Fort Clatsop Administrative History

Public Review And Comment

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

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

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

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