OBreytenbach_Master's Thesis 2018

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails Olivia Breytenbach MDS Historic Preservation Thesis Advisors - Virginia Adams, Eleni Glekas & Joshua White

The Boston Architectural College

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails Submitted by

Olivia Maureen Breytenbach Presented to the Faculty of the School of Design Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Design Studies Graduation Class of May 25. 2018

Virginia Adams, Primary Advisor

Eleni Glekas, Director of Historic Preservation

Joshua White, Degree Project Instructor

Olivia Breytenbach, Student

table of contents biographical note acknowledgements glossary of terms

i ii iii

introduction

1

organization of the thesis

3

case studies

6

understanding

70

synthesis

76

standards for historically-significant trails

81

education

86

for trail professionals for trail users

88 95

west coast trail chilkoot trail regulatory frameworks

9 20 28

analysis

38

next steps

107

criteria for evaluation canadian standards american standards widely applicable standards

40 42 59 68

endnotes image credits bibliography appendices

108 117 121 125

conclusions

104

biographical note

Olivia Maureen Breytenbach (nĂŠe Cook) was born in Edmonton, Alberta, and grew up in Fort McMurray. After graduating from the National Sport School in Calgary, she pursued her interests in design at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. In May 2016, she graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Architecture with Minors in History and International Affairs. During her undergraduate studies, she worked as a Peer Tutor for classes in International Affairs and Architectural History. She also completed co-operative education terms at Meyer & Meyer, Inc. and Bargmann, Hendrie + Archetype in Boston. Her most important project was working on a City of New York Landmark building designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill called Manhattan House.

While studying architecture abroad in Berlin, Germany, she fell in love with the living history of the city, and how its pains were highlighted rather than torn down or covered up. Since then, her interests have grown from architecture and historic cities to World Heritage management and international heritage. She is a member of the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) and the American chapter of ICOMOS. An avid traveler, she has visited nearly 30 countries including Croatia, Australia, and South Africa. She is a lover of languages, water, road trips, and food of all sorts. Hiking trips have taken her through the English countryside, to the southwest coast of Turkey, to the Wild Atlantic Way of Ireland.

i

acknowledgements

Thanks to my parents, for supporting this decision over one I was not sure about.

Thanks to my teachers, who have inspired in me a great passion for the world’s precious places.

Thanks to my friends, both new and old, for encouraging me in my pursuits.

Thanks to the people I have never met, but contributed to this project anyway.

Thanks to my person, for being the brightest source of joy in my life for the past ten years.

Thanks for taking care of me, and for making my dreams part of your own.

Thanks for everything.

And thanks to the trails, for always being there when I need to get lost.

To the trails I have not walked yet - I look forward to meeting you.

ii

glossary of terms Character-Defining Features: The materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that embody the heritage value of a cultural resource, which must be retained to preserve that value (also referred to as characterdefining elements).

Commemorative Integrity: Refers to the condition or state of a national historic site of Canada when the site has retained the heritage value for which it was designated; the desired state for a national historic site of Canada. A commemorative integrity statement describes what is meant by commemorative integrity for a particular national historic site of Canada.

Describes the place, the reason for its designation, its cultural resources and their heritage value. Provides a baseline for planning, managing, operating, reporting and taking remedial action.

Commemorative Integrity: Refers to the condition

or state of a national historic site of Canada when the site has retained the heritage value for which it was designated; the desired state for a national historic site of Canada.

Conservation (Canada): All actions or processes aimed at safeguarding the character-defining features of a cultural resource to retain its heritage value. This may involve preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or a combination of these conservation approaches.

Cultural Landscape: A geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein), associated with an historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.

Heritage Value: The aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social, or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations. The heritage value of a cultural resource is embodied in its character-defining features.

Historically-Significant Trail: A trail where the route itself was and/or is an active participant in an historical event, human cultures, or local traditions (also referred to as trails with historic significance). A type of evolutionary cultural landscape. iii

Integrity: The authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evinced by the survival or physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period.

Maintenance: Routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to ensure the preservation of a cultural resource (including landscape features) and slow its deterioration. Includes periodic inspection, cleaning, minor repair and refinishing operations, and replacement of damaged or deteriorated elements that are impractical to save.

Preservation (United States): The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property.

Includes preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property and generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction.

Reconstruction: The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the forms, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. iv

Rehabilitation: The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.

Treatment: Work carried out to achieve a particular preservation or conservation goal.

Definitions from:

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (2017) Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes Parks Canada’s Cultural Resource Management Policy (2013)

v

Introduction | 1

I spent my childhood walking through the trails of Fort McMurray, Alberta. Being a stubborn and introverted child, I decided early on that rather than taking the bus with my classmates to get to school in the morning, I would leave early and walk instead. I walked 45 minutes to school every day, whether rain, shine, or blistering cold and snowing, through an area that was known as a home for coyotes, red foxes, and even bears. I’m sure my parents, along with many other people, thought me crazy for preferring to rough it through the woods every day rather than getting to sleep in and be shuttled there with my friends. Yet for me, no experience has ever been as peaceful and personally satisfying as walking alone through nature with my thoughts.

Ever since I can remember, walking in the great outdoors has been important to me. Not only do these activities feed my desire to remain active, they also keep me young at heart and allow me to connect to the environment no matter where I am in the world. As most avid hikers surely do, I have compiled a list over the years of the many trails and hikes that I would like complete at some point in my life. Upon making these lists and learning more about what these trails entail, I found that many of them are not simply recreational trails to take the hiker to a scenic outlook to gaze upon a pristine vista. Rather, many of them evolved through decades or even centuries, as human development progressed and the course of our history played out.

Historically-significant trails were built or defined by use to serve a specific function related to events or patterns of history – people had relationships with these trails, and their cultures grew to encompass 2 | Introduction

and involve these as important sites. Many were hosts to great events and are thus imbued with a blend of cultural and natural historic significance. From these investigations, I have become deeply interested in the ways in which cultural heritage interacts with the natural world. The preservation of such historicallysignificant trails is a topic that I am fiercely passionate about, and so it seemed to be a fitting selection when the time came to decide on the subject for this master’s thesis.

In all of the legislation and standards that exist for the protection of the world’s important places, trails of historic significance seem to have been overlooked, or lumped together with other landscapes that combine nature and culture. While it is true that many of the current standards for cultural landscapes also apply to historically-significant trails, a great many miss the mark or are not nearly specific enough to the unique needs of these landscapes. In order to ensure that all trails of historic importance are cared for in a manner that respects and protects the features that make them special, this thesis will, in part, develop a concrete set of global standards that have been tailored specifically to the needs of historically-significant trails in the hope that these will prevent undue loss and damage to the integrity of such trails around the world.

A lack of standards specific to historically-significant trails may have contributed to the loss of integrity at many sites worldwide, including at the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. Stretching over six states between Santa Fe, New Mexico and Los Angeles,

California and extending 2,700 miles,1 the integrity of this Trail has suffered because its history was not properly addressed in its preservation and maintenance strategy. Beginning in 1829, this route originally allowed merchants to transport their goods between two Mexican provinces using pack mules.

As the region developed through the decades, the Trail was broken up and today, parts of the original Trail are privately owned, have been destroyed by development, or cross Native American tribal reserves.2 Though the Trail is administered by the National Park Service, it is owned by many different parties (both public and private), making management and maintaining historic integrity extremely challenging.

As a result, the character of this once-unbroken piece of history is greatly diminished and struggles to convey its significance in the landscape of the American southwest. Had specific standards related to the preservation of trails with historic significance existed sooner, a more comprehensive plan for the Old Spanish Trail could have been developed, leading to greater protections, and resulting in a more cohesive trail experience.

organization of the thesis Historically-significant trails are a very particular subtype of trails in general. There are trails that were purpose-built for purely recreational purposes and pursuits, while others are recognized as having some historic associations. Then, there are historicallysignificant trails – those where the trail itself took part in an historic event, human cultures, and/or local traditions. Because of the unique qualities that this type of trail possesses, they require specified attention to address the historic nature of the trails themselves to ensure proper preservation, management, and maintenance. To address the gaps that currently exist in trail best practices, this thesis will result in the creation of a set of standards and techniques focusing on the preservation and maintenance of this trail subtype. These will be tailored to ensure the protection of the historic integrity and significance that makes these trails different from others.

To begin addressing these gaps, this project will test how well current trail standards apply to historicallysignificant trails. The first step is to present case studies so as to ground the project in reality. This part Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 3

of the thesis will provide a description of the histories relating to each of the selected case studies, along with any additional relevant information. These are detailed accounts of the events that have imbued these trails with historic significance, and thus establishes their inclusion in this thesis and distinction from trails that are merely recreational in nature or those that are located in an area with historic associations but may not have any particular significance themselves. Next, a thorough analysis of any standards remotely related to historically-significant trails will be undertaken to gain a better understanding of how well suited these are to the unique characteristics of these trails. Based on a set of criteria to evaluate the effectiveness and/ or appropriateness of these standards for use at trail sites with historic significance, this analysis will begin to indicate what exactly are the gaps that exist between standards for trails of any kind, and those that are historically-significant.

The third step to solve these problems is to conduct interviews with trail professionals, such as maintenance crews, park rangers and stewards.

These interviews will offer professional opinions on whether the existing standards are sufficient to address the distinct qualities of historically-significant trails, and will further indicate what is missing in these current practices. Their perspectives on whether more can be done to protect this type of trails from degradation are noteworthy given their experience working with trails, and will help to get a sense of whether they are satisfied with the current standards or not. The information gained from the analysis 4 | Introduction

and interview portions of this study will combine to result in recommendations for standards to address the specific needs of trails with historic significance.

This will synthesize existing and new ideas from the research portion of the thesis into a set of standards that can be applied globally to any country possessing these types of trail resources.

The problem is not yet solved, however. The final step to ensure proper protection of these trails is to disseminate information about historically-significant trails to two main audiences: the trail users themselves and the people who work with historically-significant trails. As we will see in the case studies, little to no historical information about this type of trails is distributed to trail users prior to their journey. In cases where history is told, it is brief and tends not to be memorable. And so, a part of this last step is to give public trail users more opportunities to learn about the history of these places by making information available to them while they are planning their visit.

The other part is to circulate the newly synthesized standards for best practices at historically-significant trails to professionals in the field so that they may begin implementing these. Creating a guide for professionals is not enough – the information must be shared in order for it to gain traction and start protecting these places with the attention they deserve. These educational opportunities will help ensure that the management, preservation and maintenance of these trails will be geared towards the history of the trail, and that the people that use these trails are given more chances to access that history.

In general, this thesis seeks to accomplish three things – first, to investigate what defines historicallysignificant trails through foundational case studies.

Second, it will analyze existing treatments and determine whether these adequately represent the history of the trails in question. Finally, it will suggest new treatments and strategies that will help preserve the historic nature of the trail while enhancing user education and experience. In addition, the creation of a few “potential� educational documents, for both trail professionals and trail users, will complement these findings. The project seeks to correct the fact that current standards do not necessarily address the historic nature of the trails themselves, nor make mention of how to preserve the feeling or association with history (including physical characteristics and features). Because historic trails have a connection to a collective past that is important to human history, techniques for their preservation and maintenance should be specifically tailored to protect that history from degradation in all forms. With climatic conditions changing around the world, and more visitors to historic trails by the year, it is important to protect these places now before they are lost or damaged beyond their ability to retain their integrity and/or characterdefining features.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 5

Case Studies

| 7

Historically-significant trails exist in many different forms – from historic roadways, waterways, and even urban trails. Consider U.S. Highway “Route” 66, the interregional link connecting hundreds of predominantly rural communities between Chicago and Los Angeles. Its construction in 1926 allowed farmers to move their produce for redistribution, and spurred a demand for road and automobile maintenance, food supply, and lodging for highway travelers that also resulted in landmark architecture, increased westward relocation, and economic prosperity even in hard times.3 Though some consider Route 66 to be obsolete now that larger, modern highway systems provided opportunities to bypass it, there is no denying that “Route 66 symbolized the renewed spirit of optimism that pervaded the country after economic catastrophe and global war... [and] linked a remote and under-populated region with two vital 20th century cities.”4 As such, Route 66 and roadways like it, might also be referred to as historically-significant trails.

Another interesting type of historically-significant trail is the historic water trail, of which the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail is an excellent example. The Trail follows the explorations of Captain John Smith in the early 1600s and is based on his own maps and written accounts along his journey. The first of its kind as a national water trail, it stretches over 3,000 miles, connecting 16 National Wildlife Refuges, 12 National Parks, and 3 additional National Trails within 5 states and the District of Columbia.5 More complicated series of trails, like the Trail of Tears depicting the forced 8 | Case Studies

removal of Cherokee people in 1838, or the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage routes, would also be included when discussing historically-significant trails.

This larger grouping of historically-significant trails might be collectively thought of as long, linear corridor routes – built or natural – that humans historically moved through by different modes of transportation, possibly changing throughout time. All historicallysignificant trails are considered to have been purpose-built for a specific function, which is a key distinguishing feature from recreational trails built to experience scenic areas. However, for the purposes of this project, case study research, analysis, and suggestions will focus only on those trails that were historic foot trails that humans walked (and continue to walk) on. Collection of data on current practices for the preservation and maintenance of these types of trails will be concentrated on two main case studies – the West Coast Trail and the Chilkoot Trail. These trails were chosen as case studies because of their origins as footpaths, their role in significant historic events, and because they are now multi-day recreational trails with opportunities to interpret their rich histories. However, their rates of development are quite different – the West Coast Trail’s story developed at a more gradual rate, whereas the Chilkoot Trail’s development saw a boom that naturally came with the explosive nature of the gold rush.

In both cases, there is a sense that the history behind the trails themselves is not being highlighted to their fullest potential. Given the important events that

unfolded here and made these places what they are today, these histories should be celebrated through user education and cared for through their own specific standards for preservation and maintenance.

In order to fully grasp the magnitude of the significance behind the West Coast Trail and the Chilkoot Trail, it is important to give thorough accounts of the events that shaped them. These detailed narratives will also become the basis for all educational material proposed through this thesis project – from information found along the routes themselves to that which users will be provided with at the time of their reservation to complete these trails.

Figure 1.0, Hiker along the West Coast Trail (Vince Chow)

west coast trail At the southwestern edge of Vancouver Island in the province of British Columbia lies the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is an area approximately 511 square-kilometers (197 square-miles) in size. It is comprised of three main areas – Long Beach, the Broken Group Islands, and the West Coast Trail (see Figures 2.0 and 3.0). A world-renowned hiking and outdoor recreation destination, the 75-kilometre (47mile) West Coast Trail traverses the Island’s rugged coastline along the Pacific Ocean. Hikers travel from Gordon River near Port Renfrew in the south to Bamfield in the north (or vice versa) on a Trail that is four meters wide in some sections, one and a half meters wide in others, and unconstrained in sections along the beach.6 Completing the entire Trail takes between five to eight days and leads users through beaches, rivers, waterfalls, tidal pools, and caves over a series of boardwalks, near-vertical ladders, cable cars, and suspension bridges.7 At times covered by trees and at others open to the elements, the Trail is primarily sloped with some level sections at the water’s edge.

The coast has a deadly history, despite its truly scenic surroundings, and the Trail can easily lead to serious injuries – even today, about two percent of West Coast Trail hikers require emergency rescue and evacuation services.8 However, despite its popularity, few are aware of the Trail’s long and layered history that spans many centuries.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 9

Figure 2.0, Vancouver Island (by author)

10 | Case Studies

Figure 3.0, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve - West Coast Trail unit (by author)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 11

The area encompassing the West Coast Trail has been home to three groups of First Nations people – the Ditidaht (also referred to as the Nitinaht), the Huu-ay-aht (also known as the Ohiaht), and the Pacheedaht people – for thousands of years. The Trail was originally part of a series of “ancient paths and paddling routes”9 used by these groups for trade and travel before European settlers arrived. Numerous villages and fishing and whaling stations were located throughout the area, though by about 1882 most of these villages became Reserves for the First Nations people of the area. Through a long series of events, once-important centers along the trade route, like Clo-oose and Whyac, have settled into relative (if not total) abandonment10 and are more like archaeological sites today.

It was not until approximately 1862 that settlers began to arrive in what is now Bamfield,11 and lighthouses were built at Cape Beale and Carmanah Point, in 1873 and 1890 respectively.12 To connect the wild coastal region to the provincial capital in Victoria (approximately 150 kilometers, or 93 miles, to the southeast), a single-strand telegraph line was built along the existing First Nations footpath between 1889 and 1890. This line was also part of a larger system called the “Red Route” or the “All-Red Line,” a primarily undersea network connecting Great Britain to all the colonies within the Empire.13 Because the overhead line was often grounded, broken, or interrupted by fallen trees and treacherous weather events, a team of linesman, “each of whom was responsible for a 40-kilometre section of the route,” were employed to continuously maintain the line when issues like these 12 | Case Studies

arose.14 Needless to say, this team was nearly always busy tending to the line.

Navigational and communications features, like the lighthouses and telegraph line, were constructed to help alleviate a growing problem of Vancouver Island’s southwestern shore – shipwrecks. This region was often referred to as “the Graveyard of the Pacific” because the rocky coastline and often unforgiving weather conditions led to a high and frequent volume of shipwrecks. Given the technological and navigational limitations of the age, the construction of lighthouses was one of the few means by which governments and boat crews hoped to minimize chances of treacherous conditions turning into fatal accidents. While the reports vary somewhat in terms of the actual number of ships that went down in this area, “estimates…hover in the region of 475.”15 The most famous of these shipwrecks, and what would prove to be a significant point in the Trail’s history, was the wreck of the American passenger liner S.S. Valencia (see Figure 5.0) on January 22, 1906, just before midnight. The nearly 1,600-ton vessel was en route to Seattle from San Francisco when she ran aground off of Vancouver Island’s southwestern coast resulting in “one of the most tragic maritime disasters in Pacific Northwest history.”16 While reports on the number of deaths vary to some degree, somewhere between 114 and 136 of the 160-plus people on board (passengers and crew members) lost their lives in the tragedy.

Owned by the Pacific Coast Steamship Company and built in Philadelphia in 1882, the Valencia had

been properly inspected and was found to be in fine working condition before the wreck occurred.17 While deceased Captain Oscar M. Johnson was initially found responsible for the disaster, it was eventually decided that the heavy rain, strong winds, high tide, and lack of lifesaving and navigational precautions, including lighthouses, on the part of the Canadian government were to blame.18 Those who managed to survive the intense swells and jagged rocks to make it to shore found themselves face-to-face with a dense forest and a very primitivelooking trail following the 1889-1890 telegraph line.

Upon following the footpath along the base of the line, and about 15-hours after the Valencia initially struck the reef, a group ended up connecting to the Carmanah Point lighthouse after stumbling across a lineman’s shack along the way, where the news of the wreck was first relayed.19 Another group found themselves at the Cape Beale lighthouse, with rescue ships already on their way. However, the ocean conditions remained rough and unrelenting, and many of the numerous attempts to rescue both living and dead failed. Two more Pacific Coast Steamship passenger lines, the S.S. Queen and S.S. City of Topeka, were ordered to discharge their cargo and passengers to set sail to the scene of the Valencia’s wreck to help as they could.

After multiple governmental investigations following the wreck determined that further measures should be taken to increase maritime safety on the Canadian shores, plans to transform the existing telegraph line into a lifesaving trail sprang into action.

Figure 4.0, 1902 British “All-Red Line” map (Innovating in Combat)

A third lighthouse was constructed at Pachena Point in 1907, just three miles away from where the Valencia ran aground. A lifeboat station was built at Bamfield because of its prominent location and stable population. Additionally, directional signs were installed along the trail, and approximately eight cabins containing lifesaving supplies, including maps in several languages, food rations, blankets, and other supplies, were built at 8-kilometre intervals to shelter any survivors.20 By the spring of the 1907, construction of and improvements to the trail were under way.

The trail was known by many names but was most commonly referred as the “Dominion Lifesaving Trail” (likely referring to the country’s formal name – the Dominion of Canada) or the “Shipwrecked Mariner’s Trail.”

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 13

As a result of the First World War between 1914 and 1918, manpower and supplies were diverted from activities like the construction and maintenance of the Lifesaving Trail towards the war effort. During this period, the Trail fell into a state of disrepair, until its maintenance was resumed in 1924 by a team of local residents.21 In the following decades, improved navigational technologies like radar, the Long Range Navigation System (LORAN) and global positioning22 from the 1940s rendered the Trail virtually useless, as the number of shipwrecks and number of lives lost at sea diminished significantly. Despite the Trail having received Park Reserve status in 1964 as a result of “lobbying from environmentally conscious locals and the Sierra Club,” by 1967 maintenance of the Trail was abandoned23 since its primary function as a lifesaving trail was no longer relevant. Though these groups were interested in the recreational and environmental values of the land rather than protecting the Trail’s historical character, their efforts paved the way to allow the Trail’s rich history to be shared with its users.

Figure 5.0, The S.S. Valencia, ca. 1905 (BC Archives)

14 | Case Studies

These efforts between the Sierra Club and the provincial government led to the Lifesaving Trail’s promotion as a recreational destination by 1969.24 Unfortunately, progress towards a new use for the Trail was met with strong opposition from the logging industry, who asserted that their efforts were more economically-viable than those aimed towards creating recreational areas. Because the provincial government had leased out Tree Farm Licenses to fund forestry management in the 1950s, the timber rights to the land in question were not held by the government,

but by a handful of logging companies.25 When futurePrime Minister Jean Chrétien (then acting as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) signed an agreement with the Provincial Recreation Minister of British Columbia in April 1970 reserving land between Port Renfrew and Bamfield for public recreation, active logging companies starkly objected to the governments’ and conservationists’ desire to enlarge the protected area.26 Over the next two decades, tensions between the provincial and federal governments, and those with the timber rights on the Island resulted in lengthy negotiations. Even though ownership of the Trail was uncertain during this tumultuous period, the federal government made efforts to refurbish and upgrade the Trail for recreation purposes between 1973 and 1978, including the installation of boardwalks over difficult or marshy sections.27 Tens of thousands of people hiked the Trail while the conflict continued, despite the fact that there was no formal management at this time.

The great numbers that flocked to the Trail further justified the governments’ case for rehabilitating the Trail and conserving the area as a Park Reserve. It was not until 1988 that the Trail was officially in the hands of the government, after a compensation package deemed suitable enough was accepted by the logging companies.28 Finally, at the end of twenty years of negotiations, the Dominion Lifesaving Trail was re-established as the West Coast Trail within the larger Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in 1992. Since the official formation of

the Park Reserve, the federal government took over management of the now wildly-popular wilderness Trail and began imposing limits on the number of annual hikers permitted by introducing a mandatory registration and reservation system.29 This new requirement was a substantial measure toward the preservation and protection of the sensitive natural environment on the Island’s wild west coast, but also ensured that the man-made elements of the Trail would last longer.

Along the Trail, remnants of long-gone shipwrecks litter the coast’s edge, where hikers see “distorted lumps of iron barely recognizable as huge anchors, capstans or boilers…”30 (see Figure 13.0) and even the “tangled wreckage of the Valencia….”31 Traces of the original telegraph line and the survival cabins are rumored to remain, though their state is currently unknown.

These key historical elements are excellent interpretive features that bring users closer to the events that have given the Trail its significance. In addition to artifacts from shipwrecks, the approximately 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) of boardwalks, five cable cars, four suspension and 108 wooden bridges, and hundreds of ladder systems along the Trail,32 these cabins and remnants of the telegraph line comprise the physical, manmade interventions that are essential to preserve and maintain. Protection of the natural features that these physical features must respond to, such as the many waterfalls, tree lines, beaches and cliffs, must also be a top priority.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 15

From its humble beginnings as a footpath and trade route used by First Nations communities, to the installation of the telegraph line and eventual lifesaving trail in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the West Coast Trail has undergone transformations to become the famed destination it is today. Throughout each stage in its development, the Trail played an important functional role in the lives of those who frequented it. It is this continuity of rich history that gives the Trail its significance, as embodied in the elements of the Trail that are essential to tell its story. To properly convey its history, both the man-made and natural features of the Trail must be maintained according to standards for trails imbued with historical significance.

Figure 6.0, Darling Falls on the West Coast Trail, 1975 (BC Archives)

Opposite Top left: Figure 7.0, Coastal section of the West Coast Trail (Vince Chow) Bottom left: Figure 8.0, Tsusiat Falls along the West Coast Trail (Vince Chow) Top right: Figure 9.0, “Steam donkey� engine for logging, age unknown, West Coast Trail (Vince Chow) Bottom right: Figure 10.0, West Coast Trail ladders and bridges (Vince Chow)

16 | Case Studies

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 17

Figure 11.0, Boardwalk along the West Coast Trail (Anton Bielousov)

18 | Case Studies

Figure 12.0, Bridge along the West Coast Trail (Vince Chow)

Figure 13.0, Steam boiler from the 1893 wreck of the Michigan (Anton Bielousov)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 19

chilkoot trail

Benn

ke

Chilkoot Trail Trailhead Chilkoot Trail Campsite an

ke La

m

e ind

Bare Loon Lake

L

20 | Case Studies

Tr ai l

rn a

rd La ke

o lk

i Ch

W

The Scales

hi

te

Pa ss

Be

La ke Cr at er

l

ai Tr t o

Stone Crib

The Golden Stairs

Sheep Camp

Pleasant Camp

Canyon City

Taiya River

Finnegan’s Point

Sk a Ri gw ve ay r

Dyea S Town Site

N

AD

A

ED CA

let

UN

IT

Skagway

ST

AT

ES

Road to Dyea

Taiya In

The idea of establishing an international park commemorating the Klondike gold rush first surfaced in 1969 after an official party of representatives from relevant agencies in both countries hiked the Chilkoot Trail from Skagway and Dyea to Bennett.35 Slowly, steps towards making this dream a reality were taken on both sides of the border. Parks Canada began managing the Canadian side of the Trail in 1974,36 and on the

Happy Camp

White P Yukon ass & Ro Railro ute ad

Lindeman City

Deep Lake

Crossing international borders between the United States and Canada, the Chilkoot Trail is a 53-kilometer (33-mile) trail that follows one of the most prominent late nineteenth-century gold rush routes from Dyea, Alaska northward to Bennett, British Columbia (see Figure 14.0 and 15.0). The three- to five-day trek leads hikers through very steep and rocky terrain that is often snow-covered, with some very strenuous and isolated sections.33 The Trail is jointly managed by Parks Canada (as the Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site designated in 1987) and the National Park Service (as the Chilkoot Trail and Dyea Site National Historic Landmark designated in June 1978). On August 5, 1998, the two countries officially established sites on both the American and Canadian sides as part of the 13,000acre Klondike Gold Rush International Historical Park after three decades of planning.34

N

ett La

Chilkoot Trail

N

Skagway

Atlin

British Columbia Juneau

D

NA

ST

DA

Gulf of Alaska

IT E

AT ES

Figure 14.0, Map showing the locations of the Chilkoot and White Trails (by author)

Whitehorse Cordova

CA

Opposite

Yukon Territory

UN

The first major discovery of gold in the Klondike region was made in August 1896, when the precious metal was found in Bonanza Creek (once known as Rabbit Creek, located in Yukon, Canada).42 When word got out in cities like San Francisco and Seattle that people had

CANADA

This gold-filled area had been populated long before white settlers arrived in the late 1800s. The Tlingit indigenous people, along with many other Native American and First Nations Canadian peoples, had called this part of North America home for centuries, and had used routes for travel and trade that would later become routes to the Klondike.39 Once the rush was on, the non-native population in Alaska soared from just over 4,200 in 1890 to almost 30,300 just ten years later.40 This influx of miners also led to a shift in power of the local economy from the fur trade to mining, which had negative implications for the indigenous populations living nearby. The First Nations of the Canadian Interior traded with the fur companies and the Tlingit before the rush settled in – after mining took over as the main activity, the fur companies moved farther into the Interior, cutting off trade between the Tlingit and the First Nations.41

Alaska

UNITED STATES

American side, the National Park Service purchased much of the old townsite at Dyea in February 1978.37 On June 16th of the same year, the Chilkoot Trail and Dyea Site were designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior.38

N

Figure 15.0, Map showing the context of the Chilkoot Trail (by author)

arrived with more than a ton of gold in July the following year, the Klondike gold rush had officially begun.43 Two rushes occurring in different areas soon followed – the first near Dawson City in the Yukon beginning in 1897, and the second roughly two years later near Nome, Alaska. In the former, stampeders (a term often used when referring to people that flocked to Alaska during the gold rush period) would arrive in either Skagway or Dyea, Alaska, and hike through challenging terrain to reach Lindeman or Bennett Lakes. Once there, they would wait until the ice broke on the Yukon River to continue their journey until reaching the Klondike gold fields near Dawson City.44 The true test of the miners’ spirits were the two trusted gateways to the Klondike – the White Trail accessed by Skagway, and the Chilkoot Trail from Dyea.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 21

Because the White Pass was considered to be the more difficult route to the Lakes, Skagway welcomed a steady stream of prospectors who would be forced to turn back to town after encountering the rough terrain.45 The same could not be said about the small outpost of Dyea — because conditions along the Chilkoot Trail were thought to be more favorable, less people remained in town. Still, Dyea remained an important starting point for many stampeders. That is, until a series of disastrous avalanches on April 3, 1898 at the Chilkoot Pass resulted in the deaths of more than 60 people,46 and the sentiment that the White Pass would be safer for travelers headed to the Klondike. The shift toward the use of the White Pass Trail was further intensified by the completion of the White Pass & Yukon Route Railroad in 1900,47 which circumvented the need for the Chilkoot Trail almost entirely. From that point on, the Chilkoot Trail began a path toward rapid decline, and in the case of Dyea, total abandonment.

By about 1910, Dyea had become a ghost town. The post office had closed down in 1902, and the town’s last resident, E. A. Klatt, left no more than five years later.48 Neither the town nor the Trail received much attention until 1961 when the State of Alaska “used inmates from the Youth Authority Department and their Corrections Branch to clear and restore the Chilkoot Trail on the American side of the border…” as far as the summit of the Chilkoot Pass where the two countries meet.49 In the summer of 1968, the final portion of the Trail from the summit to Bennett was rehabilitated by a team of adult inmates in a joint effort between the governments of the Yukon territory and British Columbia.50 These restoration teams took on 22 | Case Studies

Figure 16.0, Seattle newspaper headline signaling the beginning of the gold rush, July 17, 1897(Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

the difficult task of rediscovering the “lost” Trail. Over fifty years had gone by since the Trail had seen any significant numbers of users, and during this period of human neglect Mother Nature had taken over, which eventually forced rehabilitation teams to slash through “considerable overgrowth” in order to make the path clear once again.51 While in some areas photos and maps from the gold rush period helped workers to determine that they were following the parts of the original Chilkoot Trail, the so-called “rediscovery” of the Trail between the Dyea townsite and Sheep Camp was not entirely accurate. One analysis from 1970 found that up to 50 percent of the Trail as it was cleared by the 1960s team failed to faithfully follow the historic route of the stampeders.52 Truthfully speaking, the Chilkoot Trail never actually followed a single marked route. Rather, it was “a braided network of paths contingent upon seasonal conditions…”53 used by local First Nations and later prospectors. The idea of the “historic route” pertains to that used by thousands of people during the gold rush period. Even during this event, however, travelers looking for a quicker, easier route to the summit of the Chilkoot Pass created a series of side trails.54 For this reason, the Chilkoot Trail is sometimes more appropriately referred to as an historic trail corridor, comprised of a series of trails dating back to an established period of significance.

Between 1961 and 1968, the State of Alaska rehabilitation team made attempts to follow the historic route as accurately as possible, though this goal seemed to be doomed from the outset. Largely overgrown by vegetation and “obliterated” by rock

slides, trail marking was difficult, so the Trail “was made as best as possible.”55 Other times, portions of the Trail were thought to be too dangerous for hikers to use, which resulted in further rerouting to avoid steep grade changes.56 After the National Park Service took over management of the Chilkoot Trail in the late 1970s, another long sequence of rehabilitation measures took place. Between 1980 and 1995, “the character of the 1960s trail…had been transformed from a rough and ephemeral construction to a deliberately recreational trail built to modern standards…”57 again altering the supposed “historic route.” Later changes and additions included the construction of a wooden boardwalk over a beaver pond (1999-2000) and the replacement of two earlier wooden bridges with prefabricated steel bridges in 1999 – a treatment that very likely would not have been supported by the SOI’s Standards. Park management has since opted to use site specific, natural materials for the replacement of pre-existing water crossings, a strategy which more clearly suits the rustic and historic character of the Trail.58 The many alterations made to the Chilkoot Trail since the 1960s have obscured the desire to maintain a route that is historically accurate to the Klondike gold rush.

Over the years, many reports have suggested that a realignment to a researched historic route should be undertaken to recapture the historic sense of the Trail. However, several factors stand in the way of this endeavor. To follow the prescribed route more closely, several bridges crossing the Taiya River would need to be built and maintained at an exceedingly high cost.59 Second, the realignment would infringe upon privately owned land. Finally, the restoration of the Trail to its truest location “would likely result in the significant Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 23

Figure 17.0, Chilkoot Trail profile (Parks Canada)

loss of historical artifacts…”60 meaning the plan to reestablish the historic route was unsuitable.

The southern trailhead at Dyea is accessible by an all-weather dirt road approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) from Skagway. To access the northern trailhead at Bennett, trail users have only two options – fly in by floatplane from Whitehorse, or take the train via the historic White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad.61 The Trail slopes upwards from sea level, with light to heavy ascent and descent conditions along the way (see Figure 17.0) and culminating at “the Golden Stairs” up to the Chilkoot Pass (approximately 1,100 meters/3,600 feet above sea level). This section of the Trail is a large part of the reason why the Chilkoot Trail was called “the meanest 33 miles in history.”62 Gold-seeking hopefuls had to trek some 1,500 steps up the scree-covered mountain in a single file, made easier in the winter months since actual stairs could be carved into the snow and ice.63 24 | Case Studies

Many artifacts remain on the edges of the Chilkoot Trail and at Dyea from the days of the Klondike gold rush.

Remnants of base camps (like the one at The Scales, seen in Figure 18.0), shelters, stone tent platforms, buildings from the small town’s heyday, grave markers and the Slide Cemetery (near Dyea memorializing over 40 victims of the April 1898 avalanches),64 and all manner of objects from stampeders long gone litter the sites. These, along with the various manmade trail treatments (boardwalk, bridges, etc.) and natural conditions and environment, are all profoundly important in the telling of the Chilkoot Trail’s history.

Opposite Figure 18.0, Klondikers at The Scales ascending the Chilkoot Pass, 1898 (University of Washington Digital Collections)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 25

26 | Case Studies

Opposite Top left: Figure 19.0, Freight wagon remains from the Gold Rush (Winfree Studios) Bottom left: Figure 20.0, Dyea, Alaska, ca. 1898 (University of Washington Digital Collections) Top right: Figure 21.0, Stampeders waiting in line to climb the Chilkoot Pass, 1898 (National Park Service) Bottom right: Figure 22.0, Gold rush cemetery in Dyea, Alaska, 2011 (Chilkoot 24/7)

Top: Figure 23.0, Crater Lake on the Chilkoot Trail, British Columbia, 1897 (University of Washington Digital Collections) Bottom: Figure 24.0, Hikers near Crater Lake, British Columbia (Ruby Range Adventure)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 27

regulatory frameworks To form a more comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding historically-significant trails, a study of the regulatory frameworks that governments use to manage these trails is imperative. Two regulatory systems are involved in this project – Parks Canada manages the West Coast Trail and the Canadian portion of the Chilkoot Trail, while the National Park Service (NPS) manages the American side of the Chilkoot Trail. The following section relays the relevant information regarding the designation and preservation of historically-significant trails in each of these systems.

CANADA The framework for the Canadian conservation system that applies to nationally-significant sites, like the West Coast Trail and the Chilkoot Trail, is convoluted at best. Since the Constitution Act of 1867, there have been many different acts of legislation relating to 28 | Case Studies

natural and cultural heritage resource protection, though what exactly each of these acts accomplished is somewhat illogical and not easily understood.

In addition, Parks Canada “has been criticized in the past for the development of so many different types of plans and strategies that making a logical linkage between plans is exceptionally difficult….”65 All of this has led to heightened confusion and periods of seemingly endless planning resulting in a lack of action, accountability, and stagnant public involvement.66 While for many years it has been clear to conservationists and heritage professionals alike that Canada’s conservation practices would be well served by a complete overhaul, little progress has been seen to this end.

Canada follows a system of conservation rather than preservation. This mostly means that conservation is the overarching term used when discussing the protection of natural and cultural resources in Canada.

In the United States, conservation is typically used for natural resources, while preservation is used for cultural resources. At the federal level, the Parks Canada Agency (previously known as the Dominion Parks Branch, the National Parks Branch, and the Canadian Parks Service)67 is charged with the protection and presentation of nationally significant natural and cultural resources. Provincial, territorial, or local entities manage other protected heritage sites. The Parks Canada Agency became the world’s first national park organization when it was officially established on May 19, 1911, though the country’s first national park in Banff was created 26 years earlier in 1885.68 Currently, major players in the nation’s system

of heritage conservation include the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (hereafter referred to as “the Minister”), the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), and the Parks Canada Agency (hereafter referred to simply as “Parks Canada”).

Among its duties, Parks Canada assists the HSMBC in preparing recommendations for new national parks, national historic sites, and other protected heritage areas to be presented to the Minister for consideration.

Parks Canada was originally established as the Dominion Parks Branch with the passing of the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act of 1911. This act created two types of conservation lands, reduced the acceptable level of development allowed in national parks (then called dominion parks), and placed these under the administration of Parks Canada.69 This new federal program for heritage conservation was complimented by the creation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) in 1919.

The Board’s role, to this day, is to advise the Minister (also responsible for Parks Canada) on the “selection, commemoration, and preservation of national historic sites.”70 However, it was not until 1953 that a legislative basis for the Board’s activities was provided when the Historic Sites and Monuments Act formally recognized the HSMBC.71 The current and amended version of this Act (1985) gives the Minister the authority to commemorate historic places by means of plaques or other signs, to establish historic museums (upon approval by the Governor in Council), acquire any historic places (upon approval by the Treasury Board), and “to provide for the administration, preservation and maintenance of any historic places acquired….”72

The passing of the National Parks Act in 1930 ensured that new parks designated in the future would be known as the National Parks of Canada and established these as absolute game sanctuaries.

No mineral exploration or development would be allowed, and the Act “limited the use of green timber to [only] that essential for park management purposes.”73 Perhaps the most significant aspect of this Act, however, was the ability of lands owned by the Canadian government (“vested in the Crown”) to be established as National Historic Parks, now known as National Historic Sites, to “commemorate historic events of national importance, or to preserve historic landmarks or objects or historic, prehistoric, or scientific interest of national importance.”74 The current and amended version of this Act (Canada National Parks Act, 2000) requires the Minister to prepare management plans for new parks within five years of their establishment, and management plans for all national parks must be reviewed at least once every ten years. Additionally, the Minister is required to ensure that “State of the Park” reports are prepared at least every two years.75 First passed in 1992 (current version from 2012), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) requires Parks Canada “to ensure that no project on the lands and waters it manages is authorized unless a determination is made that the project does not have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental effects”76 on both natural and cultural resources. To fulfill these requirements, Parks Canada developed the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) process to “systematically, efficiently and pro-actively evaluate projects within protected heritage places to Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 29

ensure they are as well designed as possible to avoid or reduce adverse effects.�77 To begin this process, Parks Canada staff reviews the project description provided to them. If it is determined that there are no potential adverse environmental effects from a proposed project, the process is complete and no formal EIA is required. If there is potential for adverse environmental effects, staff will then determine which of the four EIA Pathways is appropriate for the project (see Figure 25.0 for the full EIA Decision Framework).

Should Parks Canada determine at the end of the EIA process that a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, under Section 67 of the CEAA Parks Canada cannot authorize the project to proceed.78 In the event that a project is authorized following a finding of no significant adverse environmental effects, Parks Canada will issue project permits that include conditions for approval – these conditions may include mitigation, surveillance and follow-up monitoring requirements.79 This process has underpinnings that are similar to the review process that takes place under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) in the United States (discussed in the following section).

Right: Figure 25.0, Environmental Impact Analysis - Decision Framework (Parks Canada)

30 | Case Studies

A final act with measurable impact on the conservation of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage resources is the Parks Canada Agency Act of 1998. The Act formally established Parks Canada as a separate federal Agency reporting to the Minister. Among others, the Act gave the Agency the responsibility to perform the duties and functions relating to national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas, and other protected heritage areas (including historic museums) and heritage protection programs (such as heritage lighthouses).80 The Parks Canada Agency Act is the most current act of law pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of Parks Canada in its purpose of ensuring that the nation’s significant heritage sites are protected and presented for this and future generations.81 Perhaps the most important step towards a unified and efficient system of heritage conservation in Canada came in 1999, when the federal government launched the Historic Places Initiative. With the recognition that the country was falling short in its commitments towards the protection of heritage sites in comparison to other developed nations,82 the Historic Places Initiative sought to bring Canada into the modern age of conservation practices. The Initiative saw two major developments – first was the creation of the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP). A panCanadian effort, the Register is a collaborative source drawing on listings of all levels (federal, provincial and territorial) of significance relating to Canada’s historic places. Though the CRHP drew considerable influence from the American National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), this project differs in that a separate nomination to the Canadian Register is not required for

listing. To be included in the CRHP, a property need only to have been deemed worthy of heritage listing by a provincial or territorial register for historic places (such as the Alberta Register of Historic Places, managed by the Historic Resource Management Branch of the Alberta provincial government).

The second achievement out of this Initiative was the development of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003, 2010).

The goal of this document was to provide a consistent set of conservation principles and guidelines useful to anyone with an interest in conserving Canada’s historic places. The Standards and Guidelines take inspiration from many other national and international standards for natural and cultural heritage conservation, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Venice Charter (1964), and the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994).83 In contrast to the American standards, the Standards and Guidelines recognize three conservation treatments (Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration) and do not consider Reconstruction to be a viable treatment option.84 The “Historic Places Act,” a proposed third development of the Historic Places Initiative aimed at creating comprehensive legislation to protect federally-owned historic properties,85 has never been realized. Whether this new Act is in progress or not is currently unknown.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 31

UNITED STATES While much of the contemporary laws and protections more clearly related to historically-significant trails in the United States are came from a very active period in the historic preservation movement in the 1960s, concern for the protection of natural and cultural resources has a much longer history in the country. Legislation from as far back as the 1870s laid the foundations for the protective measures in place today – in order to understand the connection between historically-significant trails and the laws and documents that guide their management and preservation, it is important to know how these came to be through many important acts that came before.

The historic preservation movement in the United States is one that has had significant impact on the international community of heritage conservation.

Having established the world’s first national park with the Yellowstone Act in 1872,86 the country has been a leader in the protection and management of natural and cultural resources ever since. At the federal level, the National Park Service, under the supervision and guidance of the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter referred to simply as “the Secretary”), is charged with the promotion and regulation of areas under federal protection whose purpose is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for [their] enjoyment…by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”87 The passing of the Antiquities Act in 1906 is considered 32 | Case Studies

by many to have been the beginning of America’s investment in and recognition of its historic assets, both natural and cultural. This landmark Act was the first instance of “broad sweeping protection” of all sites owned by the federal government, which included requiring permits for all investigations conducted at these sites and penalties for those who disturb sites without permits.88 Another notable aspect of this piece of legislation was that granted the President of the United States to “unilaterally declare national monuments on federal lands in order to protect items of historic or scientific interest.”89 The Act has proven to be a controversial one – some view it as nothing but a “federal land grab,” while others see it as an important part of the preservation framework. Regardless of these tensions, the Act remains a relevant fixture in today’s contemporary preservation narrative.

A decade later, another step towards creating a stronger, more cohesive system for the protection and management of historic resources came with the Act to Establish a National Park Service (commonly known as the Organic Act). The Organic Act did two important things – first, as the name suggests, the National Park Service was established within the Department of the Interior. Before this point in 1916, each park was run as an independent unit within the Department, and this Act placed all existing parks under the management of the National Park Service.90 While the Service’s duties are many and far-reaching, it is essentially responsible for the preservation of park resources and making said resources, whether natural, historic, cultural or otherwise, available to the public.91 When the stock market crashed in 1929, resulting in

the Great Depression, the progress made within the National Park Service since its establishment in 1916 was brought to a brief halt. Even though visitation to the sites under the Service’s administration suffered during this time, the Parks system saw unprecedented levels of construction related to visitor facilities, roads and trail building, and planning during this period of economic instability.92 As part of an act to relieve unemployment among America’s young men at the time, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was formed.

Operating between 1933 and 1942, the CCC was “a military-style program of public works conducted in large measure in and around national and state parks and forests.”93 Not only did the program provide meaningful employment for many during the nation’s worst economic crisis to date, it also brought about the construction of more infrastructure within the National Park Service’s network than in all the previous years combined.94 It is quite possible that this period resulted in the most significant development of trails within America’s national park system to date.

Within the same timeframe, concern over the preservation of the nation’s historic structures, sites, and objects grew among conservationists and the public alike. These concerns led to the enactment of the Historic Sites Act in 1935, which clearly stated that it is the duty of the federal government to “preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance….”95 The Act ordered the National Park Service to identify, survey, and protect (or assist other in protecting) historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and objects.96 In addition, this Act gave the Secretary (via the National Park Service) the power to commemorate places and events of national

historical or archaeological significance through the use of tablets,97 which remains an important part of site interpretation within the park system today. It also established the National Park System Advisory Board (then known as the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments), which consists of individual citizens of the country with a “demonstrated commitment to the mission of the National Park Service, and representing various geographic regions….”98 The Board advises the Secretary and the Director of the National Park Service on matters relating to the programs and sites administered by the Service, including the designation of national landmarks and the potential designation and national significance of proposed national historic trails.99 Finally, the foundation of the National Landmarks program was laid out in the Historic Sites Act.100 Following periods of further economic restriction because of the American involvement in the Second World War in the 1940s, a string of acts important to the regulatory framework of historically-significant trails emerged in the mid- to late-1960s. The first of these was the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, which established the National Register of Historic Places (also referred to as the Register). The Register is a collection of sites, buildings, objects, structures, and districts of national significance in areas related to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.101 These must go through a process of nomination that determines whether the level of historic integrity and significance of the resource being nominated is sufficient to warrant listing in the prestigious Register.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 33

While inclusion in the Register is an honor in and of itself, listing has some other positive implications.

One such implication, and the other important part of the NHPA, is that which is established under Section 106 of the Act. This section requires federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings that they license, permit, or fund, in whole or in part, on historic properties. These “historic properties� are ones that are listed in the Register or those that meet the criteria for listing in the Register. Section 106 also requires that these agencies afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (simply referred to as the Council, established under Title II of the Act) a reasonable opportunity to comment on these undertakings.102 If the undertaking has no potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further obligations under Section 106.

Figure 26.0, Section 106 Review Process (National Park Service)

34 | Case Studies

However, if it is found that the project is one that could affect historic properties, the agency must notify the appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO, respectively) and begin the review process (see Figure 26.0 for a visual representation of this process). The process includes the identification of historic properties within the scope of the project (the area of potential effects). If the identified properties will not be affected by the undertaking (a finding of no adverse effect), the federal agency may proceed with the project. If it is found that there is an adverse effect on the identified properties, the consulting parties (including the federal agency, the SHPO/THPO, the Council, and local preservation bodies) will work towards building consensus to arrive at a plan to minimize, mitigate, or avoid adverse effects on historic properties within the area of potential effects.103

While this is an important process that forces federal agencies to consider the potential consequences of their actions upon recognized historic properties, the process is ultimately advisory only. This means that, at the end of the Section 106 review process, the federal agency may go ahead with their original plans at will. The conditions stipulated in any type of mitigation plan, such as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), cannot be regulated by the Council or any other entity. In general, the Council was established as an independent agency to advise the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy.

It “promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of [the] nation’s historic resources” – it does not inherently possess the legal power to force federal agencies to comply with any findings of the Section 106 review process.104 This differs from the Environmental Impact Analysis process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act discussed in the last section, in which Parks Canada cannot authorize a project if it is found that a project is likely to cause adverse environmental effects.

In his 1965 address to Congress entitled “the Conservation and Preservation of Natural Beauty,” President Lyndon Johnson called for the Secretary, in collaboration with state and local leaders, to come up with “…a cooperative program to encourage a national system of trails…in our national forests and parks.”105 Soon thereafter, a study of existing trails and how well they served the American people was commissioned

by Stewart Udall, the Secretary of the Interior at the time. The results of the study were collected into what is known as the Trails for America report (1966), which also included recommendations for federal legislation

that would make a cohesive national trails system a reality.106 Given the timeline, we can see that the need and desire for a system of trails within the federal government developed parallel to the need for further protections for historic resources under the NHPA (both the NHPA and the Trails for America report came to be in the last months of 1966).

In time, the federal legislation that the Trails for America report recommended was adopted at the National Trails System Act (1978). The original Act included three different types of trails – National Scenic Trails, National Recreation Trails, and Connecting and Side Trails.107 The current, amended version of the Act describes National Scenic Trails as being extended, land-only trails (of more than 100 miles in length) that provide “for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.”108 National Recreation Trails, on the other hand, are usually located in and around urban areas, and do not have a minimal length requirement.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed a bill to add National Historic Trails as a new category within the National Trails System Act.109 The newer category is perhaps the type of existing trails that is most similar to historically-significant trails. Like National Scenic Trails, these are also extended trails (though they may be less than 100 miles in total length), but specifically follow “historic trails or routes of travel as closely as possible…[for the] identification and protection of the historic route and its historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment.”110 However, as in the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail mentioned in the introduction, National Historic Trails Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 35

may include water-based routes. Both National Scenic and National Historic Trails may only be designated by an Act of Congress, whereas National Recreation Trails may be designated by the Secretary themselves, or by the Secretary of Agriculture.111 Connecting or Side Trails simply provide additional points of access to any of these three types of trails.112 In a similar fashion as Section 106 in the NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 “ordered federal agencies to carry out their duties in such a way as to avoid or minimize”113 impacts to the environment (as opposed to impacts to historic properties). In many cases, NEPA review and Section 106 review occur hand-in-hand, which is why the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, as established in Title II of the Act) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation collaborated on a Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.114 Like the Council’s role in Section 106, the CEQ has no authority over the final decisions of the federal agencies with which they consult on NEPA reviews (and any mitigation plans that result from this review).115 In terms of historicallysignificant trails, both review processes (NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA) provide federal agencies with opportunities to understand the full range of impacts of their undertakings as they relate to natural and culture resources, both of which are integral to the integrity of these types of trails.

Historically-significant trails are certainly not a concept unique to Canada and the United States. Though only trails located in these two neighboring nations have been studied at length in this project, the overall goal for the standards to be created through these 36 | Case Studies

investigations is that they be far-reaching in their influence. This means that they should be as applicable to trails of historic significance in North America and they would be in Asia, Africa, and in every other part of the world that possesses this type of historic resource.

Because of this, the standards for the preservation and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance will establish a broad framework, within which each country (and each individual historically-significant trail) may add a level of greater specificity to make these standards more compatible with their own heritage conservation goals.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 37

Analysis

| 39

criteria for evaluation When it comes to existing standards and techniques relevant to the preservation and maintenance of heritage resources in Canada and the United States, the documents discussed in this Chapter are those that have at least some degree of connection to trails of any sort (historic, recreational, or otherwise).

These documents have been thoroughly analyzed to determine which prescribed standards and techniques may be applicable for use at sites featuring historicallysignificant trails. Consequently, their analysis also sheds light on what is missing in preservation practice concerning these types of trails. These gaps in the current preservation system form the basis for this study. Out of this analysis comes the knowledge that more can and should be done to protect such trails for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations, and that we, as the current generation, are more than able to provide for these protections.

In order to consistently assess each of the diverse documents to follow, a uniform set of criteria for their evaluation has been established (see Figure 27.0).

Most of the criteria have an ideal answer of yes to the questions they pose, though the second criterion prefers a no answer. The first criterion establishes the basic principle of this thesis – whether trail routes themselves are considered historic resources, as well as whether their character-defining features are identified. Criterion two hopes that the existing standards will not prioritize other aspects of the trail experience, like user safety and user experience, over the maintenance of the original historic route and its associated features. As we will see in this section, sometimes trails are altered to accommodate the desires and abilities of the users – this might be acceptable for trails that are purely recreational, but in the case of historically-significant trails, the preservation of the historic route should be the top priority.

The next criterion gives preference to those standards that value cultural and natural resources equally and

40 | Analysis

balance their preservation and maintenance needs in tandem. Since the cultural features of historicallysignificant trails (buildings, artifacts, archaeological sites, etc.) are as important as the natural setting in which they are found, there should be no established rule to favor the preservation of one over the other.

If either of these resource types begins to fail, the integrity of the entire site is in jeopardy. Another central tenet of this study is addressed in the fourth criterion – user knowledge of the trail history. Ideally, users will have many opportunities (of many different kinds) to encounter and learn about the stories behind historically-significant trails. If existing standards encourage a variety of educational opportunities focused on trail history, then they will be considered successful under this principle.

Figure 27.0, Criteria for Evaluation (Olivia Breytenbach)

The final criterion for evaluation addresses the suggested maintenance strategies in the existing standards that may relate to trails with historic significance. Some of the existing standards that follow offer specific guidelines for best preservation and maintenance practice. If these suggestions are applicable to historically-significant trails, then this criterion is fulfilled. Generally speaking, if an existing standards document is in line with these criteria, they will be considered easily translatable and/or relevant to the preservation and maintenance of historicallysignificant trails. If these criteria are not met, then the existing standards fail to relate strongly enough to the unique needs of this trail subtype and will not be included in the forthcoming standards for historicallysignificant trails.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 41

canadian standards for trails STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA - 2010 The second edition of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is the nation’s premier document to help guide decisions related to the treatment of heritage places. Initially created in 2003 out of the Historic Places Initiative, the primary purpose of the document is “to provide sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice.”116 The Canadian Standards and Guidelines cite many influential documents as having contributed in their creation, including the 1964 Venice Charter, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of 1978 (revised 1995), the 1979 Burra Charter, and the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity.117 The fourteen Standards provide a broader philosophical basis for conservation.118 The first nine Standards are general ones that apply to any of the three recognized conservation treatments (preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration). Standards ten through twelve are related to rehabilitation, and the last two concern restoration only. The Guidelines, which make up the majority of the document, are meant to 42 | Analysis

guide those involved in conservation planning and use a “recommended” or “not recommended” format.119 In a similar fashion as the Standards, there are general Guidelines for all three recognized conservation treatments, and additional Guidelines for rehabilitation and restoration.

Since the Standards are theoretical in nature and are based on good conservation practice, virtually all of these will be translated with greater specificity in the forthcoming standards for historically-significant trails.

For instance, the first Standard stipulates that you should not “move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character-defining element.”120 This is a central tenet of the philosophy behind this project – historically-significant trails are so because the trails themselves (and therefore, their routes and locations) are a character-defining feature of the historic place.

Because the physical qualities of the trail are a major part of what gives it heritage value, a fitting standard for historically-significant trails would be: “do not relocate or alter the orientation of the original trail route, as its current location is a character-defining feature.”

The Guidelines, however, are further divided into several sections, with one each for Cultural Landscapes

(including Heritage Districts), Archaeological Sites, Buildings, Engineering Works (including civil, industrial, and military works), and Materials.121 These are more specific recommendations based on each type of resource. For historically-significant trails, an understanding of two or more of these categories may be required to fully address the characterdefining features of the trail. In general, they may be described as cultural landscapes, yet “because cultural landscapes can also contain buildings, engineering works, and archaeological resources,”122 guidelines for other resource types may also apply. For instance, guidelines for cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, and engineering works (such as bridges, ladders, and cable cars) may address all of the unique concerns of for the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails.

Under the Cultural Landscapes category, there are an additional eleven subsections, each touching on a possible element of a cultural landscape. The first subsection, 4.1.1 “Evidence of Land Use”, discusses general recommendations for the conservation of the features of cultural landscapes that express or support a past or continuing human use of the natural environment.123 The general Guidelines under this heading support forming an understanding of the land use, documenting evidence of that use, and repairing or replacing features that support the land use, when appropriate. Guideline number 16 is a particularly interesting recommendation under the Additional Guidelines for Restoration that addresses recreating missing features from a restoration period. The Guideline supports “recreating a missing feature that

support the land use from the restoration period, based on physical, documentary and oral evidence.”124 Under this Guideline, the dilapidated linesmen and survival cabins along the West Coast Trail may be recreated, so long as there is sufficient evidence of their appearance, using as much original material as possible (if there is any remaining) to support the land use of the Trail from its days as a telegraph line and survival route.

The reintroduction of such elements may further support the interpretive goals of historically-significant trails by showing users evidence of the historic land use. As such, the sensitive recreation of key historic features that point to land use will be addressed in the upcoming standards for trails imbued with historic significance.

Similarly, maintaining large-scale relationships between natural and man-made elements of cultural landscapes (like historically-significant trails) is key to ensure that the heritage value of these land patterns is protected. Guidelines 4.1.3, “Land Patterns,” addresses “the mutual…interactions between nature and humans and the interrelationships of large-scale elements,”125 such as forests, mountains, and rivers against farm fields, foot paths, and human settlements.

Maintaining the relationships between the West Coast Trail itself and the coastline, dense forest, and built elements like the heritage lighthouses at Cape Beale, Carmanah Point and Pachena Point, is essential to understand the Trail’s heritage value. For the Chilkoot Trail, the relationship between the Trail, the Taiya River and Crater, Lindeman and Bennett Lakes, the relict campsites and graveyards along the way, and the Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 43

ghost town sites of Dyea and Bennett provide for larger relationships that, in part, define the Trail’s significance.

As much as possible, respecting these land patterns will be encouraged in the standards for historicallysignificant trails.

At a smaller scale, spatial organization within a cultural landscape also helps define the heritage value of historically significant trails (Guideline 4.1.4). The shifting width of the West Coast Trail means that the user will experience different types of “corridors” between the coastline, the forest, and the Trail. Though some may prefer to make the Trail all one continuous width, these changes in Trail width contribute to both the historic truth (which is, that the Trail was always different widths at different points) and the past and present user experience. The maintenance of these more minute relationships will also feature in the upcoming standards, as will the recommendations to maintain visual relationships under Guideline 4.1.5. Visual relationships include scenic vistas that are presented throughout cultural landscapes, as they certainly do along historically-significant trails. The West Coast Trail frequently opens to views of the Pacific Ocean, while scenic vistas of blue lakes and the mountainous valley stun visitors along the Chilkoot Trail. These are awe-inspiring moments of natural beauty, and they contribute to the overall heritage value of historicallysignificant trails which balance cultural resources with the natural environment.

The next Guideline, 4.1.6 “Circulation,” is very important when it comes to historically-significant trails as 44 | Analysis

cultural landscapes. Human foot paths are one type of element that facilitates travel, and their relationships to roads at either end (or points in between) constitute the creation of circulation networks. In the context of historically-significant trails within this Guideline, it is important to maintain trail width, surface materials, and edge conditions as much as possible. Guidelines 4.1.7-10 touch on ways to protect aspects of the natural environment that may contribute to heritage value, including ecological features, vegetation, landforms, and water features. All of these aspects play a part in some fashion at historically-significant trails, though their relative degree of value will change from site to site. At the Chilkoot Trail, natural landforms play a large role in the experience of the Trail, while hiking along the water’s edge on the West Coast Trail forms the basis for a different type of experience. Natural elements play just as much a part as cultural resources do in historically-significant trails, and the standards to come will recommend that the natural trail environment be preserved and maintained as much as any cultural resource.

The final section under Cultural Landscapes deals with Built Features (Guideline 4.1.11). At the West Coast Trail, heritage lighthouses are considered built features contributing to the cultural landscape, while stampeder cemeteries and remaining tent platforms from the gold rush period are built features along the Chilkoot Trail. Man-made features of historically-significant trails often tell stories about what took place, and their presence contributes to the overall sense of heritage value. Without the lighthouses, hikers along

the Chilkoot Trail might not as easily grasp the coast’s history of shipwrecks that led to their construction.

Without the grave sites and tent platforms, the Chilkoot Trail might not stand out as having witnessed the mass movement and struggle of hopeful stampeders.

These features are integral to the significance of these places and will be cared for under the standards for historically-significant trails of all kinds.

Within larger areas surrounding historically-significant trails, or in the immediate trail site, archaeological sites may be uncovered. At the West Coast Trail, remains of shipwrecks long ago frequently roll up on the beach to be rediscovered. Remains from First Nations use, linesman or shipwrecked survivors may still be found in the ground along the Trail. The Chilkoot Trail starts at the old Dyea townsite, a true archaeological site in its own respect, and artifacts left behind by stampeders have been found near campsites and lakes. Other culturally sensitive places, like cemeteries and burial grounds, require an additional level of respect and care. Burial sites where the victims of the Chilkoot Trail’s devastating avalanches in April 1898 were laid to rest, and other stampeder cemeteries along the way are a part of the archaeological network of the Trail that add heritage value to the historic place. Those archaeological sites located within cultural landscapes may be vulnerable to from natural erosion or humaninduced erosion from regular recreational activity (including walking and hiking), and animal activity.126 One of the challenges with protecting archaeological sites within areas of frequent human interaction,

such as historically-significant trails, is knowing when to conceal sites and when to display them to the public. Upon detection, it will be important to first restrict public access to limit the possibility of any tampering, looting or vandalism. Once a full process of documentation and analysis has been performed, it may then be determined whether the site and any associated artifacts therein are too sensitive to risk disturbance. If they may be presented to the public in a manner that protects the resources from degradation and has educational benefits, there may be consideration for allowing them to be used as interpretive historic artifacts that reinforce the heritage value of the place even further. Standards for the protection and possible presentation of archaeological sites and resources will be outlined for historicallysignificant trails.

The Guidelines for Buildings focus on three main architectural attributes – forms, assemblies, and systems. Buildings associated with historicallysignificant trails should be preserved and maintained so that their own character-defining features remain intact, since they may have heritage value in their own rights. In the standards for historically-significant trails, buildings will be addressed as needing to be assessed for their heritage value, and have a preservation treatment selected for them based on that value.

Buildings directly associated with the history of the trail will be treated as having historic significance – for instance, the linesmen shacks and survival cabins of the West Coast Trail. These buildings must then maintain their massing, scale, fenestration and door Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 45

patterns, architectural features, materials, and style, and any other features that might contribute to its significance.

Engineering works, as described in section 4.4 of the Guidelines, are also present at the West Coast Trail – these include bridges, lighthouses, and the telegraph line. In the case of bridges, these are part of the Trail and their good condition is necessary to allow for the its continued use and visitor safety. While these features need to be preserved to help tell the Trail’s unique story, they might also need to meet modern code requirements which may alter their historic appearance. A different strategy will need to be taken for each of these elements. Portions of the telegraph line still visible, since no longer functional, need only be preserved in its current state and may not need to be restored. Bridges need to comply with safety standards, but should also be restored to their historic appearance as much as possible to contribute to the overall experience of the historic trail. Engineering works that operate in their historic uses, like the lighthouses, should continue to do so “to preserve the functional purpose of the work that is important in defining the overall heritage value of the historic place.”127 The Canadian Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places is a very detailed document that touches upon various aspects relating to historically-significant trails. As the document addresses conservation for most types of heritage in the country, there are some sections that naturally 46 | Analysis

will not apply. However, the underlying principles are solidly applicable to historically-significant trails – understand and document the place, plan for the work to be done, and undertake the work with as much care and with as little intervention as possible. In general, this document will inspire a more philosophical basis for the upcoming standards for historically-significant trails.

PARKS CANADA AGENCY TRAIL PRINCIPLES - FEBRUARY 2017 Perhaps the most important overarching document relating to the preservation and maintenance of trails in Canada is the Parks Canada Agency Trail Principles.

A relatively new guide, the Trail Principles were created with the intent to provide trail professionals and maintenance crews with direction in the planning, development, and management of trails “to ensure an integrated approach fundamental to successful and sustainable trail systems.”128 The Principles incorporate the three key elements from the Parks Canada mandate (Protection, Education, and Visitor Experience) and four elements of successful and sustainable trail systems (Natural and Cultural Resources, Visitor Needs, Trail Design, and Trail Management). Accompanying these are the seven Core Principles (see Figure 28.0).

Upon analysis of these Core Principles, five of the seven points offer guidelines that would translate well to historically-significant trails. Principle 1, “Respect

the Character of the Place,” clearly references the importance of the heritage value of trails in Canadian conservation practice with two of the three guidelines therein. Guideline 1.1 calls for attention to be paid to the cultural landscape patterns as these are part of what defines the character of an historic place.129 Guideline 1.3 touches on the idea that the materials of trails are tied to their intended use, such as bicycling, hiking, horseback riding, or other uses. This is important in the

context of historically-significant trails because trail surface materials are often directly linked to the historic use and later uses that have gained value over time.

That fact dictates that maintaining appropriate, historic surface materials is essential to the historic integrity of the trail, which in turn may dictate or limit that uses that may be accommodated on each trail.

Principle 2, “Respect Natural and Cultural Resource Protection Goals,” also very clearly addresses concerns relating to historically-significant trails. In contrast to recreational trails, where natural resource protection may be the top priority, historically-significant trails require heightened attention to be given to both types of resources. Guideline 2.1 refers to maintaining ecological integrity, while guideline 2.2 emphasizes the protection and presentation of cultural resources.

For these, it may be important to highlight certain cultural objects through interpretation, while some may primarily require protection if they are sensitive and/ or need preservation treatments before they can be presented to users. In any case, it is important to use these resources as educational ones that reinforce the historic significance of the trails themselves.

Another aspect mentioned within this principle relates specifically to the West Coast Trail – guideline 2.3 addresses the need for trails to be located far enough away from areas that visitors do not have access to.

First Nations reserves still exist along the West Coast Trail, and there are many signs indicating that hikers may not enter these areas. Whether the historic route of the Trail has been relocated to allow for a buffer zone

Figure 28.0, Principle-based Guidelines for Trails (Parks Canada)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 47

between the Trail itself and the Reserves is unclear.

However, the current conditions that require separation between public and privately accessible areas within the Park Reserve are necessary and agreed upon between the federal government and these First Nations groups. As such, these should remain as they currently exist. Finally, guideline 2.4 discusses the protocol related to the relocation, closure, and restoration of so-called “inappropriate trails,” which are those that do not meet ecological, cultural, and visitor experience goals.130 In the context of historicallysignificant trails like the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails, however, the routing should not be changed to better meet such goals, since the integrity of the place lies within the original trail itself.

The first impression of Principle 3, “Facilitate Opportunities for Meaningful and Enjoyable Visitor Experiences,” is that this section should relate at least somewhat to the goals for historically-significant trails. Yet, upon analysis, many of the guidelines under this heading favor altering routes to accommodate visitor safety, enjoyment, and experience over any historic associations the route may have. For instance, guideline 3.1 seeks to mitigate risks to the health and wellbeing of users through trail design. While this may be true and possible for new trails with no ties to historic events, it may be part of the experience of trails with historic significance. In their heydays, people that met the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails had to conquer wild and often unforgiving terrain to reach safety or rich gold fields. Even today, part of the experience of completing these Trails hinges upon the difficulty of 48 | Analysis

the routes. Hikers at the West Coast Trail still need to be evacuated, but the heightened danger has not deterred hikers from attempting to complete the famous trek. Of course, measures have been taken to make the journey somewhat safer, like the addition and maintenance of wooden ladders in places where users might historically have had to scramble up or down a cliffside. Still, the element of safety in this type of trails may be subordinate to the need to honor the historic integrity of the Trail. Maintaining the characteristics that give an historically-significant trail its heritage value will be given higher priority than user safety.

Despite being shorter in length and detail compared to other principles, Principle 4, “Promote Understanding and Appreciation,” presents key information relevant to standards needed for historically-significant trails. The overarching goal is to ensure that “trails provide opportunities to enrich understanding and appreciation of protected heritage places and may foster support of, and involvement in, stewardship.”131 This principle addresses the need to provide informal and formal (guidelines 4.1 and 4.2, respectively) opportunities to learn about the area through which users pass. Informal opportunities to understand how the environment was shaped exists in where scenic vistas present themselves.132 The act of walking the trail can be, in and of itself, an informal educational opportunity – walking the trail offers users the chance to think about their experiences relative to those of people who have come before. At the West Coast Trail, hikers might consider how their experience of the Trail differs from that of those who encountered

the path after having been shipwrecked. Modernday conveniences, like the boardwalks, bridges, and ladders, as well as the ability to pack meals and essential supplies, would offer users a very different type of experience than having to traverse the uneven, rocky, and muddy terrain without proper equipment, nutrition, or with a heightened survival instinct.

Formal opportunities are important in user education, especially for those who do not actively seek out as much information as possible before setting out to hike these Trails. For these people, interpretative plaques, signage, or other physical elements strategically located along the way may be the only successful method of communicating historic significance. In any case, trail interpretative elements offer opportunities to address many themes and perspectives within a single site, making these features highly valuable to historically-significant trails (so long as they do not detract from other characteristics of the trail that may also convey historic value).

Principles 5 and 6 (“Value and Involve Local Communities” and “Use Appropriate Design Approach and Construction Techniques,” respectively) and the guidelines therein address points that are relevant to historically-significant trails simply because they relate to trails in general. These principles do not have guidelines that are especially important to the preservation and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance, but their ideas will be refined to apply more specifically to historically-significant trails. These include ideas surrounding relationships

between trail professionals, maintenance crews, and stakeholders involved in the history of the trails (such as Indigenous groups), as well as techniques for effective drainage, erosion control, and other, more technical, issues.

Lastly, Principle 7, “Ensure Effective Management,” has one guideline in particular that is touches on aspects that are absolutely vital to the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails – cross-functional collaboration. Guideline 7.1 expresses the importance of collaboration between various roles and functions related to trails. Collaboration and transparency between trail professionals, including management staff, maintenance crews, and even materials and structural consultants, as well as the various staff positions within a trail unit (including asset management, resource conservation, visitor experience and safety, and others)133 is even more so essential in instances where trails have historic significance because the solutions to preservation and maintenance problems may be more complex than at other sites. With more character-defining elements than trails built purely for recreational purposes, historically-significant trails require inventive problemsolving and increased cooperation amongst those that are charged with their care.

Despite its length, Parks Canada’s Trail Principles of 2017 makes great strides in the preservation and maintenance of all trail types – whether recreational or historical in nature. Many of the Principles clearly align with the criteria for evaluation and will therefore Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 49

provide a great basis in compiling more specific standards and guidelines for historically-significant trails in Chapters Four and Five.

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY - JANUARY 2013 Parks Canada strengthened their system of heritage conservation with the introduction of the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Policy in early 2013.

Created to provide policy requirements for managing the wide range and variety of cultural resources administered by the Agency, the Policy “supports an integrated and holistic approach to the management of cultural resources.”134 The Policy operates at two levels within areas of national significance – first, to the entire area of significance, and secondly to the individual cultural resources themselves within a protected heritage place. Since cultural resources may come in many different forms, the Policy recognizes that landscapes and landscape features, archaeological sites and objects, historical artifacts, and buildings and structures may be covered under this framework.

However, human remains are not covered under the Policy (those are managed under Parks Canada Directive 2.3.1: Human Remains, Cemeteries, and Burial Grounds).135 At a broad level, the CRM Policy requires that three principles must be applied in all CRM activities – Understanding Heritage Value, Sustainable 50 | Analysis

Conservation, and Benefit to Canadians (see Figure 15.0 for a full description of these principles). The Policy then goes on to describe the general requirements that must be met for a landscape feature, building or structure, or archaeological site or object to be considered a cultural resource. After going through the evaluation process, cultural resources located within a national historic site must then be documented in a Commemorative Integrity Statement (CIS) [refer to page 56 for a detailed analysis of this type of document]. For cultural resources located within other protected heritage places, the results of the evaluation process should be recorded in a Cultural Resource Values Statement136 (such a document has yet to be created for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve/West Coast Trail).

The CRM Policy becomes more relevant to the notion of historically-significant trails in section 7.2 – Managing Cultural Resources. While this document makes substantial distinction between treatment of cultural resources in national historic sites versus those in other protected heritage places, the standards and techniques for the preservation and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance to be developed later in this study will assume a baseline level of significance for all such trails, regardless of the distinctions made in policies or documents such as this. The goal will be to raise the level of care and priority for all aspects of these trails, which may then gain further distinction by the systems that elect to adopt them. In general, the baseline goal will address both natural and cultural resources but will favor

these equally. This contrasts the perceived difference between goals for recreational trails, which tend to prioritize natural resource conservation over cultural resources, and the goals for historically-significant trails that will be defined later in this study.

In this Canadian CRM Policy, certain cultural resources are given priority over others based on their condition, whether there are any threats to their condition, and their relative significance against the reasons for designation as a protected heritage place. In light of changing climatic conditions, world events (including emergency situations), and ever-increasing visitor statistics to these places, a framework addressing similar levels of priority for cultural resources will be included in the standards and techniques for historically-significant trails to come. These will determine which such resources should be maintained and which should receive preservation treatment, as well as define standards for regular maintenance, monitoring and documentation of their state.

The Policy also clearly outlines the need for Environmental Impact Analyses (EIA) to be performed in times when projects by federal authorities within protected heritage places may result in significant adverse environmental effects (this process is discussed in greater detail in the Regulatory Frameworks – Canada section of this study, page 28). The inclusion of such measures is an important one, that both the United States and Canada have touched on in their regulatory systems related to heritage conservation. As such, provisions calling for

Figure 29.0, Cultural resource management principles (Parks Canada)

these types of processes will be laid out in the coming standards and techniques for historically-significant trails – any entity committed to resource protection of this kind should consider implementing similar requirements, if they do not already have these in practice.

In section 7.2.4, which discusses how monitoring activities should be carried out at historic places in Canada, the CRM Policy again distinguishes between national historic sites and other protected heritage places. In its recommendations for monitoring cultural and natural resources within the networks of Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 51

historically-significant trails, the standards to be created by this study will again treat both of these resource types with a consistent understanding of priority. Monitoring efforts will not favor cultural resources over natural ones and will not distinguish between varying levels of heritage distinction (i.e. between national historic sites and other sites, as in Canada). The Policy also describes requirements for documentation pertaining to historic sites.

Documentation standards relating to historicallysignificant trails will place a heavy emphasis on visitor and public education about these sites, since user knowledge of such places is more often less developed than is desired.

Though the Parks Canada Cultural Resource Management Policy addresses many issues not directly relevant to the creation of standards for historically-significant trails, it does touch on larger themes that are essential to include in such a project.

Developing general principles, as well as focused standards relating to the identification, management, preservation, maintenance, and documentation practices concerning resources of heritage value in historic trail sites will set the overall tone for the standards to come. In terms of the criteria of evaluation, the CRM Policy does address both cultural and natural resources and also touches on interpreting heritage places for the benefit of the Canadian public, both of which make parts of this Policy suitable for adjustment for historically-significant trails.

52 | Analysis

PACIFIC RIM NATIONAL PARK RESERVE OF CANADA: MANAGEMENT PLAN - JUNE 2010 This official management plan for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve replaces the earlier Interim Management Guidelines from 1994 and 2003. Parks Canada mandated management plans are documents that address all aspects of site management – as such, there are parts of these that will not necessarily apply to standards for historically-significant trails. Rather, there tend to be larger themes or smaller, more specific ideas that would be easily translated and successful in the preservation and maintenance of this particular type of trail resource. Because the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is composed of three distinct and geographically separate units, rather than one contiguous area, its management poses challenges that singular parks are not likely to experience. For instance, each unit of the Park Reserve has different access requirements – the Broken Group Islands unit is only accessible by boat, whereas there is road access to both ends of the West Coast Trail, but hikers will need to use ferries throughout their journey.

In this management plan, four key strategies are outlined that will guide the Park Reserve in its management decisions for the next five years. These key strategies generally address partnerships with First Nations groups, the protection and restoration of cultural and natural resources with integrity, the management of the coastal zone, and enhancing both the visitor experience and relationships with the community at large.137 These large-scale ideas

touch on a few central themes that will be important in the upcoming standards for historically-significant trails, including building relationships with traditional communities and contemporary stakeholders, and the balancing of protection between cultural and natural resources in such areas.

At present, each of the Ditidaht, Pacheedaht, and Huuay-aht First Nations with reserves along the West Coast Trail unit of the Park Reserve have service contracts to maintain 25-kilometer (15.5-mile) stretches of the Trail where it encounters their traditional territories.

These contracts include commitments in providing maintenance and transportation services (such as ferry crossings) and cultural interpretation programs in these sections.138 These types of agreements between Parks Canada, the governing federal agency, and the local First Nations groups are representative examples of how to include these communities in the management and interpretive activities of historically-significant trails. Because of their high-level of cooperation between the two stakeholders, such management strategies will be encouraged in the forthcoming standards.

In the early 1990s, Parks Canada implemented a quota and reservation system in order to limit and control the amount of human impact affecting the Trail.139 These types of reservation systems restrict both the times of year in which people are allowed to use the Trail, and the overall and/or daily number of people permitted to access the Trail. Not only do these systems ensure that Trail use is done so only within the safer part of

the year in terms of weather, but it also lessens the strain on the natural environment and reduces soil erosion, waste deposition, and ecological degradation.

When combined with a user fee, these systems can also incorporate restorative measures into the cost of visiting these places so that the erosion, degradation, and waste collection that does happen gets addressed in a timely fashion. This very specific strategy is one that can protect the sensitive natural and cultural environments associated with historically-significant trails, while also ensuring a more satisfying visitor experience by managing user populations. In many cases, trail users wish to fully immerse themselves in the spectacular places they’ve chosen to explore – these types of reservation systems can help ensure that overcrowding does not tarnish their experience.

Within the West Coast Trail unit, several types of ecosystems exist – forests, shoreline, intertidal and stream, subtidal, and lakes and wetlands.140 Each ecosystem is monitored and the condition of each is rated so that they can be understood as smaller, more manageable components with distinct management requirements. This strategy is a good one in any area with varying conditions and is one that will be suggested within the standards for historically-significant trails. The same may be possible for the classification of cultural resources.

There may be resources both on land and in marine environments, and each of these may be categorized as requiring immediate restorative attention, needing documentation, and those in stable condition to be presented for educational purposes.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 53

Objective 4 under key strategy 2 “Protecting and Restoring Cultural Resources and Ecological Integrity” anticipates that, “visitors [will be able to] experience, understand, and support the restoration and protection of natural and cultural resources through learningbased experiences grounded in the park’s restoration programs.”141 This objective clearly speaks to the desire of this thesis to give trail users educational and stewardship opportunities to learn about and engage in the protection of cultural and natural resources found in these areas. Information should be designed around visitor interests, including historical narrative, and should come in the form of marketing, pre-trip planning, and interpretive products and programs.142 Whenever possible, users should be able to gain firsthand experience in the conservation activities associated with these resources. These opportunities would increase visitor knowledge of what makes these places special and would give them a chance to get involved in their protection. Such initiatives will be encouraged in the standards for historically-significant trails to come.

Despite the broad management challenges that are presented in the first Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Management Plan, the themes and details outlined above are some that will inspire later standards for use in the preservation and maintenance of historicallysignificant trails. The Plan also keenly presents the benefits of creating management plans tailored to each individual part of a site – while the standards will be far-reaching, they will also recommend that each trail with historic significance is guided by a 54 | Analysis

management plan that addresses the challenges of that unique trail.

CHILKOOT TRAIL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE OF CANADA: MANAGEMENT PLAN - OCTOBER 2010 This most recent management plan for the Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site outlines the focus of the local Parks Canada field unit over a five-plus year period.

It is essentially a confirmation and, when necessary, a revaluation of existing directives from earlier management plans (1988 and 2004).143 The updated version of the management plan addresses four key strategies that, at a broad level, seek to integrate the management of the site’s cultural landscape and its natural resources with a range of visitor experiences, to acknowledge and celebrate the involvement of the First Nations at the site, to strengthen existing partnerships and foster new ones, and to offer a variety of winter recreation activities to visitors.144 As in the Pacific Rim Management Plan discussed previously, the content of this management plan is rather broad to address all management concerns for the national historic site. There are, however, a handful of sections that address ideas that will be integrated into the forthcoming standards for historicallysignificant trail that are worth highlighting. The first is the general notion of involving local communities in the preservation, maintenance, and stewardship of a

heritage place. Local stakeholders have an important perspective, and in the case of the First Nations groups with historic and ongoing ties to the Chilkoot Trail, it is especially important to ensure that these voices are heard. Ensuring strong relationships with these communities allows for a more complete history of the place to be shared with visitors, while also creating opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships, such as employment and volunteer programs. Beyond that, the respect of the cultural and natural heritage of historically-significant trails lies in respect of all peoples and perspectives involved.

Another central aspect of the standards to be compiled is the importance of providing meaningful opportunities for the public to learn about what makes each historically-significant trails unique.

The management plan seeks new methods of communicating the importance of the site to its users via on-site interpretive programs and exhibits, panels and products for purchase, local school programs, and web-based resources.145 More specifically, in section 3.3.3 Public Education and Connection to Place, the management plan indicates that “more relevant and engaging web resources could enhance public awareness and understanding of the Site.”146 This desire for additional online resources will be directly addressed in this project through the creation of educational materials that will inform users about the history of these trails (West Coast and Chilkoot) upon registering in the respective quota system.

The plan also addresses concerns over the protection

of cultural and natural resources along the Trail.

Section 3.3.2 Protection of Resources calls for the current inventory, monitoring and maintenance regime for the preservation of archaeological resources to be re-evaluated to address each issue on a case-by-case basis.147 This section also points to the “strong need to develop a detailed conservation and management strategy for the [Site’s] cultural resources….” 148 The creation of an individualized conservation management strategy for each historically-significant trail will be one of the guiding principles within the standards to come, as these action plans lead to more focused and purposeful preservation and maintenance practices. In most, if not all, cases, there is a need to balance the protection of cultural resources with the ever-changing conditions of the trail environment149 so that neither is favored over the other.

An important observation is made based on information from a 2009 report (“Comparison of Day Users and Hikers”) – the study found that both types of visitors are primarily motivated to visit the site for outdoor recreation purposes than they are by historical attractions, and that “a desire to observe scenic beauty”150 is the main motivating factor. These findings may indicate that, due to a lack of available educational resources regarding the history of the Trail and site, there is a need to promote further opportunities for visitors to engage with the history of the site prior to their arrival. This is a key assertion of this thesis, with the hope being that the creation of educational materials for registered hikers will help to address this apparent shortcoming.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 55

The Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada Management Plan of 2010 includes some fine details, such as the inclusion of a quota and reservation system to address human use impacts on the Trail151 (similarly to that in place for use at the West Coast Trail), that will be recommended in the Chapter Five. In general, many of the overall themes of the management plan align with the criteria of evaluation, meaning that these will also translate well into the standards that will be created out of this research.

CHILKOOT TRAIL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE COMMEMORATIVE INTEGRITY STATEMENT 2012 In 2012, Parks Canada prepared a Commemorative Integrity Statement (CIS) for the portion of the Chilkoot Trail that it manages. These types of documents are only prepared for National Historic Sites of Canada and focus primarily on the aspects (or characterdefining elements) of these sites that give them commemorative integrity. As defined in Parks Canada’s Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Policy previously mentioned, commemorative integrity “refers to the condition or state of a national historic site when the site has retained the heritage value for which it was designated...[having commemorative integrity] is the desired state for a national historic site.”152 Three conditions must be met for a national historic site to possess commemorative integrity. First, there must be no threat or impairment upon the resources 56 | Analysis

that are directly responsible for the area’s national historic designation. Secondly, the reason for the site’s designation as nationally important must be readily and effectively communicated to the public. Finally, all decisions and actions affecting the site must respect the site’s heritage values, even those that were not directly related to the area’s designation.153 The CRM Policy also defined a CIS as a document that: …describes what is meant by commemorative integrity for a particular national historic site. It describes the place, the reason for its designation, its cultural resources and their heritage value.

It includes objectives for their conservation and for sharing their heritage value with the public in ways that reflects the richness and importance of the national historic site. It also provides a baseline for planning, managing, operating, reporting and taking remedial action.154

In its CIS, the Chilkoot Trail is grouped together with other sites related to the Klondike gold rush that consider social, economic and political components that shaped the Yukon region throughout the 20th century.155 The CIS then goes into great detail regarding the aspects of the Chilkoot Trail that give it commemorative integrity, and categorize these under the three conditions listed above. Under the first condition to ensure commemorative integrity, “Resources that Symbolize or Represent the National Significance of the Chilkoot Trail are Not Impaired or Under Threat,” the CIS identifies the route itself through the Chilkoot Pass as an historic place and is the first resource called out for protection and preservation.156 The route through the mountainous terrain, with its

“linearity…and visual sense of containment in its own valley…” along with “…the obvious relationship between the siting of the historic trails, the natural stopping places and surrounding topography…”157 continue to be an essential part of the user experience, as it was for the First Nations and Klondike stampeders that followed the Trail long ago.

Section 1.a.2 of the CIS outlines specific features of the route itself that ensure that commemorative integrity is maintained. These include the geographic character of the historic corridor of the trail (comprised of the linearity of the route and the visual sense of containment previously mentioned), the natural environment of the place being managed as a relict landscape, the relationship between the trail, the natural stopping places, and the local topography, and the viewscapes along the trail, especially at the summit of the Chilkoot Pass.158 Next, landscape features to be maintained throughout the national historic site are outlined. Those features to preserve include “the location, siting, traffic wear patterns and surviving log and stone work of [the Trail], docks, and roadways…” as well as man-made modifications along the trail like “tent platforms, rock walls, dugout embankments and graves”159 that tell the stories of lives and experiences of those that passed through during the gold rush.

At the Trail’s northern terminus at Lake Bennett stands St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, the sole surviving structure from the gold rush period (see Figure 30.0). Built in 1899, the wood frame structure may be simple in its massing, but its use of local materials in

a vernacular example of High Victorian Gothic Style makes the building significant for its architectural value, as well as for its value as a remnant of life in Bennett.160 To maintain its commemorative integrity as a built, the original location and orientation of the Church, along with its appearance as defined by its massing, architectural features, and remaining original materials, must be maintained.161 The Church was designated as a Recognized Federal Heritage Building in January 1990, and was listed in the Canadian Register of Historic Places in September 2005.162 The final type of resource to maintain under the first condition of the CIS is in-situ resources and collected objects. These are items left behind by those that traveled the Chilkoot Trail to reach the golden frontier and include all sorts of items from tins and boxes to boat frames and sleds, graves and group cemeteries, horseshoes, and wagon wheels. Even patches of botanical species that were introduced to the area during the commemorative period (roughly 1897-1900) are considered in-situ resources.163 These must not be moved or taken by contemporary hikers, as their location is crucial to maintaining their commemorative integrity. These collections contribute to the permanent record of what life along the Trail was like for the Klondike stampeders, and are thus potentially invaluable resources.

The second condition for maintaining commemorative integrity at the Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site is “Reasons for the Site’s National Historic Significance are Effectively Communicated to the Public.” This part Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 57

of the CIS outlines the educational and interpretive goals for the National Historic Site, such as ensuring that all site clients (i.e. those that visit the site) are given opportunities to understand “the role of the Chilkoot Trail in the mass movement of people into the Yukon region during the Klondike gold rush….”164 Other goals include ensuring that interpretive media is diversified so that information is presented in a variety of methods to allow for more opportunities to engage all types of visitors. Interpretation from other cultural perspectives, like the First Nations inhabitants, is also encouraged to form a balanced and complete record of commemoration. This section will lend many examples of the types of interpretive goals for trail professionals in the standards for preserving and maintaining historically-significant trails to come.

Lastly, the third and final condition, “The Site’s Heritage Values are Respected in All Decisions and Actions Affecting the Site,” discusses how open communication between the site’s many stakeholders and consideration for their perspectives is a key part of ensuring continued commemorative integrity. These stakeholders include the flora and fauna within the ecological zones of the National Historic Site, the First Nation’s communities, site visitors, and even potential future visitors to the site. Overall, the Chilkoot Trail Commemorative Integrity Statement provided by Parks Canada offers many sources of inspiration to the forthcoming standards for historically-significant trails, including goals for collaboration, resource identification and preservation, and public education and site interpretation It also meets most of the criteria for 58 | Analysis

Figure 30.0, St. Andrew’s Church overlooking Bennett Lake (ExploreNorth.com)

evaluation, thereby making its principles highly translatable to historically-significant trails.

american standards for trails SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES - 2017 Another provision under the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act requires the National Park Service, under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, “to establish and administer a national historic preservation program and to develop and promulgate standards and guidelines for the treatment of historic properties.”165 These American Standards consider four possible treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. In a similar fashion to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, suggestions are made on a “recommended” and “not recommended” basis to promote best practices in preservation.166 This document also includes Guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historic buildings. As much of the combined Standards and Guidelines tend to focus on buildings, instead of the complicated needs of cultural landscapes (like historically-significant trails), these Standards will be analyzed for their theoretical basis. More detailed approaches to the preservation and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance will be garnered from the next set of standards, the Secretary of the

Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

One of the main differences between the Canadian and American Standards, however, is that the American Standards recognize reconstruction as a fourth treatment for historic properties. Since Canada operates under a policy of conservation rather than historic preservation, reconstruction is not considered to be a treatment for conservation of historic places.167 Under the American Standards, reconstruction may be considered for the treatment of historic properties when three conditions are met – first, when a contemporary depiction of a building, structure or object that is no longer in existence is required to understand and interpret the historic value of a site.168 Reconstruction should also only be considered when no other property with the same associative value currently exists. Finally, and importantly, reconstruction may only be considered when “sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction.”169 Despite the Canadian system’s reluctance to accept reconstruction as a method for heritage conservation, the sixteenth Guideline for Cultural Landscapes under subsection 4.1.1 (“Evidence of Land Use”) suggests Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 59

that re-creation of a missing feature that supports the land use from a period of significance that is based on sufficient evidence may be undertaken.

In the standards for historically-significant trails, a combination of these two approaches (the re-creation or reconstruction of a once extant feature of an historic place) will be suitable to address the potential need to reintroduce lost features of trail landscapes for the full and immersive interpretation of a site. The American Standards for reconstruction will be a main point of reference for this part of the upcoming standards for historically-significant trails. Obligations including the performance of a thorough archaeological survey prior to reconstruction, the condition that the reconstruction will be a faithful reproduction in terms of materials, design, color, and texture, and that the reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary construction,170 will all be included in standards for reconstruction at such trails.

While many of the Standards for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction tend to focus on historic buildings, their underlying principles may just as easily be applied to historically-significant trails. Others are completely applicable and show no implications toward buildings in particular. For instance, it is stated under the Standards for preservation that “archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources much be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.”171 A similar notion will be expressed in the protection of archaeological features located near historicallysignificant trails. Likewise, the Standard prescribing 60 | Analysis

that “changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.”172 This Standard may be seen in the bridges and boardwalks that have been installed by the State of Alaska at the Chilkoot Trail – though these may not have been present during the central period of significance related to the Klondike gold rush, they may now contribute to the evolving state of the Trail as a cultural landscape.

Though it is not an ideal situation, the relocation of parts of a trail route is sometimes necessitated by emergencies or other factors. Because the route itself is perhaps the most important character-defining feature of an historically-significant trail, the standards for these must provide an outline for cases where trail rerouting is unavoidable and absolutely necessary.

Under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, any new work must not destroy the historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize a property.173 The same may be applied to historically-significant trails – any new routes that must be built must practice minimal intervention to limit the loss of heritage value. Ideally, trail relocation will be temporary, and the original route may be re-established following the closure and subsequent restoration of the trail. However, if the work is to be permanent, it must also be differentiated from and compatible with the historic materials, features, size, and scale of the original trail, as the American Standards would require for any newly constructed buildings at historic properties.174

Despite the fact the Guidelines provided for the treatment of historic buildings may not be as applicable to historically-significant trails, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are highly translatable to this type of cultural landscape. Along with the Canadian Standards and Guidelines, these American Standards will help form a foundational basis for the theory behind the best practices to be applied to trails with historic significance.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S GUIDELINES FOR THE TREATMENT OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES In addition to the philosophical base provided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes offer recommendations for the treatment of resources more closely related to historically-significant trails. These Guidelines were developed to “provide guidance to…owners, stewards and managers, landscape architects, preservation planners, architects, contractors, and project reviewers”175 before undertaking any project work related to cultural landscapes. Since historicallysignificant trails are a type of naturally evolving cultural landscape, these Guidelines should be adaptable for use in the preservation and maintenance of trails with historic significance.

Before outlining the Guidelines in more detail, the introduction provides recommendations in the planning process for all cultural landscapes. In general, historical research should be conducted, an inventory of existing conditions should be prepared, site analysis should be performed to evaluate integrity and significance, and records should be prepared following any treatments.176 These general suggestions are key for understanding historically-significant trails – research helps “bring a greater understanding of the associations that make them significant…”177 and provides a basis for making decisions to guide resource treatment and interpretation. Inventories should be prepared and updated on a consistent schedule to provide a detailed record of the evolution of the landscape, while comprehensive treatment, management and maintenance plans acknowledge the “ever-changing nature [of historically-significant trails] and the interrelationship of treatment, management and maintenance.”178 All of these goals address the need to understand the essence of historically-significant trails as continually evolving cultural landscapes, and suggestions like these will feature in the upcoming standards for the preservation and maintenance of trails with historic significance.

As in the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, these Guidelines are organized by the type of treatment selected – preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. In most cases, a combination of several of these treatments will be appropriate for historically-significant trails. In other types of cultural landscapes (like formal gardens, for Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 61

example), whole scale restoration of the landscape to depict a particular period of significance dictates its appearance and calls for the removal of features from other historic periods. However, complete restoration of the landscape is not an appropriate strategy for historically-significant trails. As a type of evolutionary cultural landscape, there are often several histories of importance to consider in the preservation and presentation of historically-significant trails. For these places, returning the site to a single period would not only deny the relevance of these other histories, but would also challenge the natural evolutionary process of the trail environment (an essential characteristic of historically-significant trails). As such, the forthcoming preservation and maintenance standards will discourage the whole scale restoration of historicallysignificant trails.

The introduction also recognizes that some cultural landscapes that are considered to be ethnographic or heritage landscapes (a category under which historically-significant trails would fall) may not be best served by these Guidelines. While this may be true, the analysis of these Guidelines will hopefully make clear the ways in which historically-significant trails differ from other types of cultural landscapes and will thus influence their upcoming standards in different ways. At the same time, these trails still have many common characteristics as other cultural landscapes.

For instance, balancing change with the need to continually preserve important resources is inherent in most, if not all, cultural landscapes including trails with historic significance. Since large-scale 62 | Analysis

restoration has already been identified as being an unsuitable treatment for such trails, preservation and rehabilitation treatments will align with the desire to “secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change.� 179 It is also important to take the larger geographical context of historically-significant trails into consideration. While physically landing outside of the scope of these places, far-off landscapes may be part of the experience of trails imbued with historic significance through natural openings to create framed views, or completely unobstructed vistas that provide a sense of arrival or isolation. On the other hand, smaller scale relationships between cultural and natural features of these trails are equally important to preserve and maintain. The juxtaposition of a man-made bridge against an enclosing tree canopy and babbling brook below helps to define the trail as a corridor, and not just a path on the ground.

Part of the interest of historically-significant trails as cultural landscapes is the relationships that exist between the natural environment, the trail, and other cultural features of the landscape. The protection and maintenance of the natural and cultural resources found in historically-significant trail sites, along with the relationships created between these resource types, will make up a large portion of the standards to be recommended in later chapters.

The Guidelines address many specific features of cultural landscapes, including Spatial Organization and Land Patterns, Topography, Vegetation, Circulation,

Water Features, and Structures, Furnishings and Objects. The relative importance of each of these features will vary from one historically-significant trail to the next, but in every case, Circulation will be a top priority as the trail itself is often the most significant feature of the site. For each historicallysignificant trail, it will be important to identify which other character-defining features are essential to retain integrity and provide an authentic experience to trail visitors. In addition to Circulation (i.e. the historic trail route), it will be suggested in the upcoming standards that at least four other key characterdefining features of historically-significant trails be identified. The identification of these features is vital, as it will help guide the preservation, maintenance, and management of each historically-significant trail.

One of the preservation Guidelines for Circulation of cultural landscapes supports the idea of a quota and reservation system for hikers on historicallysignificant trails, as previously discussed. Under the heading “Stabilize and Protect Deteriorated Historic Features and Materials as a Preliminary Measure,” it is not recommended to fail to “control the volume and intensity of use on circulation systems that results in damage of loss or features or materials. For example, allowing heavy loads on [an] historic trail.”180 Based on this Guideline, the implementation of quota and reservation systems to control and limit the number of daily and/or seasonal visitors allowed to the trail would be supported for historically-significant trails. Since these types of systems can limit both overcrowding and damage to cultural and natural resources along

trails, thus leading to a richer visitor experience overall, the use of such visitor control systems will be included in the standards for historically-significant trails to come.

Ensuring that replacement materials and features are well-suited to the trail environment is another noteworthy inclusion in these Guidelines, this time under those for rehabilitating cultural landscapes.

When deteriorated historic materials and features are too extensively damaged to be repaired, the Guidelines for Circulation recommend “using physical evidence of form, detailing and alignment to reproduce a deteriorated circulation feature. If using the same kind of material is not technically, economically or environmentally feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.” 181 This Guideline touches on a couple important points – first, using physical evidence to guide the replacement process, thus ensuring that the new material or feature will not weaken the established historic character. Next, in-kind material replacement should be used when available.

In cases where in-kind replacement is not possible, alternate materials may be used so long as they convey a similar visual appearance. Using traditional materials when possible, and compatible substitutes otherwise, will feature in the standards for the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails in Chapter Five.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes is a thorough document that is notable for its care and attention Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 63

to detail in its recommendations. It also recognizes its limitations regarding certain types of cultural landscapes, of which historically-significant trails may be one. Despite a few guidelines that will decidedly not apply to historically-significant trails, in general these Guidelines for cultural landscapes satisfy the criteria for evaluation, making them well-suited for translation to the standards for trails with historic significance.

THE CHILKOOT TRAIL: CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT, PART I: HISTORY, EXISTING CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS - 2011 As required by Director’s Order #28 and mandated under section 110 of the amended National Historic Preservation Act, all National Park Service unites are required to complete Cultural Landscape Reports, the primary purpose of these being “to assist parks in managing cultural landscapes as protected resources.”182 This cultural landscape report (CLR) for the Chilkoot Trail focuses on the portion of the Trail that lies within the borders of the American Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (approximately sixteen miles of the total 33-mile Chilkoot Trail).183 The 2011 CLR seeks to “describe the evolution of the historic landscape by analyzing its historic character and evaluating the rate and scale of change based on a documentation of existing conditions.”184 Importantly, the CLR recognizes that “the Chilkoot Trail is [an] historic trail first and a recreational trail 64 | Analysis

second.”185 This statement firmly places the historic significance and integrity of the Trail at the forefront of its preservation, maintenance, and management.

However, balancing the needs of the contemporary recreational trail with those of the historic trail have been further complicated by the fact that the existing trail does not closely align with historic portions of the trail (see discussion in Chapter Two, pg. 20-22).

Furthermore, the present-day trail saw many minor “relocations” throughout the 1960s and 1980-1995 rehabilitation periods that altered the integrity of the historic trail even more. In general, the contemporary Chilkoot Trail follows the rehabilitated route established by the State of Alaska in the 1960s.

After detailing a thorough history of the Chilkoot Trail’s existence, the CLR then moves on to discuss the Existing Conditions of the Trail at various points between 2000 and 2008.186 In this section, the sixteen miles under the management of the National Park Service from Dyea to the summit at the Canadian border are split into five zones, ranging from 0.56 to 4.4 miles in length. Using text and images, each zone is then described in a high level of detail with a variety of categories, including land use, topography, vegetation, views and vistas, circulation, buildings and structures, and small scale and archaeological features. In Zone 1, starting at the trailhead sign near the Dyea townsite, we learn that this portion of the Trail was constructed by the State of Alaska crew in the 1960s and does not correspond to the historic route that gold field-bound travelers would have taken in the late 1890s.187 This is because the land on the eastern bank of the Taiya

River was publicly available in the 1960s, and the cost of maintaining a bridge over the river, as would have been necessary to more closely follow the historic trail corridor, would have been prohibitive.188 Zone 2 has some sections of the Trail that relate to historic use, given the inevitable intersection of all trails at a tent camp and service area called Finnegan’s Point (used as a campground today).189 The land use in this zone was also notably shaped by commercial logging activities in the 1940s and 1950s. The current recreational trail was established in the 1960s by “grading an existing logging road (which was originally created around 1946 to service the Hosford Sawmill) and altering the location of the Trail around the mill area.” 190 The structural remains of the sawmill and a nearby cabin can be seen along the Trail, as well as a landing strip from the 1970s which has since been abandoned.191 This zone is also located within the flood plain of the Taiya river, and high water often inundates parts of the Trail while damaging bridge structures.192 The installation of drainage features to divert water away from the Trail route and the construction of turnpikes with gravel tread have been implemented to help correct this recurring phenomenon.193 Zone 3 includes the historic site of Canyon City which, like the old Dyea townsite, “is a dense archaeological repository of gold-rush era artifacts.”194 Several minor archaeological surveys have taken place in the area, while two major studies were conducted in 1979 and 1990 to map the extent of the historic town site and identify any remaining artifacts. Many of these have

been lost over the years, having either been stolen or washed away by river erosion, and overgrown vegetation continues to have a steady impact on the integrity of this archaeological area.195 One major artifact is located near the town site – a steam boiler from the Dyea-Klondike Transportation Company (DKT) [see Figure 31.0], which powered one of three aerial tramways along the Chilkoot Trail. The boiler carried stampeder goods over the steep Chilkoot Pass and into Canada.196 A log cabin was built at the Canyon City campground in the early 1960s, while a larger camp building was constructed in the 1980s as a primary shelter for trail maintenance workers. 197

Figure 31.0, The DKT steam boiler near the Canyon City townsite (National Park Service)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 65

In Zone 4, much of the Trail above the narrow canyon that separates the lower and upper Taiya River valley, until approximately mile 10.3 is associated with the historic gold rush route.198 However, a major trail reroute was necessitated in 2002 when the former Sheep Camp campground was flooded (around mile 11.7).199 Another major feature of this zone is the Sheep Camp Ranger Station, which is used as a base for ranger and trail crew activities in the area and was originally built in the 1970s (rebuilt in the same location twenty years later).200 The natural landscape in this part of the Trail is continually redefined by avalanches and flooding, as well as by recreational activities associated with the Trail.201 In the fifth and final Zone of the CLR, the Trail begins to ascend in a north-easterly direction as the route approaches the summit of the Chilkoot Pass and the Canadian border at mile 16. Here, the topography and vegetation change from dense forest canyon to terraces, massive granite boulders and rocky plateaus. The first of these plateaus was the site of the avalanches in April 1898 and the second is what was referred to as the Scales camp at the time. Here, freight was weighed for a final time before it could be carried up and over the Chilkoot Pass as the stampeders themselves climbed the famed “Golden Stairs.”202 The Trail in this portion employs numerous stone steps, retaining walls, bridges, boardwalks and drainage ditches to help prevent user injury as well as damage to the sensitive natural environment as it transitions from sub-alpine to the rocky alpine terrain.203 Much of the current trail route was established in the 1960s 66 | Analysis

by the State of Alaska, yet because of the limitations of the difficult topography, the historic route and the contemporary Trail are likely one and the same (especially from mile 14.5 on).204 This zone also features a high concentration of gold rush era archaeological sites and artifacts, including structural remains, telephone lines and poles, stoves, “knock down” boats (Figure 32.0), and many others.205

Figure 32.0, “Knock down” boat kits near the summit of the Chilkoot Pass (Winfree Studio)

The last part of the Chilkoot Trail CLR is the Analysis & Evaluation section, where “the scale of the landscape evolution throughout the past century…” is presented “…through a schematic interpretation of its historic and contemporary landscape characteristics.”206 This section begins by exploring the possibility of designating additional periods of significance other than that related to the Klondike gold rush – these might include Traditional Cultural Property recognition by local Native America groups, as well as the twentieth century commemoration of the historic Trail, beginning about 1961.207 While the National Park Service and Parks Canada have already taken steps to include history of the site outside of the main period of significance in its education and interpretation programs, strengthening these additional narratives and their respective presence in the aforementioned programs would only add to the sense of historic value at the Chilkoot Trail. These types of initiatives are the kind that will be encouraged in the standards for historically-significant trails in Chapter Five.

A discussion of the aspects of historic integrity that are most relevant to the Chilkoot Trail follows, and identifies location, setting, feeling and association as being the most applicable. These are some of the Seven Aspects of Integrity as defined by the National Register of Historic Places (specifically in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation) that help describe the ways in which an historic site might best convey its significance.

Very importantly are the aspects of “feeling” and “association,” which address intangible characteristics

of an historic place which are less easily understood than aspects like setting or location. “Feeling” refers to “a cultural landscape’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time,” while “association” is described as “the direct link between the important historic event or person and a cultural landscape.”208 At the Chilkoot Trail, where the are has undergone many dramatic changes over the past century, these two aspects of integrity help to describe the continuity of the landscape throughout its storied evolution. Even for historically-significant trails that may not (yet) be listed in a nationally recognized inventory of historic places, like the National or Canadian Registers, determining which types of features, can help guide the future preservation and maintenance of these places.

As such, establishing a method for the evaluation of these features to determine which are most appropriate for each trail with historic significance will be included in the upcoming standards for historicallysignificant trails.

Finally, the document provides an overview of how each category within the zones previously examined in Existing Conditions (i.e. land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, etc.) has either retained or not retained its historic integrity. In general, the format of the CLR is perhaps the most informative for this study – its detailed account of site history and current conditions, also with the examination of those findings against established heritage practices and concepts, like integrity, suggests a very thorough and fitting document type and structure for suggestion in the standards for historically-significant trails. Also, the Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 67

division of the site into reasonably-sized management zones allows for more focused preservation and maintenance decisions to be rendered. The creation of documents like the Chilkoot Trail Cultural Landscape Report at least every ten years will be encouraged for these dynamic and unique cultural landscapes. This document is highly translatable to the forthcoming standards for historically-significant trails under the criteria for evaluation, and its ideas will play a representative role in the prescription of monitoring activities for these trails.

widely applicable standards for trails LEAVE NO TRACE - SEVEN PRINCIPLES Leave No Trace (LNT) is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1994, though the program was created in the 1960s by the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A) Forest Service. The program emphasizes wilderness ethics, sustainable travel, 68 | Analysis

and camping practices, and today the organization operates nationally in the United States as well as internationally in dozens of countries (including Canada, New Zealand, and Australia).209 The foundation of the LNT program is their Seven Principles, which “provide guidance to enjoy our natural world in a sustainable way that avoids human-created impacts.”210 Principle 1, “Plan Ahead and Prepare,” deals directly with methods for keeping all trails, including historicallysignificant trails, as healthy as possible when humans utilize them. For instance, ideas relating to scheduling trips, visiting in smaller group sizes, and becoming familiar with regulations and special concerns for the areas to be visited211 are principles that have already been implemented at both the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails through their reservation services, and limited use season and limit on number of users. Principle 2, “Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces,” is also addressed in current practices at both case study trails – by requiring users to have pre-trip itineraries and plans for which campsites they will stay at each night, Parks Canada and the National Park Service ensure that trail users will camp on established campsites only, thereby limiting human impact on natural areas and cultural resources that may be found in other areas (see Appendix C for a complete list of the LNT Seven Principles).

The third Principle, “Dispose of Waste Properly,” is one that is required relatively consistently at most campgrounds within the North American context, especially at those of national designation (such as

National Historic Sites and National Parks, like at the Chilkoot and West Coast Trails). Not only does this principle ensure that natural areas are left unaltered and healthy, it also carries significance for cultural resources – these resources might be damaged or negatively affected by the leaving of food or human waste. This principle also has strong implications for user safety (minimizing the likelihood of contact with wild animals), which is a secondary goal for historically-significant trails. Principle 4, “Leave What You Find,” strongly ties to desirable standards for trails with historic significance as it encourages users to “preserve the past” by examining, but not touching or moving, historic structures and artifacts along the way.212 While principle 5, “Minimize Campfire Impacts,” is certainly applicable to trails of any type to ensure that natural resources are kept safe from fire’s destructive qualities, this principle is somewhat less relevant to issues relating to the historic significance of trails.

However, of course fires should be kept in approved areas to avoid contact with important aspects of these trails, such as the plants surrounding and surface materials of the trail and cultural resources that may be damaged if exposed to fire. Using established fire rings, pans, or mounds213 is a proven way to prevent unwanted fires and should be applied with earnest at historically-significant trails. Principle 6, “Respect Wildlife,” addresses user safety as previously mentioned. Otherwise, this principle is not especially applicable to historically-significant trails so much as it is to any outdoor activity.

The final LNT principle, “Be Considerate of Other Visitors,” speaks to visitor experience in outdoor areas, and has some implications for historically-significant trails. These would include protecting the quality of the visitor experience for all.214 This may be accomplished by allowing others to encounter cultural resources along trails by not moving, concealing, or altering them in any way, thereby ensuring a genuine and authentic cultural experience for all. This interpretation of Principle 7 allows for each trail user to have the opportunity to experience the trail in a manner that respects the historical value of the place, and one that leads to positive sentiments about that history. If this is success, it may foster a sense of pride in past users and lead to increased levels of public involvement and stewardship for the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails.

The incorporation and modification of the Leave No Trace Seven Principles in this project to apply more specifically to historically-significant trails will lend a sense of universality to the standards and techniques for the preservation and maintenance of these types of trails. The applicability of such principles in the global community is a characteristic that the standards resulting from this study will seek to emulate – historically-significant trails are found worldwide, and as such, the standards for their preservation should be wide-reaching in their impact.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 69

Understanding

| 71

In the previous chapter, existing documents that detail standards for historic preservation were assessed in depth for their potential to translate to new standards to be created for historically-significant trails. In this section, responses to questions related to the preservation and maintenance of both case study trails will be examined in order to further understand the gaps that exist between current preservation standards and those necessary to properly protect trails with historic significance. A series of questions were prepared for the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails, which were then sent to a handful of contacts at Parks Canada and the National Park Service units that manage these Trails – though few responses were received, those included are from professionals in the field dealing with these places of significant historic value. As such, they provide an additional level of insight into the current limitations of preservation practice as it relates to historically-significant trails.

Their responses will be combined with the information derived from the analysis in Chapter Three to inform the standards for the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails to come.

INTERVIEWS WITH TRAIL PROFESSIONALS Regarding the American management of the Chilkoot Trail, responses were received from the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, as administered by the National Park Service. Susannah Dowds, a historian 72 | Understanding

at the National Historical Park, and Kari Rain, the Lead Visitor Service Assistant at the Park’s Chilkoot Trail Center, provided responses to questions surrounding the preservation and maintenance of the Trail.

Ms. Rain provided valuable information about the current information that hikers receive, first when they reserve dates to complete the Chilkoot Trail hike, and later when they physically arrive to begin the trek.

When asked whether there is any historical information sent to trail users when they reserve their spot to hike the Trail, Ms. Rain stated that Parks Canada manages the reservation system (not the National Park Service), and that they do not send out historic information to users at that time.215 This essentially means that users must be interested enough on their own and then actively pursue historic information to learn about the history of the Chilkoot Trail before embarking on the hike itself. The information that hikers receive once they arrive on site is presented in the form of an orientation presentation, typically lasting from 15- to 20-minutes.

While the orientation is mainly geared towards Trail conditions, bear safety, and weather concerns, near the end of the presentation hikers are told that the Tlingit people used the Chilkoot Trail for many generations before the Gold Rush occurred, and that over a period of about nine months “the Gold Rush changed their way of life they had had for generations.” 216 The parting request is that they, the hikers, think about those that came before them.

These responses indicate that there is indeed work to be done in ensuring that users of the Chilkoot Trail,

and likely all historically-significant trails, are given more opportunities to understand the rich and diverse history of the Trail. On the same note, the information that users are being given in the orientation briefing is just that – brief. Even a shortened, 10-minute narrative about the people and events that shaped the Chilkoot Trail may spark enough interest in hikers that they decide to learn more on their own. Of course, it is important that users are oriented to the many safety concerns that may be relevant to them along their journey, but why should this opportunity not also include an understanding of the reasons for the Trail’s designation as a site of national importance? Including a short historical narrative in hiker orientations will feature in the standards for the preservation and maintenance for historically-significant trails under a central guiding principle for interpretation and education.

INTERVIEW WITH TRAIL USER Due to a lack of response from trail professionals at the West Coast Trail, a second questionnaire was created and sent to a personal contact that has hiked the Trail in recent years. Scott Wise provided responses to various questions surrounding his own personal experience along the West Coast Trail, specifically related to the interpretation and preservation activities observed throughout his journey in early August 2005.217 At this time, Mr. Wise noted that the trail’s

condition was indeed rugged, but relatively well maintained for its environment and heavy summer use.

However, he pointed out that at times certain areas were in need of attention, especially at ladders and boardwalks which may have had severely damaged or missing rungs and boards.218 When asked about whether he had received any sort of historical background related to the West Coast Trail after making a reservation, Mr. Wise indicated that the group was given a copy of the 2005 West Coast Trail Hiker Preparation Guide, which includes only the following as far as an historical narrative: The West Coast Trail (WCT) is an internationally renowned 75km (47 mile) historic route along sandstone cliffs, waterfalls, caves, sea arches, sea stacks and beaches that compose the stunning coastline of western Vancouver Island. The trail’s origins date back to the late 1800’s and the days of tall sailing ships and steamers.

So many vessels were lost on the rocks and shoals of this rugged coast that it came to be known as “the Graveyard of the Pacific”. In 1906, the wreck of the steamer “Valencia” with the loss of 133 lives prompted the construction of the Pachena Lighthouse and the “Dominion Life Saving Trail”. The trail, boasting a telegraph-line and patrol cabins, allowed shipwreck victims and rescuers to travel through the almost impenetrable forests.

Over the years, as navigation technology improved, the Life Saving Trail became obsolete and fell into disrepair. In 1973, the trail was included in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada, beginning a new chapter in its history. Today, hikers come from all over the world to experience the beauty, history and First Nation’s culture of the West Coast Trail….

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 73

All overnight users of the West Coast Trail participate in an orientation session. The purpose of the orientation is to: • Reduce the number of hiker injuries by addressing common safety issues; • Reduce environmental impacts by providing backcountry etiquette information to park users; • Provide information about current issues and trail conditions; • Provide a brief history of the West Coast Trail and its place in Canada’s heritage; • Issue the WCT Overnight Use Permits and collect fees.219

Although the primary purpose of the Hiker Preparation Guide and the mandatory pre-departure orientation session is to prepare hikers for current trail conditions and issues related to user safety, Mr. Wise indicated that he sees value in receiving additional historical information “as there were a lot of areas of the Trail where humanity has left its trace and that left [him] with questions [regarding its history].”220 In general, Mr. Wise stated that the most memorable part of the orientation session did not revolve around the Trail’s history, but rather around the ferry travel required throughout.

As far as interpretation along the West Coast Trail is concerned, Mr. Wise noted that, from his recollection, only signage about the natural surroundings or safety hazards were encountered, and few (if any) regarding cultural resources left behind from previous years. He also mentioned that, as an avid hiker, he appreciates interpretive signage along trail routes as a way to enrich the hiking experience with pertinent information.

Mr. Wise recalled seeing old machines from the Trail’s logging history left behind along the route and wanting 74 | Understanding

to know more about such things – along these lines, the integration of educational elements, such as interpretive signage and visitor programs, into the preservation and maintenance routine of historicallysignificant trails like the West Coast Trail will be encouraged in the upcoming standards.

Information on the historical background of trails imbued with historic significance is not always easy to come by, as seems to be the case for the West Coast Trail (by comparison, information on the Chilkoot Trail seems to be more readily available, in some instances having been worked into local educational curricula). Because this information is not always easily accessible, opportunities to incorporate a trail’s historical narrative into the site’s administration, education and interpretation programs should be taken as often and in as many ways as possible to allow the public more access to these rich histories. These interviews with professional trail staff and previous users of the case study trails have solidified the need for any standards relating to historically-significant trails to place a heightened level of importance on the dissemination of historical information into these site’s preservation and maintenance practices. As such, the upcoming standards for the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails will be informed with these responses in mind.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 75

Synthesis | 77

Having gathered inspiration from current standards relevant to the preservation and care of trails with historic significance, and combining this with the feedback received from interviews with trail professionals and from a peer that has completed the West Coast Trail in recent years, the following standards for the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails are the result of careful research. In some cases, the standards echo principles already in existence. Others present entirely new concepts that address challenges unique to historically-significant trails. The standards were created with a global perspective in mind – they were designed to be translatable to historically-significant trails in any and every country in the world. Upon adoption of these broadly-applicable principles, each nation may further align these standards with their own national goals for heritage conservation.

At the same time, these should be applied with even greater specificity at each individual trail with historic significance, beginning with the identification of character-defining features (in addition to the trail route itself) that are essential for the retention of the trail’s historic integrity.

Under the General Standards, each historicallysignificant trail should identify at least four other key character-defining features that will be considered the site’s top priorities. The goal here is to select features or specific cultural or natural resources without which the site would cease to convey its historic importance.

These key features will inform future preservation, maintenance, education, and management plans by 78 | Synthesis

keeping in mind that which must not be lost. The next set of principles address authenticity and integrity while balancing the needs of both cultural and natural resources. Within this balance, the historic trail route must remain at the forefront of every decision.

The fourth General Standard defines each of the four preservation treatments that may be employed, in some degree, at historically-significant trails. Each of these actions are complimented by an understanding that attempts to repair failing features should be exhausted prior to replacing said features, and that materials used in cases where replacement is necessary should be either traditional or approved substitutes. Special caution should be exercised for projects at trails of historic significance that involve restoration treatments. Namely, whole-scale restoration of an historically-significant trail will not be recommended. As discussed in previous chapters, restoration is only appropriate for certain features within an historically-significant trail environment and is not an appropriate response for the entire site.

Trails imbued with historic significance are a type of cultural landscape that is constantly evolving, unlike a highly manicured garden that may want to evoke a certain time period. In addition, such trails also often have deep and layered histories, which cannot be as easily expressed or conveyed to the public through the presentation of a single period in history. Thus, complete restoration of an historically-significant trail would both deny the importance of other histories at play, while also challenging the natural evolutionary process of these environments. Since neither of

these are desirable, whole-scale restoration is not a recommended treatment for historically-significant trails.

In every preservation action, the concept of minimal intervention must apply to avoid any undue damage to important historic resources. The General Standards also outline the recommended process when a resource is to undergo treatment – this includes fully understanding the heritage value of the resource, through research and documentation prior to treatment, as well as selecting the method of treatment that would be the least invasive and planning for its implementation. Throughout and upon completion of the treatment, additional documentation should take place to maintain a record of each feature’s condition.

In addition, these standards encourage community participation in the creation and dissemination of this information so that the many narratives associated with a single trail of historic significance may be told.

The next four standards address cultural and natural resources in more detail. These include the need to balance these two resource types and the relationships (both large and small in scale) between cultural and natural resources. These relationships may be visual in nature (like a trail leading to a scenic outlook), small in scale (as between the trail on the ground and a lofty tree canopy above, creating a perceptible trail corridor), and/or large (as in land patterns). These relationships may include transitions from one ecological zone to another, as in the Chilkoot Trail’s eventual transition from Alaska’s forest-filled coast to the mountainous

tundra of the Canadian Interior. These large and small relationships of the trail and other cultural resources to the surrounding natural environment have a great impact on the experience of the trail, and thus, should be considered important character-defining features of any historically-significant trail site.

Cultural resources include the trail itself, and may also include buildings, structures, artifacts and archaeological sites as a base. The most important cultural resource of all historically-significant trails is the preservation of the original trail route. As much as possible, these routes should not be relocated, rerouted, or altered since they are a (if not the) primary character-defining feature. A large part of experiencing historically-significant trails is the ability to feel as though you are walking in someone else’s shoes from another, earlier time. That sense is magnified by using the same trail route as those that came before – however, small adjustments may be made while still retaining the feeling of history association with the trail as a larger site. As we have seen at the Chilkoot Trail, some minor rerouting was necessitated by extreme flooding events, but do these actions erase the feeling of history upon walking the trail? Certainly not.

Once many relocations have been made, however, it may become difficult to present the site as an historically-significant trail if much of the original trail fabric is no longer in use. As with the treatment of cultural and natural resources, there is a balance that must take place to ensure that necessary treatments are made, whilst maintaining historic integrity. The ideal Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 79

situation is for trail reroutes to be temporary in nature, rather than permanent solutions. If the restoration of the original route may be performed while a noted contemporary trail is used in the interim, the integrity of the historic route will be retained to a greater degree – this should be the ultimate goal when such issues arise at historically-significant trails.

There may be larger features along historicallysignificant trails that require preservation attention, such as buildings and non-habitable structures. For example, at the West Coast Trail, these would include any extant linesmen and survival cabins, along with the three heritage lighthouses. Some of these cabins may also need extensive restoration treatments, or even complete reconstruction in order to contribute to the public interpretation of the site. Details on the conditions that must be met for reconstructions to be considered an approved treatment are also discussed. Other cultural features, like artifacts and archaeological sites, should be protected from any potential damage – this might include contact with animals, weather and climatic conditions that might alter their appearance or speed up their decay, as well as unwarranted human attention, vandalism and theft. Standards surrounding the preservation and maintenance of natural resources may include ecological features, vegetation, water features and landforms, are presented.

Standards relating to education and interpretation are then presented, and include a list of the many different methods of visitor education that should be employed 80 | Synthesis

at trails of historic significance. These standards aim to address auditory, visual, textual, and physical engagements with the preservation and maintenance of historically-significant trails through orientation debriefings, interpretive signage, exhibits, opportunities to take part in the care of these places, as well as having the historical background of each trail sent to users upon booking their visits. The combination of all of these techniques makes for a more wellrounded approach to public education that touches on the variety of ways that people may learn best – by reading, listening, or doing. These ensure many levels of visitor and staff involvement, by providing opportunities that can be absorbed alone and those performed as part of a group.

Finally, administrative standards address the creation of detailed inventories for the many cultural and natural resources found along historically-significant trail routes, and call for collaboration within departments to ensure effective and creative problem-solving.

The implementation of both a quota and reservation system as well as a process by which to determine whether undertakings by a federal government will have adverse effects on cultural or natural resources are also included as recommendations. The full Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails can be found in the pages that follow.

Figure 33.0, Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. I (Olivia Breytenbach)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 81

Figure 34.0, Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. II (Olivia Breytenbach)

82 | Synthesis

Figure 35.0, Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. III (Olivia Breytenbach)

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 83

Figure 36.0, Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. IV (Olivia Breytenbach)

By closely examining the current standards applicable to trails and understanding how trails with historic significance are fundamentally different, a set of principles that more closely reflect the needs of historically-significant trails emerged. These standards were synthesized with visitor education, resource protection, and a global audience in mind. They are both specific enough so that they apply only to this particular type of evolutionary cultural landscape, as well as being broad enough to apply to historicallysignificant trails around the globe. The next chapter 84 | Synthesis

will explain how trail professionals may benefit from these standards in the form of a quick-guide. This guide has been designed to help them make informed decisions about the preservation, maintenance, and management of historically-significant trails based on standards that were tailor-made to address their unique needs.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 85

Education

| 87

for trail professionals Apart from the development of the Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of HistoricallySignificant Trails, another essential part of this thesis involves the creation of educational documents for two main audiences – trail professionals who work with these trail resources, and the trail users, themselves.

For trail professionals, a guide to the Standards for Historically-Significant Trails has been produced. For trail users, two draft historical narratives about the West Coast and Chilkoot Trails have been created.

These narratives include maps and photographs and feature a condensed history of these important trails, providing just enough information to get people interested in learning the full story. Ideally, such narratives may be sent to trail users prior to their trip – once they register to hike these trails themselves, they will be sent a confirmation email that includes a document like this as an attachment. Both documents aim to educate these two groups of people, so that historically-significant trails may be better taken care of, while ensuring a more informed user base.

88 | Education

The Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails will have no effect if they are not shared with people that can implement their principles towards actual trails of historic significance.

For that reason, this study has also led to the creation of a quick-guide to the Standards for trail professionals, including park rangers, site managers, maintenance crews, and even for volunteer workers to use as a reference. The guide includes an introduction into what an historically-significant trail is, and how it may differ from purely recreational trails. It also presents the Standards in full, as they have been presented in the previous chapter. Finally, the guide goes through each section of the Standards to explain the principles (and the reasons behind them) in further detail. The goal for this guide is that trail professionals may understand what makes an historically-significant trail different from others, while being able to ensure the preservation and maintenance of its character-defining features. The following pages give an example of a proposed guide for trail professionals.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 89

90 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 91

92 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 93

94 | Education

for trail users Although Parks Canada has a reservation system in place for the Chilkoot Trail, they do not send registered hikers more information about the trail they have signed up to hike. Parks Canada (and all other entities that govern use of historically-significant trails) should use this opportunity to give trail users more information about their hike. Not every person knows or researches the history of a trail before they decide to use it – many times, these trails have reputations as being truly scenic, and often very challenging pursuits. These are usually the main reasons why these users sign up to complete the treks. If users were sent a brief historical narrative along with their reservation confirmation, there is a chance that the historical background of these important places would reach more users.

This information might even make for a richer visitor experience, as the information may deepen the meaning of completing the trail even further.

In addition, knowing the history beforehand may result in more respectful behavior on the part of the user. If users have prior knowledge that the cultural and natural resources they may see along the way have heritage value, they may be less inclined to disturb or damage them. A deeper appreciation for the associations behind historically-significant trails may even encourage users to become stewards of these special places. Examples of what the proposed historical narratives for trail users might look like are included in the next several pages.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 95

96 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 97

98 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 99

100 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 101

The potential benefits of integrating such educational documents into interpretive programs are numerous and include better informed professionals with more targeted care for historically-significant trails and a more educated public. Providing trail professionals with a tool that will help them protect historically-significant trails, as well as giving trail users with more chances to access the history of these places, ensures that the preservation, management, and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance will be geared towards the events, peoples and cultures that shaped them. While education is a central tenet of the Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails themselves, it is also a guiding goal for this thesis. The creation of draft educational documents serves to satisfy that larger goal with the hope that such documents will be implemented in real-life historically-significant trails around the globe.

102 | Education

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 103

Conclusions

| 105

At the beginning of this process, it was unclear whether or not existing principles would suggest that trails imbued with historic significance required their own concrete set of preservation and maintenance standards. However, by conducting thorough research and using real-life historically-significant trails to investigate this theory, this thesis has shown that current standards do not cover all of the principles that would now be considered necessary for their protection. With the understanding that the historic nature of the trail route itself sets historically-significant trails apart from recreational trails, research now exists that lays the foundation for these new standards to stand on their own, while ensuring that the historic integrity of these places will be retained for future generations.

This thesis uses two case studies to help illustrate the ways in which historically-significant trails are different from other trails, and from other types of cultural landscapes. The West Coast Trail and Chilkoot Trail case studies serve as lenses through which to analyze the existing standards that relate to historicallysignificant trails roots their unique preservation and maintenance needs firmly in reality and emphasizes the ways that the current standards might be manipulated to better address these needs. The analysis of current standards and information gained from interviews with trail professionals results in a better understanding of the ways in which these extant principles do and do not reflect best practices for trails imbued with historic significance, thus informing the creation of the Standards for the Preservation and 106 | Conclusions

Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails in Chapter Five.

The educational documents for trail professionals and users created in this study lay the groundwork for this type of textual material to be distributed to maintenance crews, park rangers, volunteer groups, and those who plan to hike the trails. These draft documents fulfill one of the guiding principles of the standards for historically-significant trails – education and interpretation. Part of the purpose of this thesis project is to suggest additional ways that trail users might learn about the history of these places at every point in their trip – from pre-planning, to signing up to hike these trails, upon arrival and during their journey, as well as after their return home. Those draft educational documents created for the West Coast Trail and the Chilkoot Trail can serve an as example for other historically-significant trails, to be created by the bodies that provide for their preservation and maintenance.

next steps Of course, these new standards must be tested and subsequently revised before they are accepted as effective in the preservation, management, and maintenance of trails imbued with historic significance.

In order to determine whether the standards created through this study are effective, they should be distributed, along with the educational document prepared for trail professionals, to experts in the field. These people will be able to provide a sense of how well suited these new standards are for actual preservation practice, as well as whether these might be applicable on a broad level (i.e. globally). Being able to establish relationships with professionals at several trails of historic significance and other preservation professionals that would provide feedback on the content and organization of the standards for historically-significant trails would be ideal.

a certain level of depth to this study. This thesis is just the first step in ensuring that historically-significant trails receive the distinction and protection that they deserve, and truly need. Much more can and should be done to further the case for the existence of these standards, and it will require the collaboration of many groups and individuals to allow this to happen. Now that historically-significant trails have been proven to be unlike other types of trails and cultural landscapes, the door is open to new information and exciting opportunities.

Since I have not yet had the opportunity to hike the West Coast Trail nor the Chilkoot Trail myself, another addition to this project would be to visit these sites and complete the routes. Many questions have been left unanswered about the current states of cultural and natural resources at these trails (the most recent knowledge comes from the mid-2000s on the Chilkoot Trail), and having the chance to thoroughly document the existing conditions along these Trails would add Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 107

endnotes 1

“Old Spanish National Historic Trail - Frequently Asked Questions,” National Parks Service, accessed February 21, 2018, https://www.nps.

gov/olsp/faqs.htm 2 Ibid.

3

“The History of Route 66,” National Historic Route 66 Federation, September 26, 2017, accessed January 23, 2018, https://www.nation

al66.org/history-of-route-66/.

4 Ibid.

5

“Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail,” Chesapeake Conservancy, accessed January 24, 2018, http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/

about-the-trail/.

6

Nick Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail: From Telegraph Line to World Renowned Recreation Destination,” British Columbia

Historical News 30, no.2 (Spring 1997), 13.

7

Tim Leadem, Hiking the West Coast Trail: A Pocket Guide (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2006), 5-8.

8

Kate Humble, “West Coast Trail born out of tragedy,” Victoria News, December 12, 2014, accessed August 20, 2017, http://www.vicnews.

com/opinion/west-coast-trail-born-out-of-tragedy/#.

9

Canada, Parks Canada, West Coast Trail - 2018 Hiker Preparation Guide, by Parks Canada, 1, accessed January 10, 2018, www.pc.gc.ca/-/

media/pn-np/bc/pacificrim/WET4/visit/PDF/2018-wct-guide.pdf.

10

Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail,” 11.

11 Ibid.

12

Stephen R. Bown, “In the Wake of Peril: The Evolution of the West Coast Trail,” The Beaver, Feb. & March 2002, 4.

13

Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail,” 11.

14

George Allen, Timeless Shore: Canada’s West Coast Trail (Calgary, AB: Bayeux Arts, 1994), 17.

15

Humble, “West Coast Trail born out of tragedy,” Victoria News.

16

Daryl C. McClary, “The Wreck of SS Valencia (1906),” HistoryLink.org, July 29, 2005, accessed August 20, 2017, http://www.historylink.org/

File/7382.

17 Ibid.

18

Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail,” 13.

108 | Conclusions

19

Ian Gill and David Nunuk, Hiking on the Edge: West Coast Trail and Juan de Fuca Trail, 2nd ed. (Vancouver, BC: Raincoast Books, 1998),

78.

20

Humble, “West Coast Trail born out of tragedy,” Victoria News.

21

Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail,” 13.

22

Humble, “West Coast Trail born out of tragedy,” Victoria News.

23

Klassen, “The Story of the West Coast Trail,” 13.

24 Ibid.

25

Ibid, 14.

26 Ibid.

27

Ibid, 15.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30

Bown, “In the Wake of Peril,” 7.

31

McClary, “The Wreck of SS Valencia (1906),” HistoryLink.org.

32

Canada, Parks Canada, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada Management Plan (Parks Canada, 2010), 17.

33

Canada, Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site – Hiker Preparation Guide, by Parks Canada, 2, accessed February 9, 2018,

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/yt/chilkoot/activ/hiking-randonee.

34

United States of America, National Park Service, Alaska Goldrush National Historic Landmarks: The Stampede North (Anchorage, AK:

National Park Service, Alaska Support Office History Team, 1998), 4.

35

United States of America, State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, The Chilkoot Trail: A Guide to the Goldrush Trail of ‘98 (Ju

neau, AK, 1972), 18.

36

Canada, Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada: Management Plan (Gatineau, QC: Parks Canada, 2010), 3.

37

“Dyea,” National Park Service, accessed February 12, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/dyea.htm.

38

National Park Service, The Stampede North, 12.

39 Ibid.

40

Ibid, 6.

41 Ibid.

42

Angelo Heilprin, “Alaska and the Klondike,” Popular Science Monthly 55 (May 1899), 3-4.

43

National Park Service, The Stampede North, 3-6.

44

Ibid, 6.

45

Ibid, 10.

46

Ibid, 12.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 109

47

National Park Service, The Stampede North, 12.

48

“Banking on the Stampeders - Dyea vs. Skagway,” As Precious As Gold, accessed February 12, 2018, https://postalmuseum.si.edu/gold/

skagdyea.html.

49

Department of Natural Resources, A Guide to the Goldrush Trail of ‘98, 17.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52

United States of America, National Park Service, The Chilkoot Trail: Cultural Landscape Report for the Chilkoot Trail Historic Corridor, by

the Cultural Landscapes Program, Alaska, part 1: History, Existing Conditions, & Analysis (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2011), 7.

53

Ibid, 15-17.

54

Ibid, 17.

55

Ibid, 76.

56

Ibid, 77.

57

Ibid, 100.

58

Ibid, 102.

59

Ibid, 8.

60

Ibid, 13.

61

Parks Canada, Hiker Preparation Guide, 4.

62

National Park Service, The Stampede North, 12.

63

Archie Satterfield, Chilkoot Pass: A Hiker’s Historical Guide to the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, 5th ed. (Portland, OR:

Alaska Northwest Books, 2004), 23-24.

64

Department of Natural Resources, A Guide to the Goldrush Trail of ‘98, 16.

65

Pamela A. Wright, “Managing the National Parks,” in Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, ed. Dearden, Rollins, and Needham, 4th ed.

(Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2016), 194.

66 Ibid.

67

Mark D. Needham et al., “Parks and Protected Areas in Canada,” in Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management,

ed. Philip Dearden, Rick Rollins, and Needham, 4th ed. (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2016), 6.

68

Wright, “Managing the National Parks,” 176.

69

Needham et al., “Parks and Protected Areas in Canada,” 6.

70

C. J. Taylor, Negotiating the Past: The Making of Canada’s National Historic Parks and Sites (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990), 31-39.

71

David Pokotylo and Andrew R. Mason, “Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada: The Legislative Basis,” in Cultural

Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger and George S. Smith (Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida, 2010), 53.

110 | Conclusions

72

Historic Sites and Monuments Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, c.H-4, s.3. http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-4/page-1.html.

73

Canada, Parks Canada, A History of Canada’s National Parks, by W. F. Lothian, vol. II (Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 1977), 17.

74

Parks Canada, A History of Canada’s National Parks, 17.

75

Canada National Parks Act, Statutes of Canada, 2000, c.32, ss.11-12. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/page-1.html.

76

Canada, Parks Canada, Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis Process (Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2015), 5.

77 Ibid.

78

Ibid, 11.

79 Ibid.

80

Parks Canada Agency Act, Statutes of Canada, 1998, c.31, ss.2-5. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-0.4/FullText.html.

81

Ibid, preamble.

82

Pokotylo and Mason, “Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada,” 56.

83

Canada, Parks Canada, The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd ed. (Ottawa, ON: Parks

Canada, 2010), 257.

84

“Reconstruction, or reconstitution of a disappeared historic place, is not considered conservation and is therefore not addressed in

this document.” Ibid, 15.

85

Pokotylo and Mason, “Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada,” 56.

86

“The Early Years, 1864-1918,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed. (Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

87

“History,” National Parks Service, accessed March 30, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm.

88

Hester A. Davis, “Heritage Resource Management in the United States,” in Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective, ed.

Phyllis Mauch Messenger and George S. Smith (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2010), 188.

89

“The Early Years,” ed. Dilsaver, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.

92

“The New Deal Years, 1933-1941,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed. (Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid.

95

“Preservation of Historic Sites Act, 1935,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed.

(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/

index.htm.

96

“The New Deal Years,” ed. Dilsaver, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 111

97

“Preservation of Historic Sites Act,” ed. Dilsaver, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

98

“National Park System Advisory Board,” National Parks Service, accessed March 30, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/resources/advisory

board.htm.

99 Ibid.

100

Davis, “Heritage Resource Management in the United States,” 189.

101

“National Historic Preservation Act, 1966,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed.

(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/

index.htm.

102

“Section 106 Regulations Summary,” Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Preserving America’s Heritage, accessed April 1, 2018,

http://www.achp.gov/index.html.

103 Ibid.

104

Davis, “Heritage Resource Management in the United States,” 189.

105

“The Trails Act,” 50th Anniversary - National Trails System, accessed January 16, 2018, https://www.trails50.org/the-trails-act/.

106 Ibid.

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid, 112

“National Trails System Act, 1978,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed. (Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

113

“The Ecological Revolution, 1964-1969,” in America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, ed. Lary M. Dilsaver, 1st ed. (Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994), accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/index.htm.

114

Visit https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/nepa-and-nhpa-handbook-integrating-nepa-and-section-106-ceq-and-achp-2013 for

more information.

115

Davis, “Heritage Resource Management in the United States,” 189.

116

Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines, v.

117

Ibid, 257-258.

118

Ibid, 5.

119

Ibid, 41.

120

Ibid, 24.

121

Ibid, 41.

112 | Conclusions

122

Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines, 50.

123

Ibid, 51.

124

Ibid, 54.

125

Ibid, 59.

126

Ibid, 113.

127

Ibid, 198.

128

Canada, Parks Canada, Parks Canada Trail Principles (Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2017), 2.

129

Ibid, 3.

130

Ibid, 4.

131

Ibid, 6.

132 Ibid.

133

Ibid, 9.

134

Canada, Parks Canada, Cultural Resource Management Policy (Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2013), s.3 – Context.

135

Ibid, s.4 – Application.

136

Ibid, s.7.1.3.

137

Parks Canada, Pacific Rim Management Plan, 2.

138

Ibid, 18.

139 Ibid.

140

Ibid, 22.

141

Ibid, 37.

142 Ibid.

143

Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail Management Plan, 43.

144

Ibid, 15-26.

145

Ibid, 7.

146 Ibid.

147

Ibid, 6.

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid.

150

Ibid, 10.

151

Ibid, 9.

152

Parks Canada, Cultural Resource Management Policy, s.5 – Key Definitions.

153 Ibid.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 113

154

Parks Canada, Cultural Resource Management Policy, s.5 – Key Definitions.

155

Canada, Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site: Commemorative Integrity Statement, 2012, 3, accessed August 27, 2017,

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/pc/R64-488-2012-eng.pdf.

156

Ibid, 4.

157 Ibid.

158

Ibid, 5.

159

Ibid, 6.

160

“St. Andrew’s Church,” Canada’s Historic Places - The Canadian Register of Historic Places, September 21, 2005, accessed March 15,

2018, http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=3653&pid=0.

161

Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail Commemorative Integrity Statement, 7.

162

“St. Andrew’s Church,” Canada’s Historic Places.

163

Parks Canada, Chilkoot Trail Commemorative Integrity Statement, 7.

164

Ibid, 9.

165

United States of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties, ed. Anne E. Grimmer, 2017, vii, accessed January 24, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf.

166

Ibid, viii.

167

Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines, 15.

168

U.S. Department of the Interior, Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, ed. Grimmer, 228.

169 Ibid.

170

Ibid, 226.

171

Ibid, 28.

172 Ibid.

173

Ibid, 76.

174 Ibid.

175

“Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes,” National Park Service, Introduction, accessed March 11, 2018, https://www.nps.

gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/index.htm.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid.

178 Ibid.

179 Ibid.

180

“Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes,” National Park Service, Preserving.

181

Ibid, Rehabilitating.

114 | Conclusions

182

National Park Service, Cultural Landscape Report for the Chilkoot Trail Historic Corridor, 14.

183

Ibid, 15.

184 Ibid.

185

Ibid, 8.

186

Ibid, 6.

187

Ibid, 131.

188 Ibid.

189

Ibid, 147.

190 Ibid.

191

Ibid, 148.

192

Ibid, 150.

193 Ibid.

194

Ibid, 183.

195 Ibid.

196

“Artifact Spotlight: Canyon City Boiler,” National Park Service, accessed April 15, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/articles/klgo-artifact-

canyon-city-boiler.htm.

197

National Park Service, Cultural Landscape Report for the Chilkoot Trail Historic Corridor, 185.

198

Ibid, 224.

199 Ibid.

200

Ibid, 225-6.

201

Ibid, 227.

202

Ibid, 282.

203

Ibid, 295.

204 Ibid.

205

Ibid, 317.

206

Ibid, 327.

207 Ibid.

208 Ibid.

209

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics, “Our History,” Leave No Trace, accessed March 18, 2018, https://lnt.org/about/history.

210

Ibid, “The Leave No Trace Seven Principles,” https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles.

211 Ibid.

212 Ibid.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 115

213

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics, “The Leave No Trace Seven Principles,” https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles.

214 Ibid.

215

Susannah Dowds and Kari Rain, “Chilkoot Trail (National Park Service) Interview,” e-mail interview by author, March 2018.

216 Ibid.

217

Scott Wise, “West Coast Trail Visitor Experience Interview,” e-mail interview by author, May 2018.

218 Ibid.

219 Ibid.

220 Ibid.

116 | Conclusions

image credits Figure 1.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-14.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos

hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Figure 2.0 | Vancouver Island. Personal image created by author. February 28, 2018.

Figure 3.0 | Pacific Rim National Park Reserve - West Coast Trail unit. Personal image created by author. February 28,

2018.

Figure 4.0 | “1902 British All Red Line Map.” The All Red Line: The Annals and Aims of the Pacific Cable Project, James

Hope & Sons, 1903, http://blogs.mhs.ox.ac.uk/innovatingincombat/british-cable-telegraphy-world-war one-red-line-secure-communications/.

Figure 5.0 | Photographer undetermined. The S.S. Valencia. ca. 1905. Royal BC Museum, Victoria. In BC Archives Collection Search. Accessed January 26, 2018. http://search-bcarchives.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/s-s valencia.

Figure 6.0 | Photographer undetermined. Darling Falls, on the West Coast Trail. 1975. Royal BC Museum, Victoria. In BC

Archives - Collection Search. Accessed January 26, 2018. http://search-bcarchives.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/

darling-falls-on-west-coast-trail.

Figure 7.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-05.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos

hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Figure 8.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-01.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos

hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 117

Figure 9.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-16.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Figure 10.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-13.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Figure 11.0 | Bielousov, Anton. “West-Coast-Trail-Boards-Walk-960x1440.jpg.” West Coast Trail - Day 2, Anton Bielousov,

2 June 2015, www.bielousov.com/2015/west-coast-trail-day-2/.

Figure 12.0 | Chow, Vince. “Chow_WCT-04.jpg.” Hiking the West Coast Trail, Vince Chow, 2015, vincechow.ca/photos hiking-west-coast-trail/.

Figure 13.0 | Bielousov, Anton. “old-steamship-boiler-on-michigan-beach-west-coast-trail-960x640.jpg.” West Coast

Trail - Day 2, Anton Bielousov, 2 June 2015, www.bielousov.com/2015/west-coast-trail-day-2/.

Figure 14.0 | Map indicating the locations of the Chilkoot and White Pass Trails. Personal image created by author.

March 13, 2018.

Figure 15.0 | Map of Chilkoot Trail context. Personal image created by author. March 8, 2018.

Figure 16.0 | Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Newspaper excerpt from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. July 17, 1897.

Figure 17.0 | Chilkoot Trail profile. In Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site - Choosing Your Campgrounds. Accessed

February 20, 2018. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/yt/chilkoot/activ/hiking-randonee/camping.

Figure 18.0 | Hegg, Eric A. Klondikers at The Scales, Ascending the Chilkoot Pass, Alaska, 1898. Seattle, 1898, http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/hegg/id/725/rec/70.

Figure 19.0 | Winfree, Robert. “4786348_orig.jpg.” Winfree Studio, iPage, winfree-studio.com/klondike-gold-rush.html.

Figure 20.0 | Hegg, Eric A. Dyea, Alaska, ca. 1898. Seattle, 1898, http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/

singleitem/collection/hegg/id/578/rec/37.

118 | Conclusions

Figure 21.0 | “Stampeders, Loaded with Gear, Wait in Line Starting up Chilkoot Pass.” Klondike Gold Rush National

Historical Park, National Park Service, 1898, www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/goldrush.htm.

Figure 22.0 | Rutkauskas, Andreas. “Gold Rush Cemetery in Dyea, Alaska, 2011.” Chilkoot 24/7, Wordpress, 29 Aug. 2014,

chilkoot247.wordpress.com/tag/national-parks-service/.

Figure 23.0 | La Roche, Frank. Crater Lake on the Chilkoot Trail, British Columbia, 1897. Seattle, 1897, http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/laroche/id/254/rec/28.

Figure 24.0 | Stampeders-Route-Chilkoot-Trail-08.jpg. In Stampeders Route: Trekking Chilkoot Trail. Accessed April 3,

2018. https://www.rubyrange.com/shop/adventure-tours/hiking-tours/stampeders-route-trekking chilkoot-trail/.

Figure 25.0 | EIA Decision Framework. Personal image created by author. Information from Guide to the Parks Canada

Environmental Impact Analysis Process. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2015, 9.

Figure 26.0 | Section 106 review process. Personal image created by author. Information from National Historic

Preservation Act, Section 106: A Quick Guide for Preserving Native American Cultural Resources.

Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2012, page 2.

Figure 27.0 | Criteria for Evaluation. Personal image created by author. April 15, 2018.

Figure 28.0 | Principle-based Guidelines for Trails. In Parks Canada Agency Trail Principles. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada,

2017, 2.

Figure 29.0 | Cultural resource management principles. Personal image created by author. Information from Cultural

Resource Management Policy. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2013, section 6 – Policy Statement.

Figure 30.0 | Lundberg, Murray. 20130709-0752.jpg. July 2013. In Exploring Bennett and the Chilkoot Trail - Explore

North. July 14, 2013. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://explorenorth.com/wordpress/exploring-bennett-and the-chilkoot-trail/.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 119

Figure 31.0 | NPS Photo. DKT Steam Boiler. In Artifact Spotlight: Canyon City Boiler. Accessed April 16, 2018. https:// www.nps.gov/articles/klgo-artifact-canyon-city-boiler.htm.

Figure 32.0 | Winfree, Robert. Boats on a Mountaintop. In Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park and the Chilkoot

Trail. http://winfree-studio.com/klondike-gold-rush.html.

Figure 33.0 | Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. I. Personal image

created by author. May 2018.

Figure 34.0 | Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. II. Personal image

created by author. May 2018.

Figure 35.0 | Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. III. Personal image

created by author. May 2018.

Figure 36.0 | Standards for the Preservation and Maintenance of Historically-Significant Trails, pt. IV. Personal image

created by author. May 2018.

120 | Conclusions

bibliography “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.” Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Preserving America’s Heritage. Accessed April 1, 2018. http://www.achp.gov/index.html.

Allen, George. Timeless Shore: Canada’s West Coast Trail. Calgary, AB: Bayeux Arts, 1994.

“Artifact Spotlight: Canyon City Boiler.” National Park Service. Accessed April 15, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/articles/klgo-artifact-canyon-city boiler.htm.

“Banking on the Stampeders - Dyea vs. Skagway.” As Precious As Gold. Accessed February 12, 2018. https://postalmuseum.si.edu/gold/ skagdyea.html.

Bown, Stephen R. “In the Wake of Peril: The Evolution of the West Coast Trail.” The Beaver, Feb. & March 2002.

Canada. Canada National Parks Act, Statutes of Canada, 2000, c.32. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/page-1.html.

Canada. Historic Sites and Monuments Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, c.H-4. http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-4/page-1.html.

Canada. Parks Canada Agency Act, Statutes of Canada, 1998, c.31. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-0.4/FullText.html.

Canada. Parks Canada. A History of Canada’s National Parks. By W. F. Lothian. Vol. II. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 1977.

Canada. Parks Canada. Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site: Commemorative Integrity Statement. 2012. Accessed August 27, 2017. http:// publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/pc/R64-488-2012-eng.pdf.

Canada. Parks Canada. Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site – Hiker Preparation Guide. By Parks Canada. Accessed February 9, 2018. https:// www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/yt/chilkoot/activ/hiking-randonee.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 121

Canada. Parks Canada. Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site of Canada: Management Plan. Gatineau, QC: Parks Canada, 2010.

Canada. Parks Canada. Cultural Resource Management Policy. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2013.

Canada. Parks Canada. Guide to the Parks Canada Environmental Impact Analysis Process. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2015.

Canada. Parks Canada. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada Management Plan. Parks Canada, 2010.

Canada. Parks Canada. Parks Canada Trail Principles. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2017.

Canada. Parks Canada. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, 2010.

Canada. Parks Canada. West Coast Trail - 2018 Hiker Preparation Guide. By Parks Canada. Accessed January 10, 2018. www.pc.gc.ca/-/media/ pn-np/bc/pacificrim/WET4/visit/PDF/2018-wct-guide.pdf.

“Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.” Chesapeake Conservancy. Accessed January 24, 2018. http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/about-the trail/.

Dearden, Philip, Rick Rollins, and Mark Needham, eds. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. 4th ed. Don Mills, ON:

Oxford University Press, 2016.

Dilsaver, Lary M., ed. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents. 1st ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994.

Dowds, Susannah, and Kari Rain. “Chilkoot Trail (National Park Service) Interview.” E-mail interview by author. March 2018.

“Dyea.” National Park Service. Accessed February 12, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/dyea.htm.

Gill, Ian, and David Nunuk. Hiking on the Edge: West Coast Trail and Juan de Fuca Trail. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC: Raincoast Books, 1998.

“Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.” National Park Service. Accessed March 11, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/ four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/index.htm.

122 | Conclusions

Heilprin, Angelo. “Alaska and the Klondike: A Journey to the New Eldorado.” Popular Science Monthly 55 (May 1899): 1-16.

“History.” National Parks Service. Accessed March 30, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm.

Humble, Kate. “West Coast Trail born out of tragedy.” Victoria News, December 12, 2014. Accessed August 20, 2017. http://www.vicnews.com/ opinion/west-coast-trail-born-out-of-tragedy/#.

Klassen, Nick. “The Story of the West Coast Trail: From Telegraph Line to World Renowned Recreation Destination.” British Columbia Historical News 30, no. 2 (Spring 1997): 10-16.

Leadem, Tim. Hiking the West Coast Trail: A Pocket Guide. Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2006.

McClary, Daryl C. “Valencia, SS, the Wreck of (1906).” HistoryLink.org. July 29, 2005. Accessed August 20, 2017. http://www.historylink.org/ File/7382.

Messenger, Phyllis Mauch, and George S. Smith, eds. Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective. Gainesville, FL: University Press of

Florida, 2010.

“National Park System Advisory Board.” National Parks Service. Accessed March 30, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/resources/advisoryboard.htm.

“Old Spanish National Historic Trail - Frequently Asked Questions.” National Parks Service. Accessed February 21, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/ olsp/faqs.htm.

Satterfield, Archie. Chilkoot Pass: A Hiker’s Historical Guide to the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. 5th ed. Portland, OR: Alaska

Northwest Books, 2004.

“St. Andrew’s Church.” Canada’s Historic Places - The Canadian Register of Historic Places. September 21, 2005. Accessed March 15, 2018. http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=3653&pid=0.

Taylor, C. J. Negotiating the Past: The Making of Canada’s National Historic Parks and Sites. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990.

“The History of Route 66.” National Historic Route 66 Federation. September 26, 2017. Accessed January 23, 2018. https://www.national66.org/ history-of-route-66/.

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 123

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics. “The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics.” Leave No Trace. Accessed March 18, 2018. https://lnt.org/.

“The Trails Act.” 50th Anniversary - National Trails System. Accessed January 16, 2018. https://www.trails50.org/the-trails-act/.

United States of America. National Park Service. Alaska Goldrush National Historic Landmarks: The Stampede North. Anchorage, AK: National

Park Service, Alaska Support Office History Team, 1998.

United States of America. National Park Service. The Chilkoot Trail: Cultural Landscape Report for the Chilkoot Trail Historic Corridor. By the

Cultural Landscapes Program, Alaska. Part 1: History, Existing Conditions, & Analysis. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2011.

United States of America. State of Alaska. Department of Natural Resources. The Chilkoot Trail: A Guide to the Goldrush Trail of ‘98. Juneau, AK, 1972.

United States of America. U.S. Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Edited by Anne E. Grimmer. 2017. Accessed January 24, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf.

Wise, Scott. “West Coast Trail Visitor Experience Interview.” E-mail interview by author. May 2018.

124 | Conclusions

APPENDIX A: Timeline of Relevant Legislature and Documents

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 125

APPENDIX B: Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

126 | Conclusions

APPENDIX C: Leave No Trace Seven Principles The Leave No Trace Seven Principles have been reprinted with permission from the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics: www.LNT.org

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 127

APPENDIX D: Thesis Preparation Final Proposal

128 | Conclusions

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 129

130 | Conclusions

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 131

132 | Conclusions

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 133

134 | Conclusions

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 135

136 | Conclusions

Preserving Historically-Significant Trails | 137

138 | Conclusions