San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:19 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

ADMINISTRATIVE

HISTORY

San Juan Island

National Historical Park

Kelly June Cannon

November 20, 1997

Prepared for the

National Park Service,

Seattle Support Office

<<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhit.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:23 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover

I. Introduction

II. Historical Background

The Central Coast Salish

Explorers, Fur Traders, and Settlers

III. 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhit.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:23 AM]

English Camp Formal Garden

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

Consideration for Grassland Vegetation Management

Historic Landscape Study

Pilot Planting Project

Archaeological Resources

University of Idaho

University of Washington

Guss Island

Archaeological Overview and Base Map

Additional Studies

Collections Management

Natural Resources

Water

Rabbits

Birds

Clams

Research Permits

Resource Management Plans

Interdisciplinary Planning Team

VI. Interpretation and Visitor Use

Interpretive Prospectus, 1971

Interpretive Prospectus, May 1984

Interpretive Programming in Action

English or British Camp?

VII. Public and Interagency Relations

San Juan Trail Riders

Relations within the Service

Canadians and Britain

The Lummi

Washington State

San Juan County

VIII. Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix A: Enabling Legislation

Appendix B: Key Personnel

<<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/scbl/adhi/adhit.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi1.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:27 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1:

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 of NPS 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, [1] A 529 acres on the northwestern corner of the 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi1.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:27 AM]

Vicinity map from the 1986 Historic Landscape Study by Cathy Gilbert, NPS Seattle Office.

San Juan Island map from the 1986 Historic Landscape Study by Cathy Gilbert, NPS Seattle Office.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi1.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:27 AM]

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 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-too-often-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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi1.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:30 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2:

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. [1] 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]

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:30 AM]

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. 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. [7] 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. [8] 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 rewrapped 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi2.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3:

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. [1]

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

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

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 be paid through state

legislative appropriations. [10] The property at English Camp was purchased for $122,000,

approved by the Washington State Legislature.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

The Crook family on the front porch of their house, c. 1900.

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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

English Camp just prior to park establishment.

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 establishment of a park. But much of

American Camp remained in private hands, as did much of the surrounding acreage at

English Camp.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

Remains of Bellevue Farm, Hudson's Bay Company, c. 1964.

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi3.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:33 AM]

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 of the federal legislation creating San Juan Island National Historical Park occurred

easily. Senator Bible commented following the hearings that the 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi3.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:36 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

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 super-warehouse 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 of job 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 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." [1]

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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:36 AM]

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

the attitudes of NPS 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 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi4.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5:

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.

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.

Historic Base Maps

San Juan Island (184K)
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

American Camp (60K)

British Camp (60K)

San Juan Town (52K)

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. [1] 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 report for the

Officers' Quarters and Landress' 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 for HS 6, Laundress' Quarters, which

Sprague felt was an 80% match to the Warbass structure. [2]

The English Camp Cemetery.

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

Standing on the edge of Garrison Bay, the English Camp Blockhouse is a well-known 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 BORDER=1 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 multi-park 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 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.

The coin and cash found in the Barracks, later given to Mrs. Rhoda Anderson.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

The restored Barracks building.

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 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 BORDER=1 ALTernatives.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

The restored Commissary.

The Hospital after being moved back to English Camp, prior to restoration.

Other Royal Marine medical facilities from the late nineteenth century around the region are

well documented through inventories and journals, specifically one in EsquimBORDER=1

ALT, British Columbia, Canada. One BORDER=1 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

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 BORDER=1 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 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]

The Crook House, painted its original white, overlooking the parade ground.

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 BORDER=1 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

BORDER=1 ALTer the structure's historical integrity while bringing the building up to code

for modern 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

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 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 mid- to 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 BORDER=1 ALTered the inside of the building,

making interior restoration difficult; further research will be necessary if the park hopes to

restore the interior of the Officers' Quarters and make interpretive use of the space. [7]
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

The Officers' Quarters, 1970, (back, right) with University of Idaho field school excavations in progress.

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 other features

On a stone boulder next to the Redoubt, a bronze plaque honors Lt. Henry Martyn 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 as a historic tree.

Recently, the remaining trees from the Crook family orchard have come under the umbrella

of historic tree consideration as well.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:42 AM]

The American Camp Monument at its previous Redoubt location, with Superintendent Carl Stoddard

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi5.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:45 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6:

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi6.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi7.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:48 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 7:

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 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 HBCrelated 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi7.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:48 AM]

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." [1] 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 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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi7.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:48 AM]

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.

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. [5]

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 well-attended, and a final plan produced
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi7.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:48 AM]

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 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi7.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi8.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:51 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 8:

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. [1]

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi8.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:51 AM]

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi8.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhib.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:54 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

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 Staff employed 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 of Four 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhib.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:54 AM]

_____. 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.

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 of Nebraska Press, 1987.

Suttles, Wayne. "Central Coast Salish", North American Handbook of American

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhib.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhiaa.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:57 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

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 the House of Representatives 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

commemoerating 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. 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 United States and

Canada for generations. The Secretary of the Interior shall

administer, protect, nad 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 supplmented, and the Act of August 21,

1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

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, in Puget 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,
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhiaa.htm[7/2/2012 9:14:57 AM]

but not more than $3,542,000 for the acquisition of lands and

interests therein and for the development of the San Juan Island

National Historical Park.

Approved September 9, 1966.

Legislative History

House Report No. 1665 accompanying H.R. 2623 (Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs).

Senate Report No. 510 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs). Congressional

Record:

 Vol. 111 (1965): July 29, considered and passed Senate.

 Vol. 112 (1966):

 July 18, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 2623.

 Aug. 25, Senate concurred in House amendments.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhiaa.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhiab.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:00 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

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

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

Administration:
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhiab.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:00 AM]

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

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhiab.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

ENDNOTES

Chapter One

1 The question has been raised in the past 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.

Chapter Two

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

Handbook of American Indians. Presently, two other accepted spellings exists, 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 of American Indians,

Volume 7, (Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 1990), p. 456.

3 Suttles, p. 456.

4 Suttles, p. 459.

5 Suttles, p. 462.

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

Pacific Northwest Region, p. 16.

7 Suttles, p. 470.

8 Suttles, p. 465.

9 Suttles, p. 467-469.

10 Suttles, p. 465.

11 Suttles, p. 471.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

12 George Brown Tindall, David E. Shi. American: A Narrative History, 3d ed., (New York:

W.W. Norton & Company, 1993), p. 350.

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

University of Idaho, Moscow, 1983, p. 34.

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

15 Thompson, p. 167.

16 Thompson, p. 169.

17 Thompson, p. 5.

18 Thompson, p. 5.

19 Thompson, p. 6.

20 Thompson, p. 6.

21 O'Gorman, p. 39.

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

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

24 O'Gorman, p. 44.

25 O'Gorman, p. 46.

26 O'Gorman, p. 46.

27 O'Gorman, p. 48.

28 O'Gorman, p. 55.

29 O'Gorman, p. 60.

30 Thompson, p. 206-207.

31 Thompson, p. 203.

32 Thompson, p. 129.

33 Thompson, p. 132-133.

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

35 Thompson, p. 136.

36 Thompson, p. 140.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

37 Thompson, p. 148.

38 Thompson, p. 209.

39 Thompson, p. 122-123.

Chapter Three

1 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.

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

8.

5 Knight, p. 7.

6 Knight, p. 18.

7 Deed dated March 24, 1951.

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

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

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

1962.

11 Interview with Charles Odegaard, February 24, 1997.

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.

14 Proposal, p. 1.

15 The Everett Herald, April 19, 1965.

16 80 Stat. 737.

Chapter Four

1
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

 Letter from Deputy Regional Directory William Briggle to Superintendent, San Juan Island

N.H.P., December 1984.

2 Jim Crook passwd 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.

3 Map of Bolster Agency proposed development, no date.

4 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1972.

5 Letter to Joseph Rosenkranz from Acting Superintendent S.T. Carlson, October 27, 1967.

6 Comments on Master Plan by John Rutter, May 1967, p. 4.

7 Management Objectives, SAJH, 1970.

8 Letter to the author from NPS historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997.

9 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1972, p. 5.

10 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1974, p. 2.

11 Letter to the author from historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997.

12 Letter to the author from historical architect Laurin Huffman, August, 1997.

13 General Management Plan (GMP), 1977, SAJH, p. 4.

14 GMP, p. 42.

15 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1981.

16 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1981.

17 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1981.

18 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAJH, 1981.

19 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.

21 Interview with Richard Hoffman, April 15, 1997.

22 Interview with Steve Gobat, February, 1997.

23 Conversation with Wes Callendar, December, 1996.

24 Review comments to the author from Robert Scott, July, 1997.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

Chapter Five

1 Thompson, p. 148.

2 Historic Structurs Report: Architectural Data, Harold La Fleur, Jr., SAJH, 1977, p. 44.

3 Interview with Richard Hoffman, April, 1997.

4 Review comments from Stephanie Toothman, November, 1997.

5 Letter to the author from Laurin Hoffman, August 1997.

6 Thompson, p. 162.

7 Interview with Laurin Huffman, April 28, 1997.

3 Superintendent's Annual Report, SAH, 1983, p. 2.

9 Letter to files from Detlef Wieck, SAJH, February, 1993.

10 Carol Meadowcroft, Reconstruction of Historic Formal Garden as English Camp, San

Juan Island, N.H.P., March 1982, p. 8.

11 James K. Agee, Historic Landscapes at San Juan Island N.H.P., Winter 1984, p. 15.

12 Comments from Cathy Gilbert to the author, October, 1997.

13 Boxenberger, p. 10.

14 Cathy Gilbert, Historic Landscape Study, San Juan Island N.H.P., p. 110.

15 Gilbert, p. 112.

16 Gilbert, p. 42.

17 Thomas Tyler, "Structural Analysis of San Juan Town," San Juan Archaeology, p. 216.

18 Gary Wessen, A Technical Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of the San Juan Islands

Region, 1988, p. 52.

19 Interviews with Kent Bush and Jim Thomson, April 28, 1997.

20 Wessen, p. 78.

21 Scope of Collections Statement, SAJH, 1981, p. 1.

22 Interview with Kent Bush, April 28, 1997.

23 Superintendent's annual report, SAJH, 1996, p. 7.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

24 W. Fredrick Stevens and A.R. Weisbrod, The Rabbits of San Juan Island National

Historical Park, p. 4.

25 Statement for Management, San Juan Island N.H.P., 1997.

26 Letter from Steve Gobat to Dick Hoffman, February 12, 1987.

27 Letter from Frank Hastings to the author, April 28, 1997.

Chapter Six

1 Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 2.

2 Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 3.

3 Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 7.

4 Interpretive Prospectus, SAJH, 1971, p. 10.

5 Interpretive Prospectus, May 1984, San Juan Island National Historical Park, p. 1.

6 Interview with Pat Milliren, April 1997.

7 Superintendent's annual report, SAJH, 1996, p. 8.

8 Letter from Librian, Royal Marine Musuem to Bob Scott, February 10, 1992.

9 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.

10 Letter from Royal Marine Museum to Bob Scott, 1992.

Chapter Seven

1 Report, Hearing of the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, April 17, 1965.

2 Interview with Mike Vouri, December, 1996.

3 Boxenberger, p. 5.

4 Letter to Associate Regional Director from Superintendent of San Juan Island and

Regional Archaeologist, February 1985.

5 Comments to the author from Shirley Hoh, July 1997.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhie.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:03 AM]

Chapter Eight

1 Interview with Kent Bush, April, 1997.

2 Letter to Superintendent from Chief Ranger, SAJH, February 12, 1987. FTEs refer to full

time equivalent positions.

<<< Contents >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhie.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2:

Historical Background

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 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. [11]

Between 1824 and 1845, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) 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]

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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.

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 HBC'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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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 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." [19] Webber and Griffin developed a cordial

relationship, and Webber depended on Griffin and the HBC farm for security from Indian

raids.

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 19th 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 HBC 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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.

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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.

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

and ordered him to resist all attempts by British officials to fine, arrest, or prosecute Cutlar in

the matter. [25]

3rd Artillery, Camp Pickett, 1859

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 Hornby, 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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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 proAmerican 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 Hornby'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 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 Hornby'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. [28] 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:07 AM]

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 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi2a.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2b.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:11 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2:

Historical Background

Explorers, Traders, and Settlers

(continued)

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 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]
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2b.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:11 AM]

English Camp, c. 1860

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. [30]

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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2b.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:11 AM]

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 85 and 110.

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2b.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:11 AM]

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 listing and identification of

sites, refer to the historic base map for American Camp on page 84 and 106.

American Camp, c. 1870. Photograph courtesy of the Provincial Archives, HP015273/A-05967.

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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi2b.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:11 AM]

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi2b.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

San Juan Island National Historical Park

Management

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 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 of joint 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

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] 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.

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

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: pre-construction,

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 under the

interpretive prospectus. Completion of any shoreline developments and the beginning of full

park operations would also fall under the construction phase.

Land ownership and use map, 1969 Master Plan.

Under the final, operational phase, the park would develop a program of long-term

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

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) 75

George J. Franck (1/3 each) 440.79

Richard N. Franck (1/3 each)

4 Fredrick W. Whitridge (improved) 77.75

5 F.V. Landahl 1.20

6 Harold J. Jones 49.46

7 Leslie M. Bitner 20

8 Roland F. Gray 2.32

9 Randall V. Green 1.70

10 Orville R. Clary 1.95

* 11 T.J.R. Corps (improved) 281.62

* 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

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

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.

Detail of development residential lots, Bolster Agency, no date

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:14 AM]

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi4a.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/images/adhi5.gif[7/2/2012 9:15:16 AM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/images/adhi5a.gif[7/2/2012 9:15:16 AM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/images/adhi5b.gif[7/2/2012 9:15:17 AM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/images/adhi5c.gif[7/2/2012 9:15:17 AM]
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4f.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:20 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

San Juan Island National Historical Park

Management

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. [24]

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, was redesigned. The lot was

expanded and the traffic pattern altered for better access. The entrance road was also

widened.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi4f.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:20 AM]

Artifacts from the park collection on display in the American Camp exhibit, completed in 1996.

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.

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 seasonals,

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi4f.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5:

Resource Management

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 of Historic 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 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]
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

The only historic photograph to show the formal garden.

Volunteers at work in the garden.

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

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.

Historic Landscapes of San 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 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

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. 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 ill-defined 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

options for park managers to consider. When the report was completed, the regional cultural

resource division in Seattle developed a fifth alternative for 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.

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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:24 AM]

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.

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 of the 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi5a.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5c.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:27 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5:

Resource Management

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 reappraised. Hoffman informed them that they had every 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5c.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:27 AM]

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 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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5c.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:27 AM]

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 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, non-historic 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5c.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:27 AM]

In 1982, the park's natural resource needs were identified as follows:

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.

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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi5c.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:27 AM]

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 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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi5c.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:31 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6:

Interpretation and Visitor Use

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.

The American Camp interpretive shelter, c. 1971-1972
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:31 AM]

Ranger Fred Stevens in uniform at the interpretive shelter.

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." [1] 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." [2] 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 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.
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:31 AM]

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 A/V 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 of the recommendation. The film would be 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:31 AM]

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 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". [4]

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6a.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:31 AM]

"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 Information/Receptionist 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.

Volunteer Jim Meredith speaking in costume at the Barracks, English Camp. Volunteer Ted Leche looks on.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi6a.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6d.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:34 AM]

San Juan Island

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6:

Interpretation and Visitor Use

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 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
San Juan Island NHP: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sajh/adhi6d.htm[7/2/2012 9:15:34 AM]

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.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/adhi/adhi6d.htm

Last Updated: 19-Jan-2003