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 -
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
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION INDEX .........................................................82
ABOUT THE AUTHOR.............................. .................................................................. 84
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
1974, after it apparent that little of the ONP would be
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
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.
The arrival of Jim Coleman in the Park seemed to
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.
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
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,
'~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.
ke Cresc ------A- nroth in
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
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
tember . 1; I
rview; . A10;
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
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
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
later. Her lot only had a fireplace and she wanted
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 .
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.
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
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.
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
-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
ENDNOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE
'~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
'~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,
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
received less severe tratment from the National park
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
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.
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.
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,
- - - - - - - - . Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Ray Green, March
-------- . 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,
Dickenson, Russell. Letter to Anthony Hoare, October
Evison, Herbert. Letter to George H. Cecil, July 7,
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 ,
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 ,
-------- . 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.
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
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
- - - - - - - - . 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,
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.
-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,
---- . 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.
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.
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.
-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.
.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
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
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
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.