Fort Clatsop Administrative History

From 1990 through 1991, Superintendent Orlando campaigned the Pacific Northwest Regional Office for recognition of management needs at the memorial. Encroachment of development towards the memorial and the increasing possibility that development would be detrimental to memorial resources was the most pressing issue. Related to that issue was the outdated memorial Master Plan, which was due for revision in 1975. The thirty-year-old document did not address and could not guide the memorial in dealing with its resource and land use issues. A new management plan was a primary step in dealing with those issues, as well as updating many of the memorial's specific action plans.

Even though the memorial's master plan was thirty years old, the park still was not high on the priority list for preparation and funding of a new plan. For the memorial to wait for Congressional appropriations and a new plan from Denver Service Center, the park may have waited an additional five to ten years, if not longer. [1] After a site visit by the associate regional director for recreation resources and professional services and regional chief of lands to witness the adjacent land use issues facing the memorial, it was determined that these issues needed to be addressed and that the regional office, park staff, and private consultants would produce an in-house management plan for the memorial.

A planning team was organized by Keith Dunbar, the Chief of Planning and Environmental Compliance in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office (PNRO), which included Superintendent Orlando, memorial staff, representatives of various PNRO divisions, and private consultants. In 1992, the preparation of a new general management plan (GMP) began. On January 30, 1992, a public scoping meeting was held at the memorial. Twenty persons attended the meeting, including representatives of Washington State Parks Fort Canby, Oregon State Parks Fort Stevens, FCHA, Cavenham industries, the NPS, Clatsop County, and interested citizens. Planning issues and concerns facing the memorial "identified at the scoping meeting and subsequent meetings with memorial staff" became the basis of planning for the new GMP. [2]

Planning Concerns And Proposals

In October, 1993, a draft of the GMP and an accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were presented for public review. Eight planning issues and concerns were identified in future management of the park. [3]

Boundary Adjustments. Planning concerns involving the current boundaries for the memorial included the incorporation of a commemorative trail between the fort and the Pacific Ocean. This planning concern stemmed from the memorial's enabling legislation, which states that the memorial should preserve a portion of the overland trail to the coast. A trail to the coast would be a commemorative route, since the actual route used by the Expedition cannot be determined. Also at issue was the protection of the natural environment around the fort area and of the historic setting. Increasing urbanization spreading outward from Astoria and Warrenton continue to encroach on the setting of the memorial and threaten its natural environment. A third concern was to provide for the incorporation of 31.5 acres on the north and east boundary of the memorial acquired by FCHA to be donated to the NPS for protection against urban development. Finally, the possible expansion of the Salt Works site in Seaside, if a willing seller/willing buyer opportunity arose, would enable the memorial to expand and enhance the historic setting of the site and provide additional parking for visitors. [4]

Adjacent Land Uses. A planning concern identified in the draft GMP was the impact on the memorial's resource programs by possible land uses around the memorial. Concerns included future timber harvest or agricultural use of neighboring lands and commercial and industrial development near the memorial. Also of concern was the effects of such development on the water quality of the Lewis and Clark River, which would impact the natural resources of the park as well as the memorial's own water supply. [5]

Opportunities for Regional Cooperation. The draft GMP identified the opportunity to provide for regional coordination between the memorial and other historic sites in the region on issues and projects of mutual concern and interest. Through coordination with other historic sites, the memorial could develop a resource and support base with these other sites. Topics for collaboration included: interpretation of the Lewis and Clark story with other Lewis and Clark sites; interpretation of Northwest Coast maritime exploration; coordination of events for the upcoming Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial; transportation access and circulation between various historic sites in the area; heritage tourism; natural resource management; and the advantages of the designation of U.S. Highway 101 as a National Scenic Byway. [6]

Natural Resource Protection and Management. The draft GMP identified the need for updates of specific resource management plans, specifically pest management, vegetation management, and fire management. Other resource management planning and preservation needs identified included: establish a baseline database of the natural resources within the memorial; assess possible preservation of elk habitat to keep dwindling elk populations in the memorial area; assess the memorial's water resources and the possibilities of wetlands restoration and preservation along the Lewis and Clark River; and assess and continue planning for the native reforestation program. [7]

In-Park Interpretation. Interpretation program concerns included increased interpretation of the American Indian experiences with the Expedition. This included the assessment of possible cultural demonstrations or the possible replication of a Clatsop shelter. Second, emphasize the story surrounding the Expedition's choice of location for the winter quarters and their daily life at the fort. Finally, assess potential interpretive capabilities at the Salt Works site.

Visitor Use. Planning concerns focusing on future visitor use varied with regard to the other planning issues and concerns identified. If the memorial expanded to include a fort-to-ocean trail and an overall increase in acreage, what should the memorial's visitor use continue to be? An assessment of appropriate land uses on memorial grounds would be necessary. Of particular concern would be camping and overnight use, possible uses of the Lewis and Clark River, and appropriate use of the historic trail (i.e. hiking only vs. bicycle, horse, or motorized vehicle access). [8]

Park Facilities. Considering increases in visitation at the memorial over the last thirty-five years and the possibilities of increasing types of visitor use at the memorial, several planning concerns regarding the memorial facilities and staffing size were identified. These included: upgrading memorial utilities and roads; identifying off-site staff housing for memorial seasonal staff; upgrading the maintenance facility; providing an improved collections facility and library workspace; parking facilities at the Salt Works; and providing for continued maintenance of the fort grounds, trails, the canoe landing, and picnic site to handle increased visitation. Other concerns identified included assessment of increased staffing needs to meet management goals and the ability of the park to assist in the creation of a Lewis and Clark Research Center, either at the memorial or at a regional university. Finally, a shuttle bus service between the fort site and the Salt Works site should be considered. [9]

Visual Aural Qualities. Finally, under all the different planning concerns and considerations for increased visitation and a variety of possible visitor uses, the memorial would need to continue maintenance of the re-created historic setting and atmosphere at the fort. Included in this issue was the impact of incompatible adjacent land uses.

In addressing these eight planning concerns, the draft GMP provided four alternative plan proposals. The proposed alternatives emphasized six areas of resource management and interpretation opportunities. First, develop a fort-to-ocean trail within the memorial boundary to commemorate the trail used by the Expedition; this would be available for recreational and interpretive purposes. Second, increase memorial land holdings to protect against future incompatible development. Third, develop regional coordination to interpret the Lewis and Clark story and other cultural themes of the Pacific Northwest Region and the possible formal designation and creation of a regional heritage area. Fourth, improve park facilities and increase park staff to address increased park visitation. Finally, the draft GMP offered proposals for coordination of the upcoming bicentennial and improved site development at the Salt Works site in Seaside. Alternative A was the no-action alternative, keeping the memorial functioning at current operating levels. Alternative B provided for expansion of lands and services to meet the memorial's basic planning concerns. Alternative C, the preferred action alternative, would increase the memorial's holdings to include a commemorative trail corridor to the coast along the Clatsop Ridge and would emphasize regional cooperation in meeting the goals of the memorial. Alternative D provided for an expanded natural resource base for the enhancement of the historic setting.

The preferred action alternative was designed to accomplish four things. First, develop the fort to ocean trail link for pedestrian use only, incorporating a trailhead of "80 acres of land, including a 25-vehicle parking lot, restrooms, information kiosk, picnic area, bicycle rack, and other facilities." [10] Second, the preferred alternative would add land to memorial boundaries for the protection and management of the park's natural resources. Third, create a Heritage Partnership in the region for the protection and interpretation of area cultural resources. Fourth, the plan addressed staffing and infrastructural needs at the memorial in order to better provide protection of park resources and visitor services. [11]

Public Review And Comment

Two hundred ninety-six copies of the draft GMP/EIS were mailed to interested parties and three public workshops were held between November 2 and December 1, 1993. With the presentation of the alternatives for future management of the memorial to the public and neighboring residents directly affected by its proposed uses, an emotional and mixed response was received. By request, the public review period was extended an additional thirty days. A significant negative response developed towards the draft preferred alternative. Of the 83 written responses received, over half expressed opposition to any expansion of the memorial and the Salt Works. In addition, 65 pre-printed cards supporting the no-action alternative were received. [12] Members of the community who disapproved of the draft preferred alternative included local landowners, Cavenham Industries, neighboring residents of the Salt Works site in Seaside, and some residents and public officials of Warrenton. One landowner created a media campaign that was effective in raising the fears of some in the local community. As part of the campaign, the landowner contacted Charles Cushman and the National Inholders Association.

The main issue behind the negative response to the preferred alternative was the fear of condemnation of homes and property identified in the proposed expansion, despite statements to the contrary by the NPS, and a perceived fear of federal government " interference" in economic growth and private land use. With government restrictions on timber and fishing occurring throughout the state of Oregon, the possible expansion and environmental concerns of Fort Clatsop National Memorial was perceived as another federal encroachment, a perception that sometimes did not consider the National Park Service as a separate entity from the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. [13]

Other issues of concern for those who supported the no-action alternative included: loss of taxable property from county tax rolls; increased funding requests at a time when the federal government was downsizing; lack of historical accuracy; increased vandalism and protection of neighboring properties along a public use trail; memorial wetlands restoration and loss of dikes along the Lewis and Clark River; and the ability of the park service to limit neighboring land uses. The assessment of possible future development at the Salt Works site raised concerns from the site's residential neighbors, who feared loss of property and increased parking and vandalism problems. The City of Seaside also expressed concern over maintenance of a larger site. [14]

The preferred alternative did receive support from the public. About one-third of the written responses favored the alternative and support was expressed at the public workshops. [15] Positive editorials ran in area newspapers. Major supporters of the preferred alternative included the Oregon Historical Society, Lewis and Clark organizations and historians, and the park's cooperating association.

The Final General Management Plan

After the public review period, the GMP underwent "substantive changes"16] and in June, 1995, the Final GMP/EIS was completed. While planning issues and concerns remained essentially the same, the size and details of the alternatives were altered in response to public comment. Major changes included: proposed development at the Salt Works site, including any land expansion in a willing seller/buyer situation, were dropped; the role of the NPS in determining neighboring land use was clarified; the amount of private lands identified for possible incorporation into the memorial was cut by 443 acres and 160 acres of public land at Sunset Beach added, making the proposed acreage addition 283 acres less than the previous proposal; alignment of the proposed trail-to-coast was revised from a Clatsop Ridge orientation to a lower elevation predominately on public land; and development concept plans for trailheads at Sunset Beach and the fort were modified. [17]

The final version of Alternative C was selected as the preferred alternative and proposed action and, upon approval from the NPS Washington, D.C. office and Congressional approval to lift the acreage ceiling, will become the management plan for the park. The proposed action provides four major components to guide the park over the next fifteen years.

First, the plan calls for the development of the trail corridor to the ocean. The trail would consist of two trailheads, one developed on property adjacent to the current memorial and the second would be developed at Sunset Beach Park. Each site would provide parking, comfort stations, information kiosks, and bicycle racks. A trail easement connecting the two sites would be obtained through cooperating agreements with the State of Oregon and Clatsop County. [18]

Second, land on the west, southwest, and northern boundaries are recommended for incorporation into the memorial boundaries for the purpose of protecting the historic setting and the natural resources of the memorial. Recommended acreage for inclusion of the trail corridor and surrounding lands totals 963 acres.

Third, the proposed action provides for regional coordination of interpretive activities among public and private groups and organizations of the lower Columbia River region. This includes a proposal for a Heritage Partnership among these groups. Other proposals promote coordination of events for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial with other Lewis and Clark sites and organizations.

Finally, the proposed action provides recommendations for increased staffing levels, both permanent and seasonal, and the establishment of carrying capacity levels for the fort and visitor center. This would allow the memorial to meet increased visitor and resource protection needs while continuing to provide a quality visitor experience. The plan also provides for upgrading and maintaining visitor facilities.

The preferred action alternative of the final GMP will guide Fort Clatsop National Memorial in maintaining the historic setting and natural environment of the fort site and in continuing to bring the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition to the public. The plan will also guide the memorial in developing new recreational and interpretive programs for public enjoyment. Most importantly, the plan will guide the memorial in continuing to educate visitors about the history of the Pacific Northwest.