state, and other federal agencies, work with local

organizations and private owners to help preserve the island' s historic resources, and

observe the 1972 centennial of the boundary dispute . All NPS structures would be

constructed in an unobtrusive style using muted colors and natural materials.

For resource objectives, the document stated in general that park resources were

to be managed with the intent to preserve them for long-term stability. In addition, the

park was to engage in an intensive research program of structure restoration ; develop a

program of restoration and stabilization at both camps to maintain the historic scene; and

work with local, state , and other federal agencies in the area to accomplish a rabbit

control program.

The park' s visitor use objectives included interpretation of the historic events

leading to the Pig War, joint military occupation , and peaceful arbitration settlement;

broaden interpretation to include environmental education in coordination with local

schools; provide visitor facilities and recreational developments where opportunities

existed (in 1970, planning still involved providing campsites at American Camp), as long

as facilities did not impact the historic scene; and provide for visitor safety and

protection.

Following the development of these management objectives, a good deal of

Stoddard' s efforts went into fulfilling the research and restoration needs of the historic

structures at English Camp, fulfilling one of the promises made during the public

hearings process. In 1970, the Commissary and Barracks structures underwent

restoration work and were painted . The Blockhouse was rehabilitated and painted in

1971 . In 1972, staff reestablished the flagpole and worked to restore the English Camp

' Management Objectives, SAJH, 1970

56
The Barracks, prior to and during restoration, c. 1970.

57
formal garden. Don Campbell, Pacific Northwest Region (PNR) park planner and

landscape architect, assisted in the garden's design.8 General maintenance was

completed at the English Camp cemetery, and studies into other structures were

underway, including a review of the structure on the property of Harold Lawson believed

to be the English Camp Hospital. Stoddard spent time in Victoria, British Columbia,

researching English Camp in the regional archives. He noted that staff at Canadian

repositories took great interest in the preservation of English Camp.9

In 1972, NPS historian Erwin Thompson completed the Historic Resource Study

for both camps, which included a social/political review of the historical events at the

park. The study provides a detailed analysis and, when possible, locations of structures

(existing and lost) at both camps during the military occupation. It also identifies the

location of Bellevue Farm, San Juan Town, and Lyman Cutlar's potato patch. Studies

determined that the McRae house, although having undergone some additions, was an

original American Camp structure. The Lawson building was also determined to be the

Hospital from English Camp and was donated to the NPS by owner James Mathis in

1973.

Superintendent Stoddard established the cooperative agreement, which brought

the University of Idaho archaeological field school to the park for structural research

beginning in 1970. In 1971-73, interpretive wayside exhibit plans were developed for

both camps. In 1973, contracts were awarded for an exhibit shelter at American Camp

and a small exhibit was installed in the English Camp Barracks structure after its

restoration.

Two major moves were completed in 1974, just prior to the transfer of Carl

Stoddard. The Hospital building, donated the previous year, was returned to English

Camp. Research of historic photographs and archaeological evidence determined the

structure's proper location on the parade ground. Historic photographs proved more

useful. Archaeological evidence completed by the university field school was not

conclusive in locating the original structure's placement. The Warbass house, which was

8 Letter to the author from NPS historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997

9 Superintendent' s Annual Report, SAJH, 1972, p.5

58
The Blockhouse during and after restoration.

59
determined to be one of the original laundress ' quarters, was moved back to American

Camp from its location near Friday Harbor. Restoration work on both structures would

be completed at a later date.

Centennial ofthe Boundary Settlement

The year 1972 was the centennial of the peaceful arbitration of the boundary

dispute, and Stoddard and his staff spent a great deal of time coordinating ceremonial

planning . Robert Reynolds joined them in their efforts, a Pacific Northwest Region

ranger assigned to the park from September 17 to November 11 strictly to assist with

planning for the October ceremonies. Activities included a Memorial Day service at

English Camp cemetery with visiting Canadian troops; a 4th of July celebration at

American Camp; activities for Centennial Week, July 23-29; and ceremonies on

Centennial Day, October 21, 1972. The Centennial Day ceremony included officials

representing the United States, Canada, England, and Germany. Assistant Secretary of

the Interior Richard S. Bodman was the principal speaker, and marching and ceremonial

units from the United States and Canada performed. The ceremonies were well received

and attended , and several local organizations were involved in the activities and services.

American Camp By-Pass Road

All development planning included one high-priority task : replacement of the

county road at American Camp. Cutting alongside the Redoubt, the road not only

impacted the historic scene but also contributed to incompatible use and erosion . In order

to preserve the Redoubt, the park constructed a new by-pass road with the intention of

exchanging the new by-pass with San Juan County for a portion of the county road. The

old road would be restored to the conditions of the historic setting . Under Stoddard,

planning for the by-pass road was completed and negotiations began with the county for

exchange of property. In 1974, the by-pass road was constructed and opened to traffic on

December 20. 10

However, the issue became hotly contested when neighbors and other individuals

on the island discovered the planned exchange of property and road closure. Letters and

10 Superintendent' s Annual Report , SAM, 1974, p. 2

60
a petition from neighbors and community members expressed opposition to the road

exchange on the grounds that islanders should not have to give up the view along that

portion of road, which was unparalleled, and that removal of the road made the Redoubt

inaccessible to the handicapped and the elderly. Public outcry was so significant that the

county, who until that point had favored the exchange, changed their minds and voted not

to vacate the portion of road. Shortly following the construction of the by-pass road,

Superintendent Stoddard left the park for a new assignment in Alaska, and the change in

management may have hurt the negotiation process. It was an unfortunate setback for

park development. The by-pass road remained open and available for use in conjunction

with the county road. Management decided to back off the issue until more favorable

public relations conditions existed.

Segismand Zachweija, 1974-1980

Coming on board in April 1974, the first task attended to by Superintendent

Zachweija was the collapse of negotiations with San Juan County for the road exchange.

Zachweija continued the management goals and program planning initiated by Stoddard,

which included a new general management plan to replace the park 's initial master plan.

In 1975, NPS historical architect Harold La Fleur, Jr. completed a List of

Classified Structures inventory for the park, and in 1977 he completed the study entitled

Historic Structures Report: Architectural Datafor the American Camp McRae

House/Officers' Quarters and Laundress' Quarters and the English Camp Hospital. In

1978, a contract for rehabilitation work on the McRae house was awarded. Between

1977-78, park staff worked on audio-visual scripts for interpretive programs for use in the

English Camp Barracks. The park also worked to complete the first resource

management plan for the park, which was approved in 1979.

Complicating things for management, GSA informed the park in 1977 that the

landlord for the Friday Harbor office was terminating their lease . The landlord had given

the NPS two or three months notice to be out of the space and GSA informed the park

that no other suitable space was available in town and offered no other solution. A

building regulation in place in 1977 limited building construction on site to under $3,000

61
The park trailer serving as the administrative headquarters.

62
unless approved by Congress." However, a trailer could be installed on site, so Laurin

Huffman, regional historical architect, designed a structure for use as a temporary

headquarters building until funding and planning could be completed for a permanent

visitor facility/office building. The plan was to move the trailer to North Cascades

National Park for their use after completion of a permanent visitor center at San Juan.

Huffman designed the trailer in a hurry and submitted it to procurement but no

one bid on the job. After a quick day-and-a-half redesign, Huffman sent out a new

design, which was contracted to Evergreen Mobile in Issaquah, Washington. Walt

Manza worked to complete site construction at American Camp.'2

Manza's work was jeopardized early on when the largest ferry making runs to San

Juan Island, and for which Huffman had designed the trailer to fit on, broke down. The

project was delayed until the rudder on the Kaleetan was repaired and the large ferry put

back on island runs. The trailer was then trucked and ferried to the island and assembled

onsite. In the meantime, the lease ran out on the office space in the Carter Building, and

a trailer previously used as seasonal housing had to suffice as the administrative

headquarters until the new trailer structure could be transported and assembled. This

"temporary" structure is still in use today, as a visitor contact station containing lobby

exhibit space. Located at American Camp, it also houses offices for interpretation,

resource management, and the park library.

General Management Plan, 1979

Programming for a new general management plan (GMP) for the park began in

1973. The 1967 master plan was intended to get the park through its initial development

phase and most of those objectives had been completed or determined to be outmoded by

park staff " A new general management plan identified current development needs and

the programming/ appropriation of funds to meet those needs.

" Letter to the author from historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997

1 Letter to the author from historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997

is General Management Plan (GMP), 1977, SAIH, p. 4

63
American Camp as drawn by an unknown artist, detailing the parade ground and buildings.
The park's 1979 general management plan identified the following management

objectives:

1) Historic resources: to identify, evaluate, protect, and preserve the historic scene and

resources of English Camp and American Camp, as well as prehistoric remains, in

accordance with historic preservation laws, management policies of the National Park

Service, and the purpose of the park.

2) Natural resources: to manage natural resources in order to recreate and perpetuate the

historic scene; to work cooperatively with the state of Washington in managing

tidelands; and to identify threatened or endangered species and preserve their habitat.

3) Interpretation: to foster understanding and appreciation of the historic events that

occurred from 1853 to 1871 on San Juan Island in connection with the final settlement

of the Oregon territorial boundary dispute between the United States and Great Britain,

including the Pig War of 1859.

4) Visitor use: to encourage visitor use and enjoyment of the park through provision of

adequate facilities and services for activities that are compatible with the cultural,

natural, and scenic values of the park.

5) Acquisition of information: to acquire information through archaeological

investigations, documentary research, and other means, as appropriate, for the purpose

of preserving and interpreting the park.

6) Cooperation: to cooperate with other agencies, private groups, and the public for the

purpose of protecting and encouraging compatible use and development of the island's

resources.

65
The 1979 GMP placed the highest priority on the preservation of historic

structures at American Camp . Restorations at English Camp had taken place as early as

1970, but the Officers' and Laundress' Quarters at American Camp remained unrestored.

The planning team, in combination with public opinion, believed that created an

imbalance between the two camps.

Resource management needs identified in the 1979 GMP covered a variety of

restoration, management , research, and reconstruction projects . At English Camp, minor

relocations to the flagpole and the formal garden were planned, as well as developing

picnic tables and an information office outside the historic area . Larger projects included

the restoration of the Hospital structure; reconstruction of the parade ground fence;

marking of the foundations of all non-extant buildings ; research and replanting of the

formal garden; and monitoring/research of the Garrison Bay shoreline.

The majority of resource development projects were at American Camp, and

focused on restoration of the Officers ' and Laundress' Quarters . The plan also

recommended the reconstruction of the picket fence enclosing the parade ground, all

HBC fences, and the marking of all non- extant American Camp and HBC structure

foundations. Projects designed to recreate the historic setting of 1859-72 included the

burial of intruding power lines, the reconstruction of the HBC vegetable garden, and

reestablishment of the forest landscape north of the campsite . Temporary headquarters

were to be moved to American Camp and some form of rabbit control developed. In

addition, studies of the relationship between eagle and other raptors and populations of

non-native wildlife species at American Camp were recommended . Finally, the plan

called for cataloging and photographing the park collections.

A number of general development needs were identified to provide better visitor

access and to give park staff a better work environment . English Camp needs included:

re-graveling the access road, expanding the lower parking lot (if determined necessary),

widening and graveling the Garrison Bay access road and parking area, developing a

picnic site at Garrison Bay, designing and constructing a parking lot and a trail to Young

Hill, and erecting a commemorative plaque for Jim Crook, recognizing local efforts to

preserve English Camp. At American Camp, the plan called for creating a parking area

66
HISTORIC STRUCTURES

2 NW MEhS

3 tAKcHOybE (FIrtr,

4 MEEi5

5 ..A1.INOKESS c hVF-1ER9

6 LAL N PsS ' LLWKL EKs

7 LAUNGKEbh' QUA5TEF5

8 OFFicelze cyuAr-TZRt

9 OFri orr<e' QUAKTErt

10 CFPICER`-' QUAKTEfZS

110FFICtK ^UAKTEt2S

12 At2'UTAN'h CFFILE

13PIOW°ITAL (NEW)

14 NOt?°!TAL

15 C1uAIZGNOUtE

16OCMMi55k2Y

17 QUARTER:"-T^R

18SLPQ La1IT11

19efcM

20UICA T

21GAKpEh7EIZ

22?^,AKEHGUOE (SEl.Of1P'

23QM °, GOYIM. OFri-E

24L) -cErcLY cM

25WN'H°Ar11 STOKE M

26CATFY HOUSE (HOT tEbwN)

27TELELIKAPN oPPIOE

28 WAhih HIOU4F

290UTnOL-E5

30 OFJ"I ETERT ( NOT -HOWN)

31rV,f TRAPEIZ

32 F.-AL1hTAFF

SOURCES CKIO ^ESOU^LE SruPY, N ^u W '^ ^ hM 93z

NIhf0RIIi I'NOrocEl. f to 6AMP- PIA- oeE^E'".'f

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE STUDY

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION

00 50 .

CULTURAL RESOURCE DIVISION

DRAWN BY: (aiLeiG '( DATE: SCALE 1'-100'

NORTH HISTORIC BASE MAP

AMERICAN CAMP

(CIRCA 1867)

ON MICROFILM
SOURCES

YCPOG1 Q'r1K> 17E 6UKVEy EENOYLISFt 6AMP,

SAN JUAN 15L-AN P, `ATtONAL H15TOIZIC-A L-

°ARK,I`16} GKAWU7(a No.Swi1- NEETh -7-.

rfL.TOIZIO PNOTD(aIIv rH6 P^KITISH GAMP

^&o-^°RESENLON FILE SAN T AN I°LANt^

N A7101`IAL HIS'70RiGAL PAtRK.

M QACi ^E_o ^E C aN uAH -L ND

^A cn k HI ^TOKIGAL P fr NUYO

nY 59IN TNOMPSON. 2SNVErC eERVIG

,i6NTf-, NPTIONAL IAKK SE,2VIGE, H}2.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

1 E U tOLtt

2 I'_'AKRAOKM

3 ^iORf-ktOw5

4 LAKLRT OF 6LA6FcM I`H

5 CA ,AIHt Gu^'KTEKE

6 MARRIED hU6ALTE2^`1

7 .5UICV,EON

8 6IN(dLE SUGALrEq

9 OFSC4 -5 E1 ',i

10 1P^KKAOKF

11 WAbH P ATH dDU S,

12

13

14 WELL,

15'UNIO^-^f1I F E c

16UNICENTI FIEJ

17 UNI'ENT IFIEP

18 !'c-15iru1 r,OSP)TAL

19-

20?_`rAa LE ! 6rolC6rlo UPE

21 I'^P^InI-{OUSE

22 `-,GHOOL LIMAKT

23 :h K,°EI'ITEF `5hwl"IILL

24 WNAFF

25 PIGIC

26 °t SIGC( ^TOFAOiE27 Pb'1JI^LY boAT I1OUoE

28%CFMAL @AFL^EN

29 :t-TKY n-Ox

30'SEHT,Rr tOX

31 >'ICENTiFIEC

32 UNIDENTIFIEp

33 UNIGENT IFIEG

34 UNIOErTi°Ii;p

^f Kr-iSON

35 =,-X1- TA F

36 %EM - E ,e( (Nor hItOW N)

37 I^IIV7-0U5E

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE STUDY

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION

CULTURAL RESOURCE DIVISION

DRAWN BY:GLSEFT DATE:

m0

SCALE 1"-100'

;ao

NORTH HISTORIC BASE MAP

BRITISH CAMP

(CIRCA 1868 )

I

DRAWING NO.

4 38 -80018

SHEET 10

OF

13

ON MICROFILM
in front of the interpretive shelter, designing and constructing a park headquarters, and

utilizing non-historic buildings for park operations or removing/salvaging them.

The GMP called for development of a permanent visitor facility and offices,

employees quarters, a maintenance facility, and construction and installation of a boat

dock and mooring buoys. Despite previous planning attempts, the county and by-pass

roads at American Camp were both listed as "no change", indicating the park planned to

continue the status quo for the contentious issue of the county and by-pass roads."

Visitor use and interpretation needs for English Camp included the proper

inventory and assessment for retention or donation of the remainder of Jim Crook's

equipment that was left on the property. No changes were identified for the Barracks

exhibits.

At American Camp, identified interpretation needs included a new interpretive

sign at the Redoubt. The GMP also considered re-designation of the Jakle's Lagoon

Road into a nature trail with interpretive markers placed for more involved natural history

interpretation. The existing interpretive shelter was identified as too small and limiting

for proper interpretation and visitor needs and a new facility for the camp was

recommended.

The GMP also recommended securing office space in Friday Harbor for a staffed

information office. This recommendation carried over from initial park planning, but a

lack of adequate space in Friday Harbor, in addition to an unconvinced regional office,

would delay this move. The plan also identified the need for road signs identifying

mileage to two park units and the need for interpretive exhibits or, at minimum, brochure

dispensers for placement aboard island-bound ferries to help guide visitors to the park.

The GMP scheduled each of the proposals into three, five-year phases, with dollar

amounts associated with each specific project. Phase one projects identified what park

management believed was the highest priority for park development; specifically,

bringing American Camp up to the same level of restoration and quality as the historic

scene that existed at English Camp. Prioritized phase one projects were listed as:

14 GNP, p. 42

71
Restoration of buildings at American Camp

Reconstruction of American Camp picket fence

Move temporary headquarters to American Camp

Construct a maintenance facility at American Camp

• Develop water and sewer systems and bury powerlines

• Develop interpretive markers along Jakle's Lagoon trail

• Develop and install brochures and dispensers for island bound ferries

• Install park mileage road signs in Friday Harbor

• Reconstruct parade ground fence at English Camp

• Research and replant formal garden

• Upgrade existing roads and parking at English Camp

• Construct Bell Point nature trail with interpretive trail exhibits and markers

All other projects fell into the second and third five-year phases. Total cost estimate for

all the projects proposed for development: $2,033,000.00.

Development of campsites at American Camp was a major planning item in the

new GMP that carried over from initial park planning, but shortly thereafter, was dropped

for two reasons. First, the public on the whole viewed the proposal unfavorably. The

primary reasons for their lack of support on this issue were a dislike of anything that

might aid or precipitate increased visitation to the island, but more importantly was the

fear that the campsites would hurt the business of two privately owned and operated

campgrounds on the island. Secondly, the park could not accurately determine that

adequate potable water supplies existed at the camp to support large-scale camping,

especially during the summer seasons. These two factors combined to end serious

planning attempts for campsites.

Public comment on the 1979 GMP raised one interesting point: a large percentage

of those who commented on the plan and its alternatives remembered initial development

planning for the park and items identified in the 1967 Master Plan, most specifically the

fact that the headquarters had not been moved into Friday Harbor as proposed. One letter

stated that the park should complete one master plan before starting a new one.

72
One of the largest gaps in the park's written record is the period of Zachwieja's

superintendency. Aside from planning documents and correspondence for the new GMP,

little written evidence exists, including any references to where or why Zachwieja left the

park. In interpretation, Zachwieja did hire Patricia Milliren, the park's first full time park

ranger dedicated to interpretation. It was under Milliren's direction that living history

programming at the park began (see Chapter V).

Frank Hastings, 1980-1984

Frank Hastings served as superintendent of Navajo National Monument in

Arizona for eight years prior to his transfer to San Juan in 1980. Upon arrival at the park,

he immediately set about trying to improve the standing of the park in the community.

When he arrived, the park had tentative relations with the local public at best. Public

relations existed only when the park implemented programs that had an impact on local

residents, which often meant that relations existed when a conflict arose. Superintendent

Hastings began by getting involved in local clubs and encouraging the same of his staff.

In 1981, Hastings was elected to the Board of Directors of the Friday Harbor Chamber of

Commerce.15 By giving the park an active role in the community, Hastings also laid the

groundwork to reopen negotiations for the county road closure at American Camp.

With a by-pass road already constructed, Hastings worked to convince the

community that removal of the old road was necessary for the protection and

interpretation of the park. Superintendent Hastings took steps to make sure that people

understood clearly the park's goals and reasoning for the move by holding meetings,

hoping to gain support for the closure prior to requesting specific action. The move

would not happen during Hastings term, but he continued to push for that as his primary

goal.

In 1981, park administration spent a great deal of time with internal personnel

matters. A charge of harassment by one employee against another developed into a

second, formal charge of discrimination by park management as a whole. The second

charge alleged that the park, under Hastings' management, had retaliated against the

employee who filed the original complaint. The Seattle and Washington, D.C. (WASO)

Superintendent ' s Annual Report, SAJH, 1981

73
support offices investigated the charge. WASO investigators who came to the park to

interview staff left behind a negative atmosphere. Park staff was troubled by the way the

investigators handled the interviews, which were reported as "interrogations" in the

superintendent's annual report. 16 Park relations with the regional office and WASO were

strained during this period, with distrust and some hostility evident in written documents.

Resolution of the charge is not available in park records due to the confidential nature of

the investigations. What is known is that six months after the investigation, when the

1981 annual report was written, no decision had been reached on the issue and the

investigation was not mentioned again.

Building restorations continued under Hastings, starting with the English Camp

Hospital in 1981. The building was stabilized, re-roofed, and painted. In 1983,

restoration work on the American Camp laundress' quarters began, including

stabilization and construction of a new chimney. In an effort to remove all non-historic

structures in the park, the Katz (Whitridge) house, located just off the American Camp

by-pass road, was put up for auction twice, with no bidders. In 1983, the park donated

the structure to the rural fire district, which destroyed the building in a training exercise.

Volunteers became increasingly important to the park during Hastings' term. One

realm of volunteer participation came in the form of ferry contacts. Volunteers on board

regular ferry runs made contact with potential visitors to the island, informing them about

the park, how to get there, and what programs were available to them. In 1981, the

volunteers contacted approximately 8,300 people.17

Maintenance received help in the form of Young Adult Conservation Corps

(YACC) crews, who helped with the installation of split-rail fencing, clearing of brush,

and the installation of insulation and siding for the maintenance facility. The crew also

completed work on the historic garden and stabilization of the historic maple tree at

English Camp.

Fire continued to be an issue at the park. Beach fires left unattended by

picnickers totaled 10 in 1980, 9 in 1981, and 10 in 1982. In most cases, park personnel

contained the fires. In 1981, a fire caused by an eagle contacting a power line burned 79

16 Superintendent ' s Annual Report, SAJH, 1981

" Superintendent' s Annual Report, SAM, 1981

74
acres at American Camp. Three fire companies responded as well as the Washington

State Department of Natural Resources. In a separate incident, fire destroyed the

maintenance shop, the cause of which was attributed to poor housekeeping by park staff.

Park staff completed the first fire management plan and Randy Richter of the U.S.

Forest Service completed a fuels assessment/treatment plan for the park. Fire fighting

equipment was also purchased, including a pumper truck.

Interpretation continued with a mix of film programs and guided walks conducted

by seasonal rangers and volunteers. However, in 1981, the living history program was

suspended due to "inadequacies in the park program.il" What the inadequacies were is

not clear. Since the park continued to have personnel conflicts and staff time spent

resolving other issues, the time to invest in a regular or expanded living history program

may have been limited.

In early 1985, the regional office began a management review for the park in the

form of a study team to review and make recommendations to improve park

management. Deputy Regional Director Bill Briggle wrote to Superintendent Hastings

that "there have been many problems at San Juan Island with which you have effectively

dealt...". But morale was apparently low and the study team was designed to "reaffirm

the Service's commitment" at the park.19 Superintendent Hastings retired from the

National Park Service shortly after the study team was initiated.

Richard Hoffman, 1985-1991

Superintendent Hoffman came to San Juan from the Pacific Northwest Regional

Office in Seattle. Hoffman was interested in moving out of PNRO and back to a park, so

he actively campaigned to be the new superintendent of San Juan. He was placed there

on a probationary term as superintendent by acting Regional Director Bill Briggle.

Superintendent Hoffman remembers his number one priority was survival as the park's

superintendent and spent his first year dealing with personnel issues.20 Within two years

the park had almost an entirely new staff.

S Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1981

9 Letter from Deputy Regional Director William Briggle to Superintendent, San Juan Island N.H.P.,

December 1984

20 Interview with Richard Hoffman, April 15,1997

75
Hoffman set the following objectives for park management: to develop reachable

goals in park development and operations; to instill a sense of ownership in park staff;

and attempt to build more favorable community relations for the park.21 Under those

objectives, the park achieved a few important moves: closure of the county road through

American Camp and leasing office space in Friday Harbor.

During Hoffman's term, the park upgraded internally. For example, computer

systems were installed to facilitate better transmission of general reporting requirements

and payroll data. From 1986-88, Hoffman served as the NPS representative for Ebey's

Landing National Historical Reserve on Whidbey Island, giving him added tasks and

requiring him to be out of the office on a regular basis. Hoffman established a strong

working relationship between himself, Chief Ranger Steve Gobat, and Administrative

Officer Diane Joy during this time. This relationship assisted park management when

Hoffman was later diagnosed with cancer. His illness took him out of the office for

significant periods of time and would eventually lead to his retirement from the NPS in

1991.

In 1985, the park received assistance from PNRO in cleaning up the in-park

curatorial collection. Items were catalogued, the English Camp cemetery headstones

examined, and the decision made to replace the one wooden one. All the Crook family

items were finally removed in 1987 and the park leased storage space in town for its

museum collection.

Under Hoffman's tenure, the English Camp formal garden fence was

reconstructed, and final restoration of the garden was completed in 1986. The garden

program was one of several events completed in honor of the park's twentieth

anniversary, which the park called SAJH 20. Other events included a living history

Christmas party at English Camp and a Founder's Day picnic. Ranger Detlef Wieck was

nominated for and received the regional Freeman Tilden award for interpretation in 1990

for his efforts in developing the volunteer program at the park.

21Interview with Richard Hoffman, April 15,1997

76
Road Relocation

It was under Hoffman's management that the county road at American Camp was

finally closed . Ranger Steve Gobat remembers planning the road restoration quickly, so

the county couldn't change its mind in the face of any potential public outcry.22 In

January 1990, the county vacated 1 . 3 miles of road . The park closed the road April 9th

and by May the restoration work had been completed.

For the most part, the road exchange and removal went smoothly. Some islanders

were never going to accept the move as necessary and better for the park . Public opinion

succeeded in delaying the move for 16 years. Whatever anger and disagreement was

generated by the move, however, dispelled fairly quickly.

A pilot planting project was started at American Camp in 1986, to test the

feasibility of replanting trees in the northwest area of the camp. Another American Camp

change was the addition of horseback riding . Started by a public request , Hoffman

designated specific areas , instituted a permit system, and got clearance from the regional

office to allow local horse riding enthusiasts to ride at the park.

In an effort to attract seasonal volunteers to the park , a trailer pad was constructed

in 1988 at American Camp. The problem of affordable, available seasonal housing has

always been a problem . This space allowed volunteers to hook up trailers or motor

homes while working at the camp.

Friday Harbor Administrative Office

In 1984 , the park located appropriate office space in Friday Harbor for a contact

station . Returning park headquarters to Friday Harbor gave the park heightened visibility

not only to potential visitors getting off ferries, but to the overall community . Following

the move to American Camp, it had taken seven years for GSA to find an appropriate

space for the park to lease.

z2 Interview with Steve Gobat, February, 1997

77
A New Maintenance Facility

In 1990, a new maintenance facility was constructed to replace the original shop

destroyed by fire. The park went six years between the fire and the construction of a new

building. In the interim, the maintenance crew operated out of the Jameson house

acquired during lands acquisitions for English Camp, and which lacked a hot water heater

and had a leaky basement23 The Jameson house was sold and moved off park property

prior to construction of the new building.

Richard Hoffman retired from the NPS in 1991 in order to focus on his health.

The incoming superintendent had nearly 20 years of experience as a NPS superintendent

to help guide San Juan's future.

Robert Scott, 1991 to Present

Superintendent Scott arrived at San Juan in 1991 from Craters of the Moon

National Monument in Idaho. Scott's first year at the park saw a visitation record:

359,168 visitors. He has continued to maintain and improve the park's community

relations through involvement in service clubs and maintaining relationships with outside

organizations. He also worked to establish a formal natural resource management

program through the creation of a new resource management/law enforcement position,

whose job tasks were previously a collateral duty of the chief ranger. Since then, the

number of resource management projects identified at the park has increased from 18 to

83.'4

Scott's first order of business was overseeing building construction and

maintenance. The maintenance facility at English Camp was nearing completion and the

visitor center at American Camp had to be repaired from winter storm damage, including

a new roof and some dry wall, as a result of a falling tree. Scott worked to improve park

infrastructure, getting new phone lines installed in Friday Harbor, American Camp, and

the maintenance shop at English Camp. Park staff also worked to maintain log barriers

placed on South Beach as a method of keeping vehicles off of the beach and prairie. In

1992, the American Camp parking lot, which was small and accessed by one narrow lane,

23 Conversation with Wes Callender, December, 1996

u Review comments to the author from Robert Scott, R4, 1997

78
Artifactsfrom the park collection on display in the American Camp exhibit, completed in

1996.

79
was redesigned. The lot was expanded and the traffic pattern altered for better access.

The entrance road was also widened.

In 1992, exhibits from the English Camp Barracks were moved into the Friday

Harbor office. Regional curatorial funds were secured to continue cataloging

archaeological artifacts at University of Washington and University of Idaho. In 1993,

the park entered into a cooperative agreement with North Cascades National Park's

Marblemount facility for storage of the park's historic artifacts. This arrangement

became necessary when University of Idaho's storage became unavailable. The park's

prehistoric artifact collection continues to be stored at the University of Washington's

Burke Museum in Seattle.

At American Camp, the historic parade ground fence was rebuilt. Replacement of

the fence was designed as a method of defining the historic landscape of the camp.

Monies to purchase supplies came from a cooperating association special projects grant.

New exhibits showcasing items from the park's archaeological collection were designed

and built by park staff in 1996.

Interpretation has continued to utilize living history demonstrations when feasible.

It has relied heavily on self-guided trails at American Camp and guided walks when staff

is available. Park staff has continued involvement in the town' s annual Memorial Day

and 4th of July parades and the Pig War Barbeque. A long-range interpretive plan is

scheduled for completion in 1999. The interpretation program received a grant from the

National Parks Foundation in 1996 to build a travelling trunk exhibit and educational

outreach program. Focusing primarily on school groups, the grant will enable the park to

take its interpretive message beyond the park boundaries.

Recent facility planning under Scott includes the installation of three new outdoor

toilets, one each at English Camp, South Beach, and 4th of July Beach. These will help

accommodate the increasing numbers of visitors. Scott has initiated planning for the

adaptive reuse of the Crook House to provide critically needed seasonal housing. In

addition, Scott has initiated planning and coordination to complete controlled burns at

American Camp and English Camp to aid in the restoration and regeneration of native

plant species.

80
Scott has had to deal with budget cuts and even a budget shortfall during his

administration . Normal staffing levels for the park include 6 seasonals for interpretation

and 4 in maintenance. But since 1994, the park has typically only had two to three

seasonals total , and getting those has been a challenge . In 1997, there were no summer

interpretive seasonal s, forcing the park to rely on volunteers to handle the summer

interpretation programs. The park must continue to rely on volunteer efforts and work to

increase the number and variety of non-personnel visitor services.

Superintendent Scott has announced his plans to retire in late 1998. Following the

limited staffing of recent summer seasons, the park has been identified as one of several

parks in line to possibly receive a future base funding increase. With a new GMP slated

for 2000, the replacement of Superintendent Scott, and a potential base funding increase,

the park is reaching another time of transition that will greatly shape its next decade.

81
CHAPTER FIVE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Chapter Five: Resource Management

San Juan Island N.H.P. is described as a microcosm of the NPS, with its important

cultural, natural, and recreational resources and issues. The most constant management

concern has been historic structures. In addition, the park is rich in archaeological sites

and has a diverse museum collection. The park also has a rich mixture of natural

resources with a wide variety of flora and faunal species, set within environments ranging

from rock bluffs to prairie, and forest to beach.

Historic Resource Study

In 1972, Denver Service Center historian Erwin Thompson completed the

Historic Resource Study for San Juan Island N.H.P. Thompson's study included a

social/political survey of the island's historic events, as well as a survey of the

architectural history of the two military camps. His social review also details the

interactions of the Royal Marines and U. S. Army soldiers stationed on the island.

Thompson's research is an excellent source of interpretive material for the park regarding

everyday life and activities at both English and American Camps.

Thompson examined records documenting the twelve-year occupation by the U.S.

Army and Royal Marines for information regarding the construction of buildings at the

sites and their uses. Thompson was looking for any information to assist in rehabilitation

and restoration efforts. In addition, Thompson researched buildings on the island

rumored to be from the camps, assessed their authenticity, and provided

recommendations for their potential use.

Thompson's research indicates the Royal Marines built at least 37 buildings at

English Camp. Use and location can be determined for most of the buildings. In

addition, archaeological sites exist which seem to be from historic military construction,

but specific use is unknown. Thompson speculated that these sites could be from

temporary structures that were replaced during the first few years of occupation. The

most useful information regarding historic structures at English Camp comes from

surveys completed by the U.S. Army after acceptance of the site in 1872. These surveys

indicate which structures were fairly new construction and what the various uses of the

buildings were.

83
----- HISTC4'4C RCYO V374

H ISTCRIC I=aO 1875

-••- TEL 4Fl LINE.

* FAT

10

FnRO ^^td ktA

2 9 5

MIS

7 AMEFZ$CN CAMP 1859

2 AMEFZCVN CAMP 1SS

3 AMERCAN CAMP I&59-74

£ E3FtITISHCAMP 1S'O-72

HISTORIC BASE

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

UNITED DATES DEPARThIENT Of THE I N1E810NNATIIXNL PARK SERVICE 43 88 2000E

DEC MAR JR

ON MICROFILM
1 BARRACKS 20 GRANARY

2 NCO MESS 21 CARPENTER

3 SAKE HOUSE, FIRST 22 RAKE HOUSE, SECOND

4 MESS 23 QM&COMM. OFFICE

5 LAUNDRESS QUARTERS 24 ORDERLY ROOM, ETC.

6 LAUNDRESS' QUARTERS 25 COMPANY STORE ROOM

7 LAUNDRESS' QUARTERS 26 BATH HOUSE

8 OFFICERS' QUARTERS 27 TELEGRAPH OFFICE

9 OFFICERS' QUARTERS 28 WASH HOUSE

10 OFFICERS' QUARTERS 29 OUTHOUSES

11 OFFICERS' QUARTERS 30 CEMETERY

12 ADJUTANT'S OFFICE 31 POST TRADER

13 HOSPITAL 32 FLAGSTAFF

14 HOSPITAL

15 GUARDHOUSE

16 COMMISSARY FENCE

17 QUARTERMASTER

IS

19

BLACKSMITH

BARN

87

#26

W:if^e.. 031

29A. 14 25i 2 44l W21

1340

24 23 15 .c>•%

298irj'-U p IIa*32

40 ISO i07

HISTORIC BASE

AMERICAN CAMP

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

UNITED SLPARK EPARI

MENT OF THE INTERIOR

38 • 20007

9SC MAR 79

ON MICROFILM
1 BLOCKHOUSE

2 BARRACKS

3 STOREHOUSE

4 BLACKSMITH SHOP

5 CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS

6 MARRIED SUBALTERN

7 SURGEON

8 SINGLE SUBALTERN

9 OFFICERS'MESS

10 BARRACKS

11 WASH & BATH HOUSE

12 WASH & BATH HOUSE

13 WELL

14 WELL

15 UNIDENTIFIED

16 UNIDENTIFIED

17 UNIDENTIFIED

18 POSSIBLY HOSPITAL

19 1 STABLE & STOREHOUSE

20

21 MESSHOUSE

22 SCHOOL & LIBRARY

23 CARPENTER & SAWMILL

24 WHARF

25 PIER

26 POSSIBLY STOREAGE SHED

27 POSSIBLY

BOAT

BOAT HOUSE

2E

8 FORMAL GARDEN

29 SENTRY BOX

30 SENTRY BOX

31 UNIDENTIFIED

32 UNIDENTIFIED

33 UNIDENTIFIED

34 UNIDENTIFIED

35 FLAGSTAFF

36 CEMETERY

W BIRDHOUSE

a2DD ADD 4 PFET

0 60 ISO SEC, MS, - IEPG

88

HISTORIC BASE

BRITISH CAMP

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

ON MICROFILM

438 Xp09

OSC M
....... ....

HISTORIC BASE

SAN JUAN TOWN - 1874

SAN JUAN ISLAND

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INCAITER

^^I ppOppRpp 99/

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DSC

^I

MAR J9

ON MICROFILM

89
The Blockhouse, Barracks, Commissary, and Hospital structures remain at

English Camp today. The small cemetery on Young Hill also provides a poignant

reminder of the British military encampment. Also visible is the stonework foundation of

the officers' quarters, stone steps up the hillside, and the stonework remains of what was

probably a bake oven. For a complete listing and identification of sites, refer to the

historic base map on page 89.

Thompson's research indicated that the United States Army built no less than 34

structures at American Camp during the 12-year occupation. Structures included the

blockhouse/guardhouse, enlisted men and officers' quarters, a bake house, barracks,

messroom and kitchen, two hospitals, storehouses, a blacksmith shop, granary, carpenter

shop, school and reading room, bath house, telegraph office, shoemaker shop, cemetery,

roothouses, the flagstaff, and the redoubt, among others.' For a complete listing and

identification of sites, refer to the historic base map on page 90 for American Camp.

Two structures, the Officers' Quarters and Laundress' Quarters, survived and have

undergone restoration for the interpretive program.

Historic Structures Report: Architectural Data

In 1977, NPS architect Harold La Fleur, Jr. completed the architectural data report

for the Officers' Quarters and Laundress' Quarters at American Camp, and the Hospital

at English Camp. The study compared Thompson's historical research findings with data

gathered by the University of Idaho archaeological field school under the direction of Dr.

Roderick Sprague. Armed with this new data, La Fleur confirmed that the McRae and

Warbass houses were indeed American Camp structures.

Both American Camp buildings had undergone substantial remodeling and

additions over the years and it took the archaeological work of the University of Idaho to

settle the placement and authenticity of the structures. By examining the structural

evidence in relation to the buildings, it was determined that the McRae house was HS 11,

Officers' Quarters. By the same methods the debate over what function the Warbass

house served was settled. The field school had excavated an almost complete foundation

' Thompson p. 148

91
The English Camp Cemetery.

92
for HS 6, Laundress' Quarters, which Sprague felt was an 80% match to the Warbass

structure.2

La Fleur's report provided the necessary architectural data, floor plans, and

recommendations for the park to move ahead with restoration of the three structures.

Blockhouse

Standing on the edge of Garrison Bay, the English Camp Blockhouse is a wellknown park icon. Probably used as a guardhouse, the structure is two-storied and at one

time had a wood stove and a porch. The log base, exposed to the Garrison Bay tides and

increased erosion, creates additional deterioration factors for maintenance. When the

NPS took possession of the structure, there was evidence that the building had undergone

some additional construction and alteration following the historic period, most likely

completed by the Crook family as they adapted the building to suit their needs.

During 1970, the Blockhouse was the first restoration undertaken by the NPS.

The structure was stabilized and leveled. Logs at the base of the Blockhouse,

deteriorated from water exposure, were replaced. The roof was replaced and the building

whitewashed. Most of the structure's base-logs were replaced again in 1995 by a multipark crew.

Barracks

The Barracks structure has seen the most restoration and the most use. It was also

in very poor condition and the structure underwent a major overhaul in 1970. The

building has received periodic whitewashing and stabilization treatment over the years.

The Barracks has always served as the visitor station for English Camp. Staffed

during the summer season and during special occasions by NPS staff and volunteers, the

structure has been the site of regular slide presentations, exhibits on the camp and on site

archaeology, and special events and lectures.

As a side note, during restoration of the Barracks, a small can of coins and

valuables was discovered under the roof Rhoda Anderson had informed Carl Stoddard

that she knew her father had stashed some money in the Barracks during the time they

2 Historic Structures Report : Architectural Data, Harold La Fleur, Jr., SAJH, 1977, p. 44

93
The coin and cashfound in the Barracks, later given to Mrs. Rhoda Anderson.

The restored Barracks building.

94
were living there, but she never knew where.3 Stoddard had told the construction crew to

be on the look out for the stash, which was found and returned to Mrs. Anderson in a

small ceremony.

Commissary

Like the Barracks and Blockhouse, the Commissary is one of the three original

structures to have survived at English Camp. Its condition matched the Barracks

structure. Extensive restoration work to level and stabilize the building was carried out

between 1971 and 1972.

Hospital

The Hospital is the one structure at English Camp that had been moved to another

location, three miles away to the Peter Lawson farm. It was later identified by the NPS

and returned to the site for restoration.

Howard Lawson, heir to the Lawson farm, began negotiations with the NPS for

the donation of the Hospital building around 1971. In 1972, he sold the property to

James Mathis, who donated the structure in 1973. The structure was moved back to

English Camp in 1974. Studied by Harold La Fleur, Jr. in 1977, the building's exterior

was refurbished in 1978. In 1981, the building underwent further restoration to stabilize

the foundation and replace the roof. During construction, another hidden stash was

found, this time consisting of a small collection of coins, including two gold pieces, a

diamond ring, and a watch. The items were discovered above a window. Three

individuals claimed the find, which was turned over to the U.S. solicitor's office. It was

later determined that Howard Lawson was the rightful claimant, since he had inherited

the building prior to its donation.

In 1990, a Historic Furnishings Report for the English Camp Hospital was

produced under contract for the NPS. Prepared by historian Florence K. Lentz, with Dr.

William Woodward and Bridget E. J. Spiers, the document chronicles the medical history

of the British Royal Marines during the late nineteenth century, drawing from studies

3 Interview with Laurin Huffman. April, 1997

95
The restored Commissary.

The Hospital after being moved back to English Camp, prior to restoration.

96
regarding similar naval hospitals, and a history of the medical services at English Camp.

The report determines that not enough information is known specifically about English

Camp's hospital to refurbish it as a restoration. However, the report does offer other

treatment alternatives.

Other Royal Marine medical facilities from the late nineteenth century around the

region are well documented through inventories and journals, specifically one in

Esquimalt, British Columbia, Canada. One alternative would be for the park to restore

the interior to represent a typical Royal Marine medical facility and interpret it as such.

Another option was simply to restore the interior for use as an interpretive facility, where

the interior would undergo general rehabilitation but not include specific structural

furnishings. The report ends by offering potential opportunities for interpreting late 19th

century British naval medicine.

The Crook House

Historical Architect Laurin Huffman is right on target when he states that

management planning for the Crook House has been inconsistent over the years. During

establishment of the park, the NPS promised the island community some interpretation of

Jim Crook's life and role in preserving English Camp. However, planning since initial

development relegated that theme to a minor role. As a result, the house has been looked

on more as an intrusion of the historic setting than as an integral part of it. Upper

management in the regional office considered getting rid of the house altogether; the

cultural resource division in Seattle has long supported the idea of making the house a

visitor contact station.4 From a "historic scene" perspective, this is not a popular move

since the house post-dates the military occupation. The house itself was recently

determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places through draft

documentation completed by Florence Lentz. But removal would be even less popular in

terms of public relations . Local island history looks favorably on Jim Crook, not only in

his association with English Camp but as an inventor. Regional Historical Architect

Huffman recommended taking steps to "remove" the impact of the house on the historic

4

Review comments from Stephanie Toothman, November, 1997

97
The Crook House, painted its original white, overlooking the parade ground.

98
setting of English Camp in a less drastic way than demolition : muted gray paints replaced

the original white color of the house and landscaping was used to visually screen the

house from the rest of the site.5

Until 1986-87, the structure was used to store park collections and what remained

of Crook' s large farm implements and machinery. With the final removal of Crook

materials to the San Juan County Historical Society and acquisition of alternate storage

space, the house has remained largely unused.

There have been many ideas presented for the adaptive reuse of the Crook House

over the years, including seasonal housing, administrative offices, or a visitor center with

exhibits. A Historic Structures Report produced in 1984 details the Crook family

settlement of the property and the life of James, who inherited the site from his father.

The study also summarizes the architectural stylings and preservation needs of the house.

The report stated that the house needed a top-to-bottom rehabilitation, done in such a

manner as to minimally alter the structure ' s historical integrity while bringing the

building up to code for modem day use.

Suggestions for the reuse of the house included: recommended studies to

incorporate the house into the historic scene; utilization of the structure as a visitor

center, with a lobby, sales counter, and exhibit space; curatorial storage; and space for a

ranger station, with an office, break room, and employee-use-only restroom.

None of the work recommended in the structures report was implemented. In

1991, studies were initiated to determine the practicality of adapting the house for use as

seasonal housing . The availability of affordable housing for seasonal employees has

always been an issue for the park. Ellen Gage, historical architect stationed at Olympic

National Park, completed design plans for adaptive reuse of the house for seasonal

quarters. Funding is currently being sought to begin implementation of the design.

The Redoubt

In recent years, the Redoubt has undergone study to assess erosion within the

structure and the effects of decades of rabbit burrowing in and around it. The structure is

a unique example of fortification building from the Civil War era, and is earning interest

5 Letter to the author from Laurin Huffman, August 1997

99
from military historians. Most structures engineered by the U.S. Army during the 1860s

were subjected to actual wartime use, but this Redoubt never saw such action.

Under contract with the NPS, Dale E. Floyd, senior historian for consulting firm

CEHP Incorporated, completed a report titled Comparative Analysis, American Camp

Fortifications, San Juan Island National Historical Park. Finished in 1996, the report

analyzed the Redoubt in relation to typical U.S Army fortifications built during the midto late 1800s. The report provides park managers with comparative analytical

information about the structure and includes references for the park to utilize in its

management and stabilization planning activities. In addition, the Redoubt was surveyed

and mapped with one-foot contours to establish a baseline for future monitoring.

Officers' Quarters

Originally there were three officers' quarters at American Camp, one of which

was occupied by Captain Pickett. A number of structures located elsewhere on the island

were rumored to be that structure. In 1972, Thompson ruled out two of those structures.

One was the Warbass house, which was determined to be a historic American Camp

structure, but not Pickett's. Another was a house located near Friday Harbor, which

Thompson surmised could be a structure from the camp. Even if true, the severe

deterioration of the structure prevented a move to American Camp.6 Lastly, he

considered the McRae house, which stood about 900 feet west of where Thompson

calculated all the officers' quarters to have been built.

During historic structures research, the McRae house was treated as an original

officers' quarters structure, with some modifications. Later research and archaeological

excavation confirmed early assessments of the building's identity as an original

American Camp structure.

In 1981, the structure underwent restoration, which returned the exterior of the

building to its original state. Post-historic remodeling has altered the inside of the

building, making interior restoration difficult; further research will be necessary if the

6 Thompson, p. 162

100
The Officers' Quarters, 1970, (back, right) with University ofIdahofield school

excavations in progress.

101
park hopes to restore the interior of the Officers' Quarters and make interpretive use of

the space.'

Laundress' Quarters

Originally called the Warbass House, Thompson initially thought this structure to

be the "Pickett" house or an officers' quarters . He determined the structure to be from

American Camp, and like the McRae house it had seen additions and changes over the

years. He determined that the structure was not an officers' quarters, for the original

structure was too small.

Warbass had moved the structure to his property around 1875. Thompson

guessed by its size that it was probably the adjutant' s quarters or the telegraph office. The

structure was later determined to be one of the laundress' quarters and matched structural

evidence uncovered by the University of Idaho field school.

The last of the six historic structures to undergo restoration , work on the building

began in 1983. It was also in the worst shape of all six and was badly deteriorated. A

contract was awarded to NPS' Williamsport Preservation Training Center to undertake

the work. Superintendent Hastings was extremely pleased with the results , stating that

the project came in under budget and ahead of schedule.8

Robert's Plaque and otherfeatures

On a stone boulder next to the Redoubt, a bronze plaque honors Lt. Henry Marlyn

Robert, U.S. Army engineer, who was responsible for the Redoubt design. It had been

mounted in 1942 by the Governor Isaac Stevens chapter of the Daughters of the

American Revolution, Formal dedication ceremonies were held in 1947 .9 The group

honored Robert for his work designing the Redoubt, but also for his later military career,

including Robert 's Rules of Order, his most well-known accomplishment.

At English Camp, next to the formal garden, is one of the oldest bigleaf maple

trees in the Northwest . In 1997 in was dated at 324 years of age. The maple is managed

r Interview with Laurin Huffman, April 28, 1997

$ Superintendent' s Annual Report, SAJH, 1983, p. 2

s Letter to files from Detlef Wieck, SAJH, February, 1993

102
The American Camp Monument at its previous Redoubt location, with Superintendent

Carl Stoddard

103
as a historic tree. Recently, the remaining trees from the Crook family orchard have

come under the umbrella of historic tree consideration as well.

The two marble monuments erected in 1904 by the University of Washington

State Historical Society still stand at both camps. In September 1989, the monuments

were cleaned of lichens and stains under the supervision of the regional curator. In 1992,

the American Camp monument was moved from its original location at the Redoubt to its

current home next to the American Camp headquarters.

Historic Landscapes

Much consideration and planning has gone into the historic landscapes at San

Juan Island N.H.P. American Camp and English Camp present very different landscapes

to the visitor, with varying degrees of success. Historic landscape issues at the park

cover a wide range of issues, from maintenance of the formal garden at English Camp to

development and maintenance of all roads and trails. In short, the historic landscape is

intended to convey a sense of the historical period and events to the visitor.

English Camp Formal Garden

Since the early 1970s, work restoring the formal garden at English Camp has been

maintained almost solely through volunteer efforts. In March 1982, Landscape Architect

Carol Meadowcroft produced a report titled Reconstruction ofHistoric Formal Garden at

English Camp. Meadowcroft's report considers the historical time frame of English

Camp in relation to the history of English formal gardening around the world.

Meadowcroft researched existing documentation of the garden, planted under Captain

Delacombe, and reviewed the only known historical photograph of the garden.

Combining what is known about the garden from the historical record with historical

trends in English gardening, Meadowcroft developed a restoration plan and maintenance

program for the garden.

Meadowcroft defined the formal garden as a part of the "Gardenesque" period of

English gardening. This style entailed the use of geometric patterns within a natural

setting. The formal garden at English Camp had replaced an earlier vegetable garden and

was established during the formal construction of officers' quarters on the hillside. The

104
The only historic photograph to show the formal garden.

Volunteers at work in the garden.

105
Gardenesque style is also reflected in the pathways through the garden and up the

hillside, forming a transition between parade ground and residential area.10

For the 1976 American Bicentennial , the garden was reestablished in a 70-foot

circular design matching the only historical photograph of the garden. The park utilized

evergreen shrubs and flowering plants . Until Meadowcroft' s report, no research had been

done on what type of flowering plants and shrubbery were available to the marines during

the late 1860s . Meadowcroft researched archives on Vancouver Island as well as the

U.S. National Archives, but did not find much. However, research of newspaper

advertisements of the day in the Daily British Colonist out of Victoria provides an

indication of what plants were being sold in the area. From this research, Meadowcroft

developed a list of plant materials to be utilized in the garden. Consideration was given

to substituting perennials as a time and cost-saving measure for the park.

The report provides a planting plan for the garden as well as future maintenance

and plant rotation recommendations. Utilizing Gardenesque methods, Meadowcroft

divided the circular garden into beds, with individual types of flowering plants massed in

each bed. The historic photograph indicates that the flowering plants were planted in

semicircular rows. Taller plants are programmed in the interior beds with lower growing

plants in outer beds . Beds are lined with common boxwood and the central planting

bordered by caladiums.

Meadowcroft recommended the park consider the seasons and blooming times of

the flowers chosen for the garden to maximize length of time the beds show color, and try

to program the best mix of colors during peak visitation times. In addition to providing

the park a listing of annuals and perennials for use in the garden, the appendices also list

where research was completed and where future research needed to be done.

Meadowcroft ' s research is the primary reference tool for current volunteer efforts to

maintain the garden.

10 Carol Meadowcroft, Reconstruction of Historic Formal Garden as English Camp, San Juan Island

N.H.P.,March 1982, p.8

106
Historic Landscapes ofStn Juan Island N.H.P.

In 1984, James K. Agee, a forest biologist with University of Washington

Cooperative Park Studies Unit in Seattle, completed the report entitled Historic

Landscapes of San Juan Island N.H.P. under an agreement with the park. In Agee's

report, he examines the historic landscapes at both camps under four time periods:

prehistoric, historic, post-historic, and park period. The research and planning in his

report was completed as part of a regional interdisciplinary study team considering

resource management issues at the park, the subject of a later discussion in this chapter.

Agee offers information regarding species types prevalent at both camp sites

during the four time periods as well as the impact of historic land use patterns. Through

historic photographs and field research, Agee determined what constituted the historic

landscapes the park would try to reestablish and preserve.

At English Camp, Agee identified two major landscape elements: Garry oak and

woodland, coniferous forest. The forests at English Camp were burned during the 1700s

and had successfully regenerated. The forests also were subjected to some burning and

cutting by native peoples inhabiting the site, and later by the Royal Marines. However,

the most alteration came during the post-historic period, when the Crook family and

others began agricultural production and timber harvesting on Young Hill during the

period 1880-1920s.11

By the time of park creation, successful forest regeneration had already begun.

Agee states that in 1983, the major areas of timber cutting and agricultural usage (roughly

34 acres) had approximately 12,000 stems per acre. Agee determined that the historic

setting at English Camp was not that far removed from present landscapes. The report

recommended thinning over the next 20 to 30 years, which would accelerate the growth

of the remaining tree population. Red cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and grand fir would also

need to be planted in open areas. Management was presented with a choice of time

periods to represent through the wooded landscape: limited settlement of the early 1860s

or full-scale construction completed by 1872. They opted for the earlier time period.

Agee's report found American Camp considerably altered from its historic state,

so much so that it was difficult to ascertain conclusively the nature of the prehistoric

" James K. Agee, Historic Landscapes at San Juan Island N.H.P., Winter 1984, p. 15

107
landscape. To try and determine what plant types may have existed at the site prior to

European settlement, Agee examined soil types . Soils ranged from glacier till and sandy

loam, which support grasses and a few trees, to soils that support forest stands.

Consideration was also given to climate and weather exposure. These, coupled with

historical descriptions of the site, led Agee to determine five areas of typical landscape

types : dry grass, woodland, open Douglas fir type, mixed pine type, and western

hemlock.

From this research, the report suggests regeneration of mixed pine forest areas

and provides information on obtaining seedlings and methods of planting . Agee suggests

further planning be done to determine which planting methods and maintenance schedule

to utilize.

To summarize, Agee' s report offers programming goals for the park' s historic

landscapes . At English Camp, programming should erase the evidence of agricultural

operations . At American Camp, visitors should be able to see the densely forested area

chosen by Colonel Casey for the third campsite.

Consideration For Management of Grassland Vegetation at San Juan Island N.H.P.

Jim Romo, an Oregon State University research associate in the Department of

Rangeland Resources , produced the above-noted report in July 1985 . The report was

designed to help management determine its objectives in managing the grasslands at

American Camp, specifically exotic plant species.

The report offers information on what plants are weeds at American Camp. It

offers specific recommendations on controlling Tansy Ragwort and Canadian thistle, the

two most troublesome weeds at the site . The report also offers some experimental

control options. The report makes it clear that many factors have been at work on the

prairie of American Camp to cause the introduction of exotics . Romo states the park

needs to treat the source of the problem, not the result, if it is to succeed in maintaining

the prairie' s historic nature. Park staff continue to wrestle with the appropriate way to

handle exotic species at American Camp, and recently have begun to consider the

feasibility of implementing controlled burning to regenerate native plant growth.

108
Currently, however, old-fashioned weed pulling is the method most often employed to

combat exotic species.

Historic Landscape Study

This study was completed by Pacific Northwest Region historical landscape

architect Cathy Gilbert between 1985 and 1987. The report starts by clearly stating it is a

technical document designed to collect, present , and evaluate documentary and field

survey evidence, and propose appropriate management options for historic landscapes at

the park. The document was not intended as a decision document, which requires public

meetings, an environmental impact assessment , and consultation under Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act.

For each camp, the report provides a historical and archaeological overview and a

summary of current landscape conditions. In addition, surveys revealed new structural

remnant findings on officers ' hill at English Camp, and research results presented.

The report responds to a very important question : what should the visitor to San

Juan Island N. H.P. experience at each of these camps? In response to that question, a

series of design recommendations for future planning and a number of design alternatives

for American Camp (4) and English Camp ( 3) are offered. The goals of the design

recommendations were defined as the stabilization and preservation of resources,

removal of non-historic components, and enhancement of historic features that are illdefined or can be verified through archaeology. The design recommendations were

presented in five management areas : buildings and foundations ; access and circulation;

plant materials ; special features , site details and materials ; and maintenance and

management concepts . Each of these five areas were considered for each camp.

Using the design recommendations, Gilbert developed design alternatives for each

camp, each providing a different level of design treatment for each historic setting and

varying degrees of opportunity for interpretation and visitor experiences.

For American Camp, the key elements of the design alternatives centered on

defining the historic landscape for better visitor understanding . The alternatives provided

a huge range of options for park managers to consider. When the report was completed,

the regional cultural resource division in Seattle developed a fifth alternative for

109
American Camp, which was completed in 1990. This became the preferred alternative

and called for:

A new visitor center at the site

New parking and informal picnic areas

Existing historic buildings used for interpretive exhibits

Completion of a historic structures report for the Redoubt

New trailhead and parking at the Redoubt

Remove the county road

Creation of a series of interpretive trails

Assist San Juan County in defining the military road between American and English

Camps

Reestablish the historic picket fence and boardwalk

Mark non- extant buildings

Reestablish portions of forest northwest of the campsite

Reestablish the American Camp garden

Monitor rabbit populations

Bellevue farm : develop a loop trail , reestablish historic fencing, mark non-extant

buildings

San Juan Town : develop trail loop, identify and mark non-extant structures

American Camp cemetery : sign and mark along interpretive trail

• Spring Camp: sign and mark along interpretive trail

The preferred alternative treatments were designed to provide visitors with an

understanding of the size and scope of the historic scene, the county road would no

longer be an intrusion , and the Redoubt would be stabilized with a new trailhead and

parking . Adjacent sites would be tied to the camp through a trail system and interpretive

opportunities would be expanded. To fulfill these recommended treatments, the park

would require an expanded staff and a budget increase.

110
F-WIF'GWMFNFN 5OQYA f

A F1ccc C of eLoneN,-

* re^F

as

zo e

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

AMERICAN CAMP

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

VNITEDSIATES DEPP WEWT TIE MLERIOWMilOVEL PARK SERVICE a99 W

DSC MAR )9

ON MICROFILM
• V.) snNrs o^ LOWENT

A FRn-C6eo o tc^rr

a

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

BRITISH CAMP

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

U ITEOSTATES DEP ThIEN1 of 1EINTERiOR'NAEIY4AL PARK SERv 438 1 2W13

DS[ MAR )9

oN MICROFILM.
For English Camp, Gilbert ' s design alternatives centered on defining the role of

the Crook House and the stabilization of structural wall remnants along the hillside.

Again, the regional cultural resource division examined the options presented and

developed a preferred, fourth alternative . Under the new preferred alternative, the focus

was placed on identification and enhancement of the historic scene, with the Crook

House being converted to seasonal quarters . The preferred alternative called for:

• Modification and improvement of the parking lot

• Rehabilitate and use the Crook House as seasonal quarters, using landscape planting

to screen the house from the view of the camp site

• Comprehensive archaeological investigation of hillside remnants

• Stabilization and preservation of the masonry ruin and other historic features

• Selective clearing of the forest on Officers ' Hill and on the Northeast slope to

reestablish historic vistas and viewsheds, as well as clearing to protect and stabilize

remnant features along the hillside

• Identify and mark all non-extant buildings through stone foundation footings and

ghosting structures

• Reconstruction of the bird house on Officers' Hill

• Maintenance of the formal garden

• Reestablishment of northeast section of historic fencing to establish the historic site

boundary

• Stabilize the cemetery, correcting drainage problems, maintain gravesites, recording

the headstone information and possibly replacing if severe deterioration occurs

Gilbert's study presented a wide variety of design options, ranging from no action to

full reconstruction . All of the design elements and recommendations in the study were

developed with the goal of enhancing the interpretive and environmental context for the

site , providing visitors with a greater understanding of the scale and character of the

historic landscapes. 12 In summary, the report noted that implementation of the preferred

alternatives at either site would require staff and budget increases.

12 Comments from Cathy Gilbert to the author, October, 1997.

115
Pilot Planting Project

In 1986, six half-acre quadrants at American Camp were replanted with 100

Douglas fir seedlings per each quadrant. The plantings were an experiment to test

methods of replanting around the American Camp area to determine the feasibility of

initiating a larger scale replanting program to restore native species and forest that existed

during the historic period.

On each quadrant, three different protective screens were tested. Divided into

groups of twenty-five, three sets had varying degrees of screen protection while the

fourth had no protection. Different levels of herbicides were tested for controlling grass

and weeds around the seedlings.

James F. Milestone, Pacific Northwest Regional Office natural resource

management trainee, reported on the progress ofthe trees in September of 1986. Overall,

in eight months they lost 116 trees out of 600. The natural decline in rabbits that had

occurred during the early 1980s had opened the door for better grass and seedling

production. However, it also meant that the Townsend vole did better as well, feeding on

the young seedlings. One hundred eleven trees were attacked by voles, but Milestone

reported that vole attacks did not equate to mortality.

What did kill the trees was water saturation of roots during winter storms and

drought during the summer. Also, those seedlings planted in areas treated with

herbicides had a low mortality rate not having to compete with grasses and weeds. In the

end, the trees with a hard protective screen planted in a grass-free space had the highest

success rate.

Milestone recommended future plantings using a six-foot, grass-free perimeter

with hard protective screens to protect seedlings from voles. He also recommended that

prior to replanting, planning be given to match seedling type to available soil drainage in

order to prevent deaths due to saturation. He provided an outline for future planting

efforts . In short, pilot planting efforts lost approximately one-sixth of the starts, but

produced the data necessary to continue reestablishment of forested areas around the

camp.

116
Archaeological Resources

The first recorded archaeological work done on the island was completed by

Harlan Smith in the 1890s as a part of the Jesup Expedition, sponsored by the American

Museum of Natural History.13 In the late 1940s and in 1950-5 1, the University of

Washington completed field excavations of known prehistoric long house sites at English

Camp and on Cattle Point near American Camp. The findings of these excavations have

not been located. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, archaeological sites (both

prehistoric and historic) were subject to agricultural developments, timber harvesting, and

livestock grazing. Looting by artifact hunters also had an impact.

In 1968, the NPS developed an archaeological management plan for the park.

The plan identified known cultural resources and sites at the park, what research had been

completed at both sites, and what research was in progress. The plan identified the

immediate research needs of the park in order to complete the park's basic operating

goals.

Research needs included the identification of all historic structures; the

identification of the American Camp cemetery ; identification of Bellevue Farm and San

Juan Town structures; and the evaluation of the Redoubt . The plan also stressed the need

for a historic resource study of the sites.

Two major field schools have been held at the park through cooperative study

arrangements with the University of Idaho (1970-78) and University of Washington

(1983-90). The research completed by both schools has led to a wealth of artifact

materials, both biological and historical , and fueled study on several different levels and

topics, from shell middens to analyzing pottery sherds of the late nineteenth century.

University of Idaho

The University of Idaho, Moscow, was the first university the park worked with

to complete archaeological studies at the park. From 1970 to 1978, under the leadership

of Dr. Roderick Sprague, historical archaeological studies were completed analyzing site

structures, including Bellevue Farm and San Juan Town. The goal of the field school's

work was identification and stabilization of historic structures.

13 Boxenberger, p. 10

117
The University ofIdahofield school at work at English Camp, c. 1970.

118
At American Camp, over a period of years the field school excavated the

following structures: HS I Barracks, HS 8 Officers' Quarters, HS 10 Officers' Quarters,

HS 11 Officers' Quarters, HS 12 Adjutant's Quarters, HS 13 Hospital, HS 19 Barn, HS

21 Carpenter Shop, HS 29 Woodsheds and Outhouses, HS 31 Post Trader and Billiard

Room, and HS 33 Flagstaff. Of these structures, HS 6 and HS 8 were fully excavated.

The remaining excavations produced a range of structural evidence from partial

foundations or comer establishment to inconclusive structural evidence . The excavations

also revealed the effects of rabbit damage. Rabbit burrowing was particularly destructive

and compromised the structural evidence of the hospital . General surface collecting was

done in areas of high visitor use and trenching was completed along officers' row and the

camp fence lines.

At English Camp, the University of Idaho completed excavations first around HS

I Blockhouse and HS 10 Barracks during reconstruction efforts in 1970-71. Trenching

was done along the north, south, and east walls of the blockhouse, revealing evidence of a

cobblestone "porch" in front, log cribbing, and one post hole.14 The structure was

completely excavated. The Barracks was also fully excavated and its foundation defined.

HS 3 Commissary was also fully excavated, its foundation defined, in addition to the

discovery of a Straits Salish long house underneath. Excavations around the hospital

location produced some post holes but no conclusive evidence."

In addition, the students completed test pits, trenching, and surface excavations

trying to locate or define the following structures: HS 2 Barracks, HS 4 Blacksmith Shop

(trenching produced remnants and residue of smithing operations but no conclusive

structural evidence), HS 5 Captain's House, HS 6 Married Subaltern's Quarters, HS 11 &

12 Wash and Bath Houses, HS 13 & 14 Wells, HS 15, 16, 17, 31, 32, 33 & 34

unidentified structures (some structural evidence was revealed but primarily produced

artifacts), HS 19 Stable, HS 20 Storehouse, HS 21 & 22 Messhouse and Library, HS 23

Carpenter's Shop and Sawmill, HS 24 Wharf, and HS 25 Pier (produce one stone piling).

HS 35 Flagpole was located, in addition to the discovery of a complex structure, possibly

another Salish structure, underneath. 16

Cathy Gilbert, Historic landscape Study, San Juan Island N.H.P., p. 110

s

Gilbert, p. 112

16 Gilbert, p. 42

119
During the seven-year field school, the University also did test excavations

around San Juan Town and Bellevue Farm. Eleven structures were examined at the town

site and a great deal of artifact evidence removed for research. The town had some rabbit

burrow damage, but most site damage was produced by artifact hunters during the midtwentieth century.17 Operations in the Bellevue Farm vicinity produced structural

evidence of approximately eight structures, one of which dated post-1900, too recent for

an HBC structure. Research of artifact accumulation at those sites to explain structure

function succeeded in identifying the kitchen, but little else conclusively.

In 1983, the university produced a two-volume report titled San Juan

Archaeology which covers the research completed from 1970-78 and subsequent analysis

and research of the excavation findings. A majority of park data resulted in papers and

dissertations on ceramics and late nineteenth century trade patterns.

University of Washington

While University of Idaho students completed studies of historic archaeology at

the park, the University of Washington (UW) focused on the prehistoric archaeology in

the park. In addition to the pre-NPS work done by UW scholars, Stephen Kenady

supervised the work being done on the prehistoric sites exposed by the University of

Idaho students during the 1970s.

In 1983, Julie Stein and Pamela Ford of the University of Washington, in

coordination with PNRO Regional Archaeologist Jim Thomson, developed a research

proposal for a field school at English Camp. Superintendent Hastings supported the

proposal. Through a cooperative agreement, the university worked at the camp on the

San Juan Island Archaeological Project from 1983 to 1989.

The field school focused its efforts on a large shell midden located in the center of

the parade ground at English Camp. Students worked during the summers through 1989

examining the midden. The mostly biological artifact evidence extracted for research

comprises the collection currently being stored at UW. Analysis of the shell midden data

resulted in Deciphering a ShelMidden, edited by Julie Stein and published in 1992. The

" Thomas Tyler, " Structural Analysis of San Juan Town", San Juan Archaeology, p. 216

120
University of Washington field school student at work; the camp lab, 1984.

121
book details the project's findings regarding lithic technology and manufacture,

stratigraphy, sediment analysis, effects of historic settlement, geophysical exploration

work, and sedimentary analysis, among other topics. Project archaeologists utilized the

site to produce research, documentary evidence patterns, and site treatments that can be

used on shell middens elsewhere in the world.

Guss Island

Located in Garrison Bay and owned by the park, Guss Island is the site of several

prehistoric human burials and a shallow shell midden. The island is considered culturally

sensitive due to its use as a sacred burial site and access to the island has been closed to

the public since the NPS took stewardship. Unfortunately, this does not prevent people

from going to the island.

The low banks of the island have been subjected to a great deal of erosion, which

has exposed burials. Visitors discovered and brought to the park headquarters remains

exposed in 1970.18 In 1983, after more burials were exposed, Julie Stein and Pamela

Ford conducted a salvage excavation to pull exposed burials from the banks. These

remains were given to the Lummi tribe for reinternment elsewhere in the park.

Eroding shorelines will continue to expose burials on the island. Current

understanding with the Lummi is that exposed burials be allowed to erode.'9 However,

as visitors and islanders become aware of the burials, excavation and reinternment may

be considered as a preventative law enforcement measure.

Prehistoric Archaeological Overview and Base Map

In 1988, Dr. Gary Wessen of Wessen and Associates prepared A Technical

Overview ofPrehistoric Archaeology of the San Juan Islands Region for the Pacific

Northwest Regional Office. Wessen provides an excellent review of known prehistoric

archaeological sites in the region and reviews what documentation, collections inventory,

and final reporting have been achieved for all excavated sites.

'8 Gary Wessen, A Technical Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of the San Juan Islands Region, 1988,

52

19 Interviews with Kent Bush and Jim Thomson, April 28, 1997

122
The overview begins by offering an environmental assessment of the islands,

current conditions vs. paleo-environmental conditions. An ethnographic background of

the region is also provided. In both of these background assessments, Wessen describes

the islands as a whole and then looks specifically at American and English Camps.

Wessen then provides an assessment of prehistoric cultural resources that exist in San

Juan County and in the park, including a breakdown of typical site typology.

Wessen concludes that there are 323 recorded prehistoric sites in the islands and

possibly hundreds more in existence.20 Wessen's research concluded that for most of

those sites excavated, little is known about them because of incomplete research,

reporting, and cataloging/inventory of site evidence. The overview discusses what short,

middle, and long term goals should be pursued in order to understand, preserve, and learn

from the wealth of sites on the islands and at the parks, and stresses that the sites are

deteriorating faster than they are being studied.

Additional Studies

The NPS has completed general survey and Section 106 compliance for all

general park construction efforts: trailer pad sites, the headquarters building site,

construction of the by-pass road and reestablishment of the old county road portion,

among others. As previously stated, survey work of the hillside at English Camp was

completed by Bryn Thomas of Eastern Washington State University as part of the

Historic Landscape Study field work. This study revealed larger cultural remnants from

the historic period along the hillside than were previously known, and which await

further study.

20 Wessen, p. 78

123
Royal marine medallion, recovered during University ofIdahofield school.

US. Army uniform buttons discovered at American Camp.

124
Collections Management

The purpose of San Juan Island N.H.P. collections, according to the 1981 scope of

collections statement, is to "preserve the archaeological, historical and natural history

objects necessary to research, document and interpret the significance of the park. ,2 1 The

collection is broken into three management areas: archaeological, historical, and natural

history. Archaeological collections consist of materials generated from excavations, and

will be maintained through agreements with the University of Idaho, including storage,

cataloging, and inventory. Historical collections will be kept on-site, providing they deal

with the HBC; the military encampments; settlers specific to the campsites; and a small

selection of Crook materials. The scope stated that no natural history objects were

currently being maintained, but the document speculated that it could become a viable

collection option in the future.

The statement goes on to detail proper procedure in accessioning, cataloging,

loaning, de-accessioning, and storing artifacts and items. The living history

demonstration materials are identified as needing secured storage separate from the main

collection. An addendum to the collections management plan regarding the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was completed in 1992, well after the

park had already returned and reinterred remains affiliated with the Lummi tribe.

Following preparation of the scope of collections, the park negotiated an

agreement with the University of Washington to catalogue and maintain artifacts

extracted during UW field schools, at the University's Burke Museum in Seattle.

Currently, the park's collection contains approximately 935,400 archaeological items,

500,000 of which are prehistoric in nature and reside at UW. The remainder of the

collection previously stored at the University of Idaho, contains approximately 400,000

items from the historic period, 1853-1874. During 1992, it no longer became an option to

store the collection at the University of Idaho and a cooperative curatorial agreement was

reached with North Cascades National Park in return for budgetary assistance from the

park. The collection is now stored at the Marblemount collections facility. In addition,

approximately 53,000 HBC-related items were sent to Fort Vancouver National Historic

'' Scope of Collections Statement. SAJH. 1981, p. 1

125
M

The headstone of William Taylor, from the English Camp Cemetery.

126
Site (FOVA). 22 HBC collections were sent to FOVA as part of a regional mission to

make FOVA the center for HBC-related collections and research. In-park collections are

stored in a leased storage space in Friday Harbor.

Recently, the option of a natural history specimen collection has been reviewed

by park staff and will be developed in the near future to facilitate the development of a

natural resource data base. Park management realizes the need for an updated scope of

collections statement to address new collections, and to define the best management of

current collections for the next decade.

Natural Resources

Water

Most people are surprised to learn the annual rainfall levels for the San Juan

Islands. Lying in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, the islands receive an

average annual total of 29 inches. Water shortage is nothing new to the island and it is an

issue all development on the island must address. Water shortages occur during the

summer months, when visitation is highest. Shortages in 1985 resulted in the UW

archaeological field school and the park splitting the cost of buying water for project

excavation needs.

English Camp falls within the normal island average for rainfall. However, at

American Camp, the southernmost point in the islands, the annual average is only 19

inches. Maintaining a proper water supply at American Camp has been a difficult issue

for the park service. It has also been a public relations issue, as development on Cattle

Point has pressed the NPS for access to water sources in the American Camp area.

In 1987, the Cape San Juan Water District requested to drill water wells on park

property. They proposed the wells would aid in the park's fire management needs. In

return for drilling the wells, residential development on Cattle Point would be allowed

access to them. Superintendent Hoffman, in consultation with the regional office,

declined their request. The water district representatives inquired about going above

Hoffman to have their request re-appraised, Hoffman informed them that they had every

22 Interview with Kent Bush, April 28, 1997

127
right to do so, but let them know the regional office had already helped him make the

decision and that a congressional delegate would hear the same answer from the park and

region.

The park has consistently maintained its position regarding water access at

American Camp for Cattle Point development, despite outside attempts to exert pressure

through political channels and through public opinion. The NPS position remains that

allowing developers access to American Camp water would not solve their problem.

Inadequate water supply was one reason that large scale development had not occurred

prior to preservation under national park service management. Residential use on Cattle

Point combined with increased visitor use would dry up the park. The park's resources

simply are not adequate to support anything beyond visitor use and facility needs.

In 1994, Cattle Point Estates requested drilling, testing, and utilization of a

number of potential well-sites on Mt. Finlayson with a 100-foot protective easement. The

park denied the request. In 1996, they repeated the request, this time also requesting

access to two capped wells on park property. When the second request was denied, the

park received a congressional inquiry from Senator Slade Gorton's office about the

denial . The park sent the same response to Gorton's office outlining their reasons. The

park received no further communications from the senator's office.23

Rabbits

The rabbit populations on the island have been a problem for all residents, not just

the park. However, the park has the largest concentration of them at American Camp.

Introduced in the 1880s by settlers, the European rabbit was established as a wild animal

on the island by 1895. In the 1920s and 30s, the rabbit population soared. The prairie

setting of American Camp was prime burrowing land for the animals.

The rabbit population presents a few problems for the park service. The rabbits

construct "warrens", and their burrowing and grazing destroy the historic prairie setting

that the park aims to preserve. One rabbit in a year can burrow 20 meters and researchers

estimated in the mid-1980s that some of American Camp's warrens were over 30 years

2' Superintendent' s annual report, SAJH, 1996, p. 7

128
old.24 The rabbit's grazing patterns also affects the park's efforts to replant and

regenerate native plant species.

Burrowing in general creates a safety hazard , and notices asking visitors to mind

their step to avoid broken ankles are posted. On another level, burrowing can cause

damage to subsurface cultural resources and structures and may have threatened the

Redoubt's structural stability. The rabbits can also entice armed hunters, and hunting is

illegal in the park.

Park management has speculated about methods of controlling the creatures and

what should and should not be attempted to control them. In the end, nature has come

through with its own regulation methods, much to the mystery of those who have studied

the rabbit populations throughout the years. In 1980, 1981, and 1983, rabbit birth rates

fell off. Females were miscarrying and the birth rate dropped dramatically (commonly

referred to as "the crash"). Rabbit levels remained low during the mid-1980s.

Research has been completed by University of Washington professors W.

Fredrick Stevens and A.R. Weisbrod, who also completed an interpretive book for sale to

the public, titled The Rabbits of San Juan Island National Historical Park. The

university conducted studies of the rabbit from 1973 to 1984, through the decline. Then

in 1985, Olympic National Park biologist Doug Houston began a ten-year study of the

rabbits. Houston annually counted warrens and took a photographic record of vegetation

changes through eleven camera points. By 1995, the eleventh year of Houston's studies,

the rabbit population was again on the rise, with abandoned warrens being repopulated.

Currently, the park has no plans for the rabbits and continues to monitor

population levels. While not back to pre-crash levels, the rabbit population has risen

considerably again.

Birds

Eighteen species of raptors have been observed on San Juan Island, including

Peregrine falcons and marbled murrelets.25 Bird species commonly seen in the park

include wild turkeys and Canada geese. Bald eagles, the only known threatened species

2W. Fredrick Stevens and A.R Weisbrod, The Rabbits ofSan Juan Island National Historical Park p. 4

Statement for management, San Juan Island N.H.P., 1997

129
to inhabit the park, often draw visitors interested in wildlife viewing. During the 1970s,

the park was involved with the Seattle zoo in environmental programs focusing on Bald

eagles . During the 1990s, a pair of bald eagles nested right outside the visitor center at

American Camp. Monitoring of bald eagle nests and populations continues to be a

source of data collection for park staff. The rabbit population and prime hunting grounds

on the open prairie will continue to support raptor population within the park.

Clams

In 1973, Vincent Gallucci, a biologist with the University of Washington, initiated

extensive studies of the twelve species of clams in Garrison Bay. His studies, completed

through the University of Washington Friday Harbor Marine Lab, received the support of

the Washington State Department of Fisheries. For over twenty years, Gallucci studied

the population dynamics of Garrison Bay's intertidal clams.

Gallucci's research also led to the development of an interpretive brochure for

park visitors. The brochure offers guidance on clamming, when to watch for red tides,

and biological information of the twelve species types.

Research Permits

In 1984, the NPS revised the Code of Federal Regulations to institute a formal

permit system for research in parks. For San Juan, this program was very beneficial,

since study opportunities abound and monitoring the progress of studies that had been

approved often resulted in little information for the park. The system requires filing a

request form, which will then be either approved or denied . The permit is issued for a

one-year period, at which time the researcher submits a summary of studies completed.

To continue research, permits must be renewed annually . By requiring annual reporting,

the park' s library and resource management data base benefits.

Resource Management Plans

Resource management planning for the park has been problematic . The nature of

RMps requires regular updating and, up until 1996, approval by the regional office. Due

to staffing levels and the lack of a resource management specialist position, both updating

130
and getting approval usually did not occur prior to the next scheduled revision. In 1987,

Chief Ranger Steve Gobat writes with enthusiasm that for the first time the park had a

RMP approved by the regional office prior to it becoming outdated.26 You can hear the

frustration when Frank Hastings writes, reflecting on the process ten years later, that the

RMP "was updated again and again", without progressing forward and accomplishing

anything that the plan called for.27

The first RMP for the park was completed in 1979. The document breaks

management needs into the following categories: landscapes, historic structures, nonhistoric structures, natural scene, and archaeology. For each of these areas, the plan gives

the current status and the conditions sought. The plan then lists problems preventing the

development of ideal conditions.

The major problems identified in the planning document were issues that had

been addressed before in the park's master plan and general management plan. The

landscape at American Camp was extremely altered and would need further study to

determine how to control rabbit populations and not deplete bald and golden eagle levels.

Visitors had no sense of the campsite at American Camp, and this needed to be remedied.

In addition, the Redoubt needed to be stabilized and restored. All non-historic elements

should be removed from the scene, including utility lines and non-historical structures.

To remedy these needs, the plan suggested research, both historical and archaeological,

on the structures; recreation of period fences, both around the military camp and Bellevue

Farm; and restoration of Officers' and Laundress' Quarters. Natural resource data base

studies and monitoring programs were recommended for rabbits, eagles, and other

wildlife.

The RMP was reviewed and a new version drafted in 1982. The difference

between the two documents is tremendous. The 1979 plan is fairly unreadable,

confusing, and not clear in its direction. The 1982 plan offered very specific park

proposals and programming for each project. The plan would stay basically in the same

format until 1995.

In 1982, the park's natural resource needs were identified as follows:

26 Letter from Steve Gobat to Dick Hoffman, February 12, 1987 27 Letter from Frank Hastings to the author, April 28, 1997

131
1. wildfire protection management

2. rabbit management

3. exotic thistle control

4. development of a forest management plan

5. natural resource basic inventory

6. native plant basic inventory

7. stabilize or remove big leaf maple at English Camp

Cultural resource needs identified:

1. restore formal garden at English Camp

2. locate and catalog all artifacts

3. develop an on-site collections facility

4. create a structure rehabilitation program

5. remove a portion of old county road at English Camp

6. research/stabilize masonry ruins

Under the reorganized park service structure, approval authority now comes from

the park superintendent. The role of the regional office has been shifted to technical

support only. The previous trouble the park had with RMPs being delayed while at the

regional office for review and approval should not occur, providing the park with

improved capability for project planning and implementation.

Interdisciplinary Planning Team

During 1982 the regional office teamed with park staff and regional scholars who

had completed previous scientific studies at the park to develop new resource

management objectives. The team, headed by James Agee, identified several areas in

resource management planning where the park was deficient and identified six team

objectives for improving the park's resource management progam:

Objective 1: define more precisely resource management objectives for the park.

Objective 2: develop a conceptual ecological model for park resources.

Objective 3: conduct a study into factors causing the rabbit decline.

132
Objective 4: describe and map historic landscape of American Camp and detail

new problems/impacts of the rabbit decline.

Objective 5: Rewrite the resource management plan.

Objective 6: Document team process used for the study.

The team was very pointed in saying that the park lacked not only a resource data

base but also the expertise to deal with the issues at hand.

The new RMP was available in 1986 and was approved in 1987. The new RMP

has basically the same resource management needs and same problems identified in the

previous plan. Natural resource planning needs identified included: recreation of the

historic setting; creation of a resource database ; establish water quality monitoring at

Garrison Bay; establish rabbit management; forestry management; fire management;

exotic plant control; a management plan for Young Hill trail; and control of vehicle and

off-road vehicle access at American Camp. To address these needs, the plan

programmed specific park projects : rabbit management, exotic plant control, restoration

of historic scene, develop fire access roads, monitor pollution on Garrison Bay, design a

Developed Area Tree Management plan (hazard tree), re-evaluate trails at Young Hill,

and establish boundary markings.

For cultural resources, needs identified were: lack of protection for prehistoric

sources; need for collections management control with an on-site facility; meet NPS-28

by completing an administrative history; and maintain the British Camp name. To

address these needs, the plan programmed projects in the following priority:

administrative history; archaeological investigations ; cemetery protection/management;

utilize foundations or ghosting of structures; develop a collections facility; reestablish

historic fencing around military sites ; create a historic structures preservation guide;

rehabilitate historic structures ; stabilize the masonry ruin ; and maintain the British Camp

name. Immediately the next year, the projects were reprioritized , probably due to

changes in funding opportunities.

The most important change for the park's resource management program came in

1992 with the addition of a full time resource management position. It cannot be

emphasized enough that the duties generated by resource management needs are too

133
numerous to be handled by the Chief Ranger alone . Since the creation of this position,

the resource management plan was completely rewritten (1995) and the number of

resource management projects identified jumped from less than 20 to over 80.

In 1993, Dr. James Agee of the University of Washington School of Forestry

completed a Vegetation Management Plan that provides guidance to restore the natural

elements of the park's cultural landscapes . This is a long-term plan and has received the

approval of the state ' s Historic Preservation Office. The plan has provided additional

direction for the park's fledgling resource management program, whose development will

continue to be a priority for park management. Resource management is an evolving

program that requires the small park staff to wear many hats, be it law enforcement,

interpretation , or resource management.

134
CHAPTER SIX

INTERPRETATION
Chapter Six: Interpretation and Visitor Use

The Pig War story offers many themes: the international settlement of a territorial

boundary dispute as the frontier filled with settlers, miners, and entrepreneurs; diplomatic

relations with Britain as frontier borders closed; a unique view into American and British

military history, from political maneuvering within ranks to differences in camp structure

and life; and an understanding of American and British settlers along the frontier's edge.

Park resources also make possible interpretation concerning the patterns of life among

Northwest Coast American Indians prior to European settlement . Beyond its historical

resources, visitors can experience a variety of natural resources, from forest to prairie, clams

to eagles, offering multiple environmental educational opportunities.

The main question for interpretation at the park has been determining what

programming is possible with the staffing and funding available. The park has come to rely

on a group of very dedicated volunteers, whose contributions range from providing evening

lectures to maintaining the garden at English Camp, to being available at the park to give

guided walks and speak with visitors. Increasingly, this is becoming the way of life across

the park system, as budgets become tighter and managers have to find new ways of

providing interpretation to the public. Interpretive planning documents have been

completed for the park, but a small percentage of action items in those plans have actually

been realized. In practice, interpretation has revolved around motivated individuals who

pursued interpretive programs with the research, staff, and volunteers available to them.

Interpretive Prospectus, 1971

The first interpretive prospectus for the park was approved in January 1971 by

Pacific Northwest Regional Director John A. Rutter . The ideas in the plan were developed

during an on- site meeting, October 26 - 28, 1969, by a NPS planning team consisting of

Superintendent Stoddard ; historian John Hussey ; landscape architect Ron Treabess; and

interpretive planner Alan Kent, from Harpers Ferry Center. Reed Jarvis, Erwin Thompson,

Marvin Sharpe, and Rhoda Anderson are also listed as providing assistance.

135
The American Camp interpretive shelter, c. 1971-1972

Ranger Fred Stevens in uniform at the interpretive shelter.

136
The document presents the park's major interpretive theme to be the Pig War, "its

cultural and political circumstances, and most important, the idea... that discord and

dissension between nations can, if subjected to rational behavior, lead to justice and

friendship and a feeling of well-being , and also to a realization of the senselessness of

freewheeling attitudes and clashes of arms ." t The prospectus identifies, as an extension of

that interpretive theme, the life of Jim Crook and his family, who settled at English Camp

and lived there nearly a century. The life and work of Jim Crook is defined as a secondary

theme for park interpretation.

The document advises against overkill and throwing " thousands " of facts at visitors.

It suggests gearing programming towards families and young people: "arouse the kids and

you've got the parents. i2 After a brief lecture on interpretive theory, the document sets out

primary objectives: provide prospective visitors with some idea of what the park is about

and give them information about visiting it; give visitors an idea of the San Juan Island

diplomatic question involved in the dispute (being careful to show the passionate stand of

both sides without taking sides); use the sites themselves to highlight the park story

(interpretation should be carried out at and in the structures that exist and at the sites where

structures once stood); highlight the U. S.-Canadian friendship in interpretive programs

(stress how the two countries have utilized peaceful means of settling grievances); recognize

the part Jim Crook played in preserving English Camp, including environmental elements of

the story; satisfy visitor curiosity by identifying landmarks that can be seen from overlook

points at both camps; and finally, provide visitors with a sense of the environmental values

of the camps, and "include some musings about the quality of the world we live in".

The document offers several interpretive proposals for the park, presenting its

interpretive themes from the viewpoint of a family. The team also tried to follow a

structured visit, although the authors acknowledged that the nature of the park prevents the

assumption that visitors will stop at one camp prior to the other.

First , the document identified pre-visit interpretive needs, including : development of

a "colorful, nicely designed exhibit for each of the ferries, for the Seattle-Tacoma airport,

and for the ferry landing in Anacortes " and a park leaflet for travelers as well as a poster to

Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 2

Z Interpretive Prospectus , SAJH, 1971, p. 3

137
be placed at points that do not warrant a "full-fledged exhibit ." These exhibits would define

the purpose of the park and describe available facilities and access routes.

The document suggested signage placement at the Friday Harbor marina similar to

the exhibit or poster idea developed for ferries and at the terminal in Anacortes.

Development of a shuttle system is suggested, encouraging visitors to leave their cars on the

mainland and reduce congestion . The prospectus states that such a system could be

developed by resort owners or some other private enterprise. Development of an

appropriate signage system, incorporating the park' s emblem of crossed American and

British flags, would direct visitors from Friday Harbor to the two historic camps.

As identified in the master plan, the prospectus recommended an information center

in Friday Harbor to include administrative offices for park staff, restrooms, two large photo

enlargements of the camps, an attendant, information/sales desk with a map as well as other

area information, a publications stand, and storage space. It also recommended providing a

stand-up MV presentation of five minutes or less in an alcove. The purpose of this program

would be to orient the visitor to the island and the park, describe what facilities and

activities are available to them, with some information about the Pig War interwoven

throughout the story. Use of a sound/slide system was recommended, one that could be

converted to film later if desired. The first floor of the Mason's Building was suggested for

the information center.

The prospectus discussed American Camp first on the theory that most of the

historical action occurred at this site and "the events of 1859 are most readily understood

here" and that English Camp will be the most impressive of the two park sites and this

method of visitation would be saving the "jewel for last".3

Development suggestions for American Camp included construction of a visitor

facility that would be staffed in the summer season and provide information, publication

sales, and restrooms. The major interpretive element would be a three to four minute film

that presented the park story in its "largest context" from the American viewpoint, including

commentary on world events during the conflict using an American reporter like Walter

Cronkite to narrate. The prospectus outlined a lot of information to be included in this three

to four minutes and acknowledged the tall order ofthe recommendation . The film would be

3 Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 7

138
contrasted with a similar presentation of the "British Case" at English Camp utilizing the

same type of information from the British viewpoint and with a British or Canadian version

of Walter Cronkite narrating. The prospectus recommended use of existing historical

photos in the presentations and researching the possibility of using art as the primary

medium. At the end of each film, the visitor would be encouraged to visit the other camp.

The prospectus forgoes exhibits at the American Camp facility other than a map for

information purposes . It does offer items to consider for future displays, like archaeological

material or even timbers from the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) farm.

The proposal recommended a two minute audio presentation at the Redoubt site

highlighting events in relation to the sites where it actually took place. Trails to the HBC

farm and other sites should be developed, including a spur trail to San Juan Town. The

overlook site should also have an "orientation device," identifying the major physical

features across the waters from the island. The Redoubt should be restored to its appearance

of 1859-60 and replica guns mounted. Wayside exhibits explaining its construction should

also be developed. Living history opportunities included demonstrations of period

American Camp soldier equipment. Wayside exhibits utilizing historic drawings and

sketches of the site could be placed at the sites of Bellevue Farm, San Juan Town, and other

camp structures, relying on archeology to reveal these sites for proper identification. The

prospectus also suggests allowing grazing sheep at the Bellevue site to further develop the

historic scene.

The "Pickett House" should be moved back to the site, restored, and eventually

refurnished to show how an officer would have lived during those years. At the very least,

the fence that surrounded the compound should be reestablished allowing visitors to easily

identify where the buildings (visible in period drawings) existed on the ground.

At English Camp, the prospectus recommended a visitor facility, staffed with a sales

and information desk, and restrooms, a historian's office, small library, and storage area. It

should be located in a space that is visually separated from the historic setting . Exhibits

could include a historic painting of the camp and Royal Marine documents. As stated

earlier, there would be a short film for visitors to view.

Other recommendations included the need to restore the barracks, blockhouse, and

storehouse (commissary) with the barracks selectively refurbished to represent the Royal

139
Marine life. On display could be uniforms, gunracks, tables, bunks, and games. The

document also suggests utilizing audio of voices (talking about the barracks in someway)

and smells, although it does not specify what those would be. The blockhouse and

storehouse could be similarly equipped, taking advantage of "olfactory" opportunities and

audio of "characters".

The document also suggests stabilizing the masonry ruin; locating and identifying

other building sites; re-creation of the flagpole; reproduction of the historic garden; and

possibly reconstruction of the wharf. The historic setting of English Camp afforded ample

opportunity for living history demonstrations, specifically activities of daily life at the camp

(cooking, games, carving, work in the gardens, etc.). The report stressed that interpretation

should detail the activities of military life during their 12-year peaceful occupation of the

island. The prospectus recommends examining Fort Davis' military demonstrations for

possible programs at English Camp. It is interesting to note that in 1971, they were

considering tearing down the Crook House, despite the popularity of Jim Crook in local

island history and the fact that islanders, during public hearings and comments on park

establishment, had specifically requested interpretation of Crook's history at English Camp.

Wayside exhibit and foot trail opportunities included the captain's house, the

cemetery, and the historic maple tree. During restoration and archaeological work,

temporary waysides should be developed to educate visitors about preservation and

archaeology at the park.

The prospectus concludes by listing the best sources for historical research about the

park, offering a list of research needs, a suggestion for a commemorative stamp for the 1972

boundary settlement centennial, and a collections statement. Research needs identified

include: information on specific historic furnishings, research for audio/visual productions,

and material on Jim Crook.

The collections statement defines park collecting as supporting the park interpretive

theme and objectives. A large collection was not foreseen, consisting mainly of

archaeological and historical artifacts kept for documentation purposes. Historical items

associated with the Pig War and the military occupation were to be collected for exhibit

purposes. Furnishing plans would determine what should be collected with regards to

4 interpretive Prospectus, SAW, p. 10

140
historic and replicated furnishings for building interiors. Demonstration programs would

require the collection of replicated materials for use. Items of relevance to Jim Crook

should be preserved, like the existing implements and inventions in park possession. The

prospectus states "when the Crook House is torn down," the doors should be saved

(speculated to originally be off the captain's quarters) and any other pieces believed to have

come from original English Camp structures. Beyond items already in possession of the

park, no further materials on Crook should be collected.

Lastly, the prospectus offers a suggestion by Superintendent Stoddard that the park

provide programs around a campfire setting, recommending the master plan be revised to

include a "campfire circle" at each site. When done, the prospectus could then be revised to

include development of programs.

In addition, Superintendent Stoddard provided recommended staffing levels for the

implementation of the prospectus interpretive goals. His recommendations called for a

Superintendent, an Administrative Officer, an InformationiReceptionist position, and one

seasonal in Friday Harbor; one Park Ranger and two seasonals at American Camp; and a

Chief of Interpretation and Resources (historian), three seasonals, one permanent

maintenance position, and one seasonal maintenance position at English Camp. Staffing

recommendations also suggested the development of an exchange program with the

Canadian Park System, which would bring Canadian seasonal interpreters to the park in

order to present different viewpoints to visitors.

The interpretive prospectus was written during the early development stages of the

park, and contained the ideas planners envisioned for the park. In a sense, it is the wish list

for park interpretation. The cost estimate in 1971 for completion of the park interpretive

plan: $122,700.

141
Volunteer Jim Meredith speaking in costume at the Barracks, English Camp. Volunteer Ted Leche looks on.
Interpretive Prospectus, May 1984

A new interpretive prospectus was developed by Harpers Ferry in 1983-84. It begins

by stating that although the park was authorized seventeen years before, it remains

underdeveloped in terms of interpretive media and visitor facilities, which became

increasingly apparent as visitation to the park continued to grow significantly over the

years.5 The General Management Plan of 1979 proposed an interpretive contact station be

built at American Camp, but as of 1984, no such interpretive facility was programmed for

construction.

In planning the park's interpretive media, geographic location and climate were

factors considered. The island location, combined with its size and population meant that

interpretive media supplies would be time consuming and more expensive to replace.

Therefore all hardware used should be highly reliable and not have highly specialized

components. Also, the moisture fluctuation, salt corrosion, and strong winds at the southern

end of the island were taken into consideration for signage design.

The prospectus aimed its proposals at expanding the park's orientation and

information capabilities. The park currently had the headquarters building at American

Camp (which had an information counter but no lobby space); the office in Friday Harbor;

and the barracks building at English Camp (which had some small exhibits and audio/visual

program equipment). Other identified programming needs included: trailhead orientation

for the park's three hiking trails; the one self-guided interpretive trail; and proposals for

visitor transportation between the park's two units and the town of Friday Harbor.

Working under the park's primary interpretive theme, the prospectus identified the

following objectives for park interpretation:

1) provide information/orientation to assist visitors in locating points of interest

and what they can see and do during their visit;

2) provide basic information on interpretive themes to all park visitors and

provide opportunities to acquire more than just basic information for those

visitors who wish it;

5 Interpretive Prospectus, may 1984, San Juan Island National Historical Park, p. 1

143
3) protect all natural and historical features of the park through a positive

interpretive program emphasizing protection;

4) protect visitors by informing them of safety hazards inherent in the American

Camp prairie due to rabbit warrens and reminding them of the need for safety

while touring the park; and

5) provide the opportunity for all visitors to relate to history by having

interpreters located at both camp units.

Within these parameters, the prospectus begins by presenting primary and secondary

interpretive program elements and the methods and locations by which the park should

present those elements.

Primary elements dealt with orientation /information and the Pig War. Pre-arrival

orientation programming included signage on Interstate 5 and orientation exhibits at the

Anacortes ferry terminal . Centralized orientation would be provided through personal

services, brochures, and other printed materials, and orientation exhibits . These elements

would be provided at the Friday Harbor contact station, the American Camp contact station

(headquarters building), and at English Camp contact station (identified here as the Crook

House). In-depth interpretation of the Pig War would be provided at American Camp, via

personal services, audio/visual programs, advanced level publications, the self-guided

interpretive trail, interpretive exhibits, restored historic structures, and hiking trails.

Interpretation at English Camp would be via personal services, publications , wayside

exhibits, restored historic structures, historic furnishings (partial) in three buildings,

interpretive exhibits, and hiking trails.

Secondary program elements identified were cultural history and natural history.

Parkwide, these interpretive stories would be provided via personal services and

144
1985, American Camp costumed interpretation

VIP Mike Cusson and Park Ranger Ron Garner, above

Terry Lattin resting in camp, below

145
publications . English Camp secondary stories included development of museum exhibits at

the Crook House and wayside exhibits at Bell Point trail and trailhead.

Interpretive Programming in Action

The interpretive plans written for the park have called for very specific points of

action and development. However, the first interpretive plan resulted in minimal activity.

The 1984 plan fared a little better . Interpretive funding at San Juan Island N.H.P. has gone

into designing and programming action plans, but the appropriate budgets and staff were not

available to follow through with the recommended actions . The park has spent a great deal

of time restoring and maintaining structures and considering the historic landscape. Park

staff also developed quality interpretive programs through living history demonstrations,

lecture series, and film and slide presentations, despite the lack of adequate funds . In 1996,

work started on a new, long-range interpretive plan. By integrating the interpretive plan

with the park' s resource management plan and eventually a new general management plan,

the park hopes to provide important support and funding for park programs.

From 1971 to 1975, PNRO staff under Rocky Richardson developed exhibit panels

for the Barracks and wayside exhibit trail signs . Developed under contract with EAMS, a

private design firm in Seattle, the signs detailed the major events and characters of the Pig

War and the joint military occupation of the island.

With the addition of Pat Milliren in 1975, interpretive programs began to grow.

Milliren was the first ranger hired specifically for interpretation and she began developing

more involved programs at both camps. Her goals were to improve relations with the

community and get the community involved in the park. When living history

demonstrations were introduced , Milliren sought out people with specific skills or talents

like the ability to play historic music and dance or theater skills . Most importantly, she

sought to tell the everyday stories of the military encampment, an aspect of the historical

period she found the most interesting, a story the public could relate to and invest in.

Summer Saturday evening programs were started, with the park inviting local and

regional speakers to talk on historical or natural history topics, or showing films like those

of Edward Curtis. For the first time the park entered the annual 4th of July parade.

146
Getting ready to march in the Fourth ofhdy Parade:

(Park Ranger Mike I ouri, 2°dfrom right,,former park ranger Detlef Wieck, 3rdfrom right)

147
A very popular program developed under Milliren was the 1860s Christmas party at English

Camp.

Milliren remembers receiving considerable support from parks back east when

developing living history demonstrations. Because the park's historical period is the same

era as the civil war, information on military life, costuming, etc. was readily available.6

Presentations on army life were also made available during 1984-85, when re-enactors of

the 9th infantry performed for one or two weekends during the summer. Many local

volunteers, throughout the park's history have offered lecture-walks along the park's selfguided interpretive trail. Recently, demonstrations have been offered in skills such as

blacksmithing and barrelmaking.

From 1975-81 and picking up again in 1986, park staff had the freedom and the

creative individuals to write and perform scripted costumed demonstrations. Milliren began

this with the re-enactment of a Captain's wife's letters home. Later, rangers Detlef Wieck

and Mike Vouri scripted re-enactments and performed them in costume.

During the 1970s, local VIP and later park ranger Steve Layman did a lot of work

with bald eagles at the park, including environmental education programs with the Seattle

zoo. These programs brought field trips from area schools to American Camp for eagle

programs. The self-guided interpretive trail, the exhibit shelter, and trailhead signage were

all that existed in the way of interpretation at American Camp prior to 1974. Milliren

remembers it being very difficult to put on demonstrations due to low visitor numbers.

In 1984, new exhibit opportunities expanded when the main administrative offices

relocated to Friday Harbor. The move allowed half of the headquarters building at

American Camp to be used for visitor exhibit and lobby space. The outdoor interpretive

shelter panels were cleaned and moved inside the new visitor lobby, complemented by

historical photographs. The Friday Harbor contact station also provided new display

space and increased public visibility. Exhibits there included two mannequins in historic

military dress of the Royal Marines and U.S. Army. In 1992, the English Camp barracks

exhibits were moved to Friday Harbor and the costumed mannequins were subsequently

relocated to American Camp in 1996.

6 Interview With Pat Milliren , April, 1997

148
Marching in the Fourth ofJuly Parade.

149
The exhibits at American Camp remained until 1995 -96, when a new wall panel

interpreting the Oregon Treaty was loaned to the park by the British Consul in Seattle.

Then in 1996, park ranger Mike Vouri, coordinating with collections curator Camille Evans

of North Cascades National Park and other park staff, worked to design and construct

exhibits drawing on the park' s archaeological collection . Cases were made from locally

donated materials, and photos and text describing archaeology at the park over the years

were used to complement artifacts selected for display. The new exhibit has been a success

and is a tribute to park staff pulling together to build good interpretive programs without

additional funding.

Another source of interpretive opportunities has come from the archaeological field

schools . From 1983-89, the University of Washington field schools conducted regular

visitor services programs on the archaeological work underway at the camp. These

programs were well received by the public.

In 1986, the park celebrated SAJH 20, the twentieth birthday of the park. To

coordinate the event , a committee was formed of park personnel and community members.

Special events included special programs at Christmas, the community restoration of

Salmon Banks Road, final reconstruction and replanting of the formal garden under

volunteer efforts, a 4th of July parade float (for which the park received first prize), a parkstaged historical drama, and a Founder ' s Day picnic open to the public, which was hosted by

the park and supplied by other community organizations like the Lions, the Chamber of

Commerce, and others . Volunteer efforts jumped under the SAJH 20 celebration, from 47

to 140 . The celebration was designed to celebrate the park and its relationship to the

community . If the increase in volunteer numbers was any indication, the program was a

success.

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the park typically had 3 to 4 seasonals for the

interpretive program. Volunteers have increasingly become important to providing on-site,

staffed visitor services . For example, local island residents Jim Meredith and Fred Henley

have dedicated countless hours over the years as interpreters and guides at English Camp,

where seasonal presence has typically been low. In the winter months the two men have

conducted an Elderhostel program in conjunction with Skagit Valley College . Since the

mid-1980s, however, seasonal staffing levels have declined and in recent years it has been a

150
Jim Meredith, park VIP, in Royal Marine livery.

151
struggle for the park to maintain one or two paid seasonal interpreters . For that reason, park

staff must consider developing more non-personnel visitor services. A new guide for a selfguided tour at American Camp was completed in 1996. This new brochure increased the

level of information available to park visitors at any time of day without a park ranger or

volunteer, and can be completed at the visitor ' s own pace. An after hours brochure and a

variety of site bulletins were developed to serve the needs and interests of an increasingly

diverse visitor population.

The park received a big boost in developing an outreach interpretive program in

1996. The park was awarded a $13,500 grant from the National Parks Foundation for the

development of a travelling trunk exhibit. Working with regional consultants, the park will

develop the trunk for travel to regional schools, extending the park's interpretive outreach

well beyond the island community.

The park reached out to the world in 1998 with the establishment of an official

World Wide Web site containing both historical and full color photographs. An enhanced,

changeable site features historical structures, wildlife, and spectacular vistas at both camps.

Outreach has also been enhanced through partnerships with the British Consulate Seattle

and the San Juan Community Theatre and Art Centre in Friday Harbor. In March 1997, the

three teamed together to bring a performance of the pipers from the King's Own Scottish

Borders, a British Army regiment recruited in Scotland. The band played to a packed house,

preceded by a parade down Spring Street. The park and.the theater split the gate. The park

and theatre also teamed up in 1996 to produce "An Evening with George Pickett," a oneman show featuring Park Ranger Mike Vouri in the title role and volunteer Mike Cohen on

the banjo.

In the mid-1970s, visitation was around 65,000.a year, climbing to over 100,000 a

year in the early 1980s. Visitation in the 1990s has reached beyond 200,000. In 1996,

227,104 people visited the park 7

As visitation has grown, the number of seasonal

interpreters has dwindled. Currently, the park is ready for a new interpretive plan to provide

guidance in all areas of interpretation, including defining and maintaining historical

landscapes to enhance visitor experience, optimizing non-personnel visitor services, and

developing new and improved programming for park visitors.

Superintendent' s annual report , SAJH, 1996, p. 8

152
English or British Camp?

When San Juan Island N.H.P. was created in 1966, the NPS acquired English Camp

and American Camp, names that had been used almost exclusively since the turn of the

century. However, in 1986 the park began to question the accuracy of calling the camp

inhabited by the Royal Marines "English."

For the record, the Marines referred to the camp as the "Royal Marines Camp".8 If

one searches the historical record outside of Royal Marine documentation for citations of

the camp name, there is plenty to show support for both British and English Camp.9

Historical accuracy is the issue for those who consider "British" a more appropriate title.

They contend that all members of Her Majesty's Royal Marines were not English; they were

also Scottish, Irish, or other nationalities from within the British Empire and even beyond. 10

Therefore, the "English" title does not convey the multi-national make-up of HMR Marines,

whereas "British" associates the camp with the people represented by the British empire.

The idea of changing the name to reflect this historical accuracy came about in the

1979 General Management Plan, which throughout refers to British Camp, and on page 34

states that all development and interpretation will use the name British Camp. The NPS

began researching the name due to visitor comments regarding the topic: most specifically,

strongly felt comments from visitors who were from Great Britain, but were not English.

Enough popular opinion was received to motivate the use of the name which better reflected

the people stationed there.

In 1986, park management made the decision to change the name to British Camp

and updated all brochures and interpretive signage to reflect its use. Reaction to the change

was not seriously felt until 1992, when the Board of Commissioners for San Juan County

and the United States Geological Survey petitioned the Washington State Board of

Geographic Names to change all maps to reflect the name British Camp. At this point, a

few local residents campaigned the state board and the county to stop the name change on

the grounds that the site had always been English Camp. One letter even stated that it had

never been called British Camp until the park service showed up on the island. The tone of

s

Letter from Librarian, Royal Marine Museum to Bob Scott , February 10, 1992

For a thorough listing of citations , please refer to Greg Lange' s research from 1992 in the SAJH park archive,

Box 5, Folder 6 : L50 British Camp Name Change.

'0 Letter from Royal Marine Museum to Bob Scott, 1992

153
the opposition was very much " islander" vs. " outsiders " attitude . The noise raised was

enough to make the county commissioners back away from the name change on the grounds

that they didn't realize opposition existed . The Washington State Board of Geographic

Names saw enough opposition to reject the name change on the grounds that it was too

controversial and the state board concluded that the site should retain its traditional name.

Prior to their decision , park managers declined to research the impact the change

would have from a public relations standpoint . Following the decision by the state board,

the park changed the name back to English Camp, with the hope that through a better

outreach and educational process, the name issue can be properly addressed again sometime

in the future . Names can be a serious business; time, money, effort, and, for a few people,

strong emotions were spent on this issue . For the park, it meant programming funding to

change its brochures and signage twice.

154
CHAPTER SEVEN

PUBLIC AND INTERAGENCY RELATIONS
Chapter Seven : Public and Interagency Relations

San Juan Island N.H.P. has a wide variety of relationships that impact the park

and its operations. These relationships range from the local to the international

community. For most of these groups, there exists a sense of ownership and stewardship

of park resources.

San Juan Trail Riders

In 1987, this group approached the park requesting to ride horses in portions of

American Camp. For the next year, this would be a thoroughly discussed issue between

the park and the regional office. Superintendent Hoffman approved of the idea and put in

a request to region for permission to begin a permit program allowing riding in

designated areas. Although most of the regional office staff felt it was inappropriate use

of the historic scene, Section 106 compliance was completed for specific park areas.

Since the number of projected riders anticipated by the park was low and areas existed

within the park that fit that type of visitor use, the program was approved.

The result was a relationship with a specific group of islanders who take

responsibility for the ability to ride at American Camp. The group monitors its members,

as well as non-members who ride in, around, or near the park, to make sure that park

rules are observed.

Relations within the Service

The park also has come to rely heavily on other national parks, particularly

Olympic and North Cascades. Olympic National Park superintendent Bennett Gale

originally served as the NPS representative for San Juan from 1966 to 1969. Over the

years, Olympic National Park fire management specialists have assisted the park in

development of fire management planning and training. Today, Olympic National Park's

fire management officer serves a dual role as the officer for both Olympic and San Juan

Island N.H.P.

Between 1985-1986, the park maintained a cooperating agreement with North

Cascades for assistance in a number of areas. In 1993, the park negotiated for storage of

the archaeological collection previously housed at the University of Idaho. When storage

155
no longer became an option at the university in Moscow, the park needed to find

adequate space . Nowhere in the park is there a space of sufficient size and possessing the

required climate and security controls necessary for collections storage . In exchange for

storage in the North Cascades Marblemount facility, San Juan contributes towards the

salary for the North Cascades collections manager. In addition, a collections storage

agreement was arranged to store HBC-related materials at Fort Vancouver National

Historic Site in Washington.

The park has also served other NPS sites . From 1986 to 1988, Superintendent

Hoffman served as the NPS representative for Ebey's Landing National Historical

Reserve on Whidbey Island . On several occasions San Juan maintenance staff undertook

projects needed at Ebey' s Landing.

Canadians and Britain

At the April 1965 public hearing on the proposed park, Willard C. Ireland

endorsed the park on behalf of British Columbia. Ireland kindly stated that had the

decision of 1872 gone the other way, "this would have been a national historical site of

Canada long ago."' Ireland's presence let the senate committee know that Canadians of

the Vancouver Island region, and British Columbia, valued the site of English Camp as a

part of their heritage, regardless of which country now owns it . The number one goal of

Canadian groups, especially the Canadian Navy and Royal Marine leagues, is

remembering the English Camp Cemetery . Unlike at American Camp, where the U.S.

Army returned and disinterred remains at American Camp cemetery for transfer to a

mainland army cemetery in Washington State, the English soldiers ' bodies have remained

on Young Hill. These soldiers died in the service of their country and were buried very

far from it . For many years, Jim Crook was paid a stipend to maintain the cemetery, and

services including memorial day, have been held over the years at the site to honor these

men.

Having great interest in the site results in donations and visits to the place

occasionally by international dignitaries . The International Yachting Fellowship of

Rotarians of Victoria in 1986 donated a new dinghy dock at English Camp. The

I Report, Hearing of the Subconunittee on Parks and Recreation, April 17, 1965

156
dedication was celebrated as a part of SAJH 20. The group received special recognition

for the donation and assistance to the park.

Over the past several years, the British consulate in Seattle has turned out to be a

great supporter of the park. Consul Stephen Turner was helpful in obtaining and

donating the Union Jack flag, which is flown at English Camp. This is one of the very

few places outside of Great Britain with permission to fly the flag. In 1996, the park

contacted Consul Michael Upton to see about the use of a portable display interpreting

the Oregon Treaty. In response, Upton offered the park a permanent interpretive panel,

created for Washington State's Peace Arch Memorial Park in Blaine, Washington, for use

in the visitor's center at American Camp. Since the memorial in Blaine has yet to be

built, Upton offered it to the park for use in the interim. Superintendent Scott accepted

his offer, and the consulate drove the display to the island and assisted park staff in its

installation.2 In 1997, Upton arranged for $12,000 to be donated by the British

government for the replacement of the deteriorated flagpole at English Camp. The new

flagpole was dedicated in ceremonies held in August 1998. Attending the ceremonies

were Consul Upton, Superintendent Scott, Deputy Regional Director Bill Walters,

Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro, and British Royal Marine Lt. Col. Henk de

Jager. More than 400 people attended.

These groups keep in touch with the park and monitor its activities. This is a

constant reminder that the island was almost under British rule and a part of Canada, and

that in 1872 many British citizens changed their citizenship, not so they could be

Americans, but so they could remain in their homes. The island's British heritage

remains important to many area residents to this day.

The Lummi

Daniel Boxenberger, in his ethnographic study of San Juan Island, reports the

following contemporary groups have cultural affiliations with the island and with the

park: federally recognized tribes include the Lummi, Klallam, and Swinomish; Canadian

2 Interview with Mike Vouri, December, 1996

157
bands include the Songhees, Saanich, and Semiahmoo; and non-recognized tribes include

the Samish, the San Juan Tribe of Indians, and the Mitchell Bay Tribe.3

Primarily, the park has had relations with the Lummi Indian Business Council.

The Lummi believe Guss Island to be their point of origin into this world.4 As discussed

under archaeological resources, several burials were removed from Guss Island in

Garrison Bay. In 1985 the park, with assistance from Jim Thomson and Kent Bush of the

Pacific Northwest regional office, began negotiating for the return and reinternment of

the burials to the Lummi. A Memorandum of Understanding was drafted with the

council, calling for the park to provide a 30' x 30' space for the reburials. The Lummi

were to provide the container and actually complete the reburial process. The agreement

was signed and several remains reburied, although the container delivered to the site was

never used and eventually disposed of by the park. Monitoring of remains at the park and

relations with the Lummi have more recently been handled by Seattle Support Office

anthropologist, Dr. Fred York.

Washington State

The park has had significant relations with different state organizations, but most

specifically with the Department of Natural Resources which has lands adjoining the

park. In addition, it is unclear if ownership and management of tidelands within park

boundaries belongs to the park or to the state. Recent relations with the park include

research to determine tideland ownership.

From 1989-92, San Juan carried a Memorandum of Agreement with the

department for maintenance of their Griffin Bay and Cattle Point Recreational sites. In

exchange for an annual payment of $10,000, the park maintained the state's visitor

facilities. In 1988, the park signed a five-year cooperative agreement with DNR for joint

cooperation in wildfire management.

' Boxenberger, p. 5

4 Letter to Associate Regional Director from Superintendent of San Juan Island and Regional

Archaeologist, February 1985

158
San .Juan County

The park has consistently maintained jurisdictional cooperative agreements with

the San Juan County Sheriff and Rural Fire District #3. The fire district has participated

in the park training programs and fire management planning.

Law enforcement at the park has always been relatively low key, involving

vandalism, illegal hunting, and camping. Since lacking a year round, full time law

enforcement ranger prior to 1992, actual law enforcement needs for years past are

difficult to ascertain since case incident reporting was low to non-existent. Since the

addition of law enforcement monitoring in 1992, case incident reports average 80 per

year. A majority of incidents encountered by rangers are minor infractions such as

unleashed pets and are not reported. Since 1994, incident reports have been decreasing

due to greater ranger presence, better signage, and repair and placement of split-rail

fencing and log barriers at South Beach to prevent unauthorized motor vehicle use.'

Park staff has routinely belonged to various community organizations and the

Superintendent has served occasionally on the Chamber of Commerce and a variety of

county appointed boards. Between 1986 and 1996, the American Camp headquarters

served as a San Juan County election polling place.

Locally, the park has participated in the San Juan Salmon Cooperative since 1988.

The goal of this group is to aid in restoring Chinook salmon runs. The park

superintendent, chief ranger, and chief of maintenance have typically worked with the

group, which runs a salmon fish hatchery.

Beginning in 1988, the county commissioners created a board to examine the

preservation and recreational opportunities of the Old Military Road from American to

English Camp. Commissioned by the San Juan County Public Works, Atelier ps, a

landscape architect firm, developed a feasibility study for a public trail from American

Camp to English Camp. The study involved two public open houses, which were wellattended, and a final plan produced four alternative routes. None of the proposals were

well received by the public. Reporting on the second open house, the study states that

some landowners felt just doing the feasibility study was an invasion of privacy in itself,

more or less having the trail come through their property. Of concern to the public were

s

Comments to the author from Shirley Holt, July 1997

159
fire hazards, crime, pollution, and invasion of private property . The trail alternatives

varied from a historical route, which would have touched at least 50 private landowners,

to a less historical route utilizing county road rights of way.

The park supported their portion of the trail, but stated that they could not support

any alternative in which any of the landowners were not willing participants . The park

also did not approve of the report being designed without public involvement or

awareness . None of the alternatives were approved and the commissioners established

the Citizen' s Advisory Board to assist in continued trail planning . Park staff also serves

on this board. By 1993 , planning for a park-to-park trail had been discontinued in favor

of a shorter segment connecting English Camp to nearby state department of natural

resource property . Since selecting the shorter trail as the preferred alternative , the issue

has been quiet . Park concerns regarding the plan center on the types of recreational use

to be allowed , and the impact on the historic orchard at English Camp, which lay within.

the proposed route.

160
CHAPTER EIGHT

CONCLUSION
Chapter Eight : Conclusion

San Juan Island N.H.P. is a wonderful park, where visitors can learn and experience a

variety of things. On a historical level, they can explore the diplomatic and cultural interactions

of America and Britain/Canada. On the level of natural history, they can explore a variety of

environments and animal species and experience unparalleled scenic vistas. Columbia Cascades

Support Office curator Kent Bush accurately describes the park as a microcosm of all parks in

the service and lacks only a cave or a river.'

From 1970 to 1990, the park staff expended effort researching its historic structures,

rehabilitating and maintaining those structures, establishing basic operations facilities, and trying

to re-establish the historic landscapes, particularly at American Camp Since 1990, management

focus has shifted, with an emphasis on natural resource planning and research needs. Many

projects still wait in the wings with so little staff, time, and funding to do them.

How best can the park deliver on these experiences, given limited resources and staffing

levels? It is a question that the park, like most parks, has been dealing with since its creation.

The quest for funding and staffing is no new story to the park service, and the successful parks

are ones that show large visitor capacities and the demand for services. San Juan Island N.H.P.

has always had a modest carrying capacity in comparison to other parks. This factor is entirely

due to its location and access to the travelling public. Despite the high level of visitation to the

island, a large percentage of those visitors come for one day only and, with few transportation

options beyond the town save a newly operating summer shuttle service, many visitors do not

make it out to either camp.

Ask anyone in the region who has had a hand in managing the park and they will tell you

that it is a fabulous park with unique stories to be told and rich layers of resources. It only makes

it more mysterious why the park seems to have been treated like a stepchild inherited from

Washington state . The park's master planning documentation states that the park would be run

as a small park, relying on the Seattle office for support. The regional office has always been

there for the park, but implementation still requires adequate money and staffing to follow

through.

Alternative avenues for funding, either grants or through fee collection efforts, will

continue to play a significant role in the park's future. Maintaining the current level of basic

' Interview with Kent Bush, April, 1997

161
resource protection consumes the park's existing funding levels. It may fall to alternative

resources to provide for development above the status quo, especially in the realm of

interpretation and visitor outreach. To quote Steve Gobat, the only thing wrong with the

National Park Service is that there are too many good ideas chasing too few FTEs.2

Current park staff feels San Juan Island National Historical Park has been able to turn the

park around from a cycle that has seen low staff morale and little project funding. After a budget

shortfall in 1996 and a year without any paid seasonals in 1997, the park was identified as

eligible for a possible base funding increase, perhaps in the year 2000. In the new cluster order

of planning, programming, and funding, park managers sense the potential for the pie to be more

evenly distributed. With the creation of cluster committees to prioritize funding, managers from

different parks must consider the project needs of all parks in their decision making. The

concept of inter-park cooperation and involvement is becoming more and more practiced as park

managers come into more contact with each other and the project needs of other parks. While

the park may see a chance to compete for funding, others in the NPS believe that small historical

parks like San Juan will fare no better in the face of the region's large, natural parks than they

did before.

The new cluster system has put new optimism into park staff in terms of achieving

planning and programming for a variety of projects. This optimism comes while the park has

reached a transitory moment. The next decade will tell how far the new system will take San

Juan Island National Historical Park in providing optimal preservation and interpretation for its

truly unique stories and vast resources.

z

Letter to Superintendent from Chief Ranger, SAM, February 12, 1987. FTEs refer to full time equivalent

positions.

162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography

Primary Sources

San Juan Island National Historical Park Archive. The primary resource for this

document is the park's administrative archive, compiled by the author in 1995-1996.

The archive includes materials from the records of San Juan Island National Historical

Park, the Seattle Support Office, the Washington State Archives in Olympia, the

Washington State Historical Society library, and documents from the manuscripts

library at the University of Washington, Seattle. The archive contains all major reports

and studies completed for the park over the years as well as any managerial records and

correspondence relevant to the significant park planning that still exists. Interviews of

former and current National Park Staffemployed at the park, as well as regional

support staff involved at the park, has provided valuable information to supplement the

available written record.

Secondary Sources

Secondary resource materials useful in providing a background on the NPS, historic

preservation, public memory, and the history of the Pig War and joint occupation are as

follows:

Blatti, Jo, ed. Past Meets Present: Essays About Historic Interpretation and Public

Audiences. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987.

Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in

the Twentieth Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Davies, Wallace Evan. Patriotism on Parade: The Story of Veterans' and Hereditary

Organizations in America, 1783-1900. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1955.

Dodds, Gordon B. The American Northwest: A History of Oregon and Washington.

Arlington Heights, Illinois: The Forum Press, Inc., 1986.

Foresta, Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington D.C.:

Resources for the Future, 1984.

Lamme, Ary, J., III. America's Historic Landscapes: Community Power and the

Preservation ofFour National Historic Sites, Knoxville, Tennessee: University of

Tennessee Press, 1989.

Mackintosh, Barry. The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks

Program: A Survey. National Park Service, History Division, 1985.

---. Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective. National Park

Service, History Division, 1986.

---. The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Park Service: A History.

National Park Service, History Division, 1986.

163
Rothman, Hal. Preserving Different Pasts: The American National Monuments. Urbana,

Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. 2d ed. Lincoln, Nebraska:

University ofNebraska Press, 1987.

Suttles, Wayne. " Central Coast Salish", North American Handbook ofAmerican Indians,

Volume 7, Washington : Smithsonian Institute, 1990.

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage. 2d ed. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:

University of North Carolina Press, 1977.

Tindall, George Brown, David E. Shi . America: A Narrative History, 3d ed., New York:

W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.

Williams, Norman, Jr., Edmond H. Kellogg, and Frank B. Gilbert. Readings in Historic

Preservation Why? What? How? New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy

Research, 1983.

164
APPENDICES
Appendix A

Enabling Legislation

An Act to authorize the establishment of the San Juan Island

National Historical Park in the State of Washington , and for

other purposes. (80 Stat. 737)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative8 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized

to acquire.on behalf of the United States by donation.

purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or by exchange, lands, interests in lands, and such other property

on San Juan Island, Puget Sound, State of Washington,

as the Secretary may deem necessary for the purpose of

interpreting and preserving the sites of the American and

English camps on the island, and of commemorating the

historic events that occurred from 1853 to 1871 on the

island in connection with the final settlement of the OreP

on Territory boundary dispute, including the so-called

ig War of 1859. Lands or interests therein owned by the

State of Washington or a political subdivision thereof

may be acquired only by donation.

SEC. 2. The property acquired under the provisions of

the first section of this Act shall be known as the San Juan

Island National Historical Park and shall commemorate

the final settlement by arbitration of the Oregon boundary dispute and the peaceful relationship which has

existed between the Unlted.States and Canada for henerations. The Secretary of the Interior shall administer,

protect, and develop such park in accordance with the

provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535;

16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended and supplemented, and

the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461

etseq.).

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Interior may enter into

cooperative agreements with the State of Washington,

political subdivisions thereof, corporations, associations,

or individuals, for the preservation of nationally significant historic sites and structures and for the interpretation of significant events which occurred on San Juan

Island, iniuget Sound, and on the nearby mainland, and

he may erect and maintain tablets or markers at appropriate sites in accordance with the provisions of the Act

of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated

such sums, but not more than $3,542,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests therein and for the development of the San Juan National Historical Park.

Approved September 9,1966.

Le0lsiatioe History

House Report No. 1665 accompanying H.R. 2623 ( Committee on Interior and insular AQelrs).

senate Report No. 510 ( Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs). Congressional Record:

Vol. 111 ( 106..5) July 29, considered and passed Senate. yol, 112 ( 1966)

July 18, considered and passed House , amended . In lieu of H.R. 2628.

Aug. 25 . Senate concurred in House amendments.

165
Appendix B

Key Personnel

This listing is only a rough compilation of the key permanent personnel at the park over the years and is not intended as complete.

Superintendent:

Carl Stoddard, 1969-1975

Segismand Zachwieja, 1975-1980

Frank Hastings, 1981-1984

Richard Hoffman, 1985-1991

Robert Scott, 1991-1998

Chief Rangers:

Dennis Ditmanson, c. 1969-1974

Noberto Ortega, 1978-1982

Mac Foreman, 1982-1985

Steve Gobat, 1985-1992

William Gleason, 1992-Present

Administration:

Harriet Carrico

June Branner, 1975-1980

Ronald Martin, ?-1984

Mario Antonio, 1984-1985

Diane Joy, 1985-1994

Susan Bell, 1987-1988

Jacque Hogan/Anthony, 1988-1990

Wanda Anderson, 1991-1997

Maureen Briggs, 1995-Present

Barbara McEachran, 1997-Present

Interpretation

Patricia Milliren, 1975-1978

Detlef Wieck, 1988-1994

Michael Vouri, 1995-Present

Resource Management:

Shirley Hoh, 1992-Present

Law Enforcement:

Andrew Cohn, 1986-1987

Maintenance:

Urul Dickerson, 1975-?

Dave Arnold, 1984-1988

Patrick McFarland, 1990-1992

Wes Callender, 1991-Present

Ken Coss, 1995-Present

167