WORKING EDIT DRAFT OCR OF THE PDF
Volunteer needed please to complete the proofing and edits
3/20/11:  Please contact us if you are interested in helping.  Thank you!

A SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF INHOLDERS IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

- LAKE CRESCENT AND ELWHA VALLEY AREA -

Kent Anderson


TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ......................................................................................... i i
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK........ 3
CHAPTER THREE: SOME FRIENDS OF LAKE CRESCENT AND SOME
INHOLDERS OF THE ELWI-1A RIVER VALLEY................................................... ..29
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS  ..........................................................................70
SOURCES......................................................................................................................76
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION INDEX .........................................................82
ABOUT THE AUTHOR.............................. .................................................................. 84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was funded independently by grants from the Institute for Human Rights Research located in San Antonio, Texas, and the Friends of Lake Crescent, an association of private property owners within the Olympic National Park in the state of Washington. All opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those many people who permitted me to interview them. Most, but not all, of these people were inholders or former inholders within the Olympic National Park. Several people assisted this report further by supplying me with various documents and I would like to thank the following people specifically: Dr. Bill Gray, Ray Green, Robert Ficken, John Hal-berg, Anthony Hoare, Ernie Lackman, Henry and Janet Myren, Jack and Florence Nattinger, Terry Norberg, Larry Winters, and, especially, Kay Flaherty, and Helen Radke.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The Olympic National  Park , in  the state of Washington , is so large that there are separate clusters of inholders within the area . On the northern boundry of the Park ,near the small city of Port Angeles, is beautiful Lake Crescent (Photos 1 and 2) ,a lake whose water is so clear and pure that inholders pump the water directly into thier homes for drinking.  Lake Crescent contains the largest single number of inholders within the Park.  Nearby is the Elwha River (Photo 3), whose rich valley also holds another smaller number of inholders.  This report will confine itself to those two areas.

The reader will first read a breif history of the Park and learn how the changing land acquisition policies of the National Park Service have affected the inholders around Lake Crescent and the Elwha River.  Following that, the reader will be presented with a large sampling of inholders in the form of brief "profiles" or case studies.  It is in this manner, hopefully, that the reader will be able to sense a "feel" for the life and people of the Lake.  Perhaps the main objective for the reader would be to obtain a mental portrait of a diverse collection of people and their perceptions about their lives, their land, and their homes, and most certainly, how these people feel they have been treated by their government in the form of the National Park Service.

CHAPTER TWO: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

Some National Parks are born; others are made. Some National Parks, such as Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite are blessed with such stunning and spectacular physical features that they are quickly recognized by a populace as an area necessary for protection and special care. Other areas, less spectacular, owe their creation as National Parks less to readi1.y acknowledged unique landscapes and more to persistent political. action, often within an atmosphere of profound disagreement and controversy. Such origins typify the formation of the Olympic National Park.

As is the case with many large forest lands within the nation, the Olympic Peninsu1.a in the state of Washington possesses many undeniably beautiful scenes; Murky rain forests, high mountains, and herds of elk and other species. Shortly before he left office in 1897, Grover Cleveland set aside 1,500,000 acres of public land in the area to form the Olympic National Forest. In 1909 President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the center portion of this Forest (615,000 acres) as Mount Olympus National Monument, named after the highest mountain on the Peninsula. The Monument was reduced by half during World War I to all-ow for lumbering and mining enterprises. Until 1933, the Monument was administered by the United States Forest Service. At that time, it was transferred to the Department of Interior under the supervision of its Secretary, Harold Ickes. Shortly thereafter, eastern conservationists along with some wilderness advocates in the Pacific Northwest began a campaign for the creation of a National Park on the Olympic Peninsula and they soon had a strong supporter in the person of the Interior Secretary.1

At this point, something should be said about the care the Olympic Peninsula received while it was under the management of the Forest Service and of one of the near-legendary homesteaders and pioneers of the Peninsula, Ranger Chris Morgenroth. Morgenroth was born in Germany in 1871 and came to this country as a very young man. He settled on the Olympic Peninsula near the Bogachiel River area in 1889, the year that the territory of Washington became the state of Washington. After a career which included whaling in the Bering Sea and many other adventures, Chris Morgenroth joined the Forest Service in 1.904. He then began an illustrious career and a life's devotion to the Olympic Peninsula. It was Morgenroth who explored and surveyed much of the area as well as provided many of the placenames for the lakes and mountains in what later became the Olympic National Park. The scenic string of mountains south of Lake Crescent called Aurora Ridge was such an example of Morgenroth's mark on the area. He also developed fire fighting crews, established telephone lines and blazed many of the original trails in the forest. Morgenroth was so respected by the public, the timber industry, and the government that when he attempted to retire in 1924, he was dissuaded from doing so by a wide variety of people. Said one newspaper at the time, "To mention the Olympics without somehow coupling with them the name of Morgenroth will not sound right, somehow." Eventually Chris Morgenroth did retire, in 1927, and started a new phase of his life among the Olympic Mountains. 2

One of the greatest concerns of Chris Morgenroth within the Olympic Forest area was not the trees and lakes, but rather a threatened species of mammal, the Olympic Elk. For years Morgenroth had warned of its declining number and had advocated strong preservation methods for the animal's protection. In October of 1933, shortly after Secretary Ickes assumed control of the Olympic National Monument area of the Peninsula, hunters killed 250 of the rare elk during a four-day open season on Forest Service land adjoining the Monument. This single event coalesced many divergent conservationists on both coasts and the "pro-Park" movement gathered momentum. Chris Morgenroth had already been an advocate of setting aside some of the Olympic Monument area as a National Park in the belief that such an arrangement would best serve the public.3

After Congressman Monrad C. Wallgren, representing the Peninsula, first introduced a bill calling for a "Mount Olympus National Park" in 1935, it soon became apparent to all sides of the question that some sort of National Park would be created in the region. The heated controversy centered on the amount of acreage the Park would encompass and each side had formidable allies. Chris Horgenroth envisioned a "small Park" of a few hundred thousand acres. The Governor of the state of Washington, Clarence Martin, also wanted a "small Park", fearing that much of the region's and state's economy would suffer if too much timber was withdrawn from the sustained-yield harvesting allowed on Forest Service lands. Photographer Asahel Curtis interpreted the National Park Act of 1916 to mean that only the upper ridge of the Olympic Mountains was truly worthy of National Park status. The advocates of a "big" Olympic Park wanted vast areas of National Forest land beyond the boundaries of the nearly 400,000 acres of the Olympic National Monument. Allied on this side were Interior Secretary Ickes, the eastern conservationists, and some supporters in the Pacific Northwest. For

nearly three years Congressman Wallgren kept introducing

bills to create a Park with no success. His bills rose

up and down in the proposed acreage depending on which

side of public opini-on Wallgren fe1.t more strongly.

Finally it was necessary for President Franklin D.

Roosevelt, himself, to enter the fray and forge a

compromise. 4

The President came to the Olympic Peninsula in

the fall of 1937, accompanied by Harold Ickes.

Roosevelt tended to favor the "big Park" proponents and

this fact soon became clear when the President, after

passing by a 1-ogged-over area of National Forest land,

uttered this now-famous quotation, "I hope the lumberman

who is responsible for this is roasting in hell."

In early 1938, Roosevelt met with Governor Martin and

later that spring compromise legislation produced an Act

creating the Olympic National Park. Its initial size

was a slightly large "small Park" of 648,000 acres. To

appease the "big Park" advocates, a cl.ause was inserted

into the law to allow the President to add nearly

250,000 more acres to the Park, but on1.y after serious

consultation with the state of Washington.

5

For the purposes of this report, the most important

item about the 1938 Act which created the Olympic

National Park was that portion of the legislation which

addressed itself to the status of the inholders who

suddenly were living under a new jurisdiction, the

National Park Service. That portion was labeled Section

Five and has become indel-ibly engraved on the minds of

the great majority of inholders of recent years.

Section Five reads as follows:

Nothing herein contained shall

affect any valid existing claim, location or

entry made under the land laws of the United

States, whether for homestead, mineral, rightof-

way, or any other purpose whatsoever, or

shall affect the right of any such claimant,

locator, or entryman to the full use and enjoyment

of his land, nor the rights reserved

by treaty to the Indians of any tribes.

That part of the Act assured inholders that their lots

(which had been purchased prior to the formation of the

National Park) would continue in their possession and the

possession of their heirs for purposes of "homestead"

development, among other uses. The statement Interior

Secretary Ickes made that same year regarding inholdings

was also reassuring. Said Ickes:

Private land within a national park

is no different from private land outside

the park. The owner may do what he likes

with it. He may farm it, cut and sell timber

from it, build and operate a hotel upon it,

sink an oil well, or develop a mine. He has

the legal right of ingress or egress.

Thus began a relationship between a few hundred inholders

located within Olympic Nati-onal Park (the largest

number cf which was centered around Lake Crescent) and

a renowned government agency which probably most

Americans regarded as they did the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, a genuine bureaucratic triumph, a Federal

agency that could do no wrong.

6

For more than a quarter century after the creation

of the Park, relations between inholders and the National

Park Service proceeded along relatively amicably. A

number of inholders owned several lots which were passed

on to heirs or sold to other parties who then built new

structures- on their property, most often in the form of

a second home where a person's family might retreat for

a succession of delightful summers. Other lots had been

unimproved in 1938, but many of these were later developed,

normally not commercially, but rather along the lines

just described. The most significant occurrence which

happened in the Olympic National Park during this time

was that Presidents Roosevelt and Truman expanded the

size of the Park to nearly 900,000 acres, almost the

maximum allowed by the original Act, and an area larger

than the state of Rhode Island. These new areas included

the rain forests of the Bogachiel River, the Hoh and

Queets River valleys, and a strip of land along the

Pacific Ocean. In the end, then, the "big Park" advocates

of the 1930s, who had fought against Chris Norgenroth,

Washington Governor Clarence Martin, and the state's

leading industry, timber, won the battle over the size

of the ONP.

In 1965 Congress passed an Act which has since

drastically altered the uneasy balance between inholder

and public land policy. This Act was the Land and Water

Conservation Act which garnered revenue from off-shore

oil leases and other tax sources strictly for the purpose

of land purchase by the National Park Service, the

Forest Service, and the National Fish and Wildlife

Service. These funds have proven to be an immense windfall

of billions of dollars for a fairly narrow purpose

of governmental activity. Prior to 1965, National Park

officials may only have wished to acquire more lands

whereas after 1965, the NPS and other agencies obtained

the means to acquire land through a bountiful supply of

funds. Following the Land and Water Conservation Act,

each National Park began to re-evaluate its position on

land acquisition and the Olympic National. Park was no

exception. Since the mid-1960s, the ONP has gone

through cycles of wildly shifting NPS policies on development

and land acqui.sition which have directly affected

all inholders. While these changes in policy and

regulation were for the entire Park, for the purpose of

this report, the reactions of the inholders to those NPS

changes will be confined to the Lake Crescent and Elwha

River valley area for the remainder of this chapter

and all of the next one.

In July of 1966, Olympic National Park Superintendant

Bennett Gale issued a rulemaking proposal for

the Park which would impose a one year moratorium on all

construction by inholders on their land, both unimproved

lots and lots already bui1.t upon. This was the first

time in the history of the ONP that the National Park

Service proposed to prohibit the rights of the property

owners to change their land and its usage. The reason

Superintendent Gale gave for suspending all development

was so the Park administration might have time to develop

a "comprehensive ].and use management plan." In

accordance with law, the Superintendent issued the proposed

rule change in the Federal Register that summer for

the purpose of collecting public comment prior to the

final rule changes anticipated for January of 1967.

Gale stressed that al.1 he was proposing was a temporary

halt to construction and assured inholders with the

following statement:

The main purpose of the moratorium

is to maintain the status quo on land

use along the Lake (Crescent) until a

new set of zoning regulations can be

composed and put into law. . .

Nobody who has private property on

Lake Crescent has anything to fear!

We're simply trying to maintain park

values.,.There is no effort from the

Department of Interior to preclude

residential use of the land.

Bennett Gale also gave essentially the same assurance to

Congressman Lloyd Meeds whose district en.compassed Lake

Crescent and the rest of the Park. Gale wrote to Meeds

that summer, "...there is no intent to deprive any

owner of reasonable use of his property." Despite these

assurances, though, many inholders were alarmed at the

thought that the NPS, after 25 years as a good neighbor,

might now be dictating what a person could do with

his or her property. Some inholders had planned small

additions to their homes while others anticipated

building on their unimproved lots. The comments the

Park Service received in 1966 were not numerous, but

they were intense. One of the earliest inholders to

protest the Park change in policy was James Flaherty

who had a second home on Lake Crescent with his family.

Flaherty was the editor-publisher of the Seattle weekly

newspapers, the -B---e---a---c---o---n) Hill News the South District

Journal and the Capitol Hill News. Another inholder -------) -- --------------

who protested against the NPS in 1.966 was Jack Del Guzzi

who had a construction business. After the vehemence

and letter-writing had subsided, the Park Service retreated

from its moratorium proposal and a "comprehensive

land use management plan" did not emerge from,

this initial controversy. The final. rule which came

forth inDecember of 1966 only contained a vaguelyworded

prohibition against subdivision of lots. Most

lots along Lake Crescent had been formed or sold with a

minimum of 50 feet of lakeshore frontage, the key factor

in determining land val-ue, not total acreage. There

had been some instances of subdivision within the Park

prior to 1966 and these occurred without any protestations

from the Park Service. Some inholders had

subdivided large parcels of land into residential lots.

Others had subdivided their land among their heirs who,

in turn, built homes, thus causing an occasional small

cluster of relatively "dense" construction (Photo 4).

The legality of whether the NPS could prohibit subdivision

without new Congressional authority is still

at issue within the Park, 7

In the late 1960s, equipped with LWC funds, most

National Parks instituted an "Opportunity Purchase

Program" which meant that the NPS would offer to buy

inholdings in a willing-seller basis. There were few

o'bjections in principle, to this increased purchase

activity of the Park Service, except on those occasions

when the NPS too aggressively pursued the willing seller.

As the 1970s wore on, however, NPS policies and ONP

administrative changes brought even greater anxiety to

the inholders around Lake Crescent and the Elwha River.

In 1973 the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest

Service, and other sources proposed to set aside much

of the Olympic Park and surrounding National Forest

Land and designate it as a Wilderness area under the

provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. A Wilderness

area was defined as totally natural, having no

species of plant or animal which was not original to

the area as well as having no evidence of a man-made

environment such as trails, roads, shelters or

campgrounds. Obviously, for that part of the ONP near

Lake Crescent, in addition to ridding the land of inholders,

this would have entailed "returninR to nature"

U , S . Highway 101 which ran along one side of the Lake

and was a vital link to market for the lumbering

industry outside the Park's boundary. These Wilderness

proposals were largely ignored by Congress; rarely did

they get beyond the sub-committee stage of the legislative

path. What made the Wilderness sugges~ion important,

though, was that it brought together a group of

highly individualistic property holders around Lake

Crescent into a unified, unique, and surprisingly effective

organization called the Friends of Lake Crescent.

What made the group unique was that it was one of

the first organizations of inholders in the country.

The Friends of Lake Crescent (or F.0.L.C) was formed in

the fall of 1973 at the height of the Wilderness controversy

in the ONP and shortly after the first condemnations

had been issued in the Park against Ray Green, Ernie

Lackman, and Harold Sission (which will be discussed in

the next chapter), She F.O.L.C. was organized largely

5

by the previously mentioned Jim Flaherty and Don Jones,

a retired rear admiral from the U.S. Coast Guard and

Geodetic Survey. Jones was the first informal "chairman"

of the group while Flaherty became the first President of

F.O.L.C. the following year. Even though, by late

,,~PS

1974, after it apparent that little of the ONP would be

4

designated as Wilderness, the Friends of Lake Crescent

continued to function as an ongoing organization with a

vigilant eye on NPS policy as it affected their lives

on their land. Dues were collected; a newsletter was

published on a semi-regular basis; county court records

and tax assessments were examined; and within two or three

years after its inception, virtually every one of the

approximately 150 inholders around Lake Crescent had

joined F.O.L.C.

8

In the spring of 1977, Olympic National Park

Superintendent Roger Allin retired and was replaced by

James Coleman. Allin had endured a rather controversial

tenure as Park chief, at least in his relations with inholders.

Particularly controversial. was the Land Acquisition

Office of the Park Service, also located in Port

Angeles, but in a separate building. In the ten years

since Superintendent Gale's initial moratorium proposal

in 1966, the LAO had spent over $3,400,000 in acquiring

land in the ONP. This figure was strictly for the part $.

of the Park in Clallam county and does not reflect the

land purchased in the ONP near Lake Ozette and ShiShi

Beach. The LAO often seemed to function independently

from the Superintendent and some of the specific

practices of the LAO will be discussed in the next

chapter in the individual case studies of inholders.

'5 w&&a

The arrival of Jim Coleman in the Park seemed to

A

bring forth a new spirit of goodwill and cooperation

between the inholders and the ONP administration. Whatever

hope there was for smooth sailing, however, was

short-lived with the issuance of a stunning proclamation

from NPS headquarters in Washington, D.C. that fall.

In September of 1977 the newly-appointed Director of the

entire National Park Service, William Whalen, issued a

revised land acquisition pol-icy for all areas of the NPS

system and directed at all inhol-dings which (1) prohibited

alterations to one's home such as the additi.on of a bathroom

or bedroom (2) prohibited any development of

construction whatsoever on unimproved inholdings (3)

permitted minor alterations to already improved land

(such as a tool shed) only after consultation with the

Park Service (4) prohibited inholders from selling their

land to anyone other than the Park Service and (5) increased

the intent to acquire by condemnation inholdings

with "incompatible" uses (such as an inholding which

violated rules (1) or (2) above. Dkrectoz Whalenls dictum

was a major shift in Park policy which Lhe NPS tended to

dismiss as a more "clearly defined" administrative procedure.

Even more astounding, the Park Service made the

change without any public hearings. The NPS justified

this action by saying that the revised policy did not

warrant public hearings, or, as NPS public information

officer, Duncan Morrow, stated, "...in no one park is

it a major question involving large numbers of people."

Though their numbers may have been relatively small,

the revised land acquisition policy touched off a storm

of protest among the Friends of Lake Crescent as well

as among inholders all over the nation. 9

According to Willi-am Whalen, the origin of the

revised land acquisition pol-icy of September 1977 began

that summer when Congressman Phil Burton of California,

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks and

Insular Affairs, visited Grand Teton National Park in

the state of Wyoming. Burton became concerned with what

he viewed as recent incompatible developments within

the Park and requested that the Park Service make a determination

as to how to prevent such devel.opments from

occurring in the future. Despite Whalen's proclamation,

though, Congressman Burton obviously felt that even

sterner measures were necessary to stop the threat to

the nation's Parks as he perceived it. Only one month

after the NPS Director sparked the agency's greatest

conflagration with the country's inholders, Burton added

more fuel to the fire by adding an amendment, labeled

Title 111, to a minor House bill ostensibly concerned

with protection of a river in Georgia. Title I11 directed

the NPS to acquire all inholdings throughout the

country within four years! This momentous bill (H.R.

8336) was amended with the addition of Title I11 without

public hearings and, coupled with the revised land acquisition

policy, provoked a vi.gorous nationwide reaction

from inholders and their allies which carried the debate

well into 1978 and 1979. 10

The inholders of the Olympic National Park reacted

quickly to these major changes in policy at the national

level. Some F.O.L.C. members considered withholding

their property taxes from Clallam county as a protest,

but the vast majority of them took part in a massive

letter writing campaign which, most importantly, helped

garner the necessary political support to combat the

National Park Service. Don Bonker, the Congressman whose

district contained Lake Crescent and much of the ONP, was

one of the earliest political figures to speak out

against Whalen's policy, calling it "an example of bureaucratic

insensitivity at its worst." Ry the spring of

1978, the two Senators from the state of Washington and

two of the most powerful in the U.S. Senate, -Henry

Jackson and Warren Magnuson, were in opposition to the

severe changes envisioned by the NPS. Although less

vocal on the issue, Jackson said that he opposed the use

of any condemnations in the ONP, according to political

.sources within the state of Washington such as State

Senator Paul Conner. More crucial was the work of

Warren Magnuson who deleted Congressman Burton's amendment,

Title 111, from H.R. 8336 when it came to the

Senate for consideration. Washington Governor Dixy Lee

Kay wrote to Director Whalen protesting his 1977 policy.

The Governor stated that it violated the Olympic National

Park Master Plan of 1976 which clearly stated that, as

long as inhol-ders continued to use their land for the

construction and improvement of homesites, no acquisitions

by the NPS would be considered. 11

Also, in the spring of 1978, it! appeared that the

Park Service, itself, was having second thoughts about

some of the parts of its new policy toward inholders.

The House Appropriations Committee asked the NPS that it

not prohibit alterations to existing structures. Due

to the widespread outcry, the Park Service also said

that it would suspend implementation of its new pol-icies

until after public hearings were held in the fall.. Those

public hearings, held in September of 1978, did little to

assuage the Friends of Lake Crescent. The members received

notice on August 29 for a hearing scheduled for

September 8 in Seattle. The NPS also stated that it

intended to have a fully developed policy statement by

October 1. Presumably, this would have meant sifting

through and analysing the hundreds of public statements

given throughout the country in only two weeks, a task

which the Park Service did not accomplish. Despite the

short notice, the F.O.L.C. was able to assemble over

100 of its members and concerned friends to testify, on

a weekday, before the Park Service. Hearings were also

held in Washington D.C., and the F.O.L.C. sent Dr. Bill

Gray and Helen Radke to give statements in the nation's

capital. There they met inholders from all parts of the

nation and discovered, to their surprise, the great extent

of protest against the Park Service and the enormity

of anxiety over a people's concern with the fundamental

rights of home and property.

In March of 1979,NPSDirector Whalen announced that

his agency had scrapped some of the 1977 changes and was

devising a more lenient and reasonable policy for inholders.

Later that spring, he admitted that it was a

"horrible mistake" to attempt such a major shift in

policy without public input. This was not a total retreat

on the part of the Park Service, though, because

when the "new" revised land acquisition policy was unveiled

that spring, it stil.1 contained some of the major

objections of the inholders as far as restricting their

right to improve their homesites. The NPS still

prohibited development on unimproved land, but did

allow major alterations to existing homes and structures.

Public participation would be sought in each

locality as part of the NPS policy implementation.

In fact, the Park Service recognized the need for greater

de-centralization of pol-icy in April of 1979, allowing

each Park the flexibility to formulate local master plans

within general Park Service guidelines. One other vexing

rule which still remained from 1977 was that inholders

could not sell their'property to anyone outside their

immediate family other than the NPS. In other words,

as William Whalen said in a tumultuous meeting on his

first visit to the Olympic National Park that summer,

"You can pass your property within your family, but if

we catch you trying to sell it to someone else other than

the Park Service, we'll condemn it." What was especial-ly

galling to inholders about this regulation was that the

Park Service defined "heirs" in a very narrow sense,

unlike any reasonable probate statute, excluding such

relations as nephews and nieces.

The aforementioned trip of Director Whalen to the

Olympic Peninsula occurred shortly after ONP Superintendent

Coleman was promoted and transferred to Pennsylvania,

much to the regret of many inholders. Coleman had enjoyed

a warm and friendly relationship with many of the

Friends of Lake Crescent despite the fact that he was

called upon to implement the Whalen policies. There

was some speculation among the local populace that

Jim Coleman had been transferred out of the area because

he had shown too much sympathy and understanding

with the plight of the inholders, but the former

Superintendent denied to this author that he was transferred

for that reason. Thus, coupled with his only

slightly less restrictive new policy, Whalen entered

the ONP in a highly charged atmosphere. There was

additional speculation that the Park Director had been

forced to come and meet with 01-ympic inholders due to

the political demands pl-aced upon him and the Carter

Administration from Senators Jackson and Magnuson, but

this supposition cannot be proven. After one very

acrimonious meeting, Whalen and the Friends of Lake

Crescent met on a more calm plane. One result of the

Director's visit to the Northwest was that, after listening

to all of the complaints about actions of the

local Land Acquisition Office, he said that he would

remove the LAO from Port Angeles, a move which was

accomplished by the successor of Jim Coleman, Superintendent

Roger Contor. Despite this action, though,

the Whalen visit left the inholders of the ONP still

angry, afraid, and uncertain as to what they might

specifically do with their homes without the very real

threat of condemnation bearing down on their lives.

12

According to the revised land acquisition policy

presentdd in April af 1979, Interior Secretary Andrus

directed the National Park Service to direct each Park

to prepare a master plan for acquisition, after the

appropriate draft stages and public participation. Despite

Director Whalen's pronouncements that spring,

this plan did much to relieve the heated protestations

which were being directed at the NPS. In effect, the

agency reversed itsel., somewhat, and defused the controversy

at the national level by requesting that each

Park prepare its own individual approach to land acquisition.

The new ONP Superintendent, Roger Contor,

accordingly prepared a draft plan that fall, received

public comment, and in March of 1980 unveiled the current

land acquisition plan for the Olympic National

Park. In it, inholders would not be prohibited from

alterations and improvements on their homes such as

additional rooms; the Park Service would continue to

purchase land on a willing-seller basis, but an inholder

could gel1 to whomever he or she wished; and on

unimproved "tracts" no development would be permitted

with the exception of 20 inholders, who owned unimproved

parcels, out of approximately 32, along Lake Crescent.

These specifical1.y selected inholders would be permitted

to build their homes on their unimproved lots anytime

within the next five years. Also, the new master plan

toned down the possible use of condemnations in the

ONP. Condemnations would now (1) result only when serious

environmental damage was being done (2) be handled

only on a case-by-case basis; in other words, a

serious incompatibility need not be uniform for all

areas and ( 3 ) require specific approval from the

Congressional Appropriations Committee. In some ways,

then, this was a further retreat by the NPS from the

shocking measures proposed for land acquisition in the

fall of 1977, but there was a new wrinkle in the scheme

for the Friends of Lake Crescent. Within the past year,

the Park Service at the ONP had instituted a new terminology,

cructial to the future of inholdings. Most

inholdings were obtained in lots of a minimum of 50

feet of Lake frontage. These were deeded as lots,

had always been taxed by the county as lots, and had

been bought and sold separately as lots. The new

change of the NPS in the Park has been to lump all

single ownerships of land into "tracts" whether the

inholder has one 50-foot lot or four. Furthermore, in

doing this, the Park now insists on a policy of "one

tract, one house." For those inholders who owned

several lots and who had been intending to give such

lots to their sons and daughters so that their progeny

also might enjoy the beauty of living on Lake Crecent,

this new semantic switch from lots to tracts shattered

that dream.

In the following chapter, the reader will meet a

large sampling of the Friends of Lake Crescent and a

few inholders of the Elwha valley region. Each will.

present a different story and may provide additional

details to the brief history just presented. General

impressions and feelings of the inholders regarding

their land and its relationship to their lives will,

hopefully, come forth as will specifi-c instances of

inholder grievances against the Park Service, a neighbor

with whom inholders have lived for over forty

years. 1 3 .

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO

1 Interview with Robert Ficken, Historian, Forest

History Society, September 18, 1980; Elmo Richardson,

"Olympic National Park: Twenty Years of Controversy,"

-F-or-e-s-t- -H-i--s-t-o-ry , April, 1968, p. 4.

*~etter from Herbert Evison, Secretary, The

Washington Natural Parks Association, to George H.

Cecil, District Forester, U. S. Forest Service,

July 7, 1924; Interview with Kay Flaherty, September

22-24, 1980; Letter from Chris Norgenroth, U.S.

Forest Service, to R. L. Fromme, Forest Supervisor,

Olympic National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, June 1,

1924; Interview with John and Mary Morgenroth,

September 23 and 24, 1980; "The Olympic Howler" (unpublished

newsletter of the Olympic National Forest),

january 1, 1927, Vol. 1, No. 7-; -P-o-r-t- A-n-g e--l-e-s- -E-v-e-n-i-n g

News, June 30, 1924, (clipping - pagination unavailable); --A- Ibid, July 10, 1924, (clipping - pagination unavailable);

Telegram from Theodore Rixon, Agent, Clallam Lumber

Co., to R. L. Fromme, June 30, 1924.

3~laherty interview; Chris Morgenroth, "Olympic

or Roosevelt Elk," W.e..s.t.e.r.n.. .O.u.t.-.o..f.-.D.o.o rs , May 1922,

pp. 133-135; P-o-r-t- -A-n-g -e-le-s- -E-v-e-n-i-n-g - N -e- - 3w s January 15, 1935,

(clipping - pagination unavailableJ; Richardson,

-l- o- c- .- - c-i -t .

4~icken interview; Flaherty interview; Richardson,

pp. 7-12.

'~icken interview; Olympi-c- -N-a-t-i-o-n-a-l- -P-a-r-k- -E-s-t ab.

l.i.s.h.m..e.n.t. .S..t.a.t.u.t..e.s. .a.t. ~ a r ~ LeI,I, 1243.-1242, 1454 Ti-938);

Richardson, pp. 10-12.

'F-'-r-i-e-n-d-s- ---o-f-- -L-a--k-e- --C-r-e-s--c-e-n--t- -N--e,w sletter March 6,

1980, p. 4; -O-l y-m ~..i.c.N. a..t.i.o.n.a..l. .P.a.r..k. .E.s..t.a.b.l.i..s hment, 1242.

-o-f- -L-a

Morge

28, 1

p. 1;

unava

'~icken

ke Cresc ------A- nroth in

966, p.

Ibid.,

i TZLTe ) ;

interview; Flaherty interview

-e-n-t- -N-e-w-s-l-e-t-t-e-r , arch 6, 1980,

terview; Port Angeles -----A-w----- Chronic1

1; Port A n g-e-l- e e v e n i n g- N-e-w-s- ,

November 23, 196c,-cc?lipping -

.Statement of Helen Radke befo

; F-r- i- e- n- d- s-

l o--c-. --ci--t -. :

-e- , July

July 7, 196

pagination

re a public

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO (Cont'd)

hearing on National Park Service land acquisition

policies, Seattle, Washington, September 8, 1978;

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service,

"Olympic Natonal Park Temporary Land Use Regulation,"

-F-e-d-e-r-al- --R-e g-i-s-t-er , XXXI, No. 130, June 30, 1966, 9278-

9279; U.S. Department of Interior, National Park

Service, "Proposed Rulemaking," -I-b-i-d ., XXXI, No. 242,

December 15, 1966, 15804.

'statement of Kay Flaherty before a public

hearing on the Wilderness proposal for the Olympic

National Park Port Angeles, Washington, November 3,

1973;Fri;end.so f Lake Crescent, Minutes of Meeting of

November 1, 1973; Letter from Senator Henry Jackson

to the Friends of Lake Crescent, November 29, 1974;

Interview with Don and Francie Jones, September 28,

1980; .S.o.u.t.h.. .D.i.s.t..r.i.c.t. ..J.o.u.r nal., October 4, 1973, p. 1;

-I-b-i-d ., October 11, 1973, p. 1; Ibid., October 1.8, 1973,

p. 1; I-b-i--d ., October 25, 1973, p. 1.

'~etter from James Coleman, Super intenden t,

Olympic National Park, National Park Service, to all

Olympic National Park property owners, October 4, 1977;

P-o-r-t- -A-% el-e-s- ----C-h--r-o-n-i-,c le January 18, 1978, p. 1; Port

-A seles Daily- -N-e ws, October 12, 1977, p. 1 Ibid.,

April 13, 1979, -(clipping - pagination unavailable);

-I-b-i-d ., May 3, 1979, p. 4; Interview wi-th Fred and Helen

Radke, September 26, 1980; Memorandum from William

Whalen, Director, National Park Service, to Directorates,

Field Directorates, and Division Chiefs, September 14,

1977; Letter, with attachment, from William Whalen to

Senator Warren Magnuson, November 15, 1977.

'O.~.r.i.e..n.d.s. .o.f. ..L.a.k.e. ..C.r.e.s.c.e..n.t. .N.e..w.s letter , June, 1978 ;

Port Angeles Daily- -N-e-w-s , October 26, 1977, 7cl ipping -

pagination unavailable); Whalen letter to Magnuson.

l1J?laherty interview; Letter from Senator Warren

Magnuson to Jim Flaherty, June 1.3, 1978; Port Angeles

-D-a-i-l y- -N-e-w-s , October 1.2, 1977, p. 1; Ibid., October 28,

1977, p* 1; Ibid., April 26, 1978, (clipping - pagination

unavailable); Letter from Governor Dixy Lee Ray

to William WhaLen October 20, 1978.

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO (Cont'd)

121nterview with James Coleman, Regional

Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, National Park Service,

October 7, 1980; Interview with Roger Contor,

Superintendent, Olympic National. Park, National Park

Service, September 26, 1980; Friends of Lake Crescent,

Minutes of Board Meeting, August 16, 1979; F-r-i-e-n-d-s.

o.f. ..L.a.k.e. ..C.r.e.s.c..e.n.t. .N..e.w.s.l.e tter, June, 1978; Statement of

Dr. Bill Gray before a public hearing on National Park

Service land acquisition policies, Seattle, Washington,

September 8, 1978; Interview with Harold and Wilda

ird

19

vem

dke

19

gin

nte

, P

ion

tember . 1; I

9, 197

inatio

1979 (

rview; . A10;

unava

25, 1980; P-o-r-t- -A-n xe----l---------e-Y s Chronicle May

-b-i-d ., June 21, 1978, pp. 1 and 3; I-b-i--d .,

8, Po 1; -I-b-i-d ., July 11, 1979, (clipn

unavailable); P-o r-t- - -A -n g e--l e -s- - D- a- i- l -N-e-w-s-,

clipping - pagination unavail abl&,

-S-ea-t-t-l-e- --p -o-s-t- --~-n-t- e-l-l i~gence, r September

-I-bi-d-. , March 21, 1979,-~~~ippingilable).

13contor interview; Letter from Roger Contor to

Olympic Natonal Park landowners, December 5, 1979;

Memorandum from Roger Contor for general distribution,

February 20, 1980; -P- o- r- t- - A -ng el-e-s- D-a-i-l- y- N--e-w-s , June 18, 1980,

p. 9; I-b-i-d ., June 30, 1980,--(clipping - pagination unavailable7;

U. S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, Land ~ c ~-u--i--s-i--t-i--oP-n-lL a-n- Olympi-c- -N-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-

-P-a-r-k , March, 1980 (Port Angeles, Washington: Prepared

by the Oly- mp- ic National Park Office, 1980), pp. 1-7;

U-.s. Department of Interior, National Park sekvice,

"Revised Land Acquisition Policy ," F-e- d- e- r- a- l- -R- e xi-s- t- e- r- ,

XLIV, No. 82, April 26, 1979, 24790-24798.

CHAPTER THREE: SOME FRIENDS OF LAKE CRESCENT AND SOME

INHOLDERS OF THE ELWHA RIVER VALLEY

-J-o-h-n- -a-n-d- -M ary- -M-o-r g-e-n-r-o-t-h- (Photo 5)

John Morgenroth is the son of Chris Morgenroth

and Lives in the house built by the famous ranger in

the late 1920s (Photo 6). About three years ago he

retired from his job as a longshoreman in Seattle and

moved to Lake Crescent with his wife, Mary, to become

one of the approximately 20 year-round residents of

the Lake. In fact, during the winter months, the

Morgenroths are the on1.y full-time residents at Barnes

Cove (Photos 7 and 8 ) , an area on the south shore,

shaded by Aurora Ridge, and one of the first areas of

settlement on the Lake. John Morgenroth feels that

the inholders are an essential part of the Lake and he

resents an earlier (and incorrect) perception of inholders

as "squatters" who had no 1-egal right to their

land. He has often assisted tourists in the Park and

one spring he rescued two young Forest Service employees

whose boat had capsized in the occasionally swift and

dangerous Barnes Cove current. Had Morgenroth not been

there at his residence, the USFS workers probably

would have drowned. John Morgenroth said that he has

never experienced any adverse relationship with any of

the Park rangers; in fact, he singled out his District

ranger of the past several years, Dick Thomas, as a

decent and friendly person. Nonetheless, the recent

rulings of the Park Service regarding what he can and

cannot do with his home have made him "constantly on

edge," or, as he described the NPS of recent years,

"They're a good neighbor, but a hell of an enemy."

He has only done interior work on his house recently,

but he may wish to add on sometime later. When his

children and grandchildren visit, it makes for a

total of four generations of Morgenroths who have

stayed at Barnes Cove.

John, along with his wife and sister, Kay, took

this researcher on his small motorboat on a tour of

the north shore of Lake Crescent. He pointed out where

several former tourist resorts used to be on the lakeshore,

such as Ovington Resort (photo 9) and Bonnie

Brae Resort (Photo 10). He said there used to be over

ten resorts on the Lake, but now that number has shrunk

to two or three as the Park Service has bought out

most of the resorts and destroyed them, letting the

land return to a more natural setting or replacing the

former resort sites with picnic tables. If the Park

Service is truly concerned with tourists in the

Olympic Natonal Park, John Morgenroth wonders why the

agency has made Lake Crescent less accessible and less

habitable for the average tourist. There are fewer

places to eat and fewer places to stay overnight for

tourists than at any time in the Lake's history. Reiterating

his distress over the recent fluctuations

in Park policy, Morgenroth said, "They're depriving me

of the big reason I'm here - tranquility."'

Betty Hooper is a registered nurse who lives

most of the year in Seattle, but shares her house

next to the Morgenroths in the summer months with her

two other sisters and their families. She confirmed

much of what John Morwe r ot11 said about the value of

the presence of inholders at the Lake. Her children

rescued some would-be drowning victims nearly ten years

ago. During the winter months, she said, it is even

more crucial that some inholders are at the Lake to

watch over and protect it as all seasonal rangers have

departed by the off-season. One winter her husband,

Bill, noticed some men stuffing a deer, which they

apparently had shot from the highway, into the trunk

of their car. He took down the license plate, called

his neighbor, Francie Jones, who had a telephone; and,

that night, the two men and their wives were arrested

in Tacoma for poaching in a National. Park. Betty

Hooper feels that inholders definitely assist the Park

Service in its job and that to eventually rid the Lake

of all inholdings, which apparently the NPS wants to

do in time, means that Lake Crescent will lose much

of its protection.

Don and Francie Jones

As the first "chairman" of the Friends of Lake

Crescent, Don Jones occupies a special position within

the history of the Park. He retired in the spring of

1972 after a 39-year distinguished career in the U.S.

Coast Guard and Geodetic Survey, finishing with the

rank of rear admiral. At that point, he and his wife

began coming to Lake Crescent on a more regular basis.

Technically, Jones was not an inholder, but hi.s wife,

Francie, was. Her grandfather had owned a considerable

amount of land around the Lake. Much of it was near

the Lyre River Cove area, but he also had eight lots

along Barnes Cove which were divided between his two

granddaughters. Francie thus inherited four lots

with a 50-year old cabin resting on the border of two

of them. The Joneses refurbished the cabin and planned

to spend many of their summers there when events of the

early 1970s in the ONP began to cause them great

concern. The Wilderness proposal and the condemnations

brought against Harold Sisson, Ray Green, and Ernie

Lackman (which will be discussed next) fomented a lot

of anxiety around Lake Crescent, or, as Don Jones recalled,

"People were getting frightened." Before Jones

and the late Jim Flaherty went to hearings in Aberdeen

and Port Angeles in opposition to the Wilderness bill,

the Friends of Lake Crescent was formed, a remarkable

administrative feat for a collection of highly individual

and somewhat skeptical inholders. Because he was

not a property owner, Jones did not want to be a strong

chairman of F.O.L.C. for fear of being accused as an

"outsider" by others. Even though his leadership has

declined in F.O.L.C. since the inception of the organization,

Don Jones still feels strongly that what the

Park Service has done in the ONP is wrong. His Survey

career included charting the Beaufort Sea, above the

north coast of Alaska, and the headwaters of the Blue

Nile in Ethiopia, and he stated that the "taxpayer came

first." Whenever his government work required him to

place a geodetic marker on private property, in no matter

what setting, Jones said, "We did everything we

could to satisfy the customer...but I have not seen

this with the National Park Service." Both Don and

Francie feel that lawsuits may be the only answer to

clearing the dispute between inholder and the NPS over

land use. Since government workers can be sued

-i -nd-i - v- i- d- ua-l - l y, Francie said then, "Maybe some of these

people will be as frightened as we feel."

-E-r-n-i-e- -L-a-c-k-m-a-n- -a-n-d- -R g--G -r-e-en ( P h o t o 1 1 )

The s t o r y of E r n i e Lackman and Ray Green i s

l o n g and r a t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d , b u t v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t

b e c a u s e i t marked t h e f i r s t u s e of condemnation by t h e

Park S e r v i c e a g a i n s t an i n h o l d e r . Ray Green and E r n i e

Lackman and t h e i r wives were s m a l l b u s i n e s s m e n w i t h a

wide v a r i e t y of b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s , i n c l u d i n g i - n t e r e s t s

i n g a s s t a t i o n s , working i n a r e t a i l s t o r e , and o n l y a

p a r t of which o c c a s i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d b u y i n g and s e l l i n g

l a n d . B o t h G r e e n a n d Lackman had p r e v i o u s l y s o l d l a n d

t o t h e NPS and b o t h had owned l a n d i n t h e r e g i o n n e a r

Lake C r e s c e n t c a l l e d A r c a d i a which t h e y had s u b- d i v i d e d

and d e v e l o p e d i n t h e mid and l a t e 1 9 6 0 s . A t no time

d u r i n g t h i s , were t h e y e v e r b o t h e r e d o r c r i t i c i z e d by

t h e Park S e r v i c e . I n t h e e a r l y 1970s Green a n d Lackman

w e r e co- owners of 3 . 7 4 a c r e s o f f N o r t h S h o r e Road on

Lake C r e s c e n t . T h i s l a n d was e x t r e m e l y s t e e p and d i d

n o t h a v e a n y -Lake f r o n t a g e t o i t a s Ray and E r n i e had

s o l d o f f t h e l a k e s h o r e p o r t i o n of i t y e a r s e a r l i e r .

S i n c e t h e y were b o t h a p p r o a c h i n g r e t i r e m e n t a g e , t h e y

wanted t h i s l a n d f o r t h e i r own r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e , n o t

t o s e l l . Ray Green and E r n i e Lackman had p l a n n e d t o

u s e t h e p a r c e l a s t h e i r own p r i v a t e camping a r e a w i t h

t h e l a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y of a s m a l l c a b i n .

Adjoining their land, was a larger lot owned by

a man named Harold Sisson. Sisson was an acquaintance

of the pair, not a friend. Lackman had known Sisson

from the times he had come to the store where he was

working. Both plots were so steep that Sisson and

Green and Lackman agreed to a mutual easment whereby

construction of a "swi.tchback" type road was initiated

into the steep landscape which crossed both pieces of

property. This zigzag road was the only possible entry

onto their land from North Shore Road, and even then,

only vehicles with four-wheel-drive were able to proceed

on the road.

In 1970, a land acquisition officer from the Parlc

had offered Green and Lackman slightly less than $2000

for their land, a price Ernie Lackman considered far

too low. From then until late 1972, the LAO made little

further attempts to purchase the property, but after

the construction of the "switchback" road was begun the

Park Service became alarmed that a potential subdivision

and extensive development was being planned by both

Sisson and Green and Lackman. Sisson, in particular,

seemed to be a target of the Park Service. l-le was a

logger and was rumored to have done some selective

logging on his inholding. The road that Sisson and

Green-Lackman granted each other through mutual easement

was visible from Lake Crescent and on December 8, 1972

ONP Superintendent Roger All-in recommended to his

supervisor, Regional Director John Rutter that condemnations

in the form of Declarations of Taking be fil-ed

against the three men. In his letter to Rutter, Allin

said that the NPS "has been trying for almost two

years to purchase these tracts," and added, "There is

I

no doubt the owners intend to sel.1 view lots." A

Declaration of Taking is the most severe form of condem-.

nation available to the government in its arsenal of

eminent domain. A DT grants title to the government

immediately and normally evicts the former owner within

20 to 90 days. The only issue normally decided in the

trial following a DT is whether or not the government's

estimate of the property is truly just compensation

for the former owner. In a normal. condemnation proceeding,

the landowner retains title to the property until

after all litigation is over and the determination of

just compensation is made at the time of trial, whereas,

in a Declarationof Taking, the determination of award

is based upon the time of the Taking. Ray Green and

Ernie Lackman had no idea at this time that such drastic

action was being directed at their land. Five days

later, on December 13, 1972, an incident occurred which

Green and Lackman feel sealed their fate as inholders

on Lake Crescent. Superintendent Allin and Harold

Sisson had a physical altercation.

Ray Green, who witnessed the incident, offered

the following description. He and Harold Sisson had

driven up on North Shore Road near their "switchback"

road and noticed Roger Allin and some other Park Service

employees. They stopped and Allin came over to their

pickup truck and alleged that Sisson had been trespassing

on NPS property and had left debris on North

Shore Road due to their construction of the "switchback1'

road. Sisson denied the charge of trespassing, saying

that he had done a survey and then he asked the NPS if

they had surveyed. Allin said no, but added something

to the effect, "You can bet we will." Sisson replied,

"You can do as you God damn well please!" and proceeded

to get out of his truck. Allin then grabbed Sisson by

his collar and shoved him against the truck. Sisson

did not resist or fight back and the two men quickly

calmed down shook hands, and proceeded to discuss

their differences in a more rational manner. The Park

Service employees present gave a somewhat different

account than Green's, emphasizing that Sisson uttered a

long barrage of profanity. No one denied that Superintendent

Allin grabbed Sisson. Despite the fact that

he had initiated condemnation proceedings against

Sisson, Allin concluded the encounter by saying that he

would give Sisgon 90 days in which to work out an agreeable

solution with the Park Service regarding his land.

The months p a s s e d and Ray Green and E r n i e

Lackman s t i l l had no i d e a t h a t t h e i r s m a l l p l o t of

l a n d w i t h o u t l a k e s h o r e f r o n t a g e was b e i n g t a r g e t e d f o r

c o n d e m n a t i o n . Then, i n March of 1 9 7 3 , t h e Greens and

t h e Lackmans r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r w a r n i n g them " t h a t t h e

Government i s g i v i n g s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e a cq

u i s i t i o n of t h i s p r o p e r t y t h r o u g h eminent domain."

Lackman and h i s p a r t n e r were s t u n n e d by t h i s a c t i o n .

E s p e c i a l l y t r o u b l i n g was t h e way t h e y were l i n k e d w i t h

H a r o l d S i s s o n a s p l a n n i n g some s o r t of j o i n t commercial

v e n t u r e . A few days l a t e r , t h e Greens and Lackmans r e -

c e i v e d t h e D e c l a r a t i o n s of Taking and t h e i r l a n d was

t a k e n by t h e Park S e r v i c e . I m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h i s ,

Lackman s a i d t h e C h i e f Ranger of t h e ONP came t o him

and d e s c r i b e . d A l l i n a s a " t e r r i b l e " Supe r i n t e n d e n t ,

s a y i n g t h a t A l l i n had once t h r e a t e n e d him w i t h b o d i l y

harm. Then a n o t h e r f u l l - t i m e r a n g e r came t o Lackman

and s u g g e s t e d t h a t he c a l l t h e FBI o r t h e U . S . A t t o r n e y ' s

O f f i c e a b o u t p o s s i b l y f i l i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t A l l i n .

Then -a- n- o- t- h- e- r d i f f e r e n t r a n g e r came t o Lackman and s a i d

t h a t t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t had d i v e r t e d f u n d s from t h e

ONP N a t u r a l H i s t o r y A s s o c i a t i o n t o h i s p e r s o n a l u s e t o

h e l p " d e f r a y e x p e n s e s of v i s i t i n g V . I . P s . " Thi-s was

a s e r i o u s c h a r g e and Lackman r e l a y e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n

i n a l e t t e r t o S e n a t o r Henry J a c k s o n who, i n t u r n , d emanded

an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e m a t t e r . Lackman had

b e e n e v e n more a s t o u n d e d a t t h e p r o c e s s i o n of r a n g e r s

who v o l u n t e e r e d n e g a t i v e r e p o r t s a b o u t t h e S u p e r i n t e nd

e n t w i t h whom Lackman had always e n j o y e d a good

r e l a t i o n s h i p .

The i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c o n d u c t e d i n ormal.ly by t h e

NPS a t t h e R e g i o n a l l e v e l . , e x o n e r a t e d A l l i n . During

t h e c o u r s e of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Lackman and Green

had g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y o b t a i n i n g t h e p r o p e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n

and i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e government f o r t h e i r t r i a l .

They f i n a l l y r e s o r t e d t o t h e Freedom of I n f o r m a t i o n

Act which p r o v i d e d them w i t h t h e needed d o c u m e n t s and

i t t o o k o v e r one y e a r f o r them t o o b t a i n t h e " r e p o r t"

from A s s i s t a n t P a r k S e r v i c e D i r e c t o r , Lawrence H a d l e y ,

t o S e n a t o r J a c k s o n on t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r . I n t h i s

l e t t e r , t h e two men were now s u r p r i s e d t o l e a r n t h a t

t h e y h a d b e e n condemned b e c a u s e t h e y were p l a n n i n g " t o

s e l l l o t s f o r t r a i l e r c a m p s i t e s !" T h i s was u n b e l i e v a b l e

news t o Ray G r e e n a n d E r n i e Lackman b e c a u s e t h e p a r c e l

i n q u e s t i o n was s o s t e e p t h a t t r a i l e r s c o u l d have o n l y

been p u t upon i t v i a c a b l e s a n d h e l i c o p t e r .

I t seemed t h a t t h e i r t r o u b l e s were n e a r i n g an end

a s t h e t r i a l d a t e a p p r o a c h e d a f t e r numerous d e l a y s .

A s s i s t a n t U . S . A t t o r n e y W i l l i a m R u b i d g e , t o l d Lackman

t h a t he t h o u g h t t h e two men had a good c h a n c e of winning

a t r i a l a n d , p e r h a p s , o v e r t u r n i n g t h e D e c l a r a t i o n of

Taking. In October of 1975, as the trial approached,

Ray Green suffered a massive heart attack which, even

recently, has required open heart surgery. Therefore,

the following year, Ernie Lackman and Ray Green agreed

to settle out-of-court with the government and accepted

$4500 for their land as compensation.

Today, Lackman calls the experience a "nightmare"

and believes that the only reason he lost his land was

the constant linkage to the actions of Harold Sisson by

the Park Service. The NPS unfairly alleged, but never

proved, that he and his friend, Ray Green were planning

a commercial subdivision with Sisson which was never

their intention. 4

-P-a-t ty-J -a-n-d-e-r-s

Patty, at age 26, is one of the youngest residents

on Lake Crescent. She moved to the Lake three years

ago as a permanent year-round inhabitant in the Lyre

River Cove area of the Lake. She works for the telephone

company and commutes to Port Angeles. Her

parents, George and Shirley Janders, had hoped to build

a permanent home on their 150-foot frontage lot, but

the pressure of the National Park Service forced them

to abandon their plans. Said Patty's mother, "They

scared us off." Patty Janders is determined to stay.

She presently lives in a mobile home with an attachment

(Photo 12), but would like a more permanent

structure for her home. Her brother and sister have

also expressed an interest in settling on the Janders

land, but the uncertainty about what the NPS will allow

forced Patty Janders to ask, "In the year 2000 will I

have a home?" 5

-A-n-t-h-o-n y- -H-o-a-r-e

Hoare is a successful Seattle 1.awyer who owns an

unimproved lot on Lake Crescent next to other property

which has been in his family since the mid-1920s.

His mother, a former schoolteacher, and stepfather have

lived on a Lake lot since the 1950s while one of his

sisters and her husband, Bill Mead, also live on an

improved lot. Tony Hoare believes his sister and

brother-in-law have been the victims of "appraisalshopping"

by the Park Service. This practice occurs

when more than one appraisal is done for a given piece

of property, unbeknownst to the potenti.al seller, and,

then the lowest one is offered by the potential buyer

as fair market value. For at ].east ten years in the

ONP, the Park Service, in an effort to hasten the purchase

of inholdings, has offered free appraisals to

inholders. In the fall of 1977 Bill Mead agreed to let

the Park Service provide him with an appraisal and

directed that his brother-in-law handle the project.

The appraisal was done in December of that year with

neither Mead nor Hoare present, but Hoare recalled that

the appraiser, Don Muir, had called and asked for permission

to go onto the land. In the spring of 1978,

the NPS gave Hoare their appraisal from Stewart Clark

and Associates which valued the Mead property at $48,750.

This struck Hoare as odd because Stewart Clarlc and

Associates was not the appraisal firm for which Don

Muir worked. After some detective work, Tony Hoare

located Don Muir who had performed an appraisal for the

company of Butler and Walls, Darnel1 and had submitted

it to the Park Service. For ethical reasons Muir could

not tel.1 Hoare the amount, since the appraisal was contracted

by the NPS, but H o a d s curiosity was now piqued.

He went to the Land Acquisition Office in Port Angeles

and inquired about the "other1' appraisal made by Butler

and Walls, Darnell. The land acquisition officer there

d e n i e d that there were any other appraisals made. Tony

Hoare then called Don Muir who reconfirmed that he had

done an appraisal.. Back at the LAO, ldoare met a

different land acquisition officer who said that there

had been another appraisal on the Mead property, but

"we didn't approve it." The next day the persistent

lawyer called the first land acquisition officer to

whom he had talked and who then admitted that the

Butler and Walls, Darnell appraisal was contracted, but

that the Park Service no longer had a copy since unapproved

appraisals "are not appraisals to us.'' This

land acquisition officer also referred to Butler and

Walls, Darnell appraisers as "rum dums." Tony Hoare

then used the Freedom of Information Act to attempt to

disclose the first appraiser's estimate. Regional Park

Service Director Russell Dickenson originally refused

to hand over the report since it was not a 1JPS document.

Dickenson also told Hoare, "The requested report was

not approved because the appraiser's analysis of his

data was not acceptable." Finally, only after Director

William Whalen came to the ONP in mid-1979 and ordered

all appraisals released, did Tony Hoare discover that

the "unacceptable" appraisal for his brother-in-law's

property was $67,160, a figure nearly $20,000 less

advantageous to the Park Service than the "acceptable"

$48,750 appraisal from Stewart Clark and Associates.

Bill Mead has not so1.d yet and Tony I-loare no longer

believes the Park Service when it says it will offer

an inholder fair market value for his or her property. 6

-KH -- F- l- a- h- e- rg (Photo 13)

Katherine, or Kay, Flaherty is the widow of Jim

Flaherty, the sister of John Morgenroth, and the

daughter of Chris Morgenroth. She is essentially proud

of the work her father did for the Park. Not too far

from her house in Barnes Cove (Photo 14) is the first

Forest Service cabin built on the Olympic Peninsula

(Photo 15) which was constructed from hand-hewn cedar

logs in about 1905 with the help of Chris Morgenroth.

The Park Service owns the structure now and it is being

allowed to deteriorate as is nearby Rosemary Lodge

(Photos 16 and 17) which was an attractive and uniquelydesigned

former resort which the Park Service purchased

about 1940. Flaherty complained that this was visual

proof of the inconsistency of NPS policy. On the one

hand, the agency seeks eventually to acquire all the

structures of inholders and private concessionaires,

such as resort owners, for the stated purpose of dismantling

them so that the land might "return to nature."

On the other hand, the Park has shoddily maintained

Rosemary Lodge for 30 years to house many of their

seasonal employees. Former homes of inholders at

Barnes Cove and all around Lake Crescent, such as the

former Dangerfield house on East Beach near her friend,

Helen Radke, have been kept standing by the Park Service

often for ten years and usually occupied both full and

part-time by the NPS. Apparently, thought Kay Flaherty,

the Park Service wants to rid the Lake of inholders,

but not their homes. Also near her home is Marymere

Falls (Photo 18) which has a NPS sign directing hikers

to the "Barns" Creek Trail (Photo 19) near Barnes

Creek which flows into Barnes Cove, another example

pointed out by Kay as the Park Service's lack of

attention to detail and disregard for the historical

aspects of the Park. She echoed many of the senti.ments

of her late husband who believed that Section Five in

the original Act has been ignored by the Park Service

and that there was no legal right for the shifting whims

and dictates of the NPS as to how a citizen might use

his or her property. Kay Flaherty was actively involved

with her husband in the creation of Friends of Lake

Crescent and the years afterward, often taking minutes

for the meetings, often testifying and traveling to

make speeches, but now she said, "I'm getting tired;

tired of defending myself and my little piece of

property. " 7

-J-o-h-n- -a-n-d- -M-a-r y- -H-o-r- d a

For the past 12 years, John Hordyk has been a Port

Angeles city councilman as well as working for the

telephone company. He and his wife, Mary, bought a lot

on the Lake in 1975 (Photo 20), next to the home of

Patty Janders, which was unimproved except for a septic

tank. The H ~ r d y k s put small mobile homes on the property,

hoping some year to build something more permanent

for their summertime use on Lake Crescent. The 1977

d i r e c t i v e of W i l l i a m Whalen shocked them a s t h e y wond

e r e d w h e t h e r t h e y might e v e r have t h e i r summer home.

Hordyk s a i d he was n o t " a n t i - P a r k , " b u t r e s e n t s much

of t h e i r a c t i o n s a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e o f t e n a r r o g a n t

t o n e of t h e Land A c q u i s i t i o n O f f i c e when i t was f o r m e r l y

l o c a t e d i n P o r t A n g e l e s . Hordyk d e s c r i b e d t h e t i m e

when R o b e r t Kennedy v i s i t e d t h e P a r k f o r w h i c h e n t i r e

new f a c i l i t i e s were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r h i s f a m i l y a s w e l l

a s a l l o w i n g t h e m t o r i d e h o r s e s t h r o u g h o u t , t h e P a r k

w h i c h h a d a l w a y s been f o r b i d d e n by t h e NPS. Hordyk

a l s o s a i d t h a t h i s b i g g e s t c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e NPS

was t h e i r p o o r law e n f o r c e m e n t on Lake C r e s c e n t . The

r a n g e r s f r e q u e n t l y do n o t e n f o r c e t h e r e g u l a t i o n a g a i n s t

o v e r l y l o u d m o t o r b o a t s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e w i t h i l l e g a l

d r y s t a c k s . "The i n h o l d e r s p o l i c e t h e w a t e r , n o t t h e

r a n g e r s , " s a i d Hordyk. He t h e n r e c a l l e d w i t h a s m i l e

t h e day W i l l i a m Whalen was " f i r e d " t h i s s p r i n g .

( A c t u a l l y Whalen was n o t f i r e d , b u t r a t h e r t r a n s f e r r e d

t o a l e s s e r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e NPS by I n t e r i o r

S e c r e t a r y C e c i l Andrus due t o h e a l t h r e a s o n s . ) On t h a t

d a y , Hordyk was i n s t a l l i n g a new t e l e p h o n e s y s t e m a t

P a r k h e a d q u a r t e r s and s a i d t h a t most of t h e r a n g e r s

r e a c t e d I t j o y o u s l y t1 t o t h e news. 8

-B-a-r-b- -B-o-t-n-e-n-

The s t o r y of Barb Botnen b e a r s some s i m i l a r i t y

t o t h a t of Tony H o a r e . About 1 9 7 0 s h e and h e r s i s t e r

inherited a lot on the Lake from their grandfather

which Barb wanted to develop approximately six years

-4

later. Her lot only had a fireplace and she wanted

A

to build a small ,&dksre house. The Superintendent

at that time told her she "might" be able to build,

but that any future owner of the plot could not. She

then turned to the option of selling her land, especially

since her family was growing, but for a number of

years she was restricted solely to the Park Service as

a buyer. Finally, after that rule was discarded, she

asked the NPS to contract for an appraisal. The firm

chosen by the agency was Stewart Clark and Associates

and Barb Botnen accompanied the agent. She was amazed

that he only spent ten or fifteen minutes on her

property. What was surprisingly sloppy about the appraisal

was that when Botnen received the appraisal,

one of the three photos taken by the appraiser was of

the lot adjoining hers owned by her sister, Diana.

Fred and Helen Radke (Photo 21)

Fred and Helen Radke purchased five adjoining

lots, each with a 50 foot frontage on Lake Crescent,

in 1946, with the hope of first building a summer home,

then eventually to retire to the Lake, and then to

allow for their children to eventua1l.y settle on the

land. In 1974 Fred Radke retired from his job as &

superintendent at the mill in Port Angeles and the

Radkes began buil-ding a beautiful home on the lakeshore

(Photo 22). They experienced no difficulty with

building permits and believed the Park Service had

given them a full commitment to use their homesite as

they wished. In fact, at the time, Park Superintendent

Roger Allin told the Radkes to "build and enjoy." In

1976 Fred and Helen Radke sold their house in Port

Angeles and moved to Lake Crescent as full-time residents.

The Radkes are particular1.y angered by the

recent NPS dictum which 1-umps all lots together into

"tracts." While a few inholders have always had their

land deeded as tracts, such as their East Beach neighbor

Joe Wolfe, this is not the case with the Radkes

nor with most inholders. Thei-r lots were purchased

separately as -l-o-t-s ; they are identified and labeled

separately as -l-o-t-s by the county treasurer. Fred and

Helen Radke have three grown chil-dren, two sons and one

daughter, to each of whom their parents would like to

give a lot for the purpose of building homes and 1-iving

on the Lake as Fred and Helen have done. As it stands

now, the Park Service, by creation of the new "one

tract, one house" rule would not all-ow such a future

for the Radke family. Helen Radke is very distressed

at the policies of the Park. She is currently finishing

out her second term as Chairman of the State Board for

Community College Education, having been appointed to

that position by two separate Washington Governors.

She has also served on the State Board of Education for

18 years and was once President of the National School

Boards Association. Helen Radlce has devoted a lifetime

to public service and knows the value of good government

for which "in return, government needs to treat people

fairly.'' She feels that the NPS has abandoned its

long-standing commitment to the "full use and enjoyment"

of the land of the inholders, private land which existed

prior to the formation of the Olympic National. Park.

As she said in a letter to her Senators and Congressman:

I have been an elected or

appointed public official

for thirty years and I use

&he words with care. I never

use such words as 'lying',

harassment,' or 'dishonesty,'

casually . . . I am confident that

these words are used properly

in describing much that has

occurred in the management oflO

the National Park Service.

John and Betty- -H-a-l-b-e-r g- (Photo 23)

John Halberg has been literally raised on Lake

Crescent or, as he put it, "I've been drinking Lake

Crescent water since 1936.'' He lives in the house

built by his family in about 1.928 (Photo 24), having

moved there in 1972. Before that, the homestead had

been occupied by his brothers and sisters. Since their

permanent move to the East Beach area of the Lake, the

Halbergs would like to expand and remodel. their home

now that the family has grown to include six children.

The Park Service, however, has insisted upon no new

houses; however, to John Halberg, because he is an

independent appraiser who has even occasionally done

work for the NPS, the most aggravating item about Park

Service actions has been their methods of appraisal.

He thinks that the NPS tends to lead appraisers toward

-t-h-e-i-r conclusions and that the NPS rarely acknowledges

that the property owner has a right to negotiate an

appraisal. He described the attitude of land acquisition

officers on this point as, "Take it or we'll see

you in court." Halberg also said that the Park Service

often does not survey before buying a piece of property

as it is supposed to nor does the agency carefully

examine comparable sales as directed by Uniform Standards

for Federal Land Acqu-i-s-i-t-i-on-. He had also heard the

stories from Tony Hoare and Eugene and Lynn Hitt about

the "appraisal-shopping" of the Park Service. Such a

tactic does not surprise him. In fact, in September

of 1979, a report was completed by an independent

appraiser named William Follis, Jr. who had been contracted

by the Park Service to improve their appraisals,

according to the agency. Halberg believes that the

Follis Report was actually used to try to prove that

t h e NPS d i d n o t shop f o r a p p r a i s a l s . When he asked a

l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n o f f i c e r w h e t h e r h e m i g h t b e a b l e t o

s e e t h e R e p o r t , t h e Park employee hung up t h e t e l e p h o n e

on h i m . H a l b e r g s a i d t h i s r e a c t i o n t y p i f i e s t h e a t t it

u d e of t h e LAO whom he s a i d does n o t " n e g o t i a t e i n

good . f a i t h . " He s a i d many i n h o l d e r s have informed him

of t h e l l W e ' l l g e t i t a n y w a y , ' ' t o n e of t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s

w i t h l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n o f f i c e r s . T h i s a r r o g a n c e i s i n

s h a r p c o n t r a s t t o t h e Park r a n g e r s f o r whom H a l b e r g had

t h e h i g h e s t p r a i s e a s v e r y f r i e n d l y and d e c e n t p e o p l e .

I

D e s p i t e a l l t h e s e p r o b l e m s , t h o u g h , John H a l b e r g f e l t

c o n f i d e n t t h a t h i s r i g h t s a s a normal homeowner wil.1

be r e s t o r e d some d a y . H i s w i f e , B e t t y , a d d e d , " I ' d

l i k e t o have t h e p r i v i l e g e t o t e l l my c h i l d r e n t h e y

c o u l d b u i l d a l i t t l e c a b i n on t h e i r p r o p e r t y some d a y . 1111

Henry and J a n e t Myren ( P h o t o 2 5 )

As w i t h t h e e x p e r i e n c e of Ray Green and E r n i e

Lackman, t h e a c c o u n t of Hank Myren and h i s w i f e , J a n e t ,

i n v o l v e s t h e u s e of condemnation a g a i n s t i n h o l d e r s a n d ,

a s w i t h Green and Lackman, i t i s a l o n g and complex

s t o r y , b u t i t i s i n s t r u c t i v e , n o n e t h e l e s s , t o go i n t o

some d e t a i l i n t h i s c a s e s t u d y . Hank Myren i s a shrewd

b u s i n e s s m a n and a v e r y e x p e r i e n c e d buyer of l a n d i n t h e

a r e a , b u t he n e v e r e x p e c t e d t h e t r e a t m e n t he r e c e i v e d

from the Park Service after buying a large inholding

in the Elwha River valley region of the ONP. Approximately

eight years ago, Myren had heard of a possible

sale from an inholder named Edith Johnson, daughter of

the late Anna Sweet. She had inherited four 40-acre

parcels on line from her mother. Three of these were

in the Park while the fourth was just outside the

boundary. She was anxyous to sell and offered the 160

acres to Myren for $130,000. The Myrens were surprised

at this low "windfall" offer and agreed to buy. As the

date approached to sign the final papers and consumate

the contract, Hank Myren became alarmed at a discrepancy

he discovered in his title search. Myren unearthed a

flume line curving through the middle of all four vertically

stacked land parcels. A flume is an artificial

channel or trough constructed for the purpose of carrying

logs down a landscape to a river. The old abandoned

flume on the land that Myren was about to buy had a

right-of-way attached to it which did not belong to

Edith Johnson. After intensive detective work, Myren

discovered that the Crown Zellerbach paper company

owned the flume right-of-way. With that discrepancy

on his land, the best use of the parcel for development

would not be great; without the flume discrepancy, the

value would increase. Three days before he bought the

p a r c e l s from E d i t h J o h n s o n i n l a t e 1 9 7 2 , Hank Myren

bought t h e flume r i g h t- o f- way from Crown Z e l l e r b a c h

f o r $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e Myrens knew t h a t t h e y

had an e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e p i e c e of p r o p e r t y , p u r c h a s e d

a t a b a r g a i n p r i c e . About a y e a r l a t e r t h e P a r k S e r v i c e

a p p r o a c h e d Myren w i t h an o f f e r t o buy t h e a c r e a g e f o r

$ 2 2 5 , 0 0 0 which Hank Myren t h o u g h t was " r i d i c u l o u s l y ' ~

low s i n c e t h e l a n d was no l o n g e r encumbered by t h e

f l u m e p r o b l e m . The c o u p l e t h e n i n i t i a t e d p l a n s t o

s u b - d i v i d e t h e l a n d i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s , a f t e r s e tt

i n g a s i d e 13 a c r e s f o r t h e m s e l v e s . They q u i c k l y s o l d

t e n l o t s ( o n e of which went t o T e r r y Norberg ( S e v e r s )

who w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e n e x t p r o f i l e ) . Both

C l a l l a m c o u n t y and t h e s t a t e t r i e d t o g e t Myren t o c e a s e

and d e s i s t from b r e a k i n g up t h e l a n d i n t o l o t s , b u t he

c o r r e c t l y i g n o r e d t h e i r o r d e r s s i n c e t h e y had no j u r i sd

i c t i o n w h a t s o e v e r o v e r t h e l a n d . Hank Myren p r o c e e d e d

w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a r o a d and t h e P u b l i c U t i l i t y

D i s t r i c t was p e r f e c t l y w i l l i n g t o come o n t o t h e lalnd

p r o v i d e power and a sewer s y s t e m f o r t h e a t t r a c t i v e

p l a n n e d community c a l l e d E l k h o r n E s t a t e s . The NPS

a g a i n came w i t h a n o t h e r o f f e r t o b u y , b u t , a t t h a t

s t a g e , Myren f e l t he c o u l d n o t " d o u b l e c r o s s " t h e

p e o p l e who had j u s t p u r c h a s e d t h e t e n l o t s . F i n a l l y

i n F e b r u a r y of 1 9 7 5 , t h e Park S e r v i c e condemned t h e

l a n d of t h e Myrens by a D e c l a r a t i o n of T a k i n g , b u t

t h e i r manner cPf i n f o r m i n g t h e i n h o l d e r s of t h i s f a c t

l e f t s o m e t h i n g t o be d e s i r e d i n t h e way of t a c t . The

P a r k S e r v i c e f i r s t c a l l e d t h e P.U.D. a n d i n f o r m e d them

t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t had talcen o v e r t h e l a n d . Then

s e v e r a l r a n g e r s and l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n o f f i c e r s went o u t

t o t h e Myren d e v e l o p m e n t and o r d e r e d t h e c o n f u s e d P.U.D.

w o r k e r s o u t of t h e a r e a . The Myrens came o u t from

t h e i r house t o i n v e s t i g a t e and were i n f o r m e d o f t h e

D e c l a r a t i o n of T a k i n g , b u t t h e P a r k S e r v i c e had n o t h i n g

i n w r i t i n g w i t h them v e r i f y i n g t h a t f a c t . They t o l d

t h e Myrens t h a t t h e p a p e r s were " i n t h e m a i l . I 1 h his

o c c u r r e d on a F r i d a y and t h e Myrens f i n a l l y r e c e i v e d

che n o t i c e on t h e f o l l o w i n g T u e s d a y . ) While t h e NPS

p e o p l e were s t i l l t h e r e , J a n e t Myren a p p r o a c h e d one

r a n g e r who was t a k i n g p h o t o g r a p h s who o r d e r e d h e r t o

k e e p away and s a i d , " I ' v e g o t a g u n ."

The Myrens t h e n had 20 d a y s t o f i l e an o b j e c t i o n

t o t h e e n t i r e DT, b u t t h e y h i r e d two s u c c e s s i v e l a w y e r s

who s t a l l e d l o n g enough i n t h e i r l i t i g a t i o n t o f o r c e

t h e Myrens i n t o m i s s i n g t h e d e a d l i n e . A t t h a t p o i n t ,

t h e y c o u l d o n l y c o n t e s t t h e p r i c e t h a t t h e NPS was

g o i n g t o g i v e them f o r t h e i r l a n d . I n a n o t o r i o u s

t r i a l t h a t i s s t i l l b e i n g t a l k e d a b o u t i n P o r t A n g e l e s

and among i n h o l d e r s , a s i x - p e r s o n F e d e r a l j u r y awarded

H e n r y a n d J a n e t Myren on1.y a b o u t $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 even t h o u g h ,

among the independent appraisals given, Philo Tyler

and Associates of Tacoma appraised the land at $695,500.

Hank Myren does not resent the taking of his property

as much as the Park Service's action to devalue its

true worth. The appraiser hired by the NPS used only

a helicopter and did not even walk upon the land.

Admittedly, the Myrens had an "unlucky draw" for their

jury. Their third attorney, Frank Peters, informally

talked with the jurors after the trial and the foreman,

who never even entered high school, admitted that he

had no idea of what "just compensation" meant. 12

-T-e-r-r y- --(---S---e---v---e-_rtr_s ) Norbero

In 1974, when she was Terry Severs, Terry Norberg

bought one of Hank Myren's initial lots in Elkhorn

Estates for $13,000. As a young widow, she wanted to

settle down in the beautiful setting of the Elwha valley

in her small house. Like Henry Myren and the other lot

owners, she received a DT for her land in February of

1975. Like Henry Myren, her letter objecting to the

DT failed to reach the desk of the appropriate U.S.

Attorney under the deadline even though she had mailed

the letter in plenty of time. As if that was not bad

enough, the trial for her compensation that December

was a "nightmare." She sat across from the same jury

that faced Myren and the other inholders. The U.S.

Attorney arguing for the Park Service portrayed Severs

as a "cosmopolitan", conniving blonde, out to "get" the

NPS for all she could. The jury was clearly unsympathetic

to the widow Severs because, in a decision which

shocked the entire courtroom, she was awarded only

$11,000 as "just compensation" for her property, a

figure actually $2,000 less than she had paid for it.

Hank Myren was so shocked at this outcome that he compensated

her loss. After the Park Service took control

of her lot, it burned her former homestead to the

ground. Terry (Severs) Norberg is presently living a

new life in Joyce, Washington where her past as an

inholder is now just an unpleasant memory.

1 3

D--r-.- D--o-n- -B-e-t-t g-e-r

Bettger has owned an inholding on Lake Crescent

since 1962. At first, he had only a small mobile home

on the lot, but built a nice house before the end of

the decade and with no comment at all from the National

Park Service. Dr. Bettger has' had no problems personally

with Park officials except for one possible

instance back in 1973 when the Wilderness proposal for

much of the ONP had alarmed most of the inholding

population. In a period of two weeks, with the help

of a local newspaper ad, he collect,ed 1755 signatures

against the proposal.. (Incidentally, this ad required

t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o r e s p o n d by p a y i n g f o r t h e i r own

p o s t a g e . ) When B e t t g e r b r o u g h t t h e p e t i t i o n s t o a

p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n P o r t A n g e l e s , t h e P a r k S e r v i c e r ef

u s e d t o acknowledge them and c o u n t e d D r . B e t t g e r and

t h e h i g h number of p r o t e s t s a s "one e n t r y ." A t t h e

same h e a r i n g , h e l d ] . a t e i n November of t h a t y e a r , t h e

Park S e r v i c e had gone t o P o r t Angeles High School and

r e c r u i t e d h u n d r e d s of h i g h s c h o o l y o u t h s and Boy S c o u t s

t o come and t e s t i f y i n f a v o r of t h e W i l d e r n e s s p M p o s a l .

J u s t r e c e n t l y , s a i d B e t t g e r , two s a l e s of unimproved

Lake l o t s t o t h e NPS t y p i f i e d t h e c a r e l e s s l a c k of p r ec

i s i o n of t h e LAO when b u y i n g l a n d and t h e t o t a l l y

a r b i t r a r y p r i c e s p a i d by them. I n J u l y of 1.979, ~ h a r l e s

Bowen s o l d a l o t w i t h a 50 f o o t f r o n t a g e t o t h e Park

f o r $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 . That same month, t h e Park S e r v i c e a l s o

bought t h e l a k e s h o r e l o t of Don B e t t g e r ' s n e i g h b o r , a

Mrs. J a c o b s , f o r $ 2 3 , 5 0 0 . Both l o t s a r e v e r y s i m i l a r

i n t h a t t h e y were u n i m p r o v e d , b u t t h e shape of t h e

J a c o b s l a n d was most u n u s u a l . She had 70 f e e t of

f r o n t a g e on t h e u p p e r r o a d , b u t o n l y 1 7 f e e t of Lake

f r o n t a g e a s p r o v e n by a s u r v e y J a c o b s had c o n t r a c t e d

a y e a r e a r l i e r . As any a p p r a i s e r and i n h o l d e r knows,

s a i d B e t t g e r , i t i s t h e f r o n t a g e of o n e ' s l a n d on

b e a u t i f u l Lake C r e s c e n t which i s t h e key f a c t o r i n

d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r i c e of p r o p e r t y and y e t t h e Park

S e r v i c e a p p a r e n t l y c h o s e t o i g n o r e t h i s l o g i c . 14

-R-i-c-h- -B-a-t-e-s- (Photo

Like John Halberg, Rich Bates has spent most of

his life on Lake Crescent. His grandparents were the

caretakers of Camp David, a youth camp now owned by

Clallam county. The 29-year old Bates is an experienced

building contractor on the Lake. Bates' close friend,

Wayne Thompson, inherited a lot with a 100 foot frontage

and offered Rich a 50 foot lot from his land if he

would construct a house for him. Rates agreed and

also decided to build one for himself. Unfortunately

for Bates, this occurred in the fall of 1977 when NPS

Director Whalen issued the order against further construction.

After some brief harassment from the

Assistant Superintendent which included both written

and verbal threats of condemnation, the Park Service

and Bates reached a compromise. Since he had initiated

some construction at the time of Whalen's proclamation

in late 1977, and since it became apparent the following

year to the ONP administration that the NPS construction

ban would be of a temporary nature due to the massive

outcry and pending public hearings, it was agreed that

Bates would hold off further building of his house and

Thompson's until July 1, 1979. After that date, Ri.ch

Bates completed his home where he now lives with his

wife and two children. He said the Park was very

inconsistent in its enforcement of the Whalen order.

In the early spring of 1.978, he broke ground in the

construction of Lawyer Alan Bird's home on ~ a s tB each.

This was well after the deadline allowed by the Park

Service on exemptions to the construction b ~ n ,de -

signed to protect those inholders who had "initiated"

construction. Rich Bates broke ground for his own

home in the fall of 1977 and was threatened with condemnation

while he broke ground for the home of Alan

Bird several months later and the Park Service said

nothing. 15

-P-e-t-r-u-s- -Pe-a-r-s-o-n

Petrus, or Pete, Pearson is a 72-year old

inholder who came to Lake Crescent with his family in

1924. He has been one of the larger landowners around

the Lake and in 1958-1959. Pete Pearson had 2200 feet

of contiguous frontage which he proceeded to break up

into lots, or sub-divide hi.s land. He received no

reprobation from Park officials; there was no threat

of condemnation nor any suggestion of disapproval for

what he was doing with his land from the NPS. Thus,

Pete Pearson did to his land exactly what Hank and

Janet Myren wanted to do with theirs, namely, to subdivide

it and sell lots. Pearson did not sub-divide

on the scale envisioned by Myren. For one thing, he

did not have the acreage, but the similarity of the

actions of the two men in what they i-ntended to do with

their property stands in sharp contrast to what happened

to each inholder. In fact, from an esthetic

standpoint, it could be argued fairly easily that the

land sub-divided by Pearson was more crucial to the

Olympic National. Park than the Elwha Valley acreage

of Hank Myren. Yet, for doing the same thing, unlike

Hank Myren, Pete Pearson did not suffer the extreme

indignities of condemnation, loss of land, and a very

unpleasant trial. 1 6

-D-r-.- -B-i-l-l- -G-r-a y (Photo 27)

Dr. Gray is an orthodontist who became an inholder

five years ago when he purchased a l.ot, one of the

original subdivisions of Pete Pearson. When he bought

the land, Gray knew that he did not have clear title

to the property because of inconclusive surveying and

the presence of an old disputed railroad right-of-way.

He knew then that a lawsuit might be the only solution

to determine clear title, but for nearly four years,

through his title insurance lawyers, Gray tried to work

out a compromise solution out-of-court. The Park

Service contended that it had title of the former railroad

right-of-way because the original rail line sold

its right-of-way to a salvage company which cleared

Bill Gray has married since he became an inholder

in the Lyre River Cove a.rea of Lake Crescent

and, now, wants to expand his house, but is worried

that the Park Service might attempt to restrict him

again. He cannot understand the agency's negative

attitude toward inholders and resents the number of

high-level meetings within the government on the

subject of inholdings without any inholders present.

Dr. Bill Gray testified in Washington D.C. as to some

of the worth of inholders:

Inholders serve as a fire watch

service, rescue service and also

do a commendable job of monitoring

and reporting illegal behavior -

all free of ~ h a r g e . ~ ~ Ycoanu' t

beat that price.

-C-a-r-l- -H-a-n-s-e-n

Hansen is a 75-year old inholder who is also a

retired concessionaire. The relationship between concessionaires

and the Park Service is a subject fit for

an entire report in itself, but a few glimpses into

the life and thoughts of Carl Hansen might be instructive.

For 31 years he managed the Log Cabin Lodge and

Hansen confirmed what other inholders had said about

the deliberate policy in the ONP to buy and dismantle

the older resorts in an effort to deny tourists overnight

facilities and return the Lake to a more natural

setting, He fondly recalled that there were once 1.3

resorts on the Lake and now only two. Hansen al-so confirmed

what others had stated about the hopeful

attitude held toward the ONP administrations under

James Coleman and the current Superintendent, Roger

Contor. For years, Hansen has maintained the only

pile driver on the Lake and every Superintendent until

the present one attempted to pressure Hansen into removing

it. Not only did Contor not "hassle" Carl

Hansen about his pile driving machine, but actually

asked if he .would like to use it for some Park Service

work. While there may be hope for the future, Hansen

was still troubled at how Lake Crescent has become so

much more inhospitable to tourism than at any time in

its history. Asked why he thought the Park Service

has discouraged concessions and Lake access, Hansen

replied, !'Simple, they hate people. 1 1 1 8

Marven Lof qui st

For ten summers Lofquist was a seasonal naturalist

for the Park Service in the ONP. Twenty years ago he

purchased a lot on the North Shore with the intention

of someday building his retirement home there. The

Superintendent at the time, Bennet Gale, and all subsequent

Superintendents until recent years assured him

that he would be allowed to build there. Another

ranger purchased the lot alongside his with the same

intent. He never received the Draft land acquisition

plan distributed late in 1979 and was stunned this

spring when he was informed by his friend, Jack

Nattinger, that his unimproved lot was not on the list

of 20 which could have structures on them within five

years. He was forbidden to build by the new Park plan.

Had he known this, said Lofquist, he would have sold

his lot years ago. Lofquist is a high school biology

teacher who lives in Salinas, California, and who retires

in six years. At that time he had hoped to become

a full-time resident of Lake Crescent, but his hopes

have been dashed. Marven Lofquist is considering

selling his lot now, but said, "I don't know what to

do. ,I19

-J-a-c-k- -N-a-t-t-i-n g-e-r- ( Photo

For 31 years Jack Nattinger worked as a ranger

for the National Park Service, stationed for most of

that time in the Olympic National Park. The last

several years of his tenure with the NPS were particularly

distressing to Jack. When he began with the

agency, "people meant something," according to Nattinger.

This feeling withered away in the 1970s, he said, beginning

with the arrival of many "resource managers"

in the ONP to whom trees and trails were infinitely

more important than people, Beginning about 1975,

the Park administration began destroying many of the

shelters along the back country trails as part of the

false notion that this would make the area more of a

Wilderness. Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, no area

with trails of any sort can be considered Wilderness.

Thus, to Jack Nattinger, the destruction of ONP

shelters in the mid-1970s not only made no sense for

true Wilderness advocates, but actually endangered

the human use of the Park. Nattinger knows of many

backpackers and hikers who have written to him and the

Park Service saying that they owed their lives to the

shelters. The Olympic Mountains sustain an enormous

quantity of rain and weather can shift very radically.

Nattinger explained that being caught in the rain, in

light clothing, even at the seemingly high temperature

of 50 degrees Fahrenheit, can produce hypothermia.

In its administrative trend toward Wilderness in the

ONP, the Park has preached against pollution and yet

moved a new campground with toilets near the confluence

of the Elip Creek and the North Fork of the quinault

River, an unwise move according to the retired ranger.

He also criticized the inconsistency of the Park

Service after it installed ten bridges in the back

country of the ONP, all with gray concrete abutments,

and then those same administrators devised color regulations

for the house paint for inholders' homes.

Jack Nattinger does not pretend to know all things

necessary for the management of the Olympic Park and

he does admit that some "resource management" is

needed. He has become dismayed, however,'at the way

inholders are treated by the Park. He cannot understand

why some are allowed to build and others are not,

such as his friend Marven Lofquist. He and his wife,

Florence, who is the sister of the aforementioned

Francie Jones, have a home in the Barnes Cove area

of Lake Crescent and ho.p e some year to move there

year-round. Jack Nattinger said he "can't accept

the fact that individuals don't mean anything" as his

former employer has done, and asked why he retired from

the National Park Service at the relatively early age

of 58, he said simply, "I couldn't stand it any

longer. ,120

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE

'~orgenroth interview.

'~nterview with Betty Hooper, September 23, 1980.

3 ~ o n e s interview.

'~etter from Roger Al-lin, Superintendent, Olympic

National Park, to John Rutter, Director, Pacific Northwest

Region, National Park Service, December 8, 1972;

Memorandum from Roger Allin to the Files, December 14,

1972; Letter from Roger Allin to Mr. and Mrs. Ray

Green, March 9, 1973; Letter from Roger Allin to Yr.

and Mrs. Ernest Lackman, March 9, 1973; Letter from

Roger Allin to Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lackman, March 20,

1973; Yemorandum from Roger Allin to John Rutter,

April 6, 1973; Notes of L.H. Feser, National Park Service

regarding Sission properties, March 27, 1973;

Interview with Ray Green, September 24, 1980; Letter

from Lawrence Hadl-ey, Assistant Director, National

Park Service, to Senator Henry Jackson, Ju1.y 20, 1973;

Letter from Henry Jackson to Ernie Lackman, May 7, 1973;

Letter from i-lenry Jackson to Ernie Lackman, Yay 7, 1973;

Notes from Sherman Knight, National Park Service, regarding

Allin-Sisson incident, undated; Letter from

Ernie Lackman to Henry Jackson, March 12, 1973; Letter

from Ernie Lackman to Henry Jackson, May 18, 1973;

Interview with Ernie Lackman, September 24, 1980; Notes

of Robert Lesch, National Park Service, regarding

Allin-Sisson incident, December 13, 1972; Letter from

Stan Pitkin, U.S. Attorney, and William Rubidge, Assistant

U.S. Attorney, to Ernie Lackman, February 27, 1976;

-P-o-r-t- -A-n g-e-l-e-s- -C-h-r-o-n-i-c-l-e , March 28, 1.973, pp. 1 2 L etter

from Joseph Rumberg, Acting Associate Director,

National Park Service, to Henry Jackson, April. 26, 1973;

Letter from John Rutter to Ernie Lackman, July 13, 1973.

'~nterview with Patty Janders, September 23 and

28, 1980.

'~etter from Kevin Clarke to Les Parnell, National

Park Service, April G , 1978;Letter from Fred Darnell to

John Ri-tchie, LAO, National Park Service, December 2,

1978; Letter from Russell Dickenson, Pacific Northwest

Regional Director, National Park Service, to Anthony

Hoare, October 11, 1978; Interview with Tony Hoare,

September 19, 1980; Letter from Robert Lesch, National

Park Service to Anthony Hoare, March 1, 1974.

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE (Cont'd)

7~laherty interview; Radke interview.

'~nterview with John and Mary Hordyk, Se~tember

27, 1980; P-o-r-t- -A-n-g e-l-e-s- -D-a-i-l-y - N-e-w-s- ; 0ctobe; ll', 1977,

(clipping - pagination unavailable).

9~nterview with Barb Botnen, September 26, 1980.

'O~etter from the Friends of Lake Crescent to

Senator Henry Jackson, Ju1.y 14, 1980; Radke interview;

Letter from Helen Radke to Henry Jackson, September 9,

1980; Letter from Helen Radke to Senator Warren Magnuson,

September 9, 1980; Radke statement; Interview with

Joe Wolfe, September 26, 1980.

ll~eport from Wi-lliam T. Follis, Jr. , Appraiser,

to Rex Daugherty, Lands Division, National Park Service,

September 27, 1979; Interview with John and Betty

Halberg, September 23 and 24, 1980; Interview with

Eugene and Lynn Hitt, September 27, 1980; U.S. Interagency

Land Acquisition Conference. -U-n-i-fo -r-m- -A pp-r-a-i-s-a-l

Standards for Federal Land Acqu-i-s-i-t-i-o-n s r ~ a s h i n ~ t o n ,

D.C., Governemnt Printing Office, 1.9735, p. 9.

12~etter from Carl Lamb, Acting Superintendent,

Olympic National Park, National Park Service, to Henry

and Janet Myren, October 23, 1973; Memorandum of Roy

Lycksell, Chief Engineer, Public Utility District,

March 10, 1975; Interview with Hanlc and Janet Myren,

September 26, 1980.

131nterview with Terry (Severs) Norberg, September

24, 1980; P-o-r-t- --A-n ge-l-e-s- -C-h-r-o-n-i-c-l-e-, April 7, 1976;

Letter from Terry Severs to Stan Pitlcin, U.S. Attorney,

March 5, 1975.

141nterview with Dr. Don Bettger, September 24

and 25, 1980.

151nterview with Rich Bates, September 28, 1980.

161nterview wi tb Pete Pearson, September 28, 1980.

171nterview with Dr. Bill Gray, September 23 and

27, 1980; Statement of Dr. Bill Gray before a public

hearing on National Park Service land acquisition

policies, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1.978.

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE (Cont'd)

l81nterview with Carl Hansen, September 28,

1980.

I9~etter from Donald Jackson, Acting Superintendent,

Olympic National Park, National. Park Service, to

Marven Lofquist, August 7, 1980; Interview with Marven

Lofquist, October 13, 1980; Letter from Marven Lofquist

to Roger Contor, July 20, 1980; Letter from Marven and

Barbara Lofquist to Jack Nattinger, June 18, 1980.

20~irn Lawless, "The Case for Shelters in Olympic

National Park," October 19, 1977; Interview with Jack

Nattinger, September 23 and 27, 1980.

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS

Compared to many other areas within National

Parks, the inholders of the Olympic National Park have

e

received less severe tratment from the National park

/I

Service in terms of harassment by rangers, local rules

and restrictions, and, most importantl-y, numbers of

condemnations. This is not meant to diminish their

plight as inholders, however, nor their very real

struggle against a bureaucracy for the past decade and

earlier. Probably the main reason why they have received

comparably less harsh handling is because of the actions

and responses of the inholders themselves. The Friends

of Lake Crescent was one of the first organizations of

its kind and has presented an extremely united stand.

After preparing reports on inholders in other areas,

this researcher has not yet encountered a more unified

group of inholders than the Friends of Lake Crescent.

Nor has this researcher encountered a greater number

of inholders who have so meticulously and voluminously

kept the letters, tape recordings, and official papers

to document their grievances than those inholders

interviewed around Lake Crescent and the Elwha River

valley. The resources available could have easily

doubled the size of this report. In short, the

Friends of Lake Crescent are probably one of the

most well-educated, articulate, and politically

astute collections of inholders in the country; and

yet, in spite of these apparent advantages over other

regions and groups, their battle for their rights of

home ownership has been anythi-ng b@ "easy." The

F.O.L.C. had the great fortune to be located in a state

with two of the most powerful. Senators in the U.S.

Senate. Without that political clout, which the group

was able to call upon, the efforts of F.O.L.C. might

have been considerably less successful.

Today, around Lake Crescent, there exists a

curious mixture of uneasiness and hope among the inholders.

Many inholders are hopeful due to some of

the actions of the current Park administration and the

preceeding one. The Land Acquisition Office has been

removed from the local community of Port Angeles and

now appears to be under the close scrutiny of the

Superintendent. Other former restrictions of the

Whalen era have been removed. The current Superintendent

told this researcher that the Park Service is

obligated to give the inholders "time and consistency,"

which has not been done in the recent past. He also

said that he expected that there would be inholders

on Lake Crescent "200 years from now.'" This is

certainly a more patient and reasonable attitude then

the inexplicable "mad rush" to acquire all inholdings

which occurred in the mid-1970s. Despite this progress,

though, there is much uneasiness in the Park

and major problems still exist between inholder and

Park administration. The whole basic assumption of

why the National Park Service feels the need to acquire

further inholdings at all must be debated more; and

this crucial question must be debated in Congress. For

example, less than 15 percent of the total. frontage

on Lake Crescent is owned by inholders; the rest belongs

to the National Park Service. It is still

difficult for an outsider to understand why some inholders

cannot bui1.d homes upon their land. As one

example, the home of Marv Lofquist would have been

400 feet from the lakeshore, surrounded by trees, and

totally invisible from the Lake. Yet, he is not allowed

to build as of this writing. The reason given was that

his lot was in isolation from other structures and inholdings

and, thus, his home would have "stuck out."

Perhaps the most important thing to remember in this

entire report is that all of the complaints and grievances

of the inholders have been rel-atively r-e-c-e-n-t-.

For decades, these people had behaved as most normal

residential homeowners everywhere behave, living on

their property and in their homes with all the accompanying

rights as citizens. There were no large

commercial developments. There were no high-rise hotels

put up. After nearly 30 years as good neighbors to

Lake Crescent and its visitors, the inholders were suddenly

bereft of all the original and subsequent

assurances given to them by the Park Service regarding

their lives and homes on the Lake. Such a reversal of

policy, without a new Act of Congress, appears indisputably

unfair.

Despite their unity, it would be a mistake to

paint all Friends of Lake Crescent with the same stroke

of opinion. There are many i-nholders willing to compromise

with the Park Service; many who would be willing

to submit to restrictions regarding the littler items

on their homesteads such as regulations on the color

of paint for their houses, height restrictions and

other matters, but not on the fundamental right of

building their homes on their indi-vidual lots. On the

other hand, there are many inholders who cannot compromise

with the Park; people to whom the "little

things" strike at the very heart of their individual

freedom as property owners defined by Section Five of

the original Act. Section Five may, indeed, be the key

to the whole dispute. There is a legal question as to

whether or not this part of the Act has been affected

by a 1960 court case entitled -U-.-S-.- v--.- -Ke-n-n-e-d-y . This

appellate court decision overturned an inholder's

earlier court victory and ruled that the Department of

Interior has the power to acquire land by eminent

domain, by virtue of appropriations for acquisitions,

despite the lack of language granting such expressed

authority, The case involved an inholder in Mt McKinley

National Park which had an enabling Act containing language

very similar to Section Five, Whether this decision

is totally transferable to the Olympic National

Park and whether it relates to Park Service actions

which are "less than eminent domain" are legal questions

which this report cannot answer. Perhaps Don Jones is

right. The former first chairman of the Friends of

Lake Crescent has suggested that a lawsuit which goes

all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States

will be the only final assurance for his friends and

neighbors on Lake Crescent and in National Parks everywhere.

Only then might the basic issue be resolved:

Whether a property owner can be denied by a government

agency the reasonable "full use and enjoyment" of his

or her home and land simply because that property owner

happens to be an inholder.

1

ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER FOUR

'contor interview; Flaherty intervie w; Halberg

interview; Hoare interview; Letter, with attachment,

from Jerome Hillis to Jim Flaherty, November 3, 1977;

Jones interview; Lofquist interview; Letter from C.

Richard Neely, Assistant Regional Solicitor, Department

of Interior, to Russell Dickenson, October 19,

1977; Radke interview.

SOURCES

L-e-t-t-e-r-s- -a-n-d- -U-n-p -ub-l-i-s-h-e-d- -M-a-t-e-r-i-a-l-s-

Allin, Roger, Memorandum to the Files, December 14,

1972

- - - - - - - - . Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Ray Green, March

9, 1973.

-------- . Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lackman,

March 9, 1973.

- - - - - - - . Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lackman,

March 20, 1973.

-------- . Letter to John Rutter, December 8, 1972.

----- --- . Memorandum to John Rutter, April 6, 1973.

Clarke, Kevin. Letter to Les Parnell, April 4, 1978.

Coleman, James. Letter to Olympic National Park

property owners, October 4, 197.7.

Contor, Roger. Letter to Olympic National Park

landowners, December 5, 1979.

- - - - - - - - . Memorandum for general distribution,

February 20, 1980.

Darnell, Fred. Letter to John Ritchie, December 2,

1978.

Dickenson, Russell. Letter to Anthony Hoare, October

11, 1978.

Evison, Herbert. Letter to George H. Cecil, July 7,

1978.

Feser, L. H. Notes, March 27, 1973.

Flaherty, Kay. Publ-ic statement, November 3, 1973.

Follis, William T , , Jr. Report to Rex Daugherty,

September 27, 1979.

SOURCES ( C o n t ' d )

F r i e n d s of Lalte C r e s c e n t . L e t t e r t o S e n a t o r Henry

J a c k s o n , J u l y 1 4 , 1980.

-------- . Minutes of Meeting of November 1, 1983.

- - - - - - - - . M i n u t e s of Board M e e t i n g of August 1 6 , 1.979.

G r a y , D r . B i l l . P u b l i c s t a t e m e n t , September 8 , 1978.

- - - - - - - - . P u b l i c s t a t e m e n t , September 1 5 , 1 9 7 8 ,

H a d l e y , Lawrence. L e t t e r t o S e n a t o r I-lenry J a c k s o n ,

J u l y 2 0 , 1 9 7 3 .

H i l l i s , Jerome. L e t t e r w i t h a t t a c h m e n t , t o James

F l a h e r t y , November 3 , 1977.

J a c l t s o n , Donald. L e t t e r t o Marven L o f q u i s t , August

7 , 1980.

J a c l c s o n , S e n a t o r H e n r y . L e t t e r t o t h e F r i e n d s of Lake

C r e s c e n t , November 2 9 , 1974.

- - - - - - - - . L e t t e r t o E r n i e Lacltman, March 2 2 , 1973.

- - - - - - - - . L e t t e r t o E r n i e Lackman, May 7 , 1973.

- - - - - - - - . L e t t e r t o E r n i e Laclcman, June 5 , 1973.

K n i g h t , Sherman. N o t e s , u n d a t e d .

Lackman, E r n i e . L e t t e r t o S e n a t o r Henry J a c k s o n ,

March 1 2 , 1 9 7 3 .

-- - - - - - - . L e t t e r t o S e n a t o r Henry J a c k s o n , May 1 8 ,

1973.

Lamb, C a r l . L e t t e r t o Henry and J a n e t Myren, O c t o b e r

2 3 , 1973.

L a w l e s s , J i m . "The Case f o r S h e l t e r s i n Olympic

N a t i o n a l P a r k , " O c t o b e r 1 9 , 1977.

L e s c h , R o b e r t . L e t t e r t o Anthony H o a r e , March 1 ,

1974.

-------- . N o t e s , December 1 3 , 1.972.

L o f q u i s t , Marven. L e t t e r t o R o g e r C o n t o r , J u l y

2 0 , 1980.

SOURCES (Cont'd)

Lofquist, Marven and Barbara. Letter to Jack

Nattinger, June 18, 1980.

Lycksell, Rcy. Memorandum, March 10, 1975.

Magnuson, Senator Warren. Letter to James Flaherty,

June 13, 1978.

Morgenroth, Chris. Letter to R. L. Fromme, June

1, 1924.

Neely, C. Richard. Letter to Russell Dickenson,

October 19, 1977.

"The Olympic Howler." Unpublished newsletter of the

Olympic National Forest, January 1, 1927.

Pitkin, Stan; and Rubidge, William. Letter to Ernie

Lackman, February 27, 1976.

Radke, Helen. Letter to Senator Henry Jackson,

September 9, 1980.

- - - - - - - - . Letter to Senator Warren Magnuson, Septembr

9, 1980.

- - - - - - - - . Public statement, September 8, 1978.

Ray, Governor Dixy L,ee. Letter to Mil-liam Whalen,

October 20, 1978.

Rixon, Theodore. Telegram to R. L . Fromme, June 30,

1924.

Rumberg, Joseph. Letter to Senator Henry Jackson,

April 26, 1973.

Rutter, John. Letter to Ernie Lackman, July 13, 1973.

Severs, Terry. Letter to Stan Pitkin, March 5, 1975,

Whalen, William. Letter, with attachment, to Senator

Warren Magnuson, November 15, 1977.

- - - - - - - - . Memorandum, September 14, 1977.

-P-u-b-l-i-c- -Do-c-u-m-e-n-t-s-

-O-l y-m pic National Park Establi-s-h-m-e n-t- . -S-t-a-t-u-t-e-s- -a-t --L-a rg-e ,

Vol. LII T19387

U.S. Department of Interior. National Park Service.

L-a-n-d- -A-c-q u-i-s--i-t-i-o-n- -P--l-aIn- - Olympi-c-

N--a-t-i--o-n-a-l-- -P-a, rk March, 1980. Port

Angeles, Wasgington: Prepared by

the Olympic Natonal Park Office, 1980.

--A- -------------- . "Olympic National

Park Temporary Land Use Regulation. I'

-Fe-d-e-r-a-l- -k-e- g-i-s-t-e-r , XXXI, NO-. 130, June

30, 1966, 9278-9279.

---- ---------- -------------- . "Proposed Rulemaking

." -F-ed-e-r-a-l- -R-e-g ister, XXXI , No ,

242, December 1 5, 1.96-6;-33804.

---- ---------- ---------- ---- "Revised Land

Acquisition Policy." F-e- d- e- r- a l-

R-e-g ister, XLIV, No. 82, April 26,

197g;-26790-24798.

---- . Interagency Land Acquisition Conference. -Un- i- -f o- -r m-

-Ap praisal Standards For Federal Land

Acquisitions. Washington, D.C.: 8 -- ---------

Government Printing Office, 1973.

Interviews

Bates, Rich. September 28, 1.980.

Bettger, Dr. Don. September 23 and 25, 1980,

Botnen, Barb. September 26, 1980.

Coleman, James. October 7, 1980.

Contor, Roger. September 26, 1980.

Flaherty, Kay. September 22-24, 1980.

Ficken, Robert. September 18, 1980.

Gray, Dr. Bill. September 23 and 27, 1980.

Green, Ray. September 24, 1980.

Halberg, John and Betty. September 23-24, 1980.

SOURCES (Cont'd)

Interviews (Cont'd)

Hansen, Carl. September 28, 1980.

Hitt, Eugene and Lynn. September 27, 1950.

Hoare, Anthony. September 19, 1950.

Hooper, Betty. September 23, 1980.

Hordyk, John and Mary. September 27, 1980.

Janders, Patty. September 23 and 28, 1980.

Jones, Don and Francie. September 28, 1980.

Lackman, Ernie. September 24, 1980.

Laird, Harold and Wilda. September 25, 1980.

Lofquist, Marven. October 13, 1980.

Morgenroth, John and Mary. September 23-24, 1980.

Myren, Henry and Janet. September 26, 1980.

Nattinger, Jack. September 23 and 27, 1980.

Norberg, Terry (Severs). September 24, 1980.

Pearson, Pete, September 28, 1980.

Radke, Fred and Helen. September 26, 1.980.

Wolfe, Joe, September 26, 1980.

Newspa-p -e-rs

-P-o-r-t- -A ngeles Chronicle . 1966, 1973, 1976, 1978-1979.

-P-o-r-t- Ang-e-l-e-s- -D-a-i ly- -N-e-w-s . 1977-1980.

-P-o-r-t- -A ng-e-l-e-s- -E-v-e-n-i-n g- -N-e-w-s . 1924. 1935, 1966.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 1978-1979.

.S.o.u.t..h. .D.i.s..t.r.i.c.t.. .J.o.u.r nal. 1973.

SOURCES (Cont'd)

.A.r.t..i.c.l.e.s.. .a.n.d. ..P.u.b.l..i.s.h.e..d. .N.e..w.s.l.e tters

.F.r.i.e..n.d.s. .o..f. .L.a.k.e.. .C.r.e.s..c.e.n.t. ..N.e.w.s.l etter. June, 1978.

-------------- . March 6, 1980.

Morgenroth, Chris, "Olympic, or Roosevelt Elk."

.W.e.s.t.e..r.n. .O..u.t.-.o.f..-.D.o ors. May, 1922, pp. 133-135.

Richardson, Elmo. "Olympic National Park: Twenty

Years of Controversy." Forest- - H-i-s-t-o g.

April, 1968, pp. 7-12.

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION TO ACCOMPANY REPORT

-P-h-o-t-o g-r-a p-h- -N-u-m-b-e-r -S-u-b j-e-c t-

Lake C r e s c e n t l o o k i n g west from

Barnes Cove

Lake C r e s c e n t l o o k i n g toward

Eas t Beach

Elwha R i v e r

t t B o w e r s v i l l e t t on t h e North Shore

John a n d Mary Morgenroth

Home of John and Mary Morgenroth

B a r n e s Cove

Barnes Cove t a k e n from E a s t Beach

a r e a w i t h Aurora Ridge i.n

t h e background

S i t e o f f o r m e r Ovington R e s o r t

S i t e of f o r m e r Bonnie Brae R e s o r t

Ray Green and E r n i e Lackman

Home of P a t t y J a n d e r s

Kay F l a h e r t y

Home of Kay F l a h e r t y

F i r s t F o r e s t S e r v i c e c a b i n b u i l t

on t h e Olympic P e n i n s u l a

Rosemary Lodge

Marymere Fa1 1 s

"Barns" Creek s i g n n e a r Marymere

Fa 1 I. s

P r o p e r t y o f J o h n and Mary I-Iordyk

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION TO ACCOMPANY REPORT

(Cont Id)

P l ~ ootg r a p h Number -S-u-b A-e-c- t

Fred and He1 en Radke

Home of Fred and H e l e n Radke

John and B e t t y H a l b e r g , w i t h

Ricky and J i m

P r o p e r t y o f John and B e t t y Hal b e r g

Hank and J a n e t Myren

Rich B a t e s

D r . B i l l Gray

J a c k N a t t i n g e r

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kent Anderson received his 1'h.D in history from

the University of Washington in 1975. Prior to that,

he was a pre-doctoral instructor in U.S.history at

that same institution for three years. His dissertation

was published by Greenwood Press in 1978 under

the title of T..e.l.e.v..i.s.i.o.n.. .F.r.a.u..d.:. .T.h..e. .H.i story- -a-n-d

-I-m plications of the Qui-z- --S-h-o-w- -S-c-a-n-d-a-l-s as part of

their contributions in American Studies series.

Anderson has also worked for the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

and the C.V. Mosby Publishing Co. Other research

citations of Kent Anderson have appeared in P-u-b-l-i-c-

.A.d.m.i..n.i.s.t.r..a.t.i.o..n. .R.e.v iew and the three volume work,

-P-e-r spectives on Political Philosop-hy , edited by David

Kirk Hart and James Downton.