Public Archaeology
ARCHY 465; Spring 2014

Position Paper Guidelines

Situation Overview:
In the early 1990s, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC) acquired several adjacent parcels of property totaling about 400 acres and a mile of shoreline on Camano Island. WSPRC planned to create a new state park there to be called “Cama Beach State Park,” and devoted approximately $10 million to developing the site.

The proposed park was the site of a Native American summer settlement before non-Native use of the area commenced. It was a logging camp in the 19^th and early 20^th century, and then was a privately owned salmon fishing resort. About 50 cabins remain on the site, as well as a number of historic boats.

WSPRC planned to renovate the cabins and build a new guest lodge and dining hall at the site. Some of the cabins will be available for rental by the public. WSPRC has also partnered with the Center for Wooden Boats (CWB) in Seattle to operate a historic boat rental and boat building shop in several of the buildings. This aspect of the project involved rebuilding a pier and dock system on the waterfront. WSPRC had some Federal funding for the project, and also required a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild the pier and docks.

As part of compliance with NEPA and NHPA, WSPRC hired Puget Sound Archaeological Associates (PSAA) to conduct a phase 1-2 survey of historic sites in areas of the parcel that they concluded would be impacted by renovation, construction and planned use of the park. PSAA archaeologists discovered several large shell middens near the cabins to be renovated and along the mile of shore frontage. They also discovered what may be the remains of a longhouse, plus human remains, directly on the site of the proposed dining hall, which appear to have been covered by a landslide from the bluff just behind the site sometime in the past 1,000 years. Representatives of the Tulalip Tribe were present during the archaeological survey as monitors, and when the human remains were found, they requested that all further archaeology and construction activity cease. The Tulalip Tribal Council subsequently held a meeting on the matter, and then issued a statement that the Tribes believed that the entire property was sacred land, and that any further development as a public park must stop, and the parcel be returned to Tulalip control and/or ownership.

At that point, WSPRC had spent over 10 years and over 10 million dollars working to develop this new state park. The site was chosen after exhaustive analysis and public review, and state funding was acquired through intense lobbying and consensus building with the State Legislature. The family that owned the site, as well as many private citizens, made donations of land and money to ensure the site was developed as a public park. WSPRC believes it worked hard to involve Native Americans in the plans, and followed the law in consulting with the Tulalip with the Phase 1-2 study. They believe that the visitor center can be designed to minimize the impact on the longhouse site, and that the shell middens can be protected from looting and inadvertent damage by the public. They want to work with the Tulalip, but feel frustrated that their efforts to be inclusive have now been rejected, jeopardizing the entire project.

The CWB has been working with WSPRC since the beginning of the planning process, and see this new park as an excellent opportunity to further their institutional goals of raising awareness of maritime heritage through building and using historic boats. CWB had planned to include Native American boats in their fleet, and had planned to incorporate Tulalip canoe builders in their programs.

The Tulalip Tribes have watched as encroaching development and environmental degradation have increasingly impacted their traditional lands. In recent years, several burial sites have been damaged or destroyed by development in and around the Tulalip reservation. While there have been some efforts made by the archaeological community to protect Tulalip sites, in general they believe that this support has not gone far enough, and in truth, not much has been done to protect and preserve sites in the face of development. The Tulalip believe that they have the moral duty to stop any further destruction of Native burial grounds and ancestral sites, and furthermore believe that contemporary law and treaty rights are on their side.

This case has some basis in reality, but many names, details and roles have been changed, or were invented when no information was available. Some information about the actual park is available on the WSPRC website. Other information sources include The Tulalip Tribes website and The Center for Wooden Boats website. Google searching on “Cama Beach and archaeology” will also get media coverage of the actual conflict that might be useful for you.

Positions
WSPRC must now decide what to do. Options are
1: Ignore the Tulalip request and go ahead with construction as planned
2: Accept the Tulalip request and transfer ownership of the property to the Tulalip Tribes
3: Come up with a compromise solution

You will be assigned one of these positions in class and will write an op-ed piece (click here for some examples from the Seattle Times, look for “guest” opinions) to argue for it, using any means and sources you want. You must come up with a character name and brief biography and include in your paper information about why you are qualified to speak on this matter. Some possible characters include:

· WSPRC staff

· CWB staff

· PSAA archaeologists

· Tulalip or other tribal members and/or staff

· Camano Island business owners and/or residents

· WA Department of Archaeology staff

Length and format:
between 800 and 1,000 words long (about 3-4 double spaced pages).
include character name and brief biography germane to your position
must use at least two published sources, and cite them in your paper
use any citation format you wish as long as it is consistent in your paper.

Grading:
First drafts of your paper will be reviewed by your peers in class and by me afterwards.
I will hand back your draft with peer and instructor comments and your revisions are due one week later.
Grade will be based on the final version of your paper using the following rubric, counts for 25% of your final course grade:

· Persuasiveness (use of convincing language, outside sources, fit with existing laws): 10 points

· Clarity of writing (clear structure, grammar and spelling, easy to read): 10 points

· Improvement from first draft and integration of peer/instructor comments: 5 points

Due Dates:

First draft due Monday, April 21. Bring a printed copy to class for peer review read-around

Final version due Monday, May 5. Bring printed copy to class; staple revised paper together with your marked-up first draft