National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

 

History Program 

Northeast Region

NEW RIVER GORGE 

NATIONAL RIVER 

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY 

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Gregory A. Good 

 Lynn Stasick 

Prepared under cooperative agreement with 

Department of History 

West Virginia University 

National Park Service 

 U.S. Department of the Interior 

2008



iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures vii 

Foreword xi 

Acknowledgments xiii 

Preface xv 

Acronyms xix 

Introduction: The New River Gorge National River: An Old River, a 

New Kind of National Park 1 

Chapter One: Before the New River Gorge National River 11 

Introduction 

Overview of Physical and Biological Setting of the New River Gorge 

Early Native American Habitation and Euro-American Settlement 

The Railroad and Industrialization come to the New River Gorge 

Conclusion 

Chapter Two: Early Movement to Protect the New River and its Gorge .......... 37 

Introduction 

Appalachian Electric Power and the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project Proposal 

Local Community Reaction and Grassroots Opposition in North Carolina 

Final Hearings and Granting License to Blue Ridge Modified Pumped Storage Project 

Grassroots Opposition in West Virginia 

Protection for the New River Gorge 

Conclusion 

Chapter Three: Thinking Small: A National Park in Occupied Territory .......... 63 

Introduction 

The Small Park Experiment: Formulation of the 1983 General Management Plan 

NERI Headquarters Takes Shape 

Opening the Land Office: Hint of a Larger Park? 

Selecting a Site for a New NERI Headquarters 

NERI Land Acquisition Process 

Private Development around NERI 

Conclusion 
iv 

Chapter Four: The Challenges of Managing a Rapidly Expanding Park: 

Fundamental Change and its Consequences 97 

Introduction 

Designation of Gauley River National Recreation Area and Bluestone 

National Scenic River 

Park Expansion, Boundary Modifications, and Land Acquisition 

Planning for the Bluestone National Scenic River and Gauley River National 

Recreation Area 

Keeping Pace with Growth of the Park: NERI Administration adapts to Change 

of Scale 

Law Enforcement in a Larger Park System 

Emergency Services in a Larger Park System 

Fire Operations in a Larger Park System 

Conclusion 

Chapter Five: Managing NERI Natural Resources 133 

Introduction 

Water Flow and Pre-existing Impoundments 

Water Quality, Sewage Treatment, and Acid Mine Drainage 

Water Flow and Protection of Biological Resources 

Water Flow and Recreation 

Renewed Interest in Hydroelectric Power Generation at Bluestone Dam 

Managing Flora and Fauna of New River Gorge National River 

Traditional Uses: Hunting and Gathering in the Gorge 

Controlling Invasive Species in the Gorge 

Threatened and Endangered Species in the Gorge 

Bti, Black Fly, and Integrated Pest Management 

Natural Resource Management in a Larger Park System 

Conclusion 

Chapter Six: Managing NERI Cultural Resources 171 

Introduction: Cultural Resource Laws and New River CRM Planning 

The Coal-miners’ Story: Management Decisions regarding Kaymoor and 

Nuttallburg Mines 

The Railroaders’ Story: Management Decisions regarding Thurmond 

Conclusion 

Chapter Seven: Recreation Drives the Park: Managing New River 

 Recreational Resources 199 

Introduction 

Recreational Management in the General Management Plan

Managing Recreation on the River: Draft River Management Plan

Managing Recreation on Land: Plans for Trails and Rock Climbing 

Changing Times in Recreation: Hunt Clubs and Extreme Sports 

Conclusion 
v 

Chapter Eight: Working with Visitors 235 

Introduction 

Canyon Rim Visitor Center 

Sandstone Falls 

New River Gorge Bridge 

Grandview and Theatre West Virginia 

Park Access and the New River Parkway 

Conclusion 

Conclusion: National Parks, National Rivers: Special Histories, Peculiar 

 Challenges 271 

Research Recommendations 277 

Appendices 

A. Major Legislation Affecting New River Gorge National River, Gauley River 

National Recreation Area, and Bluestone National Scenic River 279 

B. New River Timeline 303 

C. Staff Structure of the New River Gorge National River, 2004 307 

D. Organizational Charts 309 

E. Land Acquisition and Boundary Changes in New River National River, 

Gauley River National Recreation Area, and Bluestone National Scenic River 337

F. Rivers in the National Park System 339 

Bibliography 343

vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

Sandstone Falls looking east, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. 

Photograph by Gregory A. Good, 2004. Cover 

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Federally owned lands in West Virginia. 3 

Figure 2. Brochure Map of Gauley River National Recreation Area, New River Gorge 

National River, and Bluestone National Scenic River. 4 

CHAPTER ONE

Figure 3. The "Old State Road." 27 

Figure 4. Peter Bowyer established his ferry over the New River in 1798. 28 

Figure 5. Map of the New River Gorge, showing Fayetteville to the west, 1861. 29 

Figure 6. Map from Chief Justice John Marshall expedition of 1812 along Jackson, 

 Greenbrier, and New Rivers, by Andrew Alexander, 1814. 30 

Figure 7. Fayette Station Bridge. 31 

Figure 8. “Stretcher’s Neck” C&O railroad tunnel. 31 

Figure 9. Map of New River Coalfield by Jedediah Hotchkiss, 1880s. 32 

Figure 10. Detail from a map by Jedediah Hotchkiss. 33 

Figure 11. Survey of 9,138 acres of coal lands on the New. 33 

Figure 12. Tip Car, Kaymoor Mine. 34 

Figure 13. Safety warning that Kaymoor miners walked under every day. 34 

Figure 14. The Kaymoor Mine Powder House. 35 

CHAPTER TWO

Figure 15. Proposed modified Blue Ridge Project. 40 

Figure 16. The New River, upstream of Fayette Station Bridge. 55 

CHAPTER THREE

Figure 17. The New River Draft Plan circulated for public comment, 1982. 94 

Figure 18. Steve Hastings, Superintendent Joe Kennedy, and Assistant 

 Superintendent Henry Law, early 1990s. 95 

CHAPTER FOUR

Figure 19. Acres federally owned within New River boundaries by year. 103 

Figure 20. Map showing the “Boundary Progression at New River up to 2005. 128 

Figure 21. Bluestone Wild and Scenic Study Area, 1983. 129 

Figure 22. Map of planning units at New River, 1989. 130 

Figure 23. Grandview State Park, transferred to the National Park Service in 1990. 131 
viii 

Figure 24. Sample organization chart from 2004. Courtesy of NERI. 132 

CHAPTER FIVE

Figure 25. Wolf Creek seen from Kaymoor Trail, 2006. 169 

Figure 26. A view from Kaymoor Trail, 2006. 169 

Figure 27. Artificial waterfall cascading onto Kaymoor Trail, 2006. 170 

Figure 28. Mine shafts at Kaymoor provide habitat for endangered 

 species of bats, 2006. 170 

CHAPTER SIX

Figure 29. New River Base Map, Historic, 2006. 192 

Figure 30. A railroad car near an entrance to Kaymoor Mine, 2006. 193 

Figure 31. Safety sign, Kaymoor Mine, 2006. 193 

Figure 32. Stairs from Kaymoor mine portal to the tipple, 2006. 194 

Figure 33. Coal miners at Kaymoor Mine, 1920-21. 195 

Figure 34. Sketch of Kaymoor Tipple, 1982. 196 

Figure 35. Warning sign at Kaymoor facilities, 2006. 196 

Figure 36. Measured drawings of the Thurmond Depot, 1988. 197 

CHAPTER SEVEN

Figure 37. Appropriate experiences based on how long boaters were in visual contact. 216 

Figure 38. Rafters on the New River, near Fayette Station Bridge, 2006. 230 

Figure 39. Trail at the National River, 2006. 230 

Figure 40. The trails brochure for Canyon Rim, 2006. 231 

Figure 41. The Endless Wall, from Cater, New River Gorge: Select Rock Climbs (1997). 232 

Figure 42. The Endless Wall from the Kaymoor Trail, 2006. 232 

Figure 43. Climbers' Trail, near Fayette Station, 2006. 233 

Figure 44. A climbing route at the New River, traced in chalk. 234 

CHAPTER EIGHT

Figure 45. Canyon Rim Visitor Center, 2006. 255 

Figure 46. Visitor at Canyon Rim Visitor Center, 2006. 256 

Figure 47. Two visitors enjoying the vista at Canyon Rim, 2006. 257 

Figure 48. Wayside exhibit at Sandstone Falls, 2004. 258 

Figure 49. Boardwalk at Sandstone Falls, 2004. 259 

Figure 50. Pavilion at Sandstone Falls, 2004. 260 

Figure 51. Sandstone Falls on the New River at sunset, 2004. 261 

Figure 52. The New River Gorge Bridge, seen through the girders of 

 the replicated Fayette Station Bridge, 2006. 262 

Figure 53. The New River Gorge Bridge, 876 feet above the New River, 2006. 263 

Figure 54. View from Grandview Overlook, 2004. 264 
ix 

Figure 55. Ranger Richard Altare at Grandview Overlook, 2004. 265 

Figure 56. Sandstone Visitor Center, 2004. 266 

Figure 57. Sandstone Visitor Center is a "green building," 2004. 267 

Figure 58. Exhibit space in the Sandstone Visitor Center. 268 

Figure 59. Ranger Mark Bollinger with a visitor at Sandstone Visitor Center, 2004. 269 

Figure 60. Mark Bollinger showing the in-laid floor map of the National River. 270 

CONCLUSION

Figure 61. Sign at Fayette Station, 2006. 276 

xi 

FOREWORD

In November 1978, Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the National Parks 

and Recreation Act, commonly known as the Omnibus Act, which authorized twenty new 

units of the National Park System. Among them was New River Gorge National River, the 

second national park area in West Virginia and the only one entitled a National River. 

With the new park’s authorization, the National Park Service was given responsibility for 

planning, acquiring the land, developing, and managing more than 70,000 acres in an area 

rich in natural and cultural history and noted for its scenic and recreational opportunities. 

The chief features were the New River itself, a famed whitewater river, and the scenic gorge 

through which it flows. The surrounding land, once a major coal-mining area, with 

associated railroad resources, had a long history of exploitation and development. 

The administrative history of New River, together with two associated river parks, Bluestone 

National Scenic River, and Gauley River National Recreation Area, both authorized by 

Congress in October 1988, is documented in this study by Gregory A. Good, Ph.D., and Lynn 

Stasick, Department of History, West Virginia University. The university was engaged by the 

NPS Northeast Region History Program, through the auspices of the Great Lakes Northern 

Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, to research and write the administrative history 

under cooperative agreement. Dr. Good, is Graduate Director of the Department of History, 

and Ms. Stasick authored a draft of this report in partial fulfillment of the M.A. in Public 

History. In addition to the long-term NPS goal of recording the history of units of the 

National Park System, the administrative history project was a key element in the park’s new 

General Management Plan process. The result is a scholarly research report including oral 

history interviews which record and analyze the legislative history of authorization, land 

acquisition, and early decades of development and administration. 

We would like to thank all those park and regional office staff who contributed to this study, 

with a note of special appreciation to David Fuerst, the park’s cultural resource specialist. 

Don Striker 

Superintendent 

New River Gorge National River 

Gauley River National Recreation Area 

Bluestone National Scenic River 

xiii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 The Principal Investigator (PI) and his Graduate Research Assistants (GRAs) wish to 

thank the staff of New River Gorge National River for their aid and forbearance as we 

researched and prepared this administrative history of the park. For his special assistance in 

transporting and ordering the massive records of the park, as well as for his advice, we 

especially thank David Fuerst, Cultural Resource Specialist for New River. We thank Lorrie 

Sprague, Public Information Officer, Katy Miller, Librarian, Deborah Darden, Deputy 

Superintendent, and the other members of the current and past park staffs, who agreed to be 

interviewed. We thank, too, former National Park Service Bureau Historian Dr. Janet 

McDonnell, Dr. Paul Weinbaum in the NPS office in Boston, and Dr. Clifford Tobias, in the 

NPS Philadelphia office, for their assistance and advice at various points along the way. 

Geographical Information Specialist Andy Steel, at NERI, provided a wealth of maps. The PI 

and GRAs greatly appreciate the assistance of librarians of the West Virginia Collection and 

West Virginia University Libraries generally. As PI, my special thanks go to Lynn Stasick, 

who conducted grueling archival research, interviewed most of the oral histories, and wrote a 

draft report of this administrative history in partial fulfillment of the M.A. in Public History 

at West Virginia University. Jennifer Clark assisted with research in fulfillment of her 

Certificate in Cultural Resource Management internship at WVU. Four individuals selflessly 

donated their skills and intelligence to extra-budgetary jobs: Karen Bird, Judy Beavan, Jessica 

Brewer, and Rebekah Karelis. Martha McCauley, Administrative Associate in the WVU 

History Department, cheerfully handled the paper work. All errors, of course, are the 

author’s. 

xv 

PREFACE

 This report is intended to inform present and future National Park Service personnel 

concerning the history, challenges, and circumstances surrounding the development of the 

New River Gorge National River (NERI) and its sister units Gauley River National 

Recreation Area (GARI) and Bluestone National Scenic River (BLUE). It provides 

background understanding of the natural and human histories of the area, of how these have 

related to administration of the park, and of how park administration has developed in 

interaction with contemporary issues and concerns. 

 The U.S. Congress established New River Gorge National River in southern West 

Virginia in 1978 (See Appendix A). People, however, had been discussing establishing a park 

since the 1960s. Congress sought to protect and conserve roughly 70,000 acres of land along 

nearly 50 miles of the New River, between Hinton and Fayetteville, WV, and to manage this 

river section as free-flowing waters. In 1988, this charge was broadened to include the 

Gauley River National Recreation Area (GARI) and Bluestone National Scenic River 

(BLUE). Since then NERI personnel have administered all three units together. 

 This is a scholarly research report. It records events which led to the park’s 

authorization, establishment, and administration as a unit of the National Park System. It is 

grounded in the history of the region and in social and political issues relevant to the park. 

The report highlights issues which have affected policy matters and people who have 

impacted operations in the park. When new administrators come to the New River – or when 

a new management planning initiative is underway – Park Service staff requires a source that 

succinctly summarizes how politics and culture, and physical and cultural features of the 

park, have shaped park management in the past. The park’s General Management Plan 

(GMP) dates to 1982 (final release 1983) and a new management plan is well underway. In 

addition, a “changing of the superintendent” occurred early in 2007. Hence, a historical 

account of previous park management, and the origins, history, and rationale for current 

park practices, fills an immediate need. Issues of current concern include development of 

adjoining private property, on-going land acquisition, interactions with communities within 

park boundaries, relatively low funding for cultural resources and park operations, the park’s 

relationships to local communities regarding water quality, and an apparent decrease in local 

community support for the park compared with strong support when the park was 

established. An understanding of the development of these issues since the 1970s will 

facilitate informed deliberation of the new management plan. 

 Research methods for this report included traditional methods of contemporary and 

institutional history. Researchers combed the archives of New River Gorge National River, 

which include more than three hundred linear feet of records. These archives include draft 

planning documents, correspondence with the public, politicians, and business leaders, 

operations records, and much more. Some NPS internal reports were located in the library of 
Preface 

xvi

the main NERI office in Glen Jean, WV, or in staff offices. Researchers also read extensively 

in local, state, and national newspapers of record. Although a very useful and large news 

clipping file is maintained by the park, many other important articles and letters-to-theeditor were located in West Virginia University Libraries in Morgantown. The West Virginia 

Collection at West Virginia University provided essential background literature. Some 

relevant sources were found in the Land Office (WASO) at Oak Hill, WV. Of course, 

increasingly more NPS documents are being published on the worldwide web. Any future 

administrative history of NERI should go beyond these archival sources to the Northeastern 

Region office in Philadelphia, PA, and the main records in Washington, DC. The budget for 

this report did not allow research at these facilities. 

 In addition to archival and printed sources, researchers conducted oral history 

interviews with Park Service employees and others associated with the park since the 1960s. 

Most of these have been transcribed, at least in part, three in their entirety, in accord with the 

project Scope of Work. These interviewees were identified in conference with Park Service 

staff. The interviews followed Park Service procedures and the standards of the Oral History 

Association. The researchers obtained an “Exemption” for these interviews from the 

Institutional Review Board of West Virginia University. Oral history has subsequently been 

ruled beyond the scope of Institutional Review Boards. The oral history tapes and transcripts 

generated during this project will remain at NERI headquarters in Glen Jean, WV, under the 

care of the Cultural Resource Specialist and the headquarters Librarian. 

 This report describes how past administrators have resolved management issues and 

how policy and administration have come to their present state. Chapter 1 briefly describes 

the pre-history and history of the park area, including industrial development and 

population growth in the gorge. Chapter 2 focuses on those involved in the early movement 

to protect the gorge, including local businesspeople, local and state politicians, past park 

managers, archeologists, scientists, and others. Chapter 3 considers the early years of NERI, 

during which the National Park Service effectively conducted an experiment at the New 

River. NPS attempted to manage NERI as a new kind of National Park, in which the vast 

majority of land remained in private ownership and most of the usual NPS mandate for 

protection of the resource was to be accomplished by local zoning and conservation 

easements. This experiment was tried as well at Cape Cod National Seashore and other units 

which joined the National Park System in the 1960s through 1980s. Chapter 3 narrates NPS 

relations with local communities and governments, especially concerning the location of the 

park headquarters, land acquisition policies, and effects of residential development on the 

park. Chapter 4 concentrates on the aftermath of this experiment, from 1988 on, when NERI 

and regional NPS staff adjusted to the failure of the trial of minimal ownership. During this 

phase, which continues as this report is completed in 2007, Park Service managers have 

accepted and adapted to increasingly rapid land acquisition, driven strongly by the 

involvement of the West Virginia Congressional delegation. This essential change in the 

nature of the park has required a much larger park staff and more intensive management. 

Chapter 4 concludes with a historical discussion of issues associated with the management of 
Preface 

xvii

so extensive a park system, especially after the addition of BLUE and GARI to NERI’s 

administrative charge: operations, communication, law enforcement, emergency services, 

and fire fighting. River management and other natural resource management issues regarding 

water quality and flow rates are addressed in chapter 5; these issues have concerned 

businesses (especially the whitewater rafting industry), anglers, and local residents. Chapter 6 

discusses the management of cultural resources such as the Kaymoor mine and the town of 

Thurmond. Chapter 7 addresses the history of recreation management issues, and chapter 8 

discusses how policies and activities related to working with park visitors have adjusted to 

the fundamental change in the nature of the park since 1988: mass public facilities, visitor 

centers, and overlooks, as well as the management of major events. Hence, the first two 

chapters elaborate the historical narrative up to the establishment of NERI in 1978, Chapters 

3 and 4 on the two fundamentally different approaches to NERI (small presence/major 

presence), and the remaining four chapters focus their narratives on specific management 

areas and how those have evolved over the decades since 1978. 

 The New River Gorge National River, Gauley River National Recreational Area, and 

Bluestone National Scenic River present a microcosm of many processes of change that the 

National Park Service overall has adjusted to in the late 20th century. Each park unit has a 

somewhat different purpose and circumstance – hence the title Appalachian Rivers Suite: 

Three National Park System Rivers in West Virginia – in its own ways different from the 

traditional national parks of the American West: embedded towns, active railroads, and 

developed recreational interest groups with expectations built up over years of absentee 

corporate ownership. Nevertheless, NERI, GARI, and BLUE face the same challenges 

regarding preservation of their special qualities as all national parks. The park staff has had to 

deal with diverse issues from environmental quality, natural resource management, and 

recreational management to cultural resource management, development of adjoining land, 

and law enforcement. As the park staff grew from only a handful of employees in the early 

1980s to scores of employees now, and as NERI assumed the management of GARI and 

BLUE in 1988, the responsibilities of staff increased dramatically. So did the specialization of 

staff duties. With specialization, NERI transitioned quickly into a large, hierarchical 

organization. An important part of this administrative history discusses how Park Service 

employees have experienced this transition. This cuts across the themes of the different 

chapters. 

 The major findings of this report relate to the history of the challenges faced by park 

administrators. First, park professionals have developed planning documents and overseen 

their implementation over nearly 30 years, but they certainly have not done this in isolation. 

The operation of these three park units has been heavily influenced since the beginning by 

local interests and by the West Virginia Congressional delegation. This influence continues. 

Second, the authority of the National Park Service over the management of these units has 

been substantially modulated by agencies of the state government, more so than is usual in 

the National Park System. Third, as the country’s population has grown and diversified, the 

level of interest in these parks and surrounding lands has grown and changed. Where in 
Preface 

xviii

1978, hunting, fishing, and whitewater were the main activities of visitors, by 2007 these have 

been joined by hiking, biking, rock-climbing, and extreme sports events. Fourth, NERI, 

GARI, and BLUE have never been isolated from the outside world. Drug production and 

distribution, second-home development on the edge of the gorge, and insufficient funding 

for implementation of mandated activities all have had their effects within these park units. 

They likely will continue to do so. 

 
xix 

ACRONYMS 

AEP Appalachian Electric Power (a subsidiary of American Electric Power) 

AMC Appalachian Mountain Club 

ARPA The Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979) 

ASMIS Archeological Sites Management Information System 

ATVs All-Terrain Vehicles 

BASE Building, Antennae, Span, Earth (jumping) 

BLUE Bluestone National Scenic River 

BOR Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

C&O Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company 

CMP Climbing Management Plan 

COE Army Corps of Engineers 

CCRR Citizens Concerned about River Road 

CRM Cultural Resource Management 

CSX Railway Company 

DCP Development Concept Plans 

DCP/IP Development Concept Plan/Interpretive Prospectus 

DNER Department of Natural and Economic Resources 

DNR Division of Natural Resources 

DOH Department of Highways 

DSC Denver Service Center 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMN Eastern Rivers and Mountains Network 

FHA Federal Highway Administration 

FMO Fire Management Officer 

FPC United States Federal Power Commission 

GARI Gauley River National Recreation Area 

GIS Geographical Information Systems 

GMP General Management Plan 

HRS Historic Resource Study

IHTIA West Virginia University Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial 

Archaeology

LAC Limits of Acceptable Change 

LPP Land Protection Plan 

MARO Mid-Atlantic Regional Office 

MDG Management and Development Guidelines

MOA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 
xx 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N&W Norfolk and Western Railroad Company 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERI New River Gorge National River 

NERO Northeast Regional Office 

RMP River Management Plan 

NR National River 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRPA New River Parkway Authority 

SAR Search and Rescue team 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

WASO Washington Office (NPS) 

WVHC West Virginia Highlands Conservancy 

WVSTA West Virginia Scenic Trails Association 

WVU West Virginia University 

WWAB Whitewater Advisory Board

VPI Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
1 

INTRODUCTION

THE NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER 

AN OLD RIVER, A NEW KIND OF NATIONAL PARK

 Mary Pearson is a local West Virginian, born and raised in the coal camps of the 

New River Gorge in the mid-twentieth century. In 1983, she was among the first people 

hired at the new New River Gorge National River (New River or NERI). When asked in 

2004 to compare the region in her childhood with how it is since the coming of the 

National Park Service, she said: 

There was ... nothing here. We had nothing to draw people from out of state here. We 

were on the map, but now, it’s so different, we’re joining how many other states that 

have these national parks and national rivers and national sites and memorials. Just like 

now, we feel like our town is part of this whole National Park System [emphasis added]. 

It just makes you very, very proud, I think, to be part of it.1

Mary Pearson’s pride in the park is clear. The exact nature of the park, however, is not a 

simple story. To give an idea of what kind of “National Park” the New River Gorge 

National River is requires understanding part of the history of the National Park Service. 

BROADENING THE MEANING OF NATIONAL PARKS

The New River Gorge National River is a recent addition to the family of the 

National Park System. New River Gorge joined the system in 1978, entering as the 306th

unit, along with 19 other units as part of a Congressional “Omnibus Bill.” The twenty 

units that entered were National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, a National 

Historical Park and Reserve, a National Historical Reserve, a Wild and Scenic River, 

National Scenic Rivers, and National Recreation Areas. New River was the one National 

River in that bill.2

 (See Figures 1 and 2, maps of West Virginia and of New River area.) 

 

1

 Mary Pearson, interviewed June 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

2

 James M. Ridenour, The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics and America’s 

Treasures. Merrillville, IN: ICS Books, 1994, Appendix II, List of National Parks, pp. 219-242. As 

of 2005, there were 388 units of the National Park System and the list keeps growing. See National 

Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center, The National Parks: Shaping the System, rev. ed. (Harpers 

Ferry, WV: National Parks Service, 2005). The first edition, by Bureau Historian Barry 

Mackintosh, appeared in 1985. The revised edition, updated by Bureau Historian Janet 

McDonnell in 1991, modified again by the Harpers Ferry Center in 2005, is available at 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/shaping/index.htm. The number of units as of 

2005 was reported at this web site by Fran P. Mainella, “From the Director.” Ridenour was 

Director of the National Park Service from 1989 to 1993. 
Introduction 

2 

 The New River Gorge National River is one of only three, four, or five National 

Rivers, the confusion depending on exactly how one counts rivers in the National Park 

System. (See Appendix D for a comprehensive list of rivers in the National Park System.) 

The five are: the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (Missouri, 1964), the Buffalo National 

River (Arkansas, 1972), the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area 

(Kentucky, 1974, assigned to NPS 1976), the New River Gorge National River (1978), 

and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (Minnesota, 1988). Confusion in 

counting is due perhaps to how these are named: National Scenic Riverways, National 

River, and National River and Recreation Area. One source also lists the Little River 

Canyon National Reserve (Alabama, 1992) as a “quasi-National River”!3

 The public may 

be forgiven if it is confused! There are family resemblances among these designated 

National Rivers in the ways they are managed, but each has its own characteristics, what 

people in the NPS refer to as fundamental resources. The authorizing legislation for each 

National River has elements made to fit its locality and the traditional activities of nearby 

residents. Not one of them fits neatly into the stereotyped image of a National Park.4

The New River Gorge National River and its two sister units – the Gauley River 

National Recreation Area (NRA) and the Bluestone National Scenic River (NSR) – came 

to be what they are within the context of changes that were taking place in the National 

Park System generally in the mid to late 20th century. Before 1916, other than Hot 

Springs, Arkansas, all national parks were in the West and preserved areas of special 

grandeur: Yellowstone (1872), Sequoia, General Grant, and Yosemite (1890), and Mount 

Rainier (1899), for example.5

 In the first decade after the National Park Service Act (the 

“Organic Act”) in 1916, Park Service Director Stephen T. Mather, Interior Secretary 

Franklin K. Lane, and Mather’s top aide, Horace M. Albright (the second director), 

maintained a high scenic standard for new parks. Lane issued a policy letter in 1918 that 

asserted: 

In studying new park projects, you should seek to find scenery of supreme and 

distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of 

national interest and importance.... The national park system as now constituted 

should not be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by the inclusion of areas which 

express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit they 

represent.6

 

3

 In the National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Annual Report (Washington, DC, 1999), 

19. Appendix D of this administrative history includes a more complete listing of rivers in the 

National Park System and their various classifications. These are discussed elsewhere in this 

history. 

4

 For the rest of this history, capitalization will follow the Chicago Manual of Style. That is, the 

authors capitalize land categories and job titles only if they immediately accompany a specific 

park unit or person’s name. 

5

 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System. 6

 Quoted in Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 22. 
Introduction 

3 

 

Figure 1. Federal Lands in West Virginia, 2003. Courtesy of U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Until 1926, the only national park east of the Mississippi River was Acadia (then Lafayette) 

National Park in Maine. In that year, Congress authorized three more eastern national parks: 

Great Smoky Mountains (North Carolina and Tennessee, established 1934), Shenandoah 

(Virginia, established 1935), and Mammoth Cave (Kentucky, established 1941). These came 

via state purchase and private donation.7

 Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains both 

elicited opposition and controversy from purists with even higher standards than the first 

NPS directors. These lands had been thoroughly timbered or were dotted with farms and 

small settlements. They were no longer pristine, but they represented some of the best 

potential scenery in the East. Only time was needed. 

 Through the 1930s and 1940s, however, most new National Park Service units in the 

East emerged from their historical significance, not from their grand scenery. In a massive 

reorganization ordered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in executive orders in 1933, 

 

7

 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 23. 
Introduction 

4 

Figure 2. Gauley River National Recreation Area, New River 

Gorge National River, and Bluestone National Scenic River, 

2006. Courtesy of NPS. 
Introduction 

5 

the Park Service took responsibility for many battlefields and war memorials, for the 

National Capital Parks, other War Department properties, and national monuments 

previously under the Agriculture Department (U.S. Forest Service). This new emphasis on 

history did not, however, supplant efforts to preserve natural landscapes, even in the East. 

Congress authorized Isle Royal National Park in Lake Superior in 1931 (established 

1940), Everglades National Park in 1934, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore (1937). 

President Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act (1906) to proclaim Santa Rosa Island 

National Monument in 1939 (incorporated into Gulf Islands National Seashore in 

1971).8

 Most national parks emphasizing natural features, however, were still in the West 

and most emphasizing historical importance in the East. 

 The National Park Service experienced an array of countervailing developments 

after World War II.9

 The many new units of the park system had suffered lack of 

investment and maintenance during the war and into the early 1950s, when their 

popularity and visitation were nonetheless increasing dramatically. NPS Director 

Conrad L. Wirth (1951-1964) initiated Mission 66 to address these deferred needs in 

time for the 50th anniversary of the National Park Service in 1966. Mission 66 

emphasized visitor services, including visitor centers, but it also stressed expanded staff 

training and more proactive resource management, all of which had indirect effects on 

parks authorized beyond the project’s years, including New River Gorge National River. 

 Another new trend to take off in the 1960s was an increase in the diversity of types 

of designations within the National Park System.10 Although NPS embraced the idea of 

historical parks in the 1930s, along with scenic parkways like the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

recreational demonstration areas like Bull Run, Virginia, and the first national seashore, 

new categories did not begin to proliferate until the 1960s. This openness to new kinds 

of parks and new responsibilities for the National Park Service ultimately made it 

possible to establish units like New River, Bluestone, and Gauley. 

 The Park Service struggled with this diversity. In 1964, the Park Service explicitly 

stated that each park unit would fit one of three categories and be managed accordingly: 

natural, historical, or recreational.11 In natural parks, the other two management types 

were of secondary priority, and so on. Later policies in 1970 and 1972 took this division 

into finer detail, with various sub or thematic categories, especially in historical and 

natural parks. Under the leadership of its Director, George B. Hartzog, Jr. (1964-1972), 

 

8

 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, in chapters “The Reorganization of 1933” and “From 

the New Deal to War and Peace,” 28-45 and 46-63, respectively. 

9

 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, in chapter “Mission 66 and the Environmental Era, 

1952 through 1972,” 64-83. 

10 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, in chapter “Mission 66 and the Environmental Era, 

1952 through 1972,” 64-83. 

11 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 66. 
Introduction 

6 

the Park Service undertook to fill in the “gaps” in the park system, and Congress and 

Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon supported this effort. 

 New tools for the Park Service appeared in the 1960s, too: the Recreation Advisory 

Council (1963), the Wilderness Act (1964), the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(1965, amended 1968), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and the National 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. These provided guidelines – or at least opportunities – for 

“National Recreation Areas,” “Wilderness Areas,” new historic designations, “National 

Rivers,” “National Scenic Rivers,” and more. 

 A most significant precedent for New River was set in the authorization in 1961 of 

the Cape Cod National Seashore.12 Congress broke ground in two new areas with this 

authorization. For the first time, it provided significant funding at the outset for land 

appropriation. At the same time, it restricted condemnation of private, improved 

property (eminent domain) and urged allowing residents to remain within the park 

boundaries. The “Cape Cod formula” turned away from the mass relocation of the local 

population, such as had happened when Shenandoah National Park was established, in 

order to promote good relations with local communities. 

 The relevance of Cape Cod to New River and another precedent were pointed out 

by Superintendents Joe Kennedy (1987-1995) and Pete Hart (1995-2001) in the 1980s 

and 1990s, as well as by Destry Jarvis, a staffer for the National Parks and Conservation 

Association. Joe Kennedy had told a staff member “take a look at some of the language 

and there are some parallels with what was going on with Cape Cod at the time, in terms 

of federal designation in an area ... surrounded by communities or including 

communities.”13 In 1999, Pete Hart addressed a New River Symposium, saying: 

In 1961 the practice of outright purchase of properties for eastern parks matured with 

the establishment of Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. There, private 

lands were purchased primarily from willing sellers to supplement existing Federal and 

state lands. Important here was the idea that not all “improved” properties would be 

purchased and park inholders could continue to live on their lands within the park. 

Local zoning standards approved by the Secretary of the Interior generally limited use 

of the land to the size and nature of the present dwelling.14

Experience at New River taught the National Park Service that this approach has its 

limitations in areas unfriendly to land-use zoning, as will be seen in chapters 3 and 4. 

Still, the “Cape Cod formula” influenced the approach to land acquisition initially 

attempted in New River. The continuing presence of residents within the park is also due 

to this formula. 

 

12 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 73. 

13 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 14 Pete Hart, “Managing a Non-traditional River Park,” New River Symposium Proceedings, April 

1999, 1. 
Introduction 

7 

 Destry Jarvis, who was the legislative director in the 1970s for the National Parks 

and Conservation Association, wrote much of the legislative language that authorized the 

New River Gorge National River in 1978. In fact, he had been involved in longer running 

efforts to save the New River in North Carolina, too. (This is discussed in Chapter 2 in 

more detail). Jarvis recalled in an interview in 2004 another model on which he had 

drawn in writing the New River legislation. He had been invited to speak to the local 

activists in 1978, a few months before the authorizing legislation was voted on in 

Congress. The locals didn’t know whether they should seek a national park or protection 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Jarvis proposed a third alternative they didn’t 

know about: 

My idea was “National River,” though at the time there was only one such designation, 

the Buffalo National River in Arkansas and that designation is a national park by 

another name. Essentially it allows the flexibility to draw the boundary where it should 

be and write the substantive legislative provisions tailored to the particulars of the given 

site.15

Although Destry’s memory was not entirely accurate in 2004 – the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area also predated the 

New River National River – his advocacy for the National River designation in 1978 did 

indeed open the door for a solution in West Virginia. 

 While clearly the New River Gorge National River emerged in 1978 from a long 

process with many precedents – especially the Cape Cod National Seashore and the 

Buffalo River National River – clearly, too, most people involved were unaware of all 

these details. They simply wanted to save the river and the gorge, which was threatened 

by dam construction in the upper New River Gorge watershed. This they have done. 

Other aspects, such as the ins and outs of Congressional political trading, were also 

beyond the concerns of many supporters of protecting the gorge. These factors also 

affected the history of this unit of the National Park System and are addressed in later 

parts of this history. 

 The New River Gorge National River, at first glance, differs from most other 

national park units. As a national river, for example, New River’s authorizing legislation 

specifically permitted hunting within the unit’s boundaries, in line with local hunting 

custom. Most traditional national parks prohibited hunting. However, the permission of 

hunting within the park was not without precedent within the National Park Service. 

Hunting had centered a controversy in the 1940s over how two National Park Service 

units in Wyoming should be managed. The U.S. Congress reached a compromise in 1950 

when a new, enlarged Grand Teton National Park was established. It combined a former, 

smaller park of the same name with lands proposed for a Jackson Hole National 

 

15 Destry Jarvis, interviewed April 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Introduction 

8 

Monument. Among other unusual provisions, this act allowed hunting in a national 

park.16 

 After this, however, the National Park Service used other designations when it 

wished to allow hunting. The first national river, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 

allowed hunting when it was authorized in Arkansas in 1964. George Hartzog (NPS 

Director, 1964-1972) was charged with overcoming local opposition to this new park 

unit and saw that this concession would effectively do so.17 

 Likewise, “Recreation Areas,” established beginning in the 1930s under National 

Park Service jurisdiction, also frequently allowed hunting.18 This model was followed as 

well when “National Seashores” and “National Lakeshores” were established in the 

1960s and 1970s.19 With this acceptance of hunting within National Park Service units 

also came an acknowledgement that “National Recreation Areas” would allow or even 

encourage management for intensive recreational activity. System-wide, this is a 

complicated history of compromises and definitions. But it has, up to the writing of this 

history, produced a set of realities that both the National Park Service and the public 

must understand. 

 Hartzog became one of the most forceful directors of the NPS, pushing both the 

rapid growth of the number of park units across the country and the number of different 

kinds of units. During his term, 71 new units entered the National Park System. Also 

during his term, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the National Trail Systems Act, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the 

General Authorities Act. His was a time of innovation and action in the NPS. Significant 

precedents during Hartzog’s term included the first national recreation area east of the 

Mississippi River (Delaware Water Gap, 1965), a mechanism in “Wild and Scenic Rivers” 

for preserving free-flowing rivers (i.e., blocking dams), national lakeshores, national 

scenic trails, and national recreational trails. The New River Gorge National River 

emerged a few years later within this context of flexibility. Within Appalachian culture, 

permission of hunting appears to be a requirement, and so it is allowed in New River, 

Gauley River, and Bluestone River.20 Indeed, Bluestone is largely also a West Virginia 

Wildlife Management Area. 

 The history of New River up to the mid-20th century intertwined tightly with the 

history of the United States: from Native land to frontier to industrial revolution; from 

 

16 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 50. 

17 George Hartzog, Battling for the National Parks (Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell Limited, 1988), 

59-69. 

18 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 54, 60. Boulder Dam Recreation Area was the first, 

although it was not termed a “National Recreation Area,” in 1936. It was later renamed the Lake 

Mead National Recreation Area in 1947: Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 60. 

19 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 75. 

20 Harpers Ferry Center, Shaping the System, 68-78, 81-83. 
Introduction 

9 

rail, coal, and timber to conservation, recreation, and tourism. These changes are 

narrated in Chapters 1 and 2 of this history. Likewise, the history of New River, Gauley 

River, and Bluestone River constitutes not merely a parochial, park-centered vision, but 

also seeks to see these parks in their many relations to American society and to the 

National Park System. 

 This hints that the National Park Service administers New River Gorge National 

River and its sister units within National Park System, but not as “National Parks.” Each 

of the three has a separate history and special features. Each has developed a separate 

approach to management. This administrative history attempts to explain how these 

three units of the National Park System have come to their individual but kindred 

present situations.

11 

CHAPTER ONE

BEFORE THE NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER

INTRODUCTION

 This chapter sets the natural and historical contexts for the debates that 

established New River Gorge National River (New River or NERI) and associated units.1

To explain the debates that established the park and the subsequent development of its 

administration, it will help to understand the significance of natural and cultural 

resources of the gorge. Generally speaking, physical features have strongly affected the 

region’s natural history and human history. Likewise, the natural history and human 

history continue to shape the way local residents relate to the park. 

 This chapter is divided into three sections. The first summarizes the physical and 

biological features of the New River area. The second provides an overview of prehistoric and historic human habitation and of how this challenging terrain connected to 

a broader region during this time. The last section examines how the coming of the 

railroad and industrialization speeded up and directed change in the gorge. 

OVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

OF THE NEW RIVER GORGE

The New River begins high in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. It 

flows approximately 340 miles to its terminus at Gauley Bridge, West Virginia, where it 

merges with the Gauley River to form the Kanawha, a tributary of the Ohio River.2

 The 

New River flows through a deep gorge in four West Virginia counties: Mercer, Raleigh, 

Summers, and Fayette.3

 Harlan Unrau writes in his 1996 historic context study of New 

River: 

The physiographic setting of the New River Gorge National River is essentially a 53-

mile long rugged trough dissecting the Allegheny Plateau that averages 1,000 feet in 

 

1 Destry Jarvis, ed., The Oldest New River, Debate in the 1970s: National Park or Wild and Scenic 

River, A Symposium on the Anniversary of the Establishment of the New River Gorge National River, 

West Virginia, a report on the November 9, 2003, panel proceedings. Internal NPS document. n.p., 

2003. 

2 Michael Mayfield, “The New River as the Old River,” New River Symposium Proceedings

(Wytheville, VA, 1993), 1. 

3 J.T. Peters and H.B. Carden, History of Fayette County (Charleston, WV: Jarrett Printing 

Company, 1926), 8-9. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

12 

depth, making it one of the more prominent landforms and one of the most spectacular 

canyons in the eastern United States. According to geologic records, the New, Gauley, 

and Kanawha rivers are the remnants of an ancient watercourse called the Teays River. 

The present New River was the main headwaters of the Teays River ... The New River 

is significant because it is the only present-day stream that flows northwestward across 

the Appalachians. As the river flows north, the average elevation of the ridges above it 

decreases and the rock dips northward. Hence the river gradually drops 750 feet in 

elevation between Hinton (at the south end) and Gauley Bridge (at the north end above 

the boundary of the national river.) 4

 

The river flows strongly, and often in the spring it floods dramatically. Although the river 

long impeded access to the area, it also now attracts tourists and recreationists. 

 The New River watershed comprises about 6,965 square miles of mostly rural and 

agricultural land and almost no urban areas.5

 Many major tributaries feed the New, 

including North and South Forks, Cripple Creek, Reed Creek, Big Reed Island Creek, 

Little River, Sinking Creek, Big Walker Creek, Wolf Creek, East River, Bluestone River, 

Indian Creek, and Greenbrier River.6

 

 East and south of New River lay the parallel folds of the Ridge and Valley Province, 

running southwest to northeast. New River is in the Allegheny Plateaus Province, where 

nearly horizontal rock bedding has produced varied mountains and drainages. About 

420 million years ago, high mountains arose east and south of current-day West Virginia7

(see Figure 5, p. 30). For over 200 million years the New River region alternated between 

delta and shallow sea, producing interleaved beds of sandstones and shales. In the 

Pennsylvanian and Mississippian Periods the region endured millions of years as swamps 

slightly above sea level. In these swamps, decaying tree-sized ferns and horsetails formed 

coal. The New River coal fields include many high quality seams of low sulfur or 

“smokeless” bituminous coal. Around 200 million years ago, the modern Appalachians 

pushed up and West Virginia lifted above the sea. Since then, the main geological force 

has been erosion, leaving ridgetops defined by limestones and sandstones. About 50 

million years ago, a last uplift occurred and the New River carved its steep, 1000-foot 

deep gorge. Since the New River’s origins in the Teays River system date back to earliest 

formation of coal, it is the oldest river in the western hemisphere. 

 Some rocks within New River’s boundaries are shale and siltstones, which produce 

a soil known as the Calvin-Gilpin association. The Calvin-Gilpin association dominates 

between Hinton and Meadow Creek, West Virginia. While moderately fertile and able to 

 

4

 Harlan D. Unrau, Special History Study/Historic Context Study, New River Gorge National River, 

West Virginia, Fayette, Raleigh, Summers Counties (Denver: U.S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1996), 1-2. 

5

 Lynn Sharp, “Water Quality for Teachers in the New River Valley,” New River Symposium 

Proceedings (Boone, NC, 1999), 33. 

6

 Sharp, “Water Quality.” 

7

 Dudley H. Cardwell, Geologic History of West Virginia (Charleston: West Virginia Geological and 

Economic Survey, 1975), passim. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

13 

support tree growth, it easily eroded due to steepness, stoniness, and relatively shallow 

bedrock. In other areas of New River, other rocks prevail, producing a different soiltype. Known as Steep-Rockland-Dekalb-Gilpin soils, this association comprises upper 

slopes, ridge tops, and tributaries and dominates between Claremont and the northern 

national river boundary. Massive sandstone outcrops vary from 1 to 50 feet high. 

Surrounding soils are rocky, brown, sandy loams.8

 

 The physical geography of the river and the geology of the surrounding area have 

determined many aspects of the gorge and of human interaction with it, including travel 

routes. The rough terrain and powerful river produced a distinctive flora and fauna, 

shaped human settlement and transportation patterns, and sheltered natural resources 

upon which human industry depended.

 The New River provided a natural corridor for plants and animals which evolved 

in North America.9

 The terrain and geology formed by uplift and erosion produced 

special niches and habitats. Barren rocks, sandy riverbanks, rock crevices, and deep 

ravines provided unique habitats for specialized communities of plant life such as the 

‘Flat Rock plant community’ at Sandstone Falls, just south of Sandstone.10 

 Flora in the gorge includes both native and introduced species, coastal plain and 

prairie, and high and low altitude.11 A. B. Brooks’ description of the virgin forests of the 

gorge in a West Virginia Geological Survey report in 1911 is quite complete: 

The topography of Fayette [county] is such as to promote the growth of valuable 

forests. Originally the low and fertile lands of the Gauley and of the portion of the Great 

Kanawha within the county were characterized by the abundance of yellow poplar, 

black and white walnut, white and red oaks, sweet buckeye, basswood, cucumber and 

white ash, as well as the less valuable sweet gum, sycamore, river birch, honey locust and 

others. On the clays of the higher areas such species as maples, white oak, and beech 

predominated, with fringes of hemlock along the water courses and with scattered 

clumps of pitch pine and scrub pine growing on dry ridges and along the sandstone 

outcrops.12 

Also native to the gorge are many trees under the canopy. These include mountain 

magnolia, sourwood, striped maple, red bud, blue beech, American holly, downy 

serviceberry, sassafras, flowering dogwood, and Kentucky coffee tree.13 

 Herbaceous flora is also richly abundant. Scientists have identified twenty-eight 

vegetation types within the national river boundaries.14 Residents have traditionally used 

 

8 Unrau, New River Gorge, 3. 

9

 Destry Jarvis, New River Gorge National River: Water Through the National Park Service’s Fingers

(Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association, 1987), 2. 

10 William N. Grafton, “Plants and Vegetation of the New River Gorge,” New River Symposium 

Proceedings (Beckley, WV, 1982), 71. 11 Grafton, “Plants and Vegetation,” 69. 

12 Grafton, “Plants and Vegetation,” 69. 13 Grafton, “Plants and Vegetation,” 70. 14 Unrau, New River Gorge, 3. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

14 

many of these plants for medicine, food, and clothing. Some are also endangered species, 

such as Spirea. Ground cover in the gorge varies widely and grows profusely, partially as 

a product of logging and development since the 1870s. In early spring before leaf-out, the 

forest floor abounds with herbaceous flowers. William N. Grafton cites twenty-six 

species, including various trilliums, yellow fawn lily, yellow ladies’ slipper, bloodroot, 

dwarf larkspur, wild blue phlox, spring beauty, rue anemone, blue cohosh, squirrel corn, 

foam flower, Dutchman’s breeches, Jack-in-the-Pulpit, bellworts, plume lily, white 

clintonia, dwarf crested iris, wild ginger, hepatica, goldenseal, ginseng, mayapple, 

toothworts, Greek valerian, Virginia waterleaf, small-flowered phacelia, as well as many 

violet species. Among summer flowers under the canopy are wood nettle, puttyroot, 

black snakeroot, aconite saxifrage, showy skullcap, leather flower, and early goldenrod. 

Summer ferns include marginal shield-fern and broad-beech and maidenhair ferns. 

Christmas ferns and common polypody grow on steep hills throughout the year. 

Summer and autumn plants includes cranefly, orchid, starry campion, touch-me-not, 

richweed, American bellflower, white snakeroot, goldenrods, asters, and yellow 

leafcup.15 

 Many shrubs also occur in the gorge, including pink azalea, serviceberry, wild 

blackberries, blueberries, wild grapes, greenbriers, hawthorn, hog peanut, huckleberries, 

hydrangea, mountain laurel, early meadow rue, rhododendron, wild rose, spicebush, and 

sumac.16

 With such diverse flora, a variety of fauna has evolved over geological time. Only 

modern species are mentioned here. Game animals include black bear, beaver, wild boar, 

bobcat, eastern cottontail rabbit, white-tailed deer, grey fox, red fox, wild goat, mink, 

raccoon, opossum, muskrat, fox squirrel, and woodchuck. Smaller mammals include 

bats, mice, pack and woodrats, masked, smoky, and pygmy shrews, spotted and striped 

skunks, and long-tailed and least weasels.17 

 Among the sixty (estimates go as high as eighty) or more species of birds found in 

New River are eastern bluebird, bobwhite, double-crested cormorant, common crows, 

mourning and rock doves, mallard, black, pintail, gadwall, and wood ducks, geese, bald 

eagles, peregrine falcons, common and red-throated loons, osprey, mergansers, 

 

15 Grafton, “Plants and Vegetation,” 70. 16 Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc., A Cultural Research Project: The New River Gorge National 

River, West Virginia, 3 vols. (Charleston, WV, for the National Park Service, 1981), Volume I, Prehistory, written and edited by David N. Fuerst, 40. Volume II titled History, Community, and 

Architecture, was written by Paul D. Marshall. Volume III, titled Prehistory Appendices, was 

compiled by David N. Fuerst. The 3-volume report is commonly referred to as The Marshall 

Report. 17 Fuerst, The Marshall Report: Pre-history, I:40. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

15 

woodcock, and downy, hairy, pleated, and red-headed woodpeckers, and many 

songbirds.18 

 The New River also supports amphibians, fish, and reptiles, including toads, green 

frog and bullfrog, hellbenders, mud puppies, and long-tailed and ravine salamanders. 

The river itself is home to largemouth bass, rock bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, 

bullhead, catfish, crappies, and wall-eyed pike. Most fish are recent additions. Reptiles 

include northern copperhead, black snake, garter snake, timber rattler, northern pine 

snake, and spring, box, and spring soft-shell turtles. The river also supports fresh water 

snails, clams, and mussels.19 

EARLY NATIVE AMERICAN AND EURO-AMERICAN SETTLEMENT

 New River and the surrounding region evidence Native American habitation 

dating back at least twelve thousand years. New River and its main tributaries provided 

corridors for early peoples who followed the spread of the forests, plants, and animals, 

although the main north-south prehistoric and historic travel routes by-passed the gorge 

to the east and west of the gorge (e.g., Buffalo and Paint Creek trails).20 Native American 

groups inhabiting the lower New River and adjacent regions just prior to Euro-American 

contact included the Delaware, Shawnee, Tutelo, Saponi, and Mingo.21 The Cherokee 

also claimed territory from the Kanawha and New River to the Big Sandy.22 Because the 

gorge provided a route between the Ohio Valley and Piedmont Virginia, Native 

Americans developed an extensive network of trails, providing transportation through 

dense parkland forest. More prominent trails included Midland, Seneca, Paint Creek, 

Pocahontas, Guyandotte, and Big Sandy-Tug Fork trails.23 

 The same trails and early historic buffalo traces that provided Native Americans 

access to the forest and Gorge also provided access for Euro-American fur traders and 

pioneer settlers crossing the mountains westward. Hunters and traders spread word 

about the vast, unbroken wilderness west of the Alleghenies. People, anxious for new 

 

18 Fuerst, The Marshall Report: Pre-history, I:42-43. 

19 Fuerst, The Marshall Report: Pre-history, I:43. 

20 David Pollack and George M. Crothers, Archaeological Overview and Assessment of New River 

Gorge National River (two parts). Report prepared by the University of Kentucky, William S. 

Webb Museum of Kentucky Archeological Survey for the New River Gorge National River, Glen 

Jean, WV. Research Report No. 8, 2005. Three examples of Native American archeological sites in 

NERI are: 46 RG-7, McGraw Farm, a late Woodland Indian hamlet site; 46 SU-107, Meadow 

Creek Bottom, a Paleo-Indian thru Early Woodland site; and 46 FA-148, Molly’s Creek Mound. 

Early to Late Woodland Mound Builders. Information from David N. Fuerst, NERI Cultural 

Resource Specialist. 

21 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 26. 

22 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 13. 

23 Fuerst, The Marshall Report: Pre-history, I:44. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

16 

opportunities, began to establish settlements in the lower New River region in the 

1750s.24

 The first expedition to New River occurred in 1654. According to historian 

William Sanders, Major Abram Wood, with the authorization of the Virginia House of 

Burgesses, explored the upper New River region. Wood described it as “a new river of 

unknown land, where no English had ever been or discovered.” The earliest maps named 

it Wood’s River, after him.25

 Governor William Berkeley commissioned the second expedition to New River in 

1671. The leader of this expedition, Thomas Batts (or Battes), wrote in his journal: 

A commission being granted the Hon. Maj. Gen. Wood for ye finding out of the ebbing 

and flowing of ye waters behind the mountains in order to the discovery of the South 

Sea: Thomas Batts, Thomas Wood, Robert Fallen [or Fallam], accompanied by 

Perachute, a great man of the Appomattox Indians, and Jack Nesan, formerly servant to 

Majr. Gen. Wood, with five horses set forward from Appomattox town in Va... .26 

They traveled west for 25 days and reached the point along the New River at which their 

Indian guides advised to go no further. According to Batts’ journal, the Indians said a 

“numerous and powerful tribe” near there made and sold salt and that “no one who 

entered into their towns had ever been able to escape.”27 After the Batts-Wood-Fallam 

expedition, Gabriel Arthur explored the region in 1674, Thomas Walker in 1750, and 

Christopher Gist in 1751.28 Settlers slowly migrated into the area over these next eighty 

years. The arrival of Colonel James Patton, an Irish immigrant who had obtained an 

English Crown grant of 120,000 acres west of the Allegheny Mountains, marked the first 

effort toward commercial settlement. In 1748, he organized a group to locate lands 

named in the grant. The party consisted of Patton, surveyors John Buckhannon and his 

son-in-law Charles Campbell, and Dr. Thomas Walker. Along the way, they encountered 

Charles Sinclair (also spelled St. Clair), known as a “hermit hunter.” Familiar with 

Indians, he guided the expedition and received a patent of land.29 

 In 1749-1750, Patton and Walker organized the “Loyal Company.” An English 

Crown grant gave them 800,000 acres west of the Allegheny Mountains and assigned 

Walker to find suitable sites and promote settlement. In 1750 he found and named the 

Cumberland Gap and the Cumberland River. Exploring a wide area, the party descended 

 

24 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 26. 

25 William Sanders, A New River Heritage (Parsons, WV: McClain Printing, 1991), 3. A second 

source discusses Abram (or Abraham) Wood and the New River: Lewis Preston Summers, History 

of Southwest Virginia and Washington County (Richmond, Virginia: J. L. Hill Publishing Company, 

1903). Summers (35-36) cautioned that the documentation for Abraham Woods’ exploration was 

not extant, but that circumstantial evidence indicated it had happened. 26 Sanders, A New River Heritage, 3; quoted in Summers, History of Southwest Virginia, 36. 27 Quoted in Summers, History of Southwest Virginia, 37. 

28 David N. Fuerst, NERI, personal communication, 2007. See Jim Wood, Raleigh County, West 

Virginia (Beckley: Raleigh County Historical Society, 1994). 29 Sanders, A New River Heritage, 4. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

17 

the New River to the mouth of the “Green Bryer” River. They also crossed Flat Top 

Mountain as they passed through what are now Mercer and Summers Counties. They 

called this area Augusta County. By 1754, Walker’s company had located 224 tracts of 

land consisting of 45,000 acres, which sold quickly.30 

 Other companies were soon organized. One, the Ohio Company, explored the 

lands between the Monongahela and the Great Kanawha rivers, traversing the New 

River along the way. Another company, the Greenbrier, received authorization in 1751 

to locate 100,000 acres of land on the Greenbrier River.31 Settlers established one of the 

earliest settlements on the Greenbrier near present-day Marlinton in 1749. The first 

settlement recorded in what is now the national river dates to 1798, when Peter Bowyer 

built a cabin at the mouth of Mann’s Creek, near an ancient Indian ford of the New 

River. “Bowyer’s Ferry” provided a convenient crossing point, discussed below. 

 By the late 1760s both the Native Americans and the Virginians sought a definite 

boundary line. A request went to England, and the government ordered its 

Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Sir William Johnson, to complete the purchase of all 

lands from the Alleghenies to the Ohio River. Johnson ordered a Congress to meet at 

Fort Stanwix, now Rome, NY. Representatives of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey 

attended, as did representatives of the Six Nations of the Iroquois. The delegates met in 

1768, with Johnson presiding, and agreed that for about 10,500 pounds, the Natives 

would cede land (including present-day West Virginia) west of a line beginning at the 

south bank of the Tennessee River and running with the south bank of the Ohio River to 

Kittanning above Fort Pitt. Settlement along the New River began with a renewed 

vigor.32 

 The Treaty of Fort Stanwix did not completely end hostilities between settlers and 

Native Americans. Tensions grew with the Shawnees living in southern Ohio, who were 

not signatories to the treaty, and Indian raids became a way of life. During the 1770s, 

Shawnee frequently raided settlements in present Mercer and Greenbrier Counties. 

Raids caused the abandonment of many settlements, although by 1800 enough people 

had settled the area to offer substantial protection. The first federal census of 1790 

indicates that some 55,000 lived in present-day West Virginia, and by 1800 the 

population had risen to 78,000, of which nearly half lived west of the Allegheny 

Mountains.33 

 Rugged terrain had always made transportation difficult through the New River 

gorge. The old Buffalo Trail (today’s U.S. 60) and other Indian trails connected the 

earliest settlers to the eastern states. After the American Revolution, George Washington 

 

30 Sanders, A New River Heritage, 4. 

31 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 79. 

32 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 80-81. 

33 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 112. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

18 

proposed to Virginia Governor Benjamin Henry Harrison to settle beyond the 

mountains and draw the Ohio Valley into the economic sphere of Virginia. In 1785, the 

Virginia legislature established the James River Company. Its chief responsibilities were 

to improve the James and Kanawha Rivers and connect them with a road. In 1786, 

settlers built a wagon road called “Koontz New Road” from Lewisburg, Greenbrier 

County, and passed entirely across Fayette County.34 In 1790, the James River Company 

completed the “Old State Road,” from the James River to Kanawha Falls. They extended 

it to the Ohio River by 1800.35 The “Old State Road” traversed the New River, descended 

from the uplands of current Babcock State Park south of Mann’s Creek, crossed the New 

River at Bowyer’s Ferry, and climbed out of the gorge via Cunard to Fayetteville and 

Cotton Hill. This road tied the gorge to settlements east and west (See Figures 1, 2, and 

3.). 

 General Andrew Lewis led his troops through the area to fight in the Battle of 

Point Pleasant in 1774 following Shawnee and other Indian group raids on frontier 

settlements in Greenbrier Valley. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, 

explored the Greenbrier and New River in 1812 and his surveyor, Andrew Alexander, 

produced a map of the route in 1814 (Figure 4). The Commonwealth of Virginia 

financed this survey to examine the possibility of building a canal to connect eastern 

Virginia to the Kanawha River valley, where settlers had begun salt production shortly 

after 1800, following a practice of pre-contact Indians in the valley. While the survey 

ruled out canal construction, Alexander’s map provided the first accurate depiction of 

the area, and laid the groundwork along with Union and Confederate maps for railroad 

construction through the gorge between 1871 and 1873. Although a canal was 

impossible, bateaux navigated the entire New River.36

 Most early settlers farmed on a small scale to supplement what they obtained in the 

wild. Game animals were plentiful and trees provided nuts and fruits. Smaller plants such 

as wild berries and grapes added variety to the pioneer diet. In addition, streams and 

rivers brimmed with fish. Although many relied on the wild for food, permanent settlers 

turned increasingly to farming. Corn was ground into meal, served as roasting ears, 

hominy, mush, and dozens of other dishes. It also provided livestock feed. Later, as 

acidity of cleared soil adjusted, settlers grew oats, rye, buckwheat, potatoes, beans, 

squash, pumpkins, and other garden vegetables.37 They brought some of these from the 

East and adopted others from the Native Americans. 

 In 1825 the James River and Kanawha Turnpike was completed as far west as 

current Charleston, WV. The turnpike extended eastward from Montgomery, along the 

 

34 The Koontz family settled in today’s Fayette County, on Koontz Bend, GARI. 35 Unrau, New River Gorge, 110. 

36 William E. Trout III, The New River Atlas (Richmond: Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, 

1995), 147 p. 

37 Unrau, New River Gorge, 111-112. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

19 

north bank of the Kanawha River to Gauley Bridge, and then upward onto the plateau 

just north of the gorge via Ansted, Mountain Cove, Hico, Lookout, Cliff Top, Raven’s 

Eye, and Maywood. Most travelers now went around the gorge rather than through it. 

The turnpike crossed the Fayette-Greenbrier county line one-half mile west of Rainelle. 

Today’s U.S. 60 (the Midland Trail National Scenic Byway) closely parallels this historic 

turnpike (or Buffalo Trail).38 

 Caldwell and Surbough established the first stagecoach line between Charleston 

and Lewisburg on the Turnpike in 1825. As the turnpike moved westward, stagecoach 

service connected the New River area to Kentucky by 1832. Connection to Cincinnati 

twice each week went via a steamboat (owned by the stagecoach company) on the Ohio 

River.39 Mail contracts soon enabled the company to run daily schedules, and speed 

increased to over 75 miles per day. Stagecoaches also linked eastward to Lynchburg and 

Richmond.40 

 There were some thirty stage stands along the James River and the Kanawha 

Turnpike between Lewisburg and Charleston, the most popular being the Old Stone 

Tavern, built in 1824 by Francis Tyree before the upgraded road was completed. It sat at 

the western foot of Big Sewell Mountain in Fayette County, near where the “Old State 

Road” began its descent on the uplands above Mann’s Creek to Bowyer’s Ford of the 

New. At different times during the Civil War the tavern served as the headquarters of 

Generals Robert E. Lee and William S. Rosecrans. Such prominent historic figures as 

Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Webster stayed there.41 The Sewell Mountain 

Campaign began with a skirmish at the foot of Big Sewell Mountain on August 14, 1861. 

About 6,000 Confederate troops under Generals Henry Wise and John Floyd – led by 

General Lee – faced 5,000 Federal troops, with forays and clashes from Gauley Bridge 

and Carnifex Ferry in the west to Big Sewell Mountain in the east. During the campaign, 

the armies courses throughout the New River Gorge area. Finally, in late October 

General Lee retreated to Richmond in order not to lose too many soldiers.42

 After completion of the C&O Railroad through the gorge in 1873, it became 

apparent that the limited roads into the gorge caused great difficulties for travelers, and 

new construction was proposed. Road building in and around the gorge was a laborintensive undertaking and prison labor was often used. The Gentry Road, named for its 

 

38 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 123. 

39 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 128. 

40 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:180. 

41 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:168. The Civil War in 

the New River Gorge region are discussed in: Tim McKinney, The Civil War in Fayette County, 

WV (Charleston, WV: Pictorial History Publications, 1988); Robert E. Lee at Sewell Mountain, the 

West Virginia Campaign (Charleston, WV: Pictorial History Publications, 1990); Civil War Articles 

and Related Information in the Fayette Tribune (Charleston Heights, WV, 1991); and The Civil War 

in Greenbrier County, West Virginia (Charleston, WV: Quarrier Press, 2004). 

42 McKinney, Robert E. Lee at Sewell Mountain, 2-7, passim. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

20 

surveyor (Henry A. Gentry) and later known as the Fayette Station Road, was originally a 

simple two-and-one-half-mile switchback trail, completed in 1879. Demands for easier 

access to the town resulted in the Fayette Station Bridge, built in 1889 and replaced in the 

late 1990s. (Figure 5). The rebuilt bridge is still in use. Prior to the construction of the 

first bridge, the trip required a sometimes perilous crossing over the river. The Fayette 

Station Bridge was the first bridge to span the New River Gorge constructed specifically 

to accommodate road travel.43 

THE RAILROAD AND INDUSTRIALIZATION COME 

TO NEW RIVER GORGE

 Virginia joined the railroad boom at its beginning. The General Assembly 

chartered the Louisa Railroad in 1836 to construct lines in eastern Virginia.44 By 1850, 

the Louisa Railroad Company had outgrown its charter and re-organized as the Virginia 

Central Railroad Company. The new company added roadbed to their eastern lines, but 

it also turned west, and by 1857 contractors had completed a track nearly to Clifton 

Forge, high in the mountains. Between 1850 and 1857, they laid 64 miles of track. This 

financial and physical triumph gave Virginians hope that state rail lines would soon 

connect with the Ohio River.45

 The Virginia General Assembly incorporated the Covington and Ohio Railroad in 

1853 to construct a line from Clifton Forge to the Ohio River near Point Pleasant. The 

Board of Public Works hired Charles Fisk, from New York, as chief engineer. The board 

instructed Fisk to locate the line via White Sulphur Springs, allowing the “genteel people 

of Virginia to use the area as a resort.”46

 The Civil War played havoc with the Virginia Central Railroad Company’s plans. 

Virginia’s trans-Allegheny territory became West Virginia on June 20, 1863, and railroad 

backers faced a disrupted rail system. During Reconstruction, Virginia’s railroads, 

including the Virginia Central, integrated with an interstate system controlled by the 

North, whose growth accelerated due to post-Civil-War expansion of private enterprise. 

This stimulated southern railroad construction and growing commerce in the Ohio 

Valley. Virginia completed her plan for a rail line to the Ohio despite the fact that West 

Virginia would profit from the venture.47 

 

43 Karen Ebert Allen, “Historic American Engineering Record for the Fayette Station Bridge,” 

New River Symposium Proceedings (Daniels, WV, 1997), 43. 

44 Charles Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Through the New River Gorge,” 

New River Symposium Proceedings (Beckley, WV, 1982), 168. 45 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 168. 46 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 169. 

47 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 169. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

21 

 After the Civil War, the Virginia Board of Public Works divided geographically and 

politically between West Virginia and Virginia. This separation made it impossible for 

construction to continue on the Covington and Ohio Railroad. Reorganization 

consolidated the Virginia Central and the Covington and Ohio Railways into the 

Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company.48 Construction proceeded well, but in 1878 

the C&O was foreclosed and again re-organized, emerging as the Chesapeake and Ohio 

Railway Company.49 

 The decision to build the C&O through the New River Gorge was a simple one. 

Geography pre-determined it. The only practical location for the rail bed was along the 

riverbanks of the Greenbrier and New Rivers. Martin Blume, a local landowner and 

future owner of Fayette Coal and Coke Company, sold the right of way through his 

property and the C&O began planning the project in the late 1860s.50 

 In July 1869, work began on the line to White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, as 

contractors finished the New River surveys. The C&O divided the West Virginia project 

into six divisions to expedite the work, including two in the New River Gorge. The First 

New River Division ran 36 miles along from the mouth of the Greenbrier River to the 

Great Bend on the New. The 28-mile Second New River Division linked the Great Bend 

with the headwaters of the Kanawha River, at Gauley Bridge.51 Colis P. Huntington 

(1821-1900) oversaw construction of the railroad from Virginia to the Ohio River, where 

he established the city of Huntington. He played a major role in developing coal mining 

in southern West Virginia. 

 Construction problems facing the workers were enormous. Drowning and silicose 

were constant hazard. The First New River Division had to construct a 1,000 foot-long 

tunnel at the Great Bend (Figure 6.). This “Great Bend” is called Stretchar’s Neck on 

early maps.) Slides posed a continual threat to workers’ lives, and frequently halted 

construction. The Second New River Division’s job was no easier. The men had to lay 

the track section on a steep mountain among sandstone cliffs. Major excavations were 

required, costing time and money, and frequently contracts ran behind schedule. By 

November, 1872, much of the remaining 56 miles of the proposed route lay un-graded. 

An early winter had also set in, and many men had left the job in November and 

December, returning home for the holidays. Still, the company managed to complete 

points of gradation that had been delayed, and by temporarily re-routing the bed around 

unfinished excavations and embankments, the connecting rails were laid on January 29, 

1873, seven miles further west than anticipated and nearly a mile east of the future New 

 

48 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 169. 49 Allen, “Historic American Engineering Record for the Fayette Station Bridge,” 42. See also 

Ronald B. Eller, Miners, Mill hands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 

1880-1930 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1982). 

50 Allen, “Historic American Engineering Record for the Fayette Station Bridge,” 43. 51 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 171. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

22 

River Bridge. Officials opened the railroad to commercial traffic in March, 1873, and by 

June, traffic had become regular.52 On a granite obelisk at S.R. 41 at Quinnimont, Colonel 

Joseph Beury is honored for shipping the first coal on the C&O out of the Quinnimont 

mine. 

 The work did not stop there. It was important to the financial health of the 

company to complete the permanent grade as soon as possible. Beginning in the late 

1880s, the C&O hired a huge workforce laboring night and day to complete cuts and 

remove slides that occurred during the rainy season. 

 The C&O constructed important feeder, branch or spur lines up the New River’s 

larger tributaries, linking the railroad with coalfields and virgin timber in the gorge. 

(Figures 7, 8, and 9) Lines included Mill Creek, Keeney Creek, and Arbuckle Creek 

Branches. The Keeney Creek Branch Railroad opened the Sewell coal seam around 

Winona in the 1890s. Loop Creek Branch (completed in 1894) and Laurel Creek Branch 

(completed in 1904) served Thurmond and Quinnimont. Mann’s Creek Railroad served 

coalmines near Clifftop and Sewell Valley Railroad carried lumber to and from large 

band mills near Rainelle, Honeydew, and Nallen. The building of branch lines was 

stimulated as much by potential profits as by the appearance of rival railroads like the 

Norfolk and Western (N&W) and the Virginian in the Pocahontas coal fields of 

southwest Virginia and extreme southeast West Virginia. These branch lines led to rapid 

development of towns like Beckley and Oak Hill. 

 Unlike the C&O, the N&W realized the potential coal value in the area early, thus 

establishing a foothold by controlling coal lands and promoting orderly development of 

the industry. But it was the main trunk of the C&O and its branch lines that opened up 

the New River Gorge to commercial development.53 The cultural remains of the railroad 

are an important reminder of the history of New River. 

 Timber was a valuable commodity in the gorge. As early as 1835 two small waterpowered mills existed in Fayette County, but the arrival of the railroad made large-scale 

extraction possible. By the 1920s lumbermen had nearly completely harvested some of 

the best yellow poplar, black walnut, and other tree species growing along the Gauley 

and Great Kanawha Rivers in Fayette County. The New River posed a problem, flowing 

too fast for successful floating of logs. Large-scale cutting only began in 1885, after 

branch lines had been constructed up the tributaries of the New River.54

 After harvesting, the timber was sawn into boards—in the early 1800s by whip or 

pit saw. After the log was hewed square, it was hoisted onto a frame with one man on top 

and another underneath. With a long, two-handled saw, they ripped planks from the log. 

Innovations such as the portable stave and saw mills introduced later in the nineteenth 

 

52 Bias, “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,” 171-172. 53 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:174-175. 

54 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 315. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

23 

century accelerated timber processing in remote areas. The lumber was then transported 

by branch railroads, ‘Dinkie’ railroads, overhead tram lines, wooden chutes, horses, or 

wagon over country roads and trails to points along the C&O for shipment to market.55 

 Completion of the railroad through the gorge allowed construction of great band 

saw mills in the region, and a boomtown industry grew up overnight. Small mill towns, 

like Hamlet, dotted the gorge. They flourished as long as the timber held out and then 

waned and died as mills moved on. Some operations were enormous. The Meadow River 

Lumber Company, at Rainelle, in Greenbrier County east of the gorge, ran the largest 

hardwood lumber operation in the world. Another large band saw operation, the Blue 

Jay Lumber Company, operated along Beaver Creek, west of the gorge in Raleigh 

County. Two medium-size planning mills operated in the gorge at Hamlet, just upstream 

from the New River-Glade Creek confluence in Raleigh County and in Summers County 

at New Richmond (the current Sandstone).56

 The 150 coal companies operating in the area placed a huge demand on the timber 

business. Their constant demand for posts, caps, washers, headers, ties, and lumber for 

tipples, plant buildings, and residential housing, depleted the timber resources at an 

alarming rate. Timber used by the railroads was also considerable, as was lumber for 

other markets.57 An estimate by a conservative lumberman in 1910 put the wood cut in 

Fayette County at more than 75,000,000 board-feet. Lumbermen harvested mainly oak, 

poplar, chestnut, basswood, hemlock, beech, and hickory. The Sewell Lumber 

Company, timbering on New River near Landisburg and Sewell, reported cutting over 

32,000 acres of timber before closing the mill in 1929. After sawing the last log, the steam 

whistles blew constantly indicating the closing of the mill, and within just a few months, 

Landisburg quickly declined.58 

 New River lies on the eastern flank of the Appalachian coal basin. Thirteen beds 

contain coal at least 14 inches thick. Three beds are in the Pocahontas Formation, 6 in 

the New River Formation, and 4 in the Kanawha Formation. The low-sulphur, low-ash 

(or ‘smokeless’) bituminous coal produced ranges from low-volatile to high-volatile and 

is the most abundant mineral resource along the New River.59 

 Through uplift and erosion, outcroppings of coal appeared hundreds of feet above 

the valley floor, leaving would-be developers to wait until viable transportation became a 

reality. Entrepreneurs like John Nuttall and Joseph Beury began coal mining in the 

Sewell seam in 1871 in anticipation of the completion of the C&O railroad. When the 

 

55 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 315. 

56 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:179-181. 

57 Peters and Carden, History of Fayette County, 315. 

58 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:182-183. 

59 C.R. Meissner, Jr., K.J. Englund, and P.C. Mory, “Coal Resources of the New River Gorge, West 

Virginia,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Beckley, WV, 1982), 146. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

24 

C&O main line was completed through the gorge, large-scale mining began, even though 

this company did not build branch lines for large-scale coal extraction until the 1880s.60 

 Long before the railroad and the mining industry, people knew of the coal and 

used it. Dr. Thomas Walker identified the first coal in the area in 1742. In 1817, a seam 

was discovered in the upper Kanawha Valley, and John Turner, of Pittsburgh, PA, 

opened a small mine near Malden, downstream from the gorge. He contracted with a 

local salt maker to burn coal over wood to fuel his operation and soon all the salt 

manufacturers were doing the same. In 1835, Dr. Samuel P. Hildreth, of Marietta, Ohio, 

conducted a detailed study of Appalachian coalfields.61 

 The first large coal operations in the gorge were established in 1871 by John 

Nuttall and Joseph Beury. Beury shipped the first load of coal over the C&O from the 

Quinnimont mine, deep in the gorge, located up Laurel Creek in Fayette County. Other 

mines, such as Sewell, Beury, and Nuttallburg, soon opened, and as they did, small 

communities appeared. By the twentieth century more than a dozen towns existed 

between Fayette Station and Thurmond.62 The ‘smokeless’ coal found in the New River 

Field was valuable for powering steamships, heating cities, and for steel making, 

especially as coke. 

 Early operations mined coal either for sale directly or as coke for industry. All 

valley land was given over to the structures required for coal and coke-processing 

facilities. Whatever land remained, whether level or sloped, became miners’ dwelling, 

service, and recreational buildings. To facilitate mining in such limiting terrain, buildings 

needed to be tightly spaced. Conditions were crowded and coal dust inescapable.63 

 Coal extraction, particularly strip or surface mining, strongly affected New River. 

It despoiled the natural environment and changed people’s lives in every possible way. 

Most men working in the new mines came from rural backgrounds, whether they were 

native Appalachian, immigrant, or southern African-American. Most were firstgeneration industrial workers with no mining experience.64 

 The company town was a planned, basically paternalistic, company-controlled 

setting. Subsistence farming had offered independence, but now the miner and his family 

depended entirely on the coal operator for life’s necessities. Because many towns were 

isolated, the company provided everything from stores and doctors to schools, theaters, 

and churches.65 Miners and their families were captive to the company store, which 

 

60 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:197. 

61 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:196-197. 

62 Meissner, Englund, and Mory, “Coal Resources,” 146. 

63 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:250. 

64 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:250. 

65 Marshall, The Marshall Report: History, Community, and Architecture, II:250. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

25 

made a hefty profit. Prices and interest rates were high and miners faced inescapable 

debt.66 

 The earliest immigrants to the coal mines of Pennsylvania were British miners, who 

strongly affected the coal-mining region.67 They brought families to the towns. The 

largest immigrant group in the New River field was Italian. Many arrived to help build 

the railroads and stayed on as miners. Many were skilled masons, who built – or more 

commonly supervised the African-Americans who built – the coke ovens and other stone 

structures in the gorge. The Magyars from the Austro-Hungarian Empire comprised the 

next most populous group and worked almost exclusively as pick-miners. Other 

representative groups included Germans, Croatians, Slavs, and African-Americans. 

Native whites continued to move into supervisory or day-wage positions. Eventually, as 

large numbers of immigrants began populating the area, the native white Americans 

began moving out either to escape the ethnically mixed coal towns, or to seek higher 

wages in unionized mines.68 

 In 1880, Thomas Gaylord McKell, a wealthy Ohioan, and his bride, Jean Dun 

McKell, arrived near Dunloup Creek to investigate land they received as a wedding gift. 

While there, McKell realized the potential wealth in timber and coal that lay beneath it.69

McKell bought more land, to add to land his wife already owned. Together they were 

one of the largest land owners in southern West Virginia. He intended to exploit these 

resources and tap the money brought in by people and businesses. McKell’s family 

business interests in the area ultimately included a hotel and bank, mercantile 

operations, and scores of rental properties.70 

 McKell chose Glen Jean, formerly McCoy’s Mill, as his town site because it was the 

first floodplain wide enough for building a bank and other buildings along Dunloup 

Creek. Moreover, McKell used his resource survey to convince the C&O to construct a 

short line seven miles up Dunloup Creek to transport his coal and timber. He built a 

bridge across the New River, connecting his properties at Glen Jean and Dun Glen with 

the C&O mainline.71

McKell’s agreement with the C&O required him to build a coal plant large enough 

to process 1,000 tons of coal a day. To achieve this, he leased property to mine operator 

Justus Collins, who formed the Collins Colliery Company. Collins opened two drift 

mouths in a hollow behind town, and when the C&O completed the Dunloup Branch 

 

66 Lou Athey, Kaymoor: A New River Community (n.p.: Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, 1986), 33. 

67 Sharon A. Brown, NERI Historic Resource Study (Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, July 1990), 33. 68 Brown, NERI Historic Resource Study, 36. Eller, Miners, Mill hands, and Mountaineers, 132-138. 

69 Melody Bragg, Dunloup Days: Glen Jean to Thurmond: Exciting Times and Precious Memories

(Glen Jean, WV: Glen Jean Historical Society, 1989), 1-2. 70 Bragg, Dunloup Days, 1. 

71 Bragg, Dunloup Days, 2. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

26 

line in 1893, the mines and plant were ready to begin production. By 1894, Collins 

operated 100 coke ovens, making this the second biggest mining operation in New River 

coalfields.72 

 Industry flourished, with additional mines opening along the C&O and its branch 

lines until the Great Depression. The Depression hit the area hard and coal production 

dropped. Although coal production had increased 8.5% at Kaymoor Mine in 1929, by 

1930 it had dropped 25%. World War II was a boom time for coal, but the bust of the 

post-war economic downturn closed many mines and out-dated beehive coke ovens. 

Only some smaller operations continued to function.73 As the mines along the New 

played out after World War II, people sought jobs elsewhere, leaving towns and 

industries behind. Mining in New River has ceased altogether. In recent decades, 

residents have been abandoning mining towns which once were the center of activity; 

they have consistently lost population. Many buildings in Thurmond, Glen Jean, and 

nearby deteriorated. Most were dismantled and hauled away for other uses; others 

simply collapsed or burned. Soon just small communities survived, with little money and 

few jobs. In isolated regions, the towns and mining sites are returning to their primitive 

state and the country there is virtually deserted.74 Coal industry sites and artifacts make 

up the most significant and abundant cultural resources in New River. Figures 10, 11, 

and 12 show some of these sites and artifacts. 

CONCLUSION

 In providing a pre-history of New River, this chapter discussed the river’s age and 

formation, the region’s geology, and flora and fauna. It also briefly described Native 

American and later Euro-American settlement, early modes of transportation, and the 

arrival of the railroad. Lastly, it examined the development of the timber and coal mining 

industries. This chapter offered a background to administrative issues that the rest of this 

report considers. The remaining chapters focus on information more directly germane to 

the development and implementation of policy. 

 

72 Bragg, Dunloup Days, 6. 73 Athey, Kaymoor: A New River Community, 50. 74 Unrau, New River Gorge, 33. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

27 

Figure 3. The "Old State Road" entered the New River Gorge from the east, descending just south of 

Mann's Creek to Peter Bowyer's Ferry. From here, it climbed from Cunard to Fayetteville and points west. 

Map by W.F. Raynolds, W. Margedant, and W. Angelo Powel, 1861. Reference: LC Civil War Maps (2nd 

ed.), 695. Courtesy of Library of Congress. The reference number refers to the cataloging number of the 

Library of Congress Civil War map collection. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

28 

Figure 4. Peter Bowyer established his ferry over the New River in 1798, as a crossing point for the Old 

State Road. He was the first documented settler in the New River Gorge. Map by W.F. Raynolds, W. 

Margedant, and W. Angelo Powell, 1861. Reference: LC Civil War Maps (2nd ed.), 695. Courtesy of 

Library of Congress. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

29 

Figure 5. Map of the New River Gorge, showing Fayetteville, Virginia, to the west, 1861. Map by W.F. 

Raynolds, W. Margedant, and W. Angelo Powell. Reference: LC Civil War Maps (2nd ed.), 695. Courtesy 

of Library of Congress. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

30 

Figure 6. Map from Chief Justice John 

Marshall 1812 expedition along the Jackson, 

Greenbrier, and New Rivers, by Andrew 

Alexander, 1814. Courtesy of National Park 

Service. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

31 

Figure 7. Fayette Station Bridge, built in 1889 and replicated late 1990s. Photograph by Gregory A. 

Good, 2006. 

+ 

Figure 8. “Stretcher’s Neck” C&O railroad tunnel downstream at Prince, WV. LC Civil War maps (2nd

ed.), H258. Courtesy of Library of Congress. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

32 

Figure 9. Map of New River Coalfield by Jedediah Hotchkiss, 1880s. Reference: LC Civil War maps (2nd 

ed.), H259. Courtesy of Library of Congress. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

33 

 Figure 10. Detail from a map by Jedediah Hotchkiss: "Make outline of coal area much bolder..." 

Courtesy of Library of Congress. 

 Figure 11. Detail of Survey of 9,138 acres of coal lands on the New River in Raleigh County, West 

Virginia, west of Quinnimont, showing geological column and coal measures. LC Civil War maps (2nd 

ed.), H258. Courtesy of Library of Congress. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

34 

Figure 12. Tip Car, Kaymoor Mine. Photograph by Gregory A. Good, 2006. 

Figure 13. Safety warning that Kaymoor miners walked under every day. Photograph by Gregory A. 

Good, 2006. 
Before the New River Gorge National River 

35 

Figure 14. The Kaymoor Mine Powder House. Photograph by Gregory A. Good, 2006.

37 

CHAPTER TWO

EARLY MOVEMENT TO PROTECT 

THE NEW RIVER AND ITS GORGE

INTRODUCTION

The rugged terrain of New River Gorge, its diversity of flora and fauna, its cultural 

and historic resources, and the recreational opportunities it affords, all played roles in 

early efforts to achieve some type of protection for the gorge. The choice of national 

river designation came about through a long series of discussions among interested 

parties. A grassroots coalition formed and pleaded the case for protection of the area in 

Congress. The initial goal, however, was not protective designation of the gorge in West 

Virginia, but stopping an engineering project on the Virginia-North Carolina border. 

 Plans had been proposed in the early 1960s to dam the New River in Virginia, 

backing up water into North Carolina for pumped storage, the production of 

hydroelectric power, and the regular flushing of pollution downstream. Proponents 

called it the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project. Many citizens in West Virginia felt that 

such a dam would negatively affect the gorge. Water flow and quality were major 

concerns. These West Virginia opponents to the dam joined those in Virginia and North 

Carolina and helped block the dam before shifting attention toward protection of the 

New River in West Virginia. The coalition ultimately chose a designation for the New 

River Gorge that would have a chance of success in Congress. 

 Chapter 2 examines efforts by Appalachian Electric Power (AEP, a subsidiary of 

American Electric Power) to build the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project and efforts by 

the grassroots coalition in Virginia, North Carolina, and West Virginia to stop the plan. 

Powerful forces supported AEP, but prominent politicians came to the coalition’s aid. 

Chapter 2 also describes the shift in focus from the Blue Ridge Project to obtaining a 

national designation to protect the West Virginia section of New River below the 

Bluestone Dam. The chapter closes with the debates regarding the best designation for 

the gorge, how consensus was reached on national river status, and the final push that 

resulted in national river designation in 1978. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

38 

APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER AND THE BLUE RIDGE PUMPED STORAGE 

PROJECT PROPOSAL

The story of national river designation of New River in West Virginia began in the 

1960s in Virginia and North Carolina, but on different terms. Starting in 1962, and for 

the next fourteen years, protracted battles raged between Appalachian Electric Power 

Company and its supporters and those opposed to its plans to dam the New River. 

 In June 1962, AEP applied to the United States Federal Power Commission (FPC) 

for a two-year, preliminary permit to investigate the possibility of constructing a 

hydroelectric dam on the Virginia-North Carolina border.1

 On March 11, 1963, the 

permit was granted and the study began. Nearly two years later on February 27, 1965, 

AEP filed an application with the FPC to construct a two-dam hydroelectric and pumped 

storage facility, which it named the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project.2

 

 According to lawyer and historian Thomas J. Schoenbaum in his book, The New 

River Controversy, a pumped storage facility is unlike conventional hydroelectric dams 

in that two storage reservoirs must be built. Power is generated at times of peak demand 

by releasing water from the upper reservoir to turbines at the river; then during slack 

demand, water is pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper using power from the 

system itself. At the time, pumped storage facilities such as the Blue Ridge project were 

considered the solution for problems encountered during times of peak demand. Even 

though the facility would consume four units of power for every three generated, it 

would provide a source of instant on, peak demand supply that could be utilized more 

efficiently than steam electric plants, which are slower to bring on and off line.3

 The net 

power loss may seem odd, but AEP argued that the utility’s load factor was generally 

improved since pumped storage plants consumed electricity during off peak hours, 

allowing steam plants to operate on a more continuous basis. As Schoenbaum argued, 

however, closer analysis proved this unacceptable, since the load factor was not 

improved by any savings or efficiency. Furthermore, this made the utility a main 

consumer of its own product. The process would have insured the need for company 

expansion.4

 The proposed project would have generated a total of 968 mega-watts of 

electricity from two reservoirs covering a total of 16,600 and 2,850 acres, respectively. 

 The plan did not initially arouse much concern among local residents. AEP worked 

to convince local leaders that the project would be beneficial both economically and 

 

1

 United States of America, Federal Power Commission, Report Opinion 968, June 14, 1974. NERI 

MPF Misc. 1978-88. Later cited as FPC Report. 

2

 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy (Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair, 1979), 

46. 

3

 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 84-85. 

4

 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 85. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

39 

recreationally, and most citizens felt that a dam that produced hydro-electric power 

represented progress. Few protested, and the few who did were largely ignored.5

 

 In June 1966, the United States Department of the Interior went before the FPC, 

which had not yet finished reviewing AEP’s plan, and asked to be heard. During that 

time, the Department of Interior (DOI) was charged with cleaning up pollution in the 

country’s waterways. Because they were concerned with wastes being dumped into the 

Kanawha River by chemical plants and other industries near Charleston, West Virginia, 

DOI wanted AEP’s reservoirs to include enough storage capacity to be able to release 

water during times of low flow to dilute pollution in the New and Kanawha Rivers. Its 

opponents derisively termed this method of dealing with pollution “The solution to 

pollution is dilution.” 

 The project originally envisioned included 25,000 acre-feet of storage for low flow 

augmentation. However, in a petition to intervene, the Secretary of the Interior argued 

that 500,000 acre-feet of storage were necessary to meet Interior’s requirement that a 

project be “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving a waterway or 

waterways.”6

 

 Hearings held by the FPC in May, October, and November, 1967, showed that to 

meet the Interior Department’s water quality requirements, a much larger facility was 

needed. In response, AEP submitted a revision in June 1968 proposing to double the 

storage capacity.7

 AEP’s new plan, the Modified Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project, 

called for the construction of a combined conventional and pumped storage hydroelectric project on the New River near Galax and Independence, Virginia, and Sparta, 

North Carolina. The two reservoirs were to lie in Grayson County, Virginia, and in Ashe 

and Alleghany Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1). Electricity generated would increase 

from 968 to 1,800 megawatts.8

 The upper reservoir would increase from 16,600 to 26,000 

acres, and the lower reservoir from 2,850 to 12,390 acres. Each development was to 

include a powerhouse, transmission lines, a spillway, and other facilities. The upper dam 

was to be 1,500 feet long and 300 feet high and the lower, smaller dam 2,000 feet long and 

236 feet high.9

 The project would have inundated 44 miles of the main stem of the New 

River, 27 miles of the South Fork, and 23 miles of the North Fork, flooding hundreds of 

family farms and some of the richest agricultural lands in the New River upper valley.

 

5

 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 49. 

6

 FPC Report, 4. 

7

 Schoenbaum, New River Controversy, 49. 

8

 FPC Report, 2. 

9

 According to Schoenbaum, the project would have consumed 27,900 acres in Grayson County, 

Virginia, and 5,800 acres and 8,400 acres respectively in Alleghany and Ashe Counties, North 

Carolina. Approximately 2,700 inhabitants would have been displaced from 893 dwellings, along 

with 41 summer cabins, 10 industrial sites, 23 commercial facilities, 5 post offices, and 15 

churches, in addition to 12 cemeteries. Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 49-50. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

40 

Figure 15. Proposed Modified Blue Ridge Project, areas affected. North is up. The border between Virginia and 

North Carolina is the horizontal line across the center of the figure. Courtesy of Appalachian Voice, 2006. 

The Agricultural Extension Service estimated the area would have lost $13,500,000 

annually in crop and livestock sales. 

 AEP sharply disputed this position. To counter the Agricultural Extension 

Service’s estimates, AEP and the FPC launched an ambitious advertising campaign. AEP 

claimed the project would initially generate about 3,900,000 megawatt hours of 

electricity, with power production benefits of $3,145,000 annually. They predicted that 

an average of 6,230,000 people would visit the project annually for recreational purposes, 

generating tourist dollars for the region’s economy. AEP would donate two state parks, 

one in Virginia and one in North Carolina, and they said the double reservoir would 

become one of the most important recreational areas in the southeastern United States, 

with several million dollars coming in annually by private development spawned by the 

new visitor influx.10 

 AEP said the project would also provide flood control. They argued: 

It will markedly enhance the recreation potential of a portion of Appalachia, and in 

doing so will be of benefit to the people in the crowded metropolitan areas of much of 

the eastern United States; and it will encourage economic development in the 

 

10 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 50. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

41 

immediate area surrounding the project, as well as provide water benefits downstream 

where New River flows are periodically in need of augmentation.11 

The FPC touted a new way of life for the people of the New River Valley, saying: 

The recreation potential of the area where the project would be located is enormous. 

Even now, there are great attractions to visitors, but when water is added, it is destined 

to become one of the principal recreation areas for the eastern portion of the United 

States.12 

AEP elaborated on this theme in a brochure: 

Once in existence, the upper Blue Ridge Lake will offer great potential for economic 

growth. Year ’round and seasonal homes, motels, marinas, and all types of commercial 

and service facilities will be built around the lake. These facilities will add to the tax base 

of the counties as well as provide employment and increased sales ... Finally; 

Appalachian Power itself will pay millions of dollars of property taxes over the life of its 

facilities.13 

Through its aggressive advertising campaign, AEP showed a readiness to fight for the 

dam. In the company’s eyes, it would have enhanced the area economically and provide 

hydroelectric power and flood control. They felt that the benefits of the dams and lakes 

would more than offset the loss of agricultural lands. 

LOCAL COMMUNITY REACTION AND GRASSROOTS OPPOSITION

IN NORTH CAROLINA

 Despite AEP’s concerted advertising campaign, the announcement of the new, 

enlarged project did not sit well with the constituents of the upper New River Valley, 

and produced widespread opposition. Many did not consider AEP’s new concept of life 

in the valley as progressive. Others felt that the recreational and economic potential of 

the project was an empty promise. They pointed out that the draw-downs for both 

diluting pollution and generating power would eliminate swimming, since the proposed 

beach areas would be left high and dry, particularly during the summer months.14 Some 

residents believed that the forty-four foot vertical draw down would erode hillsides. 

They also contended that fluctuations in the water level of the upper reservoir would 

produce mud flats forty to seventy feet wide, blocking construction of marinas and boat 

access areas, as well as hindering spawning fish. Still others resented having to provide 

water to flush pollution from the lower valley far away. Residents felt that those creating 

pollution should bear the burden of cleaning it up. The Kanawha Valley was badly 

 

11 FPC Report, 2. 

12 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 50-51. 

13 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 51. 

14 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 52. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

42 

polluted by chemical and other industries, yet communities there were still pursuing new 

industries for the area. People of the upper New River concluded that they were being 

asked to give up their ancestral lands to pay for the recklessness of others.15 

 The three affected counties soon produced leaders who opposed the Modified 

Pumped Storage Project. Two men decided to form the Upper New River Valley 

Association: Floyd Crouse, a Sparta, North Carolina lawyer, and Lorne Campbell, a 

conservationist and lawyer from Grayson County. Crouse died of cancer in 1969, but 

shortly before his death, he asked Sidney Gambill, a tax attorney from Ashe County who 

had practiced in Pittsburgh, to take his place as president of the association. Gambill did 

so, and alongside Lorne Campbell, worked against the project for the next eight years.16

 Initially, those opposed to the plan did not expect to stop it. The FPC held new 

hearings before Judge William C. Levy in February, June, and July 1969. The Department 

of the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the FPC staff all favored the project. 

However, the state governments of North Carolina and Virginia supported their citizens 

in arguing against water storage for diluting downstream pollution. In addition, in a letter 

to the FPC, Governor Bob Scott of North Carolina asked the Corps of Engineers to limit 

the draw down in the upper reservoir to ten feet to facilitate recreational use.17 

 On October 1, 1969, Judge Levy granted AEP the license for the project. In the 

decision, he included a provision for 400,000 acre-feet of water storage for diluting 

pollution in 1975, the first year the project was to begin operation. That figure was 

increased to 650,000 acre-feet by 1987. He also imposed a ten-foot draw-down limit in 

the summer months and twelve feet all other times of the year to enhance recreational 

use.18 

 Virginia and North Carolina filed exceptions to the decision. The FPC then held 

an oral argument on those exceptions on February 2, 1970. The Attorney General of 

West Virginia, Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., appeared and asked to intervene. In a radical 

departure from the views of West Virginia Governor Arch Moore, an avid supporter of 

the project, Browning stated his objections on the grounds that the release of cold water 

into the warm water fisheries in the West Virginia section of the New might have an 

adverse impact on fish populations. He also argued that releasing water to dilute 

pollution was not only unnecessary, but illegal because of the failure of the downstream 

industries to provide adequate treatment and disposal of wastes at the site.19 In an 

interview with Skip Johnson of the Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette the next day, 

Browning said he “felt the Federal Power Commission was responsive and concerned 

 

15 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 52. 

16 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 53. 

17 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 53. 

18 FPC Report, 5. 

19 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 54. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

43 

about West Virginia’s problem with New River in regard to the proposed Blue Ridge 

Project ... I’m certain the commission was not aware of the possible adverse effects on 

the New River [until] Monday’s hearing, they are now.”20 

 Shortly after the judge’s decision, Gambill and Campbell began to seek support of 

regional and national environmental groups. They persuaded Washington based Izaak 

Walton League to lend its support through the noted environmental lawyer Edward 

Berlin. The Conservation Council of Virginia and the West Virginia Natural Resources 

Council also intervened. The Alleghany Farm Bureau and the North Carolina Farm 

Bureau joined to oppose the project, as did the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund 

and the Congress for Appalachian Development.21 

 On February 10, 1970, the Summers County Conservation Club voted 

unanimously to request the FPC to withhold licensing the Blue Ridge Project until a 

comprehensive impact study could be conducted on the New and Kanawha Rivers to 

Charleston, West Virginia. The vote on the resolution came after more than one hundred 

members heard arguments pro and con. Paul J. Johnson, superintendent of hydrogeneration for AEP, argued in favor and Robert Sumner, of the West Virginia Division of 

Natural Resources (WVDNR), argued against the project. Johnson described the project 

as “beneficial” and said water flows would cause no appreciable damage downstream. 

Sumner contended, however, that any flow above an opening of 3 to 3 1/2 gates at 

Bluestone Dam would halt fishing and boating along the New River.22 

 In June 1970, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) was invited to 

appear as a witness under petitions of intervention filed by the West Virginia Division of 

the Izaak Walton League and the West Virginia Natural Resources Council. A ten-page 

written testimony was filed by the WVHC with the FPC, and a hearing was scheduled for 

July 21, in Beckley, West Virginia.23 Sixteen statements were taken during the morning 

session including that of the WVHC. All except one opposed the project. The exception 

was a lawyer representing a North Carolina zoning board who stated that if the project 

went through his group would be interested in control of the shoreline.24 In their closing 

remarks the representatives of the WVHC stated: 

People and organizations from North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia do not want 

the project, only Kanawha Valley industries [do]. If the FPC approves the project it will 

be a case of ignoring the wishes of a vast majority of the people affected in favor of 

satisfying private interests. The public is being asked to sacrifice a tremendous public 

resource for the private gain of a very few privileged people. This is America?25 

 

20 “Blue Ridge Dam Assistance Coming, Browning Believes,” Charleston Gazette, February 4, 1970, 

22. 

21 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 55. 

22 “Blue Ridge Plan Delay to be Asked,” Charleston Gazette, February 11, 1970, 14. 23 “Showdown at New River,” The Highlands Voice, June 1970, 1. 

24 “The Blue Ridge Hearings,” The Highlands Voice, August 1970, 7. 25 “The Blue Ridge Hearings,” The Highlands Voice, August 1970, 7. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

44 

Despite the remarks of the WVHC, people in positions of power were adamant about 

obtaining the necessary licensing for the project’s construction and forged ahead. 

FINAL HEARINGS AND GRANTING THE LICENSE TO THE 

BLUE RIDGE MODIFIED PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

 Judge Levy held the next hearings in Beckley, West Virginia, and Washington, 

D.C., in July and December, 1970. Even though opponents of the project came out in 

force, no one yet expected to stop the project. According to Schoenbaum, even 

conservation groups were opposed “only to the large scope of the project and the water 

quality storage component.”26 Lawyers for the three states involved stated that they only 

wanted to assure that the project would be “useable and attractive for recreation.” 

 Although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) took effect January 1, 

1970, before the second round of hearings, the FPC did not require AEP to file an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) until December 1970.27 AEP submitted a first EIS 

in January 1971, which the EPA rejected as inadequate. Nevertheless, AEP submitted a 

similar EIS in April.28 FPC was also required to submit an EIS. 

 Levy filed his second decision on June 21, 1971. Called the “Supplemental Initial 

Decision,” it concluded that the Modified Blue Ridge Project should be licensed, and 

resolved all outstanding disputes in favor of AEP with two slight modifications. The 

downstream release rate from the lower reservoir was reduced somewhat in an attempt 

to mollify West Virginia, and the draw-down rate of the upper reservoir was to be limited 

to 10 feet throughout the year after 1985.29 

 People in Virginia and North Carolina were outraged. Opponents were 

particularly angry because Judge Levy, AEP, and the FPC omitted testimony of two 

scientists from environmental impact statements. Drs. Vinton W. Bacon and David D. 

Woodbridge, both experts on water quality, had appeared before Levy. They testified 

that the technology for at source water treatment was available and provided a viable 

alternative in the Kanawha Valley to the ‘pollution dilution’ approach. When asked in an 

interview why the information had been ignored, Donald Sander, FPC’s supervisory 

 

26 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 55. 

27 Robert Seth Woodward Jr., “The Appalachian Power Company Along the New River: The 

Defeat of the Blue Ridge Project in Historical Perspective,” MA Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2006, 83. Woodward’s thesis includes 

discussion of primary sources omitted here. 

28 A new edition of Schoenbaum’s book has been published as this administrative history goes to 

press. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Sam J. Ervin, and Robert Seth Woodward, The New River 

Controversy, new ed. Contributions to Southern Appalachian Studies, 15 (Jefferson, NC: 

McFarland & Co., 2007), ix. All references in this administrative history are to the original edition. 

29 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 55-56. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

45 

council, explained that the adversarial scientific information had been excluded because 

“there was not enough room [in the document].”30 

 The Attorney General of Virginia, Andrew P. Miller, angered by the omission, filed 

a brief in August 1971 charging that: 

The presiding examiner [Judge Levy] has obviously disregarded the evidence in his 

efforts to sustain his original decision ... until such time as there is a showing that there 

is no adequate treatment for controlling waste at source, any storage for abating that 

pollution will be illegal as well as inequitable.31 

Aside from the outrage felt by opponents and Attorney General Miller’s indignation, 

other forces would soon provide opponents another reprieve. 

 NEPA required that every agency proposal for a “major federal action having 

significant impact on the human environment” be the subject of an environmental 

impact statement in order to ensure that agencies consider cultural and environmental 

issues, along with economic issues, in coming to any decision.32 

 The FPC was slow to carry out the requirements of the new law. When the U.S. 

Court of Appeals issued a decision in January 1972 in another FPC case in New York 

which mirrored the error the FPC had committed in the Blue Ridge proceedings, the 

decision looked vulnerable. The FPC asked the Supreme Court to reverse the holding, 

but on October 10, 1972, the Court denied the review and the Blue Ridge Project was 

remanded to Judge Levy for the third time.33 

 Two months later, in December 1972, the FPC completed a revised Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, again recommending approval of the Blue Ridge 

Project. On July 24 and 25, 1973, Judge Levy held hearings on the project, but it was 

apparent that the new proceedings and the environmental statement were regarded as 

mere technicalities that had to be complied with, but nothing had fundamentally 

changed in the licensing proposal.34 

 Other changes were afoot, however. North Carolina Governor James Holhouser, 

Jr. had been elected in the 1972 Nixon landslide as the first Republican governor of the 

state in the twentieth century, and new people in office were ready to look with fresh 

eyes at state politics. One new official was Robert Finch, a young aide to the assistant 

secretary of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources 

(DNER). His job was to analyze project impact statements. Upon reading the Blue Ridge 

statement, an angered Finch pointed out the impact the project would have on the 

region and recommended the state try to kill it. Art Cooper, Finch’s boss and a nationally 

 

30 E.W. Kenworthy, “Pollution Dilution Issue In Blue Ridge Power Plan,” New York Times, 

November 7, 1971. 

31 Kenworthy, “Pollution Dilution.” 

32 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 56. 

33 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 58. 

34 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 60. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

46 

known ecologist, agreed and brought the matter to James Harrington, secretary of the 

DNER. Harrington agreed to investigate further. He met with the main proponents and 

opponents of the project and came away from the meetings with the feeling that a facility 

the size of the Blue Ridge Modified Project would damage the economy of the valley.35

Cooper and Harrington then presented their views to Governor Holhouser and he 

agreed to oppose construction. 

 The governor had reason to oppose the project. He had been raised in the town of 

Boone, North Carolina, near the source of the South Fork of the New River. He knew 

the people of the region and knew that they opposed the project. But there were political 

considerations as well. Ashe and Allegheny Counties were among the few counties in the 

state with strong Republican Parties, so it was in the governor’s best interest politically to 

support the opposition. In addition, AEP did not directly do business in North Carolina, 

so they had little political influence.36 

 In 1973, Judge Levy again convened a series of hearings on the long festering issue 

of diluting downstream pollution. The core of the legal question was whether it was 

feasible for industries around Charleston, West Virginia to treat their wastes adequately. 

Expert testimony was again offered defending both viewpoints. The Department of the 

Interior produced studies and witnesses testifying that there was no possible way to 

control pollution at the source. Environmentalists and the attorneys general from 

Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina provided expert testimony that such 

technology was available. In his ruling, Judge Levy again found in favor of Interior. In his 

decision, he wrote that the level of low flow augmentation provided would be a 

substitute for at source waste treatment and was necessary for the Kanawha River. He 

reasoned that the necessity for providing water quality storage at Blue Ridge was the 

major reason for doubling the size of the project to begin with.37 

 Responsibility for administering the nation’s water pollution control program 

shifted from DOI to the newly formed EPA in 1970. On October 18, 1972, Congress 

passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments. Included in the law was a 

section addressing ‘pollution dilution’. Introduced by North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin 

(D-North Carolina), it had been designed with such projects as the Blue Ridge in mind. 

On April 9, 1973, the EPA determined after a review of the Blue Ridge Modified Pumped 

Storage Project hearing record, and contrary to Judge Levy’s earlier ruling, that: “a 

convincing case has not been made that the capability of providing adequate treatment at 

the source does not exist.” EPA accordingly prohibited any inclusion of storage for 

improving water quality in the Blue Ridge Project.38 

 

35 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 61. 

36 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 62. 

37 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 64. 

38 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 65. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

47 

 The EPA decision was legally binding on the FPC, but Judge Levy was undaunted. 

Although he deleted any references to water quality storage in the licensing proposal, he 

rejected returning to the original smaller project, and instead, simply found a need to 

increase the flood control storage capacity from 160,000 acre-feet to 346,000. He also 

added another new storage requirement of 130,000 acre-feet to improve “fishing and 

recreation” in the lower valley. He maintained that this was not low flow augmentation 

for water quality control, but a provision needed to regularize stream flow in the lower 

basin for the benefit of recreation. On June 14, 1974, the judge issued Opinion and Order 

No. 968 recommending FPC grant a license to AEP for the purpose of constructing the 

Blue Ridge Modified Pumped Storage Project.39 

GRASSROOTS OPPOSITION IN WEST VIRGINIA

Citizens in Summers, Raleigh, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia, noticed the 

events unfolding upstream in the early 1970s. They lay between the proposed pumped 

storage site and the chemical industries of the Kanawha Valley. Jerry Kirk, a resident of 

Hinton, West Virginia, and one of the first activists in the area, realized early that the 

Modified Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project would impact the river and environment 

he had grown up in. Kirk said: 

The straw that broke the camel’s back [was for AEP] to release it, [the stored water] to 

flush the pollution out of the Kanawha Valley and the chemical complex. Now what 

that meant ... was that they were going to start altering flows of the New River. We 

were going to get extra water through the summer; we didn’t know if it was going to 

come in spurts, we didn’t know, we just knew that the flows at New River were going to 

be changed. W.C. and I, [W.C. Parker, another early activist] particularly—some people 

say we crawled out of rocks under New River—we lived in that river all our lives, we 

grew up there, and when somebody says to somebody, who grew up on that river and 

used it like we did, and loved it like we did, “We’re going to change the river, we’re 

going to take it over”... but we decided that if they’re going to take our river they’re 

going to have to deal with us first.40 

This attitude by Kirk and others started the grassroots movement to preserve the lower 

New River in West Virginia. They would not just take lying down what they perceived as 

the adverse effects of the project. They felt something had to be done to protect the 

region. 

 Kirk and others had previously formed a small sportsman’s group in Summers 

County, but they realized that to become effective lobbyists, they needed more clout. To 

 

39 FPC Report. 

40 Jerry Kirk, in Destry Jarvis, ed., The Oldest New River, Debate in the 1970s: National Park or Wild 

and Scenic River, A Symposium on the Anniversary of the Establishment of the New River Gorge 

National River, West Virginia, a report on the November 9, 2003, panel proceedings. Internal NPS 

document. N.p., 2003. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

48 

that end they affiliated themselves with the Izaak Walton League of America and formed 

the Three Rivers Chapter with Kirk as its first president. The group began issuing press 

releases to “advise the public as to what was going on.” John Hodel, publisher of the 

Beckley newspapers, picked up the story and immediately supported the group’s efforts. 

Congressman Ken Hechler (D-West Virginia) also quickly gave his support and became 

instrumental in the movement’s success.41 

 Jim Watkins, another early grassroots member, became involved through 

neighbors that had been Sierra Club members. They had been following the North 

Carolina proceedings, and when an effort to block the project failed in Congress, a mock 

funeral was held in North Carolina. Watkins recalled in an interview: 

Ken Hechler asked me if I’d like to go, and of course we went, and the thing that 

impressed me was there was just no organization ... no re-organization to try to do 

something about it. So on the following Monday I called Congressman Hechler’s office, 

told him I thought it was awful what was going on and I just couldn’t understand why 

there hadn’t been some kind of a coalition put together to do something about it ... I 

guess a half hour later, I get a call from Washington; Congressman [Hechler] said he 

thought it was a great idea and since it was my idea would I mind chairing the first 

committee ... So I opened my mouth at the wrong time and here I am a few years later.42 

To establish a more substantial power base, the West Virginia group created the 

Coalition to Save the New River. It originally included Kirk, Parker, Watkins, and Jon 

Dragan, the owner of the first whitewater rafting company on the lower New River in 

West Virginia in 1968. They began forming alliances and contacting people opposed to 

the pumped storage project. Watkins stated that the North Carolina groups were not 

well organized, “so Kirk and W.C. had some contacts here and there, and we sort of beat 

the bushes and finally came up with some small groups of people scattered all over the 

place.”43 

 Through their efforts, the coalition began pulling people together. An organizing 

committee was formed in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a group from West 

Virginia including Watkins drove down to attend. Watkins described the experience in a 

2004 interview: 

They thought it was great that people from West Virginia showed up because they weren’t 

aware that this thing was bigger than just the local area ... so they finally decided to put 

together a national committee involving, originally, just Virginia, North Carolina, and West 

Virginia. The original meeting was held at Hawk’s Nest State Park on the New River. So 

somewhere back in the original part there were those of us in West Virginia who knew that 

the gorge would need to be addressed eventually. I think everybody present had that in the 

back of their mind; that they eventually would like to do something with the gorge 

protection-wise, but we had to deal with the Blue Ridge Project first.44 

 

41 Kirk, Debate in the 1970s. 42 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

43 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

44 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

49 

 The dam project was attracting more attention in West Virginia. Jerry Kirk 

explained: 

We put our organizations together and we began to get publicity. We pounded them, we 

had letters to the editor, and by golly, one thing after another and the first thing you 

know, it was pretty significant. Now that was just here in West Virginia, we couldn’t do 

a whole lot from here other than make people aware of it and arouse public opinion. 

‘Cause these projects were in Virginia and North Carolina, but we had powerful 

opposition to that. Now when you’re talking about American Electric Power Company, 

and Arch Moore who was governor at the time was 100 per cent in favor of the project, 

and announced that the State of West Virginia was in favor of those projects, and we 

had to demonstrate by golly, that that wasn’t the case. He may be, but we weren’t, and 

we did draw the sympathy of the state. And it wasn’t just the state; there were people 

from all over the country who got involved in that fight.45 

Even though Governor Moore solidly favored the modified Blue Ridge plan, it became 

obvious that many others did not. Through the coalition’s mobilization, opposition to 

the project began to get national attention. E.W. Kenworthy described very succinctly 

the opposing views held by Donald C. Cook, head of AEP, and the people of the upper 

New River Valley in the December 8, 1974 Sunday edition of the New York Times: 

Mister Cook’s objective is undisguised, his argument simple ... He believes that under a 

free enterprise system, the Government has an obligation to make that [the New River 

water] available to his company ... [He] also contends that it [the project] would be a 

blessing to the valley’s residents. 

The article then made the point that a majority of the residents didn’t see it that way. 

Especially the 900 families, between 3,000 and 5,000 people, whose rich ancestral farms 

would be inundated and who cannot find equivalent farmland nearby at prices they can 

pay.46

Congress had passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to protect certain 

rivers from impoundment, and one day in summer 1973, Sidney Gambill had an idea. 

Could the New River be declared wild and scenic, thus preventing the FPC from 

allowing dams to be built? In 1973, Senator Sam Ervin (D-North Carolina), and 

Congressman Wilmer Mizell (R-North Carolina), introduced bills in the Senate and 

House of Representatives to require the Department of the Interior to undertake a study 

to determine whether the New River was suitable for inclusion in the national Wild and 

Scenic River System. However, the bills came too late to pass, and Congress adjourned in 

1973 without acting on them.47 

 On the state level, State Senator Hamilton Horton of North Carolina succeeded in 

introducing legislation on March 24, 1974. Introduced in both houses of the North 

 

45 Kirk, in Jarvis, ed., Debate in the 1970s. 46 E.W. Kenworthy, “The Battle for the Future of the New River,” New York Times, December 8, 

1974. 

47 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 68. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

50 

Carolina General Assembly, this legislation requested implementation of state wild and 

scenic designation for a portion of the upper New River. The state decided to include 4.5 

miles of the river from the confluence of the North and South Fork, to the Virginia state 

line. Although it did not have the power to prevent the project, the designation did 

provide another factor for FPC officials to consider.48 

 North Carolina’s action accompanied another effort in Congress. Senator Ervin 

attempted to introduce a bill in the U.S. Senate. Ervin had joined forces with North 

Carolina’s junior senator, Jesse Helms, a republican, and again tried to propose a 

feasibility study for including the New River in the federal Wild and Scenic River System. 

Hearings were held, and after much political wrangling, Governor Holshouser 

convinced Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton to support an effort to delay the Blue 

Ridge Project.49 Senators Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (D-Virginia, Independent after 1970) and 

William L. Scott (D-Virginia) declared opposition to the bill, calling it an “ill-conceived 

attempt to stop Blue Ridge.”50 

 On August 1, 1974, Wilmer Mizell presented Kirk’s testimony in support of wild 

and scenic designation before Congress. Mizell described Kirk as a man who lived most 

of his life in and around the New River and had devoted much of his time to its 

preservation. He then read comments Kirk had made during a previous meeting into the 

record.51 

 Speaking on behalf of the Three Rivers Chapter of the Izaak Walton League and 

the second vice president of the Izaak Walton League, West Virginia State Division, Kirk 

offered the organization’s thoughts regarding wild and scenic protection and the Blue 

Ridge Project: 

To state our official position briefly and bluntly, we want the river left alone, just like it 

is now. We want no part of the Blue Ridge Project of Appalachian Power Company ... 

We know from studying the testimony and evidence presented in the Blue Ridge 

Federal Power Commission hearings, that the proposed modified Blue Ridge dams hold 

the potential for total destruction of the present natural characteristics of this most 

unique river which gives so abundantly of water oriented recreation.... As we see it, we 

have two choices. We can let it be exploited and ruined by the fickle hand of innate 

greed of man, or we can preserve and cherish it for ours and future generations. 

Whichever we choose will tell just what kind of a people and society we really are.52 

 

48 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 68. 

49 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 69. 

50 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 71. 

51 Congressional Record, 2nd Session, 93rd Congress, August 1, 1974, Volume 120, Book 20, pp. 

26466-26467. 

52 Congressional Record, 2nd Session, 93rd Congress, August 1, 1974, Volume 120, Book 20, pp. 

26466-26467. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

51 

Kirk spoke from strength of conviction and with an oratory style reminiscent of 

naturalist John Muir’s sermons on Hetch Hetchy. Muir had once exhorted against those 

who would flood the Hetch Hetchy valley in Yosemite National Park: 

These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect 

contempt for Nature, and nstead [sic] of lifting their eyes to the God of the Mountains, lift 

them to the Almighty Dollar.53

Congressional debate on the bill was held December 17, 1974. Ken Hechler 

represented the people of West Virginia and compared damming the New to dynamiting 

the pyramids. Others, including Morris Udall, spoke on behalf of preservation, but on 

December 18, the vote was taken and those in favor of the Blue Ridge Project prevailed. 

Congress adjourned and did not re-convene until the following January, after the license 

had taken effect.54 

 On December 20, an article appeared in the Fayette (West Virginia) Tribune entitled 

“Aroused Citizens Prepare to Fight for the New River.” The article described a meeting 

of about thirty citizens that convened in the Federal Building in Beckley, West Virginia, 

that week. The purpose of the meeting was to map plans to continue the fight to save the 

New that had begun in North Carolina. The article stated that the “Coalition to Save the 

New River” meeting had an interesting cross section of Southern West Virginia 

represented. It included state delegates from Princeton and Beckley, West Virginia, 

members of the Isaac Walton League of Hinton, Sierra Club members, representatives of 

the Woodrow Wilson High School Conservation Club, the Fayetteville Conservation 

Club, representatives of two organizations who used the New River rapids for their 

Mountain River Tours and Wildwater Unlimited rafting businesses, and a representative 

of Hechler’s office. Hechler’s representative relayed a message of support that had been 

sent to North Carolina Governor James Holshouser, commending him on his stand to 

block the Blue Ridge Modified Pumped Storage Project and assuring him of the support 

of West Virginians.55 

 One October day in 1974, two months earlier, Thomas Schoenbaum, the lawyer 

who had previously suggested wild and scenic designation, conceived a simple solution 

to stay the FPC from granting AEP its license. He realized that the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act provided an alternative method for establishing a federal scenic river. He 

noted that: 

 

53 Quoted in a classic treatment of environmental history: Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the 

American Mind (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1967), 161. Chapter Eight (John 

Muir, Publicizer, 122-140) and Chapter Ten (Hetch Hetchy, 161-181) provide the context for 

these comments. 

54 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 78. 

55 R.K. Holiday, Fayette Tribune, December 20, 1974. MPF, Newspaper Clippings. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

52 

Section 2 (a) (ii), Allows the governor of any state to apply to the Department of the 

Interior to include a river segment within the state as a federal scenic river. The 

governor must, in his application, certify (1) that the river segment has been designated 

a scenic river under state law, and (2) that the state has adopted a management plan 

under which a state agency will manage the river without expense to the United States.56

Upon receiving such an application, the Secretary of the Interior was statutorily required 

to conduct the study, and after months of debate and the filing of several lawsuits, a brief 

order was handed down. On the last possible day, January 31, 1975, the Court of Appeals 

agreed to order a stay of AEP’s license “pending further order of this court.”57 The tide 

was turning. 

 The Committee for the New River had grown to a three-state organization. After 

the successful passage of the state wild and scenic river designation, Hal Eaton, the 

organizer of the Virginia chapter, and Jim Watkins, who had founded the West Virginia 

chapter, met with the people of the North Carolina chapter at their headquarters, and 

the decision was made to hold a large rally to emphasize the virtues of the river. They 

agreed that it would rally support. 

 The Festival of the New, was held July 26, 1975, and was a huge success. The 

Beckley (West Virginia) Post-Herald and Register reported that thousands of visitors had 

arrived at the Ashe County, North Carolina event. The North Carolina State Police 

estimated the crowd at five-thousand. The day-long activities included blue grass music, 

arts and crafts, and a historical pageant depicting the history of the South Fork of the 

New River from 1751 to 1975.58 Of particular interest was a large red marker that had 

been erected on the hillside. If constructed, the dams would have inundated the festival 

site with two-hundred feet of water. The marker indicated the future surface level if that 

were to occur.59 State and national conservation groups, politicians, including Ken 

Hechler, and musicians and crafts people came from all over. The festival had a 

tremendous impact on the fight to save the river. It became a celebration of the values 

the river represented and brought people together as never before.60

 Despite the feeling of solidarity the festival engendered, the fight to save the river 

was far from over. Political wrangling continued in and out of the courts, and then in 

August 1975, the chairman of the anthropology department at Catholic University in 

Washington, DC, tipped the Winston-Salem (North Carolina) Journal that AEP had 

conducted archeological studies of the proposed dam locations.61 The people who 

conducted the studies had found forty-two archeological sites containing numerous 

 

56 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 91. 

57 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 100. 

58 “Thousands Flock to North Carolina Festival,” Beckley Post-Herald Register, July 27, 1975. 59 “Thousands Flock to North Carolina Festival.” 

60 “Thousands Flock to North Carolina Festival.” 

61 It is not clear whether these archeological studies have ever been published. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

53 

artifacts, but AEP had not publicized the findings from the studies. AEP’s failure to 

acknowledge or report these findings violated the requirements of NEPA. North 

Carolina regarded this failure by AEP as just another example of their disregard for the 

real costs involved in the project.62 

 On March 13, 1976, the new Secretary of the Interior Thomas S. Kleppe 

announced that he would sign an official order designating the New as a wild and scenic 

river. But on March 24, the Court of Appeals invoked a stay and said the FPC could 

proceed with licensing AEP’s project. The decision shocked people the length of the 

New River Valley. It also mobilized them. Appeals were submitted, and the review 

process gave them more time to garner greater support in Congress. On May 6, Congress 

debated Scenic Rivers Bill H.R. 13372. This bill recognized “that segment of the New 

River in North Carolina extends from its confluence with Dog Creek downstream 

approximately 26.5 miles to the Virginia state line” as a Scenic River. It was also designed 

to block the power project.63 

 The Senate version (S. 158) started moving under pressure from Senator Helms 

and lobbying by the National Committee. Hearings were held on May 20 and 21, but by 

June 30, the bill did not have the votes to make it out of the Rules Committee. The 

National Committee mounted a three-pronged, final effort to save the bill. First, they got 

their own constituents to generate mail. Second, they sought and obtained national press 

coverage. Walter Cronkite of CBS, Harry Reasoner of ABC, and David Brinkley of NBC 

were approached and all agreed to give the movement’s efforts coverage, and by midJuly, 1976, the New River controversy was truly a national issue.64 

 The third tactic the National Committee used was to lobby congressmen. They 

invited congressmen and celebrities to go on canoe trips, and farmers from the New 

River Valley walked the halls of Congress. By late July, the New River bill was one of the 

most heavily lobbied measures in the 95th Congress.65 

 AEP’s failure to disclose the findings of the archeological studies allowed North 

Carolina and the National Committee to Save the New River to create a broad base of 

public support. By encouraging the organization of local affiliated chapters across the 

country, the National Committee was able to generate a tremendous response on behalf 

of scenic river designation. On August 30, 1976, Senator Ervin described the magnitude 

of public interest during senate hearings: 

Mr. President, my office has been flooded with letters, petitions, pictures, and 

photographs over the past year with the same message--save the New River. 

Schoolchildren have composed poems about the New River and newspaper columnists 

have taken to print again, with the same message—save the New River. Young people 

 

62 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 124-125. 

63 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 162-163. 

64 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 167, 169. 

65 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 169. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

54 

who have just begun to enjoy fishing and canoeing on the New are just as concerned 

about its preservation as are their parents who have known its pleasures throughout 

their lives.66 

In addition to the overwhelming public support Senator Ervin described, the Sierra Club 

and the Isaac Walton League both featured the New in their publications. By January of 

1976 over 150 newspapers nationwide had written editorials in favor of the scenic river 

plan.67

 On August 10, 1976, the House passed the New River Bill 311 to 73. On August 30, 

the Senate took it up and the final vote in favor of passage was 69 to 17. The Blue Ridge 

Project was dead. At least the North Carolina section of the New now enjoyed the 

protection of wild and scenic designation. On September 11, 1976, fifty invited 

supporters of the New River bill, including people of the West Virginia chapter of the 

Coalition to Save the New River, gathered in the White House Rose Garden to attend the 

signing of the bill by President Gerald Ford. It was a joyous event. But now that the 

North Carolina section of the New had been saved, the West Virginia Coalition turned 

its attention toward gaining some form of protective designation for their section of the 

valley.68

PROTECTION FOR THE NEW RIVER GORGE

The contacts and experience Jim Watkins and Jerry Kirk gained through their 

involvement to save the New River in North Carolina were invaluable in their efforts to 

protect the river in West Virginia (Figure 2). Watkins had been vice president for the 

National Committee and chairman of the West Virginia group. He won a commitment 

from the National Committee to lend their support. He said: 

We were studying what to do even before the Blue Ridge Project was stopped. There 

had already been some discussion. We were at a point where it looked like we were 

probably going to win that one [the Blue Ridge Project]. They started looking at the 

West Virginia Section because we had got their commitment.69 

The successful passage of the scenic rivers bill for the New River in North Carolina in 

September 1976 gave impetus to the movement to protect the New in West Virginia. The 

National Committee’s backing energized the effort and the West Virginia Coalition felt 

empowered to act. 

 

66 Congressional Record, Vol. 122, Part 22, 94th Congress, Second Session, August 30, 1976, 

p. 28405. 

67 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 131-132. 

68 Schoenbaum, The New River Controversy, 178-180. 

69 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004, 4. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

55 

Figure 16. The New River, upstream of Fayette Station Bridge, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 

 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

56 

 Other events were underway in West Virginia since the early 1970s. According to a 

1987 “Narrative History” of the designation of the New as a national river, a joint 

resolution of the West Virginia House and Senate in 1972 charged the West Virginia 

DNR to evaluate the recreational potential of the New River Gorge. A year later these 

bodies passed a second resolution urging the state and federal authorities to cooperate in 

establishing a national park.70 According to this narrative, the strongest early support for 

a focus on recreation and tourism came from the Fayette Plateau Chamber of Commerce 

in Oak Hill, West Virginia. J.B. Hess, the executive director of the local Chamber, 

pushed for local newspaper coverage and worked with Senator Jennings Randolph: 

“assuring the Senator that national park status was the desire of the citizenry living in the 

New River Gorge area.”71

 Senator Randolph eagerly supported this proposal and in April 1973 he asked that 

the federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) help West Virginia’s DNR study 

national park potential in the gorge. He also introduced Senate Bill 3975 in 1974 to 

designate New River as a national park. This bill did not succeed.72 The coalition did not 

yet include a sufficiently broad consensus among West Virginia’s politicians, especially 

the Congress 

 According to the narrative history, Hess also organized local business people into a 

New River Gorge National Park Committee in 1974. Hess worked with local banker 

James E. Rust and J. Duvall Schultz, who had proposed a national park as early as 1959 to 

a U.S. Senate Special Committee on Unemployment. One study completed in 1962 was 

simply titled “Tourism as a Job Creator – A First Stage Program for the New River Gorge 

Country.” 73 Clearly, a national park was seen locally and nationally as an opportunity for 

economic development.74 By the end of 1974, Hess’s local group completed a long 

“Comprehensive Plan for Development of New River Gorge National Park,” which 

enumerated what a national park would require. Their top point was “preserve and 

augment the natural beauty of the Gorge.” They also recommended a two-lane scenic 

highway, camping, picnic, and rest areas, hiking and bridle trails, an arboretum of native 

plants, an outdoor amphitheater, encouragement of whitewater activities, a scenic 

 

70 Steven Simpson and Leo McAvoy, “A Narrative History of its Designation as Part of the 

National Park System,” Final Report FS-North Carolina-1901 (85-07), Appropriate River 

Recreation Use Study,” January 1987, 3. 

71 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 3. 

72 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 4. Randolph’s presentation of the West Virginia 

legislature’s joint resolutions and request for a national park study: 119 Cong. Rec., 1973, 2195. 

73 Checchi and Co., “Tourism as a Job Creator – A First Stage Program for the New River Gorge 

Country.” Prepared under contract with the Area Redevelopment Administration. Washington, 

DC, 1962. Cited in Simpson and McAvoy. 

74 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 1 and 4. Simpson and McAvoy’s report includes 

citations of early Congressional Bills, Congressional Hearings, and administrative documents not 

analyzed in detail here, Appendix A, 22-23. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

57 

railroad, an exhibition coal mine, an operating grist mill, and restoration of Thurmond 

“as an example of the bustling early days of coal mining.” Although Thurmond 

supported the coal industry, its claim to fame was its railroad history: its history as a 

railroad town. Local hopes ran high. 

 Meanwhile, Senator Robert C. Byrd had included $150,000 funding in the U.S. 

Department of the Interior budget for FY 1975 to assess the recreational potential of the 

gorge area. The federal BOR held four public meetings in 1975 in Hinton, Charleston, 

Fayetteville, and Beckley, West Virginia.75 According to Simpson and McAvoy, these 

meetings provided the first opportunity for proponents of national park status and those 

backing wild and scenic status to get together and express their views. BOR Assistant 

Regional Director Jack Hauptman stated that the gorge was too developed to be a 

national park. Still, Senators Byrd and Randolph supported inclusion in the National 

Park System in some way. Congressman Ken Hechler preferred a national park, but 

supported wild and scenic status if a park weren’t possible.76

 W.C. Parker recalled Ken Hechler’s discussion of some sort of designation for the

lower New River valley: 

We transferred from the Blue Ridge to the national river. We had the momentum as a 

result of that over there, [their participation in the North Carolina movement] ... At a 

hearing in Washington, DC, Ken Hechler expressed to the people of North Carolina 

that he’d like to have a wild and scenic river status going in the state of West Virginia, so 

I would say that’s about as early as we were considering that.77

Hechler’s suggestion of wild and scenic designation in West Virginia resulted from 

success in North Carolina and perhaps from BOR public meetings. 

 Interest in a national park, however, was not dead. Indeed, the BOR report became 

a focus for continuing debate. Byrd became chair of the Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee and scheduled hearings on the BOR report and recommendations in May 

1975. The New River Gorge National Park Committee saw a national park as appealing 

to a broader public. Duvall Schultz doubted the validity of the BOR process. Schultz and 

other members of the committee convinced Byrd that the local meetings were 

sidetracked by their focus on the Blue Ridge Project. The committee even obtained a 

commitment from Senator Byrd to support a national park if locals united behind the 

idea. One member, James Rust, presciently endorsed a “combination of all three,” that is, 

national park, national recreation area, and wild and scenic river.78 Momentum clearly 

supported some form of federal protection for the lower New River valley. 

 The deeper everyone looked, the clearer it became that the gorge required some 

special designation that did not quite fit any of those on the table. The first suggestion of 

 

75 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 6-8. 

76 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 7-8. 

77 W.C. Parker, in Jarvis, ed., Debate in the 1970s. 78 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 7-10. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

58 

a new alternative seems to have come from Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. In his testimony in May 1975, he suggested that the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverway (Missouri, authorized 1964) and the Buffalo National 

River (Arkansas, authorized 1972) provided models for the New River Gorge. John 

Dragan, operator of a commercial whitewater company and resident in the gorge, also 

thought that something between a national park and a wild and scenic river would 

provide the best protection.79 

 To garner support and raise awareness for New River, Parker and others 

approached the three 1976 West Virginia gubernatorial candidates and questioned them 

on their opinions. As Parker explained it: 

We managed to get all three candidates, Jim Sprouse first. We met with Jim Sprouse in 

Union, West Virginia and he’d heard all about our river, and he asked us what we’d like 

to have if he was to become governor. There were twelve of us there, at his home ... and 

we told him that we’d like to have him come out against the Blue Ridge Project. He told 

us to talk to his aide ... we had him at Thurmond with his back to the river, and took 

pictures and it hit the papers, then a few days later Jay Rockefeller, who was also a 

candidate, ... called Jim Watkins and asked him how he could get himself in a position 

to be opposed to the Blue Ridge Project. Some time later, Ken Hechler called ... so 

sometime later we had three endorsements ... by the time we started on the national 

river everybody knew that there was some concern, some love, some interest in the 

river. I keep going back to the Blue Ridge thing but it helps to understand that we built 

the platform we needed to accomplish what we accomplished here.80 

The day in 1974 when Hess, Watkins, and others formed the New River Gorge National 

Park Committee the focus moved strongly toward protecting the gorge.81 

 The big controversy was not whether to protect the area, but through which 

federal designation. Different people advocated different designations for different 

reasons. Parker and Kirk wanted to protect the area because they liked to fish and hunt. 

It had also been their life-long home. Others were more interested in the economic 

growth and tourism possible with a national park. The Fayette County Chamber of 

Commerce and the Fayette Tribune editorialized for a national park. National park status 

would allow development in communities that provide services to visitors. The two 

groups that emerged both wanted to protect the river; they simply disagreed about the 

best means.82 One wanted a designation of wild and scenic as in North Carolina and the 

other wanted a national park. Despite their differences, the foresight of the two groups 

seems prescient in retrospect. Real estate development near Fayetteville and along the 

rim and S.R. 19 since 2000 edge ever closer to the gorge. 

 

79 Simpson and McAvoy, “A Narrative History,” 10-11. 

80 Jarvis, Debate in the 1970s.

81 Jarvis, Debate in the 1970s. 82 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

59 

 The two designations (national park or wild and scenic river) differ in important 

ways. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 imposes statutory limitations on land 

acquisition and specifies no more than a quarter mile of protection from either bank of 

the river. But the New River is wider than that in places. Destry Jarvis, a Washington, 

DC, parks management consultant, believed that greater protection was needed:83

I was concerned, as were others, that a simple wild and scenic designation would not 

allow for rim-to-rim protection, and obviously, to me anyway, one of the goals here was 

rim-to-rim protection. Any new adverse development inside the canyon between the 

rims would be visually intrusive if not polluting or otherwise damaging to the natural 

and cultural resources of the place, so I wanted a designation that would reach rim-torim.84 

The people of Fayette County strongly objected to wild and scenic status because they 

believed that it did not protect their county well enough, and in response, formed the 

Fayette County National Park Committee (FCNPC), whose slogan was “National Park 

designation or Nothing.” Congressman Hechler advocated wild and scenic designation 

and played a pivotal role in the West Virginia Congressional delegation, including 

encouraging Senator Randolph. However, when asked what they would favor, Hechler 

and members of Congress said they would not move a bill until there was local 

consensus. Bills advocating both national park and wild and scenic designation had 

already been introduced in Congress but they needed that consensus.85 

 New River Gorge, however, did not qualify as a national park because it contained 

active mines and an active railroad. Nevertheless, people still held out hope, and one 

group even believed that U.S. Senator Robert Byrd could use his power in Washington to 

change the rules in order to achieve national park designation. That did not happen.86

Hearings were held in Washington, DC, chaired by Senator Randolph. People voiced 

their opinions, but there was no consensus. Again, Senators Byrd and Randolph told the 

parties that they could not expect conflicting pieces of legislation to get through 

Congress. 

 To break the impasse and reach consensus, Doug Maddy, executive director of the 

Fayette County Chamber of Commerce convened a meeting of all interested parties in 

August 1977 at the Thurmond, West Virginia church. Dragan, Kirk, and Watkins helped 

organize the meeting. Among those attending were citizen representatives of Fayette, 

Summers, and Raleigh Counties, county commissioners, newspaper publishers, members 

of the Isaac Walton League, and other activist groups.87 

 

83 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 84 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 

85 Jarvis, Debate in the 1970s. 86 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

87 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

60 

 The meeting needed someone to help the group find common ground. Maddy 

recalls that a staffer in Washington, DC, recommended Destry Jarvis. When asked what 

Jarvis’ role was, Maddy replied: 

I called him a facilitator because that's what he did. He didn't try to impose a position 

on anybody, he just tried to lay out the alternatives for us and then walk through what 

each of those [alternatives implied].88

 At that meeting, Jarvis explained that the National Park Service Organic Act of 

1916 has some very philosophical management requirements. He pointed out that the 

Act specifies that 

parks thus established shall be conserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations, but that is about the extent of it. So as each new unit is added to the 

national park system, the legislation that authorizes that unit writes specific 

management provisions tailored to that site ... whereas wild and scenic has its own 

generic legislation that’s not part of the National Park Service Organic Act but the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.89 

He made his position clear saying that the NPS Organic Act offered the strongest 

protection and would be most appropriate for the gorge and the surrounding viewscape. 

He then introduced an entirely new category for consideration: 

My idea was [a] national river [designation], though at the time there was only one such 

designation, the Buffalo National River in Arkansas, and that designation is a national 

park by another name. Essentially, it allows flexibility to draw the boundary where it 

should be and write the substantive legislative provisions which fit the particulars of the 

given site.90 

That is, Jarvis re-introduced the idea originally proposed in May 1975 by Nathaniel 

Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Hence the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverway and the Buffalo National River entered discussions of what to 

do for the New River. Because national river designation fell under the National Park 

Service Organic Act of 1916, Jarvis thought it might act as an umbrella. It would also 

allow for the creation of specific provisions tailored to New River Gorge’s unique 

character. Not all advocates for national parks (or NPS employees) saw or see this 

allowing of exceptional qualities as positive for the system as a whole. 

 Jarvis’s proposal sparked much dialogue at the meeting. He explained that if 

people kept pushing national park, groups like the National Parks and Conservation 

Association would oppose it in Congress because the area didn’t qualify, whereas 

national river designation could be fashioned to fit the place. The NPCA and other 

 

88 Doug Maddy, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 14, 2004. 89 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, April 23, 2004. 90 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

61 

national conservation organizations would support national river status. By the end of 

the August 1977 session, a fragile agreement had been reached.91 

 The other principal organization active in trying to achieve national river 

designation was the Isaac Walton League. Kirk and Watkins led the Three Rivers 

Chapter, and their national conservation director, Maitland Sharpe, had come down and 

run the river with Jarvis on several occasions. Sharpe became active in the process. 

Through their Washington office, the League lobbied for designation and testified in 

favor during the Congressional hearings and was credited with moving the legislation.92 

 Although national river designation gained in popularity by late winter 1978, some 

locals remained ambivalent. As Jim Watkins recalls: 

It might have been the year before the bill was passed [in November 1978] that small 

pockets [across the area] had some questions [and] I’m sure that was raised in the 

media, ‘Are you sure you want to do it this way?’ So somewhere it started to gain some 

popularity. And then it just sort of snowballed after that. So I think when we finally got 

the bill introduced in Washington, I don’t think there was much opposition to it.93 

It was becoming increasingly clear that national river designation might be the right 

decision. At a March 1978 meeting of the FCNPC at the offices of the Chamber of 

Commerce, J.B. Hess, now chairman of the Chamber’s travel committee, stated “we have 

come to the conclusion that a national park is not going to become a reality.” Jarvis, also 

at the meeting, told the committee that one big step toward resolving problems delaying 

designation would be if the Chamber advocated a national river rather than a national 

park.94 On March 20, the Fayette Tribune announced that the Fayette County Chamber 

of Commerce had unanimously approved the recommendation of national river status. 

Jim Hess informed board members that the committee recommended that the proposal 

be presented to the Chamber’s directors endorsing national river status as presented by 

Senator Randolph.95 

 After consensus was reached, the West Virginia congressional delegation 

introduced legislation in Congress, and the bill began its rounds in committee. However, 

lawmakers felt they needed to get an opinion from the Department of the Interior before 

the committee would take the bill up. Phil Burton, a Congressman from California, 

thought of putting an omnibus bill together. This would combine all legislation relating 

to the National Park Service and Interior that any member of Congress wanted to pass 

that year into one piece of legislation. In April 1978, Secretary of the Interior Cecil 

Andrus sent an official position from the administration to the Congress indicating that 

 

91 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 92 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick (telephone), April 23, 2004. 93 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

94 “Committee Hears Proposal for New River,” Fayette Tribune, March 2, 1978, 1. 95 “Plateau Chamber OKs National River Status for New River Gorge,” Fayette Tribune, March 20, 

1978, 1. 
Early Movement to Protect the Gorge 

62 

the Carter administration supported national river designation for New River Gorge. It 

took from April until fall to put the bill together and included 230 separate provisions. 

Because Congress adjourns late in the fall, it became a race to finish in time.96 

 Senator Robert C. Byrd and others organized an unusual joint House-Senate 

hearing at the last minute on October 3 to get final input. On October 4, Senator Byrd 

was ready to take the bill to the floor. It passed the House and went over to the Senate. 

On October 10, the Senate passed the bill with some minor changes and it then had to 

return to the House side for them to pass the amended version, which they did on 

October 13, 1978. On November 10, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed the bill into 

law.97 The New River Gorge National River emerged, as a unit of the National Park 

System, based on the Ozark National Scenic Riverway and the Buffalo National River. 

But it had features especially tailored to the situation found in West Virginia. Years of 

intensive, divided grassroots activism provided the energy. The recent NPS category of 

national river made it possible. In the end, however, Representative Burton provided the 

tipping point with his “park barrel” bill of 1978. 

CONCLUSION

The battle for protection for New River Gorge began a hundred miles away with 

the prevention of the construction of the Blue Ridge Modified Pumped Storage Project 

in Virginia and North Carolina. Residents the length of the New River valley fought to 

preserve their ancestral lands and a quieter way of life. With the Blue Ridge project 

defeated and the North Carolina section of the New River designated Wild and Scenic, 

the fight re-focused on West Virginia’s New River Gorge. These new actions resulted in 

the passage in 1978 of the bill authorizing the New River Gorge National River. From 

that day forward, decisions about the New River would be made in a new context, that of 

the National Park Service. Actions to be taken regarding natural and cultural resources, 

recreation, and other issues, would now involve NPS, as well as local residents and other 

agencies. Following chapters address these new interactions and how they have affected 

management of these sometimes conflicting interests. 

 

96 Doug Maddy, in Jarvis, ed., Debate in the 1970s. 97 Doug Maddy, in Jarvis, ed., Debate in the 1970s. 
63 

CHAPTER THREE 

THINKING SMALL: A NATIONAL PARK IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY 

INTRODUCTION

 To some outside observers, New River Gorge National River (New River or NERI) 

got off to a slow start. The authorizing legislation passed through Congress in 1978. For 

the first few years, National Park Service administrators worked hard at various planning 

activities. Staff from the Denver Service Center and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of 

the NPS, working with the initial skeleton staff of the park, conducted the public 

meetings and analysis for the park’s first General Management Plan (GMP) from 1980 to 

1983, and they coordinated background studies by Virginia Tech, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others.1

 All these studies required time, of 

course, but this was partly invisible to the public or the public did not recognize its 

importance. This chapter examines these planning activities, the process the Park Service 

used to develop the General Management Plan (1983), interaction with other agencies in 

this process, and the role the public played. 

 Compounding the apparent delay due to planning, the Park Service decided early 

on to protect the gorge mainly by easement and zoning, with little actual federal 

ownership in the gorge. This “small presence” experiment meant that the National Park 

Service staff was visible mainly at park headquarters and the temporary visitor center at 

Canyon Rim. This started to change in the late 1980s, when the park shifted to a new 

emphasis on protecting the gorge through extensive fee-simple acquisition and began 

significant expansion of staff. Hence, the character of park administration and 

development in the early 1980s differed fundamentally from that after 1988. This chapter 

examines the “small presence” period and how the main outlines of park development 

were shaped by this approach. The succeeding chapter (Chapter 4) concentrates on the 

period from 1988 on, when rapid growth in federally owned and administered land 

required a much more elaborated administration. 

 New River Gorge National River has been a large force in the economy and 

politics of counties and towns around the gorge. Indeed, without the support of 

 

1

 See, for example, C. M. Logar, Projected Economic Impacts of Three Management Plans for the 

New River Gorge National River 1981-1990 (Morgantown, West Virginia: FEC Associates, 1981); 

and Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc., A Cultural Research Project: The New River Gorge 

National River, West Virginia, 3 vols. (Charleston, West Virginia: for the National Park Service, 

1981). 
Thinking Small 

64 

politicians, citizens, and the Chamber of Commerce, New River might never have 

happened. While support of the national river was strong in the early days, interaction 

with local communities and governments has not always gone smoothly. Some would say 

there has been a steady decline in local support for the park. 

 Local communities have interacted with the park, and disagreed heartily, on three 

kinds of issues. First, by what means can a national park be established where most of the 

land is privately owned? By what means can the park acquire land? Second, where will 

major Park Service facilities be located? In this chapter, the decision to place the Park 

Headquarters in Glen Jean provides the narrative focus for an issue that has surfaced 

over visitor centers and other facilities, too. Third, where should the balance point be 

between protecting the New River Gorge and allowing private development? These 

questions come down to economic interests, politics, and the mandate of the park. In 

response, the National Park Service has tried a variety of different means of acquiring 

land and controlling development. Strategies followed in the early period of New River 

Gorge differed markedly from those developed later. 

THE SMALL PARK EXPERIMENT

FORMULATION OF THE 1983 GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Following the passage of the 1978 legislation (Public Law 95-625) authorizing New 

River Gorge National River (NERI) in November, 1978, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office 

and the NPS Denver Service Center collaborated in a period of information gathering and 

planning. The authorizing legislation included four general mandates. First, the law required 

preservation of cultural and natural resources.2

 This was to be achieved through 

development of studies indicating types and general intensities of development, including 

visitor circulation and transportation patterns and systems associated with public enjoyment 

and use of the area. Second, the NPS was to indicate general locations for activities, timing of 

implementation, and anticipated costs. Thirdly, the Park Service was to identify visitor 

carrying capacities for all areas where 1978 counts indicated immediate need. Finally, the 

NPS was to supply indicators of potential boundary changes, and provide explanations for 

these changes.3

 

 The 1981 Park Service document Revised Task Directive, New River Gorge National 

River, West Virginia General Management Plan discussed this process, but pre-planning 

began in 1980 and was open to citizen input. In spring 1981, the plan was postponed subject 

 

2

 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 

3

 National Park Service (NPS), Revised Task Directive, New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia, Management Plan, December, 1981, MPF, Box 5, D18, 3. 
Thinking Small 

65 

to the formulation of new federal land acquisition policies. The process resumed in 1982-

1983.4

 

 P.L. 95-625 mandated that a general management plan be submitted to Congress no 

later than November 10, 1981, later amended to November 10, 1982. This required the NPS 

to address five management areas.5

 First, natural resource issues included management of 

rare and endangered species, hunting, fishing, and trapping, abandoned mines and 

subsurface mineral rights, water flow rates and river levels, zoning of all waters and lands, 

and the identification of potential wilderness designation areas, wetlands, floodplains, and 

prime and unique farmlands. Secondly, cultural resource issues included management of all 

cultural resources within the park’s boundaries. It recommended implementation of an 

evaluation process to assess possible inclusion of resources in the “Park Service List of 

Classified Structures and the National Register of Historic Places.” Thirdly, management 

issues included visitor transportation within the park, interpretive themes and needs, 

concessions management, river carrying capacities, and the use of permits. Fourthly, general 

development issues included selection of a site for the park headquarters, location of other 

maintenance/administrative structures, location of visitor contact stations and interpretive 

facilities, and location of river access facilities. Finally, the law stated that a land protection 

plan “shall indicate—(i) the lands and areas which [the Secretary] deems essential to the 

protection and public enjoyment of the...historic values and objects...,” and that the GMP

would indicate “measures for the preservation of the area’s resources ....”6

 It would address 

boundary adjustments, land acquisition needs, zoning management, and land-use 

management for private lands.7 

 The NPS formulated the GMP following its planning guidelines and closely 

coordinated it with plans in place for nearby state parks. The Park Service and the West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) worked closely together. The NPS team 

included a member of the DNR. The Park Service Mid-Atlantic Regional Office and Denver 

Service Center worked with the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The SHPO was also invited to help formulate 

the plan.8

 The Park Service held four pre-planning workshops near the park in 1980 in an effort 

to collect citizen input. The meetings were announced in newspaper advertisements, local 

radio and television, and a federal register notice. Three-hundred-fifty people and 

organizations on the park mailing list received planning workbooks. The Park Service held 

public meetings in Hinton, Fayetteville, Charleston, and Beckley, West Virginia. Nearly onehundred people responded, and thirty-nine attended the Hinton meeting. The Park Service 

intended to identify concerns and collect people’s ideas as the planning process began. In 

 

4

 NPS, Revised Task Directive, 3. 

5

 NPS, Revised Task Directive, 5. 

6

 NPS, Revised Task Directive, Sec 1103 (a) (i) and Sec. 1109 (1). 

7

 NPS, Revised Task Directive, 5-6. 

8

 NPS, Revised Task Directive, 7. 
Thinking Small 

66 

June 1980, the assistant manager of the Mid-Atlantic/North-Atlantic Team summarized the 

results to the Mid-Atlantic regional director.9

 

 Jim Carrico, the park’s first superintendent, started the workshops, followed by 

planning team captain Dan Huff. They described the planning process, and provide 

participants with a pre-planning workbook. They were randomly divided into groups. 

Discussion leaders were chosen to work through the topics and gain consensus among 

participants. Planning team members circulated among the groups helping to resolve 

stalemates. If consensus was not reached, unresolved viewpoints were recorded. After two 

hours, thirteen teams in four workshops presented their ideas. The information was 

combined, arranged by topic, and merged with similar ideas.10

 Participants were encouraged to send personal comments to the Park Service and to 

give workbooks to friends and neighbors. The GMP planning team intended to use response 

sheets and individual comments to formulate proposals. The following concerns emerged. 

Travel to the New River Gorge and access within the gorge topped the list. Nearly all thirteen 

workshop groups recommended better passenger rail service. Visitor activities, recreational 

and service facilities, information and interpretation, natural and cultural resource 

management, park boundaries, operations and administration, primitive area management, 

and timber and mining activities filled it out. Most groups felt that motorized trail use was 

inappropriate.11 

 In August 1982, the Park Service released the Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Assessment (Figure 1.). The document offered a preferred plan and three 

alternatives. All had several items in common. These included a description of the park’s 

natural and cultural resources, land use and activity patterns, recreational use, and visitor 

services. Also included in all of them were a plan for studying river carrying capacities and 

one for private enterprise to provide commercial visitor support services such as restaurants 

and service stations. The document also outlined hunting and fishing regulations, camping 

practices, illegal taking of timber, and a land protection strategy for minimizing impacts of 

access and development.12 

 From August 10 to September 24, 1982 NPS opened the process to public input.13 The 

Park Service General Management Planning Team held meetings at which the general public, 

 

9

 Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Team, memorandum to Regional Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Region, June 1980, MPF, Box 1, A3821, 1. No copy of this memo is preserved at 

NERO-P. The Denver Services Center Assistant Manager was Gerald D. Patten. The Acting 

Regional Director was James W. Coleman, Jr. It is quite challenging to assign authorship with 

certainty. Coleman served in a long-term position as Acting Regional Director. 10 Assistant Manager, MA/NA Team, memo to Regional Director, 2. 11 Assistant Manager, MA/NA Team, memo to Regional Director, 4-10. 12 Clif Bobinski, Planning Documents Report for New River Gorge National River, August 16, 2004. 

This is an unpaginated,annotated bibliography in the files at NERI. 13 NPS, General Management Plan Summary and Summary of Public Response to Draft Plan, 1983, 

1, 11. Hereafter cited as GMP or, if unclear from context, GMP (NERI). 
Thinking Small 

67 

businesses, and special interest groups commented on the proposals. The Park Service 

solicited and recorded written comments and responded to them.14 

 The community believed proposed reliance on local zoning to accomplish land 

protection objectives would be ineffective. The draft plan proposed protecting resources on 

private land through a combination of active monitoring programs, cooperative agreements, 

and technical assistance for private individuals.15 However, many citizens felt that zoning 

would not work and that protection of natural and cultural resources and scenic values 

would require greater Park Service input.16 The Planning Team responded that the Park 

Service realized that low federal involvement would allow resource losses and would not 

create the traditional park-like atmosphere some people envisioned, but it was the most 

feasible plan. NPS staff said responsibility lay with communities to work with local 

government to regulate appropriate use of private lands. NPS suggested that they be notified 

of potentially incompatible uses.17 

 The Park Service completed the Draft General Management Plan/Environmental 

Assessment in November 1982. It included seven major sections to direct management and 

development in the park for the next ten to fifteen years. “Management Zoning” described 

management categories for all land NPS intended to acquire. “Resource Management” 

described approaches to be used in natural and cultural resource management. “Visitor Use 

and General Development” dealt with visitor activities and facilities. “Park Operations” 

included location of administrative and service facilities. “Land Protection” detailed 

strategies and general guidelines for safeguarding landscapes. This section included 

acquisition policy for lands necessary to the plan. The section “Costs” assigned costs to each 

action. Finally, “Implementation Needs” addressed steps needed to make the plan a reality.18 

 In March 1983, the Park Service released the General Management Plan. It described 

management strategies and facilities to be built as indicated in the 1982 Draft GMP. It 

included a feedback section containing public comments on the draft. Copies were available 

at libraries in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers Counties, and at park headquarters in Oak Hill. 

The Park Service circulated a brochure with an overview of the plan. 

NEW RIVER HEADQUARTERS TAKES SHAPE 

 The story above, based mainly on archival files, is, however, rather lifeless. The clearest 

impressions of the early years of the New River Gorge National River come from talking to 

people who were there, from balancing their different perspectives, or at least from placing 

several testimonies side by side. The personalities of the interviewees and of the people they 

discuss necessarily color not only the history, but they also colored what happened in the 

 

14 GMP, 8. 

15 GMP, 2. 

16 GMP, 8. 

17 GMP, 10. 

18 GMP, 2-3. 
Thinking Small 

68 

park at the time.19 The first two superintendents, Jim Carrico (1980 to 1985) and Joe 

Kennedy (1986 to 1995) had distinct personalities that strongly affected the park’s history. 

 A few individuals are still available for interviews who worked for the New River 

Gorge National River in the early 1980s. Peggy Maddy, who in 2006 was still a contracting 

specialist at the park, provided some of the most detailed stories of early days in the park. She 

started work for New River in 1984, just before the second superintendent, Joe Kennedy, 

replaced Jim Carrico. Although she only worked with Carrico for about a year, she formed an 

impression of him and heard stories from the other staff of the early days. Margaret Garvin, 

administrative technician, had been with Jim Carrico from the very first and she and Peggy 

Maddy worked side by side for over five years.20

 The first “office” of New River Gorge National River opened in the basement of Jim 

Carrico’s home in 1981. The local presence of the National Park Service was very small. 

There was no land base, since the original idea was to protect the gorge mostly through local 

zoning and protective easements on private land. There were no trails, no developed 

campgrounds, no visitors centers.21 Superintendent Carrico and Margaret Garvin for the first 

few years provided local coordination for the Park Service planners who came in from the 

Regional Office, the Washington Office, or the Denver Service Center. There was no other 

staff at first. 

 By 1983, half a dozen employees worked at the Headquarters, above a Bible book store 

and a flower shop on the main street in Oak Hill. Mary Pearson, who still worked for the 

Park Service in 2004 in Oak Hill, started work in that office in October 1983, as a temporary 

clerk-typist. She recalled there being the superintendent (Jim Carrico), the assistant 

superintendent (Bob Whitman), the management assistant (Margaret Garvin), a chief ranger, 

a chief of interpretation, and herself. She remembered that “back in the olden days” there 

wasn’t a Maintenance Division and that when one was instituted, she at first didn’t 

understand the need for it. From that core, the staff of the New River Gorge National River 

grew.22

 Pearson described the reaction of local people to the park. She said that she was 

surprised when she first started in the office that some people had never heard of the New 

River Gorge National River: “After that, each year more and more people became familiar 

with who we were, what we were doing here. The ones I talked to thought, oh, it was just 

wonderful. But it was just like a little while catching on, like anything brand new.”23

 By 1985, Peggy Maddy recalled there were about twenty employees. While most of 

these worked directly under Carrico as park employees, a new Park Service unit opened in 

Oak Hill, the Land Office, discussed below. The maintenance staff consisted of Bob Schenck 

 

19 For a detailed “Time Line of the New River Gorge and the National River,” see Appendix A. 20 Peggy Maddy (Contract Specialist), interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 

Garvin retired before the 1991 move of the headquarters to Glen Jean. 21 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 22 Mary Pearson, Legal Instruments Examiner, interviewed June 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 23 Mary Pearson, Legal Instruments Examiner, interviewed June 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Thinking Small 

69 

and two workers, plus “Green Thumb” seasonal employees, on a senior citizen program. 

Schenck, a landscape architect, had been a member of the Wild and Scenic Rivers study team 

of the BOR/NPS and served as an Outdoor Recreation Planner.24 Since the Park Service 

owned little land in the 1980s, there wasn’t much to take care of: only the offices in Oak Hill 

and a visitor center in temporary buildings on West Virginia Department of Highways land at 

the north end of the New River Gorge Bridge. The Park Service took over staffing this visitor 

center from the West Virginia Department of Highways in 1983.25 In the early days, the chief 

ranger was in charge of law enforcement for the entire park, as well as the Natural Resource 

Management team, including Dave Reynolds (at New River 1982 to 1987).26 

 In any unit of the National Park System, the superintendent strongly shapes the 

character of the park during his or her time. Jim Carrico certainly did. Peggy Maddy came to 

the park from working for the U.S. Army. She said: “It just was a different kind of 

atmosphere.” Everyone was relaxed, not formal, and on a first name basis. She liked it so 

much that she gave up a permanent GS-6 job for, initially, a temporary GS-4. She moved up 

almost right away to be Carrico’s secretary. In such a small, and increasingly crowded, office, 

she rubbed shoulders with everyone and was involved in a variety of functions. Among other 

things, she typed the Land Protection Plan.27 It was at this time that the park received its first 

two IBM computers. 

 Other people remember Jim Carrico a bit differently. Destry Jarvis, who in the early 

1980s was the Legislative Director of the National Parks and Conservation Association, 

reflected that he thought Carrico had been the wrong personality to start up this particular 

new park. 

NERI had total local support, and what struck me at the time and what frustrated me at 

the time, in the NPS ... a superintendent, the chief manager of the place in the park 

system, is pretty powerful, becomes a pretty powerful player in the local community. 

They have a lot of autonomy, they have a lot of decision making, they have a lot of 

money and make things happen or not depending on their particular personality, and I 

couldn’t understand this. I certainly told them as did others that they put a 

superintendent in that was the nicest guy you’d ever want to meet. Real easy-going, real 

laid back, you know, I’m here to help, I want to get along with everybody. I’m gonna 

make things happen at the right time and we’re gonna get together and do good things 

and do them together and blah, blah, and he was very slow.28

 

24 Clifton Tobias, comment on draft of this administrative history, 2006. 25 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 26 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. Reynolds as of 2005 was 

the Deputy Associate Regional Director for Natural Resources and Science, Northeast Region. 

Memo, Deputy Associate Regional Director, Northeast Region, to Historian, Northeast Region, 

December 23, 2005. 

27 Note that the Land Protection Plan was finalized in July 1984. Remembering exact dates is one 

of the hardest parts of oral history. Possibly 1985 is the year that Peggy Maddy became a 

permanent employee of NERI and she may have worked as a temporary hire in 1984. 

28 Destry Jarvis, former Legislative Director, National Parks and Conservation Association, 

interviewed April 23, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Thinking Small 

70 

In Carrico’s defense, Jarvis may not have been aware of the constraints he operated 

under, and his memory no doubt reflects how he thought things should be done. 

Another activist involved in establishing the park, Jim Watkins, recalled that as a local he 

had his best access to Jim Carrico of all the superintendents. “Jim would sit over beers 

and talk out the issues,” Watkins said. “He was the right guy they sent here in the first 

place.”29 

 Jim Carrico moved on to become the superintendent of Big Bend National Park in 

Texas from 1986 to 1990, and as of 2006 owned the guiding company Desert Sports in 

the Big Bend area.30

 Joe Kennedy came in as superintendent, from 1986 to 1995. Peggy Maddy 

remembered: “We had some good times with Joe Kennedy.”31 When he arrived, the 

second floor office was crammed with about twenty people, and the Land Office then 

had five employees.32 Even with this modest expansion, Peggy Maddy remembered it 

was still sort of a family. “Up there [in Oak Hill] everybody worked together, whatever 

project it didn’t matter what division, it didn’t matter where the funds came from. 

Everybody jumped in and did it.”33 

 An indication of the light atmosphere was Kennedy’s sexual harassment “policy.” 

The stairs to the office were steep. According to Maddy, Kennedy said: “If anybody 

misbehaved we could push them down the stairs and he would swear they fell.” She said 

it was just an office joke, of course, but Kennedy was a laid-back person, a “good old boy 

kind of guy, but extremely sharp.” 

 In the late 1980s, Kennedy encouraged “cross-training.” Law enforcement ranger 

Cindi Braddy took headquarters personal out on patrol. They all went to a different part 

of the park every month to “see what’s there.” When New River got the Mary Ingles 

Trail, everyone took a day and hiked it. And the maintenance staff sponsored river 

rafting days. Even after 1991, when the Oak Hill office closed and the staff moved into a 

newly constructed headquarters in Glen Jean, some playfulness continued. Kennedy 

always kept his walking stick and cigar handy since he walked the trails all the time. 

Maddy indicated that he walked not only to get to know the park, but also to burn off 

frustration from the political nature of the job. So, since it was a non-smoking building, 

the workers built him a shelf just outside the door for his cigar and walking stick. In 

return, he loaded staff into a government vehicle and took them all to a local Chinese 

restaurant, on orders that “everyone has to talk business.”34

 

29 Jim Watkins, local leader in the Isaac Walton League, interviewed September 10, 2004, by Lynn 

Stasick. The roles of Jarvis and Watkins are examined more in Chapter Two. 

30 See http://www.desertsportstx.com/. 

31 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 32 Mary Pearson, interviewed June 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

33 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 34 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Thinking Small 

71 

 Kennedy’s efforts to maintain the small-park atmosphere of the days of the New 

River Gorge National River, however, indicated that in fact fundamental change had 

already begun. Once, during the transitional period, the maintenance staff built three 

rocking chairs of dramatically different size to accommodate Superintendent Kennedy, 

Assistant Superintendent Henry Law, and two other employees (Figure 2.). This mood 

soon passed. By the late 1980s the staff was too large to fit in one office, the pressure for 

more land acquisition was growing, and the on-the-ground responsibilities were 

increasing. The park was about to become a much bigger, more complicated park. 

OPENING OF THE LAND OFFICE: HINT OF A LARGER PARK? 

 Through the influence of Senator Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia-D), as head of the 

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress funded the Land Office in Oak Hill, 

West Virginia, with regional responsibilities. Steve Blackburn set up the Land Office in 

1984 and 1985, just down the street from the Bible book store.35 Mary Pearson, on the 

advice of park Assistant Superintendent Bob Whitman, applied to be Blackburn’s first 

realty clerk.36 The Land Office mixed together employees of WASO (Washington Office) 

and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office (MARO), all answering to supervisors outside of 

West Virginia.37 Nevertheless, they worked closely with the New River staffers, who 

were, after all, a lot nearer than the national and regional offices. Some of them – like 

Mary Pearson – were locals, with experience working with local government. 

 When the Land Office opened officially in Oak Hill in February 1985, this heralded 

predictably strong interactions between the Park Service and the local population 

around the complex issues of property. As Pearson recalled in her 2004 interview, it was 

an exciting time: 

That’s when I had a chance, the first time in my life, to review title policies, which I still 

do now, here. And learn about the acquisition process, the acquisition of land, of real 

estate, for the Park Service, for the New River Gorge. And of course for Gauley.... And I 

found it very, very interesting, very fascinating, and a lot of learning, and you know we 

learned something new every day. So we had a land acquisition officer in the Lands 

Office when it was established, and I was a realty clerk, and we had one realty specialist, 

who did the negotiating with the land owners, and we had one appraiser who appraised 

the land, and everything fell into place. From the beginning, I was new to all this. I had 

never worked anything related to titles, anything about title insurance, title insurance 

policy... And of course you learn every day, and you know you’re part of this, almost 

like history in the making. I grew up back here, and that was of course way, way before 

New River Gorge or the bridge and little did you know that later on in your life you 

 

35 Mary Pearson (NERI Legal Instruments Examiner), interviewed June 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 36 See Chapter Seven of this administrative history. 37 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. Later history of the Lands 

Office is treated in Chapter Seven. 
Thinking Small 

72 

would become a small part of that history, right in the making.... It just makes you feel 

like it’s all worth it. I’m just so glad that I could be part of this.38

Mary Pearson, who grew up in coal camps in the New River Gorge, typifies the part of 

the local population that embraced the new park and what it could do for the area. But of 

course, not everyone felt that way. 

 As Pearson described it, the process of property acquisition proceeded 

systematically and slowly. All purchases were and are from willing sellers: small ones of a 

quarter acre, large ones approaching 8,000 acres. Sometimes property owners 

approached the Park Service, and sometimes communication was “by word of mouth.” 

But after the process had started, she said: 

Everything has to be documented, just the way it should be. I mean, it’s not like you go 

talk to the landowner or you call him on the phone and he agrees to sell his land. Once 

you have it appraised, you let him know how much it is, what the value is. We have to do 

offers, we have to send letters. Every single step, and it’s a long drawn-out process.39

In fact, other steps intervened. Hazmat surveys and clean-ups, if needed, had to be completed. 

One Land Office employee determined if the property was inside the boundary of the 

park. Another, the land acquisition officer, conducted an appraisal, sent a “Just 

Compensation” letter, and negotiated with the land owner, if necessary. Then letters and 

memos flowed, to regional offices, Washington offices, and to the superintendent. This 

process could take months or years. The Park Service purchased large tracts of land at 

lower per acre cost in the 1980s and 1990s. Since about 2000, more recent purchases 

have included smaller, developed tracts, at a higher unit price. 

SELECTING A SITE FOR A NEW NEW RIVER HEADQUARTERS 

 Public Law 95-625, which created New River George in 1978, gave only general 

direction relating to park facilities. It stated that within three years, the park would 

develop a general management plan indicating 

types and general intensities of development ... associated with public enjoyment and 

use of the area, including general locations, timing of implementation, and anticipated 

costs...40

The 1983 General Management Plan (GMP) stated that New River Gorge headquarters 

would operate “in leased space in or near Oak Hill.”41 The plan assigned the 

 

38 Mary Pearson (NERI Legal Instruments Examiner), interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 24, 2004. 39 Mary Pearson, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 24, 2004. 40 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Section 1109 (2), Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 

3547. 

41 NPS, Draft General Management Plan Summary, 1982, 27. James Carrico, Legislative Support 

Data, May 19, 1986, MPF, Box 23, W3823. 
Thinking Small 

73 

superintendent, division chiefs, and their staff to this headquarters “to consolidate 

management functions and promote effective communication within the agency, with 

outside agencies, and with the public.”42 

 NPS established its first office, accordingly, in rented space in downtown Oak Hill. 

But between 1978 and 1986 the number of park employees grew to twenty-one. The 

rooms over a flower shop and Bible book store on Main Street became very cramped.43

In a 2004 interview, retired New River Executive Secretary Edith Bailey described the 

condition of the offices when she arrived in 1987: 

I would say everything was still in a primitive state. There really hadn’t been a lot of 

improvements to the building...It was very cold in there in the winter time and very hot 

in the summer time. We had all of our employees that were just sitting very close to each 

other, and we had four maintenance employees—four or five maintenance employees.44 

In response to these conditions, New River conducted a survey to select a permanent 

headquarters site. After careful consideration, the Park Service determined Oak Hill 

offered no adequate property for a permanent facility.45 In February 1986 the Park 

Service planning team recommended locating park headquarters four miles south of Oak 

Hill in Glen Jean.46 NPS’s Division of Legislation—responsible for land acquisition—

requested supporting data gathered during the survey. In May, Superintendent James W. 

Carrico sent the document to the division. It described and defended the proposed 

selection of Glen Jean as the likely new headquarters site, reviewed positions of state and 

local governments toward the proposal, the position of landowners who might be 

affected, and summarized special problems.47 

 The proposal authorized a ten-acre site on a former ball field within the town, 

across the street from the Bank of Glen Jean, as the permanent headquarters for New 

River, despite a finding of potential flooding of Dunloup Creek identified in a 1971 

USDA report. The justification for the site selection included a list of twelve favorable 

items. Access was a concern, and the data indicated that Glen Jean provided safe and 

convenient entry and exit from S.R. 16/19. Signage to the site from the highway would 

also be easy. The location provided adequate land to accommodate staff and visitor 

parking and park vehicles. It also provided enough room for the maintenance facility to 

have separate access for low visibility and adequate land to accommodate office staff, 

training and conference space, and a visitor reception area.48 Moreover, the Bank of 

 

42 GMP, 27. 

43 Edith Bailey, retired NERI Executive Secretary, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004; 

Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 44 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

45 Draft Hearing Statement: Glen Jean, June 3, 1986, MPF, Box 23, W3823. 

46 “River Boss Wants to Scrap Glen Jean Site,” Fayette Tribune, August 20, 1987. 47 Legislative Support Data, May 19, 1986, MPF, Box 23, W3823. 

48 Legislative Support Data, May 19, 1986, MPF, Box 23, W3823. 
Thinking Small 

74 

Glen Jean had been placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983 and 

archeological compliance work was underway by Louis Berger and Associates as late as 

1987.49

 The report said the proposed site allowed minimal visual impact of the 

headquarters and the setting was as natural as possible, consistent with security. The 

proposed site was convenient to municipal water and sewer service. The report stated, 

lastly, that both state and local government officials supported the proposal as did the 

majority of the residents in Glen Jean.50 

 In February 1987, Joe Kennedy replaced James Carrico as superintendent. (Robert 

L. Whitman was acting superintendent from mid-September 1986 through January 1987 

(between Carrico and Kennedy.) Within a few months of his arrival, Kennedy became 

very frustrated with the conditions in the Oak Hill office, the slow pace of the siteselection process, and the possible choice of Glen Jean as the headquarters site. Despite 

the legislative data report, some residents in Glen Jean opposed the Park Service plan 

and some had refused to sell their property, causing delays. Edith Bailey remembered 

Kennedy’s dismay with the situation: 

I think at that time, when he [Kennedy] first came here, headquarters was the main 

issue. It had been in the planning stage for quite a while and we were so cramped up in 

those offices, and he really wanted it to take place, and one of the things that did take 

place was he wanted to have the site moved from Glen Jean to Burnwood [a 

campground near Lansing and Canyon Rim]. He had worked with the regional office 

and that was what he wanted to do.51 

The legislative data report indicated that there did “not appear to be any problems 

related to the [Glen Jean] site.”52 Superintendent Kennedy felt differently. Glen Jean sits 

at the convergence of Dunloup and White Oak Creeks. During high water, this is a flood 

plain. Kennedy felt that the Burnwood Campground, located on higher ground, was a 

better location.53

 In a memorandum to the Regional Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region, Kennedy 

revealed his feelings: 

We recommend that the headquarters site be relocated to the former Burnwood 

campground site. This requires considerable re-studying and reappraisal of our 

situation by New River Gorge National River, Mid-Atlantic Region, and the Denver 

Service Center.54 

He listed the following reasons: 

 

49 Written communication, NERI Cultural Resource Specialist David N. Fuerst, 2006. 50 Written communication, NERI Cultural Resource Specialist David N. Fuerst, 2006. 51 Edith Bailey, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004. 

52 Legislative Support Data, May 19,1986, MPF, Box 23 W3823. 

53 “River Boss Wants to Scrap Glen Jean site,” Fayette Tribune, August 20, 1987. 54 Memo, Superintendent Joe Kennedy to the Regional Director, September 16, 1987, MPF, Box 

18, 4780. 
Thinking Small 

75 

We don’t own all the property in Glen Jean. One owner ([Tract] 173-07) says she’ll 

never sell to the government. Tract 173-06 is appraised at $13,000 and he [another 

owner] is asking $35,000...the local population sees us as an “Urban Renewal” agency. 

Should we be? Is that good or bad...we’re squeezed in at Glen Jean on a peninsula with 

flowing creeks on three sides. These flood regularly and the local population expects us 

to control these floods. This would be a long-term cost to the government which we 

wouldn’t need to consider at Burnwood.... Glen Jean flooded last spring and will 

continue to flood on a regular basis. The lawns and parking lots would be unusable for 

days at a time. We’d have to wade through mud and water to get to our (raised) offices. 

Foundations at Glen Jean are costly; [the] Denver Service Center can provide figures for 

raising the foundation for the headquarters building. The soils are homogeneous silt. 

This is not the best soil for building footings...the whole idea of constructing a 

$4,210,000 government facility in a flood plain seems unrealistic.55 

 In November 1986 Thomas O. Purkey, a hydraulic engineer, wrote the NPS 

Denver Service Center confirming Kennedy’s concerns. Purkey, hired by the park to 

conduct a preliminary site study, stated that hydrologic and hydraulic data used in an 

analysis of Dunloup Creek watershed demonstrated that the proposed headquarters 

would be flooded about every 4 years. He suggested that while dredging on Dunloup 

may have decreased the danger of smaller floods, this hardly affected larger floods. He 

closed the letter with this admonition: 

Be advised that filling in the flood plain to raise the complex has the potential to 

increase flood levels. A thorough hydraulic study would be necessary to determine this 

potential.56 

Despite this cautionary report, park Chief of Maintenance Bob Schenck certified that the 

site was not in a flood plain.57

 Superintendent Kennedy saw other problems with Glen Jean. He felt traffic 

patterns created would be “horrendous” there: 

Instead of our move to Glen Jean alleviating the problem, we would be exacerbating it. 

In the future we will be encouraging more people to come to Thurmond, and driving 

through a bottleneck at Glen Jean. This becomes evident when you look at the plan for 

the area.58 

Kennedy also offered his reasons for supporting the Burnwood Campground site as his 

choice: 

We have an ideal headquarters site at the former Burnwood Campground...we own 

over forty acres in fee simple, [the] site has low archeological potential, [and] drainage 

and soil at Burnwood are excellent for building purposes...[there is] easy entrance and 

exit to U.S. 19, entrance and exit from [the] same highway at Glen Jean is 

dangerous...[there is] plenty of room for expansion if we manage the Gauley, Meadow, 

 

55 Memo, Kennedy to the Regional Director, 1. 

56 Letter, Thomas O. Purkey to Kenneth Raithel, Jr., November 13, 1986, MPF, D18, 4780. 

57 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

58 Memo, Kennedy to Regional Director, 2. 
Thinking Small 

76 

and Bluestone Rivers...[and] we also may, in the future manage other state parks and, if 

so, would need additional administrative space.59 

Kennedy explained his position in an August 21, 1987 interview to Beckley RegisterHerald staff writer John Blankenship: 

I need a headquarters. We didn’t have one when I got here and we still don’t have it. I’m 

making the proposal to my superior in Philadelphia in support of the move [to 

Burnwood]. I don’t have all the plusses and minuses, and I have to consider both sites 

and the economics of the situation...the plans are completed for the Glen Jean site 

headquarters, and I would propose that the buildings be moved to Burnwood without 

changing their design...I wouldn’t want them re-designed. I won’t waste any of the 

planning that’s gone into the project.60 

The Register-Herald article sparked public comment almost immediately and spawned a 

letter writing campaign in Glen Jean. Residents expressed their disapproval of Kennedy’s 

actions to local, state, and federal officials.61 In a letter to the editor of the Fayette 

Tribune, Glen Jean 

Who is Joe Kennedy? The people of Glen Jean have never heard of him. Who does he 

resident “Patriotic” Pug Warden asked: know in Burnwood? We have never heard of 

it...to the people of Glen Jean, please do not stand still and let this one man make a 

decision to move the National Park Service headquarters to Burnwood.62

But along with his plea, Warden’s letter inadvertently supported Kennedy’s fear that 

Glen Jean residents viewed the Park Service as an urban renewal, flood-control program. 

Warden’s letter continued: 

There has already been much money spent to get it [the headquarters] underway. The 

town has been flooded several times because of failure to acquire small sections of 

property...there has been extensive surveying and the creek has been poorly dredged. 

We will be continually flooded if we do not agree to let them acquire property they need 

at a reasonable price. Think of the future of the children here. Ask the county court for 

the original plans to reroute the creek below my home and the Wills home, and [think] 

of the many hours the engineers spent making maps and bridges to reroute the creek.63 

Warden’s misunderstanding of the effect of dredging on flood abatement remains 

common. 

 The Beckley Register-Herald ran an article on September 2, 1987 entitled “Glen 

Jean Likely Site.” In the article, James Coleman, NPS Regional Director in Philadelphia, 

responded to Kennedy’s comments. Coleman stated that despite some agency problems 

 

59 Memo, Kennedy to the Regional Director, 1-2. 

60 “River Park Head Proposes Moving Headquarters Site,” Register-Herald, August 21, 1987. 61 “Glen Jean Headquarters Confirmed,” Fayette Tribune, September 24, 1987. 62 Pug Warden, “Glen Jean, Let’s Not Let One Man Take the Headquarters Away,” Fayette 

Tribune, August 27, 1987. 63 Pug Warden, “Glen Jean, Let’s Not Let One Man Take the Headquarters Away.” 
Thinking Small 

77 

in the final land acquisition process, “Glen Jean will probably be the site of the Gorge’s 

headquarters.”64 

 Coleman’s announcement created even greater public reaction in Fayette County. 

In a letter to the editor of the Fayette Tribune, Hico resident June Zimmerman supported 

Kennedy: 

I think the Regional Director Jim Coleman should take the advice of his area National 

Park Service supervisor [sic, superintendent], Joe Kennedy, in the placement of the 

national park headquarters. Since the park already owns over 40 acres at the Burnwood 

Campgrounds, why spend the taxpayer’s money so foolishly...why not have the 

headquarters at the site of the New River Gorge Bridge, along with the information 

center, and the overlook, not to mention the New River itself?65 

Others agreed. Along with Zimmerman’s letter, the editor published Lansing resident 

Jim Kristy’s assessment of the situation: 

[I have] polled several people in the Oak Hill-Fayetteville-Ansted-Montgomery area, 

plus numerous out-of-state visitors, and they were all unanimous about having the new 

headquarters building located at Burnwood Campgrounds, “The Gateway to the New 

River Gorge.” It seems to me that up ‘till now, that no one has had the backbone to 

recommend the proper place for the headquarters building. Go for it Joe Kennedy! Go 

for it Smokin’ Joe! You have the backing of the majority of the people of Fayette County 

and the country behind you.66 

 Kristy’s interpretation of the unofficial poll may have indicated that most Fayette 

County residents were behind Kennedy’s efforts, but two major players were not. 

Senators Robert Byrd and John Rockefeller had both come out soundly for Glen Jean 

early in the selection process. As early as 1986, they introduced legislation to secure land 

there for park headquarters. On October 3, 1986 the senators introduced an amendment 

to Congress. Byrd said: 

While Glen Jean is ideally located near the midpoint of the National River and is just off 

a major highway that parallels the river, the selected site is outside the park boundaries 

authorized by Public Law 95-625. The amendment which we are sponsoring would 

permit the Park Service to construct this necessary facility in their preferred location.67 

Senator Byrd had actively supported previous appropriations: $250,000 for preliminary 

headquarters building designs and $300,000 for site acquisition. He ultimately offered a 

successful amendment to the Senate FY87 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 

 

64 “Glen Jean Likely Site,” Beckley Register /Herald, September 2, 1987. 65 “Kennedy Should Recommend Burnwood as Headquarters,” The Fayette Tribune, September 

10, 1987. 

66 “Kennedy Should Recommend Burnwood as Headquarters.” 

67 Congressional Record, October 3, 1986, 28466. 
Thinking Small 

78 

bill in late 1986 for $2,600,000 for constructing the headquarters and maintenance 

facilities.68 

 But why were Senators Rockefeller and Byrd so interested in having the 

headquarters located in Glen Jean? Edith Bailey offered an explanation: 

There were some folks in Glen Jean that had spoken with him [Senator Byrd] and been 

to his office. As I recall, they had really been putting pressure on him. They really 

wanted it [the headquarters] here in Glen Jean. ‘Cause they lived in this area, worked in 

this area, and they said it would be a big boon for them. 69 

Peggy Maddy recalled too that Glen Jean residents “lobbied hard and heavy with the 

Congressional people...”.70 According to Bailey, Kennedy continued to protest until 

Senator Byrd finally said: “[I] don’t want to hear anymore about it, it will be in Glen 

Jean.”71 According to Maddy, Regional Director Jim Coleman “pointedly said and not 

very politely to Joe Kennedy to shut up. It will be here.”72

 In a press release issued on September 22, 1987, the Park Service announced its 

decision: “After evaluating the pros and cons of Kennedy’s Burnwood site proposal, the 

decision was made to remain in Glen Jean.” NPS decided to act even though three 

properties in Glen Jean were not acquired. The most difficult acquisition involved 0.15 

acres owned by a former resident who wanted to dedicate the property as a memorial to 

her late mother. Park Service land acquisition officer John Reed said construction would 

probably begin despite the continuing problems.73 

 When he received the decision, Superintendent Kennedy released the information 

immediately to eliminate any on-going debate, and indicated he was anxious to see the 

project underway.74 The residents of Glen Jean responsible for the letter writing 

campaign were ecstatic. George Bragg wrote: 

Just a few lines to publicly congratulate the National Park Service for its confirmation of 

the Glen Jean site as home for its new headquarters. Truly, this decision will best serve 

the interests of the public for many years to come...I want to thank...every one of the 

approximately 500 people who signed petition-styled letters to the various Senators and 

Congressmen involved...now let’s get to work and get Joe Kennedy (who by the way, 

really is a nice fellow) into his new office buildings.75 

 

68 NERI News Release, “National Park Service Headquarters Site Plan Approved,” September 9, 

1986. 

69 Edith Bailey, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004. In fact, the boon never materialized. 

70 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

71 Edith Bailey, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004. 

72 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

73 “Glen Jean Headquarters Confirmed,” Fayette Tribune, September 24, 1987. 74 “Glen Jean Headquarters Confirmed.” 

75 “Congratulations to National Park Service on Glen Jean Site,” Fayette Tribune, September 28, 

1987. 
Thinking Small 

79 

 In January 1988 Kennedy announced that funding for the new headquarters was 

available and construction would begin soon. Even though NPS hadn’t yet acquired 

three properties, he said he would direct the architectural and engineering firm to revise 

its construction specifications to begin work. NPS would let bids in February and begin 

construction in July.76 According to Peggy Maddy, the first action was a $100,000 change 

order to raise the facility to offer some protection from flooding.77

 Construction began on schedule. On August 27 NPS held a groundbreaking 

ceremony. Senator Robert Byrd, Representative Nick Joe Rahall, and Alec Gould, 

Assistant Regional Director of the National Park Service, were present. Byrd celebrated 

the God-given beauty of the area and its potential as a tourist attraction. Rahall echoed 

the theme saying, “We can make West Virginia a tourism Mecca...the park would be the 

crown jewel, the springboard for tourism in West Virginia.”78 

 In late September 1989, Joe Kennedy announced that except for some minor 

problems, New River Gorge headquarters at Glen Jean was nearly finished with the 

probable date for completion and occupancy set for early November.79 On December 10, 

1989, NPS formally dedicated the headquarters at Glen Jean. The Fayette Tribune

reported that the headquarters seemed to “make visitors feel immediately welcome while 

issuing a call to return,” and said: 

This complex itself seems to have begun a revitalization of Glen Jean...for those who 

were here from the start, development of the New River Gorge National River may 

seem a long, slow, ride...It will be many more years before the park begins to approach 

its potential as an economic catalyst...[but] once inside that sparkling headquarters [it] 

gives us more and more reason to believe that an economic upturn can indeed be 

accomplished on the wings of New River Gorge National River.80 

 Public and political pressure combined to establish New River Gorge headquarters 

in Glen Jean over Kennedy’s objections. But a few years later, his fears about building the 

facility in a flood plain came true. Twice in July 2001 the complex flooded. In one 

instance the water entered the adjacent Bank of Glen Jean building, with NPS offices. 

According to Park Service GIS specialist Andrew Steel, high water cut off part of the 

property, prompting the use of military vehicles to transport people from flooded areas 

to safety. And although less severe, the complex flooded again in 2003.81 

 After the move of the Headquarters to Glen Jean, the close collaboration within 

the office and active exploration of the park by the staff began to fade. According to 

Peggy Maddy: “There’s not the camaraderie there used to be. We all knew this would 

 

76 “Park Letting Bids,” Fayette Tribune, January 4, 1987. 77 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

78 “NPS Breaks Ground for Glen Jean Headquarters,” Fayette Tribune, August 29, 1988. 79 “Park Service Headquarters at Glen Jean Nearly Finished,” Register-Herald, September, 29, 

1989. 

80 “NPS Headquarters Displays Intentions,” Fayette Tribune, December 14, 1989. 

81 Andrew Steel, NERI GIS specialist, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, August 9, 2005. 
Thinking Small 

80 

happen, and it did.”82 With the move to Glen Jean, specialization now had room to take 

hold and indeed it had to. It happened gradually, of course. Within a year of moving to 

Glen Jean, another wing was designed and was soon built to house another group of Park 

Service employees who worked for the Denver Service Center. The DSC employees took 

on the detailed planning of Development Concept Plans for many projects in the park. 

Moreover, the Ne w River park staff also began scoping (with help from other DSC staff) 

for General Management Plans for the two new units, the Gauley River National 

Recreational Area and the Bluestone River National Scenic Area. The flurry of activity 

was taking off. The increase in administration activity, however, is a topic for Chapter 4. 

NEW RIVER LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS 

 When the New River Gorge National River was authorized in 1978, the intent was 

that the Park Service would own only a small percentage of the acreage within its 

boundaries and that easements and zoning of private land would suffice to protect the 

scenic values of the gorge. As the park took shape in the early 1980s, this approach was 

reinforced by the general attitude prevailing under Secretary of the Interior James Watt 

that the federal presence and ownership in the national parks needed to be minimal at 

most. New River’s General Management Plan, finalized in 1983, called for the Park 

Service to own no more than a few thousand acres. New River owned a few hundred at 

the time.83 

 Nevertheless, the 1978 law authorizing the park – Section 1102 (a) of Public Law 

95-625 – spelled out how New River could acquire private land. 

Within the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River, the Secretary [of the 

Interior] may acquire lands and water or interests therein by donation, purchase with 

donated or appropriated funds, transfer, or exchange.... The authority of the Secretary 

to condemn in fee, improved properties as defined in subsection (c) of this section shall 

not be invoked as long as the owner of such improved property holds and uses it in a 

manner compatible with the purposes of this title. The Secretary may acquire any such 

improved property without the consent of the owner whenever he finds that such 

property has undergone, since January 1, 1978, or is imminently about to undergo 

changes in land use which are incompatible with the purposes of the national river.84 

Section 1102 (b) authorized the Secretary to work with organizations or individuals to 

‘mark or interpret properties of significance to the history of the gorge area.” Section 

1102 (c) defined the term “improved property” and outlined rights of use and 

 

82 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 83 In addition to the GMP, see: Lorrie Sprague, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 18, 

2006. 

84 Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978, 85. 
Thinking Small 

81 

occupancy, term, and fair market value.85 Section (d) defined the right of use and 

occupancy, fair market value, and rights regarding termination notification. Taken 

together, these four detailed clauses defined terms for private ownership within the park 

and for relations between the park and landowners. They did not, however, dictate 

detailed policy toward land protection. That required elaboration. 

 The law authorizing the park required a Land Protection Plan for this purpose. The 

Park Service released the Draft Land Protection Plan: New River Gorge National River

(LPP) in January 1984.86 NPS mailed approximately 1,000 copies to landowners, federal, 

state, and local officials, conservation organizations, river user groups, and the media. A 

sixty-day public comment period lasted until April 9, 1984. NPS held six public meetings 

around the gorge and three all-day open house events in Hinton. Roughly 260 people 

participated in these events. Many individuals also visited the headquarters to discuss the 

plan and view maps.87 

 Release of the draft drew a response from Beckley Newspapers Incorporated, in 

which staff writer Phil Kabler predicted that the people in the area would reject the plan. 

He wrote: 

A proposed New River Gorge National River protection plan won’t please owners 

unhappy with land-use restrictions imposed by the Park Service; the plan is virtually 

identical to the controversial general management plan. That plan outlines restrictions 

for use of more than 56,000 acres of privately owned property within the national park 

boundaries. Some outspoken landowners and managers complain the rules take away 

the right to use and develop land without compensating for the loss. 88 

Kabler said that the first priority of both plans was to purchase riverside property and 

other land with significant natural and cultural resources, such as Sandstone Falls State 

Park.89 When the draft was released, the park owned only 540 acres of 62,023 acres (less 

than 1%) within park boundaries.90 By 2006 the park owned 52,192 acres of 72,189 

(72%) within its boundaries.91 Kabler said the plans both called for restricting land use 

through easements and zoning, which he said “is just the stuff that upsets owners and 

managers.”92 

 Most vocal of the land plan opponents was Dan P. James, manager of American 

King Coal, who complained, “They’re taking away our right to use the land and develop 

 

85 Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978, 85. 

86 Clif Bobinski, Planning Documents Report: New River Gorge National River, 2004, 7. 

87 Memo, Superintendent James W. Carrico regarding the final Land Protection Plan, July 1984, 

MPF, Miscellaneous Files. 

88 Phil Kabler, “Land Protection Plans Similar,” Beckley Newspapers Inc., June 13, 1983. 

89 Kabler, “Land Protection Plans Similar.” See Chapter Six. Note that West Virginia state law did 

not permit the state to sell Sandstone Falls State Park to the National Park Service. 

90 “New River Protection Plan Proposed,” The Charleston Gazette, February 10, 1984. 91 Written comments, David N. Fuerst, 2006. 

92 “Land Protection,” Beckley News, June 13, 1983. 
Thinking Small 

82 

it. If you take away that right, you must pay for it. If you can’t afford it, you can’t take it 

through some other means.”93 

 Park Superintendent Carrico responded: 

The land protection draft plan offers no magical solutions...similarities to the 

management plan aren’t surprising, since the report was prepared shortly after the 

other...we had the advantage of preparing the general management plan knowing 

pretty much the philosophy of the land protection plan.94 

It is perhaps ironic that provisions meant to de-emphasize federal ownership resulted in 

property rights complaints. 

 Despite the complaints of James and others, the Park Service approved the Land 

Protection Plan (LPP) with just a few modifications and released it in July 1984.95 The 

Park Service stated it “had made every effort to make the plan simple and concise, to 

provide for public participation, and to evaluate thoroughly the alternatives available for 

land protection requirements.”96 

 The section “Planned Resource Protection and Visitor Use” outlined the general 

objectives of the LPP, including preserving and protecting the park as a scenic, freeflowing stream and interpreting its significance as a migration and transportation route 

through the Appalachians for plants, animals, and people. It emphasized natural 

processes and native species. It stressed preserving cultural resources as required by 

federal laws. Finally, it allowed people to enjoy the resources of the park.97 

 The Park Service classified federal lands within the park. The GMP described three 

zones. The Natural Zone was to remain mostly undeveloped, managed to conserve 

natural and scenic resources. It allowed visitor uses with no adverse impacts. The 

Historic Zone included known cultural resources warranting protection. The 

Development Zone included developed land and land to be developed with Park Service 

facilities.98 Although much land within park boundaries remained privately owned, not 

subject to NPS zoning, the Park Service hoped to encourage private uses compatible with 

activities on adjacent federal lands.99 

 NPS planned to employ seven methods for resource protection in the gorge. The 

effectiveness of individual land protection methods would depend on such factors as 

relative cost, state and local government support, landowner commitment to resource 

 

93 “Land Protection.” 

94 “Land Protection.” 

95 Memo, Carrico, July 1984, MPF, Miscellaneous Files. 

96 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan: New River Gorge National River, July, 1984, 1. 97 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 9. 

98 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 10. 

99 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 10. 
Thinking Small 

83 

protection, severity of threats to resources, and the Park Service’s ability to protect 

resources and manage visitor use through existing regulations.100 

 The first protection alternative used existing state, local, and federal authorities to 

protect National River resources. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, the exercise of non-federal oil and gas rights where access through lands or waters 

was controlled by the United States, the Clean Water Act, and the Economic Recovery 

Tax Act of 1981 provided the best legal means of control.101 

 The Park Service defined zoning, the second alternative, as the division of a 

municipality or county into districts for regulating use of land. Local governments, NPS 

thought, would use zoning to guide development and protect interests of property 

owners from harm due to use of adjacent lands. Zoning would regulate the size and 

location of buildings, size of lots, and location, size, and type of signs and billboards. It 

would separate or encourage residential, commercial, and industrial uses, preserve the 

integrity of historic districts, and encourage agriculture, forestry, and open space.102 The 

Park Service did not anticipate that local interests, including municipalities, would 

promote development rather than protect existing land and resources. Local zoning 

boards have ironically supported development near many national parks that have 

become successful commodities—places people want to live near. 

 When NPS released the LPP in 1984, only Fayette County had zoning ordinances 

covering the area within park boundaries. A Land Conservation District protected most 

of that area, restricting land use to agricultural, parks and recreation, governmental or 

public utility structures, and single family residential with a 3-acre minimum lot size. The 

Park Service hoped the other two counties affected—portions of Raleigh and Summers—

would also enact ordinances.103 (After 2004, it became clear that zoning in Fayette 

County could not protect the New River Gorge from rim to rim. The county’s Board of 

Zoning Appeals has granted variances to developers whose plans project homes that 

would be visible within the gorge. See below.) 

 The third protection alternative involved negotiating cooperative agreements 

between NPS and others to protect non-federal lands. The Park Service planned to offer 

assistance for preserving historic sites and for allowing public access. NPS also planned 

to offer interpretation on private sites. The major advantages to cooperative agreements 

were the protection and public access to cultural resources without the cost of federal 

acquisition. However, the major disadvantage was that either party could terminate 

agreements relatively easily.104 

 

100 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 17. 

101 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 18. 

102 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 19. 

103 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 19. 

104 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 21. 
Thinking Small 

84 

 The fourth method of protection—leasing—provided possibilities to protect 

resources for longer periods of time or as interim techniques, pending acquisition of the 

property. NPS felt that leasing significantly protected resources and use of facilities less 

expensively than acquisition, while land remained in private ownership and on local tax 

rolls. A disadvantage was that leases were not automatically renewable. They did not 

provide endless protection.105 This method was never implemented. 

 Easements constituted a fifth alternative. An easement legally binds present and 

future property owners. NPS can obtain easements either through purchase or donation, 

but the property under easement remains in private hands and on the tax rolls. 

Easements place restrictions on development and use, but they assure concord between 

private uses and public uses consistent with park goals. The Park Service planned to 

employ easements to protect scenic resources, prevent incompatible land uses, and 

assure public access. Federal acquisition of easements can restrict extraction of 

resources; acquire rights-of-way for trail construction and maintenance and public 

access across private property; and encourage continued farming through acquisition of 

development rights.106 

 A protection alternative that had limited application in New River was the use of 

purchase-sellback agreements. In this, NPS purchases land, places certain property 

restrictions on the deed for resource protection, and sells or leases back the land to a 

private party, subject to the restrictions imposed.107 

 In certain situations, the Park Service could use the sixth alternative, surface 

acquisition, to protect land more cost-effectively. When a landowner might lose 

significant surface property rights through concentrated public use or the protection of 

scenic resources, both parties might prefer surface acquisition with private retention of 

mineral rights. Future surface disturbance caused by exercise of outstanding mineral 

rights, however, could adversely affect land protection.108 

 The Park Service felt that the final alternative—fee-simple acquisition—would 

generally be the most effective method for protecting resources. Fee-simple title 

transfers all rights of ownership in the land and, therefore, provides the greatest 

possibilities to protect resources, provide visitor uses, and develop facilities. Both feesimple and surface acquisition are possible through purchase, donation, or bargain sale. 

NPS can use the fee-simple alternative: when property is required to develop park 

facilities, when resources are adversely affected by unregulated public use, when NPS 

management plans would produce heavy public use, when a natural condition requires 

preservation, and when significant cultural sites require stabilization and interpretation. 

 

105 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 22. 

106 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 22.

107 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 23. 

108 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 24. 
Thinking Small 

85 

NPS might use fee-simple acquisition when exercise of privately owned mineral rights 

would produce unacceptable impacts to natural, scenic, or cultural resources, or when 

NPS could not adequately protect resources by any other method.109 

 Although the 1978 authorization legislation permitted the National Park Service to 

use condemnation or eminent domain under some circumstances, the LPP did not 

elaborate on this alternative. In fact, park staff members believed for many years that 

condemnation was prohibited. Peggy Maddy, who worked for the park from 1985, 

reflected in 2006: “And I’ve always been told that we did not have eminent domain and 

now I have found out in the last couple years we did, but we chose not to exercise it at 

all.”110 

Mary Pearson, in her 2004 interview, commented: 

Oh, the land acquisition policies,... I still get calls about that.... The main thing ... is 

their ... not knowing or not realizing or not working with the Lands Office or the Park 

Service, these people will write up, oh, they’re going to take my land. We don’t do that. 

We do not condemn land back here, as far as that goes, because Senator Byrd ... we 

have never condemned land. You know, you’ve heard of condemnation of land in other 

places. But we do not have, I guess you could say, we do not have that authority.111

Superintendent Cal Hite (in 2004) and Public Information Officer Lorrie Sprague (2006) 

clarified this matter by pointing out respectively that that with fifty or sixty willing sellers 

at any given time there was no need to condemn land112 and, secondly, that 

It’s only politically prohibited. We have the legal authority to condemn land. It’s even 

specified in the 78 legislation for New River, there are very specific conditions under 

which the secretary of the interior, i.e., the Park Service, could condemn land if uses 

were proposed that were incompatible with the uses for which the area was established, 

but that authority was never exercised. It was always understood that Senator Byrd had 

made that very clear that the Park Service would not do any condemnation.113

The Park Service listed a general order of protection priorities in the LPP to govern 

land acquisition, based on legislative mandates, significance of resources, existing levels 

of protection, current and anticipated levels of visitor use, topography, access, and NPS 

proposals for facility development. Property proposed for river access, visitor use, 

property needed for development of facilities, or properties containing outstanding 

cultural or natural resources headed the list. Others included in order of priority: other 

significant cultural resources, other lands comprising the river’s natural corridor, state-

 

109 National Park Service, Land Protection Plan, 25. 

110 Peggy Maddy, interview by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2007. 111 Mary Pearson, interview by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004. 112 Cal Hite, former NERI Superintendent, interview by Lynn Stasick, June 21, 2004. 113 Lorrie Sprague, park Public Information Officer, interview by Gregory A. Good, November 18, 

2007. 
Thinking Small 

86 

owned properties outside Babcock and Grandview State Parks, and properties within 

established communities.114

 To expedite land acquisition, the park moved quickly to set up a Lands Office. 

Mary Pearson, legal instruments examiner, recalled in 2004: 

I got to go up to Philadelphia to our main Lands Office. This was in 83, still in 

83...and so then the Lands Office was officially established in 84, and we 

actually started operations in the beginning, about February 85, and that was 

down the street here [Oak Hill] past where the headquarters was. So I was the 

first one to apply for a job here and I got the job as a realty clerk.115

Pearson said the office also employed a land acquisition officer, a realty specialist, and an 

appraiser. The process for any parcel required a long time for research, appraisal, 

negotiation, and documentation. As she described it: 

The process of land acquisition is a very long and involved process, from beginning to 

end. Everything has to be documented, just the way it should be. I mean, it’s not like you 

go talk to the landowner or you call him on the phone and he agrees to sell his land. 

Once you have it appraised, you let him know how much it is, what the value is. We have 

to do offers, we have to send letters. Every single step, and it’s a long drawn-out process. 

Whereas, when you have your file, you can look there and see when a negotiation 

started with a land owner, when we sent them an offer, which is actually a contract 

between them and the government. And everything has to be so so. And I just found it 

very fascinating...didn’t have a chance to get bored or anything and it’s still the same 

now.116

 By summer 1988, four years after NPS implemented the LPP, New River admitted 

the plan to rely on easements and zoning was not working. NPS had early suspected 

problems might arise. The LPP was too optimistic about the willingness of local 

government to enact zoning. In discussing the easement alternative, the 1984 LPP

anticipated, also, that private owners would be willing give up flexibility of land use 

through federal acquisition of easements.117 

 Superintendent Kennedy described the four-year results of the LPP in a July 19, 

1988 letter to the Regional Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region: 

When the Land Acquisition (sic) Plan for New River Gorge National River was approved 

in 1984, it was based on the expectation that less-than-fee techniques would 

satisfactorily protect the majority of the resources of the New River, particularly the 

scenic and largely unprotected Gorge walls. The Land Protection Plan proposed only 

small amounts of acquisition, with the remaining view shed to be protected through 

zoning and restrictive easements. Our experience has shown us that this is just not 

happening. We have found very few property owners willing to retain a partial interest 

 

114 NPS, Land Protection Plan: New River Gorge National River, July, 1984, 27. 115 Mary Pearson (NERI Legal Instruments Examiner), interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 24, 

2004. 

116 Mary Pearson (NERI Legal Instruments Examiner), interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 24, 

2004. 

117 Land Protection Plan, 23. 
Thinking Small 

87 

in their properties, once they have been informed by the National Park Service that 

home-building, coal mining, or timbering will not be allowed. Additionally, the hope 

that other counties would follow the lead of Fayette County and adopt zoning 

regulations has not been realized. As a result, we are undertaking the preparation of a 

new land protection plan that will rely more heavily on other land protection measures, 

including fee acquisition.118 

 Previous NPS policies mandated that any transaction that did not conform exactly 

to the listing identified in Appendix 3 of the LPP required signed approval of the 

Regional Director. However, some land transactions that were technically deviations 

from the LPP listing actually followed its text and direction. For example, unforeseen 

circumstances might cause the substitution of a river access to another location. Since 

the park was developing the same kinds of facilities, only in a different location, Kennedy 

and others felt that this should not be considered a deviation.119 

 While Jim Carrico was park superintendent, with his staff of only twenty, the 

incentive not to acquire land was strong. Peggy Maddy recalled that Superintendent 

Carrico had been approached by the State of West Virginia, asking the park to take over 

Camp Washington-Carver and possibly several state parks around the gorge. Camp 

Washington-Carver had served a historic role for African-American youth, having been 

established in 1942 as the “West Virginia Negro 4-H Camp.” Its name was later changed 

to honor Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver. Maddy recalled in 

2006 that Superintendent Carrico turned down the offer, saying: “No way, we have not 

the staff to take care of it. We cannot take on anything right now.”120 Increases in staff 

numbers in the late 1980s made other expansions feasible. 

 Lorrie Sprague (park Public Information Officer in 2006), started working for Joe 

Kennedy as a management assistant in 1990. She remembered Kennedy’s impression of 

the original acquisition policy and its ineffectiveness in an interview in 2006. 

They were proposing that what we needed to do to protect resources could be done via 

agreements with land owners and local officials, i.e., zoning regulations. Well that 

turned out to be a bad idea, because that was not something that anybody was 

interested in, in any of the three counties. In fact, Joe Kennedy told me and others on 

more than one occasion of his attempts to follow that mandate in the legislation and go 

to the county offices, and say, ‘We were directed by federal law to work with you to 

make sure that your zoning will protect areas adjacent to our boundary. Can we sit and 

talk?’ They literally threw him out of a meeting in Raleigh County. His words were, ‘I 

got the message. I didn’t go back.’121

 

118 Memorandum, Superintendent Joe Kennedy to the Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, 

July 19, 1988, MPF, Box 15, L1425. 

119 Memo, Kennedy to Regional Director, MARO, July 19, 1984. 120 See: http://www.marshall.edu/library/speccoll/virtual_museum/cwc/default.asp. Peggy 

Maddy, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 121 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Thinking Small 

88 

 In 1988 Congress showed intense interest in moving forward with acquiring land 

for New River. Because of shortcomings in the 1984 LPP, the Park Service issued 

amendments to use while developing a new land protection plan. To rectify the 

shortcomings of the deviation rule, NPS decided not to consider acquisition of full feesimple title a deviation from easement or zoning if a property owner would not sell a 

partial interest, or if the sale of partial property interests would create an uneconomic 

parcel remnant. Similarly, if the landowner demonstrated that continued private 

ownership of the parcel constituted a hardship, NPS would consider fee acquisition 

appropriate.122 Fee simple and fee acquisition essentially mean that the NPS directly 

purchased the property and all rights, i.e., a right in law to unconstrained use of land. 

 Another change stipulated that when the park required a property for river access 

or other public use as specified in planning documents such as the GMP, it would not be 

a deviation to acquire it by fee-simple methods. This change also applied to properties 

affecting scenery and parcels bordering the river. Other exemptions included the 

substitution of one property for another designated for a planned park use, or when 

properties adjacent to park-owned land became available and acquisition would further 

protect critical resources or measurably enhance visitor facilities. If a proposed land 

acquisition did not fit the framework of the new amendments, the Park Service 

stipulated it would continue to treat this as an LPP deviation requiring the regional 

director’s approval. Despite previous lack of success, NPS intended mainly to encourage 

use of easements rather than full-fee acquisition, authorizing deviations only after 

rejection of easements.123 

 NPS never revised the LPP, and through the years New River shifted land 

acquisition almost entirely from emphasizing easements, zoning, and cooperative 

agreements to fee acquisition.124 Gradually administrators understood and accepted that 

the easement approach did not work out as the framers had envisioned. The lack of an 

explicit revision of the LPP produced complacency and a reactive approach to land 

developments along the canyon rim near the New River Gorge Bridge.125

 The discussion of intensive land acquisition from 1988 until the early 2000s 

continues in Chapter 4, where the effects of this rapid growth on park management are 

examined. Clearly, however, with the establishment of the Land Office in Oak Hill and 

an office of the Denver Service Center within park Headquarters, by the late 1980s the 

New River Gorge was poised for rapid growth of ownership and responsibility. 

 

122 Memo, Kennedy to Regional Director, MARO, July 19, 1984. 123 Memo, Kennedy to Regional Director, MARO, July 19, 1984. 124 Bobinski, Planning Documents, August, 2004. 125 Comments of David N. Fuerst on a draft of this administrative history, 2006. 
Thinking Small 

89 

PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AROUND NEW RIVER

The Park Service expressed great concern in the 1983 GMP about potential 

uncontrolled growth on privately owned, undeveloped lands in and around the park that 

might attract new visitor-oriented services and new residents. NPS was also concerned 

that owners might convert developed lands to more intensive uses. The Park Service 

feared that uncontrolled growth could change both the local lifestyle and the rural 

character of the gorge. It anticipated growth in settlements, in lands adjacent to 

settlements, and in lands along the park boundary and major access roads characterized 

by visible, tourist-oriented development.126 Events since 2000 have justified earlier Park 

Service concerns. 

 NPS originally planned to acquire as little land as possible through fee-simple 

acquisition, but rather to rely on leases, easements, zoning, and other methods. The GMP

recommended land-use management approaches based on the Congressional request 

that NPS work with local agencies to achieve private land use compatible with the 

national river objectives.127 

 The GMP recommended that the Fayette County Commission continue enforcing 

its land conservation district in its zoning ordinance and follow the purposes, goals, and 

management objectives related to that district. It also allowed local, state, regional, or 

federal management of land.128 Although the GMP expressed Park Service concerns 

regarding potential for uncontrolled growth, it also encouraged private enterprise to 

build visitor-service facilities such as grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, and motels 

to accommodate the visiting public.129 

 The park and the area surrounding it have grown tremendously since release of the 

first GMP in 1983. Oak Hill, Fayetteville, Summersville, and other towns have enjoyed 

the economic benefits increased tourism offers. Retired park Executive Secretary Edith 

Bailey agreed: 

Overall, I think they [the National Park Service] were good for the community. I think it 

was good for the state, and I think other folks have felt that way, especially because we 

have so much tourism in this area now, and if it hadn’t been for the whitewater rafting 

we wouldn’t have any of that tourism. I don’t know anything that would have drawn 

folks in.130 

 

126 GMP, 31. 

127 GMP, 32. 

128 GMP, 31. 

129 GMP, 2. 

130 Edith Bailey, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 25, 2004, 2. 
Thinking Small 

90 

 Recent examples illustrate problems associated with private development and 

some of the ways New River has addressed these. In January 2005, Land Resource 

Companies (LRC, also known as Roaring River Development), a private development 

corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia, submitted an application to the Fayette County 

Zoning Commission for a variance to develop a gated community of 2,200 homes on 

4,300 acres of land near the rim of New River Gorge. The proposal included 613 acres of 

private land within the park. LRC needed a variance because this land was within Fayette 

County’s Land Conservation District; they requested a re-zoning from conservation to 

planned development. Public outcry was swift. Many people attended the Commission 

meeting to object to developing in this location. 

 The Park Service, charged by Public Law 95-625 to conserve the scenic values of 

the gorge, tried to anticipate situations such as this. Using all of the tools it has, NPS has 

had to do its best within its fiscal reality. One tool useful in this instance was an 

adjustment of the park’s boundary. In 1992 the park was concerned that in the area near 

Kaymoor Top several sections of the canyon rim lay outside the park’s boundary, as did 

a trail that crossed private land. Congress passed a requested boundary change, which 

brought the 613 acres involved in the variance request into the park, along with another 

649 acres owned by Berwind Land Company.131 These tracts remained privately owned, 

but the action declared their importance to the New River Gorge National River. In 

2005, the Park Service generated a computer graphic to show the Zoning Commission 

how visible the proposed development would be from overlooks within the gorge and 

from Babcock State Park. That is, the Park Service combined technical expertise and 

existing regulation to address the issue.132 NPS expressed its concern that the 

development would have significant visual and ecological impacts on the park and the 

public. 

In February 2005 LRC representatives talked with critics of their plans. The 

company withdrew its application and expressed interest in discussing acquisition of the 

613 acres by NPS. In July 2005 LRC announced that it had given earnest money to the 

Rush Creek Land Company to purchase nearly 4,000 acres to construct Roaring Acres, 

 

131 Rep. Nick Rahall introduced H.R. 3858 on March 26, 2002. It passed on June 24. The bill 

indicated that the owners of these tracts and several others were “willing sellers” and it 

authorized appropriations over several years so that land brought within the boundaries of the 

park until NPS ultimately acquired it. See the “Daily Floor Briefing” of the Office of Committee 

Relations, House Republican Conference, at 

http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/pubs/DailyFloorBriefing/107/1/print/20020624dfb.h

tm. It remains unclear why President George W. Bush did not sign this bill until December 17, 

2002. 

132 “Housing Development Threatens New River Gorge,” Highlands Voice, February 2005. 

Available at http://www.wvhighlands.org/VoiceFeb05.pdf. 
Thinking Small 

91 

its gated community.133 In late August, the Fayette County Commission approved the 

project.134 The developers emphasized the taxes the project would generate and 

portrayed it as environmentally benign. A study by the Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research at West Virginia University estimated the economic impact. The main interest 

of the Park Service, however, was the impact on the national river. 

 A similar situation at the northern end of the park underscores the importance of 

an effective land protection plan and an adequate budget for the park. Gary Driggs 

introduced plans in August 2005 to develop portions of his property, starting underneath 

the New River Gorge Bridge and running for six miles toward Hawks Nest State Park. 

He announced plans to build 550 homes on 1,400 acres he bought from several 

whitewater rafting company owners.135 

 Park Superintendent Calvin Hite and his staff met with developers of these 

projects many times. Hite said he was not opposed to development but admitted his 

concerns for the impact development would have on the park: 

I can’t limit my concerns to a few overlooks. This is a relatively young park and we have 

to think of the scenic impacts in the future too. These are the most critical decisions 

being made in the park during my term. What happens in Fayette County and 

Fayetteville during the month [August 2005] may have a bigger impact on us than 

anything we are doing in our formal planning process for the park. When you chip away 

at the fringes of the park, that starts the developmental pressure.136 

Superintendent Hite then quoted Fayette County Commission President Matthew 

Wender saying, “Once you start development, it’s hard to stop.” At a Commission 

meeting Wender garnered support in the community after saying that “the change in the 

Gorge will be evident, and it will be forever.”137 In one vote, Wender was the only 

commissioner to vote to protect the park. In October, Superintendent Hite submitted a 

letter to the Fayetteville Planning Commission, laying out reasons for NPS’s concern 

about Driggs’ development. In this letter, Hite wrote: 

The preservation of the New River Gorge National River and other public lands will 

only become increasingly valuable as Americans look for those few remaining 

sanctuaries where they can find [not] only quality outdoor recreational opportunities, 

 

133 “The Future of the Gorge: Developers Pledge Minimal Impact as Zoning Decision Nears,” 

Gazette-Mail, August 7, 2005. 134 “$1.1 billion Roaring River project approved by Fayette County Commission,” West Virginia 

INC Online, August 24, 2005, available at http://www.wvinconline.com/news/news/150.aspx. LRC 

sent out a press release on August 17, 2005, available at 

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050817/clw036.html?.v=20. 

135 “Future of Gorge,” Gazette-Mail, August 7, 2005. These events continue to unfold: Susan 

Williams, “The Thin Green Line: Bridge View Estates’ very name poses question regarding 

development along New River Gorge,” Charleston Gazette, October 23, 2005, available at 

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2005102231?pt=0.

136 “Future of Gorge,” Gazette-Mail, August 7, 2005. 137 “Future of Gorge.” 
Thinking Small 

92 

but unspoiled areas for relaxation, solitude and spiritual renewal in a way few manmade places can provide.138

 Many area residents also expressed concern about the number of trees that 

developers would cut, about water, sewage, and so on. Joy Oakes, regional director of 

the National Parks and Conservation Association said: “The New River is a treasure that 

can easily be diminished. This is truly a national resource under the care of West 

Virginia. Up until now, the county has done a good job.”139 Local resident Kathryn 

Hoffman said she fears development will be “killing the goose that laid the golden egg. 

They need to pull back. The longer the Gorge stays undeveloped, the more valuable it 

becomes. The Gorge is one of the last great wilderness areas.”140 

 The builders expressed their feeling that development was inevitable, but the 

decision was with local government.141 These two instances indicate the on-going 

challenge that the Park Service faces to protect the New River Gorge. In the planning 

process underway as this history is being written, according to Lorrie Sprague, 

consideration will be given to how to be prepared to fend off such pressures in the future 

and preserve the New River Gorge for succeeding generations. Specifically, she said that 

these rim developments spurred consideration of boundary changes to have “enough land 

to protect tributary watersheds,... vistas, to be able to tell stories and have all the pieces 

in place to the story that you want to tell.”142

CONCLUSION 

 The heart of the New River Gorge National River snakes along for over 50 miles 

either side of the river, reaching from rim to rim. The protection of the view shed of the 

gorge is essential to the identity of the park and to its value for the public. Given this, the 

main question for the future of the park is: How can the Park Service preserve this land 

and all the values it entails into the future? Whether the answers lie in easements or feesimple purchase or some other means depend on historical contingencies, both within 

the federal government and within the local culture. In the 1980s, the experimental 

testing of minimal federal ownership was honestly tried and it did not succeed. The 

preference of local land owners for outright federal acquisition was demonstrated. 

 The land acquisition process outlined in the 1984 LPP relied less on fee acquisition 

than it did on the use of zoning, easements, cooperative agreements, surface acquisition 

and other means. The Park Service adopted this approach partly because of the 

 

138 Susan Williams, “Thin Green Line,” Charleston Gazette, October 23, 2005. 

139 “Future of Gorge,” Gazette-Mail, August 7, 2005. 140 “Future of Gorge.” 141 “Future of Gorge” 142 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 18, 2006. 
Thinking Small 

93 

commitments of Secretary of the Interior James Watt and other political appointees, but 

also partly because the New River Gorge National River – located in an eastern section 

of the country, with towns, farms, mining, and an active railroad – had somehow to 

accommodate this reality. The same approach had been used by the Park Service at the 

Cape Cod National Seashore. Lorrie Sprague remembered Superintendent Kennedy told 

her that there were parallels between Cape Cod language and language in the 1978 

authorization of New River Gorge.143 In fact, Destry Jarvis had explicitly used Cape Cod 

as his model in drafting the language of the 1978 legislation.144 But by 1988, the LPP as 

written clearly was not working. NPS made amendments until it could develop a new 

LPP, but that never occurred. Nevertheless, since then fee acquisition has been the major 

mode of acquiring property. 

 Because of crowded conditions in park headquarters in Oak Hill, the Park Service 

planning team in charge of improving headquarters sought a new location. They selected 

Glen Jean as the site for the new headquarters in 1986. Despite the objections of 

Superintendent Joe Kennedy that the proposed site was in a flood plain, NPS did not 

reconsider its decision, under pressure from the West Virginia Congressional delegation. 

The building dedication took place December 10, 1989. Since then, the headquarters has 

flooded three times; twice in 2001 and once again in 2003. Although it is always 

challenging to base decisions on technical analysis and to exclude politics, the decision 

to ignore a hydrological study because of pressure from constituents will continue to 

have consequences in the future. 

 Development, resource protection, and compatible land use were concerns 

expressed by park planners in the GMP. Use of the park and development of the 

surrounding area have increased tremendously since the park’s designation in 1978. Due 

in part to the slow pace of the land acquisition process by the Park Service, developers 

have managed to purchase land in the park and along its borders. Weaknesses in land 

protection—in tools available and in funding—have allowed encroachments to cross the 

boundary of the park. Chapter 4 continues the discussion of land acquisition for the 

New River Gorge National River and of special resource protection needs, as well as 

how rapid growth of the park affected park operations: law enforcement, emergency 

services, wildland firefighting, and managing an extended park. 

 

143 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 18, 2006. 144 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, April 23, 2004. 
Thinking Small 

94 

Figure 17. The New River Draft Plan circulated for public comment, 1982. Courtesy of New River Gorge 

National River. 
Thinking Small 

95 

Figure 18. Chief of Maintenance Steve Hastings, Superintendent Joe Kennedy, and Assistant Superintendent 

Henry Law in their “personally- sized” chairs, early 1990s, at a staff event at Dun Glen maintenance area. 

Courtesy of New River Gorge National River.
 
97 

CHAPTER FOUR

THE CHALLENGES OF MANAGING A QUICKLY EXPANDING PARK:

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION

The year 1988 witnessed dramatic change at the New River Gorge National River, a 

change in direction that had far-reaching ramifications. With the realization that 

easements and zoning did not adequately protect the gorge, a corner was turned and 

there was no going back. The West Virginia Congressional delegation, especially Senator 

Byrd and Representative Rahall, began authorizing both extensive land purchases in fee 

simple and also the earmarking of large, line-item projects. The park superintendent and 

staff had to find ways to manage a park in a period of rapid growth. This chapter follows 

the adjustments made at the New River Gorge in land acquisition, planning for new park 

units, administration, and law enforcement and other emergency services. Subsequent 

chapters examine how this change of scale affected visitor services, interpretation, and 

natural and cultural resource management. 

In addition to accelerated acquisition of private land by New River, the 1988 

designation of Bluestone National Scenic River (BLUE) and of Gauley River National 

Recreation Area (Gauley River or GARI) expanded the administrative responsibilities of 

New River. The additional mandates imposed difficult issues of distance and size and 

special resource protection needs. The park also assumed responsibility for Grandview 

State Park and Sandstone Falls State Park during this time. The addition of the Bluestone 

and Gauley Rivers and the two former state parks re-emphasized questions about park 

expansion, park boundary modifications, and land acquisition. With each acquisition 

came the management of new recreational, cultural, and natural resources. This affected 

park planning, law enforcement, interpretative activities, maintenance, and other aspects 

of park management. 

 As the park expanded in the late 1980s and 1990s, the steep terrain and sparse road 

system of the New River Gorge National River presented park managers with complex 

operational challenges. Some areas of the gorge were only accessible by foot, helicopter, 

or kayak. Monitoring the diversity of visitor activities that occurred simultaneously 

throughout the park, coupled with search and rescue, providing medical services, and 

wildland firefighting, all posed difficult problems. Moreover, the distance from Hawks 

Nest, the northernmost point of the park, to Hinton, the southernmost point, was 52 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

98 

miles and required about 90 minutes to drive. This chapter discusses how New River 

developed park operations in response to these challenges. 

DESIGNATION OF GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND 

BLUESTONE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER

 In 1979 the Park Service began a study of the Bluestone, Greenbrier, and Gauley 

Rivers in West Virginia to prepare a report on their possible nomination to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Congress passed the authorizations into law with the 

enactment of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625). This 

was the same enabling legislation authorizing the New River Gorge National River 

designation.1

 This law committed the Park Service to study these “three principal 

tributaries of the New River in West Virginia.”2

 The Park Service published the Final 

Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River in 1983. The study found: 

The lower 25.5 miles of the Bluestone River flows through a scenic, rugged V-shaped 

valley and is a good example of a river gorge [located] in a humid, mid-latitude climatic 

region with luxuriant vegetation. The gorge is [a] well-defined geologic feature. Its 

outstanding scenic quality is due chiefly to the canyon profile.”

3

 

The study described adjoining public lands. 

The lower 10 miles of the Bluestone is bordered by two state parks and a public hunting 

and fishing area. Pipestem State Park provides a year-round resort type facility and 

Bluestone State Park offers the normal range of recreation facilities.4

 

The entire segment of river corridor under study was 60 miles long. The work 

determined that all 25.5 miles of the Bluestone River above the impoundment of 

Bluestone Lake was eligible for designation under National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

while a segment upstream of Pipestone State Park was not, nor was one from Bluestone 

Dam to the Greenbrier River.5

 NPS concluded that the eligible section would be 

classified as “scenic,” which is defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are free 

of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive, and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” The study cited the Bluestone’s 

 

1

 “Rivers and Streams: Bluestone, Greenbrier, and Gauley Rivers Evaluated,” Highlands Voice,

October 1979. 

2

 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Section 1108, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 

3547. 

3

 National Park Service, Final Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, West Virginia, August 

1983. 

4 Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, 9. 

5 Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, 10. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

99 

“remarkable scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values,” and its normal water flow 

and level, which allowed water-related activities on it.6

 

 The study classed the Gauley as a National Recreational River among “rivers or 

sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some 

development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment 

or diversion in the past.”7

 The purpose of the designation, according to the General 

Management Plan/The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Land Protection Plan of the 

Gauley River National Recreation Area was 

to ensure the protection and preservation of the scenic, recreational, geological, fish 

and wildlife, and cultural resources of the area. Its future should be to protect its rugged 

natural features and scenic and cultural values while providing opportunities for water 

and land-based recreational activities.8

 

Congressional Representative Nick Rahall (D-4th district) addressed his support of 

river protection to members of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy at their Spring 

Review in 1986. He announced plans for an “Omnibus West Virginia Rivers Bill, called 

“The West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act.” He introduced the bill 

during the first session of the 100th Congress.9

 The bill was significant because three 

components directly affected New River. It provided Wild and Scenic River designation 

for the Bluestone River, National Recreation Area status for the Gauley River and 

Meadow River, and sanctioned boundary modifications for New River. The Wild and 

Scenic River designation included a section of the Bluestone River from Eads Mill in 

Mercer County through Pipestem State Park, and Bluestone State Park, and then flowing 

into Bluestone Lake. Rahall stated that, “this segment of the river possesses outstanding 

scenic, recreational, and wildlife values which make it worthy of protection.” The Gauley 

River National Recreation Area would stretch from the tailwaters of Summersville Dam, 

past Peter’s Creek, and end near Swiss, WV.10

 Some parties initially opposed the bill. West Virginia Chamber of Commerce 

President John Hurd mailed a resolution by their board of directors expressing its 

dissatisfaction with the bill. The Chamber felt that federal control of West Virginia rivers 

was “unjustified and not in the best interest of the state and its people.” The board also 

claimed that National River designation “[carried] with it direct and indirect restrictions 

on mining, timber harvesting, and manufacturing both within and adjacent to the 

designated area, and air and water quality laws which limit commerce far beyond the 

 

6 Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, 11. 

7 Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, 11. 8

 National Park Service, General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Land 

Protection Plan, Volume 1: Gauley River National Recreation Area, 1996, 10. 

9

 “Rahall Announces River Bill Protection for Gauley and Bluestone Rivers,” Highlands Voice,

May 1986. 

10 “Rahall Announces River Bill Protection.” 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

100 

designated area.”11 Evidently Hurd did not understand that the Corps of Engineers had 

and has jurisdiction over navigable rivers.12

 Late in the 1988 session, Congress passed the West Virginia National Interest 

Rivers Act. The Senate bill eliminated the Greenbrier River, part of the original study, 

due to the question of federal control in a valley with so much private ownership. Prior 

to the bill’s passage, Senator Jay Rockefeller held a number of public meetings in 

Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties to allow citizen participation in the process, where 

this objection and others were raised.13 Local concern for possible future construction of 

dams for flood control on the Greenbrier River was strongly expressed. Nevertheless, 

the bill created one of the largest networks of protected, free-flowing rivers in the 

country.14 

PARK EXPANSION, BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS, AND LAND ACQUISITION

 As discussed in Chapter Three, the New River General Management Plan (GMP) 

sought to protect land in New River Gorge through leases, easements, surface 

acquisition, cooperative agreements, and where necessary, limited fee-simple 

acquisition. Overall, the GMP suggested nineteen specific, desirable property 

acquisitions in 1983.15 Boundary adjustments recommended in the GMP, however, 

would reduce the park by ten percent.16 As of 1983, NPS owned 538 acres of the 62,023 

within park boundaries. The GMP (and the Land Protection Plan released in 1984) 

projected that protecting the gorge would require buying only 10,500 acres in fee simple, 

acquiring easements on 2,500 acres, and receiving 225 acres from West Virginia and 

1,200 acres from private owners through donation. The Park Service optimistically 

thought zoning and land-use planning through local governments would protect the 

land remaining in private hands.17 Figure 1 illustrates the history of land acquisition and 

“Boundary Progression” at New River up to 2005. 

 In 1987, the Department of the Interior changed its land protection policies and as 

a result, delayed New River’s land acquisition process. Destry Jarvis, of the National 

 

11 “Gauley River National Status Opposed,” Highlands Voice, October 1986. 

12 Comment of David N. Fuerst on a draft of this administrative history, 2007. Dr. Clifford Tobias 

notes that the Park Service has jurisdiction over the surface of the Upper Delaware River at 

UPDE, 2007. 

13 “River Bill Bobs Along,” Highlands Voice, August 1988. 14 “WV Rivers Bill Protects Gauley, Meadow, and Bluestone Rivers,” Highlands Voice, November 

1988. 

15 GMP (NERI), 33-38. 

16 GMP (NERI), 43. 

17 GMP (NERI), 30-31. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

101 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), submitted a report to NPS critiquing the slow 

land acquisition process. An NPS official responded:18 

Many corporate landowners are not interested in selling easements on their land to the 

National Park Service. Nevertheless, the NPS is committed to pursuing easement and 

zoning options before it can consider entering into negotiations for fee purchases of 

land. It takes a long time to carry out these processes and we agree that can be 

frustrating. Still, our land protection process is fiscally responsible and, in these times, 

we can do no less.19 

In 1988, New River spokesman Andy Kardos stated optimistically: “This year should be a 

turning point [for the park’s land protection policies]. We’ve never had this much money 

before.” Congress had designated over 4 million dollars to plan and construct park 

facilities. What was left over would be put toward land acquisition.20 

 As of 1988, the National Park Service only owned 16,000 acres of New River’s 

designated area of approximately 62,500 acres. Kardos justified the slow pace: 

People criticize the Park Service sometimes for not moving quickly enough, but it’s 

normal that once a park is established that it takes a few years to reach the next level of 

“uncontrolled development.” I’ve seen areas where people wanted tourism, but they 

ended up burying the very thing that would attract tourists.21 

 After the Bluestone River and Gauley River designations, confusion arose 

regarding boundary modifications of New River and other NPS units. In response, NPS 

published the Criteria for Boundary Adjustments in 1991. The document listed five 

criteria to guide park personnel in determining future boundary adjustments.22 The first 

three criteria addressed the “quality and character of the resources within or adjacent to 

the current park boundary.” First, were there important resources “integral” to the 

existing park but outside its borders? The second criterion addressed operational and 

management issues. Would an adjustment improve access or boundary identification? 

Better boundaries followed clear natural or human features, not arbitrary property lines. 

Better boundaries could facilitate cost-effective administration. Criterion three was to 

protect park resources from activities on adjacent lands. While the first criterion was not 

necessary, criteria two and three had to be present for NPS approval.23

 Criterion four required that NPS be able to administer added lands. Their size, 

configuration, ownership, cost, and other factors could not present impractical 

 

18 National Parks and Conservation Association, Report; letter, National Park Service to Paul C. 

Pritchard (president, National Parks and Conservation Association), June 17, 1987. NP & 

Conservation Association A22 MPF Box #1. 

19 NPCA, Report. 

20 News Brief, “Land Acquisition for NRGNR,” May 1988. 

21 “Land Acquisition,” 7. 

22 National Park Service, Criteria for Boundary Adjustments: Supplement to Planning Process 

Guideline (NPS-2), 1991, MPF L1417 Box #46. 

23 National Park Service, Criteria for Boundary Adjustments. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

102 

difficulties. According to criterion five, the lack of an alternative for managing and 

protecting resources argued in favor of a property coming under Park Service 

administration.24 

 Superintendent Joe Kennedy oversaw the transition into more rapid land 

acquisition within these guidelines.25 The Gauley and the Bluestone came under New 

River administration during his watch, from 1986 to 1995. Figure 2 shows that the 

process of planning for designation of the Bluestone National Scenic River was 

underway in 1983. Kennedy’s strategy, according to Andy Steel in an interview in 2006, 

was: “Buy it, don’t worry about what it is or where it is, just buy it. We’ll figure it out 

later.”26 In 1988, in addition to the Bluestone and the Gauley being brought in, New 

river’s boundary was changed. According to Steel, about 5,000 acres came in and 5,000 

were excluded, with a net gain of about 500 acres. Figure 3 shows the four planning units 

into which the Park Service divided New River in 1989. As Mary Pearson – who worked 

in the Land Office starting in 1983 – said in 2004: 

I remember back in the 80s, early 90s, we had another LAO here – Land Acquisition 

Officer – the money, it was there. All they said was “Buy land, buy land. We’ve got the 

money, here, buy land, buy land.” Well, we just couldn’t buy it fast enough. We couldn’t 

get everything fast enough.27

Peggy Maddy agreed that a major change occurred when Kennedy was superintendent: 

“We were buying land everywhere.”28 Cal Hite, who was the park’s superintendent from 

2001 to 2007, commented that land acquisition proceeded at such a pace from the late 

1980s on that “the Philadelphia Regional Office established a satellite office in Oak Hill, 

West Virginia, to deal primarily with the New River and ultimately the Gauley once it 

came on line.”29 That is, the Land Office in Oak Hill began operation. In fact, 

Superintendent Hite said that increased land acquisition was the biggest deviation from 

the 1983 General Management Plan. 

The biggest place where we altered from that [1983] GMP was in land acquisition. We 

have acquired a lot more land than what that GMP called for ... The present park 

boundary encompasses about 72,000 acres and we’ve acquired about 51,000 of it so far 

... The original GMP recommended little land acquisition and recommended reliance 

on local land use regulations ... zoning and easements. Within five or less years it was 

clear that wasn’t going to work. Congress began to appropriate money to buy the land 

and protect it ... well beyond the ceiling in the GMP.

30

 

24 National Park Service, Criteria for Boundary Adjustments. 25 Joe Kennedy, the second superintendent, died not long after retiring to North Carolina. 

26 Andrew Steel, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 27 Mary Pearson, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 24, 2004. 28 Peggy Maddy, interviewed by Gregory A. Good, November 17, 2006. 

29 Calvin Hite, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 21, 2004. 

30 Calvin Hite, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 21, 2004. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

103 

During his campaign for president in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton promised to 

support increased parklands. Instead, to the dismay of park officials and environmental 

activists around the country, he proposed to designate funding that was substantially 

lower than what President George H.W. Bush had spent during the preceding term. Bush 

spent $366 million on new parkland, whereas Clinton proposed spending only $209 

million in fiscal 1994. The administration stated it wanted to focus on upkeep of 

government property instead of buying more. Those advocating park expansion at New 

river felt the best route was to purchase available private land within park boundaries to 

prevent anyone destroying the gorge’s natural and cultural resources. In the Beckley 

Register-Herald, Liz Raisbeck, vice president of the National Audubon Society, stated, 

“Our feeling is that there are so many threatened places that if they are not bought up 

quickly, they are gone forever.”31 

Year Acreage % 

1983 538 <1% 

1988 16,000 25% 

1999 43,000 61% 

2004 51,000 70% 

2006 52,200 72% 

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1983 1988 1999 2004 2006

Figure 19. Acres federally owned within New River 

boundaries by year, with percentage of ownership within 

boundaries. 

 

31 Rita Beamish, “Decrease in Park Land Purchases Proposed,” The Register Herald, April 8, 1993. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

104 

 In May 1998, the park acquired its “most significant parcel of land located within 

park boundaries still in private ownership,” 1,021 acres. This sale by the trustees of the 

Nuttall Estate protected miles of viewshed along the Endless Wall and a popular rock 

climbing area, as well as Nuttallburg, an important, abandoned coal-mining facility, 

which is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places based on its national 

significance. As with any land acquisition, the NPS became responsible for managing the 

property consistent with park policy and regulations. This often required changes in the 

way area residents were accustomed to using the property, and led to occasional 

misunderstandings.32 In 1998, in the Hinton News, New River Superintendent Pete Hart 

reflected on trends affecting lands in the hands of private owners: 

More and more private land is now posted to prohibit trespassing. Many large holdings 

of timber and coal companies are no longer available as “free land”--where people 

traditionally hunted, fished, and camped without having to ask permission. As these 

farms are sold and the private lands are posted, more and more people are realizing the 

value of public land.33 

The Park System Project analyzed the boundaries of New River, as it did for all Park 

Service land throughout the country. The Project report discussed boundary 

modifications including the river from Fayette Station to Gauley Bridge, the area 

downstream from Cunard, the area south of Babcock State Park, Glade Creek, and 

Meadow Creek.34 A member of the Project addressed Congress in 2002 concerning a bill 

to acquire critical land on the canyon rim for New River:

This legislation proposes to adjust the boundary of New River Gorge National River to 

include seven tracts of land encompassing 1,962 acres. The addition of these lands 

within the park’s boundary would complete the rim-to-rim acquisition of lands on both 

sides of the gorge, permanently protecting its outstanding scenery in accordance with 

the legislation that originally designated the park.”35 

All the land within the 2002 boundary modification was privately owned and all the 

landowners were willing to sell to NPS. The land quality varied, as some parcels were 

steeply wooded slopes within the gorge and others were popular tourist attractions with 

 

32 “Endless Wall Acquisition Enhances Public Lands,” The Register Herald: Leisure Guide, July 

1998. Superintendent Pete Hart discussed the acquisition in “The View from Endless Wall,” 

Riverwatch, June 1998. Available on line at http://www.nps.gov/neri/riverwatch_0698.htm. 

33 Pete Hart, “Riverwatch: Land Acquisition by State and Federal Government,” The Hinton News,

April 7, 1998. 

34 NPCA Report; letter, National Park Service to Paul C. Pritchard, June 17, 1987. N.P. & 

Conservation Association A22 MPF Box #1. 

35 Statement of Katherine Stevenson (Associate Director for Cultural Resource Stewardship and 

Partnerships, National Park Service, Department of the Interior), before the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands of the House Committee on Resources, concerning 

H.R. 3858, the New River Gorge Boundary Act of 2002, May 16, 2002, 

http://www.nps.gov/legal/testimony/107th/rivegorg.htm. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

105 

climbing and hiking throughout.36 The acquisitions were never completed. Significant 

parts of this land are now a center of controversy and impending development. The 

opportunity to complete these acquisitions has slipped away. 

PLANNING FOR THE BLUESTONE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AND 

GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

With designation of Gauley River National Recreation Area and Bluestone 

National Scenic River in 1988, the planning obligations for New River, regional, and 

Denver Service Center (DSC) staff increased dramatically. This level of planning 

required more people and a higher level of specialization at New River. 

 Assistance came in many forms. In the early 1990s Congressional earmarks had 

built a DSC satellite office in Glen Jean, attached to park headquarters. Mike Hunter’s 

staff in this satellite office coordinated with park staff and regional staff to produce a 

series of Development Concept Plans for specific projects in New River itself. These DCPs

concerned projects that were meant to be accomplishable within a timeframe of a decade 

or two. Moreover, the Land Office had a full complement of six throughout the 1990s to 

handle the forty to sixty acquisition files that were open at any given moment.37

 In 1990 Lorrie Sprague was hired first in a fire mapping position, working for the 

chief ranger. Within a few months she shifted to management assistant, working directly 

for Superintendent Joe Kennedy. While Kennedy focused his attention on New River 

and its DCPs, he called Sprague his person for the Gauley and the Bluestone. Her 

position was to be liaison for New River staff and to work directly with teams that flew in 

from the Denver Service Center main office to undertake planning for Gauley River and 

Bluestone River.38

 Although some New River staff participated in early scoping for the Gauley River 

and Bluestone River General Management Plans, Sprague and the Denver staff oversaw 

most of this planning. Linda Romola, the team captain, worked out of Denver and she 

brought her own staff with her. As Sprague recalled in her 2006 interview, few park 

people could be very involved with these efforts because: “they were so up to their 

eyeballs” in their DCPs for New River. She continued: “I mean, it was not uncommon to 

sometimes have two or three teams in the Park at the same time.... It was quite the 

maelstrom sometimes of people coming and going.”39 Scoping started simultaneously in 

 

36 Statement of Katherine Stevenson. 

37 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good and June 21, 2004 by 

Lynn Stasick. 

38 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 39 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

106 

1990 for both Bluestone River and Gauley River, but Romola soon realized that these 

units were too different and she established two separate teams. 

 Planning for Bluestone River hit a snag very quickly. Upstream of the low-water 

pool on the Bluestone reservoir, the West Virginia DNR had a lease with the previous 

federal agency with jurisdiction, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to operate a 

Wildlife Management Area. For example, the DNR had maintained “wildlife plots” for 

years by mowing and brushing open areas. When Bluestone River was authorized in 

1988, the Park Service effectively became the ‘landlord’ to the DNR, “pursuant to the 

terms of the lease.” Because the Corps is more at ease with multiple-use management and 

the Park Service tends more toward preservation, some state personnel were uneasy with 

the change. Sprague and other Park Service employees read the language of the lease and 

expected the DNR to come to the Park Service for approval or disapproval of their 

management actions. The DNR “chafed under that.”40 

 Sprague and Natural Resource Specialist Ken Stephens suspected that despite 

differences in agency orientation, the Corps had not simply rubber stamped DNR plans. 

They visited the district office of the Corps in Huntington and found correspondence in 

the files indicating that the Corps had indeed placed limitations on DNR actions. 

Sprague stated: 

What it really amounted to [was] they [the DNR] were scared that the National Park 

Service was somehow going to turn these areas into places where people couldn’t hunt 

or not allow the DNR to do any of their wildlife management habitat manipulation.... 

One of the issues was whether they could make changes to a timber stand. But that was 

one of the things that we drew the line on. We said, ... we’re not in the timber 

management business, but we will allow you to maintain the clearings [wildlife plots] 

that you’ve already got.41

The Park Service was dimly perceived as a threat to the DNR. 

 Congressman Rahall brought Park Service and Corps staff to his office in 

Washington, DC, in the late 1990s to effect an understanding regarding the lease. 

Superintendent Pete Hart, Sprague, and Stephens represented the Park Service and 

Curtis Taylor and another the Corps. The lease between the state and federal 

government was set to expire in 2000 and needed to be re-negotiated. They decided on a 

short-term lease of five or ten years.42 

 Sprague reflected in her interview in 2006 that she saw the root of this problem 

with the DNR as “classic state’s rights versus federal.” The DNR thought they had 

legislative language in place to protect them on the Bluestone River. They later told 

Sprague that they hadn’t done their homework and read the language of the lease with 

sufficient care. That phrase “pursuant to the terms” could not be glossed over. Also, the 

 

40 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 41 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 42 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

107 

law authorizing Bluestone River specifically mentioned co-management by the NPS and 

DNR.43 Still, the General Management Plan for the Bluestone National Scenic River came 

“to a blinding halt.”44 As of 2007, this plan still had not been written. The Park Service 

built a pedestrian bridge, installed some signs, and built a parking lot at the former town 

site of Lilly, but did little more. As of 2007, the New River interpretive staff continued to 

conduct a short hike some Saturday mornings during the summer as of 2006, but little 

else.45 

 The situation in Gauley River National Recreation Area in the 1990s was much 

different. Less than 10% of the land within the designated boundaries was federally 

owned. (By 2004, 3,560 acres were federally owned of 11,507 total acres, or 30.4%). 

Moreover, while Bluestone had few visitors, the Gauley was one of the most popular 

whitewater rivers in the United States. This necessitated a different approach to the 

General Management Plan. Linda Romola’s Denver team worked with Lorrie Sprague 

and a few of her staff. Sprague did logistics for staff meetings, public meetings, focus 

group meetings, meetings with whitewater outfitters, etc. The legislation for the Gauley 

River specified that there would be a Citizens Advisory Committee, under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Closed-door meetings were prohibited. While 

Sprague made all the arrangements and did her best to bring in a diverse public, 

Superintendent Joe Kennedy convened the meetings. Careful notes and recordings were 

made.46

 According to Sprague, meeting after meeting focused on the Fisherman’s Trail, 

which she described as a fish stocking road. This, too, was a matter of contention with 

the DNR, which wanted to see the road improved for their use. Sprague recalled: 

“Fortunately this was one issue that [Congressman] Rahall stood firm on with the Park 

Service and said that, no, we did not dedicate the Gauley to build more roads.”47

 Sprague was surprised that few other major issues came up during planning. Public 

access could have been raised since all the bank was privately owned between the put-in 

and take-out points until 2005. Intermediate landing spots were owned mostly by 

commercial rafting companies.48 

 The Park Service released its General Management Plan for the Gauley in 1996. 

Like the New River GMP, released in 1983, the Gauley River GMP laid out the general 

approach to be taken in managing Gauley River. It specified six different zones to 

consider in planning: Outstanding Natural Feature Zone, Resource Management Zone, 

Development Zone, Historic Zone, Special Use Zone, and Areas of Potential NRA 

 

43 Comment by David N. Fuerst on draft of administrative history, 2007. 

44 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 45 Lynn Loetterle, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 46 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 47 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 48 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

108 

Boundary Adjustments. But it left detailed solutions for later plans, especially the Gauley 

River Development Concept Plans(DCP). The Gauley River GMP addressed issues like 

inner gorge access, a problem familiar from the New River Gorge. It stated: 

Getting to the Gauley and Bluestone Rivers compromises the possible activities sought 

by its visitors. While the absence of development is a spectacular feature of the area, the 

lack of public access, facilities, and ownership prevents the public from participating in 

those activities for which the area is well-suited.49 

Another problem familiar from New River was the existence of the remnants of drift and 

strip mine operations within the gorge. Dangerous openings, spoil piles, and structures 

remained behind. The continued use of the railroad along the lower Gauley created rock 

fall dangers.50

 The Development Concept Plan process did not begin until 2001-2002, under a new 

superintendent, Cal Hite, and a new deputy superintendent, Debbie Darden. The Park 

Service had originally intended to produce three DCP’s for the Gauley River National 

Recreation Area, but because of delays and the need for urgent action, these were 

combined into a single DCP. Two major issues, linked to each other, had emerged since 

the GMP. During the GMP process a railroad was active down the Meadow River as far 

as Swiss on the Gauley River. This corridor was now abandoned and the tracks taken 

out, as part of a dispute between different rail companies which all used the same tracks. 

Sprague and others in the Park Service saw a possible rail-trail, which would add a new 

dimension to visitors’ activities. Some local residents, however, began actively using the 

old rail bed as an ATV trail. Ownership was a checkerboard. CSX sold the Park Service 

five parcels (6 of 14 miles), all the interests it owned, but it wasn’t always fee simple.51

Others owned some interests in the corridor. As of 2006, the Park Service was still 

piecing together federal ownership of the corridor.52

 Meanwhile, ATV use heated up as an issue. Gary Hartley, chief ranger for visitor 

and resource protection since 2000, stated in his interview in 2004 that word had come 

down from Representative Rahall’s office that he did not support the Park Service intent 

to ban ATVs on the Gauley. Hartley said: “We thought there was probably a movement 

afoot and we would all of a sudden wake up one morning and find out that legislation 

had been passed ‘Thou shalt have ATV use.’”53 But then river groups started rallying and 

writing against ATV use along the Gauley because it was in the top 10 whitewater rivers 

in the world and number 2 in North America, just behind the Colorado River. Having 

two groups contact Congressman Rahall from opposite sides of the issue placed him “in 

the middle of the fence.” 

 

49 GMP (GARI), 10. 

50 GMP (GARI) is discussed at http://www.nps.gov/gari/gauleydcp.htm. 51 Calvin Hite, interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

52 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 53 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

109 

 NPS released Gauley River’s Development Concept Plan, for the public in 2003. The 

DCP laid out alternatives, which it made more accessible through both a print version 

and on the web.54 American Whitewater, which had helped advocate for the Gauley 

National Recreational River, involved itself in both the GMP process in 1996 and in the 

DCP process in 2003 and 2004. They announced the first public meeting to discuss the 

environmental assessment for the DCP on September 23, 2003 at the Midland Trail High 

School, in Hico, WV.

55 Public comments were taken into account. The DCP for Gauley 

River National Recreation Area was finished and sent up the line to the Washington 

Office, where as of November, 2006, it still awaited funding. Approval and 

implementation of the Gauley River DCP, in part or in whole, will occur beyond the time 

frame of this history. 

KEEPING PACE WITH GROWTH OF THE PARK:

NEW RIVER ADMINISTRATION ADAPTS TO CHANGE OF SCALE

The growth of New River, Gauley River, and Bluestone River can be tracked in 

many ways: acres under federal jurisdiction, number of employees, budget amounts. 

When the changed direction took hold under Superintendent Joe Kennedy in the late 

1980s, it affected not only the numbers, but the nature of the three river park units. 

Along with more land, came more resources to manage. Along with more staff, came 

more levels and channels of organization. Along with more money, came more projects 

to plan and execute. Once again, the stories of the participants tell these stories best. 

 In addition to the rapid land purchases discussed above, a lot of construction 

projects were underway during Kennedy’s nine years as superintendent. Planning and 

discussions for a New River Parkway in the southern part of the park were ongoing. The 

headquarters in Glen Jean and the Denver Service Center wing were built. The bank at 

Glen Jean was restored and became a visitor center for a few years. Canyon Rim Visitor 

Center was built, along with an impressive boardwalk, steps, and viewing platforms 

overlooking the New River Bridge. The Thurmond Depot was restored and used as a 

seasonal visitor contact point. And planning for Kaymoor Mine, trails, water quality, and 

many other actions were taken (See Appendix 1). 

 During the time of Superintendents Carrico and Kennedy, the northern half of 

New River received more attention than did the southern. As Sprague expressed it, most 

of the staff lived in Fayetteville and Oak Hill and it was natural that they focused on what 

was right in front of them: the New River Bridge, Canyon Rim Visitor Center, Glen Jean, 

 

54 Gauley River NRA News, February 2004, and on the web at 

http://www.nps.gov/gari/graphics/garidcp_news_feb2004.pdf. 55 American Whitewater published a web newsletter discussing the Development Concept Plan, 

available at http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/945/. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

110 

Thurmond. Sprague felt that Superintendent Kennedy had always used the drawn-out 

planning for the New River Parkway “as his reason for not doing anything in the south 

end.”56 One project he did propose, a visitor center at Sandstone Falls, was strongly 

criticized by park natural resources staff and others because of a unique flatrock plant 

community that thrives there. Sprague described this as a “palace revolt” and said that 

Kennedy backed down, saying he had enough to do on the north end with Kaymoor, 

Thurmond, and Fayette Station. Still, she thought more could have been done, especially 

for Hinton, such as treating it as a “mini-Harpers Ferry.” 

 Every New River staff member interviewed for this history reported, with varying 

emphases, that in the late 1990s the park had difficulty keeping up with growth. Lorrie 

Sprague reflected that the West Virginia Congressional delegation – Senator Byrd 

particularly – surprised the New River administration by coming through with funding 

for almost every priority project they requested.57 She also agreed with Superintendent 

Cal Hite’s perception that during the late 1990s the park simply didn’t have the right 

people in place to implement projects and “make the cash flow.” Hite observed that the 

double challenge faced by Superintendent Pete Hart and his staff of managing daily 

operations for three National Park units and of implementing new projects 

overwhelmed the skills of the people in place. 

 Cal Hite stated in his 2004 interview that when he became superintendent in 2001, 

many of the earmarked projects went back as early as 1998, but that the funding had not 

been moved and many projects had not been started. His supervisor in the Northeast 

Regional Office told him to “move this money” before the sources pulled it back 

because, in fact, pre-1998 funding that had not been spent had already been withdrawn.58

Hite cautioned that this was “through no fault of the staff here.” Perhaps he was being 

diplomatic. 

 According to Sprague, these “scores and scores” of projects earmarked by Senator 

Byrd included planning, construction, and research projects, many made necessary by 

expansion of the land base. Clearing this backlog, she said, constituted Superintendent 

Hite’s main challenge when he arrived in 2001. Hite indicated that many of these projects 

involved Kaymoor and Thurmond and other cultural resources, which will be discussed 

in more depth in Chapter 6.59 

 Peggy Maddy, who had worked at the park under every superintendent, recalled 

the episode a little more pointedly, but not unkindly. She remembered Superintendent 

 

56 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 57 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 58 Calvin Hite, interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. Peggy Maddy, in her interview of 

November 17, 2006, described the reaction of a staff member rather poignantly: Region came and 

“literally took the money” and she sat there and cried. Interview by Gregory A. Good. 59 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 18, 2006, by Gregory A. Good; and Calvin Hite, 

interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

111 

Pete Hart as more distant than Carrico and Kennedy had been, and less involved in daily 

operations. She said he focused on the politics and delegated the earmarked, line-item 

projects to the deputy superintendent, administrative officer, and others. She 

commented on some of these: one was “wrong man, wrong job”; another made 

intemperate critical comments in public; and another was a “hardship move” to New 

River. She recalled one long-time manager reflecting that one of these people “didn’t 

have a chance.” Another of these individuals was, according to Maddy, a self-described 

“small park mentality” in a rapidly growing park.60 

 When Cal Hite became superintendent in 2001, a transition in top staff occurred. 

Debby Darden came from Gettysburg National Military Park to become deputy 

superintendent and together they worked with park staff to catch up on the more than 

one hundred line-item projects that were backlogged. Only a few months into that 

process, however, the 2001 floods hit and caused extensive damage around the park. The 

headquarters and the bank in Glen Jean flooded and landslides washed out a trail and 

the Cunard Road. Fortunately the park had $7 million in federal highway funds, but the 

repairs required a significant investment of personnel and effort. According to Hite, the 

park was still catching up with emergency repairs in 2004.61

 Along with increased earmarking of special projects for Ne w River, Gauley River, 

and Bluestone, came increased “Congressional oversight,” i.e., Congressionally 

mandated management actions. As Chief Ranger Gary Hartley put it in 2004, the New 

River was “one of the few parks I’ve worked in that’s had so much legislation affecting it, 

over the years, for so long. It certainly shows the Congressional oversight that is involved 

with the park here.”62 This involvement started in the 1978 authorization legislation for 

New River, which included one short phrase that has kept the Park Service from 

regulating the most obvious activity on the New River: commercial rafting. The act 

specified that the Park Service would not regulate “watercraft services.” Commercial 

rafting, jet-boat tours, photographers working for the rafting companies, etc.: all of this 

was placed outside the Park Service. This situation was very unlike in the Grand Canyon, 

and its 1978 companion riverine park, Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, 

where the Park Service regulates the river and similar services. On the New River, 

commercial rafting companies are regulated by the West Virginia Whitewater 

Commission. Twenty rafting companies each have one or more license, with each license 

allowing a company to place a certain number of customers on the river each day. 

Hartley commented that some companies have put a few hundred customers out per day 

and that altogether 250,000 or more people have rafted the river per year, leading to 

 

60 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 61 Calvin Hite, interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

62 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

112 

severe crowding at the entrances to rapids. The inability of the Park Service to manage 

this situation originated in legislation. 

 While frequently the original intent is embodied in the authorizing legislation for a 

National Park unit, this degree of continuing, detailed prescription of management was 

perceived as unusual by the professional staff. Hartley listed a series of interventions that 

have affected or limited management decisions by professional staff. When the Park 

Service was developing its River Management Plan for the New River in the 1980s, word 

“came down from the Congressional delegation to ‘cease and desist’.”63 Likewise, 

Congressional actions dictated that the Park Service would allow West Virginia to spray 

for black flies, to stock exotic trout species in Glade Creek, and to improve a road into 

Keeney’s Creek. The Park Service would not have taken these actions without a 

requirement to do so. As Natural Resource Manager Ken Stephens said in 2006: “There 

wasn’t any overt action we needed to take. We just needed to stop.”64 In 2003, Congress 

intervened in the regulation of hunting within the park. Speaking of the black fly issue, 

but in a sentiment broadly applicable here, Ranger Hartley said: “It gives you an idea of 

the legislative oversight that this park has, and the Park Service, that they could actually 

do that. He continued: 

It makes it a rather challenging position for the superintendent to be in, because you just 

do that.” He continued: don’t have legislation to go on from the past. You always have 

to keep your eyes open for new legislation, that’s going to change. It seems that this park 

is managed in part by legislation, meaning that when a major issue comes up, that the 

Park Service and the superintendent and of course the management team here have to 

be real wary that legislation doesn’t get passed.65

Ranger Hartley and his staff produced a “jurisdictional compendium” of all 

Congressional actions, court decisions, and other documents that have impacted 

management of New River and the other two park units. The compendium illustrates the 

political complexity of management of these parks.66

 Natural Resource Manager Ken Stephens had a second, long-term perspective on this. 

[T]his is a very political park. But it seems to be so far, if you had to say, it would be on 

the plus side of the politics. We’ve gotten legislation we didn’t need, didn’t want, and it 

hasn’t helped. But overall it’s been very positive, they’ve been there trying to support us 

when we’d identified a problem or an issue or a need, they’ve tried to support us. Now 

they’re not always successful ... Rahall’s got a lot of seniority, Byrd’s been around a 

couple of years. And so obviously they have some weight when they ask for something. I 

think overall it’s been positive, but we’ve had some legislation that was not helpful.67

 

63 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. See Chapter Five for a more detailed 

discussion of the River Management Plan. 64 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 65 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

66According to Hartley, this document is on file at NERI headquarters. The researchers did not 

examine it. 

67 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

113 

Superintendent Cal Hite emphasized two major problems brought on by the rapid 

growth of New River, Gauley River, and Bluestone River and by budgetary constraint in 

the Park System nationwide since 1990. First, land acquisition brought with it resources 

(especially cultural) that required immediate attention. The superintendent had two 

ways to handle these needs: within the park’s operating budget, or through seeking 

special construction funds. At the same time, the federal budget mandated salary 

increases without providing adequate additional funding. Superintendent Hite was 

deeply troubled by this. He said: “It’s bound to break.” His approach was to operate on 

“lapses.” That is, when a position went vacant, he left it vacant (sometimes for years) to 

save money. When Hite was interviewed in 2004, there were eleven full time positions 

lapsed out of roughly 105 full-time positions.68

 During Cal Hite’s tenure as superintendent (2001 to 2007), the park hired a few 

more specialists, notably a geologist and a wildlife biologist. But the park personnel 

continued to be stretched thinly throughout the New River Gorge National River, the 

Gauley River National Recreation Area, and the Bluestone National Scenic River. Two 

major lasting legacies of the period of rapid growth within these parks have been (1) 

more complex organization to manage an increasing land base and number of projects 

and (2) the continuing challenge to fulfill these duties with a staff that is at best stable but 

growing insufficiently to meet all of the needs. This point is well illustrated in the next 

section, with a closer look at the development of law enforcement at the park. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A LARGER PARK SYSTEM

 Some of the most challenging problems park staff faced immediately upon 

designation of the park was monitoring visitor activities, law enforcement, emergency 

services, and fire management. The New River has typically supported more than twenty 

active commercial rafting companies and seen tens of thousands of private boaters 

annually. Thousands of people have climbed the 1600 rock routes along the gorge wall. 

Fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, and mountain biking have drawn thousands of 

additional visitors each year. And more park visitors have recreated along the Gauley and 

Bluestone Rivers. While the order of magnitude is greater today, park staff have faced 

problems related to this dispersed activity since the park’s founding. 

 New River ’s GMP outlined hopeful NPS directives in 1983 regarding emergency 

capabilities, including law enforcement, emergency services, and fire control: 

The National Park Service will develop and maintain adequate emergency capabilities 

(personnel, equipment, and training) ... to ensure the protection of visitors, resources, 

and the NPS facilities on federal land within the boundary.69 

 

68 Calvin Hite, interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

69 GMP, (NERI) 28. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

114 

Continuing, the GMP spelled out some of the factors that hindered achieving this goal: 

However, the National River’s irregular boundary, limited road access, and mixture of 

federal, state, and private land ownership will require cooperative efforts to provide 

adequate levels of protection and emergency services on other lands within the park; the 

NPS will take the initiative to develop such necessary agreements and cooperative working 

relationships.70 

As the GMP noted, the fragmented ownership, unmarked park boundaries, and many private 

in-holdings made it difficult for park staff and visitors alike to tell where the park ended and 

private land began.71 Even before rapid expansion began in the late 1980s, the Park Service 

did not keep up with marking boundary modifications. Because of this and the time it takes 

to travel to the different parks, Park Service staff faced extraordinary difficulties monitoring 

activity and enforcing regulations. 

 The GMP recommended that NPS staff seek to alleviate these problems by working 

with local law enforcement. The park has signed a number of Memoranda of Understanding 

(MOU) or Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with local and state agencies.72 They signed 

one MOA with the West Virginia State Police (WVSP) in 1996. The agreement read in part: 

“Whereas, it is the mutual desire of the NPS and WVSP to work cooperatively in law 

enforcement and emergency services for the common purpose of providing emergency 

response to public safety requirements within NERI....”73 The park made mutual-aid 

agreements with local sheriff departments and the DNR. Structural Fire Protection and 

Wildland Fire Protection called for agreements with local, volunteer fire departments and the 

expansion of existing agreements with the DNR. The park began to participate in the local 

911 system. Finally, search and rescue called for agreements with the state police and local 

sheriff departments.74

 With New River’s establishment, the park quickly addressed the need for a visitor 

safety program, defining NPS objectives and policies. The park released a Documented Safety 

Program in 1983, and addressed interim visitor safety measures. 

Until such a time as the park develops visitor use facilities and implements field 

operations involving significant opportunities for public contact, NPS visitor safety 

responsibilities will be carried out primarily through other sources such as the West 

Virginia Department of Natural Resources, commercial outfitters, local boating 

organizations and local news media. Employees who do provide information to visitors 

concerning recreation opportunities and points of interest will stress the fact that 

significant hazards exist in areas which lack developed facilities. Supervisors will 

emphasize to employees the need to prevent visitor injuries through recognizing and 

 

70 GMP, (NERI) 28. 

71 Only 538 acres were initially federal within NERI’s boundaries (GMP, 30) and even today only 

60% of the land is federally owned. 

72 National Park Service, Draft Guidelines on Special Park Use (NPS-53), MPF A5621, Folder NPS 

Permanent Guidelines Box #2. 

73 Memorandum of Agreement Between National Park Service and the West Virginia State Police, 

MPF A44 MOU 1996. 

74 GMP (NERI), p. 47. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

115 

correcting hazardous conditions and providing appropriate safety messages to the 

public. 

An emergency medical services program will be maintained to provide 

transportation of the sick and injured and emergency pre-hospital care, which may 

range from minor first aid to advanced life support in various environmental settings.75 

The potential for emergencies throughout the park involving whitewater, hiking, rock 

climbing, driving, and other activities was significant. Numerous natural hazards existed. 

The park needed to plan in detail how NPS staff could respond to emergencies.76

 The 1983 Documented Safety Program provided a framework for a systematic 

approach to emergencies. The chief of park law enforcement was designated Park Safety 

Officer, responsible for directing park safety policies. The concurrent jurisdiction 

established within New River gave park rangers power under state and federal law to 

enforce laws in the park. But sometimes calls to crime scenes took rangers outside the 

park. Gary Hartley explained what happens then: 

We’re in and out of the park so much, if you see a crime being committed you have to 

say, “Sorry this is not my jurisdiction.” Because of this, we were getting deputized by all 

the county sheriffs... at one point we had five deputizations. At least then we could 

detain and hold someone, and in an emergency, they [other law enforcement agencies] 

could call us.77 

 Staffing in law enforcement in park in the 1980s was low, no more than half a 

dozen in peak season, including temporary summer hires. Also, early rangers were not so 

specialized, often mixing education and enforcement. Among the earliest rangers were 

Rick Brown, who started in 1985; another, Duncan Holler, began in 1989. Jason Houck, 

as Chief Ranger, worked out of headquarters in Oak Hill through much of the 1980s. For 

the other rangers, they were normally assigned either to the North District or the South 

District. During this period, although the New River administration took responsibility 

for Sandstone Falls State Park in 1986, the Gauley and the Bluestone Rivers in 1988, and 

Grandview State Park in 1990, the law enforcement staff remained static.78 See Figure 5, 

which mapped the cultural resources at Grandview for which the Park Service had 

accepted responsibility. 

 A big jump in staffing and in organization of law enforcement occurred in 1992, 

when the number of people in law enforcement roughly tripled. Bill Blake was chief 

ranger at this time. Duncan Holler directed the South District and Rick Brown the 

North. Each of these Districts was divided into two Sub-Districts. Each Sub-District had 

a regular ranger and three or four seasonal rangers. For example, in the Hinton SubDistrict in the South District, Dave Bartlett was in charge and in the Grandview Sub-

 

75 National Park Service, Documented Safety Program, MPF A7615 Health and Safety, 1978-1988. 76 National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan. MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 

77 Gary Hartley, interview by Lynn Stasick, June 22, 2004. 

78 Gary Hartley (Chief Ranger), interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. Andy Steel (GIS 

Technician), interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

116 

District, Dennis Wyland performed this role. Likewise, in the North District, Greg 

Malcolm and Kinsey Shilling each directed seasonal rangers. In one year the park went 

from six rangers (counting permanent and seasonal) to have seven permanent rangers 

and between twelve and sixteen seasonals, or as many as twenty-three in peak season.79

As of 2004, Superintendent Calvin Hite reported that fifteen enforcement rangers 

covered Gauley River, New River, and Bluestone River, a decrease since the 1990s, again 

despite increasing park usage.80 Gary Hartley, who started as chief ranger for visitor and 

protective service in 2000, reported in 2004 that he had fourteen commissioned rangers 

plus seasonals, assistants, and fire management, for a total of 20 or 25 in peak season. But 

some of these had non-enforcement duties. He stated: 

That sounds like a lot, but that’s three parks, so they’re going all the way down to the 

Bluestone. And what a lot of people forget is, that when you’re trying to do that seven 

days a week, with two shifts a day, that basically ends up to that’s one person on in the 

north and one person on in the south on many of the days ... That’s a lot of territory to 

cover for one person.81

He did state that New River “bulks up” law enforcement on weekends so the rangers 

have back up available, with two on the day shift and two on the night shift. Figure 6 

provides an overview of staff organization at New River as of 2004, and Appendix C 

provides a complete set of organizational charts for that year. 

 Throughout the park’s history, the seasonal ranger position often has meant river 

patrol and it has operated as a proving ground for many who went on to become 

permanent rangers. Greg Malcolm, Sandy Sheck, and Brian Hunter all started on the 

river.82 Likewise, some who started as seasonal interpreters later moved into law 

enforcement, including Dave Bartlett and Chris Shrader.83

 Andy Steel started on seasonal river patrol in 1992, under Dave Bartlett in the 

Hinton Sub-District. For three or four seasons, Steel devoted two or three days per week 

to river duties: checking fishing licenses and creel counts, educating campers, keeping 

statistics, helping park users out of difficult challenges, and sometimes pulling them out 

of the river. In 1996, Andy Steel became permanent, along with about a third of the other 

seasonals in the New River.84 

 Steel described law enforcement issues through the 1990s as varied. Vandalism was 

expected, but it had been high since the park’s beginning. Vandals, mainly young people, 

attacked signs, gates, and structures, because they didn’t like restrictions. Other 

enforcement issues, Steel related, depended partly on district. In the North District, 

 

79 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 80 Calvin Hite (Superintendent), interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

81 Gary Hartley (Chief Ranger), interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 82 Peggy Maddy (Contracting Specialist), interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 83 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 84 As of 2007, Andy Steel was the park’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

117 

where most visitors were tourists, car break-ins were common. Steel’s duties included 

stake-outs, up in the woods above parking areas for boaters or rock-climbers, keeping 

watch through binoculars. Only a few break-in thieves were ever caught. In the South 

District, where local visitors have predominated, a lot of “subsistence timber thieving” 

has occurred. This has varied from illegal cutting of firewood for homes to more 

ambitious crimes. In the Clay Creek area in the 1980s a timber thief was convicted and 

fined triple the value of the timber. In the mid-1990s, some young men took 49 large oaks 

from federal land, but despite strong evidence the case did not go to court. In the late 

1990s, another dozen large cherry trees were taken. More creatively yet, in 2005 thieves 

dismantled an entire house on park land along Meadow Creek board-by-board to steal 

the chestnut boards.85 

 Successful prosecution has been another matter. The courts often felt they had 

more serious problems than vandals. Although the Park Service has taken timber 

thieving very seriously, since it has been charged to protect the resources in the park, 

local courts have often seen this as a property crime, thus the triple-timber value 

assessment above. In the case above of 49 stolen oaks, the U.S. Attorneys inexplicably 

would not take the case. Some cases were still pending when Steel was interviewed in 

2006. In another case in the early 2000s, a timber company re-opened a half-mile road, 

for use as a skid road, to a timber stand they owned, but it crossed park property. The 

Federal Court in Beckley, West Virginia, awarded a large settlement to the Park Service, 

not based on timber value. Steel reflected in his interview that local attitudes toward park 

land and park trees could be traced back to the old “company land” mentality, when the 

companies didn’t care if a few trees were taken. He suspected that more timber thieving 

occurs than is realized.86

 An increasing problem in the New River and Gauley River units, especially, has 

been the use of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs). Like other national parks, New River early 

prohibited ATVs within its boundaries. As Chief Ranger Gary Hartley noted in 2004, he 

suspected that an overflight would show twice as many illegal ATV trails as designated 

hiking and biking trails in the New River unit. “Every day there’s people out there on 

their ATVs crashing through the brush, busting new trails into areas.” Even fines up to 

$5,000 don’t deter ATV use, because the Park Service rarely catches violators. Hartley 

asked: “How can you catch an ATV when they don’t have a license plate and can 

disappear in the woods? It’s not like you can follow them. Once they see you coming 

there is no way you can catch them.”87 Hartley said one larger ranger has had some 

success by hiding at narrow passages, grabbing the handlebars, and removing the keys. 

 

85 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 86 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 87 Gary Hartley (NERI Chief Ranger), interview conducted by Lynn Stasick, June 22, 2004. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

118 

 Alcohol was also an issue, especially in the early days of the park. Some older park 

personnel recalled when pick-up trucks full of beer kegs would arrive at Army Camp 

campground and people would party and drink for days. According to Park Service 

employee Jennifer Anderson, who took the testimony, a visitor signed a complaint 

concerning Army Camp in 1988: 

Extreme discontent about the lack of NPS patrols at Army Camp on the weekend. He 

told of weekend parties involving “hippies” drinking beer and liquor, smoking dope, 

throwing trash, and using Army Camp as a portable [sic] toilet. He also expressed 

concern about young children playing in the area and the “drunks speeding down the 

road.”88 

Similar problems at the campground at Sandstone Falls State Park led the NPS to convert 

it to a day-use picnic area when the state donated the park to New River. It became too 

dangerous for park rangers to maintain order. The problems finally resulted in a closing 

of its campground and the prohibition of alcoholic beverages at select park 

campgrounds.89 

 Dave Bartlett told Andy Steel of a very different sort of enforcement issue 

originating in the “company land” attitude. Before Steel joined the park in 1992, a local 

family followed a seasonal migration pattern, coming down to a particular spot by the 

river every summer. They would put the car up on blocks, mow a patch of lawn, pen 

their hogs beside the camp, and settle in. They were a large family, and a colorful one, but 

they didn’t cause any trouble beyond taking over the camping area. 

 That was enough. No visitors to the area could find a camping spot. Clashes 

ensued. So the Park Service initiated a two-week camping restriction. The family began 

spending two weeks at Sandstone Falls Campground, then two at Army Camp. Or 

alternate members of the family signed up for successive two-week intervals and they 

stayed put. 

 Worse problems occurred with other clashes between local and visiting users. 

Alcohol frequently fueled the conflicts. Stone Cliff Campground was especially 

notorious for drinking and park staff did not recommend it to visiting families. Dave 

Bartlett, Andy Steel, and a state police officer visited Stone Cliff once when a couple and 

others with them were reported to be having a knock-down, drawn-out fight. Witnesses 

said one person “clocked a man in the back of the head with a lantern,” but the alleged 

pugilants denied to the rangers and officer that anything was wrong. Nevertheless, 

Bartlett, Steel and the officer ticketed them and asked them to leave.90 In 1998, 

Superintendent Pete Hart related, “several troubling incidents disrupted Stone Cliff 

resulting in a near riot between two large feuding families involving numerous weapons, 

 

88National Park Service, Complaint Filed by Gilbert Smith, June 14, 1988, MPF, Box 1, A36. 

89 Gary Hartley, interview by Lynn Stasick, June 22, 2004. 

90 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

119 

and culminating in several injuries and arrests.”91 After that and other alcohol problems, 

New River prohibited drinking at Stone Cliff in 1999. 

 Because the park is rural, elongated, and isolated, park and other enforcement 

officials have had difficulty with drug interdiction, too. In the past, people have 

cultivated marijuana, dealt drugs, and operated narcotics labs on park property. In one 

case, people were bringing drugs from Philadelphia and New York and dropping them 

off at the Thurmond train station in the gorge for local distribution. The discovery of 421 

marijuana plants in 1990 caused considerable concern among both park rangers and 

local law enforcement.92

 In 1991, an interesting technique emerged. The Park Service, Fayette Drug-Free 

Committee, and several local companies obtained a German Shepherd, named Kiwi, 

raised and trained in Czechoslovakia, for the Fayette County Sheriff Department. Not 

only was the dog trained to locate illegal drugs and track and detain criminals, it was also 

trained to track and protect missing persons. Bill Blake, chief ranger for the park at the 

time, explained that the driving force in obtaining the animal was that law enforcement 

had found over one million dollars in marijuana plants within the park, and people 

hoped that the dog would help eradicate the problem.93 

 One surprising location for drug and alcohol problems, however, was not in an 

unwatched, distant corner of the park, but in Glen Jean. In 1999, local resident Harold 

Bragg complained several times to park officials that drug dealing and alcohol 

consumption were occurring within sight of park headquarters. 

I appreciate your letter of 10 June, 1999 addressing my concerns of drug and alcohol use 

in the area of the National Park Service Headquarters in Glen Jean. As comforting as 

your letter is, I remain quite concerned about the openness of the violations of alcohol 

use on NPS land and the apparent lack of enforcement of the regulation banning such 

use. The two NPS parking areas immediately adjacent to the bridge entering Glen Jean 

from Route 16/61 are popular areas for both alcohol use and drug dealing. The grassy 

lot on the right has been used almost daily for the last year as a site for passing the bottle 

around, while the left side lot is used for drug dealing and drug meetings ... I am aware 

that the NPS does not have jurisdiction to enforce their regulations on private lands 

within the boundary of the New River Gorge National River. Problems on such 

property as the vacant lot adjacent to the post office in Glen Jean have been referred to 

the Fayette County Sheriff’s Department and /or the West Virginia State Police.94 

 Indeed, Mr. Bragg was correct. The park headquarters parking lot became a 

favorite site for the drug trade, both marijuana and meth-amphetamine. The community 

knew it and resented it. Chris Shrader, who had moved from interpreter at New River in 

the late 1980s to law enforcement and then to be the park’s criminal investigator, worked 

 

91 Pete Hart, “Managing a Non-traditional Park,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Beckley, 

WV, April 1999), 1-9, on 7-8. 

92 Gary Hartley, interview by Lynn Stasick, June 22, 2004. 

93 “Fayette Canine Quickly Earning Celebrity Status,” The Fayette Nicholas Report, April 17, 1991. 94 Letter, Harold D. Bragg to NERI Superintendent Pete Hart, June 12, 1999, MPF, Box 1, A36. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

120 

closely with the local Drug Task Force to change this situation. He set up video cameras 

in parked cars and in nearby buildings. After a big bust, the parking lot was no longer an 

active site.95 Nevertheless, drug problems have not been eliminated and continue to 

challenge park personnel. 

EMERGENCY SERVICES IN A LARGER PARK SYSTEM

 Andy Steel recalled in his interview in 2006 that when in 1992 he participated in 

search and rescue as a seasonal ranger, local volunteer fire departments did not view the 

Park Service favorably. They saw the Park Service as the “new kids with big equipment” 

that wasn’t needed. Relations gradually improved as they worked together, with several 

key incidents or developments helping along the way. The operation of a joint-command 

by Ranger Dave Bartlett and a local fire chief for a drowning at Sandstone Falls in the 

mid-1990s helped. Another time one canoeist washed over the falls and another nearly 

did and clung to a rock atop the falls. Night fell and communications were impossible 

because of the roaring falls. They couldn’t use a helicopter, and even shutting down 

Bluestone Dam and going up with a motor boat could not effect the rescue. Finally, 

Ranger Kinsey Shilling went over on a rope and the canoeist was brought to land.96

 As often is the case, a particular individual can help turn perceptions around. In 

the early 1990s, Charles Mitchum, who worked as a ranger at Grandview in 2006, joined 

park law enforcement, after retiring from the West Virginia State Police. He had been 

involved locally for years and had credibility. He helped the Park Service build 

connections to local emergency services. As Andy Steel reflected, “Things happened 

around him.” He received an award for saving a Hinton police officer and he saved two 

people in the 2001 floods in Thayer, when Buffalo Creek washed their house off its 

foundation. Meanwhile, he watched bridges above and below him being washed away.97

 According to Steel, most rafting companies have been nearly self-sufficient in 

search and rescue. The Park Service mainly has rescued fishermen, swimmers, and 

people who don’t understand the power of the river. Not unusual was the following 

rescue. A man, woman, and their young daughter were floating the river in a bayou 

canoe, not really made for white water. The canoe flipped and the three of them clung to 

a rock in the middle of the river. As night fell, the man swam to shore, hiked out in the 

dark, got a fisherman to help, and ultimately the Park Service completed the rescue. 

 Fatalities on the New River and Gauley River have indeed occurred, some by 

accident, many suicides. A teenager from Virginia died in 2004 when she was entrapped 

 

95 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 96 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 97 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

121 

under a rock during a commercial rafting trip.98 Steve Cruikshank, director of Fayette 

County Emergency Services, told a reporter that commercial rafting fatalities on the river 

had been rare. 

The last one that I can recall was 12 or 15 years ago. I’ve been in the position for 19 years 

now, and I can only remember ... three or four. In reality it’s more dangerous driving 

here than going down the river. The guys who lead these rafting expeditions are pretty 

skilled.99

Other users, however, have a worse record. Steel has helped in the recovery of fourteen 

bodies, that is, all except a few of the deaths since he began in 1992. Some of these were 

the customers of rafting companies mentioned by Cruikshank, but they were mostly 

anglers, private boaters, and people who slipped in and were swept away by the river.100

 With the growing popularity of the New River Gorge as a destination for rock 

climbers, accidents on the cliff faces also have occurred. Most, however, have not 

required Park Service assistance in rescue: falls at the base of the cliff, twisted limbs, 

abrasions, and bruises. The Park Service is not called in unless it is a serious incident and 

this happens only once or twice a year. Only one climbing fatality had occurred in the 

park up to 2006, when a solo climber tripped over his duffle bag at the top of a rock face 

and fell over.101

 One early idea for quickly transporting search-and-rescue personnel to accident 

sites and for quickly transporting victims out came from outside the NPS. Dave Arnold 

of Class IV River Runners suggested in 1985 that each rafting company owner acquire a 

vehicle that could run on the CSX tracks through the gorge. In a letter to Acting 

Superintendent Bob Whiteman, Arnold wrote: 

The isolated nature of the gorge creates problems for fast evacuation. In the past, CSX 

Corporation has been extremely helpful by providing men, vehicles, and down-time 

without charge. I believe it is time the NPS took this monkey off their back. As usage by 

rafters, hikers, fishermen, kayakers, etc. continues to increase, the accident rate will also 

rise.102 

Preliminary discussion began in December 1985 between the Park Service and the 

railroad. A CSX division manager agreed that such a vehicle would [provide a] “very 

effective way of removing persons during emergency situations within the river 

corridor.” He did not agree however, with the idea that non-railroad employees would 

qualify to operate the vehicle. He argued that individuals driving the vehicle on CSX 

tracks had to thoroughly know railroad operating rules and procedures and know the 

 

98 Matthew Hill, “Va. Resident Trapped under Rock after Boat Overturned,” Register-Herald, July 

1, 2004. 

99 Hill, “Va. Resident Trappede under Rock.” 

100 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 101 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 102 GMP (GARI), 15. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

122 

physical characteristics of the gorge itself. He doubted that a non-railroad employee 

could stay current on knowledge and procedures to operate such a vehicle safely. This 

impasse kept this idea from reaching its fruition.103 

 Another issue for emergency response involved maintaining communication 

throughout the park. The 1983 GMP required the park to 

maintain a radio communication system capable of meeting routine and emergency 

operational needs; repeater sites will be established and maintained outside the national 

river boundary and cross-communication capabilities may be developed with 

cooperating agencies.104 

But by 1990 the communication system still was problematic. Its ineffectiveness was 

obvious since only half of the park had radio coverage between rangers and 

headquarters.105 Moreover, the geography required that many rescue efforts be 

conducted through relay communication. For example, on June 15, 1998, a group of 

rafters discovered a kayaker’s body. The raft guide contacted his company, North 

American Whitewater Outfitters, and they sent word to New River headquarters. 

Communication required 45 minutes. The park service responded by sending a 

helicopter.106

 New River created the Emergency Operation Plan: Command System and 

Operational Checklists in 1993 in response to a perceived weakening in the chain of 

emergency response. While many park personnel felt the park handled minor 

emergencies adequately, the park was concerned that the system might strain under 

more serious situations. New River needed to be ready for wildland or structural fires, 

floods, multiple-injury accidents, or a major plane wreck with survivors.107 

 The Emergency Operation Plan specified that park’s chain-of-command have 

fourteen positions, each with a part in responding to emergencies within park 

boundaries. The plan placed the chief ranger in charge of all visitor protection duties, 

including emergency operations and conducting board-of-inquiry investigations in cases 

of fatalities. It made district rangers accountable to the chief ranger and responsible for 

day-to-day visitor protection within his or her jurisdiction. Others became accountable 

for wildland fire, emergency medical services, search and rescue, law enforcement 

equipment, and prompt execution of the Emergency Operations Plan within his or her 

respective area. Thus the chain-of-command was consecutively applied throughout the 

fourteen positions.108 

 

103 Memo, NERI to Senator Robert C. Byrd, October 28, 1986, MPF A3815. 104 GMP (NERI), 28. 

105 Memorandum: Visitor Contacts, MPF A7615 Box #26 File #2, 1990. 

106“Kayaker’s Body Found in Rapids,” Charleston Daily Mail, June 15, 1998. 

107 National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan. MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 

108 National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan. MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

123 

 By this plan, all park personnel could act quickly and efficiently in an emergency. 

All emergency calls that originated within the park were to be dispatched via the Raleigh 

County Emergency Operations Center located in Beckley. The dispatch system was a 

twenty-four hour facility and maintained contact with rangers at all times, given 

availability of contact.109 

 To get from one part of the park to another has always involved long drives on 

roads outside the park, since no road runs the length of the park. This can be dangerous 

when responding to complaints and emergency situations. Grandview is a good example. 

The Park Service Emergency Operation Plan, released in 1993 (see just below), indicates 

that 

Grandview is within two air miles of an area known as Army Camp. [Yet] it takes 

twenty-seven miles of driving and forty-five minutes or more for a patrol ranger to go 

from one to the other. During most of the travel time the patrol ranger is out of the park 

[boundaries].110 

Although there is a steep, rough administrative road from the Grandview maintenance 

area into the gorge, to the bridge over the New River to Prince, patrol rangers more often 

use the longer, paved route described above, a reasonable choice.111 

 About the same time, in 1990, a movement began to establish the New River Gorge 

National River Search and Rescue team (SAR). The increase in rock-climbing required a 

technical response team. The Park Service hosted a 3-day training course with North 

District Ranger Rick Brown and a park ranger from Voyageurs National Park to develop 

a team. Hugh Doughner, considered the most talented technical rescuer in the country at 

the time, conducted the course.112 

 Efforts to make search-and-rescue more effective continued in 1995. NPS placed 

emergency backboards along the New and Gauley Rivers. Since companion boaters 

conducted most rescues, these boards were for public use. NPS ‘flagged’ each backboard 

location.113 NPS kept the boards out from April 1 until the end of the Gauley whitewater 

season, when they removed and stored them for the winter. Because the boards were 

expensive, NPS placed only seventeen on the New River and eleven on the Gauley. The 

Park Service asked people using the boards to contact the Canyon District Office to 

record the event and retrieve the board.114 

 Emergency services in New River Gorge National River, and Gauley River and 

Bluestone River, have changed significantly since the beginning. Staffing has increased 

 

109 National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan. MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 

110National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan, MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 

111 National Park Service, Emergency Operation Plan. MPF A7619 Box #60, 1993. 

112 National Park Service, Memorandum, MPF A7615 Box #26, File #2, 1990. 

113 GMP (GARI), 15. 

114 Letter, Rick Brown (North District Ranger) to Whitewater Outfitters, April 21, 1995, MPF 

A7615 Box #73. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

124 

and organization has improved. With time, Park Service personnel have worked more 

closely with local first responders and also with private boaters and the employees of 

commercial rafting companies. Although the terrain presents the same formidable 

challenges as ever, these changes, along with the adoption of cellular telephones, have 

helped to improve the situation. 

FIRE OPERATIONS IN A LARGER PARK SYSTEM

 Except for one dramatic fire of 300,000 acres that threatened the Gauley River 

National Recreation Area and the New River Gorge National River in 1991, most fires on 

the three parks have been rather minor. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Congressman Nick Rahall praised the firefighters who came to help fight the 1991 fire, 

supplied by the Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, saying: 

The Federal response to the fire did not simply benefit the two units of the National 

Park System in southern West Virginia. The state and local fire-fighting effort was 

greatly enhanced by the Federal presence. For example, I am convinced that without 

the work of the Federal interagency fire team, the town of Ansted in Fayette County 

would be in flames.115 

Only two naturally caused fires have ever occurred, both generated by single lightning 

strikes to trees. Most fires have been human-caused, and most of those by sparks flying 

from burrs on the active railroads.116

 Before the big 1991 fire and the resulting official reactions, seasonal rangers often 

concentrated on law enforcement for seven months of the year and moved to a fire 

position for five months. By 1995, the Department of the Interior expressed concerns 

that the park’s wildland fire program required professional, managerial oversight and 

stated: 

It is now recognized by those who have studied the issue that New River Gorge 

National River, and its two companion parks, the Gauley River National Recreation 

Area and the Bluestone National Scenic River, present one of the most significant and 

challenging fire programs in this region and, perhaps, one of the most significant in the 

east.117 

Interior feared that without a full-time Fire Management Officer (FMO), the park could 

not meet the needs of a fire management plan and oversight of a prescribed fire program. 

Interior also worried that the park could not guide, train, and meet qualifications for 50 

 

115 Congressional Record, Vol. 137, Pt. 21 p. 30401-32076, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, Nov. 6, 

1991-Nov. 13, 1991. 

116 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 117 National Park Service, Fire Program, MPF Y14, Box #74, 1995. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

125 

or more firefighters. Hence the regional FMO instructed New River to create a full-time 

professional position to address the issues of implementing and sustaining a fire 

suppression/prevention program.118 

 In 1996, three law enforcement positions changed permanently to fire operations, 

including Andy Steel and Dave Bartlett, Bartlett as fire management officer.119 Fire 

fighters on the parks have not been “on call” in the National Park Service since it was 

determined that this conflicted with personnel policies nationwide. Rather, fire officers 

have worked regular assignments. Some also chose to be put on a call-out list if they were 

willing to accept extra assignments. The call-out list was regionalized, hierarchical, and 

prioritized according to a set protocol.120

 Communication for fire officers, like law enforcement rangers, originally was by 

radio or beepers, and later by cell phones when they became available.121 The use of 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in New River and its sister parks started within 

the fire management team, unlike in most parks, where it entered through natural 

resource teams. When in 1996 Dave Bartlett heard of GIS training and funding for 

computer equipment, he sent Andy Steel for the training. Steel later attended a second 

course. He gradually expanded the use of GIS from mapping park boundaries and 

searching out remote parcels to installing backcountry boundary signs on illegal ATV 

trails and registering the positions of signs and structures into the property files. The use 

of GIS spread to law enforcement, and into general use. Keeping up with the rapid 

acquisition of land in the 1990s challenged everyone, but Andy Steel’s energetic efforts to 

map the park and to increase the utility of GIS quickly became essential to every division 

of the park. 

 The Park Service created Wildland Fire Management: Director’s Order #18 in 1998. 

They spent a year reviewing and revising a plan that would effectively meet the needs of 

New River’s fire situation.122 Their fire management statement of purpose indicated that 

wildland fire may contribute [to] or hinder the achievement of park management 

objectives. Therefore, park fire management programs will be designed to meet 

resource management objectives prescribed for the various areas of the park and to 

ensure that firefighters and public safety are not compromised.123 

Since then, controlled burns have been used to manage risk, such as at Camp Brookside 

in the early 2000s. Wildfire Associates, Colorado, prepared the Wildland Fire 

Management Plan for New River National River, Bluestone National Scenic River, Gauley 

 

118 Letter, Department of Interior to NERI, MPF Y14, Box #74, 1995. 119 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 120 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 121 Andy Steel, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 122 National Park Service, Director’s Order #18: Wildland Fire Management, February 23, 1998. 123 National Park Service, Director’s Order #18: Wildland Fire Management. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

126 

River National Recreation Area for New River, released in 2005.124 It remains to be seen 

how this recent report will affect fire management in the park, but in any case, 

experience and reflection have produced a detailed plan. 

CONCLUSION 

 From its beginning in 1978, New River Gorge National River has challenged Park 

Service personnel. Its remoteness, poor roads, and grandeur have made the national 

river a difficult park to patrol and administer. Communication, law enforcement, search 

and rescue, and fire protection all face these same logistical problems. Inclusion of the 

Bluestone National Scenic River and the Gauley River National Recreation Area and two 

former state parks within New River’s charge has exacerbated these problems. The 

establishment of Gauley River and Bluestone River also required new rounds of planning 

like those on-going for New River itself. A GMP for Gauley appeared in 1996 and a 

Development Concept Plan took the process further in 2002. The patchwork of private 

and public ownership within park boundaries made it difficult for the Park Service to 

meet its main charge from Public Law 95-625: to protect the resources of the gorge. NPS 

faced difficulties in protecting resources through easements and donations, approaches 

they tried first before the park began to acquire more land by fee. This slowed 

acquisition. Thurmond provided a good example of these difficulties. The Nuttall 

acquisition, on the other hand, yielded a success story in 1998. 

 Inner gorge access has posed, and continues to pose, difficult problems for 

monitoring visitor activities and law enforcement. Illegal use of ATVs, drugs and alcohol 

have been primary issues for law enforcement. Poor inner gorge access and poor 

communications also posed problems for wildland firefighting and search-and-rescue 

efforts. The Park Service entered into cooperative agreements with local and state 

agencies to better manage enforcement and rangers were deputized for multiple 

jurisdictions. Later West Virginia law was changed to designate rangers as “Peace 

Officers” under West Virginia code, providing them far greater enforcement 

capabilities.125 It also has developed progressively more proactive plans for responding 

to criminal actions, accidents, and forest fires. No longer is it enough to warn park 

visitors that it’s dangerous on the river or atop a cliff. Now the park has to have a plan in 

place for responding to any eventuality. Certainly, more remains to be done, but the New 

River Gorge National River has proceeded from bare sketches of management plans, 

 

124 Wildfire Associates, Wildland Fire Management Plan: New River National River, Bluestone 

National Scenic River, Gauley River National Recreation Area (For the National Park Service, 

March 2005). This report is available on the web at 

http://www.nps.gov/neri/pdf/fmp/NERIFMP_FINAL.pdf. 125 Gary Hartley, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 22, 2004. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

127 

through exhaustive analysis of problems and challenges, to very detailed plans regarding 

many of the most important and pervasive issues commonly faced. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

128 

Figure 20. Map showing the “Boundary Progression at New River up to 2005. Courtesy of New River 

Gorge National River. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

129 

Figure 21. Bluestone Wild and Scenic Study Area, 1983. Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

130 

Figure 22. Map of planning units at New River, 1989. Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

131 

Figure 23. With each land acquisition, or in this case a donation from the state of West Virginia, came the tasks of 

planning and management. The state transferred Grandview to the National Park Service in 1990, but in 1999 the 

planning was still underway. Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 
The Challenges Of Managing A Quickly Expanding Park 

132 

Figure 24. This sample organization chart from 2004 illustrates the highest level of organization within New 

River. This chart was followed by and elaborated by 29 more. These are all reproduced from the originals in 

Appendix C. Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 
133 

CHAPTER FIVE

MANAGING NERI NATURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

 When Ken Stephens started at the New River Gorge National River in 1992, the 

natural resources staff consisted of himself (as supervisory natural resource specialist, 

Division Chief of Natural Resources) and one biologist. Staffing for natural resources 

hadn’t changed since the 1980s, when David Reynolds had been in charge of this 

function. Stephens, however, came just as the growth of the park and its staff was taking 

off. He reflected in 2006: 

Today, we have my position and we have four, what I call, subject matter experts: a 

wildlife biologist, a veg [i.e., vegetation] specialist, a fisheries biologist, and a geologist. 

We have two technicians that work full-time. And occasionally we’ll have some seasonal 

staff, but typically we rely on student interns from various local colleges and VIPs 

[Volunteers in Parks].1

But, he asked, has the staff grown enough to manage the increasing land base and 

responsibilities of the New River, Gauley River, and Bluestone River? Has it kept pace 

with the increased reporting requirements of the Washington Office (WASO) and the 

regional office (Northeast Regional Office, NERO)? No, he said in his 2006 interview: “I 

don’t think any division here has kept pace.” This chapter narrates the stories behind the 

efforts to protect natural resources in these three park units, both in the “small park” 

period and during the rapid growth of the 1990s and later. 

 The 1978 law authorizing the New River Gorge as a unit of the National Park 

System included requirements regarding conservation of natural, scenic, and cultural 

features in and around the gorge. It encouraged interpretation of those resources for the 

visiting public and preserving the free-flowing river to provide enjoyment to future 

generations. The NPS thus has had duel roles whose policy mandates potentially 

conflict. It must protect the river in its natural state, but it must also provide for 

recreational use and public enjoyment. Since any use may affect a resource, the NPS has 

had to decide how much change is acceptable. Administrators have based management 

decisions on legal and policy mandates, on analyses of impacts of recreation on 

resources, and on input from users.2

 The responsibility to preserve natural resources has 

 

1

 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 2

 Joseph W. Roggenbuck, “Norms of New River Gorge (WV) Boaters About Appropriate River Use 

Conditions,” New River Gorge Symposium Proceedings (Boone, NC, 1984), 134. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

134 

vied with the need to manage cultural resources as well. Natural areas in the park 

frequently have some cultural features or recreational interest. 

 The New River represents a “natural corridor” linking the Ohio Valley to 

Piedmont Virginia and places further south. As described in Chapter 1, it was part of a 

great system of Indian trails,3

 and for 12,000 years the region has provided humankind 

with the resources necessary for survival. Its abundant fish, game, and flora provided 

early inhabitants with food and shelter, but the dissected terrain, deep canyons, and wild 

rapids long impeded travel, settlement, and exploitation of the natural resources.4

 Not 

until the railroad came through in 1873 could people cut the region’s timber and 

transport the timber and the area’s coal to market. This brought an explosion of industry 

and settlement which produced many cultural remains visible today. Industrialization 

has profoundly affected the region’s natural resources, too. Although forests cover the 

park today, this is no pristine landscape. 

 This chapter examines Park Service actions regarding protection of these natural 

resources and restoration of resources impacted by industrial society. It discusses goals 

the General Management Plan established regarding water quality, dams for flood 

control or hydroelectric power generation, and continuous flow of the river. The 

chapter examines other resource policy questions as well, including plant and animal 

populations; ‘Threatened and Endangered’ species; fish, black flies and Bacillus

thuringiensis israelensis (Bti); and relations between the NPS and West Virginia state 

agencies, especially the Division (later Department) of Natural Resources (DNR) and the 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). How New River’s natural resource 

staff interacted with the public, how they responded to particular issues, to growth of the 

parks, and to increasing responsibilities, form the heart of this discussion. 

WATER FLOW AND PRE-EXISTING IMPOUNDMENTS

 A complicating factor for managing water quality in New River originated in two 

dams built upstream on the New River before the park was authorized. Private interests 

built the Claytor Dam near Radford, Virginia, between 1937 and 1939. This hydroelectric 

dam was designed to produce 76,000 kilowatts of electricity.5

 The Army Corps of 

Engineers completed the Bluestone Dam, just upstream of Hinton, in 1948. How was the 

National Park Service to deal with these pre-existing structures, with their mandates 

 

3

 Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc., A Cultural Research Project: The New River Gorge National River, 

West Virginia, 3 vols. (Charleston, WV, for the National Park Service, 1981), Vol. I, Pre-history, written 

and edited by David N. Fuerst, 40. Volume II titled History, Community, and Architecture, was written 

by Paul D. Marshall. Volume III, titled Prehistory Appendices, was compiled by David N. Fuerst. The 3-

volume report is commonly referred to as The Marshall Report. The passage cited here is 1:44. 4

 Fuerst, The Marshall Report: Pre-history, I:3. 5

 See: http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/about/history/bluestone/design/. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

135 

antithetical to those of the National Park Service? The needs of power generation and 

flood control do not promote a natural regime in the park. Before discussing the 

development of management objectives for water quality in New River, it is important to 

understand the origin of these two dams. 

 The Appalachian Power Company completed Claytor Dam in 1939, creating 21-

mile long Claytor Lake. The intent of the company was to use the impounded waters – 

4,500-acres – to generate electricity. The 1930s witnessed dramatic enthusiasm for 

hydroelectric power generation, especially for rural areas, on the parts of both the 

government and private companies. In fact, Claytor Dam was the second hydroelectric 

dam on the New River, the first being at Hawks Nest, just downstream of the future New 

River Gorge National River. Because the Claytor Dam generated electricity to meet peak 

demands throughout the power grid, the level of the New River downstream often rose 

or fell 2 or 3 feet in a short period, and could catch anglers or boaters downstream off 

guard. To this day, recreationists are advised to be alert and assume such changes in 

water level will occur.6

 Water released from Claytor Dam flows downstream about 25 

miles where it enters Bluestone Reservoir, an impoundment held back by a dam with a 

different history, starting in floods. 

 Flooding of the New River presented problems through the years. Floods on the 

New have frequently affected the Kanawha River downstream. In 1861 the Kanawha 

River rose at the rate of four feet per hour, wiping away most of the salt industry’s boats, 

wharves, and buildings. The industry never fully recovered. The greatest flood ever 

recorded came in 1878. It scoured the Kanawha Valley, taking farmhouses, buildings, 

and the county courthouse with all its records. Flood conditions occurred on the 

Kanawha River roughly every two years in the twentieth century.7

 People wanted some kind of flood control. As early as 1906, Summers County 

residents tried to control flooding on the New by building a dike upstream of Hinton, 

but it proved inadequate. Two years later, the federal government considered flood 

control for the entire Ohio Valley, including the New, and the Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE) conducted a five-year survey of flow rates.8

 They detailed flood levels, low ‘tides’, 

spring and fall freshets, and winter and summer stages. From flow numbers they 

calculated the potential contributions from each watershed into the Ohio River.9

 

 In 1912, Appalachian Electric Power Company began surveys at Bull Falls near 

Hinton for a hydroelectric power dam. They planned to supply electricity to Virginia 

and Southern West Virginia and began acquiring property. In 1935 the COE established 

 

6

 See: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies/display.asp?id=163§ion=maps. 7

 James E. Casto, “Bluestone Dam Celebrates 50 Years of Flood Control and Outdoor Recreation,” 

Wonderful West Virginia, May, 1999, 3(5):21. 8

 J.L. Perry, History of Bluestone Dam (Hinton, WV, 1948), 1. 9

 Don Mills, Bluestone Dam, for the Summers County Historical Society (Marceline, OH: Walsworth 

Press, 1984), 38. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

136 

an office in Hinton to investigate construction of a dam by the government. They 

submitted their findings in 1936, choosing a site approximately one mile above the 

confluence of the New and Greenbrier Rivers, and three miles above the Chesapeake 

and Ohio railroad station in Hinton.10 

 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the Bluestone Dam Project in 

1936 with modifications. Originally proposed as a flood-control dam, the new plans 

added hydroelectric power capabilities. Congress included the project in the Federal 

Flood Control Bills of 1936 and 1938. AEP opposed both bills and twice a federal judge 

halted government land acquisitions. The second case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals 

in Richmond in 1941. The appeals court reversed the lower court’s finding, effectively 

opening the way for the federal government to acquire and condemn land.11 

 In January 1942 the contract for the dam was awarded to the Dravo Corporation of 

Pittsburgh, which immediately began construction. In August 1942 the U.S. War Board 

suspended work on the project due to World War II, but in 1945 President Harry 

Truman signed the Deficiency Appropriation Bill, which included $3,000,000 for the 

dam; work resumed in 1946.12 

 The dam went into service in December 1948, but without the hydroelectric 

capacity. In 1943, hydroelectric-power generation had been shelved in favor of using the 

reservoir’s full potential to control floods. The dam soon proved its effectiveness. The 

Huntington District Office of the COE reported that in December 1950 the dam blocked 

the path of a major flood. According to Corps engineer Dr. Leland R. Johnson, the dam 

knocked four feet off the crest at Hinton and ten feet at Charleston, saving both towns. 

Within twelve years of its creation, the Corps estimated that the Bluestone Dam averted 

flood damages over twice the cost of construction.13 

WATER QUALITY, SEWAGE TREATMENT, AND ACID MINE DRAINAGE

Water quality stands at the center of the New River Gorge National River. As Ken 

Stephens said in a 2006 interview: “And then the water quality program was obviously 

one of our first initiatives because what’s our primary resource? It’s the river.”14 Indeed, 

it is both the political and the scientific center of managing this National River. 

 P.L. 95-625 (1978) required NPS to develop a water quality monitoring plan within 

the original 53-mile section of the river under its jurisdiction. This law also required the 

Park Service to monitor water quality of tributary streams to prevent public health 

 

10 Mills, Bluestone Dam, 38. 11 Mills, Bluestone Dam. 38. 12 Perry, History of the Bluestone Dam, 24. 13 Casto, “Bluestone Dam Celebrates 50 years,” 22. 14 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

137 

problems or loss of recreational values.15 Water quality played an important role in 

health and viability from the park’s beginning. Harvey Doerksen described management 

of water resources as one of the most frustrating problems since managers only partially 

control the resource.16 This was certainly true in New River, where three major factors 

impacted water quality within the national river: untreated or partially treated household 

or municipal sewage, abandoned mine lands (AML), and dams on the New River 

upstream of the park. 

 Management of water resources in New River rested at first on policies developed 

by NPS for parks established before New River in 1978. The post-1930s expansion of the 

National Park System included several new units with rivers whose waters originated 

outside park boundaries. Park managers realized their responsibility to protect rivers 

was not easy when they had little control over upstream waters. Upstream pollution 

sources and water releases caused dramatic changes in characteristics of rivers.17 

 Water management in New River also depended on policies developed for the 

New River before establishment of the park. In 1974, the U.S. EPA released an 

assessment of the water quality of the New River basin and its tributaries. Of the 1,887.6 

miles of streams, 651.3 miles did not meet water quality standards for recreational use. 

Although upstream pollution and acid mine drainage were contributing factors to the 

pollution, the principal water quality problem came from inadequately treated domestic 

sewage.18 

 That year municipal water systems in the area served 250,000 people, but most had 

inadequate waste treatment facilities. Approximately twenty communities had no 

treatment plants whatsoever, and most of those with primary or secondary treatment 

systems provided inadequate chlorination. In addition, the semi-urban/rural 

development then and now prevalent in the basin resulted in significant domestic waste 

loads on no municipal system.19 

 Jim Watkins, the first chairman of the Coalition to Save the New River, reflected 

on the situation in 2004. 

One of the problems the environmental community had with the New River was we 

didn’t know what was floated into the river. There were a lot of people that lived along 

 

15 Donald J. Orth and Louis A. Helfrich, “Indices of Water Quality for the New River Gorge National 

River and its Tributaries,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Blacksburg, VA, 1983), 1. 16 Harvey Doerksen, “Water, Politics, and Ideology: An Overview of Water Resources Management,” 

Public Administration Review, September-October 37 (1977): 444-448. 17 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams: A Case Study of the New River Gorge National 

River,” National Park Service, Main Park Files, Box 21, N3617, [ND, ca. 1986], 1-16, on 8. 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Internal Report, MPF Box 1, Miscellaneous. 

Correspondence, 1-2. 

19 EPA, Internal Report, Memo from Roland W. Schrecongost, Director, Wheeling Field Office, to 

EPA, MPF Box 1, Miscellaneous Correspondence, 3. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

138 

the river that just had a hose running down their backyard and into the river ... some 

people had septic systems, and some people had septic systems that didn’t work.20

The 1974 EPA report indicated that discharge of raw, inadequately treated wastes 

resulted in high fecal coliform concentrations, high biochemical oxygen demand, and 

floating and suspended solids and odor. In predicting water quality in future years, the 

EPA recommended coordinated efforts involving federal, state, and local governments in 

the construction of waste-treatment facilities throughout the basin. EPA suggested that 

pollution from abandoned mines and non-point sources resulting from poor land-use 

practices would be a continuing problem and was expected to “be the dominant factor 

affecting water quality for many years to come.”21

 With park designation, the Park Service became involved in managing the 

pollution problem. Water samples collected between 1980 and 1984 often had high fecal 

coliform content.22 Although fecal coliform bacteria do not generally cause disease, they 

provide a strong indication of the presence of other organisms, less easily detected, that 

do. They provide a standard indicator of water quality, including a quantitative measure 

for waters allowing recreational contact with the water. Trial measures by Park Service 

personnel and through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Appalachian Soil and Water 

Research Station in Beckley, WV, “produced mixed results.” Partly because the 1986 

data was inconsistent and partly because of personnel changes at New River, the Park 

Service contracted with the West Virginia DNR in 1987 to conduct fecal coliform 

studies. Samples were taken five times per month at fourteen sites in 1987 and at fifteen 

from April through September 1988 during the recreational high season.23 By 1989, the 

Park Service requested that the DNR sample with less frequency but at more locations. 

In 1990 the Park Service brought the sampling and monitoring program in-house at the 

new Glen Jean park headquarters and in 1991 installed a well outfitted Water Resources 

Laboratory, collaborating again with the USDA lab in Beckley.24 With these new 

facilities, a new monitoring group was soon in place, including Lisa Wilson and Kathy 

Oney. Also, New River extended the program in 1991 to include the Bluestone and 

Gauley River units.25

 The DNR report, published in May 1989, indicated that most of the river within 

New River contained relatively low levels of coliform during peak season. Many 

 

20 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

21 EPA, Internal Report, MPF Box 1, Miscellaneous Correspondence, 13. 

22 D.M. Wood, New River Gorge National River Water Studies Summary 1980-1986. West Virginia 

Division of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV, 1990; and Lisa Wilson and Jesse M. Purvis, Water 

Quality Monitoring Program 1998-2000 (Glen Jean, WV: National Park Service, March 2003), 1-2. 23 WV Division of Natural Resources (DNR), [Untitled Document], 1989, MPF, Box 38, N3617, ii. 24 Robert J. Sullivan, Bluestone National Scenic River and Gauley River National Recreation Area: Water 

Quality Monitoring Program (National Park Service, March 1993), 36 p., on 1-3. 25 The names of others involved in the NPS program are seen in the reports from the period, on file at 

NERI: S. Gibson, S.W. Hebner, D. Schmidt, and Robert J. Sullivan. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

139 

tributaries, however, did not fare so well. Towns such as Fayetteville delayed compliance 

with water quality standards for years while the communities grew in response to 

increased tourism. Even though the Fayetteville sewage plant was well designed when it 

was built in the late 1960s, it could not handle the increasing effluent. This effluent 

sometimes exceeded three times that for which the facility was designed. Tributaries 

became grossly polluted with the red midge larvae, sewage fungus, and foam—all 

indicators of heavy organic pollution.26 The highest pollution levels occurred just below 

the Hinton sewage treatment plant, the Meadow Creek access site, Marr Branch, Piney 

Creek, Arbuckle Creek, Wolf Creek, and Dunloup Creek. The DNR report indicated 

that Piney, Arbuckle, and Dunloup Creeks were the worst, “sorely polluted by sewage.”27

Wolf Creek is shown in Figure 1. They recommended that NPS post signs at public 

access sites with a warning that the water was not potable and that the NPS instruct the 

rafting companies to inform their clients of the dangers as well. DNR recommended the 

measures stay in effect until the communities within the watershed installed adequate 

sewage treatment facilities.28 

 The NPS and communities alike tried to improve sewage disposal. Meadow Creek 

constructed a new sewage treatment plant in the 1980s, and ground was broken in 1990 

in Hinton for an expanded plant with a secondary treatment facility.29 In 1992, the 

Fayette County Health Department began making on-site inspections of septic systems, 

especially near waterways. Citizens whose systems were in violation were required to 

eliminate health hazards or pay a monthly fee to connect to a public system.30

Fayetteville built its new Marbranch facility in 1994.31 

 Pollution from sewage continued, even though strides were made to clean up the 

basin and reduce fecal coliform levels. In 1991, a man whose wife had accidentally fallen 

into the river while picnicking near Thurmond filed a five-million-dollar lawsuit against 

the NPS and EPA. Toxins from the river caused her to develop a lung infection which 

ultimately took her life.32 And in a letter to the NPS in 1994, a landowner at Sandstone 

expressed his dismay that: 

In this day and age we still have raw sewage being dumped into the New River at 

Sandstone on a daily basis ... It would be interesting to know what the reaction of the 

tourist using this beautiful river would be if they (sic) were aware of this serious health 

and sanitation problem.33

 

26 West Virginia DNR, New River Gorge National River Fecal Coliform Study, 1989, MPF, Box 38, 

N3617, 39. 

27 DNR, New River Gorge National River Fecal Coliform Study, 39. 28 DNR, New River Gorge National River Fecal Coliform Study, 40. 29 NPS, Internal Memorandum, MPF, Box 38, N3617, 2. 30 “Push for Clean Water Turned Up,” Fayette County Tribune, September 17, 1992. 31 Randy Atwell, Manager, Marbranch Sewage Facility, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, July 13, 2005. 32 “Lawsuit Filed Over 1991 New River Death,” Beckley Register-Herald, September 22, 1993. 33 Dan Gillian, Letter to the Superintendent, NERI, May 27, 1994, MPF, Box 68, A3615. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

140 

This Sandstone resident was not alone in his observations and concerns. People all over 

the region were still living with the dangers that accompany untreated sewage. The 

Register-Herald in Beckley ran an article in April 1998 reporting that raw sewage was still 

finding its way into the New River from several small communities in Raleigh and 

Summers Counties, prompting the concern of officials and citizens alike.34 

 Despite the on-going problems, people interviewed for this administrative history 

generally agreed that the environmental quality in the basin has improved greatly since it 

became part of the National Park System. Jim Watkins said: 

[It] took somebody like the Park Service to find out what it was [the pollution problems] 

and then start dealing with it. As far as the [water] quality goes, I think the quality is 

better than it’s ever been.35 

Jim Watkins’ words have been verified through fecal coliform studies conducted by the 

DNR. Their 1989 report indicated that 

Except for a few local areas along New River’s banks, most of the stretch of the river 

that lies within NRGNR contains relatively low levels of FC [fecal coliform] 

concentrations during most of the peak, water-based recreation season of April through 

September.36

Park Service concerns for water quality have produced other cooperative agreements 

with this agency to reduce trash and control pollution and runoff in the gorge. In 

February 1992, Superintendent Joe Kennedy signed an agreement with J. Edward 

Hamrick III, Director of the WV DNR, to clean up an illegal dump site along the New 

River. In a memorandum to the Regional Chief of Contracting and Property 

Management for the Mid-Atlantic Region, Kennedy explained: 

The State of West Virginia has successfully removed various illegal dumps within the 

New River Boundary at no cost to the Federal Government. Due to the difficulty of this 

particular dump, the state is requesting financial assistance from the National Park 

Service. We have evaluated all possible alternatives for dump removal and have 

determined that this cooperative agreement will be the most economical method of 

completing the project.37 

The large, open dump, near Cunard in Fayette County, extended into Coal Run, a 

tributary of the New River. At the base of an eighty-foot cliff, cleanup was only possible 

from the top.38 

 

34 “Tainted New River Concerns Residents,” Beckley Register-Herald, April 1, 1998. 35 Jim Watkins, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 

36 DNR, New River Gorge National River Fecal Coliform Study, 1989, 39. 37 Joe Kennedy to the Regional Chief, Contracting and Property Management Division, Mid-Atlantic 

Region, Cooperative Agreement with State of West Virginia, February, 1992, MPF, Box 49, A44, 

1 and 4. 

38 Kennedy to Regional Chief. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

141 

 The Cunard cleanup project convinced Jim Watkins that the Park Service had been 

a good neighbor. Parks consultant Destry Jarvis expressed caution because of the nature 

of the problem the Park Service faced: 

[The New] is a high flow river naturally, so there is a need then and now to monitor 

water quality and control use if it gets bad. That’s as true of the Colorado River through 

the Grand Canyon, or the Shenandoah River in Virginia, or the Ohio downstream from 

the New. It’s just an unfortunate fact of life.39

Most people agreed that the region came a long way in controlling the discharge of raw 

sewage into the New River. Watershed groups had formed for some creeks, including 

Paint Creek. People also agreed that the Park Service played a large part in the process. 

Tributaries like Dunloup, Arbuckle, and Piney Creeks still pose problems, however, and 

work must continue to ameliorate the situation. Indeed, a Park Service report issued in 

2003 indicated many tributaries of the New River to be “unsatisfactory for contact 

recreation”: Madam Creek, Arbuckle Creek, Keeney Creek, and Marr Branch 

particularly. Regarding Keeney Creek, the report stated: 

Monitoring of Keeney Creek water quality indicates a substantial and continuous 

source, or sources, of fecal material entering the stream. Residences in the communities 

of Winona, Lookout, and Divide, all without a centralized wastewater treatment facility, 

are likely sources of this chronic contamination. General apathy towards the stream is 

indicated by the amount of solid waste, mostly household trash, regularly noted at the 

monitoring site. Keeney Creek should be considered a definite health risk to those 

coming into contact with its waters.40

Nevertheless, communities and the Park Service alike have addressed these problems 

over the years and management plans have been developed to bring the watersheds of 

the three park units closer to the desired, pre-industrial condition. All parties realize 

there is still much work to be done. The Park Service issued a comprehensive plan in 

2002: Water Resources Management Plan: New River Gorge National River, Gauley River 

National Recreation Area, Bluestone National Scenic River, West Virginia.

41 The report 

recommended dozens of high priority projects, ranging from microbiological and 

epidemiological studies to outreach to anglers regarding release of bait-bucket fish and 

the study of rare plant communities.

 Abandoned mine land also impacted water quality in the New River. Acid mine 

drainage (AMD) has not been as much of a problem here as it has been in other parts of 

Appalachia for several reasons. Coal in the New River watershed, generally, is low sulfur, 

so it does not always produce highly acidic conditions. Moreover, the watershed 

 

39 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, April 23, 2004. 40 Lisa Wilson and Jesse M. Purvis, Water Quality Monitoring Program 1998-2000 (Glen Jean, WV: 

National Park Service, March 2003), 49-50. 

41 Jesse M. Purvis, Water Resources Management Plan: New River Gorge National River, Gauley River 

National Recreation Area, Bluestone National Scenic River, West Virginia (Glen Jean, WV: National Park 

Service, December 2002). 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

142 

includes significant limestone deposits, providing buffering. Still, the 2002 Water 

Resources Management Plan addressed one particularly important tributary of the New 

River with AMD impacts: Wolf Creek. This creek flows through Oak Hill and 

Fayetteville, emptying into the New River at Fayette Station. About 200,000 whitewater 

boaters take out at its mouth every year. Water in Wolf Creek just downstream of a coal 

gob pile, the remainders of an abandoned mine, is often less than pH 3. No life from 

before the coal mining remains in the creek. Fayetteville, which had depended on the 

creek for much of its water, had to find a new source. The 2002 Water Resources 

Management Plan noted that a trust fund has been established to remediate and manage 

this situation. recommended that the park establish baseline conditions and monitor 

water quality and aquatic life – with the goal to return the creek and its life to the 

condition of the “outstanding natural” resources New River’s 1978 authorizing 

legislation charged the Park Service with conserving.42

WATER FLOW AND PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 When Congress authorized New River in 1978, the park’s managers inherited the 

effects of these two upstream dams on the New River within the gorge. David Reynolds, 

the natural resource manager at the park from 1982 to 1987, wrote a report in 1986 

concerning how he and other Park Service employees established management 

objectives for the New River Gorge National River and how they implemented these 

objectives.43 The water flowing into the gorge was controlled mainly by the Bluestone 

Dam, the purpose of which was flood control. Hence, releases from this dam might have 

been expected to follow heavy rainfall. These would be seasonal, or at least infrequent. 

But the Claytor Dam complicated this. In order to generate electricity during peak 

periods, Claytor Dam released surges of water almost daily. These surges produced 

fluctuations of river level below Bluestone Dam of as much as 2 feet. As David Reynolds 

wrote in 1986: 

Thus a large percentage of the releases from Bluestone have no relationship to natural 

conditions in the New River watershed itself and result in widely fluctuating artificial 

flows on the National River.44

Nevertheless, as natural resource manager for the park, Reynolds needed to develop a 

management policy for the river within the park. Such a policy had to take into account 

the “intent of Congress” regarding management of the river, but it also had to somehow 

deal with the conflicting goals of the two dams upstream. 

 

42 Jesse M. Purvis, Water Resources Management Plan, 193-194. 43 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 3. 

44 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 4. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

143 

 Normally, the authorizing legislation for a unit of the National Park System 

includes specific language to guide management of that unit. The authorizing legislation 

of New River, however, was not as detailed as usual. This was partly because the bill was 

written quickly during the rush of assembling the 1978 Parks Omnibus Bill, but it was 

also due partly to politics. Reynolds quoted Section 1110 of PL 95-625, the section he 

judged to provide the clearest guidance: 

The Secretary of the Army shall cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior concerning 

the water requirements of the national river. The Secretary of the Army shall provide for 

release of water from the Bluestone Lake project consistent with that project’s purposes 

and activities in sufficient quantity and in such manner to facilitate protection of 

biological resources and recreational use of the national river.45

As Reynolds stated, this language was not specific enough. The Corps of Engineers could 

still manage Bluestone Dam with emphasis on the goals of flood control and power 

generation, while the Park Service stressed the charge to protect “the biological 

resources and recreational use of the national river.” Reynolds cited evidence that 

biological communities downstream had indeed changed since construction of the dam. 

 Reynolds described the task of Park Service staff who arrived at the New River 

Gorge in 1979 to begin crafting a policy for the new park. First, they needed to figure out 

what Congress meant by Section 1110. Second, they needed to fit it with other laws into a 

policy. Lastly, they needed to work with the Corps, the WV DNR, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service “to determine the most appropriate flow regime for Bluestone Dam.”46

But it turned out to more difficult than this. Why? 

 Destry Jarvis, who wrote most of PL 95-625, explained to Reynolds in 

correspondence that the conflicting directives in Section 1110 were not in his original 

wording. In particular, the words “... consistent with that project’s purposes and 

activities...” were not his. This phrase, Jarvis wrote, came from a Corps official, at the 

request and insistence of Senator Jennings Randolph. According to Jarvis, the National 

Parks and Conservation Association and the local activists who had fought to establish 

New River protested, but to no avail.47 As a result, the Park Service and the Corps each 

pointed to a different phrase in this law, the Park Service emphasizing protection of 

biological resources and recreation, the Corps emphasizing flood control – and their 

legal right to re-consider power generation at a later time. 

 Reynolds posed the management question this way: How can the Park Service 

preserve the natural values described in the authorizing legislation when the Claytor and 

Bluestone Dams have produced such an “unnatural” system? He answered this way. The 

goal cannot be to restore the river to its “natural state” since that would be impossible. 

 

45 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 5. 

46 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 6. 

47 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 7. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

144 

Rather, the manager should specify river characteristics that “resemble as closely as 

possible the historic, pre-impoundment river” and develop a management program that 

preserves that system.48 That is, the manager must identify species and conditions to be 

preserved and then choose actions that will achieve that goal. The initial problem in the 

New River Gorge was that no one knew what the river was like before the dams, or what 

species had been there. Before policy could be decided, baseline data was needed. In 

1983-1984 the Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit at Virginia Tech conducted 

an “Assessment of Biological Resources and Habitats in the New River,” which 

identified the fish, mussels, and other vertebrate populations in the gorge. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service constructed aquatic and riparian habitat maps for low, optimum, 

and high flows. The Park Service’s Water Resources Laboratory evaluated historic 

stream flow data from before and after the construction of the dams. The Corps studied 

changes in water quality caused by impoundments and how these affect biota. And lastly, 

the West Virginia DNR studied “fishability” at different flow rates. With this baseline 

data, it was time to consider management strategies.49 The process Reynolds then 

described was a negotiation among these different agencies, recognizing that each 

agency had its own priorities. Even though management decisions depended on hard 

data, Reynolds cautioned that: 

Political realities dictate that compromise will probably be necessary regardless of 

Congressional mandates. It is important that the needs and “bottom line” of other 

concerned agencies are well understood prior to negotiations and that the NPS 

negotiator is well-versed in the technical and political aspects of the issue.50

Protection of biological resources in this inter-agency negotiation was not a 

straightforward process, nor could the Park Service prevail without compromise. 

WATER FLOW AND RECREATION

 The issue of water flow in the gorge, prominent in the debates of the 1970s, 

continued to be important after 1978. The best sections of the New River for white water 

rafting and other recreational activities are in the north end of New River between the 

Cunard access point and the New River Gorge Bridge. By 1981, the public’s concern was 

rising regarding river flow. Several rafting companies had openly expressed fears in the 

Fayette Tribune that more water came down the river during off hours when it was not 

beneficial to the rafting companies and the public.51 To the outfitters, this directly 

contradicted the authorizing legislation for the national river, which required the Corps 

 

48 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 10. 49 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 10-13. 50 David W. Reynolds, “Managing Impounded Streams,” [1986], 15. 51 “New Bluestone Dam Survey Concerns Whitewater Firms,” Fayette Tribune, September 10, 1981. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

145 

to provide suitable flow releases for downstream recreation when consistent with other 

project purposes.52 To study the problem, Jim Carrico, then superintendent of the park, 

met with Corps engineers to discuss a plan to meet the needs of the outfitters.53 

 There were problems. For instance, engineers investigated flow-modification in 

1990 to consider possible water-storage reallocation as a means for improving project 

services. A higher pool level would resolve some recreation problems both at Bluestone 

Lake and downstream. But the study found that a rise in the pool behind Bluestone Dam 

would cause water quality problems during low-flow periods. Also, because the lower 

reach of Bluestone River is a National Wild and Scenic River, the Bluestone pool level 

could not be raised, since the raised pool would permanently inundate part of the Scenic 

River.54 

 There were communication problems between the public and the Corps as well. 

Outfitter Jon Dragan wrote a letter to Colonel James Higman in April 1981, expressing 

his concerns for the health of the up-coming white water recreation season: 

The cause for our concern is a phone call made this morning to the Bluestone Project at 

which time I was informed as to the number of gates that were open, but could not 

obtain any information as to a proposed schedule, in order to safely operate our 

business.... I would hope that information as to the probability of water flow would be 

obtainable a minimum of 24 hours in advance. As the whitewater industry has grown in 

the last ten years, and particularly here on the New River with the safety and lives of so 

many guests directly affected, I would hope that a closer working relationship with the 

Corps of Engineers might be established at the Bluestone Project.55 

Dragan stated in an interview in 2004 that things had gotten better over the years. He 

said of the DNR and NPS: 

Yeah, they really have [responded] I’m going to give them a B+. They realize that the 

rafting industry is a mover and a shaker; it generates 75 to 80 million bucks a year. 

They’re responsive to it ... unless they’re asking for the moon, I can honestly say that 

the NPS and DNR have been extremely responsive to the wishes and wants of the 

outfitters ... They’ve done well on that one, like I said, I give them a B+.56 

Since the 1970s the rafting business has become an integral part of the economic health 

of the New River Gorge. The Park Service and Army Corps of Engineers have sought to 

overcome problems of water release and communications in an effort to keep the rafting 

businesses and thus this part of the economy healthy. Moreover, overall the Park Service 

has actively affected a range of water resource issues in the New River watershed. 

 

52 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bluestone Lake Flow Management Study, West Virginia: Plan of Study

(N.p., N.d.), MPF, Box 27, D18, 2. 

53 Fayette Tribune, September 10, 1981. 54 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bluestone Lake Study, MPF, Box 27, D18, 2-3. 55 Jon Dragan, Letter to NPS, April 16, 1981, MPF, Box 19, L5423. 56 Jon Dragan, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

146 

RENEWED INTEREST IN HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 

AT BLUESTONE DAM

 Although power generation at Bluestone Dam was shelved in 1943 as a wartime 

decision, the idea never really died. Parks consultant Destry Jarvis has pointed out that 

even in the 1970s, as debates over park designation were ongoing, people envisioned 

hydroelectric power at Bluestone. “There was, and still is, a constituency that would like 

to put power in the pen-stocks at Bluestone Dam.”57 In the early 1980s, the COE issued a 

document titled, Scope of Services, a Proposed Study of the Impacts Hydroelectric 

Generation Facility at Bluestone Dam on Recreational Activities/Economics.

58 Jarvis, who 

was then Director of Federal Activities for the National Parks and Conservation 

Association in Washington, DC, criticized the proposed study as being “...so seriously 

flawed that we must insist on its retraction and extensive revision.” Jarvis wrote to 

Brigadier General Richard S. Kem, Division Engineer in Cincinnati, Ohio, that the 

“Scope of Services” failed to acknowledge the existence of the New as a National River, 

and completely overlooked the provisions of law which the Corps was compelled to 

address if it proceeded with the project. He suggested the Corps instruct the District 

Office in Huntington to withdraw the Scope immediately and acknowledge the National 

River’s existence and the requirements this imposed regarding modification of the 

Bluestone Dam.59 

 In 1990, during a special meeting of Hinton city council, Mayor James A. Leslie 

announced plans to work with Philippi and White Sulphur Springs, WV, to bring 

hydroelectric power to Bluestone. They formed the Tri-Cities Power Authority. The 

mayor indicated the project would focus on hydroelectric power production and 

exclude pumped storage or anything else that “would destroy the lake.” He projected 

completion within three years.60 

 Mayor Leslie’s time frame proved too optimistic. By 1993, the issue was being 

debated in Washington. A Hinton Times article articulated four concerns raised by the 

NPS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in response to a federal study on the 

proposal. Both agencies questioned the effects a rise in pool elevation would have on 

Bluestone Lake and upstream. They were concerned with flood zones, fish killed 

through the turbines, the possibility of an uneven flow of water downstream, and its 

effect on wading fishermen. Leslie suggested that the number of fish killed could be 

addressed by agreeing to re-stock the river. He indicated that uneven water flow would 

 

57 Destry Jarvis, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, April 23, 2004. 58 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Scope of Services, Proposed Study of the Impacts of a Hydroelectric 

Generation Facility at Bluestone Dam on Recreational Activities/Economics (N.p., N.d.) MPF. 59 Destry Jarvis, Letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, April 12, 1982, MPF, Box 19, L7423, 1-2. 60 Hinton News, January 9, 1990, MPF, Box 27, D18. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

147 

not be an issue since the plant would operate on the “natural flow of the river.” He said, 

“It’s not going to be pulsating, but we have to prove that. That’s what the study is for.”61 

 In July 1994 the Corps released a document titled The Reconnaissance Level 

Evaluation Report for the Bluestone Lake Hydropower Study, which offered three plans. 

The first proposed maintaining the pool level at summer elevation. The second increased 

the pool level by 11 feet. The third called for no action at all.62 

 The Park Service made it clear that the report inadequately examined potential 

conflicts with park-enabling legislation, park resources, park facilities, and visitor use. 

More in-depth studies were required to clarify the impacts. NPS staff cared especially 

about potential impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources, both in the lake and 

downstream, in the second scenario of raising the pool level 11 feet. Water flow was also 

a concern. The Park Service noted that Public Law 95-625 required the Corps to 

“cooperate with the NPS in providing for release of water from the Bluestone project, 

consistent with purposes and activities, in sufficient quantity and in such a manner as to 

facilitate protection of biological resources and recreation use of the national river.”63 

 By 2003, the Tri-Cities Power Authority had signed an agreement with the Corps 

to develop power at Bluestone Dam. The contract stipulated that Tri-Cities would, in 

conjunction with the Corps, “undertake to develop hydroelectric at Bluestone according 

to environmental and other laws ...”64 By 2005, the parties negotiated agreements to 

satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

accomplish design and construction activities. In 2006 the hydroelectric facility was 

completed and includes a system to collect and remove logs, tires, and other debris, 

which previously passed through the Bluestone Dam and downstream into New River.65 

MANAGING FLORA AND FAUNA OF NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER

 Clearing fields for agriculture, timbering, and coal mining in the nineteenth and 

twentieth centuries greatly altered both flora and fauna in and around New River Gorge. 

Farmers fragmented forests, hunted animals, and gathered plants. They also introduced 

new species, as did the railroads later. Some trees were clear-cut while others were 

selectively harvested. Large animals like the woodland bison, mountain lion, elk, and 

whitetail deer approached extinction with habitat destruction and hunting. From the 

 

61 Hinton News, November 23, 1993, MPF, Box 65, L7423. 62 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reconnaissance Level Draft Report: Bluestone Lake, Hydropower Study

(July, 1994), MPF, Box 70, L7423. 

63 Sutton Epps, NPS, letter to the Planning Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 9, 

1994, 1-2. MPF. 

64 “Hinton Hydro Pact Signed,” Charleston Gazette, April 20, 2003. 65 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District Web Page, Bluestone Hydropower: Events and 

Announcements. Accessed October 21, 2004. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

148 

mid-twentieth century on, however, much of the area had reverted into mature forest 

stands, and again the area had become an important wildlife habitat. But the mix of 

plants and animals differs from that of two centuries ago. With creation of New River in 

1978, park staff inherited this changed flora and fauna and a complex set of management 

challenges. Figure 2 shows a typical landscape, half-way up the gorge walls on the 

Kaymoor Trail. Figure 3 shows an artificial waterfall along Kaymoor Trail, illustrating the 

wet environment in the gorge. 

 Whether considering flora or fauna, park management must face three major 

issues. First is the question of “traditional uses”: hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering 

of wild products for home use or commerce. Second is that of introduced species: 

exotics or invasive species. Lastly, managers are confronted with threatened and 

endangered species and how to deal with them. All three topics acquired a new 

perspective after the park was established. Now the National Park Service was a major 

actor in West Virginia, and both its general policies and those particular to the New 

River Gorge National River weighed heavily in deciding how to manage plants and 

animals. 

TRADITIONAL USES: HUNTING AND GATHERING IN THE GORGE

 The development of policies affecting traditional use of common species in the 

park originates in Public Law 95-625, the Act of Congress that created the National River 

in 1978. Section 1106 allowed the Secretary of the Interior to permit hunting and fishing, 

On lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the New River in 

accordance with applicable Federal and State Laws, and he may designate zones where, 

and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of 

public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. 

Except in emergencies, any rules and regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this 

section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agency 

responsible for hunting and fishing activities.66 

In May 1980, the Park Service conducted four public workshops to identify concerns 

and collect citizens’ ideas at the beginning of the general management planning process. 

Natural resource management was one of the topics discussed. Some groups felt hunting 

should be continued with some constraints. Others preferred no hunting at all, but most 

people agreed that fishing should continue.67

 The Park Service considered this input in drafting the 1983 GMP, and when 

released, it recommended that recreational hunting and fishing regulations continue 

under state control with no additional federal licenses. Hunting was specifically 

 

66 Public Law 95-625, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 67 Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Team, NPS, memorandum to Regional Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Region, June 1980, MPF, Box 1, A3821, 1. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

149 

authorized as a discretionary activity at New River by its enabling legislation (16USC 

460M-20) and became effective December 19, 1983. Because West Virginia hunting 

seasons generally fall during periods when other visitor pursuits are at a minimum, the 

Park Service deemed hunting an activity consistent with public safety and enjoyment 

because of the protections afforded by applicable West Virginia statutes and 

regulations.68

 In 1984, trapping was prohibited on the New River. The year before, the Park 

Service had decreed a ban on all hunting and trapping activities on all federally owned 

lands in the nation where such activities were not specifically authorized by Congress. 

The agency reasoned that hunting and trapping weren’t compatible with the 

preservation of natural resources. The federal legislation specific to the New River, 

however, stipulated that hunting was allowed, but did not mention trapping.69

 The public was confused, thinking that not only trapping would be banned in the 

park, but hunting as well. In a letter to then President Ronald Reagan, a citizen of 

Parkersburg, expressed his concerns, reflecting the confusion: 

Currently there has been action taken by individuals to stop hunting and trapping on 

certain parks known as National Recreation Areas.... I speak for one area in particular 

named New River Gorge, where many a mountaineer has financed their meek income 

by trapping to provide a living for their family! These people are proud hard-working 

people who are willing to work.... Hunting and trapping has been proven through time 

and time again to be the nucleus in wildlife management and population and disease 

control.70 

Despite public confusion, hunting was never banned in the New River Gorge. The mixed 

forests and rugged terrain of the park provide habitats for a wide range of species sought 

by hunters: squirrel, deer, rabbit, grouse, woodchuck, raccoon, fox, turkey, and black 

bear, as well as coyote, which is classified as a nuisance. Even though the National Rifle 

Association (NRA) filed a suit in 1983 challenging the hunting-trapping restriction on a 

national level, the ban on trapping in the park went into effect on January 15, 1984. As of 

2007, Title 36, Chapter 2.2 of the Code of Federal Regulations stipulated that trapping is 

not allowed on federally owned lands or federally controlled waters within National 

River boundaries.71 Mammals traditionally obtained by trapping — including otter, 

weasel, mink, beaver, and muskrat — are relatively untouched in New River.72

 

68 Acting Associate Director, Management and Operations, Mid-Atlantic Region, NPS, memorandum, 

November, 30, 1983, 4, MPF, Box 23, W42. 

69 “New River Park Land Trapping Ban in Effect,” Charleston Gazette, January 24, 1985. 70 Letter to President Reagan, from Steve Powell, June 17, 1984, MPF, Box 23, W42, 1. 71 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter 2.2, “Compendium of Designations, Closures, 

Request Requirements, and Other Restrictions Imposed under the Discretionary Authority of the 

Superintendent, NERI,” September 17, 2004. 

72 NPS, “Interim Land Protection Plan, Gauley River National Recreation Area,” September, 1990, 5. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

150 

 Probably the animals most often encountered in the National River are fish. The 

New River and it tributaries comprise the largest and most significant warm-water 

fishery in West Virginia. These waters support largemouth, spotted, and smallmouth 

bass, catfish, muskellunge, walleye, crappie, and sunfish, most of which are non-native 

species.73 The 1983 GMP recommended that the Park Service and WV DNR continue 

the fish stocking program previously in place, but rates, methods, and/or species stocked 

might be altered by the DNR in consultation with the Park Service to conserve habitat or 

other organisms. Both agencies also reserved the right to prohibit fishing in certain 

waters at certain times to protect spawning grounds, or to protect rare, threatened, or 

endangered plants and animals in the waters or adjacent habitat.74

 The Park Service realized that fishing was a well established, traditional activity in 

the area long before 1978. Indeed, fishing was a subsistence activity from pioneer times 

until the early twentieth century. Not only was fishing not contrary to federal law, but it 

was specifically authorized by New River’s enabling legislation. Fishing was consistent 

with public enjoyment and sound resource management principles. This sensitivity 

prompted NPS to institute revisions to federal law to allow continuation of traditional 

New River fishing methods. The revisions permitted use of trotlines, the traditional 

method of catching catfish, the use of netting, and the collection and use of crayfish and 

hellgrammites for bait.75 

 The GMP indicated that hunting and fishing would continue under state 

regulation, and no additional federal license would be required. The NPS intended to 

provide greater access for float fishermen through the construction of more boat 

launches and associated support facilities, and planned to provide bank fishermen access 

to significant amounts of federally owned land along the riverbanks from which to fish 

without being in trespass.76 

 Accuracy requires mention again of two instances in which local interest trumped 

the preferences of professional Park Service managers. (This was discussed in more 

detail in Chapter 4.) The WV DNR wanted to stock streams within the park boundaries, 

in particular, Glade Creek. That is, the DNR wanted to stock exotic trout species and 

Park Service managers at New River, especially Ken Stephens, strongly opposed the 

action. This situation was resolved in favor of the DNR by action in Congress. Likewise, 

Congressional action provided for motorized access to Keeney’s Creek, against the 

preference of park managers to preserve a more primitive condition in this remote area 

of the gorge. 

 

73 NPS, Draft Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment, Teays New River Gorge (August, 24, 

1993), 41. 

74 NPS, GMP (NERI), 1983, 15. 75 Acting Associate Regional Director, Management and Operations, Mid-Atlantic Region, NPS, 

memorandum, November 30, 1983, 1-2. 76 NPS, GMP (NERI), 1983, 18. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

151 

 Various catch-and-release areas have been established in the park, such as just 

downstream of Sandstone, West Virginia. Commercially guiding fishing trips have 

become common. Indeed, fishing remains the park’s highest participation recreational 

activity.77

 In its 1983 GMP, the Park Service addressed traditional use of plants, too. Planners 

needed to strike a balance between traditional use and protection of the flora of the 

gorge. The gathering of edible plants for private consumption was permitted, but 

regulations prohibited all commercial gathering, collecting, or harvesting of plant 

materials (including timber harvest) on federal lands.78 Enforcement was difficult and 

sometimes seemingly unfair, especially to a people who in many cases had lived for 

generations in the area. Raft company owner Jon Dragan recalled one particular 

incident. 

It’s just my opinion, but I think they’re trying to run it [the park] like they run 

Yellowstone or Yosemite or anything else. Ain’t going to happen. When they stop a 

sixty-five year old couple on the Barry Mountain Road inside the park picking 

blackberries and ask them how many quarts they have. [expletive] Come on, that’s 

harassment. Do they have the right to do it? Yes, but who really cares. They’re not 

selling them; they’re taking them home and making preserves.... Well, they finally 

realized that they’re not going to run over these people. In other words, they need to 

cooperate. You have some key people in here right now who want to make this work, 

so-to-speak, and want to make it go with the flow.79 

Because it is difficult to police the park, poaching of plants for commercial use has been a 

problem. Of particular interest to thieves is the Royal Paulownia (P. Tomentosa) tree. An 

exotic, native to China, it was introduced into the United States about 1834 and rapidly 

spread throughout the south. Its seedpods were used as packing material in boxes and 

residents of mining towns along the railroad lines planted it as an ornamental. The tree 

can grow to 6 feet in diameter and 105 feet tall. It is light and strong, and is prized in 

Japan, where it is fashioned into rice pots, bowls, spoons, musical instruments, music 

boxes, and religious furniture.80 

 Several people have been arrested, charged, and convicted for poaching the tree in 

and around Park Service lands,81 but there is a curious twist to the story. The Paulownia 

is included on the NPS list of noxious trees slated for eradication, yet the harvesting of 

any flora on Park Service land for commercial purposes is prohibited. With the 

Paulownia, the question of plant and animal management shifts to invasive species. 

 

77 Comment by David N. Fuerst on a draft of this administrative history, 2007. 78 GMP, 12. 79 Jon Dragan, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 

80 “Area Tree Thieves Selective,” Post Herald, January 31, 1983. 81 “Area Tree Thieves Selective.” 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

152 

CONTROLLING INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE GORGE

 The 1983 GMP proposed research on the relationships between native and exotic 

species. In concert with the DNR, the NPS planned to cooperatively control or remove 

populations of exotic organisms. This they suggested could entail physical removal, 

chemical control, habitat manipulation, or other methodologies. The efforts would be 

designed to protect threatened native species, ecosystems, or to reduce damage to 

cultural resources.82 

 Eradication of invasive trees, however, presents special problems for Cultural 

Resource management. David N. Fuerst, park Cultural Resource Specialist, understands 

the adverse effects eradication can have on cultural resources despite best intentions. He 

explained the difficulties involved with a single tree growing up through one of the area’s 

beehive coke ovens. 

[Removing the tree] is a good idea, but what happens is that you open up the ground. 

Now nature begins its succession, which is the introduction of plants that go through 

different historical stages. You have grasses and weeds, then multi-flora rose, or any 

other invasive. Japanese knot-weed (another exotic) likes the disturbed soil,... you have 

vigorous roots being sent out, [and] the next thing you know they’re wedging 

themselves down in worse than the [previous] flora.83 

Fuerst suggested a possible solution: 

What [is] really needed, [if] you’re going to cut a tree down here or there, [is to] plant 

some canopy trees right away so when they grow up some canopy shading will occur, 

and that will deter invasive plants [from] coming. Japanese knot-weed wants to be right 

out in the open; it doesn’t want to be under a shaded area. It doesn’t grow that well 

[there]. Same with multi-flora rose, you’ll have trees to compete with all that.84 

The Park Service has begun attacking the problem of invasive species in specific 

locations around the park. During the Kaymoor mine-site stabilization in 1991, crews 

cleared kudzu and other exotics from remaining structures, and seeded the areas to 

prevent re-introduction.85 The Park Service instituted a kudzu eradication program at 

Thurmond Depot, which has exposed previously unknown sheds and foundations.86

Calvin Hite, the park superintendent until January 2007, said in an interview that the 

eradication of a three-acre plot of kudzu in Thurmond was a major undertaking. With 

 

82 GMP, 12 and 15. 83 David N. Fuerst, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 84 David N. Fuerst, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 10, 2004. 85 NPS, Semi-Monthly Report from the Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archeology, 

April 5, 1991, MPF, Box 43, D18. 

86 Michael E. Workman, Lee R. Maddex, and Dan J. Bonenberger, New River Gorge National River 

Historic Resource Study (NERI-02-038 HRS). Report prepared by the Institute for the History of 

Technology and Industrial Archaeology, West Virginia University and submitted to the New River 

Gorge National River, Glen Jean, WV through the U.S. Department of Interior Cooperative Agreement 

No. H0001010032, 2005, 47. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

153 

the help of the West Virginia Citizen’s Conservation Corps, the NPS staff stopped the 

entire patch. Hite pointed out however, that the kudzu grows in many places throughout 

the park.87 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE GORGE

 Related to the introduction of exotic species and to habitat change is the third 

question, management of threatened and endangered species. Plant and animal 

populations found in New River result from centuries of change in natural and cultural 

factors. New River’s course through the Appalachians provides ideal habitats for a wide 

variety of species. The area from Glen Lyn, Virginia, along the New River through West 

Virginia is the northern limit for southern species and the southern boundary for many 

northern species. The intersection of southern and northern flora has been reinforced by 

animal, bird, and human migration through the area. These mobile agents have carried 

plant species with them, both wittingly and unwittingly, and contributed to the present 

diversity of vegetation in the region.88 They have also introduced non-native species that 

have threatened some native species. 

 The 1983 GMP mandated the NPS, with the DNR, to identify the occurrence, 

distribution, and critical habitat requirements of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species in the National River and to initiate programs to benefit them. It 

called for the agencies to research critical habitat needs, methods of manipulation in 

favor of rare organisms, removal of exotic competitors, restrictions on use and 

disturbance of habitat area, and to monitor populations.89 Because of its position at a 

crossroads, a number of species found in the park are considered rare in West Virginia.90 

 Several rare plant surveys were conducted in the park in the 1980s and 1990s by 

the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Botanists tried to relocate historically 

recorded species and new populations of rare species. An NPS-DNR study in 1985 

indicated that of the seventy-four rare plants likely to occur in the region, investigators 

found thirty-three within the park.91 As of 1995, the total reached fifty-four.92 The list of 

plants includes those considered naturally occurring species which are infrequently 

 

87 Calvin Hite, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, June 21, 2004. 

88 U.S. Department of the Interior, New River Wild and Scenic River Study, 1994, MPF, Box 71, W3815, 

14. 

89 GMP, 15. 90 Dale W. Suiter and Dan K. Evans, “Vascular Flora of New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia, Rare Species and Plant Migrations,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Daniels, WV, 1995), 

146. 

91 Garrie D. Rouse, “Rare Plants of the New River Gorge: A Preliminary Report,” New River 

Symposium Proceedings (Pipestem, WV, 1985), 37. 92 Suiter and Evans, “Vascular Flora,” 146. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

154 

found in West Virginia, and, because of their low population levels, could be lost without 

proper management and awareness.93 

 In September 1984 the NPS and the DNR agreed to study rare plants of the park. 

Garrie D. Rouse, a biologist in the Wildlife Resources Division of the DNR, reviewed an 

extensive literature before the 1985 field season. He included works by Lawrence W. 

Nuttall, the late 19th century owner of the Nuttallburg mine and collector of thousands 

of plant specimens from the gorge; Violet S. Phillips, who surveyed the botany of the 

New River between 1965 and 1968 for her doctoral degree from West Virginia 

University, and botanical studies by William Grafton and Claude McGraw. Grafton’s 

efforts resulted in the Literature Review of Geology/Soils, Plant and Animal Information 

Pertinent to the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia, which has contributed 

significantly to botanical knowledge in the area.94 

 More importantly, Rouse searched the West Virginia University herbarium to 

document existing records and formulate new ones. He used the updated information to 

compile a preliminary list of plants occurring or likely to occur within the park. 

Previously documented rare plant sites were surveyed along with un-explored habitat. 

Additionally, he evaluated each rare plant species according to its rarity within the state 

and globally.95 The findings indicated that although much important work had been 

conducted by area botanists, a great deal more needed to be completed in order for rare 

plant species data to be incorporated into land-use planning processes.96 During an April 

1986 “New River Symposium” presentation, Rouse indicated that several unique plant 

communities had been identified, but additional sectors remained to be surveyed later 

that season.97 

 From September 1992 until October 1994, Dale W. Suiter and Dan K. Evans 

(Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University) conducted a study of vascular 

flora in the park. New River Natural Resource Specialist Ken Stephens coordinated the 

project and the NPS funded it through a cooperative agreement with Marshall 

University. The researchers planned to compile a catalogue of new and existing New 

River flora, document plant migration routes, describe vascular plant communities, and 

compare the New River flora to the West Virginia Natural Heritage database to 

determine rarity on a global scale and within West Virginia. In addition, they compared 

the flora to three other river gorges in the nation.98 Past studies such as these, 

 

93 Rouse, “Rare Plants,” 37. 

94 Rouse, “Rare Plants,” 37-38. 

95 Rouse, “Rare Plants,” 38-39. 

96 Rouse, “Rare Plants,” 39. 

97 Garrie D. Rouse, “Rare Plants of the New River Gorge National River,” New River Symposium 

Proceedings (Wytheville, VA, 1986), 127. 98 Suiter and Evans, “Vascular Flora of the New River Gorge,” 146. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

155 

supplemented by future research, can indicate changes and trends in plant populations 

within the New River. 

 New River is within the range of several federally listed, endangered animal species 

including bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Indiana bat, and Virginia big-eared bat. This 

habitat can also support the eastern cougar, although the original population is almost 

definitely extinct.99 The coyote, which had also disappeared from this range, returned in 

the late 20th century. Although West Virginia does not have threatened or endangered 

species legislation beyond the federal law, NPS policy takes into account any state 

species of special concern and treats it as it would a federally listed species.100 

 The case of the two endangered species of bats makes several interesting points. 

Park staff knew the park was in the range of the Indiana bat and the Virginia big-eared 

bat. Some may have suspected their presence. Not until after 2000, however, with the 

hiring of park Wildlife Biologist Matt Varner was their presence in the gorge confirmed 

(See Figure 4.). According to Natural Resource Manager Ken Stephens, the Park Service 

had been closing off abandoned mine portals since 1988 to promote visitor safety and to 

protect bats generally. 

We were putting bat gates on some of these mine portals. We knew we had bats. We 

didn’t know what kind of bats they were. So we were gating these portals to protect an 

important element in our overall resource base. But at the same time we were closing, 

doing some traditional closures just because they presented some safety hazards.101

He continued: 

With our new wildlife biologist, he’s been having to go out and expand that knowledge 

base on their distribution in the gorge and the likely places they might be wintering. We 

found them back in 2002. We had a contract to do a bat inventory.... Our wildlife 

biologist has really given us a lot more information, what we need to do to manage the 

species, or to manage the habitat to support the species.102

The presence of these two endangered species in the gorge, and in more parts of the 

gorge, provided further evidence of the importance of the presence of the National Park 

Service. One priority that differentiates the Park Service from other government wildlife 

agencies is the high value it places on preservation of resources. This simultaneously 

demonstrated the importance of a wildlife biologist to the park. 

 One of the most interesting programs undertaken by New River regarding 

threatened and endangered species was peregrine falcon restoration. The peregrine 

falcon, a bird of prey, was listed as an endangered species in 1970. By the mid-1960s, no 

peregrines were breeding east of the Mississippi River and western populations were 

declining steeply. Begun in 1975, the program sought to re-establish nesting populations 

 

99 U.S. Department of Interior, New River Wild and Scenic River Study (1994), 4. MPF. 100 NPS, Draft Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment, Teays New River Gorge (August 

24, 1993), 42. MPF. 101 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 102 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

156 

in the eastern U.S. In 1987, the Park Service undertook the Peregrine Falcon 

Reintroduction Project at New River in conjunction with the Peregrine Fund and the 

West Virginia DNR. Founded in 1970 by a Cornell University ornithology professor, the 

Fund’s mission is to help restore raptor populations around the world.103 Partly through 

its aid, fledgling falcons were brought to the Endless Wall section of the gorge from a 

breeding center in Idaho between 1987 and 1990.104 

 Volunteerism in the project was encouraged. The NPS asked residents to call the 

Park Service if they sighted a peregrine falcon, or to volunteer for monitoring activities. 

In 1990, DNR’s Non-game Wildlife Program organized the first “Cliffwatch” for March 

31. The organizer, Craig W. Stihler, wildlife biologist for DNR’s Wildlife Resources 

Division, called on Park Service personnel and the public alike to look for returning and 

potentially nesting falcons.105 The program was a success. Although no nesting pairs 

were observed, 28 of the 30 peregrine fledglings released in 1987 were counted.106 

 After the four-year program ended in 1990, over a decade passed with no efforts to 

introduce more peregrine falcons. The staff at New River continued to survey and 

monitor for returning peregrines up to 1995. After this, monitoring was reduced to an 

annual one-day Cliff watch in cooperation with the WV DNR. Although peregrine 

falcons were observed in the gorge after 1995, no nests were ever found. Surveys were 

undertaken in 2001 and 2002 in a renewed effort to find peregrines in the gorge. Natural 

Resource Manager Ken Stephens stated in his interview in 2006: “We’ve had a number of 

programs here. Peregrine falcons is number one.107 Varner and others confirmed 

sightings between Beauty Mountain and the Endless Wall in Fayette County near the 

New River Gorge Bridge and an employee of the Bureau of Land Management spotted a 

falcon sitting on the New River Gorge Bridge.108 

 Meanwhile the peregrine falcon was removed from the endangered species list in 

1999.109 New River nevertheless re-started its efforts to establish nesting birds within the 

park. New River Natural Resource Division Chief Ken Stephens explained that this was 

based on the gorge being within the falcon’s natural habitat range: “That’s where the 

function of that species is most important, in their natural range.”110 Jack Wallace, with 

the West Virginia DNR, stated in 2006 that peregrine falcons are still extremely rare in 

Appalachia.111 

 

103 Peregrine Fund Web Site, www.peregrinefund.org/about_us.asp, accessed February 26, 2005. 104 See: www.nps.gov/neri/news-020403.htm, accessed February 2, 2005, 2. 105 Craig W. Stihler, DNR, letter to NPS, March 14, 1990, MPF, Box 38, N1621. 106 See: www.nps.gov/neri/news-020403.htm. 107 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 108 See: www.nps.gov/neri/news-020403.htm. 109 See: http://peregrinefund.org/press_full.asp?id=72&category=Peregrine%20Falcon. 110 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 111 “Things are Looking Up: Peregrine Falcons get another Chance,” West Virginia Wildlife 6(2) 

(Summer 2006): 24-25. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

157 

 Several factors came together starting in 2003 to re-establish the peregrine hacking 

project. The presence of a full-time wildlife biologist in the park for the first time was 

critical. Stephens observed that although New River had technicians and others in the 

past who were knowledgeable about wildlife, Matt Varner was the first full-time staff 

person in this subject: “without him being here we would not have been able to take 

advantage of that restoration program.”112 Another factor was the purchase of the 

magnificent Endless Wall in 1998, as part of the Nuttall Estate acquisition.113 With the 

land and a wildlife biologist, funding and volunteer assistance from the Peregrine Fund, 

the ACCESS Fund, and the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William 

and Mary, the New River Gorge joined a number of other sites in the southern 

Appalachians where young peregrines could be released again.114 In 2006, 15 peregrine 

falcons were released along the New River, with a goal of about 45 over a 3 to 5 year 

trial.115

 One new collaborator in the project was the ACCESS Fund, an organization which 

aids rock climbers. Fearing nesting would be disturbed by recreationists, NPS (with the 

cooperation of the ACCESS Fund) asked the public to hike and climb elsewhere in the 

gorge. That particular effort did not fully succeed: Falcon researchers found that visitors 

did not observe the voluntary closure of the Beauty Mountain/Endless Wall area, even 

though the Park Service had offered a list of alternatives on its website.116 

 The Park Service has taken an active role in the preservation of rare animal species 

in the gorge. In its efforts it has asked for and received the cooperation of the public as 

well as institutions such as the Peregrine Fund in helping with its endeavors to preserve 

and protect rare species.117 There are times when access to certain areas of the gorge 

must be denied to the visiting public as a matter of conservation. This exemplifies the 

problem the Park Service sometimes faces when trying to meet its dual mandates to 

conserve and interpret the outstanding natural resources in the park while at the same 

time providing access to the visiting public. 

BTI, BLACK FLY, AND INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

 One of the longest running controversies involving New River was the proposed 

use of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) to control the “black fly” population. Among 

 

112 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 113 See Appendix 5. 114 See Bryan D. Watts, An investigation of cliffs and cliff-nesting birds in the southern Appalachians with 

an emphasis on the Peregrine Falcon, Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, 

CCBTR-06-14 (Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, 2006). 115 “Things are Looking Up: Peregrine Falcons get another Chance,” West Virginia Wildlife, 24-25. 116 Ken Stephens, 2005, written comments on first draft of this administrative history. 117 See: www.nps.gov/neri/news-020403.htm. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

158 

the concerns were the effects this control might have on the fish population. Simulium 

jenningsi should not to be confused with the black flies of Canada and New England. 

Known as Simulium venustum, they are nastier biters than those found along the New 

and its tributaries. Nonetheless, many people considered S. jenningsi a serious nuisance 

in the area. Public concern surrounding the issue of spraying inspired debates involving 

the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the West Virginia DNR, 

environmentalists, and others concerning Bti’s safety. 

 In 1980, James Amrine, a forensic entomologist at West Virginia University, 

studied the black-fly problem at the WVU Agriculture School, and suggested using Bti to 

control the insects. Black-fly larvae die when they ingest Bti. Amrine believed that poor 

water quality due to acid mine drainage had kept the black fly population low, but as 

water quality improved, the insect population exploded.118 One particularly bad section 

was just below the Bluestone Dam. Amrine estimated that up to 8,000 larvae had been 

collected from 36 inches of river weed on the shallow river bottom.119 The problem was 

also severe along the New River between Hinton and Sandstone, as well as in Beckley, 

Prince, Thurmond, Fayetteville, Brooks, Meadow Creek, and at several state parks.120 

 The public responded. Guests at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs 

and the Glade Springs Resort complained that swarms of flies on the golf course fairways 

were becoming unbearable.121 Black flies were seen as a regional problem. The opinion 

page of the Raleigh Register on November 8, 1981, stated, “The gnats are hurting 

southern West Virginia. Not only do they leave a bad impression on tourists and other 

visitors, but residents of the New River counties are similarly affected.”122 A group calling 

itself Citizens Against Gnats was formed in Raleigh County to lobby the city commission 

in favor of spraying. Other citizens, however, expressed opposite feelings. They did not 

consider the flies a nuisance, and strongly objected to pesticide use along the New 

River.123 

 Individual communities had either tried or considered programs to control adult 

black fly populations locally through spraying, but Amrine thought it an ineffective 

method.124 Amrine believed the best way to treat the problem was to attack the larvae. 

His research had indicated that Bti microbes poisoned the larvae when ingested. He was 

also convinced that Bti was safe because the microbe only works with the high pH 

qualities found in the black fly’s digestive tract. He felt it wouldn’t be harmful to fish, 

 

118 “Black Fly Solution Not Just A Swat Away,” Charleston Gazette, June 14, 1981. 119 “DNR Biologists Question Gnat Spraying,” Raleigh Register, April 1, 1980. 120 “Black Fly Solution Not Just a Swat Away,” Charleston Gazette, June 14, 1981. 121 “Gnat-Killing Idea for New River Opposed,” Charleston Gazette, June 30, 1981, MPR, Newspaper 

Clippings. 

122 “Fight the Gnats Now,” Raleigh Herald, November 8, 1981. 123 J. Reese Voshell, Jr., “The Ecology of Black Flies in the New River and its Major Tributaries in 

Southern West Virginia,” New River Gorge Symposium Proceedings (Boone, NC, 1984), 221. 124 “Gnat Killing,” Charleston Gazette, June 30, 1981. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

159 

humans, or other animals which have highly acidic compositions. “If we were to treat the 

river two or three times a year, we wouldn’t have this problem,” he said.125

 Others were not so sure. David Robinson, of the West Virginia DNR’s water 

division, thought there was not enough scientific data to determine the potential adverse 

impacts of Bti spraying on the river. 

Our wildlife division’s position, which is supported by the EPA and the NPS, is that the 

New River is certainly not a suitable place to conduct experiments because it is 

extremely valuable ... that is not the way to go about it ...We’ve consulted with other 

universities and they generally supported our position. It is too much risk to take.126 

Robinson added that the DNR was not convinced the prime source of the flies was the 

New River. They were also unsure that the bacterium wouldn’t eliminate other insects 

along with the black flies. He said if that occurred, the fish population could then 

possibly suffer from lack of food.127

 In 1983 the DNR conducted two studies to evaluate feeding habits of fish in the 

New River, with an emphasis on black-fly consumption and to determine the fly 

population in a 25-mile radius of Hinton. Analysis of data suggested that black flies were 

a significant food component of fish in the New River, comprising 22% of their total 

diet. Wherever they were found in great numbers, the flies represented an important 

food source. They were also found to be an important food item in the diets of the 

predacious aquatic insects, which are likewise consumed. The researchers felt that 

controlling the flies in the river would reduce the populations of predacious insects and 

that no other insect would occupy the niche vacated by the black flies. They concluded 

that control treatments significantly reduced the fly population could also affect the 

fishery below Bluestone Dam.128 

 In March 1983 DNR director David Callaghan approved a program to begin 

controlling the black fly population. He approved it even though studies clearly showed 

that aquatic resources could be damaged. Callaghan added that the decision had been 

made understanding that there often must be a trade-off of resource protection for 

human needs.129 Politics had apparently trumped science. 

 Nevertheless, in June 1983 the NPS denied WVU a permit to apply Bti in the area. 

The Park Service cited several reasons. They cited studies of the potential health impact 

of black flies on residents of the area which indicated that the flies were a nuisance, but 

not a public health hazard. They also cited the potential impact of Bti on the New River’s 

 

125 “Black Fly Solution,” Charleston Gazette, June 14, 1981. 126 “Black Fly Solution,” Charleston Gazette, June 14, 1981. 127 “Black Fly Solution,” Charleston Gazette, June 14, 1981. 128 Lloyd Hess, “Preliminary Analysis of the Food Habits of Some New River Fishes, With Emphasis on 

Black Fly Utilization,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Blacksburg, VA, 1983), 15. 129 “DNR OKs Program to Kill Black Flies,” Beckley Post Herald, March 3, 1983. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

160 

flora and fauna, and the role the flies played in the river’s ecology, principally in the food 

chain for game fish. The NPS issued a statement from its Philadelphia office saying that 

An important consideration was management policies which state that populations of 

native insects be allowed to function unimpeded except where control is desired. But 

the federal Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and the West Virginia Health 

Department both determined that the flies constitute a nuisance, but not a health 

hazard.130 

Public outcry was swift. The same day the article appeared announcing the NPS 

decision, WV Congressman Nick Rahall came out firmly against the position of the Park 

Service Regional Office. Rahall’s aide, Mike Serpe, repeated the representative’s 

assertion that supporters of Bti should have the right to appeal the decision blocking a 

control program. Rahall vowed to act as a spokesman for Citizens Against Gnats, which 

had enlisted his assistance the previous February.131 

 The debates continued for several years. In April 1986, public pressure sparked 

Governor Arch Moore to order the DNR to begin the Bti application program despite 

the protestations of several environmental groups.132 On May 5, 1986, spraying began.133

The program was halted in 1987 due to the state’s lack of financial resources, causing 

more public outcry. One concerned citizen expressed his views to park Superintendent 

Joe Kennedy. “I suggest that since the river is under your control, that your funds should 

be expended for black fly control.” 134 

 Meanwhile, the National Park Service and the State of West Virginia went to court 

because the state challenged the NPS authority to require the state to apply for the 

permit to use pesticides to control black flies on the New River (United States of 

America versus Arch Moore). The court found in favor of the NPS based on the U.S. 

Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. This court ruling is often used by NPS solicitors in 

developing arguments and position papers for other cases where state and federal 

wildlife management issues are in conflict.135 Specifically, the court issued an injunction 

in 1987 to prohibit Bti spraying within the boundaries of the park, finding that the Park 

Service had authority on lands within the boundary, whether or not in federal 

ownership. The injunction also affirmed that the Park Service had authority over 

wildlife, including black flies. Soon after the Supreme Court decision, however, federal 

legislation passed in July 1987 saying the park would allow the state to spray for black 

 

130 “Fly Poisoning Scuttled by Park Service,” Charleston Gazette, June 10, 1983. 131 “Rahall Vows to Fight on in Efforts to Treat River,” Beckley Post Herald, June 10, 1983. 132 “Moore OKs Proposal to Combat Black Flies,” Charleston Gazette, April 12, 1986 133 “Bti Program Begins Despite Protests,” West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (Newsletter), May 5, 

1986. 

134 Michael R. Ward, letter to the Superintendent, NERI, October 2, 1987, MPF, Box 1, 3815. 135 David W. Reynolds (Deputy Associate Director, Natural Resources and Sciences, Northeast 

Region), Memo to Historian, Northeast Region, December 23, 2005. Reynolds managed the black fly 

controversy for NERI in the 1980s and in 2005 was the Deputy Associate Regional Director for Natural 

Resources and Science, Northeast Region. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

161 

flies.136 Specifically, this law approved the DNR spraying program as an 8-year 

“demonstration project.” 

No additional analyses, proposals, or approvals will be required for the State to conduct 

similar pesticide application programs during the period of the demonstration project 

provided herein. The State shall notify the National Park Service of its planned annual 

program at least ninety days in advance of spraying, and shall consider the 

recommendations provided by the National Park Service, the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and other parties in the conduct of the pesticide application program. The 

State shall also enter into an indemnity agreement with the National Park Service which 

will protect the Service from all tort claims which might arise from the State's spraying 

program. The State and the National Park Service shall jointly conduct a monitoring 

program on the effects of the pesticide application, including the impact on natural, 

cultural and recreational values of the National River.137

In 1987, President Reagan signed a Supplemental Appropriations Bill which included 

this approval for the WV DNR to carry out its black fly control program within New 

River Gorge National River. Representative Rahall and the West Virginia Congressional 

delegation circumvented the court decision and the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.138 Chief Ranger Gary Hartley stated in 2004: “It gives you an 

idea of the legislative oversight that this park has, and the Park Service, that they [the 

West Virginia Congressional delegation] could actually do that.”139

 As a result, on April 25, 1988, Superintendent Kennedy entered into a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the DNR to re-institute the application 

program. The MOU called for the application of Bti for a period of eight years unless 

within that time the chemical was removed from the federal list of pesticides approved 

by the EPA.140 In 1989 the state legislature appropriated $230,000 and that same amount 

again for 1990-1991 toward eradication efforts.141 

 Because of concerns about the possible impacts of Bti on aquatic life, the Park 

Service contracted with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia 

Tech) in 1988 to conduct an ecological monitoring program.142 The technical term for 

the monitoring project was LTEMS: Long-term Ecological Monitoring System. Between 

1988 and 1990, Virginia Tech collected data and developed an appropriate sampling 

protocol. Early results were not conclusive, but the program had started and it became 

part of the duties of park staff in the 1990s and later to monitor the program. This is 

discussed further in the narrative below. 

 

136 101 STAT. 416 Public Law 100-71-JULY 11, 1987. 137 101 STAT. 416 Public Law 100-71-JULY 11, 1987. 138 Ken Stephens, written comments on first draft of this administrative history, 2005. 139 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. Some of these events are detailed in 

comments from Ken Stephens, written in response to the first draft of this administrative history, 2005. 

140 National Park Service, “Memorandum of Agreement,” April 25, 1988, MPF, Box 2, A44. 141 “New River Fly-Spraying Program Continues a Question-filled Issue,” Charleston Gazette Mail,

March 18, 1990. 

142 “New River Fly,” Charleston Gazette Mail, March 18, 1990. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

162 

 Another larger context for control of black flies in New River was a comprehensive 

approach to the control of invasive faunal species. Ken Stephens mentioned in the 2006 

interview that the National Park Service generally emphasized Integrated Pest 

Management. In particular, at the New River focus was on two species that attack 

important native trees: the gypsy moth and the hemlock woolly adelgid. He said that the 

park and the state agencies were working “hand-in-hand” on these two problems.143 

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A LARGER PARK SYSTEM

 Throughout the 1980s, the small staff of the New River Gorge National River 

accomplished a great deal. With only a superintendent, an administrative assistant, a 

chief ranger, a maintenance chief, an interpretive chief, and at most a few permanent or 

even temporary staff in each division, the park staff had worked hard and collaboratively 

with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office in Philadelphia, the Denver Service Center, and 

the Washington Office. They produced a General Management Plan (1983), a Land 

Protection Plan (1983), an Interpretation Program Plan (1989), and a Draft River 

Management Plan, which was shelved for reasons explored elsewhere in this history. The 

natural resource manager for most of the 1980s, Dave Reynolds, also oversaw 

discussions with West Virginia officials over black fly management, fisheries 

management, and much more.144

 As the land acquisition program ramped up in the late 1980s and 1990s, however, a 

larger team and even more intensive strategies were required to keep up with the new 

territory coming under the administration of the National Park Service in the New, 

Gauley, and Bluestone watersheds (see Chapter 4 on land acquisition). As Ken Stephens 

related above, a fundamental change occurred when he was hired in 1992 as natural 

resource manager for New River, Gauley River, and Bluestone. As Stephens himself 

stated, while he was proud to have played a role in this transition, in a sense the situation 

demanded the change.145 In 2006 he reflected on his innocence of the situation that he 

had come to: 

I didn’t understand the growth that was going on in New River, because I was just kind 

of plopped down in it, you know, the growth of acquiring new positions, the growth of 

land acquisition had begun to accelerate, we were in the middle of that acceleration 

process. And then of course, the project dollars that were generated for visitor access 

and new trails and roads and bridges was just, you know,... all just happening. It looked 

like standard operating procedures. I did not understand how it had jumped 

proportionately above what they had done in the past...146

 

143 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 144 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 145 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 146 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

163 

Indeed, he said it was an exciting time – a comment mirrored by Peggy Maddy, Lorrie 

Sprague, Andy Steel, and others who were hired in the early 1990s. One can sense the 

challenge the staff felt at that time in their memories. Stephens remembered that Joe 

Kennedy was superintendent, but that he didn’t usually deal directly with him. Stephens’ 

immediate supervisor was Chief Ranger Bill Blake: 

This was a fantastic team, you know, from the superintendent down to the seasonals, 

everybody seemed to be, the division chiefs seemed to be really working well, in a 

cohesive fashion. Under the superintendent’s leadership, we had the latitude. We were 

starting new programs. We weren’t trying to take an existing program and mold it to a 

new crisis or a new initiative. We had brand new programs. We were free to establish 

them, to design them, to meet on-the-ground needs, and we had the money to do it.147

Stephens did say, however, that looking back after 14 years, he probably should have 

been having more fun! But, as in any demanding job, he felt the pressures instead. 

 Ken Stephens’ impressions of Bill Blake and Joe Kennedy are important because 

they fill in blanks from the testimonies of others, or they modify them somewhat. He 

interacted the most with Blake, whom he had known before. He saw Blake as a highly 

intelligent extrovert who got things done. He “had a lot of insight on anticipating 

potential problems, issues, needs, operational shortfalls.”148 He didn’t have nearly the 

same interaction with Superintendent Joe Kennedy because Blake did that for him. Blake 

had the trust of the superintendent. “Without him [Blake], I probably could not have 

been as successful as I was.” Stephens saw Superintendent Kennedy in 2006 as 

... a throw-back to the early days of the National Park Service. Superintendents, he’s 

there, I mean he’s obviously the ultimate park authority, but the division chiefs are 

responsible for managing their programs, with his approval and guidance. It didn’t 

appear to me, he didn’t offer a lot of hands-on guidance. You know, he was a political 

animal. That’s the only way I could describe it.149

He had to interact with the Congressional delegation. Given Superintendent Kennedy’s 

forceful opposition to locating the park headquarters in Glen Jean, it is clearly not 

accurate to conclude he did the delegation’s bidding without question. But Stephens was 

correct that he balanced between the park and Capitol Hill. There was room for Natural 

Resource Manager Ken Stephens, Administrative Assistant Lorrie Sprague, and (many 

different titles) Peggy Maddy, to perceive very different sides to Superintendent 

Kennedy. 

 When Ken Stephens arrived, he did inherit the on-going programs in water quality 

and the LTEMS monitoring of black flies. Spraying for black flies by the West Virginia 

DNR (and later by other state agencies) had been underway since the mid 1980s and the 

LTEMS monitoring program, designed by Virginia Tech researchers, since 1988. 

 

147 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 148 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 149 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

164 

Stephens described the black fly issue as an “on-going tug-of-war.” Although he 

disagreed about the need for the program, he described a professional interaction 

between his staff and the DNR, as a complex situation that mixed science, politics, 

policy, and public perception. As he described it, the Park Service was working under 

mandate from the Congressional delegation. The DNR sprayed for black flies, the 

Virginia Tech researchers monitored biological effects of the spraying, and the Park 

Service staff coordinated and evaluated. He described a cordial collaboration with the 

state: 

It was just a very positive working relationship, one of the few projects where we and 

DNR, the other state agency that was involved in this, we were on the same page as far 

as our concern about the potential impacts to the resource.150

He did note, however, that the state was concerned mainly about game fish while he and 

his staff thought “it could interrupt the biological integrity of the river. You know, it’s a 

philosophical argument as much as it is a biological argument.” While some scientists or 

policy makers might disagree with this, it is an honest judgment by one who has 

participated in the full process. 

In a news article on LTEMS in 1997, then Superintendent Pete Hart stated: [The purpose of 

the LTEMS is to] determine whether the Bti is removing an important link in the food 

chain.... The LTEMS study has been underway for 10 years, and although all the 

information has not been analyzed, it appears that Bti spraying is not having any measurable 

effects on the aquatic organisms living in the New River.151 

Stephens in 2006 highlighted a spin-off of LTEMS and the black fly program. The 

“monitoring protocols” for the effects of spraying for black flies required keeping track 

of fish, aquatic plants, water quality, and macro-invertebrates. Specifically, sampling 

parameters examined water quality (discharge, pH, temperature, dissolved Oxygen, etc.) 

and biological factors (periphyton, phytoplankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, 

and fishes).152 

 In 1991, New River staff replaced Virginia Tech personnel as the main LTEMS 

field investigators. Park staff followed the protocols established by the Virginia Tech 

personnel and issued reports. Some of these staff were temporary hires, but in 1992-1993 

two technicians were hired full time to continue monitoring. In the mid-1990s, as the 

first authorization for applying Bti was to expire, the Park Service and the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection negotiated a new Memorandum of 

Understanding. Moreover, results presented orally by Dr. Reese Voshell (Virginia Tech) 

indicated no immediate adverse effects in New River macroinvertebrates or fish 

attributable to Bti. His results were strongly supported by statistical analysis. Based on 

 

150 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 151 “National Park Service Concentrating on Monitoring Black Fly Program,” Fayette Tribune, 

August 11, 1997. 

152 Ken Stephens, written comments on the first draft of this administrative history, 2005. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

165 

this, Northeast Region Chief Scientist John Karish concluded that Bti application was 

acceptable. Although National Park Service policy clearly prohibited human activities to 

control naturally occurring populations that did not evidence a health risk, a mitigating 

factor allowed such intervention. The mitigating factor was the Bluestone Dam. The 

nutrient loading due to the dam meant that native wildlife could be actively managed.153

 A program initially opposed by the Park Service and environmentalists ultimately 

produced a wealth of understanding of the New River ecosystem. Moreover, it had been 

found, surprisingly, that the only organism significantly affected in the New River Gorge 

system was the black fly. Ken Stephens stated in 2006: 

I think early on, yeah, we thought there was going to be a measurable [effect], we didn’t 

know how specifically the black fly contributed in the column in the food chain. Where 

it fit in there, what was the proportion of it in the diets of – in particular for the state side 

of it – the game fish. But they’ve done the analysis, although it’s an important product, 

it’s an important prey species, obviously it was not as important as we originally 

anticipated. We thought it would have a measurable impact – an unacceptable impact – 

we could determine that. But it’s basically unmeasurable, except from a black fly 

perspective.154

Stephens knew from the data that fish populations had not been affected, but he also 

realized that some local anglers would never be convinced of that. Interestingly, this was 

not because he supported the program. He concluded: “It’s an unnecessary program and 

it doesn’t really contribute to improving the environmental quality of the park or 

anything.”155 As he saw it, the increase of black fly population in the later 20th century 

was due entirely to the construction of the Bluestone Dam and the nutrient field that it 

produced and which supported black fly larva. The MOU was signed with the WV DEP 

in 1996, and again in 2002 for a term of five years.156

 In 2004, West Virginia DNR Director Ron Potesta reported that continued 

spraying had realized about a 95% black fly kill ratio. Tests conducted by the agency 

corroborated the LTEMS indication that no adverse effects had been noted in other 

insect species. But concerns were not completely eliminated. Fish biologists had 

expressed fears that the sprayings could indeed kill other insects that make up an 

important part of the food chain for game fish. They pointed to a Canadian experiment 

which supported this conclusion.157 Even though purposeful overdoses were 

 

153 Ken Stephens, written comments on the first draft of this administrative history, 2005. 154 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 155 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 156 Ken Stephens, written comments on the first draft of this administrative history, 2005. 157 Timothy Boulton, “Responses of nontarget Lepidoptera to Foray 48b Bacillus thuringiensis var. 

kurstaki on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23 

(May 2004): 1297-1304; and M.I. Bellocq, J.F. Bendell, and B.L. Cadogan. “Effects of the insecticide 

Bacillus thuringiensis on Sorex cinereus (masked shrew) populations, diets, and prey selection in a jack 

pine plantation in northern Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 70 (1992): 505–510. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

166 

administered, the experiment demonstrated the possibilities for devastation of insect 

populations other than the black fly and an impact on the entire food chain.158 

 Another issue that Dave Reynolds and others were certainly well aware of before 

Ken Stephens arrived in 1992 was water quality. Indeed, water quality centered the 

concerns about the New River since the days of the pumped-storage controversy. 

Stephens acknowledged that people before him had started the programs to monitor 

bacteria due to untreated sewage, as well as the effluent from abandoned coal mines. It 

took the staff growth of the 1990s, however, to implement these programs more fully. 

Stephens said: 

We have three full-time FTE dedicated to it. That’s not enough, but three. And that is 

one program area that we do manage to stretch ourselves from the New to the Gauley to 

the Blue. It covers all three of them.159

Stephens was careful to credit colleagues who had implemented this and other programs. 

He described himself as a manager (Title: Division Chief, Natural Resources), who had 

the good fortune to hire Fisheries Biologist Jesse Purvis, Wildlife Biologist Matt Varner, 

Geologist Gene Clare, Vegetation Specialist and Biologist John Perez, Biological 

Technicians Kathy Oney and Lisa Wilson (both since 1992 or 1993), and Biological 

Technician Sammy Pugh, who has since taken a similar job with the Office of Surface 

Mining. 

 Stephens described himself in his interview as a manager, not a scientist. Two 

trends had increased the credibility of scientific work done in southern West Virginia in 

the 1990s and early 21st century. First, the hiring of subject specialists just noted; second, 

the increasing importance of collaboration with people from outside the park itself. 

Consultants, especially from universities, had worked in the New River Gorge National 

River since its authorization. But in the 1990s, efforts intensified in the National Park 

Service generally to coordinate research at the regional level. As Stephens noted, other 

than the increase in staff, the main thing that changed in research projects since the early 

1990s was: “Accountability. We are reporting on our activities, it’s much more 

integrating with the regional and WASO requirements.”160

 The regional integration of scientific research, however, has gone beyond 

accounting for dollars and time. Since Stephens started at New River, the Park Service 

started an Eastern Rivers and Mountains Network to coordinate research in the region. 

The network involved staff in the parks in the region, the Northeast Region Chief 

Scientist John Karish, Matt Marshall (Coordinator of ERMN), and professors from 

numerous universities. Dr. Tom Pauley (Marshall University) has researched birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, and mammals in New River and its sister parks. Dr. Stuart Welsh 

 

158 “10 More Bti Sprayings for Black Flies Planned,” Charleston Gazette, May 28, 2004. 159 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 160 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

167 

(WVU) has researched fish, Dr. Jay Stauffer (Penn State) fish, Dr. Steven Castleberry 

(University of Georgia) mammals, Dr. Petra Wood (WVU) mammals, and so on.161 Some 

ERMN projects have also been undertaken by Park Service scientists from other units. 

For example, a researcher from George Washington Memorial Parkway and another 

from Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area produced a study of 

paleontological resources across the Northeast Region (including New River, Gawley, 

and Bluestone) in 2004.162 As Stephens stated: 

I think the more rigorous science program has been a major benefit of that kind of 

regional oversight, in particular, science and the parks have all benefited from that. It’s a 

National Park Service initiative, but the money and the programs they filter down to the 

regions and then to the parks. That’s a plus. That has short-term, long-term benefits. If 

we had it to do over, there’s a lot more requirements for submitting proposals, a lot 

more requirements for getting funding, that’s the kind of oversight we need to make 

sure that we’re doing the science and not just getting out in the field.163

“This oversight and coordination,” he said, “is system wide. No one is picking on NERI!” 

CONCLUSION

 The Park Service faces a difficult task. It has, on one hand, the responsibility to 

protect the New River in its natural state, or something close to it, as mandated in the 

1978 enabling legislation. But it must also provide recreational opportunities for the 

public’s enjoyment. In doing so, the NPS faces the problem of protecting New River 

natural and cultural resources from damage, vandalism, and destruction, while allowing 

public access. To manage such a large and inaccessible park requires combined efforts of 

state and federal agencies. 

 Over the years, the NPS has worked with the West Virginia DNR and DEP when 

dealing with issues relating to water quality and flow, flood control and hydroelectric 

power, animal and plant populations, and a range of other issues. They have often 

disagreed, but overall they have worked well together to conserve natural resources. 

 The management and protection of the natural resources in New River is essential 

to the continued health of the park. Good working relationships between the NPS and 

other state and federal agencies are necessary to protect the flora, fauna, and fish 

populations. Issues such as water quality, pumped-storage, flood control, the continuous 

flow of the river, and hydroelectric power have been and continue to be issues of 

 

161 See: http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ermn/inventory.htm#birds. 162 Alison L. Koch and Vincent L. Santucci, Paleontological Resource Inventory and Monitoring: Eastern 

Rivers and Mountains Network. National Park Service, TIC #D-265, June 2004. Available on line at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov. 

163 Ken Stephens, interviewed November 16, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

168 

concern to many citizens. The protection of endangered species is also on the minds of 

many, and requires careful study and intra-agency cooperation. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

169 

Figure 25. Wolf Creek, seen from Kaymoor Trail, 2006. 

This seemingly wild creek drains the Fayetteville area and 

experiences significant pollution problems. Photograph by 

Gregory A. Good. 

Figure 26. A view from Kaymoor Trail, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Natural Resources 

170 

Figure 27. This artificial waterfall cascades onto Kaymoor 

Trail, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 

Figure 28. In 2000, NERI wildlife biologist Matt Varner discovered that old 

mine shafts provide habitat for two endangered species of bats, the Indiana 

bat and the Virginia big-eared bat. These bat grates, however, were installed 

earlier to protect visitors from dangerous conditions. Photograph by Gregory 

A. Good. 
171 

CHAPTER SIX

MANAGING NERI CULTURAL RESOURCES

CULTURAL RESOURCE LAWS AND CRM PLANNING

 The management of cultural resources in the New River Gorge National River has 

challenged the National Park Service since the authorization of the park in 1978. The 

challenge sprang from the combination of the extremely deteriorated post-industrial 

condition of coal, rail, and domestic and commercial structures and the necessarily 

deliberate, restrained process of cultural resource management (CRM) within Park 

Service guidelines. Preserving a coal or rail town is a complicated process. 

 This chapter discusses selected cultural resources in New River, the debates 

surrounding their preservation, and decisions that formed New River administrative 

policies regarding visitor access, safety, and interpretation. The chapter begins with a 

general discussion of federal cultural resource law and its relation to early park 

management. Then it briefly discusses archeology at the park. The chapter focuses on 

the specific historic sites of Kaymoor and Nuttallburg mines, the towns of Thurmond 

and Fayette Station, and remains of associated railroads, coke ovens, and other 

structures. For the planning process underway in 2006, a map of historic resources in the 

park was produced (See Figure 1.). Because these resources are important to people 

living in the region today, their concerns have affected management decisions. The 

public’s interaction with park staff continues. 

 Management of cultural resources in New River has developed gradually since 

1978. Federal laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as 

amended) and Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA 1979) require due 

consideration of cultural resources. When a project involves federal funds or permitting, 

Section 106 of NHPA requires that its effects on resources eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) must be examined.1

 Beyond compliance with these 

and other regulations, NPS directly manages, protects, and interprets cultural resources 

for the public. NPS has developed extensive guidelines to meet this expanded charge.2

 

1

 See: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen's Guide 

to Section 106 Review, http://www.achp.gov/citizensguide.html, accessed September 20, 2005. 2

 See, for example: National Park Service, Cultural Resource Management Guideline (Washington, 

DC: National Park Service, Release No. 5, 1997). Available at: 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm. This document discusses 

cultural resource types, levels of significance, and the need to integrate research, planning, and 

stewardship. Accessed September 20, 2005. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

172 

 New River’s enabling act (Public Law 95-625, 1978) and successive management 

documents have shaped policy decisions toward needs of cultural resources specific to 

the gorge. Public Law 95-625 included among the purposes for establishing New River 

“conserving and interpreting outstanding ... historic values and objects in and around” 

the gorge.”3

 It authorized marking and interpreting historically significant properties, 

including private properties (through cooperative agreements). The law required the 

Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to Congress within two years, detailing (among 

other things) which resources in the park were “essential to the protection and public 

enjoyment of ... historic values and objects.”4

 Within three years, the Secretary was to 

submit a management plan including “measures for the preservation of the area’s 

resources.”5

 

 The Draft General Management Plan (Draft GMP) appeared in 1982.6

 It called for 

protecting both prehistoric and historic cultural sites in and around the park. The GMP

set preliminary priorities for preservation and discussed levels of treatment appropriate 

to each. Highest priorities included Kaymoor Mine and Lower Kaymoor, Thurmond’s 

railroad depot, and Hinton’s roundhouse. The GMP mentioned direct NPS ownership of 

only a few sites, and promised a “cooperative approach” with private landowners (e.g., 

CSX), volunteers, and state and local agencies to protect sites that it did not own. Some 

sites would be “acquired, stabilized, and interpreted.”7

 Objects would be collected, 

described, and curated. The GMP made only a few specific recommendations, to be 

examined below. 

 The Park Service outlined a research program in the GMP stating that, “the 

primary value of many of the cultural resources in the New River Gorge is their potential 

to yield information important in the study of history and pre-history.”8

 The possibility 

of losing cultural resources prompted NPS to plan to record sites in danger of demise. 

When no cooperative agreement or acquisition was possible and the landowner might 

remove or neglect a resource, NPS intended to encourage documenting the site.9

 The 

plan stated that recording was often the most effective form of preservation, and also 

recommended a continuing oral history project. 

 NPS mandates and guidelines since 1982 have considered how best to both 

preserve cultural resources and allow the public to enjoy them. The 1982 GMP was 

designed to improve access opportunities to the park and to direct protection and 

 

3

 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1101, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 

4

 Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1103 (a) (i). 

5

 Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1103 (a) (i). 

6

 National Park Service, Draft General Management Plan [NERI], November, 1982. The final 

report appeared in March 1983: NPS, General Management Plan Summary and Summary of Public 

Response to Draft Plan, 1983. 

7

 GMP, 16-18. 

8 GMP, 18. 

9 GMP, 16. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

173 

interpretation of natural, cultural, and scenic values for which the park was established. 

However, it did not evaluate park resources and visitor activity opportunities with 

adequate detail. So these guidelines have continued to evolve.10

 In 1988, personnel of the Denver Service Center of the Park Service wrote a more 

specific planning report for the management and development of the National River. It 

outlined goals and priorities within a philosophical framework for site-specific 

planning.11 Entitled Management and Development Guidelines for New River Gorge 

National River, West Virginia (MDG, November 1988), the document differed somewhat 

from the GMP regarding the park’s purpose, significance, interpretative themes, and 

management objectives and issues. A longer report by the same authors, Management 

and Development Guidelines, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia: Reference 

Material (MDG Reference Material, December 1988) evaluated twenty sites in the park 

for their condition and value for recreation and interpretation.12 Neither of these 

documents, however, were submitted to the WV SHPO nor to the national Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which would be required by Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act if either of these documents had become an action 

document.13 The MDG documents apparently involved only DSC staff. No evidence has 

been found that personnel at the park or the regional offices were involved. 

 Both the GMP and MDG documents, nevertheless, recommended stabilization and 

preservation of remaining resources in the gorge. Some of the goals outlined in the 

report have been achieved, but others have not, resulting in the loss of some important 

structures at Kaymoor in particular. Other resources originally planned for adaptive reuse now sit boarded and empty. The lack of baseline information also profoundly 

impacted management decisions. The policy debates both within the Park Service and 

with the public, resulted in a plan that has been only partially realized. 

 

10 National Park Service, National Park Service Management Policies, 1988 MPF, 1977-78, A64. 

11 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Management 

and Development Guidelines for New River Gorge National River, West Virginia, 1988, MPF, Box 3, 

A64, 1. This 8-page document was released in November 1988. It was soon followed by another 

Denver Service Center document: Management and Development Guidelines, New River Gorge 

National River, West Virginia: Reference Material. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, December 1988. The latter document included the former and a 

section “Analysis of Specific Visitor Use Sites.” 

12 Clif Bobinski, Planning Documents Report for New River Gorge National River, August 16, 2004. 

This document is unpaginated, annotated bibliography. The information is the text is 

summarized in these annotations. 

13 Comments on draft of this administrative history by Clifford Tobias, Historian, Northeast 

Regional Office, Philadelphia (NERO-P), National Park Service, 2006. In 1988, Dr. Tobias was the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional 106 Compliance Coordinator and would have been part of consultations 

to amend the Draft GMP. No documentation exists that either MDG document was reviewed by 

the WV SHPO or the regional office. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

174 

 Historic preservation takes many forms. The possibilities range from simply 

recording a site to full restoration. It is impractical, if not impossible, to preserve every 

coke oven and building in the New River Gorge. NPS decisions regarding the treatment 

of sites have depended on available resources, significance of the site, and level of 

interpretation planned.14 In a 2004 interview, park Cultural Resource Specialist David N. 

Fuerst discussed stabilization and preservation issues in the gorge: 

Well that’s a curious thing see, you can’t stabilize everything. Stabilization is almost a 

temporary thing. If you think about it, you’re stabilizing it until perhaps you do 

something more. Buildings that are in use, you can see there’s a utility to stabilizing. Like 

in Thurmond, we stabilized buildings and put new roofs on the houses. Now once you 

have a roof on it, it keeps the walls from decaying or the foundation [from decaying]. 

But an historic or archeological resource like a foundation or coke oven ... we have 

thousands of coke ovens ... to say you’re going to spend money to stabilize every one of 

them is ludicrous, I mean there’s no money to do that, and really what’s the point? So 

what I guess I’m really trying to get at is that as an archeologist and historian, what I try 

to do is manage an archeological process ... you have to be selective and really go back 

to the point of what the park is about, and that is to interpret a story for the public. Not 

to preserve everything in place, and there are purists in the Park Service, purists who 

will say I have to. Every time I run into a situation or I walk through the woods and I see 

a collapsed coke oven, so now I’ve got to spend money. That isn’t really reasonable.15 

The extent to which a particular site is preserved (if at all) depends on many factors: the 

frequency of such sites, a site’s importance to the New River story (i.e., interpretive 

goals), balance with other park goals, accessibility, and finally, budget. Cultural resource 

management competes directly with, for example, natural resource protection and 

recreation for funds and priority. 

 When the Park Service released the draft GMP in 1982, 34 out of a total of 288 

prehistoric archeological sites potentially eligible for the National Register were known 

to exist within park boundaries, many of these on private land.16 These sites were 

cataloged in the Marshall Report in 1981. Such sites were vulnerable to vandalism and 

were treated differently than historic sites. The GMP stated directly that Park Service 

policy in New River was not to acquire known sites “solely for the purposes of 

preservation or interpretation.” Policy instead emphasized protecting these sites by 

“directing visitor use and development away” from them. Only if a site were threatened 

did the GMP recommend action. In this case, New River could acquire a site or 

otherwise protect it. 

 

14 Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc., A Cultural Research Project: The New River Gorge National 

River, West Virginia, 3 vols. (Charleston, WV, for the National Park Service, 1981), Vol. I, Prehistory, written and edited by David N. Fuerst, 40. Volume II titled History, Community, and 

Architecture, was written by Paul D. Marshall. Volume III, titled Prehistory Appendices, was 

compiled by David N. Fuerst. The 3-volume report is commonly referred to as The Marshall 

Report. The passage cited here is 2:299. 15 David N. Fuerst, interviewed September 10, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

16 GMP, 17. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

175 

 New River poses difficult problems when dealing with prehistoric sites. There are 

perhaps thousands of them, many buried in forested areas on preferred locations 

throughout the park.17 Park Service policy is not to actively excavate sites, but simply to 

identify and preserve them in good condition. Research centers on prehistoric land use, 

chronology, settlement, subsistence, burial patterns, and cultural affiliation. It is 

integrated with GIS resources.18

 But when any development includes soil disturbance, e.g., the construction of a set 

of steps at Stone Cliff, the park cultural resource specialist excavates the area for 

artifacts. This action is required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA, 1966, AS amended). It is also mandated in the 1982 GMP. The Archeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA, 1979) defines “archeological resource” as “any 

material remains of human life or activities which are at least 100 years of age, and which 

are of archeological interest.” It also defines “of archeological interest” as “capable of 

providing scientific or humanistic understandings of past human behavior, cultural 

adaptation, and related topics.”19

 There are different components to the historic preservation of archeological sites 

in New River. First is inventory and documentation. The Park Service uses a software 

package called Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) to 

document the condition and character of known prehistoric and historic sites. This 

program allows the cultural resource specialist to keep track of sites through a system of 

numbers. Numbers are site specific and are part of the site name that is filed with the WV 

SHPO, who in turn provide a trinomial number upon the submission of a site registration 

form. The records are protected and not available to the public.20 This preserves the sites 

and protects them from looting. The second component of managing archeological sites 

is the retrieval and cataloging of artifacts. Objects found are accessioned, cataloged, and 

curated in the New River museum collections at park headquarters in Glen Jean. The 

final component preserves the site itself in coordination with the park’s law enforcement 

staff. Even though artifacts may have been removed, most sites are not totally destroyed 

and usually offer something for the archeologist and historian to interpret with respect 

to their potential eligibility to the National Register.21 

 Many historic properties related to the coal industry, railroading, timbering, and 

early settlements now qualify as archeological sites under ARPA, being over 100 years 

old. Historical archeology generally, and in the gorge particularly, can reveal much about 

 

17 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 18 Comments by David N. Fuerst on a draft of this administrative history, 2007. 

19 U.S. Department of the Interior, Regulations 43 CFR 7.3 (a-b). This is discussed in Thomas F. 

King, Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira 

Press, 1998), 197-199. 

20 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 21 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

176 

daily life. But the remains have existed in damp conditions and are often in ruin. Many 

structures were designed to meet short-term business objectives. People also salvaged 

and re-used many coal company houses and structures in the gorge. Fire destroyed some 

and absentee owners neglected others, which gradually decayed.22 

 Some sites in the gorge relate to industrial and transportation activities. Many 

historic resources have been cleared away for modern operations in these places. Mining 

sites like Kaymoor, Sewell, and Nuttallburg, which operated for the longest period, have 

the most extensive ruins in the park.23 

 Some structures such as coke ovens and tipples have weathered better through the 

years than have frame houses and business structures. But they too have suffered. Effects 

of vandalism, salvage, amateur artifact collecting, and destruction by environmental 

factors have taken their toll. In the mid 1990s, the West Virginia SHPO estimated that 

extant ruins of most coal towns and mining sites in the gorge represented only 10 to 20 

percent of the original fabric. Some structures survive relatively intact, but many mines 

and towns have disappeared entirely, returning seemingly to nature.24 

 A 2004 draft report, Historic Resource Study (HRS), by the Institute for the History 

of Technology and Industrial Archaeology (IHTIA) at West Virginia University 

documented conditions of cultural resources in New River. Some sites were hidden by 

kudzu, but the report described the condition of accessible sites, their significance, and 

recommendations of how to manage them in the future.25 This report, while it 

recommends some actions, primarily provides a resource for future policy decisions 

regarding both prehistoric and historical archeology. 

THE COAL MINERS’ STORY: MANAGEMENT DECISIONS REGARDING 

KAYMOOR AND NUTTALLBURG MINES

 Debates regarding the Kaymoor and Nuttallburg Mines and town sites, and the 

towns of Thurmond and Fayette Station exemplify the problems the Park Service faces 

 

22 Harlan D. Unrau, Special History Study/Historic Context Study, New River Gorge National River, 

West Virginia, Fayette, Raleigh, Summers Counties (Denver: U.S. Department of Interior, National 

Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1996), 43. Historic context studies provide a basis for 

determining historic significance as documented in a property’s nomination to the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

23 Unrau, The New River Gorge, 44. 

24 Unrau, The New River Gorge, 44. 

25 Michael E. Workman, Lee R. Maddex, and Dan J. Bonenberger, New River Gorge National 

River Historic Resource Study (NERI-02-038). Report prepared by the Institute for the History of 

Technology and Industrial Archaeology, West Virginia University and submitted to the New 

River Gorge National River, Glen Jean, WV through the U.S. Department of Interior Cooperative 

Agreement No. H0001010032. 2005, 132 p., on 47. This study makes case-by-case 

recommendations for further actions on dozens of historic sites in NERI. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

177 

when dealing with historic resource preservation issues while meeting other objectives 

of the park. 

 Dr. Sharon A. Brown of the Denver Service Center prepared the nomination of the 

Kaymoor mine site for the National Register in 1990. The nomination was part of her 

Historic Resource Study, Kay Moor, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia

(1990).26 Kaymoor was listed based on its statewide significance. The original intention 

was to nominate the property at the National Level of Significance, but the lack of a 

statewide data base of historic coal mines, let alone a nationwide list, made that approach 

impractical. 

 Kaymoor conducted one of the longest, continuous mining operations in the 

region. The Low Moor Company opened Kaymoor in 1899 to obtain coke for its iron 

furnaces in Covington, Virginia. Kaymoor 1 and 2, on the South Branch of the 

Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, tapped the Sewell coal seam.27 In the early 1900s, the 

mine employed between 1200 and 1500 workers digging coal and operated two-hundred 

coke ovens.28 The site included a powerhouse, head house, powder house, tipple, three 

inclines, an electrical shop, and a coal processing plant.29 The photographs in Figures 2 

and 3 were taken at the main entrance to the mine. 

 Kaymoor was a two-town operation. Kaymoor Top sat 1,920 feet above Kaymoor 

Bottom, on the valley floor, with the mine about 500 feet up the slope. An 18-passenger 

tram carried people up and down the hillside. The seats were tilted so passengers rode 

level. There was no way out of the valley except by train or foot.30 Kaymoor Bottom, on a 

bench near the river, consisted of sixty houses, two churches, two racially segregated 

schools, post office, hotel, theater, and pool room. Low Moor operated Kaymoor until 

1924, when they sold to the New River and Pocahontas Consolidated Coal Company. 

This company built a new processing plant which stayed in operation until 1952.31

 The 1988 MDG Reference Material section on Kaymoor reported ruins of coke 

ovens, head house, processing plant, power house, incline track, foundations, conveyor 

system, walkways, steps, and trails. They agreed with the SHPO concerning the loss of 

interpretive fabric through resource deterioration. Site safety was problematic. The 

report recommended that resource management include vegetation and erosion control, 

 

26 Sharon A. Brown, Historic Resource Study, Kaymoor, New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

July 1990). 

27 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 35. 

28 Memorandum, NERI Superintendent James W. Carrico to Regional Director, July 26, 1985, 

MPF, Box 2, A42. 

29 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 35. 

30 Marshall, Marshall Report, 2:296. 

31 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 35. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

178 

stabilization of cultural resources at the mine and bottom sites only, protection from 

vandalism, and construction of an access trail.32 

 The IHTIA team visited Kaymoor in 2003 and reported that the site included 

structures, ruins, and objects placed on the National Register in 1990, but considerable 

deterioration had occurred. Despite stabilization, the head house had collapsed and the 

preparation plant had fallen over. This draft study recommended stabilizing and making 

the site safe as soon as possible. Assessment of the head house and tipple suggested that 

they were not salvageable as a whole, but that some elements valuable to interpretation 

could be preserved.33 

 The 1982 GMP indicated that Kaymoor would become the “focal point for early 

day coal mining technology and mining history.” In 1990 the DSC undertook a site study 

including development concepts and environmental assessments. The Development 

Concept Plan, Kaymoor, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia appeared in June 

1992.34 Four alternatives presented options ranging from no action to complete 

restoration. The Park Service chose an alternative that involved extensive restoration. 

The plan included foot trails, stairs, access to the mine entrance, and a tram or people 

carrier to enable all people, including the elderly and infirm, to visit the ridge, mine, and 

bottom sites.35 

 In December 1990, the Park Service hosted a public hearing and outlined the draft 

plan. They then altered the plan, based on public comments. Cost, engineering 

difficulties, and resource preservation issues produced a hybrid plan. 

 Public response was mixed. A letter from Henry W. Battle, the great grandson of 

James Kay (whose name the site carries, Kaymoor) expressed his views and those of 

several relatives. 

I am [also] encouraged by what I judge would be an acceptable consensus of the 

December 13 meeting: stabilize and preserve first, then restore and provide modest foot 

and work vehicle access as funds allow, but add nothing to the site itself...we strongly 

believe an elaborate and expensive effort to attract the casual tourist to the actual 

Kaymoor premises will run the risk of being self-defeating by 1) threatening the 

availability of funds for other projects which have their own advocates, and 2) requiring 

on-going protection.36 

Mr. Battle’s feelings were reflected by the state as well. West Virginia Deputy SHPO 

William G. Farrar wrote park Superintendent Joe Kennedy opposing a tram or funicular 

incline at the site. Citing the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, he stated that 

the incline would adversely affect the integrity of the historic landscape. Another fear 

 

32 NPS, Management and Development Guidelines: Reference Material, 21. 

33 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 36. 

34 Development Concept Plan, Kaymoor. 35 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 14. 

36 Letter, Henry W. Battle, MPF, Box 33, D18, January 2, 1990, 1. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

179 

was an increase in litter and petty vandalism if parking for twenty-five cars at the 

trailhead went ahead as planned. He encouraged stabilization of the site rather than 

restoration of as many structures as possible, including the tipple and power house. 

Farrar reasoned that although public support of the tram would encourage visitation, it 

would also have negative consequences. Farrar wrote that: 

Stabilization of the site would preserve the coal history of Kaymoor which is essentially 

the goal of the public. The history of the site can be sufficiently presented with 

appropriate interpretation at the Visitor Center and markers at Kaymoor.37

In essence, Mr. Battle and the Deputy SHPO felt that viewing Kaymoor from afar would 

sufficiently interpret the mine’s history while preventing negative impacts to the site. 

 Others disagreed. Verl Akers, a former Kaymoor resident and employee of the 

mines, favored the plan for extensive restoration of the tram and other facilities vital to 

the mining operation. He felt that he and other interested people could only appreciate 

the site with proper access.38 Jon Dragan, owner of Dragan Diversified and Whitewater 

Unlimited, echoed Mr. Akers’ sentiments. He wrote the Park Service in December 1990: 

I was somewhat dismayed to learn that the National Park Service does not intend to develop 

the Kaymoor complex in its entirety...I would like to state for the record that there are many 

people here in Fayette County who are not able to walk the trail, and many of the visitors 

who would not come to such a worthwhile complex...be that as it may, I would urge that 

whatever restoration or reconstruction that is done in the area is made available to all 

people, and that some form of conveyance of transportation will be necessary and should be 

necessary so that people of all ages and from all walks of life will be able to enjoy the 

interpretative experience planned by the National Park Service at Kaymoor.39 

Mr. Dragan’s letter indicates the problems the Park Service faces when making policy 

decisions. Trying to satisfy the varying interests of the public complicates the process of 

reaching consensus. The history of visitor access to the tipple and coke ovens has shown 

that the more than 800 stairs keep many people away. 

 Debate continued within the Park Service itself. In a letter to the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Director, Superintendent Kennedy observed that many suggested treatments 

would be difficult because of access problems. 

One of our major concerns is how to access the area for maintenance after all work is 

completed. Access for visitors is one thing, but access for equipment and maintenance 

workers is quite another ... we should always consider the operational costs as well as 

the construction costs when considering these alternatives. The operational costs 

should include visitor services and resource protection as well as 

preservation/maintenance...many of the structures if restored would have the same 

maintenance problems they had before they deteriorated to their present condition. 

They weren’t constructed to last forever ... we also have concerns proposing any kind 

of haulage for the visitors. What would it cost to operate? Who would be responsible for 

 

37 Letter, William G. Farrar (SHPO), MPF, Box 33, D18, December 18, 1990, 1-2. 

38 Letter, Verl Akers, MPF, Box 33, D18, December 26, 1990, 1. 

39 Letter, Jon Dragan, MPF, Box 33, D18, December 15, 1990, 1. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

180 

safety and maintenance? Would it become an attraction rather than the historical 

remains of the site?40 

Superintendent Kennedy’s concerns reflect another difficult element involved in the 

Park Service decision-making process. Kaymoor Mine presented a logistical nightmare 

for park vehicles and maintenance, an aspect the public didn’t consider in their input. 

 Kennedy also said that opening a mine entry would be out of the question, even 

though this was an early suggestion. After installing bat grills on other mines of the same 

vintage in the area, cave-ins occurred that would have killed anyone standing 

underneath. Opening a mine entry would just be too dangerous. He agreed with the 

Deputy SHPO officer that viewing the site from the opposite rim of the canyon was a 

good idea and he thought it had not been given enough consideration. He noted that the 

Park Service didn’t own much of the land around Kaymoor, severely limiting access.41

 There were other debates within the Park Service. Especially notable was the 

proposed “ghosting” at Kaymoor. Under one DSC alternative this envisioned the 

erection of structural outlines (skeleton trusses, with no roofs or walls) of four ruined 

structures in the manner of Benjamin Franklin’s House at Franklin Court in 

Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia. The latter project was a very 

controversial approach to historic preservation and interpretation, but it was successful 

– an award-winning example of NPS planning. However, Regional Historical Architect 

Thomas McGrath objected to ghosting at Kaymoor, and Regional Director James 

Coleman, Jr., accepted his position. The park, too, opposed ghosting. As a result MARO 

questioned “ghosting for interpretation only; perhaps ghosting may be an element of 

necessary stabilization. Accordingly, we recommend deleting all the ghost structures 

[from the Draft Study of Development Concept Alternatives/Environmental Assessment, 

Kaymoor]”.42 

 James M. Ridenour, director of the National Park Service, visited New River Gorge 

National River in May 1991. He came to open the Canyon Rim Visitor Center, but he 

also rafted the New River and visited Kaymoor and other projects.43 Shortly after his 

visit, Ridenour wrote informally to District Ranger Don Kodak, noting the interpretive 

 

40 Memorandum, Joe Kennedy to Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, MPF, Box 33, D18, 

April 11, 1990, 1. The original memorandum is (as of November 2006) at NERO-P, but is to be 

accessioned to NARA. This memorandum is in file “NERI 106 File Kay Moor Dev. Con. Plan 

#128 [the project’s Form 10-238 budget ‘Package Number’],” MAR/NERO-P Section 106 

Compliance Files, NERO-P. 

41 Kennedy, MPF, Box 33, D18, 2. 

42 Memorandum, Regional Director, MARO, MPF, Box 33, D18, April 11, 1990, 1. The original 

memorandum is (as of November 2006) at NERO-P, but is to be accessioned to NARA. This 

memorandum is in file “NERI 106 File Kay Moor Dev. Con. Plan #128 [the project’s Form 10-238 

budget ‘Package Number’],” MAR/NERO-P Section 106 Compliance Files, NERO-P. 43 James M. Ridenour. The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics & America’s 

Treasures (Merrillville, IN: ICS Books, Inc., 1994), 81-89. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

181 

potential of both of Thurmond and Kaymoor. He also expressed concerns about the 

development costs and access problems: 

I wonder if the size of the dollar commitment to doing everything that I have heard 

described for the area would be justified in terms of the tourism potential. It is too bad 

that there isn’t an easier way to access that property and provide interpretation, at a cost 

that would be reasonable in terms of the benefit. Perhaps some additional creative 

thinking will come up with some possibilities.44

This letter illustrates that the planning challenges posed by Kaymoor (and Thurmond) 

were known at the highest levels in the National Park Service. 

 When ghosting appeared in a later draft, despite agreement at the final project 

review meeting at DSC that it would be dropped, the MARO Park Historic Preservation 

Division continued to object. Ultimately, ghosting was not mentioned in the final 

Development Concept Plan.

45 

 The final plan appeared in June 1992. It recommended stabilization of remaining 

structures, insuring public safety, interpretation, and visitor facilities. It outlined an 

alternative to the original ideas involving access. Instead of a tram, it proposed an 

improved access road to the trailhead at Kaymoor Top. It also recommended improved 

maintenance access, reconditioning of remaining historic stairs, and provision of access 

to the river.46

 The head house, monitor, and tipple continued to deteriorate. They became too 

dangerous and had to be destroyed. The largest of the structures, the tipple, could have 

fallen on the active CSX railroad. The park set charges and collapsed the tipple in March 

1999. A site cleanup was completed, and fencing was placed around the tipple and power 

house. Several structures were stabilized, including the powder house and Low Moor 

Fan house. NPS acquired property needed for the Kaymoor trailhead and parking lot, 

and those projects were completed. Access to the mine site was improved, but the 

historic concrete and masonry stairs between Kaymoor Top and the mine portals were 

not upgraded. However, a new set of stairs from the mine to the bottom was constructed 

(Figure 4).47 Although many structures were lost to deterioration, enough remains to 

allow the telling of the miners’ story. Surprisingly rich records remain to suggest the 

character of their lives (Figure 5). Today, visitors find few facilities at the site. There are 

portable toilets at Kaymoor Top but not at the mine openings or tipple level (Figure 6). 

 

44 Informal letter, James M. Ridenour (Director, National Park Service) to Don Kodak (District 

Ranger), May 29, 1991. A photocopy of this letter is in: MARO, MPF, Box 33, D18, April 11, 1990, 

1, file “NERI 106 File Kay Moor Dev. Con. Plan #128 [the project’s Form 10-238 budget ‘Package 

Number’],” MAR/NERO-P Section 106 Compliance Files, NERO-P. 45 Comments on draft administrative history, Dr. Clifford Tobias, Regional Historian, NERO-P, 

formerly MARO. Dr. Tobias kept notes of the Kaymoor Draft DCP review meeting at MARO, and 

compiled the official review comments to DSC for the Regional Director. 

46 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 14. 

47 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 14. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

182 

Signs and fences at Kaymoor Bottom protect visitors from hazards (Figure 7). The Park 

Service installed interpretive displays along the trail and at Kaymoor Top, and the 

Canyon Rim Visitor Center shows a coal-mining video daily.48 

 Some people, such as park consultant Destry Jarvis, feel that stabilization efforts 

were too little and came too late at Kaymoor and other sites as well: 

Another big complaint on my part, certainly in the first ten years, probably the first 

twenty years was their [the Park Service’s] obsession, or singular focus on the river and 

the natural aspects of the park, and largely ignoring or certainly not paying enough 

attention to stabilize and retain the cultural resources. There was a fabulous coal tipple 

and chute down the side of the canyon at Kaymoor that would have been, I mean it 

would have been a bear to stabilize properly and make safe...[but it would have been] a 

great story to tell.49

Mr. Jarvis’s comments again reflect the problems the Park Service faces when trying to 

satisfy simultaneously mandates in the 1982 GMP and public desires. All actions require 

money and consensus, two commodities that are sometimes difficult to obtain. 

 While Mr. Jarvis’s comments were well intentioned, he did not know the full 

extent of the actions undertaken by the Park Service. Although it may be debated how 

much more could have been done over the decades, numerous professionals at the park, 

regional office, and the Denver Service Center devoted much of their careers to 

identification, recordation, and preservation of the park’s cultural resources. An 

aggressive preservation program at Kaymoor alone would have incurred a large cost for a 

relatively small number of visitors. When NPS Director Ridenour visited the park in 

1991, he recognized this imbalance.50 Nevertheless, David N. Fuerst felt that Kaymoor, 

as a historic property, warranted more active preservation.51

 The Nuttallburg mine, begun by John Nuttall, employed miners from up and down 

the gorge. Miners owned their own homes atop the mountain in the Lansing-Edmond 

and Winona-Lookout areas and along the river to South Caperton. In the valley 

Nuttallburg included about 110 houses, four general stores, a train depot, a butcher, 

barber, shoemaker, physician, two telegraph operators, postmaster, and a brass band. By 

1923, two more general stores, another physician, a railway express agency office, post 

office, and notary served the community.52 In addition to the towns, the Nuttallburg 

mine site had a scale house and scales, a drum house, blacksmith shop, carpenter shop, 

slate dump, and tipple.53 

 

48 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 14. 

49 Destry Jarvis, interview, April 23, 2004, conducted by Lynn Stasick. 50 Informal letter, James M. Ridenour to District Ranger Don Kodak, 29 May 1991. See note 44, 

above. 

51 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 

52 Marshall, The Marshall Report, II:295. 

53 Marshall, The Marshall Report, II:294-295. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

183 

 Although not included in the boundary of the recently listed Nuttalburg mine and 

town site, Nuttall located his first operation at the Old Keeney’s Creek Mine, situated on 

the hillside on the north side of the confluence of Keeney’s Creek and the New River.54

Begun before the C&O railroad was completed in 1873, it was the second mine to ship 

coal from the region. Soon he opened the Nuttallburg mine on nearby Short Creek. With 

eighty coke ovens, the two mines employed over two hundred men. Famous for its 

“smokeless” Sewell seam coal, by 1880 the Nuttallburg Coal Company was the largest 

producer in the New River field and continued to grow. Nuttallburg Coal and Coke 

Company opened a third mine later near Fern Creek, and built the seven-mile Keeney’s 

Creek branch railroad in the early 1890s.55 Nuttall continued to acquire property and 

eventually owned 31⁄2 miles of river frontage and a vast estate that extended well back on 

the plateau above the river, much of which is still part of the Nuttall estate.56 

 Early developers in the New River coal fields dealt with engineering situations as 

they arose.57 In 1899, a wire suspension, pedestrian bridge was built across the New 

River to South Nuttallburg by the Roebling company, under the sons of John Augustus 

Roebling, the designer of the Brooklyn Bridge. As at Kaymoor, steep terrain posed 

problems for the Nuttallburg mine. To get coal from the tipple to the C&O mainline 

below, Nuttall initially used a ten-ton, steel-tube mechanism known as a “monitor,” with 

a door at the lower end. The tube traveled between the headhouse and tipple below. The 

door automatically tripped open to release its load upon striking the tipple, and a full car, 

by its loaded descent, pulled an empty car back up the mountainside. A worker known as 

a drumrunner rode the monitor, and regulated the speed of the trip with a long brake 

lever.58 Late in the nineteenth century Nuttall replaced this system with one with coal 

cars.59

 The Nuttall family controlled the coal company until 1908. Purchased and 

reorganized as the Nuttallburg Smokeless Fuel Company in 1913, Henry Ford bought it 

through his newly formed Fordson Coal Company in 1920 and replaced Nuttall’s 

conveyor with an innovative “rope and button” system.60 The Maryland New River Coal 

Company purchased the lease in 1928. The mine operated intermittently until 1958, 

when it closed forever. 

 The 1988 Management and Development Guidelines indicated that the Nuttallburg 

site included the ruins and foundations of a few houses, a tipple, an incline, and some 

coke ovens. Since no assessment of the condition or significance of the structures was 

 

54 John Nuttall, Trees Above and Coal Below (San Diego, CA: Neyenesch Printers, 1961). 55 Unrau, New River Gorge, 26. 

56 Unrau, New River Gorge, 26. 

57 Unrau, New River Gorge, 31. 

58 Unrau, New River Gorge, 31. 

59 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 

60 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

184 

available to indicate importance to the interpretive story, the report recommended 

additional inventory and evaluation of extant resources.61 

 The Park Service acquired the land and cultural remains of Nuttallburg in 1998, 

and WVU’s Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology (IHTIA) 

re-assessed their physical condition in 2003-2004.62 The IHTIA report described 

suspension bridge towers, ruins of domestic structures and of a weigh station, coke 

ovens, head house (which has collapsed), and a standing tipple and conveyor dating to 

the 1920s. The report judged the site significant on both national and regional or state 

levels. Nuttallburg, one of the earliest mines and settlements in the region, is closely 

associated with its pioneer operator, John Nuttall, and with automobile innovator Henry 

Ford. The study reports that today, the location offers a colliery site with most of the 

industrial elements still existent.63 

 According to David N. Fuerst, just after the park’s inception the NPS identified 

historic coal-mining towns like Sewell and Kaymoor for potential preservation, but 

Nuttallburg did not receive the as much attention. Although the “Nuttall Mine structures 

and conveyor” were not included in the GMP’s section on “Acquisition of Essential 

Areas,” the property was listed in the next section, “Areas of Special Concern.” The GMP

commented that Nuttallburg was “considered to be important because of cultural 

resources and/or scenic values.” It was marked (but not named) in the accompanying 

map of “Areas of Special Concern.” The GMP listed Nuttallburg (both the town and the 

mining structures) among “Significant Historical Resources.” On January 8, 1991, Linda 

Romola told Dr. Tobias that the WV SHPO considered Nuttall to be more important 

than Kaymoor.64 Since 2005 the Park Service started assessing its significance based on 

IHTIA’s report. In addition, Senator Robert Byrd has secured several million dollars 

toward preservation of the site. 

 The NPS would like to develop Nuttallburg as a heritage tourist destination and is 

presently negotiating with local landowners to turn over an abandoned road to the Park 

Service to access the mine’s head-house.65 The site is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places, and the NPS hired Icon Architecture, the same firm that 

prepared the Kaymoor nomination, to draw up a nomination for Nuttallburg.66 The 

park’s Cultural Resource Specialist, David N. Fuerst, co-authored this nomination. 

Nuttallburg is nationally significant based on its largely intact conveyor system, which 

 

61 NPS, Management and Development Guidelines, 13. 

62 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 8. 

63 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 8. 

64 GMP, 33, 38, 41 (map), 71 (map), 73-74; Tobias’ copy of the GMP, annotated on 74 with 

Romola’s statement, NER Cultural Resources Bibliography (CRBIB) files, NERI Box 1, NERI-00-

01, CRBIB #402200, copy 2, NERO-P. 

65 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 24, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 66 Alan Rowe, West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, interviewed February 18, 2005, 

by Lynn Stasick. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

185 

was built by Henry Ford. The town’s association to John Nuttall and the Keeney’s Creek 

Branch Railroad through it are also regionally significant. 

THE RAILROADERS’ STORY

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS REGARDING THURMOND

 In September 1985 park Superintendent James Carrico wrote a memorandum to 

the NPS regional director expressing his sentiments toward Thurmond. He included a 

background/problem statement regarding the town and its past. He described remaining 

structures and the importance of retaining their integrity because of their historic 

significance: 

There are sixteen pivotal structures with extremely high historical integrity, and of first 

importance to the historic district. These include a church, eight residences, 

commercial buildings, and the Thurmond [train] station and engine house...[because] 

one of the major cultural stories of New River Gorge National River is railroading...the 

Thurmond Passenger/Depot Station and engine repair house would be a great loss to 

the composite railroading resources of the New River. The structures are not only 

needed for the historic scene, but to bring people to the actual site of the historic depot 

and to tell the New River railroading story there.67 

Dr. R. Eugene Harper of West Virginia’s Charleston University, formerly known as 

Morris Harvey College, wrote a nomination of Thurmond to the National Register of 

Historic Places at the behest of the Park Service. Thurmond was placed on the National 

Register January 27, 1984. 

 Thurmond lies along the New River near the center of Fayette County, sixty miles 

from Charleston, on a narrow floodplain, deep in the gorge across from the mouth of 

Dunloup Creek. Thurmond is about six miles from park headquarters in Glen Jean, West 

Virginia. With the coming of the C&O Railway in 1873, the town became a railroad 

assembly yard, and soon, an industrial town. Incorporated in 1900, it became a hub of 

railroad activity. The town had not a single street, yet boasted two banks, two hotels, and 

a vibrant commercial block, all within ten feet of the railroad tracks.68

 In its heyday, more than 150 men worked out of Thurmond. Until the Depression, 

it was one of the most active and thriving towns in the state. At one time more freight was 

handled through Thurmond for the C&O than any depot between Richmond and 

Cincinnati, and Thurmond produced significant revenue. Three shifts worked the 

engine house and repair shop and thousands of people passed through town yearly. By 

 

67 Letter, Carrico, September 10, 1985, MPF, Box 11, File 30. 

68 Letter, Carrico, September 10, 1985. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

186 

1900 twenty passenger trains a day ran, six of which were first class or “fast trains,” and 

all stopped in Thurmond.69 

 Part of Thurmond’s popularity lay just across the river near an area called South 

Side Junction, or Dun Glen. Thomas McKell opened the Dun Glen Hotel in 1901 on the 

present site of the park ranger station, bunkhouse, and machine shop. Providing one 

hundred rooms, it was considered one of the finest hotels in the country. Next to the 

hotel was a powerhouse, which was connected to the Thurmond railroad bridge by a 

viaduct over Dunloup Creek. The hotel, however, was not part of Thurmond, but was 

part of the town of Glen Jean.70 Unlike Thurmond, Glen Jean allowed gambling and 

alcohol, and people passing through the region flocked to the Dun Glen for its luxury, 

gambling parlors, and fine food and drink. Urban legend has it that a poker game in one 

of its parlors lasted fourteen years, and the bar never closed from its opening in 1901 

until prohibition. It burned to the ground mysteriously in 1930.71 Two individuals hired 

by the owner of the Lafayette Hotel in Thurmond were later convicted of arson and sent 

to prison. A portion of the Dun Glen building next to the park’s maintenance building 

has been re-roofed, an extension to which was used as a ranger station until recently. 

 The 1988 Park Service Management and Development Guidelines stated Thurmond 

had a depot, engine house, post office, and two water towers.72 Various sheds and 

railroad yard features, inactive sidings, a C&O active mainline railroad, a coaling tower, 

three three–story commercial buildings, and an old hotel and turntable site still existed. 

The report noted that appropriate levels for the preservation of the historic structures 

and landscape had yet to be determined along with appropriate levels of development 

for visitor use. There was also concern for the safety of the visiting public with an active 

railroad running through the town.73 

 The historic context study that was produced by Harlan Unrau for the Park 

Service in 1996 indicated that Thurmond contained the only remaining major, intact 

railroad resources within the park. He felt that the extant commercial structures in town 

reflected the significance of Thurmond as a thriving business center during the heyday of 

coal mining and railroad operations in the gorge from the 1870s to the 1930s.74

 In 1992 the Park Service released the final plan for the preservation and 

interpretation of the town. The Development Concept Plan/Interpretive Prospectus-

 

69 “Thurmond, Once Thriving Port of Entry, Now but a Shadow of Fabled History,” Fayette 

Tribune, October 28, 1974, MPF, Newspaper Clippings. 70 For more on the story of the Dun Glen Hotel, see Melody Bragg, Dunloup Days: Glen Jean to 

Thurmond: Exciting Times, Precious Memories (Bridgeview, IL: Southside Imprinting, Inc., for the 

Glen Jean Historical Society, 1989). 

71 Melody E. Bragg, “Glen Jean and the McKells,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Oak Hill, 

WV, 1988), 135. 

72 NPS, Management and Development Guidelines, 26. 

73 NPS, Management and Development Guidelines, 26. 

74 Unrau, New River Gorge, 70. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

187 

Thurmond/New River Gorge (DCP/IP) served as the final development concept.75 The 

1989 draft plan, Development Concept Plan/Interpretive Prospectus, Environmental 

Assessment, offered three alternatives—A, B, C—to preserve, promote, and interpret the 

town. A fourth alternative (D) was offered as the no-action choice and involved 

stabilization measures but no interpretation.76 

 The planning objectives of the 1992 DCP/IP included protecting historic resources 

in Thurmond and natural resources and scenic integrity of the gorge, so that the history 

of railroading and the transportation of coal in the New River could be interpreted. The 

plan also called for providing opportunities to improve the economic viability of the 

town and surrounding area without adversely affecting the integrity of the cultural 

landscape and significant resources.77

 Among the initial planning concerns was the need to provide visitor access and 

circulation while safely separating visitors from railroad operations. The Park Service 

also needed to evaluate the deterioration of historic buildings, bridges, and railroad yard 

features and determine appropriate levels of treatment. How much change should be 

allowed? How could the NPS minimize intrusions to the physical character of the town 

and view shed? Vandalism and insuring the privacy of the citizens living on the hill above 

town were also concerns. 

 After the public and Park Service reviewed the draft plan, NPS selected Alternative 

C as the best one to preserve and interpret the town. It required completion of 

preservation treatments to protect remaining structures in the rail yard and commercial 

row, installation of safety fencing in the rail yard, establishment of interpretive programs, 

improvement of the Thurmond-Minden trail, development of a trail connecting Cunard, 

and development of park operations and support facilities at Southside Junction.78 

 NPS plans for Thurmond were grand, and some people in and out of the Park 

Service thought they were so grand as to be unrealistic. Cultural Resource Specialist 

David N. Fuerst—who wrote an amended DCP/IP for Thurmond in 2000—stated: 

You have to look at what they thought would be developed...they thought Thurmond 

was going to be like Steam Town [Pennsylvania] because Thurmond is a railroad town. 

When you look back at the stuff, you see all these presumptions that are made, about 

what they see as the assets for these towns. People looked at Thurmond and thought 

they could get twenty or thirty thousand people down there, down this little road every 

year, RVs and everything else. They [thought they would] have cooperation from CSX 

to develop the safety of people crossing the railroad tracks. Well all those things were a 

pipe dream in a way, and so they didn’t happen.79 

Were the plans envisioned by the Park Service unrealistic? 

 

75 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 16. 

76 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 16. 

77 Letter, NERI Superintendent Joe Kennedy, MPF, Box 63, D18, September 13, 1993, 4. 78 Bobinski, Planning Documents Report, 16. 

79 David N. Fuerst, interview conducted by Lynn Stasick, 14. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

188 

 Some people not only believe the plans were unrealistic, but that the Park Service 

did not deliver on promises actually made, resulting in the town’s deterioration. The late 

Jon Dragan, whose wife, Melanie, is presently Thurmond’s mayor, discussed a meeting 

he attended with Park Service and other officials: 

Oh God, this was going to be another Harper’s Ferry. Literally, I remember being at that 

meeting at the Banker’s Club where there were state representatives, Park Service 

representatives, people out of Washington D.C. “Yes sir Jon, don’t you worry about 

this. We got the train coming through; we’re going to do this.” We were told when they 

bought the property from us that...I said what are you going to do with it? ‘Cause we 

really didn’t want to sell it. [They said:] ‘We’re going to restore the old stuff; it’s going to 

be like a little training center for people...Hell, all they did was buy the people out and 

board up the houses. I realize they’re not private enterprise, but it just seems like every 

time we get promised something, it just doesn’t happen, or it doesn’t happen to the 

extent that we are promised it would happen...the same thing with Kaymoor.80 

A planning and interpretation document prepared in 1993 described Thurmond depot 

(Figure 8), commercial row, and engine house as intrinsic to the viability of the town as a 

historic resource for the visiting public: 

The relationship of these three components has been compared to a three-legged stool; 

where all three members are needed to support the whole weight of the plan’s 

objectives. Protection of the historic character and integrity of the town of Thurmond is 

the primary resource management objective. Preservation and adaptive use of the 

historic structures for visitor uses will set a stage to tell the entire history of the town’s 

growth, commercial success, and eventual decline.81 

Even though the Park Service realized the value in preserving the depot, engine house, 

and commercial row to telling the story of Thurmond, other people viewed the 

structures in a different light. 

 The Park Service hoped for cooperation to preserve Thurmond, but the loss of 

several structures caused them to revise the 1992 DCP/IP in 2000. David N. Fuerst has 

stated that NPS based the plan on some unrealistic assumptions. The Park Service hoped 

CSX Corporation would help develop the town, but that didn’t happen. CSX hauls 

freight; it does not manage cultural resources. CSX also cared and cares about liability 

along its lines. They felt that old structures along the tracks and people’s need to cross an 

active rail line into Thurmond posed great dangers.82 Fuerst concluded that the Park 

Service didn’t adequately think the plan through. 

For example, the commercial row which was the main business location in Thurmond 

historically...you step out of those buildings literally two steps and you’re on CSX 

property...the people that would run the businesses seasonally [in Banker’s Row] to 

make a profit, would be constantly dealing [with danger]...and why would CSX want to 

encourage lawsuits? 

 

80 Jon Dragan, interview conducted by Lynn Stasick, 18. 

81 NPS, Planning and Interpretation Background, MPF, Box 36, D18, October 1993, 1-2. 

82 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 24, 2004 by Lynn Stasick. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

189 

The Park Service saw the buildings in Thurmond as cultural resources to be preserved; 

CSX saw them as liabilities to dispose of. Communications between the two was less 

than satisfactory and, according to Fuerst in 2007, still is. 

 In a March 1983 letter to John T. Collinson, President of CSX, Acting park 

Superintendent William E. Cox wrote of his dismay at the razing of a building: 

Today we were chagrined to learn of the demolition of the historic C&O Railway 

bunkhouse at Thurmond. The bunkhouse is important to the historical integrity of the 

Thurmond railroad district...as we have indicated before, we would prefer that the 

structures in the National River be left in place as they are historically and 

architecturally significant...this demolition was so sudden that there was no chance to 

communicate with the appropriate officials. If other structures are to be torn down, as 

we understand they are to be, then we would ask for permission and notification to 

record for posterity these structures and take measured drawings and photographs.83

Even though the bunkhouse had been demolished without advance notice to NPS, NPS 

began negotiating with CSX to purchase some of their Thurmond property, doing so in 

April 1989. 

 In August 1996 one of the “three legs of the stool” the Park Service had spoken 

about collapsed. While negotiating to purchase the engine house, it caught fire and 

burned to the ground. In trying to portray this positively, park Superintendent Joe 

Kennedy said: “although the plans for developing Thurmond may have to be tweaked a 

bit, the NPS is going ahead with work on the surviving depot and commercial 

buildings.”84 But David N. Fuerst thought differently of the loss in hindsight. “When one 

building burned down, the machine house [engine house] which was the center of the 

district...when it burned down, it took the guts right out of it [the district], it took the 

wind right out of the sails.”85 

 The fire did indeed change the Park Service’s direction toward preserving 

Thurmond. In 1999 they scaled back plans, citing problems with further land acquisition. 

This approach resulted in a serious deterioration of park-owned buildings and structures 

in the town, including the Fatty Libscomb boarding house at the north end of town.86

Superintendent Pete Hart said that CSX owned property along the tracks wanted by the 

Park Service and was unwilling to sell.87 The original Thurmond plan projected 

expending 35 million dollars, but an article in the Charleston Gazette in February 2000 

said the Park Service had reduced the budget to 1.1 million dollars, largely for stabilizing 

 

83 Letter, William E. Cox, MPF, Box 11, H30, March 1, 2004, 1. 

84 “Thurmond Fire Crimps NPS Plans,” Fayette Tribune, August 26, 1993. In NERI Newspaper 

Clippings. 

85 David N. Fuerst, interviewed December 24, 2004 by Lynn Stasick. 86 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 

87 “National Park Service Scales Back Plans for Historical Town,” Fayette Tribune, April 29, 1999. 

In NERI Newspaper Clippings. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

190 

buildings.88 Destry Jarvis echoed Jon Dragan’s sentiments regarding the scaled-back 

plan: 

[The Park Service] did buy and stabilize Banker’s Row, but they’re all boarded up. [The 

buildings are] representative of the era and the history which is important down 

there...they should be adaptively re-used.89 

In sum, there was and still is no workable plan for Thurmond.90 The Thurmond Visitor 

Center is now open seasonally, interpretive signs have been placed around town, and 

Banker’s Row and several houses on the hill have been stabilized. David N. Fuerst has 

suggested that rather than treating Thurmond as a great tourist attraction, it might be 

more realistic to treat it like a basic historic district and discovery site.91 

 Two other towns, Fayette and South Fayette, appeared east and west of the river 

shortly after the coming of the railroad. Primarily coal towns, they owed their existence 

to the railroad. Local resident Martin Blume traded a portion of his property on the east 

side of the river to the C&O as a right-of-way in exchange for passenger rights. Shortly 

after, he founded the Fayette Coal & Coke Company and opened the Fayette Mine. A 

post office came in 1875, and by 1910 the population reached 400.92

 Across the river, the opening of Low Moor Iron Company mine created South 

Fayette. An iron truss bridge connected the towns in 1889, improving an early road in 

Fayette County. Soon thereafter C&O built a freight/passenger depot that became one of 

the largest facilities along the rail line. The railroad built the section foreman’s house in 

1905. Now known as the Cole House, it qualified for the National Register of Historic 

Places in 1992.93 The depot and freight house were demolished in the 1960s, and the 

foreman’s house was razed in the late 1990s. 

 The 1988 Management and Development Guidelines did not describe the remains of 

the Fayette Station site. It only commented that from the viewpoint of interpretation, the 

area represented the post-industrial decline of coal and urban development on the rim 

and plateau, abandonment of communities in the gorge, and development of 

transportation across the river.94 

 Fieldwork in 2004 by IHTIA indicated no historic resources on either side of the 

river in the immediate area of the bridge. Ruins of the Fayette Station tipple and coke 

ovens, however, atand along the CSX tracks on river right, just upstream from there. A 

new Fayette Station Bridge was fabricated in the late 1990s with all new steel, and 

 

88 “Thurmond Restoration Plan Thwarted by Lack of Funding,” Charleston Gazette, February 14, 

2000. In NERI Newspaper Clippings. 

89 Destry Jarvis, interview conducted April 23, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 90 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 

91 Destry Jarvis, interview conducted April 23, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 92 Unrau, New River Gorge, 75. 

93 Unrau, New River Gorge, 75. 

94 NPS, Management and Development Guidelines, 16. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

191 

although representative of the original bridge, it has little historic value. Coupled with 

the loss of the Cole House, the historic integrity of the area has been greatly reduced.95 

CONCLUSION

 New River faces difficult problems in cultural resource management. The active 

railroad through the gorge presents problems of safety and liability, and competing 

interests all have a different view of what should be preserved and to what extent 

preservation efforts should be carried out. Many people feel the NPS has done too little, 

too late in the preservation of sites like Kaymoor and Thurmond. But even though 

people like Destry Jarvis and Jon Dragan have said the Park Service did not do enough, 

both have also said that today the NPS is doing a better job. Jarvis commented: “...I 

would say they [the Park Service] are still putting far too much emphasis on the natural 

rather than the cultural, but the NPS has done a lot better job I think in the last ten years 

than they did in the first twenty [regarding cultural resource management].”96 Indeed, 

since 2002 the park’s historic architect, Richard Segar, has successfully stabilized historic 

buildings in Thurmond and other places.97

 This chapter summarized over 25 years of administrative action toward 

archeological and historic resources in the park. Special attention focused on resources 

related directly to the stated purposes of the National River and to the interpretive 

themes of coalmining and railroading history in the New River Gorge. The chapter 

noted that NPS has been slow to act and that resources have therefore been lost. It also 

noted that different decisions were made regarding different sites, such as Thurmond 

and Fayette Station. This inconsistency is not justified on a basis of policy. Lastly, it 

noted the lack of attention paid to pre-history and settlement era history in the 

interpretive goals of the park. 

 

95 Workman, et al., Historic Resource Study, 49. 

96 Destry Jarvis, interview conducted April 23, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 97 Comments by David N. Fuerst on draft administrative history, 2007. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

192 

Figure 29. New River Base Map, Historic, 2006. Legible in enlarged electronic version. 

Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

193 

Figure 30. The railroad car on the left sits at an entrance to the Kaymoor Mine. Note the "Safety 

Board" on the right, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 

Figure 31. The sign reminded miners of their reason for working safely, 2006. Photograph by 

Gregory A. Good. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

194 

The Figure 32. NPS built an impressive set of more than 800 stairs to take visitors from Kaymoor mine portal to 

the tipple at the bottom of the gorge. Photograph by Gregory A. Good, 2006. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

195 

Figure 33. Coal miners at Kaymoor Mine, 1920-21. Front Row Kneeling (left to right): Harry Garten, Ed 

Cunningham, Vaughn "Jack" Sanger (son of John Sanger who died in a mining accident of a broken back, 

married Mabel Lavinder, daughter of Lewis Marshall Lavinder), Marion Wright, Howard Klingham, Skeezix the 

Russian (returned to his native land and was killed there in the turbulant 1920s), Clarence Epperley (may be 

connected to the Lavinders thru the Penningtons of Fayette County). Back Row Standing: Hazel McDaniel, 

William Swanigan Sr. (may also be connected to the Lavinders thru the Penningtons of Fayette County, Clifford 

Lavinder Sr. (died November 1922 from complications of a gunshot wound to the head related to his activities 

during the West Virginia Mine Wars), Evert Pennington (married Rosie Swanigan, Everts little sister Pearl 

married Walter Lavinder grandson of Lewis Marshall Lavinder), William Joe Smith, H. F. Cavendish, Lewis 

Marshall Lavinder (Patriarch of the Lavinder clan of Fayette County, West Virginia. He and his sons were 

involved in the West Virginia Mine Wars. Most of his sons were coal miners at one time or another. GreatGreat grandfather of Dan Cook), John Peter Law, and Jim Reed. Permission of Dan Cook, heir. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

196 

Figure 34. Sketch of Kaymoor Mine tipple and lower conveyor, 1982, in New River Draft GMP, 

circulated to the public in 1982. Courtesy of New River Gorge National River. 

Figure 35. Warning Sign, 2006. Kaymoor facilities 

had deteriorated so badly, NPS recorded the site, 

demolished the most dangerous structures, and fenced 

off remaining hazards. Photograph by Gregory A. 

Good, 2006. 
Managing NERI Cultural Resources 

197 

Figure 36. Measured drawings of the Thurmond Depot, completed as part of the National Park 

Service's Chesapeake and Ohio Recording Project, HABS/HAER, 1988.

199

CHAPTER SEVEN

RECREATION DRIVES THE PARK 

MANAGING RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The New River Gorge National River owes its existence largely to the interest and 

actions of recreationists. Canoeists, kayakers, and whitewater rafters in the 1960s and 

1970s discovered the New River Gorge with a vengeance. By 1968, the first commercial 

rafting company was operating on the New River (see Chapter 2). Beyond that, the gorge 

had hosted hunters and anglers for decades. It is no surprise that recreation had been in 

many ways at the center of the administrative history of the park.

 Visitors to the New River Gorge National River have exhibited great imagination 

in their activities since the park’s inception, broadening the meaning of “recreational 

resources” far beyond the needs of traditional activities like hunting and fishing and even 

whitewater activities. Public Law 95-625, which established the park, only addressed 

recreational management generally. The National River was to be “for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations [and for] interpreting outstanding natural, 

scenic, and historic values and objects.”1

 The law referred explicitly to “recreation” only 

twice. It stated that dams above or below the National River may be licensed only if they 

did not “invade the area or diminish the scenic, recreation, and fish and wildlife values” 

of the park.2

 Secondly, referring to cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers at 

Bluestone Lake, the law required water release “in such a manner to facilitate... 

recreational use of the national river.”3

 Nevertheless, Public Law 95-625 clearly 

promoted the development of policies to administer recreational activities, including 

particularly sightseeing, hunting, fishing, and boating. The phrase “public use and 

enjoyment” required elaboration in the coming years. 

 This chapter examines the history of management practices relating to recreational 

resources in the park: recreation management in the General Management Plan, in the 

Draft River Management Plan, and in research and policies related to land use pressures, 

trail development and management, and the Climbing Management Plan. Some research 

 

1

 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1101, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 

See also Harlan D. Unrau, The New River Gorge: Special Historic Study/Historic Context Study

(Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1996), 

170. 

2

 Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1107. 

3

 Public Law 95-625, Sec. 1108. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

200 

studies have been conducted within the NPS and others by contractors or academics. 

When possible, this chapter examines policy debates and associated issues. It also 

examines the history of public involvement in these matters. User conflict occurred in 

several contexts and is discussed both relating to the river and to trails. One overarching 

form of user conflict has involved interaction between traditional user groups and newer 

types of users who have appeared since 1978. The chapter closes with a look at park 

management’s attempts to treat the park as a multiple-use recreation destination. 

RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT IN THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

 The establishment of New River National River (NR) brought southern West 

Virginia to national attention. Creation of the park and completion of Interstate 64, U.S. 

19, and the New River Gorge Bridge attracted visitors to enjoy the recreational activities 

New River offered. Growing interest in heritage tourism attracted other visitors. The 

Park Service projected visitation to the gorge would double from one to two million 

between 1980 and 1990.4

 With steadily rising numbers, the park needed to develop 

policies to regulate what visitors did once they arrived in the park. 

 The goals of the Draft General Management Plan (GMP)(1982, final approval 1983) 

included the development of opportunities for visitors to recreate in many different 

ways. The GMP acknowledged that some visitors came with just one activity in mind, 

maybe whitewater, but that others came for a variety of recreational activities. These 

included enjoying “scenery, water, forests, history, geology, and wildlife.... fishing, 

hiking, camping, and sightseeing.”5

 The Park Service intended to enhance the experience 

of these traditional users by building facilities and providing information they needed. 

Boat launch areas, trails, and shoreline camping were planned. Hunting and fishing, two 

traditional recreations in the gorge, were to continue, a policy adopted early to build the 

coalition for the park (see chapter 2). Indeed, the GMP promised to enhance these 

activities “significantly” by providing greater access. Meanwhile, the Park Service was at 

least minimally aware that “new or unusual forms of recreation (such as hang gliding, 

rock climbing, dirt bicycling)” were around, although it saw them more as management 

challenges than as recreations to be permitted or enhanced.6

 The Park Service had been preparing for the GMP since the 1978 creation of the 

park. In 1981, Acting Superintendent James W. Carrico released the Recreational Use 

 

4

 National Park Service, Draft General Management Plan (November, 1982), 97 p. The final report 

appeared in March 1983: NPS, General Management Plan Summary and Summary of Public 

Response to Draft Plan (1983), 26, 83. 

5 GMP; Unrau, New River Gorge, 171. 

6 GMP, 18: “[These] will be managed to avoid problems of visitor safety, conflicts between uses, or 

resource impacts.” 
Recreation Drives the Park 

201 

Survey/Creel Census done for the National Park Service partly in-house and partly by the 

WV Division of Wildlife Resources of the then Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR). The DNR collected information between April and November 1980 from 

Hinton to Meadow River; The park collected information in 1981 at Fayette Station.7 A 

Fisherman-Floater Conflict Study completed in 1982 was included in the River Recreation 

Behavior Study.

8

 The park also drew on data from Babcock and Grandview State Parks.9

Overall usage ca. 1980 was 1,022,000, with 60% at the state parks, 10% on the river, and 

30% on land. These figures—which distinguished levels for commercial and 

noncommercial boating, fishing, swimming, sightseeing, camping, picnicking, hiking, 

and hunting—provided an empirical basis for policy decisions. 

 The 1983 GMP outlined Park Service intentions regarding visitor use and general 

development. It divided activities into river-based and land-based, a clear and useful 

division.10 For each type of activity, it drew on data of existing conditions and NPS goals 

and criteria. For each, the GMP discussed possible acquisitions and facility development. 

The Park Service also based recreational decisions on the park’s three Management 

Zones.11 In “Natural Zones,” natural resource conservation was paramount. Recreation 

was permitted if it had no adverse impact on the resource. In “Historic Zones,” the Park 

Service could allow recreation in the form of visitation if it could protect cultural 

resources. “Development Zones” promoted a concentration of visitor use at “visitor 

contact stations,” picnic areas, campgrounds, boat launches, etc., or along “Access and 

Circulation Subzones” such as trails and roads. 

 A closer look at how each recreational activity was treated in the GMP illuminates 

interactions with the public. River users included anglers, commercial rafting companies, 

private boaters, and swimmers. Several times the GMP stressed the importance of the 

New River as a warm water fishery, especially for smallmouth bass. However, the New 

and its tributaries also supported at least 58 species of fish, along with crayfish and 

freshwater mollusks.12 The GMP reported that the DNR had found that the most 

popular fishing stretch was between Hinton and Meadow Creek and that in 1969 43,000 

anglers fished a short stretch near Hinton. While anglers fished the middle and lower 

gorge, numbers were low because of difficult access. In 1980 the DNR found 29,500 

anglers between Hinton and Meadow Creek. The GMP pointed out this was likely an 

 

7

 “New River Recreational Use Survey/Creel Census Done,” The Fayette Tribune, Thursday, 

July 9, 1981. 

8 Fisherman-Floater Conflict Study, (interim report), pre-July 1, 1983, MPF, Box 18, L7423. 

Although 70% of anglers thought they had a right to cross private land to reach the river, most 

thought more public land should be acquired. 

9

 GMP, 26, 82-83. NPS realized that the counts were imperfect and reported this in the GMP. 10 GMP, 19-25. 

11 GMP, 11. 

12 GMP, 63-64, 81. The GMP cites a study in 1980 that found 58 species of fish, 6 of crayfish, and 6 

of mollusks. It cites another which suggested the likelihood of a higher count. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

202 

undercount, since the DNR did not count anglers along the other 30 miles of park river, 

nor at night or off-season.13

 The most popular river activity was becoming commercial whitewater rafting 

(Figure 1). Begun on the New River in 1969 by entrepreneur Jon Dragan, the industry 

had grown significantly by the 1980s. In 1981, New River reported 55,000 commercial 

boaters and 7,000 private boaters, compared with 29,500 anglers. The ThurmondFayette Station run was especially popular, as “among the wildest stretches of water in 

the eastern United States.”14 Swimmers accounted for 8,500.15

 The GMP cited one statistic to indicate the growth of commercial rafting: from one 

outfitter in 1969 to four in 1976. By 1982 the industry had grown to 22 outfitters. Clearly 

crowding was increasing and someone needed to manage commercial rafting. In 1981 

the WV legislature created a temporary Whitewater Advisory Board (WWAB) to regulate 

whitewater rafting on several state rivers, including the New. 

 In 1982, the NPS and DNR signed a Memorandum of Agreement to jointly manage 

whitewater activities. This interaction lasted beyond the GMP release in 1983, as detailed 

in the section below on the Draft River Management Plan. The GMP stated explicitly that 

river use was to be “managed jointly” by the park and the DNR. If there were 

jurisdictional tensions, New River conceded. Joint management meant “under the state’s 

existing management system.”16 The Park Service nevertheless introduced some of its 

goals: to provide for “high quality river recreation experiences” and to minimize 

“adverse impacts on the natural, cultural, and scenic qualities of the river 

environment.”17 These criteria arose in federal legislation and had no precedent in state 

requirements. 

 The GMP introduced another critical concept that would shape the River 

Management Plan (RMP) process a few years later: carrying capacity.18 In the GMP this 

meant only a “realistic level of visitor use,” a balance of the visitor’s experience and 

preserving natural and cultural resources. Preliminary to the RMP process, the GMP

prescribed studies of user attitudes, level of river use, physical, ecological, and social 

factors. It required studies of all user groups, including several types of anglers and 

boaters. The goal, it said, was to minimize conflicts between different user groups and 

eliminate environmental damage. While the GMP indicated the river management plan 

was to be completed by 1984, this was not possible and did not occur. 

 The GMP argued that the geography of the gorge would itself minimize user 

conflicts and provide the expected experience. The NPS recognized existing user 

 

13 GMP, 83. 

14 GMP, 79. 

15 GMP, 83. 

16 GMP, 19. 

17 GMP, 19. 

18 GMP, 19. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

203 

conflicts among commercial outfitters, anglers, and private boaters and promised to 

“work to resolve” such conflicts. It offered to facilitate discussions among outfitters. 

Safety was, necessarily, a special concern. The NPS pointed to safety as a reason to 

address user conflicts and offered to introduce a comprehensive safety program.19

 An important reason for the GMP was to direct land acquisition based on need. 

River use indicated needs for river access points under public control. At that time few 

river access points were available. To address this problem, the GMP recommended 

acquisition of land or development of facilities at Ames, Fayette Station, Stone Cliff, 

Brooks Falls, Sandstone Falls, Meadow Creek, and Grandview Sandbar. Partly because 

some of these depended on “willing sellers” and partly because of other contingencies, 

these were not all realized.20

 New River’s GMP also discussed land-based recreation.21 Existing conditions 

demonstrated user demand, but also inadequate facilities. The 1980 visitation figures 

showed that of the 316,000 visitors involved in land-based recreation, 300,000 were for 

sightseeing (95%), 10,000 for camping (3%), 4,000 for picnicking (1%), 1,500 for hiking, 

and for 500 hunting.22 Yet the park had no maintained campgrounds. The GMP also 

noted significant impacts of private campgrounds on the landscape. Although many of 

the former mine bench roads and abandoned rail lines were passable, the only 

maintained hiking trails were in Babcock State Park and the former Sandstone Falls and 

Grandview state parks. Heavy vegetation, uncertainty about ownership in places, 

deteriorated conditions, and an active railroad hindered hiking in the park. The report 

noted that rock climbing occurred but said there was little interest in the sport and “the 

sandstone rocks provide rather unstable support.”23 Still, its popularity was increasing 

and some rafting outfitters offered climbing instruction. 

 Given the high interest in sightseeing, the GMP noted that scenery was “an 

outstanding resource” of the gorge. It described how the gorge changed character, stated 

developments along it were not “overly intrusive,” and that towns and other features 

“become interesting details in miniature.”24 NPS used field observations and 

computerized mapping to inventory and classify scenic resources. They investigated over 

200 viewpoints and classed them into five categories: highly visible land, visible land, 

scenic landscape features, focal points, and visual intrusions. By listing and describing 

these viewpoints, the park was preparing to manage scenic resources “to strongly protect 

highly visible land and scenic landscape features, moderately protect visible land and 

 

19 GMP, 19. 

20 GMP, 19-20. 

21 GMP, 20-25. 

22 GMP, 83. 

23 GMP, 80-81. 

24 GMP, 65. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

204 

focal points, and mitigate visual intrusions.”25 Air quality was a special concern because it 

hindered the most popular recreation in the park, sightseeing. 

 The low level of hunting in the gorge was notable. The GMP said the “low-thoughconsistent hunting pressure” was due to relatively low numbers of deer and turkey in the 

gorge and the DNR’s restricted hunting season on these in this area. The most popular 

game animals in the gorge were rabbit and squirrel. Trapping occurred in the park at that 

time, mainly of muskrat, regulated by the DNR.26 However, new federal regulations 

ended trapping on the park and other NPS lands.27

 The GMP offered suggestions related to nine forms of recreation away from the 

river: sightseeing, picnicking, trail use (mainly hiking, but some biking), camping, 

privately provided services, interpretation of cultural resources, train excursions, 

automobile access or shuttle-bus access to Fayette Station and some four-wheel-driveonly roads, and some form of motorized access to Sandstone Falls from the not-yetcompleted I-64.28 The possibilities for land-based recreation received only a fraction of 

the attention received by river-based recreation. 

 Given the prominence of sightseeing, the GMP recommended upgrading 

viewpoints at Sandstone Falls and Brooks Island and encouraging use of McKendree 

Road (Thurmond to Prince Road).29 The park pledged to explore pedestrian use of the 

catwalk under the New River Bridge, build a visitor center at Canyon Rim, provide a 

seasonal shuttle bus to Fayette Station, and upgrade the 1889 bridge there for pedestrian 

use. The need to protect scenic resources drove land acquisition and boundary 

changes.30 The GMP required completion of a Land Protection Plan by 1983, to update a 

plan produced in 1980.31

 To enhance picnicking opportunities, the park committed to build picnic areas at 

the Fayette Station ($40,000), Canyon Rim ($218,000), Ames ($36,000), Grandview 

Sandbar ($7,000), Stone Cliff ($10,000), and Sandstone Falls State Park ($22,000). After 

the state donated Sandstone Falls to the NPS, NPS converted its campground to a dayuse picnic area.32

 To enhance trail opportunities, the GMP proposed a trail link from Wolf Creek off 

old Route 82 (near South Fayette) to Kaymoor and Cunard, along with two trails on site 

and to connect, brush, and realign the old railroad grade from Cunard to Thurmond, a 

14-mile trail for hiker and horse use. It recommended clearing or building other trails, 

 

25 GMP, 66. 

26 GMP, 63. 

27 GMP, 15. 

28 GMP, 18-25. 

29 GMP, 20-23. 

30 GMP, 33-43. 

31 GMP, 29. 

32 GMP, 20-23, 44-45. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

205 

including a railroad grade from Minden to Thurmond, trails at Glade Creek, Sandstone 

Falls, and Canyon Rim. Other trails, the report said, would follow.33 The GMP

mentioned horse use for South Fayette to Thurmond, Minden-Thurmond railroad, and 

Glade Creek, where some roads would be converted to trails. The park anticipated 4 

miles of dedicated hiking trails and 20 miles for hikers and horse riders.34 The GMP did 

not explicitly state it would build or maintain these trails for mountain bike use. Most 

importantly, the GMP required a Study and Plan for Hiking Trails, to tie together the 20 

trails in the gorge and produce a management plan.35

 All enhancements planned for camping were to be ‘primitive’. The GMP

recommended building 20 sites at Glade Creek, 20 at Chestnut (exact location not now 

known), and 20 near Silo Rapids (1.2 miles downstream of Thayer, 36 miles below 

Bluestone dam).36 The plan permitted dispersed riverside camping on federal land and 

encouraged most campers to seek out state park or private campgrounds outside the 

park.37 Babcock State Park, for example, maintains a 52-unit campground, in addition to 

cabins. 

 The GMP considered one last element of land-based recreation, interpretation of 

natural and cultural resources. Many visitors to national parks enjoy learning about 

nature and history. Hence interpretation encompassed much of the plan at the park. The 

GMP specified several themes. Natural history themes included the geology of the gorge, 

mineral deposition, and vegetation. Cultural history themes included prehistoric and 

historic human occupation, railroad and mining history, and the rise and fall of river 

communities. The Park Service planned to provide lectures, guided hikes, exhibits, 

brochures, and other media. It planned to concentrate these interpretive services at 

visitor contact stations, boater access points, trailheads, and at historical sites.38

Kaymoor mine and town sites, for example, were focal points for interpretation of New 

River heritage. 

 The Park Service began implementing the General Management Plan in 1983. 

Managers were as optimistic about quick completion of recreation plans as they were in 

other areas. Nevertheless, they were clear about many of the steps necessary to 

implementation. Planning required studies: a Resource Management Plan, Interpretive 

Prospectus, Study Plan for Hiking Trails, Draft River Management Plan, and Land 

Protection Plan. The GMP did not anticipate the need to plan for mountain bikes or rock 

climbing, but these needs were soon realized. The first story to unfold relates to river 

recreation. 

 

33 GMP, 23-24. 

34 GMP, 45. 

35 GMP, 47. 

36 GMP, 44-45. 

37 GMP, 23. 

38 GMP, 25-26. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

206 

MANAGING RECREATION ON THE RIVER 

THE DRAFT RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

 Destry Jarvis, who played a significant role during park designation, called the 

GMP “a serious disappointment.”39 Many local community members shared Destry’s 

opinion and wanted to see a better plan for the actual management of the river. The 

General Management Plan, according to him, did not address specific issues of river use. 

The Draft River Management Plan provided an opportunity to go further. The main 

purpose of the Draft RMP would be to assess types, levels, and impacts of land and 

water-based recreation appropriate for the national river.40 

 The Park Service announced in the 1983 GMP that planning for river recreation 

would be completed by 1984. This became 1985, then ultimately 1987, partly because of a 

change of superintendent at the park. Superintendent James Carrico wrote in May 1984 

that the River Management Plan would be completed in early 1985. It would provide 

opportunities for high quality and safe recreational experiences, he said, and minimize 

impacts on natural, cultural, and scenic qualities of the gorge. It would consider a wide 

range of recreations. He wrote that the RMP would include proposals for rules and 

regulations to meet this goal.41 

 David Reynolds, who worked at the park in natural resource management from 

1982 to 1987, was in charge of developing the RMP.42 The RMP planning process 

included research and significant public involvement. Through these, the NPS would 

determine the number of users to permit on the river, the relative numbers of private and 

commercial users, and what motorized craft/raft use regulations might be necessary. 

They also wanted input on dispersed/designated campsite use, river access 

improvements, litter and sanitation, and other issues that might arise during the group 

process.43 

 In addition, the Park Service wanted the DNR to help develop joint strategies for 

enforcing commercial trip limits. Superintendent Carrico also indicated his desire for 

 

39 “The Latest Word,” 1982 unattributed newspaper clipping, Main Park Files, D18 Box 9. 40 Draft River Management Plan, 1987, Internal Report, Main Park Files, iv. Letter, Superintendent 

James Carrico to David L. Brown, Executive Director, River Outfitters Association, Oak Hill, May 

21, 1984, MPF, Box 17, L34. 

41 Letter, Superintendent James Carrico to Ron Potesta, Chairman of the (West Virginia) White 

Water Advisory Board, May 21, 1984, MPF, A20, 1978-1988 (collective file). 

42 David W. Reynolds (Deputy Associate Director, Natural Resources and Sciences, Northeast 

Region), Memo to Historian, Northeast Region, December 23, 2005. Reynolds’ comments 

concern a first draft of this administrative history. 

43 Letter, Carrico to Ronald R. Potesta, Director, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, 

December 17, 1985, MPF, Box 2, A44. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

207 

formal NPS participation on the West Virginia Whitewater Advisory Board to insure 

notification and representation at all meetings where park issues were considered.44 

 To produce the RMP, data was needed. As early as 1984, NPS contracted with 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI or Virginia Tech) and State University’s Department 

of Forestry to research appropriate river use conditions. The study required public 

involvement to determine acceptable recreational use limits.45 NPS often bases decisions 

regarding acceptable impacts on a resource on the concept “carrying capacity.” In visitor 

use terminology this refers to the number of visitors an area can support before 

unacceptable effects occur. 

 Researchers defined four types of carrying capacities of recreational activities: 

physical, ecological, facilities, and social. The physical carrying capacity for recreational 

boating, for example, is how many boats can safely float down a river at one time. This is 

largely determined by the river’s width, depth, configuration, and flow patterns. 

Ecological carrying capacity refers to changes in the ecosystem, including drops in water 

quality, destruction of vegetation, and soil compaction at riverbank river access points. 

Facilities carrying capacity refers to structures or developments needed to provide 

access to the river: roads, parking lots, and put-ins and take-outs.46 Carrying capacity 

generally is ambiguous, but social carrying capacity presents particular challenges. For 

the concept to operate, boaters must agree about the expected river experience and 

about appropriate levels of those experiences.47 

 Quality recreational experiences for different river users vary widely.48 One boater 

may seek solitude through a leisurely boat trip, while another may seek social 

companionship, and yet another may seek the thrill of challenging whitewater. The 

capacity of a river to accommodate such activities differs; therefore resource managers 

must judge what kind of experience or combinations of experiences can be provided.49

These decisions sometimes lead to conflict among user groups. 

 The 1984 VPI study indicated that 92% of boaters in the park were commercial, 

while 8% were private boaters in canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Nearly all river use occurred 

between April and September, and about 72% occurred between Memorial Day and 

 

44 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

45 Joseph W. Roggenbuck and Steven P. Bange, “Norms of New River Gorge Boaters About 

Appropriate River Use Conditions,” New River Symposium Proceedings (Boone, NC, 1984), 133. 

46 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 134. Another study on the Gauley River 

was: Franklin E. Boteler, A Study of Safety and Carrying Capacity Concerns Associated with the 

Commercial Rafting Industry Use of the Gauley River, West Virginia (National Park Service, 1985), 

437 p. 

47 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 135. 

48 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 135. 

49 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 135. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

208 

Labor Day. Most boat trips began by mid-morning and left the river by mid to late 

afternoon.50

 The study suggested that some boaters perceived problems connected with 

overuse. The problems were concentrated in the 15-mile stretch of the lower New River 

on summer weekends. Fifty percent of boaters said they saw too many people. A 

majority said they expected a more wilderness-like, whitewater experience than they 

received.51 

 Realizing the potential environmental impacts of increasing activity, the Park 

Service and DNR re-evaluated river use in 1985. On December 17, 1985, park 

Superintendent Carrico expressed his concerns and suggested a plan of action to the 

DNR director: 

We [NPS managers and the DNR] have reached a point in the development of the New 

River Gorge National River and the management of river activities where we need to reevaluate the future direction of our cooperative effort and assess the best methods and 

processes by which we can achieve our mutual and desired goals.52 

In the letter, Carrico outlined management plans as stipulated by the Park Service: 

In order to enhance visitor enjoyment and safety, and to preserve environmental 

quality, the National Park Service will regulate the use of rivers as necessary within units 

of the National Park Service. 

Using scientific research and other applicable data, the Service will establish the level 

of boating and related use that each river system can sustain without causing 

unacceptable changes in the ecosystem or the degradation of the environment or the 

park experience. 

A river management plan will be developed for each unit of the National Park 

System having significant river use or the potential for such use.53

The proposed Park Service plan was timely. Increasingly rafters and kayakers floating 

the river were conflicting with traditional users. Tempers were rising. In July, 1985, in an 

editorial in the Beckley Register-Herald, local Samuel J. Cologrosso complained of an 

incident that he and friends had experienced: 

We all know in Southern West Virginia that the New River provides some of the best 

fishing in the state. But because of inconsiderate rafters and kayakers, local fishermen 

are having a very hard time having any luck. Rafters will get right in front of you and 

have their battles between rafts, making so much noise and causing such disturbance 

that if any kind of fish were in the area, they would be long gone. I know of one instance 

in which several kayakers came within four feet of fishing lines and had the nerve to 

ask--or should I say tell--us to reel in the lines so they could start back up the rapid they 

 

50 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 136. 

51 Roggenbuck and Bange, “Norms of New River Users,” 144. 

52 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

53 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

209 

had just passed through. Needless to say the lines were not reeled in and the kayakers 

can count themselves lucky they did not get a good sized river rock right in their head.54

Mr. Cologrosso prefaced his story by saying he realized whitewater rafting contributed 

to the area’s economy. But he wondered how far local West Virginians would have to go 

to satisfy the rafting industry.55 Presaging a problem the park would take on when the 

Gauley River was brought under park management in 1988 (see Chapter 8), Mr. 

Cologrosso also voiced a second complaint about water levels on the Gauley River 

during Fourth-of-July week. 

Everyone in West Virginia knows this week is during miner’s vacation ... Over the 

entire week of the Fourth the water level of Summersville Lake dropped to the point 

that at least one of the lake’s boat ramps had to be closed. Also, parts of the marina had 

to be closed and people had to remove their boats. Boating is a major pastime in this 

area. We have a lot of money invested in our boats and we do not like to wade mud six 

inches deep in order to enjoy them.56 

According to the article, Army Corps of Engineers employees could not explain the low 

levels to Mr. Cologrosso, but he was told by some that it was because the rafters wanted 

to run the Gauley River over the holiday. Once more, he asked: 

Again, how far do the local people...have to bend to satisfy these rafters ... Sirs, I would 

like to ask you if anything could be done so local people to this area do not have to 

suffer just to please the whitewater companies.57

Mr. Cologrosso’s sentiments reflect the differing expectations of traditional and new 

recreational users in the area and the management difficulties these presented. Local 

anglers, rafters, and the Park Service needed to look for compromise. 

 The WV legislature created the Whitewater Advisory Board (WWAB) in 1981 as an 

interim committee to deal with increased whitewater rafting. The WWAB held meetings 

in October and November 1985 concerning appropriate river-use levels. Acting park 

Superintendent Robert L. Whitman wrote the Board in October that NPS would initiate 

river management planning in FY 1986, and that thereafter, if the WWAB retained the 

responsibility for establishing operational river-use levels, NPS would continue to supply 

information resulting from the management plan and other river management studies.58

However, Whitman thought not enough information was yet available for the Park 

Service to offer reliable recommendations on river-use levels. 

The National Park Service has not acquired sufficient scientific data necessary to 

recommend to the Whitewater Advisory Board a total supportable number [of daily 

river users] which would vary from the DNR process upon which the current number is 

 

54 “Our Readers Speak: Rafters, Kayakers Trying to Take Over River, Lake,” Beckley RegisterHerald, July, 14, 1985, MPF, Box 1, A20. 55 “Our Readers Speak.” 

56 “Our Readers Speak.” 

57 “Our Readers Speak.” 

58 Letter, Whitman to Potesta, October 9, 1985, MPF, Box 1, A20, 1-2. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

210 

based. Our concerns at this time are to assure that the health and safety of all river 

participants is adequately protected ... that the economic viability of the rafting 

industry not be jeopardized as a result of an “interim final” number, and that the 

concerns and interests of private paddlers be adequately addressed during 

deliberations.59 

On January 24, 1986, Senator Dan Tonkovich introduced Senate Bill (SB) 340 in the state 

legislature to amend the original bill, establish WWAB permanently, and add the 

commissioner of the Department of Commerce to the Board. Concurrently, a bill before 

the House called for the Board’s abolition. 

 SB 340 required special studies to establish whitewater-rafting zones. The 

legislature also instructed the DNR director to “restrict, deny, or postpone” the issuance 

of licenses to additional whitewater outfitters until the WWAB could promulgate 

appropriate rules and regulations.60 The bill included minimum safety requirements for 

equipment and criteria for limiting or increasing the number of commercial whitewater 

outfitters, of rafts, and of persons transported by rafts.61 Issues of concern included 

overcrowding, environmental damage, and safety. SB 340 passed the legislature March 6, 

1986.62 

 On November 12, 1986, DNR Director Ronald W. Potesta appeared before a joint 

meeting of the Natural Resources and Government Organization Committees of the WV 

House “Concerning Whitewater Rafting.” He endorsed House Bill (HB) 1485 and HB 

1583 and opposed HB 1540. HB 1485 sought to designate a commissioner for the WWAB 

as required by Senate Bill 340. HB 1583 would establish the Whitewater Rafting 

Responsibility Act (WWRRA). Modeled after similar legislation enacted for the skiing 

industry, the bill set rules for whitewater outfitters and passengers and a legal framework 

within which the industry could grow, while protecting the safety of its passengers. HB 

1540 sought to repeal the code section enabling the WWAB as an agency responsible for 

regulating the whitewater rafting industry.63

 Director Potesta reported that since passage of SB 340, the DNR and the WWAB 

had complied with and fulfilled its requirements. Section 23a required the director of the 

DNR to designate four whitewater zones, appoint and convene the board, complete the 

studies set forth in the section, and promulgate rules and regulations approved by the 

legislature.64 

 

59 Letter, Whitman to Potesta, October 9, 1985. 

60 Introduction of Senate Bill 340, January 24, 1986, MPF, Box 1, A20. 

61 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985, MPF, Box 1978-1988, A20, 1. 

62 Passage of Senate Bill 340, March 6, 1986, MPF, 1978-1988, A3815. 

63 Frank M. Lukacs Jr., “Statement to the House of Delegates, Committee on Agriculture and 

Natural Resources,” February 12, 1986, MPF, Box 1, A20, 2. 

64 Ronald R. Potesta (Director, Department of Natural Resources), “Statement to the House 

Natural Resources Committee and the House Government Organization Committee Concerning 

Whitewater Rafting,” November, 12, 1986, MPF, 1978-1988, A20, 2. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

211 

 Several months prior to Director Potesta’s appearance before the House 

Whitewater Rafting Committee, Frank M. Lukacs, president of North American River 

Runners, based in Hico, testified before the House Committee on Agriculture and 

Natural Resources. He too supported HB 1583 and 1485, and opposed HB 1540. Against 

HB 1540 he said: 

By far the most significant of these proposals [the three bills] is HB 1540 which would 

repeal the code section establishing the Advisory Board as the agency responsible for 

regulating the whitewater rafting industry. While I have not always been in complete 

agreement with the actions of the Advisory Board, I am convinced that it is in the best 

interest of West Virginia and the whitewater rafting industry to have a mechanism in 

place through which whitewater rafting can be regulated. The Advisory Board achieves 

this objective through an open process that assures input from all interested persons. It 

may be that the Advisory Board has not yet solved the industry’s problems in a way that 

makes us all happy. It has, however, acted in the best interest of the industry as a whole 

and it deserves a chance to continue with its efforts.65 

Both Mr. Lukacs and Mr. Potesta got their wishes. House Bill 1540 was eventually 

defeated and the other two bills passed. 

 When the WWAB decided on appropriate use levels in 1986, three West Virginia 

whitewater streams were affected, including the New River from Thurmond to Fayette 

Station.66 In setting limits, the Board took into account the results of three river studies 

conducted by the DNR and the testimony of expert witnesses from the academic, 

regulatory, and rafting communities.67 

 The Board’s assessments of the combined testimony produced four general 

conclusions. First, rafting was statistically a very safe activity, but under certain 

conditions potential problems could arise. Crowding and congestion did occur, but 

often were more subjective than measurable.68 Outfitters and private river users 

generally could manage crowding themselves and lessen its effects. Finally, they 

concluded that carrying capacity is a dynamic concept; numerical definitions required 

sound judgment as well as measurement of river flows, trip times, raft intervals, and 

other variables.69 

 During the meetings, the DNR recommended the WWAB set the daily use limit on 

the New at 1,200 to 1,500 people per day. Many private users supported this number, 

while commercial rafting companies argued for 2,400 rafters per day. The Board 

ultimately limited this to 2,200 people in the early season and 1,800 in later summer when 

 

65 Frank M. Lukacs, February 12, 1986, MPF, Box 1, A20, 1-2. 

66 Michael A. Fotos (Deputy Director, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources), 

Summary of Issues and Limits for the Lower New, Upper Gauley, and Cheat Rivers, February 1986, 

MPF, Box 1, A20, 3. 

67 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 1. 

68 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 1. 

69 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 3. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

212 

water levels were lower. In explaining the decision, Michael Fotos, DNR Deputy 

Director, said: 

The New River has more complex economic issues and competing user groups than 

any other whitewater rafting industry in the state. The New is the ‘bread and butter’ of 

the whitewater rafting industry in West Virginia. It carries the most customers, has the 

longest season, has the greatest history of use, and has the most reliable water flows. In 

addition, it is a Mecca for thousands of private users--campers, fishermen and private 

kayakers and rafters.... Total commercial rafting on the New River has grown from 

63,000 in 1983, to over 81,000 commercial customers in 1985. However, crowding on 

the river is not due solely to this growth. Crowding rather is a result of the 

concentration of commercial traffic on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in May, June, 

and July. In the later summer, crowding is a result of increased private use and the low 

flows associated with long stretches of dry weather.70 

Fotos said the Board’s decision to limit river use to those numbers “reflected a 

compromise of the many recommendations it [WWAB] received.”71 The WWAB 

compromised further. Since crowding was only a problem on Saturdays, Sundays, and 

certain federal holidays, the limits only applied to those days. It explicitly recommended 

excluding non-federal holiday weekdays, all days before Memorial Day, and all days 

after Labor Day from license limitations.72

 The decision displeased some park Superintendent Carrico expressed his dismay 

in two letters to Potesta, chairman of the WWAB. He wrote: 

As you know, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources and the National 

Park Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for New River on 

November 29, 1982. It is the intent of this memorandum to recognize the mutual 

interest and the concurrent responsibility and jurisdiction of the Department and the 

Park Service to manage commercial whitewater activities on New River Gorge National 

River in accordance to the terms and conditions provided [by] law and those agreed to 

in the memorandum.73 

In a second letter dated the same day, Carrico wrote: 

The most recent Whitewater Advisory Board decision that makes numbers 

applicable on the New River on Saturdays and holidays does not move the Board 

toward completion of its mandate.... A case can be made, in truth, that the recent 

decision directly contradicts the Legislature’s 1981 finding.74

That the recent increase in the number of persons engaging in the sport of 

whitewater rafting has resulted in overcrowding, safety and ecological problems along 

areas and portions of rivers and waters in this state necessitating the study, 

investigation, and regulation of whitewater rafting to promote the safe and equitable 

enjoyment of this sport by all persons seeking to engage in it as a recreational activity.75

 

70 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 2-3. 

71 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 3. 

72 Fotos, Summary of Issues and Limits, 3. 

73 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

74 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

75 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

213 

Carrico continued: 

In previous meetings, the Advisory Board agreed to a two year study period during 

which time a maximum carrying capacity was established, i.e. Memorial Day through 

July 15, 2,200 persons per day; July 16 through Labor Day, 1,800 persons per day...the 

National Park Service continues to support this position.... By defining peak days to 

mean only Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays and only the time period between 

8:00a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the Board has effectively circumvented the intent of the two year 

study.76 

 Compromise of the study was not Carrico’s only concern. He felt that the new 

peak day definition would tempt both large and small outfitters to over-book with the 

knowledge that excess customers did not need to be counted if identified as taking early 

or late trips. He pointed out that several companies started most of their trips prior to 8 

a.m. Despite the WWAB’s decision, the Park Service continued with its river 

management planning effort. 

 In preparing the River Management Plan, the Park Service proposed to use a Limits 

of Acceptable Change (LAC) process.77 This process was developed to clarify planning 

for wilderness and river management, as well as other aspects of park systems. Scientists 

and resource managers had found that social values played important roles in 

determining river carrying capacity. But carrying capacity also was based on when 

irreversible resource damage occurs. The LAC model included these values in 

professional resource management planning.78 

 Rather than focusing on river-use levels per se, LAC focused on management of 

conditions. Working with the public, managing authorities (in this case the Park Service 

and the DNR) were to determine what conditions were most appropriate for the area 

and then implement management actions to meet desired conditions. The challenge was 

not to prevent human-induced change, but to decide how much change to allow and 

how to control it.79 

 A nine-step decision-making model was formulated to begin the LAC planning 

process. Step one involved forming a Citizen Task Force, which was to ensure that 

anyone interested in management of the park was represented and could pass on 

information on the plan’s progress to groups they represented. The Task Force was also 

to gather information and comments for review, incorporate the comments and 

suggestions into the final plan, and write sections of the RMP with an independent 

facilitator, hired by the NPS, using the LAC process. 80 

 

76 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

77 Letter, Carrico to Potesta, December 17, 1985. 

78 National Park Service, Draft River Management Plan for New River Gorge National River (June, 

1987), 7-8. 

79 Draft RMP, 8. 

80 Draft RMP, 8. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

214 

 The second and third steps were to inventory existing conditions and identify 

community issues and concerns. Step four was to develop a plan of prescriptive 

management objectives, identifying physical, biological, and social conditions within the 

impacted areas. 

 The next two steps (5, 6) were to develop indicators and standards and measurable 

reference points for monitoring conditions. Step 7 was to monitor the river. The final 

two steps required comparing the standards to the conditions to see if they fell within 

acceptable limits, and if not, to implement a management program to achieve the desired 

results.81 

 Forty-three interest groups were invited to nominate their representatives for the 

Task Force. NPS identified the groups through past involvement with the river, DNR 

suggestions, the program facilitator, and scientists involved with other river management 

plans. To represent the public fairly, four additional people were asked to join the Task 

Force: three residents (of Prince, Thurmond, and Sandstone) and a reporter for the 

Fayette County Tribune.

82

 On February 7, 1986, the LAC process and the RMP goals were presented to the 

WWAB. Board members were each given a three-page handout outlining the LAC 

process. NPS personnel and the facilitator remained throughout the meeting to take any 

comments and answer questions. 

 The following month, all licensed rafting companies were invited to attend an 

NPS-sponsored meeting. The LAC process was explained by the facilitator, and three 

individuals were selected to represent rafting-company interests on the Task Force. 83 

 In early June, two meetings were held at the Hinton Memorial Building and the 

Sandstone Volunteer Fire Department to collect suggestions and to prioritize public 

concerns. The facilitator briefly outlined the purpose of the RMP and then divided 

attendees into groups of six to nine. NPS personnel and the facilitator acted as group 

leaders and solicited ideas and areas of concern within each group. The members then 

discussed the ideas raised. Group leaders asked each member to select the five most 

important concerns from the list and write each idea on a separate note card. Members 

were then asked to rank the cards from most to least important.84 

 One hundred and three people attended the meetings. The groups listed 337 

responses for the Task Force. Content analysis was used to divide the responses into 14 

categories. The development of tourism facilities, including camping and trail 

opportunities, were the top issues. Third through fifth priorities were inner park access, 

general resource and water quality protection, and solid waste and litter disposal. 

 

81 Draft RMP, 8-9. 

82 Draft RMP, 10. 

83 Draft RMP, 11. 

84 Draft RMP, 15. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

215 

Remaining categories included interpretation/information services, boating issues, law 

enforcement, fishing, hunting and wildlife extraction, insect control, user safety, dam 

release, user fees, and inter-agency coordination. The final category was simply listed as 

“other.”85 From this, the 45-member Citizen Task Force developed 62 prescriptive 

management objectives. Park development, maintenance, natural resource protection, 

appropriate levels of recreational use, and park operations were all included.86 

 In 1986, the Task Force met for a final review of all the prescriptive objectives. The 

NPS reorganized them and added several more. The Task Force organized the list under 

four major categories: Park Development, Park Maintenance, Park Operations and 

Natural Resource Protections, and Appropriate Recreation Use.87 The Park Service 

completed the Draft River Management Plan for New River Gorge National River in June 

1987.88 

 To determine appropriate levels of boating, objective 62 suggested four different 

management zones. In designating appropriate boating opportunities for the zones, the 

Task Force listed potential types of appropriate user experiences.89 Their indicators 

considered percent of time boaters would be in visual contact, then assigned a standard 

for each section of river and day of the week. Possible management actions ranged from 

increased communication to more restrictive methods including launch windows.90 

 The Task Force suggested a list of appropriate experiences based on how long 

boaters were in visual contact for each zone. The first of the four zones stretched from 

Hinton to Sandstone; the second from Sandstone to Prince; the third from Prince to 

Thurmond; and the fourth from Thurmond to the downstream boundary of the park.91

Each zone specified a different level of contact and subsequent type of experience. Level 

A indicated zero contact; level B a personal, highly natural experience with less than 25% 

contact; level C included some stops and was designed to include a historical, cultural, 

and scenic experience with 50% maximum contact time; and level D was designated a 

social experience where queues were acceptable and 100% contact time expected. The 

zones were broken up into weekday/weekend experience levels and peak-use/outsidepeak-use-season experience levels. Peak season was stated to be Memorial Day through 

Labor Day.92 

 

85 Draft RMP, 17. 

86 Clif Bobinski, Planning Documents Report for New River Gorge National River (August 16, 2004), 

23. 

87 Draft RMP, 19. 

88 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 23. 

89 Draft RMP, 27. 

90 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 23. 

91 Draft RMP, 27. 

92 Draft RMP, 27. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

216 

ZONE 

Peak season, 

weekday 

experience levels 

Peak season, 

weekend 

Outside Peak 

season 

weekdays 

Outside Peak 

Season 

weekends 

1. Hinton to Sandstone C (<50% contact) C and D 

2. Sandstone to Prince B (<25% contact) C A (zero contact) A 

3. Prince to Thurmond C D (100% contact) 

4. Thurmond to Fayette 

Station 

T, W, Th: B 

M, F: C 

D B C 

Figure 37. Appropriate experiences based on how long boaters were in visual contact for each zone.

During weekdays, Zone 1 from Hinton to Sandstone was considered level C, and C and 

D on weekends. Zone 2 from Sandstone to Prince was categorized as level B during the 

week and level C during weekends in peak season. Outside peak season it was 

considered level A all week long. During peak season, Zone 3 from Prince to Thurmond 

was level C on weekdays and level D on weekends. The Park Service generally 

recommended it for families and Girl and Boy Scout troops.93 

 The NPS applied more complex criteria to the section from Thurmond to the 

downstream boundary. During peak season, Mondays and Fridays were classed as level 

C and the other three weekdays as level B. Saturdays and Sundays were classed level D. 

Outside peak season, weekdays were level B and weekends level C.94 

 One goal of the plan was to inform private boaters when they could traverse 

sections of the river with less contact with commercial outfitters. Commercial 

restrictions including the use of Cunard and reduced user numbers were considerations. 

The whitewater outfitters strongly opposed restricting the number of people permitted 

on the river.95 

 The question of limits shifted to the U.S. Congress next. Public Law 100-534, the 

West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 1987, Title IV, Sec. 402 

stipulated that: 

The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of 

West Virginia providing for the State’s regulation, in accordance with State law, of 

persons providing recreational watercraft services on units of the National Park System 

and components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System subject to this Act. 

With passage of Public Law 100-534 any attempt to coordinate appropriate river use 

levels ceased and the Draft RMP was never finalized, although Fayette Station, Sandstone 

Falls, Stone Cliff, and other recreational projects were completed.96 

 

93 Draft RMP, 28. 

94 Draft RMP, 28. 

95 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 23. 

96 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 24. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

217 

 Superintendent Jim Carrico began the river management planning process in 1984 

with the RMP as the goal, but he transferred out of the park before it was finished. Incoming Superintendent Joe Kennedy decided to “shelve the plan” and not put it out for 

public comment in 1987. David Reynolds recalled in 2005 that one apparent factor was 

complaints to Congressman Nick Rahall from some commercial rafting companies. 

Because of this one interest, an RMP that addressed many other important matters – 

river access issues, fisherman-rafter and kayaker issues, and litter – was not finalized.97 

 Studies of river recreation in New River continued in the 1990s. Y.-F. Leung and J. 

L. Marion discussed environmental impact at recreation sites along five rivers, including 

the New and Gauley, from 1995 fieldwork.98 Steven Whisman and his colleagues 

undertook several projects for the West Virginia Whitewater Commission. He published 

an updated LAC study of the New, Gauley, and other rivers on the web.99 He also 

submitted a summary report on social indicators on West Virginia rivers to the White 

Water Commission.100

 Despite conflicts, the Park Service, DNR, and rafting companies have maintained a 

sound working relationship. In a 2004 interview, Jon Dragan commented on the 

responsiveness of NPS and the DNR to the needs of whitewater companies: 

Yeah, they really have ... I’m sure they eat some crow that they [the rafting companies] 

don’t like. But unless they’re asking for the moon, I can honestly say that the Park 

Service and the DNR have been extremely responsive to the wishes and wants of the 

outfitters.101 

And when asked if he felt that most obstacles that had arisen had been worked out fairly 

between the outfitters and the Park Service, Dragan said, “Yeah, that’s true, that’s fair, 

that really is. They’ve done well; they have done well on that one.”102 

 Dragan’s remarks do not suggest that the outfitters have approved every Park 

Service or DNR policy decision. Even though he sold the beach at Stone Cliff and the 

 

97 David W. Reynolds (Deputy Associate Director, Natural Resources and Sciences, Northeast 

Region), Memo to Historian, Northeast Region, December 23, 2005. 98 Y.-F. Leung and J. L. Marion, “River recreation impacts: A survey of day and overnight 

whitewater use sites along five West Virginia rivers,” in Beyond the Banks: Proceedings of the 3rd 

Biennial RMS Symposium on River Management and Planning, June 20-23, 1996, Columbus, OH 

(Missoula, MT: River Management Society, 1997), 135-143. 

99 Steven A. Whisman, “Limits of Acceptable Change Management Plan: A Summary of LAC 

Indicators for Commercial Rafting Use of West Virginia Rivers, 1998 Annual Report,” 49 p., 

available in PDF format at http://www.wvdnr.gov/LEnforce/White/RiverMgt/98lac_rpt.pdf, 

accessed September 25, 2005. 

100 S. A. Whisman and S. J. Hollenhorst, Summary of resource and social indicators on the Gauley, 

New, Cheat, Shenandoah, and Tygart Valley Rivers in West Virginia, WV (1998). Final project 

report submitted to the West Virginia Whitewater Commission. 

101 Jon Dragan, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 102 Jon Dragan, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

218 

land at Fayette Station to the Park Service as put-ins and take-outs, he did not entirely 

approve of opening a put-in/take-out point at Cunard: 

I think the outfitters like it ... They put in at Cunard and that’s a mixed bag ... [Well] I 

think it cheapened the trip. Before it was from Thurmond to Fayette Station, it pretty 

much took six to eight hours. Now you can skip all that and just go down and do the 

rapids. If they had not put in at Cunard I think you’d ultimately have a better raft trip. 

That’s my own personal opinion, that’s not what the majority of outfitters think. 

Outfitters like it because it breaks up the river. 103

The put-in at Cunard, however, was not a Park Service decision. Congress mandated it in 

1988.104 But Dragan realized that the industry changed largely because the public 

demanded it: 

[In the 1960s] we used to leave at seven o’clock in the morning if you wanted to go on a 

raft trip with the old Wildwater Expeditions. You be there at seven, we’ll have a cup of 

coffee and donut, or biscuit and gravy, and we’ll spend the whole day on the river and 

get off at five o’clock. We’d stop and go to the ghost towns...and walk up a couple of 

side creeks. It was an adventure, you know? Now its slam bam, your check cleared the 

bank, get in the raft, thank you very much, don’t want lunch, okay, thank you very 

much, you’d like a cold drink? Okay, it’s two o’clock, don’t miss the NASCAR.105 

Management of river-based recreation continues to evolve. 

MANAGING RECREATION ON LAND

PLANS FOR TRAILS AND ROCK CLIMBING

 The story now shifts to developments in land-based recreation after the 1983 

GMP. Jon Dragan’s observation that public demand had changed park use was not 

confined to whitewater rafting. Other forms of recreation were becoming increasingly 

popular, and the NPS needed to develop policies to deal with increasing and increasingly 

varied activity. Sightseeing, hunting, camping, and picnicking numbered among 

traditional land-based recreations. But after the mid-1980s, hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, and rock climbing also become popular. Some enthusiasts pushed 

recreation to new limits, and in response, the Park Service had to decide about extreme 

sports like base-jumping and bungee jumping. This superposition of new activities on old 

ones meant that policy decisions became more complicated as more users took 

advantage of the park. 

 The 1983 GMP anticipated public involvement in decisions regarding land-based 

recreational opportunities. The plan included some detailed studies of scenery as a 

 

103 Jon Dragan, interviewed by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 104 Written comments on draft of this administrative history by Lorrie Sprague (NERI Public 

Affairs Officer). 

105 Jon Dragan, interview conducted by Lynn Stasick, September 9, 2004. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

219 

resource, indicating that the Park Service intended to protect the source of the park’s 

favorite visitor activity, sight-seeing. The Draft RMP, released in 1987, indicated that 

over 315,000 people visited the Canyon Rim Overlook in 1986 to view the gorge and the 

New River Gorge Bridge. In contrast, it estimated 85,000 people had boated the park 

section of the river the same year.106 The most popular scenic views were Canyon Rim, 

Beauty Mountain, and Grandview State Park. For those interested in historic remains, 

the most popular sites were Thurmond, and the Kaymoor and Sewell mines.107 

 When the Draft RMP was released, picnicking occurred primarily in easily 

accessible areas. Canyon Rim and Sandstone Falls were both popular spots, and the NPS 

estimated that 4,000 people took advantage of picnic sites.108 This number matched the 

4,000 reported in the GMP and it is not clear if this was based on new or old data. Few of 

the new picnic facilities recommended in the GMP had yet been built. 

 As noted earlier, the GMP called for, but did not elaborate, the development of a 

trail plan. Park managers, like most people in the mid-1980s, thought trails were for 

hikers or horseback riders. Of the few trails the GMP recommended, the one from Wolf 

Creek (South Fayette) to Kaymoor (now the Kaymoor Trail) and that from Cunard to 

Kaymoor (today the Cunard-Kaymoor Trail) were cleared by 1987. The GMP had called 

for this whole length to be maintained for hikers and horseback riders. Also, the Minden 

Railroad had become the Thurmond-Minden Trail. In 1987, only these two trails, both 

part of the Mary Draper Ingles Trail, crossed federal land within the park.109 Userdefined, informal trails abounded, but these were not officially maintained. As public 

responses to the Citizen Task Force made clear in 1986, trails ranked high in citizens’ 

minds and they expected the Park Service to go much further. 

 Although some hiking and horseback riding occurred within the gorge 

traditionally, the rough terrain limited where hikers and riders could safely travel. 

Moreover, the gorge had never been a focus of long-distance backpacking or of 

extensive recreational riding. But as early as 1985, the newly formed Summers County 

Horsemen’s Association suggested the development of a bridle trail “for the pleasure and 

historic riding along the New River Gorge.”110 To establish a bridle path in the gorge, the 

Horsemen’s Association invited DNR officers to dinner and a discussion of their 

proposal. The effort did not work. In response, DNR sent a letter to the Association 

(copied to the park) expressing DNR’s opposition to the proposal: 

The [bridle path] proposal includes overnight stopovers with riding horses at Bluestone 

State Park, Sandstone Falls State Park, Grandview State Park, and ending at Hawks Nest 

 

106 Draft RMP, 2. 

107 Draft RMP, 2. 

108 Draft RMP, 5. 

109 Draft RMP, 5. 

110 Elizabeth Thrush, “Summers Resident Proposing New River Gorge Bridal Trail,” Fayette 

Tribune, April 15, 1985. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

220 

State Park. Currently, there are no horseback riding facilities or riding trails on any of 

the aforementioned parks. Without facilities and riding trails, it would not be possible 

to use these areas since there would be a conflict with other current recreation pursuits 

... Additionally, since the proposed bridle path traverses the New River National Scenic 

River Area (sic), it would be necessary to coordinate any such proposal with the 

National Park Service ... Existing state parks bordering on the New River are relatively 

small in acreage and extensively developed. Horseback riding is not a planned activity 

on these areas, and therefore, would conflict with long established public uses. All of 

our state parks have Master Development Plans and we try to adhere to these plans.111 

Clearly, West Virginia’s DNR was not sympathetic to equestrian recreationalists along 

the New River. 

 New River’s 1987 Draft River Management Plan addressed horseback riding. Like 

the GMP, the RMP allowed riders access to the gorge. Twenty miles of trails discussed in 

1983 were to accommodate both hikers and horses. The Draft RMP recommended 

separation of hiking and equestrian trails whenever practical to minimize user conflict. 

Although in 1985 the superintendent stated that the Park Service had no plan to establish 

a dedicated riding trail within the park, the Draft RMP still suggested a bridle trail the 

length of the park.112 The Draft RMP foresaw problems with terrain and with crossing 

private land within park boundaries and noted that NPS needed to develop areas for 

loading horses. The Draft RMP projected the completion of planning for a bridle trail by 

1991 and starting construction by 1993.113 

 One of the prescriptive objectives of the Draft RMP called for the development of 

an integrated, park-wide trail plan by 1991. It sought participation by the West Virginia 

Scenic Trails Association (WVSTA), the Horsemen’s Association, and other trail users. 

The NPS prioritized the Trail Plan in 1987 as a 2 on a 3-point scale, mainly because of 

staffing and budget limits.114 In 1989, the Park Service’s Denver office assembled an 

initial trail concept plan and presented it as the Trail Plan. It identified four separate 

units in the system: the Mary Draper Ingles trail, nine spur trails, trails constructed at 

major tourist facilities including Sandstone Boardwalk and the Thurmond-Minden Trail, 

and pre-existing primitive trails.115 

 In 1990, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) signed a cooperative agreement 

with the Park Service to field check existing and potential trails, and other specific trail 

segment proposals. Also in 1990, Superintendent Joe Kennedy corresponded with John 

D. Linahan, superintendent of Buffalo National River, Arkansas, about its policies on 

 

111 Letter, WV DNR to Deborah L. Lowe (Secretary, Summers County Horsemen’s Association), 

March 28, 1985, MPF, Box 1, 3815. 

112 Draft RMP. 113 Draft RMP. 114 Draft RMP, 50. 

115 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 26. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

221 

horse use, stating that the park’s policies regarding horses were under review.116 Linahan 

replied that Buffalo River had one campground designated exclusively for visitors with 

horses and others were being considered. All commercial operations dealing with 

horseback riding required a commercial license.117 Both parks considered standards for 

maximum group size, number of stock per trip, use of park roads, picketing stock, 

removal of feces, use of vehicle support for overnight trips, carrying feed, and overnight 

camping associated with commercial horse use. 

 Horseback riders, fearing the banning of horseback riding in the park, flooded the 

park with comments. Doug Wood, of WVSTA, questioned “why the National Park 

Service restricted the club [AMC] from studying the potential for development of 

equestrian trails and of trails over private lands which lie within the national river 

boundary.”118 Wood saw horseback riding as a historical use of the land. Many others, 

however, shared NPS’s view that horses caused adverse impacts, including being the 

primary cause of girdling of trees (removing a band of bark around a tree). 

 The AMC’s research considered topography, flora, fauna, endangered species, and 

historic resources. In 1992, later than scheduled in the Draft River Management Plan, 

park Superintendent Kennedy released a draft of the Trail Plan and requested public 

comments. The AMC recommended 38 trails totaling over 62 miles.119 Peter Jensen, et 

al., published A Trail Development Plan for the New River Gorge National River for the 

Park Service in 1993.120 They recommended that New River develop equestrian, hiking, 

mountain biking, interpretive, and wheelchair-accessible trails—a multiple-use trail 

system. It would feature self-guided interpretative facilities and programs for trail 

information, education, and monitoring.121 

 The Trail Plan, however, did not recommend extensive bridle trail facilities. Horse 

riders are currently allowed on abandoned roads, gravel bars, and backcountry trails 

unless stated otherwise. Most trails and developed areas do not allow horse use. No 

prominence is given to horse use on the park web site nor in printed literature. 

Commercial horse use including horse packing is allowed in the park, but this requires 

an Incidental Business Permit and larger groups require a Special Use Permit. Although 

horse use was originally proposed for the Kaymoor Trail and for trails in the Glade 

Creek watershed, ultimately use of these trails was restricted to hiking. 

 

116 Memo, John Linahan (Superintendent, Buffalo National River) to Joe Kennedy 

(Superintendent, NERI), November 1, 1990. 

117 Memo, Linahan to Kennedy, November 1, 1990. 118 Letter, Doug Wood (WVSTA) to Joe Kennedy, April 1, 1992. 119 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 26. Counting exact numbers of trails depends on how segments 

are treated. 

120 Peter Jensen, Dennis Regan, and Jeffrey L. Marion, A Trail Development Plan for the New River 

Gorge National River (Philadelphia, PA: NPS Mid-Atlantic Region, 1993). 121 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 26. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

222 

 By the 1990s, the park recognized over 74 miles of trails comprising 34 trail units. 

Some were multiple-use trails with trailheads offering portable toilets, signage, and 

interpretive information (Figure 2). The informal trails created by hikers, bikers, and 

rock climbers had grown dramatically. This growth caused the Park Service to evaluate 

each trail on a case-by-case basis for inclusion in the trail network.122 Brochures were 

produced for trails in different parts of the National River (Figure 3). 

 Throughout the 1990s trails in the park were gradually constructed or reconditioned. Trails at Canyon Rim and at former Grandview and Sandstone Falls State 

Parks were up-graded for expected heavy day-use. Sandstone Falls required extensive 

construction of boardwalks, especially to provide access for users of wheelchairs. 

Mountain biking presented an issue that was not considered extensively in 1983 by the 

Park Service, but which needed to be accommodated in the park. Today, the ThurmondMinden Trail, Cunard-Kaymoor Trail, Brooklyn-Southside Junction Trail, and service 

roads throughout the park provide recreational options for mountain bikers. According 

to the current web site, the park allows bicycle use on all open roads, including park 

administrative roads: the Cunard-Kaymoor (5 miles), Brooklyn-Southside Junction (6 

miles), Thurmond-Minden (3.2 miles), Stonecliff (4 miles), and Bluestone Turnpike (8 

miles). Most of these “administrative roads” (total 26.2 miles) are also listed as bike 

trails.123 

 Many other trails are restricted to hikers only. Besides the day-use trails and the 

Glade Creek system noted above, trails to overlooks and climbing areas and steeper trails 

are often restricted: the Liang, Long Point, Endless Wall, and Kaymoor Miner’s Trails, 

for example. A 2005 park report on natural resource damage indicates that horse trails 

increase “soil erosion, muddiness, and gradual trail widening...”.124 The report states 

that biking potentially has the same effects and it recommends careful site selection for 

such trails. The history of policies towards trails in the park is not finished. 

 Rock climbing, barely mentioned in the 1983 General Management Plan, had 

become “an appropriate recreational use” in the 1987 Draft River Management Plan. 

Initially, climbing within New River was concentrated on the northeast side of the river 

 

122 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 26. 

123 http://www.nps.gov/neri/bktrails.htm, accessed 1 November 2005. Contradictions and 

differences between different pages on the NERI web site need to be reconciled by NERI 

managers. For example, the Bluestone Turnpike does not appear on the bike trails map and it is 

noted as a hiking trail on the list of trails at http://www.nps.gov/neri/trails.htm. But at 

http://www.nps.gov/blue/pphtml/activities.html mountain biking appears as a recommended use of 

the trail. A systematic review of information made available to the public is recommended, and 

perhaps of policies. 

124 Park-wide Perceived or Potential Threats to Natural Resources at New River Gorge National 

River (Philadelphia, PA: NPS, Northeast Region, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, 

2005), NPS-D201, December 2004 (Revised March 2005), 88-89, 89 p. A pdf file of this report is 

at: http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/FINAL/NERI_Assess/NERI_Assessment4.pdf, accessed 

October 18, 2005. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

223 

between Lansing and Beauty Mountain. According to the Draft RMP, rock climbing was 

becoming increasingly popular, and 100 to 200 people often climbed in that area on 

summer weekends.125 The Draft RMP called for the Park Service to work closely with 

climbing groups to establish a volunteer search and rescue team, and to establish specific 

guidelines for commercial climbers.126 

 The first recorded climb in the gorge occurred in 1975. The extensive escarpment 

that rims much of the western portion of the gorge is composed of Nuttall sandstone, 

which is renowned by climbers as some of the finest quality climbing rocks in North 

America.127 This reputation counters the statement in the 1983 GMP that “the sandstone 

rocks provide rather unstable support.”128 In 1977 and 1978, routes were established at 

the North Bridge Wall, Junkyard Wall, and Beauty Mountain. In 1979 the Endless Wall 

became accessible.129 The rising popularity of this area ushered in the “New Age” of 

climbing in 1983.130 

 The late 1980s brought new technology and attitudes to climbing in the gorge. 

Earlier climbers practiced clean climbing, i.e., they removed equipment used for the 

climb when through. Increasingly, climbers practiced ‘sport climbing’, leaving bolts 

permanently installed in the rock face for future climbs. Battery-powered drills replaced 

old hand-held star drills, cutting drilling time from roughly one-half hour to fifteen 

seconds per bolt, making the job quick and efficient.131 The first New River climbing 

guidebook (issued in the 1980s) listed about 30 bolts. By 1991, the number grew to 2,000. 

The 1993 guidebook listed 452 sport climbs and estimated around 4,000 bolts.132 In 1995, 

the Park Service banned the use of power drills in the park because of concern about 

possible resource impacts from the sudden increase in new routes. The use of hand drills 

was still permitted. The ban on power drills was very effective in controlling the 

proliferation of fixed anchors on NPS property, and limited the creation of new 

routes.133 Since the 1990s, several new guidebooks have appeared, including ones with 

 

125 Draft RMP, 5. 

126 Draft RMP. 127 National Park Service, Draft Climbing Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, May 2003, 

NERI Headquarters Library, Glen Jean, West Virginia, 3. 

128 GMP, 80-81. 

129 David Rapp, A Climbing Summary: Uses and Impacts at New River Gorge National River, Gauley 

River National Recreation Area, Meadow Wild and Scenic River, July 15, 1993, MPF, Box 65, 

L3423, 2-3. 

130 Draft Climbing Plan, 2. The final report, released April 2005, is U.S. Department of the Interior, 

NPS, Climbing Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, New River Gorge National River, 

West Virginia (Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, April, 2005). It is available at 

http://www.nps.gov/neri/pdf/neri_finalcmp.pdf. 131 Rapp, A Climbing Summary, 2. 

132 Rapp, A Climbing Summary, 2. 

133 Draft Climbing Plan, 11. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

224 

details on climbs on the Endless Wall (Figures 4 and 5).134

 By the early 1990s, problems developed between climbers and landowners. Several 

conflicts occurred at the south end of Beauty Mountain, resulting in the closure of the 

area to climbers. Local climbers asked all climbers to avoid Meadow River to avert 

conflict there as well. In 1993, the latest climbing guidebook listed 1,232 climbs, of which 

one third were situated on private lands, leaving climbing in those areas up to property 

owners.135 

 In 1988, the American Alpine Club Access Committee (ACCESS) and a local 

climbing group met with Park Service members to discuss issues of land acquisition. 

Stuart Pregnall, an ACCESS member, discussed some of the problems climbers were 

facing in a letter to park Superintendent Joe Kennedy. 

The main issue facing climbers at the New River at the present time is preservation of 

recreation access. As you know, climbing has been taking place at the New River for 

many years. Land owners have either overlooked our presence or been unaware of the 

various recreation activities. But now that increased numbers of climbers and others are 

visiting the area, it is inevitable that there may be occasional access complications.... I 

believe that there are many benefits to be gained by securing recreation access for other 

park visitors besides just climbers. Over the years, various climbers and other 

outdoorsmen have established a virtual loop system that traverses the rim of the gorge 

to the Visitor’s Center upriver to Beauty Mountain and back. Some of this trail is 

presently too rough for casual hiker’s use, but there are certainly parts of it that are very 

pleasant walking.136 

Mr. Pregnall’s observations regarding increasing numbers of climbers and other visitors 

to the park caused the climbing groups and the Park Service to consider actions aimed 

toward ameliorating the situation. 

 By 2000, the success of rock climbing in the park resulted in overcrowding. On 

some of the easy-to-reach, beginner routes—such as the Bridge Buttress and Graveyard 

Wall—groups of people were climbing dangerously close to others right over top of 

them. In November, 2000, a group of climbers and climbing outfitters met with the park 

to discuss the future of rock climbing in the gorge. They discussed four issues: how to 

limit the impact of climbing on the ecology and historic sites in the gorge, determining 

the appropriate role of commercial outfitters who then numbered 15, deciding whether 

new parking areas and access points were needed, and establishing an interpretive/ 

educational program to benefit all park visitors.137 Trail construction in climbing areas 

was a high priority (Figure 6). 

 

134 For example, Steve Cater, New River Gorge: Select Rock Climbs (Fayetteville, WV: King Coal 

Propaganda, 1997). 

135 Rapp, A Climbing Summary, 5. 

136 Letter, Stuart Pregnall (American Alpine Club, Access Committee) to Joe Kennedy 

(Superintendent, NERI), February 12, 1988, MPF, Box 17, L34, 2. 

137 “Success of Rock Climbing is Overcrowding,” Charleston Gazette, November, 2000. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

225 

 The goals of the plan were to protect the park’s natural and cultural resources 

while continuing to provide a high-quality rock-climbing experience (Figure 7). To 

achieve the goals, the Park Service intended to build partnerships with climbers, 

climbing groups, and commercial organizations to manage climbing. While developing 

the plan, NPS solicited extensive input from climbers and the public generally, and from 

commercial outfitters.138 The Park Service conducted public meetings in October 2000 

and April 2001. It also mailed a newsletter to the park mailing list, soliciting input on 

management of climbing in November 2000.139 During 2001 and 2002 NPS staff analyzed 

this information and the park released the Draft Climbing Management Plan, 

Environmental Assessment in May 2003.140 

 The Draft CMP described and mapped current climbing locations and identified a 

preferred alternative to resolve conflicts. It recommended improvements to ladders and 

access trails, the designation of group climbing areas, and a determination of the use of 

fixed anchors and chalk. The plan also recommended an outreach program to foster safe 

climbing, a leave-no-trace ethic, and a partnering program. To protect Peregrine Falcon 

habitats, it suggested a voluntary compliance program and/or preemptive closure of 

climbing areas be instituted.141 The park released the final report, Climbing Management 

Plan/Environmental Assessment, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia, in April 

2005, including an extensive appendix of public input. 

CHANGING TIMES IN RECREATION: HUNT CLUBS AND EXTREME SPORTS

During the 1990s two new trends started becoming evident in recreational use at 

the New River Gorge National River and the Gauley River National Recreation Area. 

Both trends were, in a sense, due partly to events beyond the park boundaries. The first 

affected the older, traditional users of park lands, hunters. The second brought a 

heightened sense of excitement and a new population of users, people involved in 

competitive, extreme sports. 

 Hunters had visited lands in and around the gorge since long before the 

authorization of the park. During the many generations when the land was owned by 

coal, rail, timber, and other large corporate interests, hunters had been accustomed to 

going where they pleased, when they pleased. They thought of it as unrestricted public 

land. This began to change as land-holders started leasing their lands to private hunt 

clubs. More and more land around the park gradually became off-limits to local and 

regional hunters. Chief Ranger Gary Hartley commented in 2004: 

 

138 Draft Climbing Plan, 3. 

139 NERI, Climbing Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, 8-9. 

140 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 24. 

141 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 24-25. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

226 

Where traditionally people have hunted for years and years and years, now all of a 

sudden, a few people get together, it’s now a private hunt club. It’s posted as ‘No 

Trespassing’ and you’ve got to pay money to join the hunt club. And sometimes they 

have limited membership so it’s just their land. We’ve seen several of these hunt clubs 

growing up and taking large portions of land around the park.142

The increase of hunt clubs, added to the rapid rise of residential development around the 

park, has led to a change of heart among some local residents about federal ownership of 

land. The park has become more important as a place for hunters. Hartley said that he 

had witnessed a big change in attitude since 2000. 

I’ve seen a change just in the time I’ve been here between some of the old timers who 

were “Well, we don’t like that government land, they have all these regulations and tell 

you what to do” to now I’ve got them coming in here and going: “Well, I wish the 

government would buy more land, because then it would be open for me to hunt.”143

This trend, of course, could only occur at this park and the small handful of National 

Park System units which permit hunting. The vast majority of national parks do not. 

 The other new trend emerging since 2000 – extreme sports – had precedents at the 

New River Gorge. The big activities since the 1970s in the gorge were white-water rafting 

and kayaking, rock climbing, and – on Bridge Day at least – BASE jumping. BASE 

jumping (Building, Antennae, Span, Earth) at the New River Gorge has meant 

parachuting off the New River Bridge. (This is discussed more fully in Chapter 8.). These 

highly active sports naturally attracted energetic and sometimes competitive 

practitioners. A corner was turned, however, as national and international magazines 

started to recognize the attractions of the gorge and as local companies and the Chamber 

of Commerce began sponsoring and promoting large competitions. 

 Just weeks after terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New 

York City on September 11, 2001, the world rafting championships were held at the New 

River. Ironically, they had been scheduled for a river in South America, but they were 

shifted because of political instability there. Although 9/11 didn’t stop the event at the 

New, it did restrict it: Kayaking events were cancelled since competitors could not fly in 

their boats. Nevertheless, this event had never been held in the United States before, so 

holding it at the New and Gauley Rivers attracted a lot of attention. The best teams came 

from Germany, Czechoslovakia, Canada, Britain, and elsewhere. Events included oneon-one double elimination sprints, a slalom course, and, as a grand finale, a shot-gun 

start, all-in-together, downstream race the full length of the Gauley NRA, with double 

the usual cubic-feet-per-second flow (4000 instead of 2000 cfs). With palpable 

excitement, Gary Hartley recounted this transforming event. 

 

142 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 143 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

227 

 Although the Park Service certainly has provided the venues for extreme sports 

events and permits them and oversees rescues, it has not promoted them. Magazines 

have contributed. Sports Illustrated in 2004 had a full spread on sport climbing in the 

gorge. National Geographic selected the New River Gorge as one of four “Best 

Adventures” in 2003, along with Yosemite National Park. Climbing magazine featured 

the gorge on its cover and rated the climbing there as one of the best crags in the 

country.144

 One voluntary, recreational organization has worked closely with the Park Service 

on an important event. The New River Alliance of Climbers (NRAC) organized the East 

Coast Climbers Rendezvous, beginning in 2003. Several hundred climbers have attended 

this event, making it the largest gathering of rock climbers on the east coast. Because 

NRAC has volunteered time for trail construction and steep slope rehabilitation, the 

park let them use the Burnwood shelters for the event.145

 Moreover, the bigger commercial whitewater rafting companies began promoting 

multi-day, multi-activity package trips. Likewise, they have helped organize multi-event 

competitions such as Captain Thurmond’s Challenge. This event, started in the 1990s, 

has included a bicycle leg to Cunard, rafts or kayaks to Fayette Station, and a run up out 

of the gorge to Fayetteville. Even Superintendent Pete Hart entered in the late 90s as a 

runner on a team with two other competitors. 

 Following in the wake of this annual, anticipated event have been several others. 

ACE Rafting Company and Nissan have organized a formal triathlon, including a 

swimming leg from Stone Cliff to Thurmond. The Park Service has provided a “sweep” 

at the end of the race, i.e., a staff member travels the race route to be certain no 

competitor has been left behind. A bigger management challenge, however, has been the 

“Endorphin Fix.” This event lasts three full days, 24 hours per day, much like the well 

known Eco-Challenge. It includes high-lines over creeks, running, orienteering, 

kayaking, etc. As Ranger Hartley put it, these events have “changed the park a little bit” 

in its relations with the community. While promotion and organization is done by 

private interests or the Chamber, the Park Service must be involved. In his 2004 

interview, Hartley contrasted such events with the more casual tourists and the change in 

management this brings. 

In one way,... we want to support promoting the park and getting people here, but in 

another way, it’s certainly much easier to manage the park when they’re not here. 

[laughter] You know, when they just come here as normal visitors, they come to the 

visitor center, they walk out to the overlook, they look at the gorge from the overlook, 

they go back to their cars and leave. It’s much easier than having somebody in the park 

for twenty-four hours a day, for several days, racing and biking and hiking and climbing. 

But as far as a creative economy in West Virginia and trying to promote a green

 

144 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 145 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

228 

economy, you know, bringing in tourism and showing that parks are valuable and 

sustainable and it can bring folks in, it’s an interesting management trend that we are 

seeing with the extreme sports in the national parks.146

Ranger Hartley made it clear that he enjoyed the challenge of management of these 

exciting events and that he was glad to have them in the parks where he oversaw law 

enforcement and search and rescue. 

 Just as mountain biking was not anticipated in the 1983 GMP, these organized 

competitions came along as an unexpectedly important part of recreational activity on 

the New River and its sister units. To the credit of the National Park Service, its staff 

continually has adjusted to these new developments, while bearing in mind that their 

primary goal is preservation of the land and its resources. More challenges will certainly 

emerge in future years.

CONCLUSION

 Recreational demands on the New River Gorge National River and the Gauley 

River National Recreation Area – not so much on the Bluestone National Scenic River –

increased dramatically during the 1990s and after 2000. The increased demand is not just 

a matter of numbers, but also concerns the kinds of activities visitors engage in. 

 The development of Park Service recreational management policies resulted from 

increased user demand on park resources. The completion of the I-64 corridor, U.S. 19, 

and New River Gorge Bridge opened the way for greater numbers of visitors, who came 

to whitewater raft, sightsee, mountain bike, rock climb, and hike. These new user 

activities were superimposed on the more traditional activities of hunting and fishing. In 

some instances, this caused conflict, resulting in new park policies. 

 As area recreationists have noted as needing attention is information offered to the 

public. Brochures and web-based information are incomplete, ambiguous, or even 

contradictory regarding questions like horse use, trails allowing mountain biking, or 

available camping facilities. While the Park Service has made progress communicating 

with the public, more remains to be done. 

 With recreation concentrated on the New River, trails, and other limited areas, 

user conflicts have been inevitable and have required active management. Anglers and 

boaters, mountain bikers and hikers, heritage tourists and other recreationists: all share 

limited resources to different ends. This has presented continuing management 

problems. 

 Through the years the Park Service has worked closely with the West Virginia 

DNR, state parks, and the Whitewater Advisory Board (WWAB). It has also engaged the 

 

146 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

229 

public in the decision-making process on the development of the river, trail, and 

climbing plans. The WWAB also sought public input prior to making its decision 

regarding river use levels. In all cases, the DNR, the Park Service, and the WWAB have 

demonstrated their belief that public comment is vital to the park’s planning process. 

 This story illustrates that new generations introduce new recreational activities 

and demands. The charge to the Park Service to help the public use and enjoy the New 

River Gorge National River requires park managers to consider these new recreations in 

planning park management. Mountain biking and rock climbing were not considered 

extensively in 1978 or 1983, but as these activities have grown in popularity, so has park’s 

attention to their management. 

 Since the 1990s, New River Gorge National River (and to a lesser extent, the 

Gauley and Bluestone units) have witnessed a dramatic increase in extreme sports 

activity and in commercial use. After 2000, the parks required a position specializing in 

issuing permits for tours, guide services for rock climbing, competitive events, etc. The 

number of permits tripled between 2000 and 2004. As Gary Hartley said in his 2004 

interview: “I think it’s one of the areas that will be a driver for this park in the future.”147

One perspective on this is that the region is experiencing a transformation to a “green” 

economy, based on sustainable tourism and recreational activity. The presence of the 

New, Gauley, and Bluestone NPS units has certainly contributed to this transformation. 

The National Park Service has also had to adjust to this change. 

 This places these National Park Service units of southern West Virginia in a 

peculiar situation. More popular than ever, visited more frequently than ever and for a 

greater variety of activities, these park units have gradually become integral to and 

essential to the economy of the area. The parks are more visible nationally and even 

internationally than ever before. Even traditional users such as hunters and anglers 

increasingly appreciate the necessity of public lands for their activities. And yet, as 

pressures on land use have increased yearly, suspicion of the intentions of state and 

national government agencies remain. This essential tension between the National Park 

System and its various publics will continue to condition management decisions at the 

New River Gorge and its sister units into the next generation. 

 

147 Gary Hartley, interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

230 

2 

Figure 38. Rafters on the New River, just above Fayette Station Bridge, 2006. Photograph by 

Gregory A. Good 

Figure 39. Trails at the National River are clearly marked and generally in good repair, 2006. Photograph 

by Gregory A. Good. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

231 

Figure 40. The trails brochure for Canyon Rim, including Kaymoor area. Courtesy of New 

River Gorge National River. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

232 

Figure 41. Overview of the Endless Wall, from Cater, 1997, 34. Permission of the author. 

Figure 42. The Endless Wall, seen through the afternoon haze from the Kaymoor Trail, on the west side of the 

gorge, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

233 

Figure 43. Climbers' Trail, near Fayette Station, under the New River Gorge Bridge, 2006. Climbing areas often 

experience heavy trail erosion, which requires robust trail construction. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Recreation Drives the Park 

234 

Figure 44. A climbing route at the New River, traced in chalk, used by climbers to improve friction, 2006. 

Photograph by Gregory A. Good.
235 

CHAPTER EIGHT

WORKING WITH VISITORS

INTRODUCTION

When the New River Gorge National River was authorized in 1978, the visiting 

public consisted of two primary groups: traditional users (mostly local) and white water 

enthusiasts (largely coming from a distance). These two groups remained important 

through the 1980s and 90s and into the new century, but other visitors have joined them. 

New users have included rock climbers, hikers, and people interested in heritage 

tourism. Moreover, as private lands surrounding the park have moved progressively 

more toward second-home development and private hunt clubs, even traditional users 

such as hunters and anglers have adjusted both their attitudes toward the park and their 

activities. The Park Service staff has adjusted its policies and activities to meet these 

diverse needs. 

 As New River has developed, and as Gauley River and Bluestone River have 

claimed more attention of managers, policy issues have arisen over cultural and sporting 

events and the development of park facilities to accommodate large-scale park visitation. 

Certain locations attract the most visitors: visitor centers, put-in/take-out points on the 

New and Gauley Rivers, and former state parks that were incorporated into the park in 

the 1980s and 1990s, for example. This chapter explores the dynamics of policy 

development and conflict resolution concerning issues like placement of visitor centers 

such as Canyon Rim, the construction of stairs and overlooks at Canyon Rim, the 

boardwalk at Sandstone Falls, and determining functions of those facilities. Other issues 

have surrounded Bridge Day, the biggest event of the year at the park. The festival’s 

development, legal questions about BASE-jumping and bridge trespass, and questions 

about allowing pedestrians on the catwalk under the bridge have all been controversial. 

BASE-jumping involves individuals with parachutes, jumping from fixed objects, such as 

the New River Gorge Bridge. Other “extreme sports” have become more and more 

popular in the park since the 1990s and have stretched the efforts of law enforcement 

and visitor services more each year. 

 Other large crowd events include Theatre West Virginia at former Grandview State 

Park (now simply Grandview) every summer. The transfer of Grandview to Park Service 

authority presented (and still presents) administrative challenges. Lastly, access by car 

within the park has been difficult since the park was created in 1978. Although tourists 

can motor through the park following an “auto-tour,” roads on the steep sides of the 
Working with Visitors 

236 

gorge are difficult to maintain and the as-yet uncompleted New River Parkway along 

S.R. 26 (River Road), which passes by Sandstone Falls, has been very controversial. 

 These issues provide the major contexts within which the Park Service has 

addressed issues of mass tourism. The completion of I-64, foreseen when the park was 

created in 1978, would surely increase the number of tourists, at the same time that 

sporting and cultural events were being developed by NPS, the West Virginia governor 

and state Division of Highways, and Theatre West Virginia. Long-term goals for landbased recreation, and the means to achieve them, had to be planned. First efforts in this 

direction, laid out in the 1983 General Management Plan, set the stage for many more 

decisions.1 

 The NPS planned in the GMP to facilitate mass tourism through combined federal, 

state, and private developments. Private developers were to be responsible for providing 

lodging. The automobile continued to be the major mode of access to New River Gorge. 

Initially the park planned the most use for the park’s northern end because of better 

roads there, but the completion of I-64 made the southern end more accessible.2

 NPS 

planned to use the Thurmond-to-Prince Road through Thayer and the former 

McKendree Hospital site (the McKendree Road, S.R. 25) for inner gorge sightseeing. It 

also planned to develop Canyon Rim, Fayette Station, and other areas for picnicking, 

fishing, and sightseeing.3

 But the 1983 GMP left many issues of mass tourism unresolved. 

This chapter addresses the history of these issues. 

CANYON RIM VISITOR CENTER 

 One of the first issues the Park Service addressed after New River received 

National River designation was placement of visitor centers and contact stations. In 

April 1980, West Virginia DOH informed NPS that the WV DNR would no longer 

supervise the Canyon Rim site, a property owned by DOH. DNR also withdrew its 

previous plans to acquire land and develop a state park in the vicinity. NPS responded 

that preliminary planning reports indicated the site was the best location in the National 

River for providing information about the park and services and facilities for the 

traveling public.4

 

 The Acting Regional Director of the National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Region, 

James W. Coleman, Jr., urged DOH Commissioner Charles L. Miller to donate the land 

 

1

 NPS, General Management Plan Summary and Summary of Public Response to Draft Plan, 1983. 2 GMP, 20. 3 GMP, 20. 4

 Letter, James W. Coleman Jr. (Acting Regional Director, NPS Mid-Atlantic Region) to Charles L. 

Miller (Commissioner, WVDOH), April 11, 1980. 
Working with Visitors 

237 

to NPS for developing a visitor contact station on the site.5 In late April, 1980, 

Commissioner Miller indicated that DOH favored the land transfer. DOH Right-of-Way 

Division then developed a donation deed and agreement and donated the ten-acre 

property.6

 

 In 1983, NPS established a rudimentary visitor center on the site. The facility 

included two pre-fabricated buildings: a small visitor center in one, basic restroom 

facilities in the other. The site included three overlook platforms, allowing visitors a view 

of the gorge and bridge. The center primarily oriented and informed travelers on US 19 

about regional attractions, park activities, and the location of facilities.7

 

 By 1987, the Park Service realized that the Canyon Rim facility was inadequate. 

Over 177,000 people visited the center that year for information and the view. 

Inadequate water supply and sewage treatment especially concerned NPS. The existing 

sewage system only had a capacity of 6,000 gallons per day, and water was trucked in for 

sanitary use. There was no drinking water.8

 

 The NPS released a new Draft Development Concept Plan for public review in June 

1988, drawn up by the Denver Service Center. It sent releases to local news media about 

the study and mailed 125 copies to agencies, groups, and individuals on the Park Service 

mailing list. NPS held a public meeting on June 30 at the Chamber of Commerce Office 

in Oak Hill and between 35 and 40 people attended.9

 

 The meeting described the NPS process used to create the four alternatives offered 

and why the Park Service favored Alternative B. The plan included an 8,700-square-foot 

visitor center with orientation information, interpretative exhibits, audiovisual 

programs, a bookstore, office space, and restrooms.10 There would be an 80-seat 

auditorium and alcoves for films. In fall 1989, NPS awarded a $5.3 million contract to 

Corte Construction Services of Bluefield, Virginia, the same firm hired to build the park 

headquarters in Glen Jean. Outside facilities would include more restrooms, parking 

spaces for 160 vehicles, a picnic area, walkway, and new overlook platforms.11 

 On May 23, 1991, the new center opened to the public (Figure 1). Celebrations 

included special displays and working exhibits. U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd and James 

M. Ridenour, Director of the National Park Service, participated in the opening.12

Senator Byrd’s presence indicated both his involvement and how much importance he 

saw in the national river. Local artisans and craftspeople displayed their products. 

 

5

 Letter, Coleman to Miller, April 11, 1980. 

6

 Letter, Miller to Coleman, April 23, 1980, MPF, Files 1977-1988, A44. 7

 NPS, Draft Development Concept Plan [Canyon Rim Visitor Center], 1988, 3. 8

 NPS, Draft Development Concept Plan [Canyon Rim Visitor Center], 6. 9

 NPS, Development Concept Plan: Public Reponses, 1. 10 NPS, Development Concept Plan, 29. 11 “Visitor Center Contract for $5.3 Million Let,” Fayette Tribune, October 5, 1989. 12 James M. Ridenour, The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics & America’s Treasures.

Merrillville, IN: ICS Books, Inc., 1994, pp. 81-89. 
Working with Visitors 

238 

Despite the celebration, there was some opposition to the project. One particular skeptic 

labeled the facility “an over-priced rest stop.”13 Others felt that by creating such an 

impressive, durable, and functional information center, NPS had shown more than 

simple “good faith” in their treatment of the New River Gorge. Canyon Rim represented 

a Park Service belief in the importance of the river and its lasting commitment to the 

preservation of the gorge.14 Indeed, Canyon Rim Visitor Center received a design award 

for its architecture. Built of sandstone and red oak, it was meant to harmonize with the 

landscape of the gorge (Figures 2 and 3). 

SANDSTONE FALLS

The acquisition of Sandstone Falls and Grandview State Parks as donations from 

the State of West Virginia both resulted from construction of I-64 and the proposed New 

River Parkway. In 1975, Sandstone Falls had been included in a planned 50,000-acre 

scenic corridor on the New River between Bluestone Dam and Gauley Bridge. A fourmonth study, conducted by the Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, indicated that 

the area did not qualify either as a national park or national recreation area.15 In the 

1970s West Virginia designated Sandstone Falls as a 110-acre state park and developed 

riverfront, day-use, and picnic facilities. When Public Law 95-625 authorized New River 

in 1978, Section 1102(a) enabled possible donation of state-owned land, including 

Sandstone Falls, into the park.16

Noting Sandstone Falls’ high scenic significance, in 1985 NPS requested the state 

to allow them control of the park. NPS wished to bring the property up to Park Service 

standards. In a letter in March 1985, Douglas D. Ritchey, Superintendent of Pipestem 

State Park, expressed his pleasure to his regional director about a meeting he had with 

NPS staff, which produced a cooperative agreement on the park.17 The state agreed to a 

one-year lease with NPS to allow improvements at Sandstone Falls before final NPS 

acquisition occurred. Work was to be completed before coal miners’ vacations in 

summer 1985. The DNR supported the transfer and called for more money to be 

budgeted toward the improvements to help prevent vandalism and littering, serious 

problems at the park. 

In the late 1980s, park Superintendent Joe Kennedy proposed that the Park 

Service locate the visitor center for the southern half of the national river at Sandstone 

Falls. The remains of the raceway of the early nineteenth-century Richmond Grist Mill 

 

13 “Canyon Rim,” Register-Herald, May 25, 1991. 14 “Canyon Rim.” 

15 “Sandstone Park Included in New River Gorge Plan,” Hinton Daily News, January 9, 1975. 16 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 17 Letter, Superintendent Pipestem State Park to District Administrator, West Virginia, March 15, 1985, 

“Sandstone Falls State Park,” Main Park Files Box 2, File A44. 
Working with Visitors 

239 

are at the Falls. According to Lorrie Sprague, whose husband, Duncan Holler, was a 

ranger in the south district of the park at the time, there was a “palace revolt.” The other 

staff at the park staunchly opposed a visitor center in the environmentally sensitive 

area.18 The Flat Rock plant community took priority and Kennedy backed down. 

 In 1991 the Environmental Assessment-Proposed Boardwalk and Trail Construction, 

Sandstone Falls, New River Gorge National River-Draft (NPS D-58) was prepared by the 

NPS Denver Service Center. The plan provided four alternatives for allowing access to 

the falls while providing suitable spots for viewing. NPS opened a public comment 

period to June 15, 1991.19 Following the comment period, alternative two was selected. 

The plan called for construction of a bridge between the parking lot and the first of two 

islands. An existing boardwalk would then extend to a viewing platform on the second 

island (Figures 4, 5, and 6).20 

The boardwalk’s easy accessibility provided the best viewing opportunity while 

reducing visitors’ desires to wander onto the islands, possibly damaging rare plants and 

riparian habitat. The design of the handrails also discouraged wandering. Still, NPS 

realized that some visitors would cross to the fifth island to gain a better view of the falls 

(Figure 7) and to fish the riverbanks.21

The Park Service approached the project carefully. Prior to construction, NPS 

and the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program surveyed the boardwalk alignment to 

prevent disturbance of state record trees and rare plants. All materials were transported 

to the new site using the existing boardwalk and the proposed new boardwalk alignment. 

To protect rare species, heavy equipment was prohibited on the islands. Construction 

occurred during low-water periods and silt fences and hay bales minimized runoff. NPS 

was also concerned that the viewing platform on the second island not be visually 

intrusive to canoeists, boaters, and those viewing the falls from the S.R. 20 overlook. 

Hence the platform was situated under the existing tree canopy and surrounded by trees. 

Sandstone Falls today has this viewing platform and boardwalk, a protected Flat Rock 

plant community, interpretive signage, fishing, picnic areas, and the remnant of a mill 

race, which Chief Justice Marshall documented on his 1814 map. 

 

18 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 19 Clif Bobinski, Planning Documents Report for New River Gorge National River, August 16, 2004, 22. 20 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 22. 21 National Park Service, Environmental Assessment: Proposed Boardwalk and Trail Construction, 

Sandstone Falls, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia (Denver: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, April, 1991), 11. 
Working with Visitors 

240 

NEW RIVER GORGE BRIDGE

The New River Gorge Bridge reduced the travel time across the gorge from fortyfive minutes down and up narrow winding roads to less than two minutes.22 Inevitably, 

such a dramatic bridge (Figures 8 and 9)—876 feet above the river, spanning the gorge in 

one, 1700-foot long, graceful arch—was bound to attract attention.23 Governor John D. 

Rockefeller IV presided over the official opening on October 22, 1977. The bridge was 

closed to traffic to allow thousands of visitors a chance to enjoy the view and inspect the 

bridge more closely.24 Although this was meant to happen just once, Bridge Day was so 

popular that it became an annual event. 

The first official Bridge Day was celebrated in Fayetteville on November 8, 1980. 

Although people had “BASE jumped” from the bridge surreptitiously and unofficially 

since 1979, parachutists became “official” on that day. In 1979, two parachutists jumped 

from an airplane onto the bridge, five parachutists jumped from the bridge into the 

gorge, and 5,500 certificates were given to people who took the 3,000-foot walk across 

the bridge.25 The festival is now celebrated on the third Saturday in October to 

commemorate the structure’s October 1977 completion.26 In over a quarter century, 

Bridge Day was cancelled only in 2001, because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

Each year Bridge Day has grown in popularity. The event has not only become 

West Virginia’s largest one-day festival, but also one of America’s top one hundred 

festivals. According to Chief Ranger Gary Hartley, interviewed in 2004, about 100,000 

people have attended the event annually since 2001. The only change when Bridge Day 

returned in 2002 was that no traffic was permitted to cross the bridge during the event. 

The bridge also has enjoyed the distinction for more than 25 years of being one of 

only a few legal BASE jumping sites in the country. Members of BASE, a national jump 

group, hold their annual convention there. In 1981, 28 rappellers and 10 parachutists 

participated in the event. By 1984, 300 hundred BASE members had leapt from the 

bridge, and in 1986, an additional 100 participated. People now come from the world 

over to jump.27 

Pursuant to federal regulations, National Park Service Policy usually prohibits 

BASE jumping in its parks, but it is legal at the New River. In an interview with the head 

of park enforcement, Chief Ranger Gary Hartley explained this situation. In 2001, when 

park officials signed management policies, BASE-jumping was included despite Park 

 

22 http://www.officialbridgeday.com/facts.html. 23 The total bridge length is 3030 feet. 

24 http://members.citynet.net/skydiver/. This site, maintained by an early BASE jumper (Jerry Waters), 

differs in a few details from the “official” site. 25 http://www.officialbridgeday.com/facts.html. 26 http://www.nps.gov/neri/bridgeday.htm. 27 http://www.officialbridgeday.com/facts.html. 
Working with Visitors 

241 

Service policy. This action sparked an investigation. But federal regulations included a 

clause stating that BASE-jumping could be sanctioned if the park superintendent issued a 

permit. Park officials drew up a proposal pointing this out to NPS officials. Hartley said 

that when notified, the Park Service director immediately issued a waiver specifically 

allowing BASE-jumping at New River Gorge, but on Bridge Day only.28 

Even though the Park Service is inextricably tied to the festival, the bridge and 

event both fall under the jurisdiction of the WV DOH. But planning is a logistical 

nightmare and takes the combined efforts of NPS, state and local police, WV DOH, fire 

and rescue units, and local planning groups including Fayette Chamber of Commerce 

and Bridge Day Commission.29 

Hundreds of jumpers arrive at the festival intending to make as many jumps as 

possible over the six hours allotted. Jumpers who make a safe, dry landing, travel up the 

Fayette Station Road as fast as possible to stand in line to jump again.30 Because of this, 

conflicts between user groups have arisen. Jumpers’ needs have conflicted with the 

rafting companies, nearly 30 in all, who vie for use of the crowded narrow road to 

capitalize on the day’s activities by getting more rafters to the river. And both groups 

have conflicted with Park Service and police search and rescue efforts.31 To compound 

the problem, there have been drivers crossing the bridge who inadvertently were caught 

in traffic jams on U.S. 19. In addition, coordinating the needs of dozens of rappellers 

hanging from the bridge for the day has had to be figured in.32 

In 1983, the death of a 25-year-old U.S. Army officer threatened Bridge Day’s future. 

A jumper had missed the river and landed on the rocks in 1980 and was treated for facial 

lacerations, but prior to the 1983 death, the only other bridge-related fatality was a 

suicide. On the October 9th Bridge Day, Second Lieutenant Michael Glenn Williams 

(from Alabama) jumped from the bridge. Witnesses said Williams opened both his main 

and emergency parachutes before hitting the water. The duel deployment indicated a 

problem. The river’s current then dragged the two full canopies downstream, trailing the 

man behind for nearly a mile before rescue workers could reach him.33 A paramedic 

watching the incident said that at some point the victim submerged beneath the 

parachutes. The water dragged him under for nearly fifteen minutes.34 Williams’ death 

prompted WV DOH to consider banning jumping. And when legal questions arose after 

jump rules and DOH examined its policies, Gary Chernenko, DOH spokesman, offered 

the department’s position in a Register-Herald interview: 

 

28 Gary Hartley, Chief of Enforcement, NERI, Interviewed June 22, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 

29 Susan Williams, “Bridge Day Planners Juggle Jumpers, Rafters, Traffic Needs,” Charleston Gazette,

September 16, 1993. 

30 Williams, “Bridge Day Planners Juggle Jumpers.” 

31 Williams, “Bridge Day Planners Juggle Jumpers.” 

32 Williams, “Bridge Day Planners Juggle Jumpers.” 

33 Tom Kukucka, “Bridge Parachutist Drowns After Jump,” Charleston Gazette-Mail, October 9, 1983. 34 Terri Thornton, “DOH Eyes Ways to Halt Bridge Jumps,” Register-Herald, October 12, 1983. 
Working with Visitors 

242 

We [the DOH] have never sanctioned it [BASE jumping] and we have been opposed to 

it ever since the trend caught on. I understand they [jumpers] do it when it’s not Bridge 

Day. But we’re not a police agency. We don’t have any powers of arrest.35 

The Register-Herald article echoed Chernenko’s concerns regarding legal jurisdiction. 

Staff writer Terri Thornton noted that although state laws prohibit bridge trespass, each 

year police bent the rules by closing off one lane of the bridge to vehicular traffic. 

Thornton maintained that this allowed thousands of people free trespass, thus providing 

anyone the opportunity to surreptitiously jump.36 

Within a week of the tragedy, Governor Rockefeller said he would consider 

introducing legislation to ban parachuting during Bridge Day. He issued an 

announcement, saying: 

It’s true that 400 or so people jumped [last Saturday] and that some people even came 

from foreign countries to jump...and that that’s a scene of an incredible jumping 

opportunity, but there was a tragedy, there were the injuries...I feel I have a human and 

moral responsibility on this...a sense of watching over things.37 

The governor acknowledged that outlawing parachuting entirely might harm the festival, 

since BASE-jumping was its biggest attraction. “It’s a difficult relation,” he said. “A lot of 

people come to watch just that.”38 But some festival planners saw no problem with the 

activity. 

Doug Maddy, director of the Fayette/Plateau Chamber of Commerce, stated he saw 

nothing wrong with bridge jumping and resented how the press and broadcast media 

had covered the tragedy. “We had a tragic thing happen on Saturday. There’s no doubt 

about it...but all they [journalists] could talk about was this bad aspect of this grand and 

glorious event.”39 In an interview with the Register-Herald, Maddy cited one story 

reporting both the drowning and the death of a 15-year-old boy in a hunting accident in 

Wyoming County: 

If sky-divers are stopped, it would be like trying to stop people from hunting, or white 

water rafting, or canoeing. Hunting is dangerous. Should we outlaw hunting? Canoeing 

is dangerous. The New River is dangerous. People have a certain amount of freedom to 

do things that they want to do...These people absolutely love what they are doing. It’s a 

sport just like deer hunting. I’ve got an enormous amount of remorse that someone 

died. But I feel terrible about this 15-year-old boy being killed squirrel hunting.40 

Contrary to Doug Maddy’s assertion, not all newspapers gave Bridge Day bad press. 

Charles Conner, publisher of the Register-Herald, agreed with Maddy about BASE-

 

35 Thornton, “DOH Eyes Ways to Halt Bridge Jumps” 36 Thornton, “DOH Eyes Ways to Halt Bridge Jumps.” 37 Bob Stiegel, “Rockefeller May Consider Ban on Jumps,” Register-Herald, October 14, 1983. 38 Stiegel, “Rockefeller May Consider Ban on Jumps.” 

39 Terri Thornton, “DOH Eyes Ways to Halt Bridge Jumps,” Register-Herald, October 12, 1983. 40 Doug Maddy, “Publisher’s View, Let the Skydivers Jump,” Register-Herald, November 22, 1983. 
Working with Visitors 

243 

jumping. In a November 1983 editorial entitled “Let the Sky Divers Jump,” Conner 

pointed out that when a young schoolteacher drowned while rafting down the New 

River several years before, no controversy followed. In the article, he asked and 

answered his own question. 

Did anyone suggest that whitewater be banned? No. Everyone who pays for the 

privilege of this big thrill knows that risk is involved...As for risk, we put our lives on 

the line every time we drive to Charleston on the West Virginia Turnpike. We do it so 

often though, that we are accustomed to the risk.41 

Maddy’s and Conner’s comments were not taken lightly. Everyone knew that Bridge Day 

brought thousands of people to the park. The influx of tourists brought business to the 

rafting companies, restaurants, bars, retail stores, hotels, and other businesses. Banning 

the event would have been an enormous blow to the festival and to the local economy. 

 Governor Rockefeller scheduled a meeting with DOH Commissioner Charles 

Miller, but the Commissioner had already met with DOH staff lawyers. They interpreted 

state code on trespassing as sufficient to preclude jumping off the bridge. They reasoned 

that even though there was no state law prohibiting jumping, walking on the bridge was 

illegal. DOH spokesman Gary Chernenko reiterated that the DOH had opposed bridge 

jumping from the beginning, but had no enforcement powers to prevent it, relying 

instead on police for enforcement.42 

 The DOH, however, did not prevail. At Bridge Day in 1984, the Register Herald

reported 100,000 spectators and 200 jumpers. Jump magazine reported 248 registered 

jumpers. Since 2001, this celebration has broadened to include “Taste of Bridge Day” 

and other events in nearby Fayetteville.43 In 2005, 829 jumps occurred and television 

networks broadcast the event live to over a million viewers.44

 The possibility of providing visitor access under the New River Bridge was 

included in the land-based recreation plans outlined in the 1983 GMP.

45 NPS suggested 

using the catwalk underneath the bridge as another vantage point for inner gorge 

sightseeing. It planned to investigate the matter further, but made no progress through 

the 1980s and 1990s. In 2000, Matthew Darpli, an Oak Hill resident and owner of Bridge 

Climb USA, proposed offering guided walks under the bridge. Darpli argued that a 

company in Australia provided such tours across the arches of Sydney Harbor Bridge 

with tremendous success. The 9/11 terrorist destruction of New York’s World Trade 

Towers in 2001, however, changed perspectives on this idea. Access under the bridge 

became a security matter. Nevertheless, Darpli returned in 2002 proposing guided walks 

for a fee of $60.00 per person. He also proposed offering souvenirs and photo 

 

41 Maddy, “Publisher’s View, Let the Skydivers Jump.” 42 Terri Thornton, “DOH Unable to Halt Jumps From Bridge,” Register-Herald, October 20, 1983. 43 See: http://www.bridgeday.info/. Site maintained by jumpers. 

44 http://www.bridgeday.info/. 

45 GMP, 20. 
Working with Visitors 

244 

opportunities. Tour groups of twenty people would cross the catwalk with two guides 

per group.46 

 Darpli’s estimated yearly profits of between $700,000 and $1,300,000 sparked 

interest among Fayette County politicians. He had not included sharing of revenue with 

the state or county. Delegate John Pino (D-Fayette County) met with Deputy Highway 

Commissioner Norman Roush to discuss the enterprise. In addition to the revenue issue, 

Pino expressed concerns about safety, liability, and security. Nothing, however, has 

come of this proposal. Still, the view of the gorge and the New River Bridge from Canyon 

Rim provide the most popular single sight in the park. 

GRANDVIEW AND THEATRE WEST VIRGINIA

 Grandview, formerly a state park established in 1939, sits on the canyon rim 

overlooking the New River, 1400 feet above Prince and Quinnimont, in the middle of 

the gorge (Figures 10 and 11). The rocks and spectacular Rhododendron blooms 

attracted local picnickers for decades before this part of the New River Gorge rim 

became a state park. Hikers roamed its five miles of foot trails. In the 1960s, Grandview’s 

Cliffside Amphitheatre began hosting annual, summer, outdoor dramas: “Honey in the 

Rock” and “Hatfields and McCoys.” These plays, operated by Theatre West Virginia, 

became very popular tourist draws after the opening of I-64 in the 1980s.47 The state park 

also had playgrounds, a ball field, overlooks, maintenance facilities, a ranger station, and 

exhibits. 

 In 1990, NPS added the 890-acre park to New River. Although not included in the 

1982 GMP, it was within the original park boundary. One of the state’s most popular 

parks, the facility was nonetheless failing due to inadequate state funding. The state’s 

donation of Grandview to the Park Service was not easy and was the subject of much 

public debate. Proposed NPS control of the park and construction of new visitor 

facilities alarmed some citizens.48 Throughout 1989, state and NPS representatives 

discussed the acquisition with the public. 

 Newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and editorials offered opposing views of 

NPS management of Grandview. Some felt Grandview was one of the state’s best 

facilities and should be retained, but others pointed to needed maintenance of 

infrastructure. NPS control would transfer the financial burden for upkeep from state to 

federal government.49 Further controversy arose over a proposal to donate the park to 

 

46 Fanny Seiler, “Legislators Question Gorge Catwalk Plan,” Charleston Gazette, March 14, 2002. 47 “Grandview State Park Transferred from State of West Virginia to the National Park Service,” June 

29, 1990. Main Park Files, Box 33, File D18 Grandview. 

48 Main Park Files, Box 61, File D18. Summary iii-16, page iii. 49 “Question and Answer Responses,” Register-Herald, March 22, 1989. 
Working with Visitors 

245 

the NPS. Many people felt that donation would be unfair to the state’s citizens. The NPS 

had paid large sums of money to some private landowners for the acquisition of park 

property, and people felt that since the state was impoverished, the Park Service should 

pay for Grandview, too. 

 However, a clause in Public Law 95-625 specified that: “Lands owned by the State 

of West Virginia or a political subdivision thereof may be acquired by donation only.”50

Local representatives endorsed donation of the park to promote Theatre West Virginia’s 

popular productions. NPS initially agreed to lease the amphitheater to Theatre West 

Virginia for one dollar per year for twenty years.51 State Senator Tracy Hylton (DRaleigh County) sponsored Senate Bill 3 to enact this agreement and Delegate Jack Roop 

(D-Raleigh County) helped Hylton introduce it into the House, with support from the 

Natural Resources Commerce Committee.52 The bill cleared this committee on March 

17, 1989, but then had to pass through other committees before going to the full 

chamber. The Senate Natural Resources Committee approved it, followed by the 

Finance Committee. The idea appealed to the Finance Committee because it would save 

the state more than $100,000 a year. The main obstacle was an agreement with Theatre 

West Virginia, but after several revisions, a lease acceptable to all parties was finally 

negotiated.53 

 During the spring of 1989, Governor Gaston Caperton signed the bill, enabling the 

transfer of Grandview. The governor was not convinced the plan was sound, so the bill 

included a provision giving the state a year to investigate the idea.54 The state called a 

public hearing to discuss the transfer. More than forty residents attended. Some citizens 

expressed concerns regarding NPS management policies, but few opposed the plan.55

Delegate Roop and Senator Hylton pointed out that the transfer would promote greater 

employment and economic growth.56 

 Many citizens in favor of NPS control agreed with Roop and Hylton, and 

compared the proposed progress at Grandview with the progress made at Canyon Rim 

Visitor Center. Local residents wanted basic modern facilities, including running water 

and upgraded sewage.57 They felt that federal administration of Grandview would 

increase tourism.58 

 

50 U.S. Congress, Public Law 95-625, Section 102 (a), Congressional Record, November 10, 1978, 3547. 51 Howard C. Mayes, “Why ‘Give’ Grandview to National Park Service?” Register-Herald, March 8, 

1989. 

52 Debra Legg, “Senate Still Probing Grandview Transfer,” Register-Herald, March 16, 1989. 53 Debra Legg, “Senate Committee Approves Transfer of Grandview Bill,” Register-Herald, March 17, 

1989. 

54 Debra Legg, “Caperton Signs Park Bill,” Register-Herald, April 27, 1989. 55 “Senate Still Probing,” Register-Herald, March 16, 1989. 56 Brian Bowling, “Friendly Grandview Hearing a Break for Officials,” Register-Herald, December 14, 

1989. 

57 Lorraine Carper, “Grandview Would Benefit Under NPS,” Register-Herald, April 12, 1989. 58 “Q & A Responses,” Register-Herald, March 22, 1989. 
Working with Visitors 

246 

 In March 1990, Hylton and Roop successfully pushed the legislation allowing 

transfer of Grandview to NPS. 59 As part of the plan, West Virginia’s Department of 

Commerce operated the park until September 30, 1990, with the Park Service assuming 

management responsibility on October 30.60 The superintendent of Grandview State 

Park, Hunter Boggs, was hired to work for NPS in the same capacity after the transfer. 

 After the transfer, park Superintendent Joe Kennedy improved safety and 

maintenance practices at the park. His first priorities were facilities at Theatre West 

Virginia, including wiring and plumbing. Kennedy’s concerns were not unfounded. On 

October 27, 1990, a fire caused by faulty electrical wiring in the concessions area 

destroyed about two-thirds of the amphitheater’s bleachers, its roof, the main ticket area, 

and the visitor center. Losses were estimated at $300,000, including damage to the sound 

and lighting systems and concession equipment.61 Almost at once, controversy arose 

over insurance coverage because of the transfer from state to federal administration. 

Regardless, repairs began immediately. NPS and Theatre West Virginia officials 

expressed the hope that the amphitheater would open in time for the 1991 season.62 

 The real property losses from the fire totaled $197,000. The insurance company 

offered $100,000. Following legal counsel, Theatre West Virginia accepted the payment. 

Neither the transfer agreement nor the lease adequately addressed insurance matters. 

Some park officials questioned whether Theatre West Virginia could legally act as an 

agent for the federal government in accepting the offer. It was also unclear if the federal 

government was obligated to try to recover the $97,000 shortfall. The park sent the 

questions to the Regional Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region.63 A central question was 

how such issues would be addressed in the future. 

 The Park Service initiated a planning effort to resolve this and other matters at 

Grandview. In October 1993, the Park Service released the Draft Development Concept 

Plan, Environmental Assessment, Interpretive Prospectus: Grandview, New River Gorge 

National River, West Virginia. The plan offered five alternatives. The no-action 

alternative continued to operate Grandview as it had been. The second alternative 

focused on up-grading visitor facilities and establishing a cultural heritage program with 

an interpretive staff. It also up-graded park infrastructure. Alternative three focused on 

developing Grandview’s infrastructure: a new roof on the Cliffside amphitheater, road 

improvements, and offices and space for interpretive rangers. The fourth alternative 

called for upgrading infrastructure and for constructing a cultural heritage center for 

 

59 Bill Byrd, “Grandview Transfer,” Register-Herald, March 9, 1990. 60 “Grandview State Park Transferred from State of West Virginia to the National Park Service,” June 

29, 1990. Main Park Files, Box 33, File D18 Grandview. 

61 “Grandview State Park Transferred.” 

62 Dawn C. Wolfe, “Theater group Unclear About Damage Coverage for Grandview Facility,” RegisterHerald, December 28, 1990. 63 Memorandum, Superintendent, NERI, to Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, June 27, 1991. 

Main Park Files, Box 42, D18 Grandview. 
Working with Visitors 

247 

interpretation of central Appalachian culture. The fifth alternative would have made 

Grandview the central location for support for cultural activities there and around the 

park, along with improvements to infrastructure.64 

 The final plan combined elements of alternatives 2 and 4 offered in the Draft 

Grandview Plan. NPS delayed action on the proposal until Tamarack Arts and Crafts 

Center near Beckley had completed its first full year of operation in June, 1997. The final 

Development Concept Plan, Interpretive Prospectus, Environmental Assessment: 

Grandview, New River Gorge National River, West Virginia, (DCP/IP/EA) was released in 

March 1999. The final plan called for expanded, improved visitor facilities and 

infrastructure and for additional staff to operate a visitor contact station, improvements 

to the trail system, and installation of a 12-kilovolt power line.65 According to Peggy 

Maddy, Superintendent Kennedy envisioned a cultural center for Appalachian crafts at 

Grandview.66

 As of 2004, a sewage treatment facility had been constructed for Grandview 

Theatre, but the rest of the park remained on the old septic system. The park has resurfaced the parking areas and upgraded the administrative road. The trail system 

remains unimproved, and presently, no action has been taken on the power line. 

PARK ACCESS AND THE NEW RIVER PARKWAY

 The development of I-64 greatly eased access to the park. NPS intended to use the 

Interstate to its advantage within the park, even if it meant acquiring more land outside 

park boundaries. The development of better park access also appealed to some citizens, 

who believed roads used by nearby residents would be improved. 

 In 1985, residents of Raleigh and Summers Counties formed a locally based 

committee to oversee the planning of a scenic route between the I-64 interchange at 

Sandstone and Pipestem State Park. Bill Brezinski, a Summers County businessman, 

chaired the committee and strongly advocated the parkway.67 On May 2, 1985, Governor 

Arch Moore signed West Virginia House Bill 4353, formally creating New River Parkway 

Authority (NRPA). The legislation called for the authority to coordinate with 

governmental agencies, public and private corporations, organizations, and individuals 

to implement projects designed to improve public access, encourage tourism, and 

enhance the beauty of the valley. 

 

64 NPS, Draft Development Concept Plan: Environmental Assessment, Interpretive Prospectus, Library, 

New River Gorge National River, October, 1993, 50-57. 65 Bobinski, Planning Documents, 19-20. 66 Peggy Maddy, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 67 Bob Stiegel, “Parkway Committee Proposed,” Register-Herald, February 6, 1985. 
Working with Visitors 

248 

 NPS gave $40,000 to the newly formed NRPA to develop plans for the new road. 

Summers and Raleigh Counties provided office space and furniture. In September 1986, 

NRPA met in Hinton to develop a concept document. When they formulated the plan, I64 was still under construction. Authority members believed that completion of the 

Interstate would provide the opportunity to add a park-like road along the river, taking 

advantage of the area’s recreational, scenic, and cultural resources. More importantly, it 

believed the Parkway would increase jobs and bring economic development to the 

area.68 In 1987, the federal government authorized $17.6 million more for NRPA to 

design and construct the New River Parkway as a demonstration project. The state was 

to provide 20 percent of this sum.69

 Early in the study, NRPA considered preferences of affected landowners and the 

number of tourists likely to use the road. They also analyzed the project’s possible 

economic impact on state parks and Hinton and its effects on scenic and environmental 

qualities in the interchange area. 70 An archeological and historical baseline study was 

undertaken.71 NRPA completed its initial work in 1987 and released the New River 

Parkway Concept Plan. It recommended a touring parkway designed to encourage 

tourism-related development, while maintaining the rural character and private landownership patterns along the parkway route. In order to preserve the rural flavor, the 

plan recommended retaining the narrow road and meandering curves that molded it to 

the landscape. The authority felt this would encourage drivers to proceed at a more 

leisurely pace.72 The proposed route ran from I-64, crossing over the New River to S.R. 

26, or River Road, to WV 20 south to Pipestem and beyond.73 

 The plan proposed that WV DOH engineer the parkway and determine its design 

and location. In 1988, DOH presented its evaluations to NRPA. DOH suggested three 

alignments. The plan included two 50 mph designs and a 40 mph alternative. Each plan 

had advantages and disadvantages, but all three disrupted the natural terrain and 

wandered far from the project’s initial intent.74 

 Public outcry was swift. By mid-1988, citizens expressed concerns that DOH had 

transformed the original plan into an entirely new project designed to wipe out as many 

 

68 “New River Parkway Concept Plan,” MPF, Box 2, September, 1986. 69 “The New River Parkway: A Good Idea Gone Wrong,” Highlands Voice, January 1991, 8. 70 Fred Long, “New River Parkway Road Development Begins, $40,000 Award to Finance Study,” 

Hinton News, September 17, 1985. 71 C. Whyte Jr. C. Preliminary Archeological Survey New River Parkway Raleigh and Summers County, 

West Virginia (Charleston, WV: West Virginia Depratment of Highways and Federal Highways 

Administration, 1991). Another study was done a few years later: Michael Baker Jr. Cultural Resources 

Draft Technical Report for the Proposed New River Parkway Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Interstate 64 to Hinton, 3 vols. (Blacksburg VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1996). 72 “A Good Idea Gone Wrong,” Highlands Voice, 8. 73 Teresa Swartz Roberts, “Residents Fear Loss of Homes to Parkway Route,” Register-Herald, July 22, 

1988, 1-2. 

74 “A Good Idea Gone Wrong,” Highlands Voice, 8. 
Working with Visitors 

249 

residents as possible.75 This public mistrust fueled the simultaneous controversy about 

transfer of Grandview State Park to NPS. Citizens fighting federal administration of the 

park and the parkway felt the federal government already had enough control in the 

area. People feared for their private lands. Earnest Matheny responded with sarcasm to a 

Register-Herald question on the matter of NPS land acquisition generally: 

Hooray for our great representatives—the same kind gave away the Panama Canal, so 

why not West Virginia? Its [sic] just part of the great state we love and hold dear...Why 

can’t the people see what they are doing to us and our state? No, don’t give it 

[Grandview] to the feds. Let’s keep it where it belongs. Keep it here where all of us can 

say it belongs to us.76 

Matheny’s concern for the loss of Grandview to federal control echoed the sentiments 

now shared by many residents regarding DOH’s parkway plan. In July 1988 a group of 

residents formed Citizens Concerned about River Road (CCRR).77 The organization’s 

mission was two-fold: to review and fully understand DOH’s parkway drawings and to 

stop development that would negatively affect people. The group complained that the 

Park Service was using the parkway project as a tool to expedite the removal of 

residences along the route. Despite their accusations, they said they would rather see the 

NPS than the DOH or NRPA control the parkway.78 

 In July 1988 NRPA held a public meeting at Concord College in Athens. CCRR 

sent representatives and expressed their fears that the road would cut through their 

homes. James Flanagan, a member of CCRR, said, “We’re not against the parkway, we 

just don’t want our homes destroyed...We’re not against progress, but this isn’t 

progress, this is a nuisance.”79 He also expressed CCRR’s concerns that, no matter what 

the posted speed limit might be, so straight, level a roadway would encourage speeding 

and increased through-traffic. Drivers would prefer the scenic route to the curving, twolane WV 20, along the opposite mountain.80 

 Citizen complaints were not the only obstacle to the project. In early April 1989 the 

Department of the Interior sent DOH Commissioner Fred Van Kirk a letter expressing 

its concerns. The Department of the Interior wanted assurances that DOH would 

absolutely minimize deposition of fill into the New River and that the 40-mile alignment 

would follow existing contours to minimize impact to natural and cultural resources. 

 

75 Joyce Cooper, “Parkway,” Charleston Gazette, July 6, 1988, Main Park Files Box 8 File D18. 76 Earnest Matheny “Q & A Responses,” Register-Herald, March 22, 1989. 77 “A Good Idea Gone Wrong,” Highlands Voice, 8. 78 Memorandum, South District Ranger to Superintendent, NERI, “Concerning the organizational 

meeting of Citizens to Save,” Main Park Files Box 8 File D18, July 11, 1988. 79 “Residents Fear,” Register-Herald, July, 22, 1988, 2. 80 “A Good Idea Gone Wrong,” Highlands Voice, 8. 
Working with Visitors 

250 

Interior also said a limited access parkway that allowed maximum user access to the river 

was the most desirable option.81 

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criticized the project, too. EPA 

stated that the parkway might degrade an outstanding and unique natural resource and 

have negative social impacts. EPA engineers said the project as planned would involve 

extensive cut-and-fill areas even with moderate speed design, and this would violate 

EPA’s anti-degradation policies.82 

 Greene A. Jones (Director of Environmental Services Division at EPA) expressed 

these concerns to Colonel Thomas E. Farwell (District Engineer for the Huntington 

office of the Army Corps of Engineers) and offered three alternate solutions. 

EPA believes this project will yield significant environmental consequences to the New 

River Gorge ... EPA would likely recommend denial of any Section 10 or 404 permits 

that would be necessary to implement the proposed project as it is now designed...The 

ten mile stretch of the river that the proposed highway will impact is one of the most 

important natural resources in the state. This stretch of river supports a million dollar 

bait industry that in turn supports a highly productive and heavily utilized fresh water 

fishery...The New River is [also] known for its migratory duck populations, and its 

hillsides are renowned for their wild turkey populations...The topography and steep 

wooded hillsides make this an unusual and visually captivating area...The proposed 

project will have an adverse impact on this resource in several ways. First and foremost 

is the loss of riparian habitat and riffle and pool complex areas. These areas are 

proposed to be either cut or filled and replaced with highway surface or a steep rip-rap 

bank. Forested banks that provide shading to the near-shore area will be removed. 

Forested wetlands and aquatic habitat, including spawning, feeding, and nursery areas 

will be filled. The 404 (b) (1) guidelines clearly prohibit this type of activity where 

practicable...Secondary impacts will include higher traffic levels and greater emissions 

of hydrocarbons, CO2, NOx, and SOx. The higher traffic volume may result in more 

difficult and competing access conflicts for users of the river, especially during the 

spring and fall seasons...EPA believes practicable alternatives do exist.83 

Jones offered three alternatives the EPA felt would mitigate many of the negative 

environmental impacts. The no-build alternative avoided condemnation of houses and 

the danger of degradation to the natural and cultural resources. Alternative two called 

for a project utilizing the existing footprint and grading of Route 26. This would widen 

the paved road to two lanes and give it a parkway appearance while eliminating much of 

the cut and fill necessary in the DOH plan. The third alternative utilized Route 20 on the 

east side of the river. EPA preferred Alternative 3. The agency suggested that with some 

grading and overlook improvements, the road, which rises to 600 feet above the river at 

its northern end, would provide spectacular views of the gorge. Considerations of 

 

81 Letter, James W. Coleman, Jr. (Regional Director, NPS) to Fred Van Kirk (Commissioner, WV 

DOH), March 24, 1989, Main Park Files Box 33, File D18, four pages. 

82 Letter, Greene A. Jones (Director, Environmental Services Director, Environmental Protection 

Agency) to Colonel Thomas G. Farwell (District Engineer, Huntington Office, Army Corps of 

Engineers), MPF, Box 33, D18, April 6, 1989. 83 Letter, Jones to Farwell, April 6, 1989. 
Working with Visitors 

251 

through traffic at Hinton and of truck traffic also influenced EPA support of Alternative 

3. EPA believed alternatives existed to passing through Hinton, including terminating the 

scenic status of the highway at the town limits. Because DOH’s plan did not comply with 

Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and was inappropriate for thepark and the surrounding 

area, EPA recommended the Army Corps deny any permits stemming from the project.84 

 In March 1991, DOH Commissioner Van Kirk responded to a letter from Senator 

Robert Byrd’s office asking about progress on the parkway. Between 1989 and March 

1991, DOH had written an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project. The 

EIS thoroughly analyzed WV 20 as a possible location. Van Kirk rejected Route 20 as the 

best alternative and listed the following reasons. A railroad along the road severely 

restricted river access from WV 20, up-grading the road would cause a 30-mile detour to 

reach Hinton, and existing steep grades and sharp curves on WV 20 would be difficult 

for campers and travel trailers to negotiate. Van Kirk also wrote that there was 

insufficient river and floodplain access on that side of the river and that traffic would be 

forced to negotiate Hinton’s narrow, one-way streets to cross to the west side of the 

river. The EIS also stated WV 20 did not meet NPS’s definition of a parkway.85 NPS 

criteria required the road be designated for noncommercial, recreational use, avoid 

unsightly buildings and other roadside developments that marred WV 20, and bypass 

built-up communities to avoid congestion.86 

 In September, 1991, NRPA released its New River Parkway Concept Plan. The 

document resulted from their collaboration with VPI, Southern West Virginia Research 

Associates, and WV DOH. It proposed to “articulate the regional and national vision for 

the creation of a New River parkway from I-64 to Interstate 77 through the middle New 

River basin.”87 

 The plan followed eight objectives. First, it envisioned a cooperative venture 

among private and public interests at all levels of organization. Second, NRPA believed 

the road would bring economic development to the area. Third, it would improve public 

access to the river and other features while protecting property rights. Fourth, the 

parkway would fit “sensitively and harmoniously into the diverse landscapes of the 

region.” The last four goals involved protection and management of natural resources, 

protection and enhancement of aesthetic resources, protection and management of 

cultural and historic resources, and enhancement of recreational resources.88 

 In October 1993, Democratic Congressman Nick Rahall introduced legislation to 

facilitate the project into the US House of Representatives. Rahall feared that yet another 

 

84 Letter, Jones to Farwell, April 6, 1989. 85 New River Parkway Authority, New River Parkway Concept Plan, January 1991, 7. 86 Letter, Fred Van Kirk to Senator Robert C. Byrd, March 4, 1991, MPF, Box 43, File D18, 1-2. 87 NRPA, Parkway Concept Plan, 1. 88 NRPA, Parkway Concept Plan, 79-81. 
Working with Visitors 

252 

EIS would further delay the project.89 He could not have been more correct. Controversy 

followed both the legislation and the plan. Repeated project delays made some of the 

studies obsolete. Four years passed. In April 1997 the Hinton News reported preparation 

of another EIS, ten years after the project began. Proponents hoped that DOH could 

finish the Final Environmental Impact Statement, record of decision, final design, and 

land acquisition by spring 1998.90 

 In late April 1998 DOH offered the Draft Environmental Impact Study to the 

public. As part of the process, DOH held a public information meeting April 30 and a 

public hearing May 14 at the Summers County Memorial Building. The plan offered 

three alternatives and a no-build option. DOH representatives and their consultants 

were present to explain the alternatives, with a court reporter to document the meeting 

in Hinton.91 

 In December 1998 NRPA selected the route for the parkway. The alignment 

crossed the New River near the community of Sandstone and closely followed S.R. 26 

(River Road) along the west bank in Raleigh County to the community of Brooklin at the 

mouth of Madam’s Creek across from Hinton. According to NRPA planning director, 

Doug Tolbert, “the west side was chosen because it provides the best access to the 

important resources in the parkway corridor...properly implemented, it [the parkway] 

also afforded the greatest opportunity to preserve and protect these resources from 

degradation and uncontrolled development.”92 

 Public controversy soon erupted. The conflict centered around DOH’s decision to 

acquire all land between River Road and the New River, forcing people off the river bank 

and affecting fifty-three landowners. Bill Brezinski, who had been on NRPA’s board for 

its entire sixteen years, said the road would probably not be constructed unless 

authorities acquired the land between the road and the riverbank. State and federal 

officials wanted the additional property to maintain scenic and environmental standards 

benefiting the parkway. Addressing the acquisition plans, Brezinski said that “if the 

current owners were immortal, [I] would not support taking their land...[but] the next 

owner may not protect it and care for it as well, which would ruin the road’s 

attraction.”93 

 During a meeting with the Raleigh County Commission in December, 1999, NRPA 

member Robert Sayre further inflamed public sentiment with his comment that none of 

the property owners in question actually lived in the region permanently, but used 

temporary cabins, trailers, “and the like.” He agreed with Brezinski that if the property 

 

89 “Parkway Legislation Moving Slowly Through Congress,” Register-Herald, October 27, 1993, MPF, 

Box 55, D18. 

90 “New River Parkway, April 6 = 10 Years in the Making,” Hinton News, April 8, 1997. 91 “New River Parkway Study Completed,” Hinton News, April 28, 1998. 92 “Authority Selects Preferred Route for Parkway,” Hinton News, December 15, 1998. 93 “Progress-Property Conflict at Heart of Parkway Controversy,” Register-Herald, September 10, 1999. 
Working with Visitors 

253 

was not acquired, federal agencies would not approve an EIS or release highway funds 

for construction.94 

 Sayre’s comments angered River Road residents. Jo Ann Roach, one of those who 

would lose property, said she and others supported road improvements, and even a 

scenic highway, but citizens felt that the project had turned into a governmental land 

grab.95 Two days later, NRPA director Tolbert stated: “I don’t think Mr. Sayre intended 

to offend anyone...[Mr.] Sayre’s appearance was [intended] to promote goodwill and 

garner support for the commission.” Tolbert said Sayre’s statement was incorrect and 

that several property owners were full-time residents.96 

 Residents organized en masse, and because of their efforts, the DOH backed down. 

Further debate resulted in promoting a supplemental Draft EIS identifying a new range 

of alternatives for road construction intended to satisfy federal agencies and minimize 

the impact to landowners.97 In May 2002, DOH held a public hearing on the proposed 

project to air their intentions on private property acquisition. The plan called would 

keep the parkway within the confines of the Right-of-Way (ROW) for S.R. 26 and 

acquire land from willing sellers only. The DOH estimated that seventeen dwellings, 

seasonal and permanent, would have to be relocated or removed, but the department 

would proceed with due diligence in its design and engineering to reduce potential 

impact.98 

 In spring 2004 the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) finally approved the 

project for design and construction. Tolbert said that until then the project was still up in 

the air, but, “with that signature, the project is a go.”99 But FHA approval has not 

stemmed the controversy. On their website, the advocacy group New River Friends 

cautions people about the trustworthiness of federal agencies. 

The good news is that New River Friends, along with a grass-roots coalition of people, 

refused to take the government’s 1999 plan without a fight. As a result, the government 

was forced to revise its plan. The latest plan announced in March 2004 now takes only 

the land necessary to build the road. Though we continue to have some grave concerns 

about implementation of the plan and how it will be used to drive people out of the 

valley/limit their livelihoods, this is a step in the right direction. We must be cautious 

though to ensure this is not a Trojan victory.100 

As it stood in 2005, the New River Parkway was slated for construction, but some 

residents of River Road and groups like New River Friends still mistrusted NPS motives. 

 

94 “Scenic Parkway Plan Moves Forward,” Register-Herald, December 8, 1999. 95 “Progress-Property,” Register-Herald, September 10, 1999. 96 “Parkway Director Clarifies Board Member’s Comments,” Register-Herald, December 9, 1999. 97 “Parkway Director Clarifies Board Member’s Comments.” 

98 “Parkway, With Property Issues Resolved, DOH Should Build New Road,” Register-Herald, May, 12, 

2002. 

99 “New River Parkway Project at Last a Go,” Fayette Tribune, April 20, 2004. 100 New River Friends, www.newriverfriends.org/background.htm. Accessed April 2, 2005. 
Working with Visitors 

254 

CONCLUSION

 The New River Gorge National River, the Bluestone National Scenic River, and 

the Gauley River National Recreation Area experienced significant increases in visits 

from the public during the 1990s and later. As new visitor centers opened at Canyon Rim 

in 1991 and Sandstone in 2004 (Figures 12-16), and at Grandview and Thurmond on a 

seasonal basis, and as activities in the park became better known and more diverse, the 

park staff provided more information and support. 

 Issues concerning visitor centers, state parks, mass events, and the New River 

Parkway that have arisen as the park has developed have posed difficult problems for 

Park Service managers. Some issues, including placement and development of Canyon 

Rim Visitor Center, have been resolved; others such as improved park access have not. 

For example, NPS and West Virginia worked out the transfer of Sandstone Falls 

amicably. The Park Service then constructed a multimillion dollar handicapped 

accessible boardwalk to the falls, but automobile access to the area still requires the 

visiting public to travel nearly ten miles from the I-64 interchange to Hinton, and the 

same distance down the other side of the river on a narrow, neglected, two-lane road to 

reach the walkway. 

 The New River Gorge Bridge continues to draw many tourists. Bridge Day, the 

biggest event of the year at the park and indeed perhaps in West Virginia, was nearly 

cancelled due to the death of a jumper in 1983. Each year, 100,000 people or more come 

to witness the event, and it takes the combined efforts of the Park Service and many state 

and local officials all working in concert for the event to take place. As new events join 

the festival, NPS will have more decisions to make. Included in the 1983 GMP was a 

provision for public access to the catwalk underneath the bridge. But since the 

destruction of the World Trade Center Towers in New York City in 2001 by terrorists, 

the wisdom of allowing public access under the bridge has come into question. 

 The controversy over the New River Parkway has spanned a period of over twenty 

years, and the road has yet to be constructed. People are now sensitive to the intentions 

of federal and state governments regarding personal property rights. Because of this, 

groups like New River Friends keep a constant vigil on the actions of the DOH, NPS, and 

NRPA, unsure of the agencies’ plans for the area. 
Working with Visitors 

255 

Figure 45. Canyon Rim Visitor Center, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

256 

Figure 46. Visitor watching history video at Canyon Rim Visitor Center, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

257 

Figure 47. Two visitors enjoying the vista into New River Gorge at Canyon Rim Visitor Center, 2006. 

Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

258 

Figure 48. Wayside exhibit at Sandstone Falls boardwalk, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

259 

Figure 49. Boardwalk at Sandstone Falls, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

260 

Figure 50. Pavilion at the end of the boardwalk at Sandstone Falls on the New River, 2004. Photograph by 

Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

261 

Figure 51. Sandstone Falls on the New River at sunset, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

262 

Figure 52. The New River Gorge Bridge, seen through the girders of the reconstructed Fayette Station Bridge, 

2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

263 

Figure 53. The New River Gorge Bridge, 876 feet above the New River, 2006. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

264 

Figure 54. View toward Quinnimont from Grandview Overlook, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

265 

Figure 55. Ranger Richard Altare takes group photo of tourists at Grandview Overlook, 2004. Photograph by 

Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

266 

Figure 56. Sandstone Visitor Center, located just off I-64, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

267 

Figure 57. Sandstone Visitor Center is a "green building," including the reflective roof, locally sourced 

materials, certified wood, and careful attention to storm water runoff, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

268 

Figure 58. The exhibit space in the Sandstone Visitor Center mimics the outlines of the New River Gorge, 2004. 

Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

269 

Figure 59. Ranger Mark Bollinger assisting a visitor at Sandstone Visitor Center, 2004. Photograph by Gregory 

A. Good. 
Working with Visitors 

270 

Figure 60. Mark Bollinger showing the in-laid floor map of the National River to Dr. Barbara Rasmussen (West 

Virginia University) and graduate students in Cultural Resource Management, 2004. Photograph by Gregory A. 

Good. 
271 

CONCLUSION

NATIONAL PARKS, NATIONAL RIVERS

SPECIAL HISTORIES, PECULIAR CHALLENGES

 In January 2001, National Park Service Historian Janet A. McDonnell published 

“The National Park Service Looks toward the 21st Century: The 1988 General 

Superintendents Conference and Discovery 2000,” a retrospective on two events that 

have had important consequences for all national park units, including the New River 

Gorge National River, the Gauley River National Recreation Area, and the Bluestone 

National Scenic River. Two major themes in her article were the extraordinary increase 

of scale of National Park Service activities in every respect in recent decades and the 

immersion of the Park Service in the political and economic climates of the United 

States.1

 Dr. McDonnell’s enumeration of problems faced by the Park Service generally 

mirrored pressures faced specifically at New River, Gauley, and Bluestone: 

“development around park borders, invasive non-native species, air pollution, and 

deteriorating roads and facilities.” While it’s easy for managers in a park to lose sight of 

this broad, national context in dealing with the many, crying issues and problems that 

pop up every day, in fact, the New River and its sister units are part of a national system 

of hundreds of park units that face similar difficulties continuously. Still, change of scale 

has been as real in New River as it has in any national park. And “Congressional 

mandates” have been as active here as anywhere in the country – maybe more so. A 

symbol of the pressure of private development on New River is the sign shown in Figure 

1, which was found posted at Fayette Station, in the heart of New River Gorge National 

River. That the developer has mistakenly called the New River Gorge a national park 

indicates a possible lack of understanding. But it also reflects a reality that NPS units feel 

across the country. 

 One of the issues peculiar to the Park Service that Dr. McDonnell emphasized 

merits further consideration for these southern West Virginia units of the National Park 

Service. She noted that: “A strong thread running through both meetings was the 

continued conflict between two Park Service missions: recreation and preserving 

resources.” This seeming tension in mission has occupied Park Service personnel, and it 

 

1

 Janet A. McDonnell, “The National Park Service Looks toward the 21st Century: The 1988 

General Superintendents Conference and Discovery 2000,” held January 2001, found at 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSThinking/suptreport.htm. 
Conclusion 

272 

has been on the minds of managers in the New River Gorge as elsewhere in the system. 

In her 2006 interview, New River Public Information Officer Lorrie Sprague denied the 

“myth of the dual mission,” that “we have to do this balancing act. Well, that’s really not 

true.”2

 

 Every superintendent of a National Park System unit and his or her administrative 

staff starts the job facing definite challenges. At the New River, the new park 

superintendent, Don Striker, took office in 2007. His clear challenges included 

budgetary constraints, existing needs in cultural and natural resource management that 

have not yet been met, continuing Congressional mandates, the prospect of a significant 

turnover in top-level staff, and private real estate development pressures on land 

adjacent to the park. Some of these challenges are system-wide, such as the need to 

balance daily operations against new projects. These problems have long been present. 

But other challenges, such as dealing with canyon-rim development and its local political 

support are new since 2000. The NPS administrators of these three units of the National 

Park Service, and their constituents and Congressional supporters, must face these 

challenges squarely. As Lorrie Sprague stated emphatically in her interview, the national 

parks should occupy a place toward the end of the spectrum that emphasizes protection 

and preservation. She decried the “myth of a dual mission” and argued that the Park 

Service has a primary mission to preserve the New River Gorge, the Gauley River, and 

the Bluestone River. Public enjoyment, she said, is a secondary mission. Plenty of other 

agencies stress multiple uses: the USDA Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As she concluded her testimony: “The idea that we 

[the National Park Service] can’t be all things to all people is something that we need not 

be ashamed of.” The primary mission in New River, Gauley, and Bluestone is protection. 

Future superintendents will face significant difficulties in keeping to this charge, but they 

must. 

 The challenge of scale has taken many forms in New River country. As Chief 

Ranger Gary Hartley stressed in his interview in 2004, his law enforcement unit not only 

must deal with the hunters, anglers, boaters, and “rest-stop tourists” that were most 

frequently encountered in the park in the 1980s. Since the early 1990s, more visitors have 

been staying for more than a single day visit and their activities have broadened and 

intensified. Hunters, anglers, and boaters have been joined by mountain bikers, hikers, 

trail runners, rock climbers, heritage tourists, and more. Organized extreme sports 

events don’t only happen on Bridge Day anymore. Beyond this, Ranger Hartley’s 

enforcement officers have chased timber thieves and historic house dismantlers, growers 

of marijuana and cocaine and methamphetamine distributors, quelled domestic disputes 

and helped in search and rescue. Since the early 1990s, these broader developments from 

 

2

 Lorrie Sprague, interviewed November 17, 2006, by Gregory A. Good. 
Conclusion 

273 

American society at large have impinged ever more forcefully on the “sanctuary” and 

solitude of these national park units. 

 Another issue of scale has been economic. As the country experienced 

simultaneously an economic boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s and the first wave of 

baby-boom retirements, scenic areas like New River country have witnessed a rush of 

second-home and retirement-home development, often on the very doorsteps of 

National Park System units like the New River Gorge. While this may not have taken the 

Park Service by surprise, it has indeed erupted on West Virginians somewhat 

unexpectedly. Within a single generation, the land around the New River Gorge 

National River went from post-industrial under-appreciation – almost a malaise – to 

being so desirable that its development threatens the very qualities of life that have 

attracted people to this region for the paradoxically co-existing thrill of the rapids and 

the peace of the forested mountains. To protect New River, Gauley, and Bluestone will 

require more pro-active planning and action than even in the post-1988 boom in the 

growth of these parks. This is a new era in the history of the National Park Service in 

southern West Virginia and it will require an invigoration similar to that experienced in 

the first transition from “small park” to “big park,” but perhaps at a scale magnified to 

match the external factors impinging on the parks. 

 Another factor that influenced New River Gorge and the other units came from 

the Presidents and Congress and from the overarching National Park Service 

administration. New River’s original “small park” approach originated in national 

politics. As Dr. McDonnell noted in reporting about the 1988 superintendents meeting, a 

Democratic Congressman addressed the meeting, asserting that “the Reagan 

administration had muzzled Park Service professionals and starved the Service of funds.” 

New River did not, perhaps, suffer as much as Park Service units in other states, thanks 

to the prominence of the Congressional delegation, especially Senator Byrd and 

Representative Rahall. Nevertheless, New River endured a minimalist approach until 

1988 and then underwent a transformation to a more expansive attitude with the 

administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and the back-to-back 

administrations of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001). Perhaps this can be attributing to 

increasing economic vitality or to less powerful opposition to the goals of the West 

Virginia Congressional delegation among other political powers in Washington. That is 

for others to decide. 

 In any case, the administration of the New River Gorge National River 

accommodated throughout its history with management from Capitol Hill. We have 

already reviewed, especially in Chapters 4 and 5, how West Virginia’s representatives 

and senators actively participated in, guided, or prescribed decisions concerning 

management of the New River Gorge National River and its two sister units through 

specific actions affecting trout stocking, road construction, black fly management, and so 
Conclusion 

274 

on. Larger Congressional and Park Service actions have affected parks across the 

country in ways not visible to the general public. Superintendent Calvin Hite, who left 

New River in early 2007, enumerated a long list of such challenges facing the next person 

to take his position. 

 Superintendent Hite commented in 2004 that New River was better off than most 

national parks when it came to construction funding. Indeed, New River’s construction 

budget has increased every year since the park’s inception.3

 However, this had to be 

balanced against the relative shortage of operational dollars. This highlights a trend that 

may have been stronger at New River Gorge than in many other national parks, but it 

was certainly pronounced over the last three decades in New River. The professional 

staff has continually had to react to appropriations for new construction or acquisition, 

at a pace beyond what the existing staff could meet. Meanwhile, other needs went unmet. This was especially true with regard to cultural resources, which tended to be old, in 

poor condition, and perhaps even in dangerous dilapidation and neglect. 

 As Superintendent Hite explained, the park can’t complete the projects without 

enough staff. The Denver Service Center had helped in the past, he said, but in the years 

prior to 2004 it had been cut in half. Hite noted that since he came to New River in 2001 

the percentage of the operating budget dedicated to employees had been 90%, with less 

than 10% for utilities and fuel for vehicles. The cost of retirement benefits had risen over 

ten or fifteen years from 12% to 40%. New River, like many national parks, had had to 

deal simultaneously with rangers in all categories “topping out” at GS9 and with 

increased costs that were not met by increased budget. Superintendent Hite stated that 

while this situation was “at a crisis level” across the system, New River was not in crisis 

yet. It had hidden its cutbacks and economies pretty effectively from the public, largely 

by operating on lapses, i.e., by leaving positions vacant for a time to shift money 

elsewhere. He said that every park had less buying power than in the past and was losing 

positions. Congress, he said, was aware of the problem.4

 In some ways, however, West Virginia’s three river parks differ markedly from the 

rest of the National Park System, or at least, they have special characteristics rooted in 

history. That is, the industrial history of the New River Gorge and the cultural history of 

how the local population related to the land before the national river was designated in 

1978 continue to affect park management. With each new land acquisition come more 

remains of coal mines or housing in need of attention, possible preservation if historic, or 

removal if not. With changing boundaries, neither the public nor the park staff can 

always be entirely certain of who can be where, doing what. And because hunting and 

harvesting wild products have been part of local culture for generations, activities are 

 

3

 Comment by David N. Fuerst on draft of this administrative history, 2007. 

4

 Calvin Hite, interviewed June 21, 2004, by Lynn Stasick. 
Conclusion 

275 

permitted in the New River Gorge National River that are prohibited in most other 

National Park System units. These historical differences present peculiar challenges. 

 Lastly, these three units of the National Park System encapsulate the diversity of 

river parks that have entered the system since the 1960s. The New River Gorge National 

River preserves a complex mix of cultural resources, natural resources, recreational 

opportunities, and scenery, not to mention the theater operation at Grandview. New 

River serves the casual sightseer, the fiercely independent kayaker or rock climber, and 

the mass tourism of rafting and guided climbing. Moreover, New River staff maintain 

extensive facilities at Canyon Rim, Glen Jean, Thurmond, Sandstone Visitor Center, 

Sandstone Falls, Grandview, and several campgrounds and river put-ins. Meanwhile, the 

Gauley River National Recreation Area involves a much lower proportion of federal land 

ownership and no facilities other than a put-in at the tail-waters of Summersville Dam 

and a take-out at the low end of the NRA. As its NRA status indicates, GARI focuses 

tightly on recreational boating and lacks the diversity of New River. Lastly, Bluestone 

National Scenic River is not a popular boating river, and its primary function is to 

preserve a beautiful landscape while cooperating with the West Virginia DNR in wildlife 

management and with adjoining Pipestem State Park and Bluestone State Park in visitor 

services. The only Park Service “facility” in BLUE is a pedestrian bridge and an adjoining 

parking lot. 

 Because of these different purposes, each of these three units faces its own set of 

management challenges. New River and Gauley River face heavy visitation pressure, 

while Bluestone sees lower use. Bluestone is surrounded by state-owned land and so 

does not face the development pressure that New River does. Gauley requires close 

attention during periods of peak river activity, but then also requires close 

communication between park service managers and commercial rafting companies, not 

to mention the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which manages the Summersville Dam. 

 As these three parks continue to evolve in the coming decades, some new 

challenges are sure to arise. But many of the issues will contain echoes from the past. 

Issues of the 1980s and 1990s like black fly controls, or the hacking of peregrine falcons, 

or the stabilization and interpretation of cultural resources, or relations with West 

Virginia state agencies, are sure to come back again in a somewhat different form. The 

authors hope that this administrative history has provided useful insights into how Ne w 

River, Gauley, and Bluestone have come to their current situations, and how Park 

Service managers have dealt with the challenges of management in the past. 
Conclusion 

276 

Figure 61. Sign at Fayette Station, symptomatic of the problem New River faces with adjacent private 

development. Photograph by Gregory A. Good. 
277 

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

 Recommendations concern issues related to provision of resources necessary for 

preserving and telling the history of New River, Gauley, and Bluestone. 

• Provide better storage facilities for various park records now housed in the Bank 

of Glen Jean, across the street from park headquarters, in a building that lies in the 

flood plain. 

• These files would benefit from conservation and cataloging. 

• Consolidation of current working files with the park archives should be 

undertaken systematically. 

• The cultural resource collections of the park have not yet received adequate attention. 

• Update the administrative history of the park on a regular basis similar to that for 

master plan updates. 

• Consider employment of university student interns for carefully limited projects 

such as accessioning, cataloging, records conservation, etc. 

• Future contracts for extending this administrative history must include sufficient 

funding to allow research at the National Archives, at the Washington offices of 

the National Park Service, and in the Northeast Regional office in Philadelphia. 

• More oral history interviews should be conducted with park professionals who 

were present in NERI and its sister units in the 1980s and 1990s: David Reynolds, 

Mike Hunter, and Jim Carrico, for example. Peggy Maddy, who began working at 

NERI in 1985 and as of early 2007 was still working in the headquarters, has kept 

in touch with many early New River workers and can provide contact 

information. 

• Oral history interviews with NPS personnel in the Washington and Philadelphia 

offices during the history of the park should also be conducted. 

• The roles and participation of the Citizens Advisory Committee in planning for 

GARI should be further investigated. 

• Two themes that should be explored more fully than was possible in this report 

include the development of the interpretive and maintenance programs in the 

parks. 

• The budget for any future administrative history must reflect more adequately the 

actual level of effort required. 

279 

APPENDIX A 

MAJOR LEGISLATION AFFECTING NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL 

RIVER, GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, AND 

BLUESTONE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER
Appendix A 

280 

1 
Appendix A 

281 
Appendix A 

282 
Appendix A 

283 
Appendix A 

284 
Appendix A 

285 
Appendix A 

286 
Appendix A 

287 
Appendix A 

288 
Appendix A 

289 
Appendix A 

290 
Appendix A 

291 
Appendix A 

292 
Appendix A 

293 
Appendix A 

294 
Appendix A 

295 
Appendix A 

296 
Appendix A 

297 
Appendix A 

298 
Appendix A 

299 
Appendix A 

300 
Appendix A 

301 
Appendix A 

302 
303

APPENDIX B 

NEW RIVER TIMELINE

420 mya (420 million years ago) High mountains rose to towering heights, east 

of future West Virginia. For 200 million years that region alternated 

between shallow sea, swamp, and delta. 

200 mya Massive uplift produced the Appalachian Mountains. 

50 mya A last uplift occurred. The New River began cutting its gorge. 

12,000 ya First Native American presence in the gorge. 

ca. 1650 Delaware, Shawnee, Tutelo, Saponi, and Mingo occupied the region 

of the New River. Cherokees claimed possession. 

1654 Major Abram Wood conducted first expedition to the lower New 

River, on authorization by the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

1674 Henry Batts-Thomas Wood-Robert Fallam expedition led to scatter 

settlement over the next 80 years. 

1750s Several land speculators arrived in the region to begin first 

commercial settlements. 

1790 James River Company built the Old State Road from the James River 

in eastern Virginia to Kanawha Falls, crossing the New River at the 

mouth of Mann’s Creek. 

1798 First settlement along what is now the national river at the mouth 

Mann’s Creek by Peter Bowyer, who established Bowyer’s Ferry. 

1814 Andrew Alexander produced the first map of the Greenbrier and 

New Rivers. 

1871 John Nuttall and Joseph Beury began coal mining in the Sewell seam. 

1873 Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad completed through the gorge. 

1879 Fayette Station Road completed from the New River up to the James 

River and Kanawha Turnpike. 

1881 Thomas Gaylord McKell and his bride Jean Dun McKell arrive from 

Ohio, found Glen Jean. 

1889 Fayette Station Bridge completed, the first bridge over the New River 

in the gorge. 

1890s Branch railway lines built up tributaries of the New River. Extensive 

timbering and coal mining soon followed. Dunloop Branch Line 

completed in 1893. 

1899 Kaymoor mine opened 

1930s The Great Depression hits coal mining in the New River gorge hard 
Appendix B 

304

1940s World War II a boom time for coal mines in the gorge 

1948 Bluestone Dam begins operation upstream from New River gorge 

June 1962 American Electrical Power applied for a two-year permit to 

investigate the possibility of a dam on the New River. 

February 1965 AEP applied to construct the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project. 

June 1968 AEP proposed greatly expanded Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project, 

with dams in Virginia and North Carolina. 

1968 Upper New River Valley Association formed to oppose AEP’s plans. 

1968 Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

1969 Jon Dragan began first commercial whitewater rafting company in the 

New River gorge. 

1970 Summers County Conservation Club, West Virginia Highlands 

Conservancy, Izaak Walton League, Conservation Council of 

Virginia, Alleghany Farm Bureau, North Carolina Farm Bureau, 

Appalachian Research and Defense Fund, the Congress for 

Appalachian Development, and the West Virginia Natural Resources 

Council opposed AEP’s plans. 

1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) took effect, requiring 

environmental impact studies for major projects. 

ca. 1970 Coalition to Save the New River formed in West Virginia and the 

National Committee to Save the New River formed. 

1973 Bills in Congress to require the Department of the Interior to study. 

whether the New River was suitable for inclusion in the wild and 

scenic river system. The bills did not pass. 

1974 Fayette County, WV, Chamber of Commerce formed the New River 

Gorge National Park Committee 

1974 US Environmental Protection Agency released report showing that 

651.3 miles of the New River and its tributaries did not meet water 

quality standards for recreational use. 

July 1975 Festival of the New held in Ashe County, NC 

July 1976 Walter Cronkite and other national news anchors made the Blue 

Ridge Project and the New River controversy a national story 

August 1976 After years of debate, the Blue Ridge Project in North Carolina on the 

New died, allowing the West Virginia Coalition to focus attention on 

the West Virginia part of the New River Gorge. 

Summer 1976 Ken Hechler and others explored the possibility of wild and scenic 

designation for the New River in West Virginia 

September 11, 1976 President Gerald Ford signed legislation designating the New River in 

North Carolina a Wild and Scenic River 

August 1977 Meeting at a church in Thurmond, WV, Destry Jarvis introduced the 

new idea of national river status for the New River Gorge rather than 

wild and scenic river or national park status 
Appendix B 

305

October 1977 Opening of 1700-foot span New River Gorge Bridge. 

Spring 1978 Local consensus achieved for national river status for the New River 

Gorge. 

November 1978 President Jimmy Carter signs legislation creating the New River 

Gorge National River, Public Law 95-625. 

1979 Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) passed by Congress. 

1980 Four pre-planning public workshops held in region around NERI. 

1980 West Virginia Department of Highways donated land for Canyon 

Rim Visitor Center to the Park Service. 

1980 Black Fly/Bti controversy begins. 

November 1980 First official Bridge Day held in Fayetteville, West Virginia. 

1981 Jim Carrico, the first Superintendent of New River Gorge National 

River, begins operations in the basement of his house. 

1981 West Virginia legislature created the White Water Advisory Board. 

1981 Revised Task Directive, New River Gorge National River. 

July 1981 NERI Land Protection Plan approved. 

November 1982 NERI General Management Plan completed and signed. 

1983 Bank of Glen Jean placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

1983 Temporary Canyon Rim Visitors Center opened. 

1984 Park Service completed Documented Safety Program for NERI. 

1984 Thurmond placed on National Register of Historic Places. 

July 1984 Park Service released Land Protection Plan: New River Gorge National 

River, West Virginia (LPP). 

1985 West Virginia created the New River Parkway Authority (NRPA). 

1986 Joe Kennedy becomes NERI’s second Superintendent. 

1986 West Virginia donated Sandstone Falls State Park to NERI. 

May 1986 Bti application to control black flies begins. 

1987 NRPA released its first New River Parkway Concept Plan.

1987 Official announcement of decision to build a new headquarters for 

NERI in Glen Jean. 

June 1987 Park Service releases Draft River Management Plan for New River 

Gorge National River. 

July 1987 Planning for New Canyon Rim Visitors Center begins. 

1988 With the West Virginia National Interest Rivers Act Congress created 

the Bluestone National Scenic River (BLUE) and Gauley River 

National Recreation Area (GARI) under NERI administration. 

1988, 1996, 2002 Boundary changes and land acquisition bring total park area to 72,189 

acres. 
Appendix B 

306

December 1989 New NERI headquarters at Glen Jean dedicated and occupied. 

1990 West Virginia donated Grandview State Park to the Park Service to be 

managed by NERI. 

November 1990 Kaymoor Mine placed on National Register of Historic Places. 

1991 NRPA released its second New River Parkway Concept Plan.

1991 Park Service released Criteria for Boundary Adjustments to guide 

future changes of NERI boundaries. 

May 1991 Permanent Canyon Rim Visitor Center opened. 

June 1992 Release of Development Concept Plan, Kaymoor. 

1993 Park Service completed Emergency Operation Plan for NERI 

1993 Park Service released A Trail Development Plan for the New River 

Gorge National River.

1994 Restoration of Thurmond Depot, a key railroad center for the C&O 

Railroad. 

July 1994 US Army Corps of Engineers released The Reconnaissance Level 

Evaluation Report for the Bluestone Lake Hydropower Study.

May 1995 Thurmond Depot Visitor Center opened. 

1997 Park Service released General Management Plan for the Gauley River 

National Recreation Area. 

1998 Park Service completed Wildland Fire Management: Director’s Order 

#18 for management of fire in NERI, GARI, and BLUE. 

1998 NPS acquired land (1,021 acres) and cultural remains of Nuttalburg. 

July 2001 Park headquarters in Glen Jean flooded twice. 

2002 Spraying of Bti began again. 

2002 Combined Development Concept Plan completed for Gauley River 

May 2003 NERI released Draft Climbing Management Plan, Environmental 

Assessment. 

2003 Sandstone Visitors Center opened. 

2004 Federal Highway Administration approved the New River Parkway 

for design and construction. 

2005 Park Service received Wildland Fire Management Plan for New River 

National River, Bluestone National Scenic River, Gauley River National 

Recreation Area, written by Wildfire Associates. 

January 2005 Land Resource Companies (LRC) submitted plans to the Fayette 

County Zoning Commission for a large residential development 

adjoining NERI. 
307 

APPENDIX C 

STAFF STRUCTURE OF NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER

SUPERINTENDENTS

1980-1986 James Carrico 

1987-1995 Joe Kennedy 

1995-2001 Pete Hart 

2001-2007 Calvin Hite 

2007- Don Striker 

89 Permanent employees and 43 seasonal (2006) 

CHAIN OF COMMAND

Management 

Administration 

Maintenance 

Resource managers 

Visitor Protection/law enforcement 

Interpretation and Visitor Services 

1. Superintendent, administrative head of NERI, the Superintendent is responsible to the 

Regional Director for all park operations. Delegates full authority on a park-wide basis to 

the Chief Ranger for all emergency operations. 

2. Assistant Superintendent, operational leader, responsible for management of NERI in 

the absence of the Superintendent. 

3. Chief Ranger, head of the Division of Resource Management and Visitor Protection, 

responsible to the Superintendent on a park-wide basis. 

4. District Rangers, responsible to the Chief Ranger for the day-to-day visitor protection 

operation, includes responsibility for maintaining wildland fire, EMS, SAR, and law 

enforcement equipment for the execution of the Emergency Operations Plan.

5. Subdistrict Rangers, responsible to supervisors for the implementation of the Operation 

Plans and day-to-day emergency operations of subdistricts. 

6. Chief of Maintenance, responsible to the Assistant Superintendent for maintenance 

operations in NERI. 
Appendix C 

308 

7. General Foreman, responsible to the Chief of Maintenance for day-to-day maintenance 

operations. 

8. Administrative Officer, responsible to the Superintendent for administrative functions of 

NERI, provides needed expertise and personnel to purchase and lease supplies, acquire 

emergency funding, hire emergency personnel, assist with dispatch operations, and 

designate which park building can serve as temporary shelter. 

9. Chief Park Naturalist, responsible to the Superintendent for administration of the 

interpretive functions. During emergency operations will provide the Incident 

commander supplies, personnel and technical expertise. 

10. Dispatcher, responsible to the Chief Ranger or designee for coordinating radio traffic 

and dispatching necessary personnel to emergencies upon evaluation by the Chief 

Ranger/and or Incident Commander. 
309 

APPENDIX D 

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

The organizational charts on the following pages are from an internal NERI document, 

reflecting the staff structure as of 2005. 

Organization Chart Key

 
Appendix D 

310 
Appendix D 

311 
Appendix D 

312 
Appendix D 

313 
Appendix D 

314 
Appendix D 

315 
Appendix D 

316 
Appendix D 

317 
Appendix D 

318 
Appendix D 

319 
Appendix D 

320 
Appendix D 

321 
Appendix D 

322 
Appendix D 

323 
Appendix D 

324 
Appendix D 

325 
Appendix D 

326 
Appendix D 

327 
Appendix D 

328 
Appendix D 

329 
Appendix D 

330 
Appendix D 

331 
Appendix D 

332 
Appendix D 

333 
Appendix D 

334 
Appendix D 

335 

337 

APPENDIX E 

LAND ACQUISITION AND BOUNDARY CHANGES IN NEW RIVER 

GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA, AND BLUESTONE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER

1978 New River Gorge National River authorized. Minimal acreage owned, but 62,000 

within boundaries. Authorized Nov. 10, 1978. 

1983 The General Management Plan states that NERI has 538 acres in federal ownership 

and aims ultimately to own 10,500 acres in fee simple. 

1988 West Virginia National Interest Rivers Act: Bluestone National Scenic River and 

Gauley National Recreational Area. This Act also included the 1988 boundary 

changes for the New River Gorge National River.1

1988 Boundary change of NERI. Brought roughly 5000 new acres in, cut out roughly 5000 

acres previously in. Net gain of 500 acres within boundaries. Congress authorized 

this boundary change on October 26, 1988. 

• Bluestone: This scenic river preserves relatively unspoiled land in southwest West 

Virginia and contains natural and historic features of the Appalachian plateau. In its 

10.5 miles the lower Bluestone River offers excellent fishing, hiking, boating, and 

scenery. Pipestem and Bluestone State Parks and Bluestone Wildlife Management 

Area are located along this segment of the river. NO FEDERAL FACILITIES. 

Authorized Oct. 26, 1988. Boundary change: Nov. 12, 1996. Acreage—4,309.51 

Federal: 3,032 Nonfederal: 1,277.51. 

• Gauley: The 25.5 miles of the Gauley River and the 5.5 miles of the Meadow River 

pass through scenic gorges and valleys containing a wide variety of natural and 

cultural features. The Gauley River contains several Class V+ rapids, making it one of 

the most adventurous whitewater boating rivers in the East. Both rivers also provide 

excellent fishing opportunities. LIMITED FEDERAL FACILITIES. Authorized Oct. 

26, 1988. Acreage—11,506.95 Federal: 4,283.12 Nonfederal: 7,223.83 (source: some 

non-NPS web site) 

1990 Grandview State Park is transferred to NERI administration. 

1996 Boundary change brings additional 7,000 acres within the boundary. This is the 

biggest addition to the park to date.(source: Andy Steel OHI). NB., this does not add 

to federal ownership. Congress authorized this boundary change on November 12, 

1996. The Ward Tract, I believe, was within this new boundary, but the purchase 

didn’t go through until 2003. 

1998 Purchase of the Nuttall property, 1021 acres, including most of the “Endless Wall” 

climbing area and the cultural remains of Nuttallburg (sources: Hart, 1999, p. 6; Cal 

Hite, OHI). 

 

1

 West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 1988: report to accompany H.R. 900. 

US Senate, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session, August 11, 1988, Report 100-481. 
Appendix E

338 

2002 Boundary changes and land acquisition bring total area within park boundary to 

72,189 acres. Boundary extended north of New River Bridge to Hawks Nest State 

Park. Congress authorized this boundary change on December 17, 2002. Acreage—

72,189.49 Federal: 52,197.16 Nonfederal: 19,992.33. Andy Steel mapped the 500 acres 

of Brush Creek and Berwyn Land Company land within this area, but that land was 

still in negotiation as of 2006. (source Andy Steel OHI). According to the Republican 

Study Committee, Legislative Bulletin, June 24, 2002, Congressman Rahall’s H.R. 

3858, the New River Gorge Boundary Act, would modify the boundaries and “the bill 

would add to the National River six tracts of land (totaling 1,962 acres) held by five 

willing sellers. This addition would result in an approximately 3% increase in the size 

of the park.” It would also allow a land exchange (a third of an acre for a third of an 

acre) that “would resolve a boundary issue in which half of a private home was inside 

the park and the other half was on private land.” The report in the Legislative Bulletin 

stated that Bush Administration’s NPS representative said it was “unable to support 

H.R. 3858 in its entirety.” Specifically, it supported the land-exchange but neither the 

land acquisition or the boundary adjustment. [I’m not sure of exactly what passed 

later in 2002. A modified bill?] 

2003 The Forestland Group, LLC, (now Heartwood Forest Land Fund) announced in 

September that it sold the 6,746-acre Ward Tract to the National Park Service, with 

the strong support of the “strong support of the West Virginia Congressional 

delegation under the leadership of Senator Robert Byrd.” (source: 

www.forestlandgroup.com/news_9-01-03.html). The Ward Tract was already within 

the boundaries as adjusted in 1996. 
339 

APPENDIX F 

RIVERS IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

As of June 5, 2007, the following statement and list appeared on the National Park Service, 

Rivers Website, http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/portals/rivers/projpg/nana1.htm: 

The National Park Service (NPS) protects, conserves, recognizes, or manages rivers with 

various government agencies and private groups in a number of ways. Hundreds of rivers are 

located in the national parks and other NPS sites, protecting both the river and land areas 

surrounding them. Battlefield parks, seashores, parkways, and trails are other designations to 

preserve and interpret America's heritage. In fact, the Park Service has 20 classifications of its 

379 sites, several of which are specific to rivers. The authority and legislation for each 

designation indicates the protection and uses specific to that river. Sometimes protections 

overlap (e.g.: designated Wild and Scenic Rivers may be within the National Park units). 

Examples of National Parks with rivers. 

Below is a list of river designation, protection, and recognition types with examples: 

NATIONAL PARKS WHICH INCLUDE RIVERS

° Katmai NP (Brooks R)(AK) 

° Mammoth Cave NP (Green & Nolin R) (KY) 

° Theodore Roosevelt NP (Little Missouri R) (ND) 

° Great Smoky Mountains NP (Pigeon R) (TN, NC) 

° North Cascades NP (Stehekin R) (WA) 

° Shenendoah NP (Rapidan R, etc.) (VA) 

RIVER CENTERED PARK

Certain national park areas which protect and maintain rivers or river segments as their 

central features; for example, the Colorado River is a main element in the Grand Canyon 

National Park. Examples of river centered parks. 

° Grand Canyon NP (Colorado R) (AZ) 

° Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP (Gunnison R) (CO) 

° Dinosaur NP (Yampa R, Green R) (CO,UT) 

° Big Bend NP (Rio Grande R) (TX) 

° Arches NP (Colorado R) (UT) 

 
Appendix F 

340

° Canyonlands NP (Colorado R, Green R) (UT) 

° Cuyahoga Valley NP (Cuyahoga R) (OH) 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Is designated by Congress and provides opportunities for visitors to partake in recreational 

activities such as swimming, boating, hiking, and camping. Of the 19 NRA's, several have 

rivers as their central features. NRA's designations are established in naturally outstanding 

areas. Most emphasize both water based and non water based recreational opportunities 

(this list includes only free-flowing river valleys, not rivers impounded as reservoirs). 

Examples of National Recreation Areas. 

° Chattahoochee NRA (Chattahoochee R) (GA) 

° Delaware Water Gap NRA (Middle Delaware NSR) (PA/NJ) 

° Gauley River NRA (Gauley R & Meadow R) (WV) 

NATIONAL RIVER

Is designated by Congress and is a river preserved with its surrounding environments, 

essentially as a park. The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is the Nation's first and only 

scenic waterway, protecting 134 miles of Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, it includes 19 

historic or archaeological sites. Examples of National Rivers. 

° Buffalo River NR (AR) 

° New River Gorge NR (WV) 

° Ozark National Scenic Riverways (MO) 

NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA

Combines the attributes of National Rivers and National Recreation Areas. Examples of 

NRRA. 

° Big South Fork NRRA (KY) 

° Mississippi NRRA (MN) 

WILD & SCENIC RIVER

Designated by Congress, these rivers are free flowing and protected from damaging 

development and use. They must contain outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, cultural or similar qualities. A total of 156 rivers have wild and scenic status, with the 

National Park Service managing 32. Five of the rivers-The Farmington, SuAsCo, Lamprey, 

Maurice and Wolf Rivers-are cooperatively managed, by states, localities, and the National 

Park Service. Examples of Wild & Scenic Rivers. 
Appendix F 

341

° Alagnak R (AK) 

° Alatna R (AK) 

° Aniakchak R (AK) 

° Charley R (AK) 

° Chilikadrotna R (AK) 

° John R (AK) 

° Kobuk R (AK) 

° Mulchatna R(AK) 

° N.Fork Koyukuk R(AK) 

° Noatak R(AK) 

° Salmon R (AK) 

° Tinayguk R (AK) 

° Tlikakila R (AK) 

° Kings R (CA) 

° Kern R (CA) 

° Klamath R (CA) 

° Merced R (CA) 

° Tuolumne R (CA) 

° Cache la Poudre R (CO) 

° Farmington (NW&S) R (CT) 

° Sudbury, Assabet, & Concord R (MA) 

° Missouri R (NE,SD) 

° Niobara N. Scenic Riverway (NE) 

° Lamprey W & S R (NH) 

° Great Egg Harbor S & R R (NJ) 

° Maurice S & R R (NJ) 

° Delaware R: MIDE (PA/NJ), UPDE (PA/NY), Lower Delaware W & S (PA/NJ) 

° Obed R (TN) 

° Rio Grande R (TX) 

° Saint Croix R (WI) 

° Wolf R (WI) 

° Bluestone NSR (WV) 

 ° White Clay Creek W & S R (PA/DE) 

NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARK

Recognizes and encourages the protection of extraordinary and nationally significant natural 

areas. While maintaining outstanding features in their physiographic region, these landmarks 

must represent and maintain a biotic community or geologic feature. A number provide 

protection to significant river features. Examples of National Natural Landmark. 

° Aniakchak Caldera (Aniakchak R) (AK) 

° Lake George (Knik R) (AK) 

° Sheep Rock (Snake R) (ID) 
Appendix F 

342

° Big Springs (Henrys Fork R) (ID) 

° Green Ash-Overcup Oak-Sweetgum Research Natural Areas (Mississippi R) (MS) 

° Fort Randall Eagle Roost (Missouri R) (SD) 

° Bose Lake Hemlock Hardwoods (Eagle R) (WI) 

° Kickapoo River Natural Area (Kickapoo R) (WI) 

NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY (NRI)

Is a listing, maintained by the National Park Service, of more than 3400 free flowing rivers 

segments believed to have outstanding and remarkable values (including scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish, wildlife, prehistoric/historic and other values), making them potentially 

eligible for a Wild and Scenic designation. Federal Agencies evaluate potential eligibility of 

NRI segments on lands that they manage. Private land rivers have not gone through the 

potential eligibility study process. 

AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER:

A DESIGNATION ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON IN 1998. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES 

OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER DESIGNATION ARE ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION,

NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND CULTURAL & HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION. THESE RIVERS, AS A GROUP SERVE TO REPRESENT THE NATURAL, CULTURAL,

HISTORIC, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERSITY OF AMERICA. THE GOAL IS TO DEMONSTRATE 

THAT PEOPLE AND NATURE CAN LIVE TOGETHER IN PRODUCTIVE HARMONY. SOME 20

FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE PARTNERING TO ASSIST THESE RIVERS. THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE IS INVOLVED IN SOME WAY WITH ALL 14 AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS. EXAMPLES 

OF AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS. 

° Connecticut R (CT,VT,NH, MA) 

° Potomac R (DC, VA, MD, PA,WV) 

° St. Johns R ( FL) 

° Hanalei R (HI) 

° Upper Mississippi R (IA,IL,MN,MO) 

° Lower Mississippi R (LA,TN) 

° Blackstone & Woonasquatucket R (MA/RI) 

° Detroit R (MI) 

° New River (NC,VA,WV) 

° Hudson R (NY) 

° Cuyahoga R ( OH) 

° Willamette R (OR) 

° Upper Susquehanna & Lackawanna R (PA) 

° Rio Grande R (TX) 
343 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTE REGARDING CITATION STYLE AND LOCATION OF SOURCED MATERIALS

Citations follow The Chicago Manual of Style. 15th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago 

Press, 2003, sections 16.71-16.89 and fig. 16.3. Published source materials are available in major 

and regional research libraries. Unpublished National Park Service materials are available mainly 

in either the NERI Main Park Files (abbreviated MPF) or in working files in the NERI library or 

staff offices. Some documents cited are in the Regional Office in Philadelphia. The tapes and 

transcripts of Oral History Interviews are kept in the New River Gorge National River 

Headquarters, Glen Jean, West Virginia. 

I. New River Gorge National Park Service Park Service Files (unpublished) 

NPS, New River Gorge National River administrative files. Referred to as NERI Archives or MPF 

(Main Park Files) in footnotes. 

II. Books, Articles, and Authored Government Reports 

Allen, Karen Ebert. “Historic Engineering Record for the Fayette Station Bridge.” New River 

Symposium Proceedings. Daniels, WV, 1997. 

Athey, Lou. Kaymoor: A New River Community. N.p.: Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, 1986. 

Baker, Michael Jr. I. Cultural Resources Draft Technical Report for the Proposed New River 

Parkway Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 64 to Hinton, 3 vols. (Blacksburg 

VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1996). 

Baker, Michael Jr. I. Addendum Cultural Resources Draft Technical Report for the Proposed New 

River Parkway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Coraopolis PA: Michael Baker Jr., 

Inc., 1998). 

Bias, Charles. “Building the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Through the New River Gorge.” New 

River Symposium Proceedings. Beckley, WV, 1982, 168. 

Bobinski, Clif. Planning Documents Report for New River Gorge National River. NPS, August 16, 

2004. 

Boteler, Franklin. A study of safety and carrying capacity concerns associated with the 

commercial rafting industry use of the Gauley River, West Virginia. 1985. 

Bragg, Melody E. Dunloup Days: Glen Jean to Thurmond: Exciting Times and Precious Memories.

Glen Jean Historical Society, 1989. 

_____. “Glen Jean and the McKells.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Oak Hill, WV, 1988, 135. 

Brown, Sharon A. Historic Resource Study, Kay Moor, New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, July 1990. 

Burdin, Sheldon R. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gauley River National Recreation 

Area, Fayette and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Report submitted by the William S. 

Webb Museum of Anthropology and Kentucky Archaeological Survey, University of 
Bibliography 

344 

Kentucky for the National Park Service, New River Gorge National River, Glen Jean, WV, 

2004. 

Casto, James E. “Bluestone Dam Celebrates 50 Years of Flood Control and Outdoor Recreation.” 

Wonderful West Virginia. May, 1999, 21-22. 

Cater, Steve. New River Gorge: Select Rock Climbs. Fayetteville, WV: King Coal Propaganda, 1997. 

Doerksen, Harvey. “Water, Politics, and Ideology: An Overview of Water Resources 

Management.” Public Administration Review. 37 (1977): 444-448. 

Eller, Ronald D. Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 

1880-1930. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1989. 

Fuerst, David N. Prehistory. Vol. I of Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc. A Cultural Research 

Project: The New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. 3 vols. Charleston, WV: for the 

National Park Service, 1981. 

_____. Prehistory Appendices. Vol. III of Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc. A Cultural Research 

Project: The New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. 3 vols. Charleston, WV: for the 

National Park Service, 1981. 

Grafton, William N. “Plants and Vegetation of the New River Gorge.” New River Symposium 

Proceedings. Beckley, WV, 1982. 

Hart, Pete. “Managing a Non-traditional Park.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Beckley, WV, 

April 1999, 1-9. 

Hartzog, George. Battling for the National Parks. Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell Limited, 1988. 

Hess, Lloyd. “Preliminary Analysis of the Food Habits of Some New River Fishes, With Emphasis 

on Black Fly Utilization.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Blacksburg, VA. N.p. 1983. 

Jarvis, Destry. New River Gorge National River: Water Through the National Park Service’s Fingers. 

Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association, 1987. 

Jarvis, Destry, ed. The Oldest New River, Debate in the 1970s: National Park or Wild and Scenic 

River: A Symposium on the Anniversary of the Establishment of the New River Gorge National 

River, West Virginia. (A report on the November 9, 2003, panel proceedings). Internal NPS 

document. N.p., 2003. 

Jensen, Peter, Dennis Regan, and Jeffrey L. Marion. A Trail Development Plan for the New River 

Gorge National River. Philadelphia, PA, 1993. 

King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Walnut Creek, CA: 

Altamira Press, 1998. 

Leung, Y.F., and J.L. Marion. “River recreation impacts: A survey of day and overnight 

whitewater use sites along five West Virginia rivers.” In Beyond the Banks: Proceedings of the 

3rd Biennial RMS Symposium on River Management and Planning. June 20-23, 1996, 

Columbus, OH. Missoula, MT: River Management Society, 1997, 135-143. 

Logar, C.M. Projected Economic Impacts of Three Management Plans for the New River Gorge 

National River 1981-1990. Morgantown, WV: FEC Associates, 1981. 

Mahan, Carolyn. A Natural Resource Assessment for New River Gorge National River. Technical 

Report, December 2004. 

Marshall, Paul D. History, architecture and community. Vol. II of Paul D. Marshall & Associates, 

Inc. A Cultural Research Project: The New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. 3 vols. 

Charleston, WV: for the National Park Service, 1981. 
Bibliography 

345 

Mayfield, Michael. “The New River as the Old River.” New River Symposium Proceedings. 

Wythville, VA, 1993. 

McKinney, Tim. The Civil War in Fayette County, WV (Charleston, WV: Pictorial History 

Publications, 1988). 

McKinney, Tim. Robert E. Lee at Sewell Mountain, the West Virginia Campaign (Charleston, WV: 

Pictorial History Publications, 1990). 

McKinney, Tim. Civil War Articles and Related Information in the Fayette Tribune (Charleston 

Heights, WV, 1991). 

McKinney, Tim. The Civil War in Greenbrier County, West Virginia (Charleston, WV: Quarrier 

Press, 2004). 

Meissner, C.R., K.J. Englund, and P.C. Mory. “Coal Resources of the New River Gorge, West 

Virginia.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Beckley,WV, 1982. 

Mills, Don. Bluestone Dam. Marceline, OH: Walsworth Press for the Summers County Historical 

Society, 1984. 

Nuttall, John. Trees Above and Coal Below. San Diego, CA: Neyenesch Printers, 1961. 

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven and London: Yale University 

Press, 1967). 

Orth, Donald J., and Louis A. Helfrich. “Indices of Water Quality for the New River Gorge 

National River and its Tributaries.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Blacksburg, VA, 

1983. 

Parker, W.C. “Comments.” In Destry Jarvis, ed. The Oldest New River, Debate in the 1970s: 

National Park or Wild and Scenic River: A Symposium on the Anniversary of the 

Establishment of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. (A report on the 

November 9, 2003, panel proceedings). Internal NPS document. N.p., 2003.. 

Perry, J.L. History of Bluestone Dam. Hinton, WV, 1948. 

Peters, J.T., and H.B. Carden. History of Fayette County. Charleston, WV: Jarrett Printing 

Company, 1926. 

Ridenour, James M. The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics & America’s Treasures. 

Merrillville, IN: ICS Books, Inc., 1994. 

Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Steven P. Bange. “Norms of New River Gorge: (WV) Boaters About 

Appropriate River Use Conditions.” New River Gorge Symposium Proceedings. Boone, NC, 

1984. 

Rouse, Garrie D. “Rare Plants of the New River Gorge: A Preliminary Report.” New River 

Symposium Proceedings. Pipestem, WV, April 11-13, 1985, 37-127. 

Runte, Alfred. National Parks. The American Experience. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1997. 

Sanders, William. A New River Heritage. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing, 1991. 

Schoenbaum, Thomas J. The New River Controversy. Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair, 1979. 

Sharp, Lynn. “Water Quality for Teachers in the New River Valley.” New River Symposium 

Proceedings. Boone, NC, 1999. 

Simpson, Steven, and Leo McAvoy. New River Gorge National River. A Narrative History of Its 

Designation as Part of the National Park System. Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, Division of Recreation, Park and Leisure Studies. 
Bibliography 

346 

Suiter, Dale W. and Dan K. Evans. “Vascular Flora of New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia, Rare Species and Plant Migrations.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Daniels, 

WV, April 7-8, 1995. 

Unrau, Harlan D. New River Gorge: Special History Study/Historic Context Study. Denver: U.S. 

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1996. 

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Dunloup Creek Watershed Design Report: Glen 

Jean Channel Improvement, Fayette County, West Virginia. Report prepared by the Soil 

Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Design Unit, 

Morgantown, WV. December 1971. 

Voshell, J. Reese Jr. “The Ecology of Black Flies in the New River and its Major Tributaries in 

Southern West Virginia.” New River Symposium Proceedings. Boone, NC, 1984. 

Whisman, Steven A., and S.J. Hollenhorst. Summary of resource and social indicators on the 

Gauley, New, Cheat, Shenandoah, and Tygart Valley Rivers in West Virginia, WV. 1998. Final 

project report submitted to the West Virginia Whitewater Commission. 

Workman, Michael E., Lee R. Maddex, and Dan J. Bonenberger. New River Gorge National River 

Historic Resource Study (NERI-02-038 HRS). Report prepared by the Institute for the 

History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology, West Virginia University, and 

submitted to the New River Gorge National River, Glen Jean, WV through the U.S. 

Department of Interior Cooperative Agreement No. H0001010032. 2005. 

III. Selected Printed Government Records 

Unless otherwise stated, the reports below refer to NERI. These documents are available in the 

NERI library or in NERI archives (Main Park Files, MPF). 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter 2.2, Compendium of Designations, Closures, 

Request Requirements, and Other Restrictions Imposed under the Discretionary Authority of the 

Superintendent, NERI, September 17, 2004. 

New River Parkway Authority. New River Parkway Concept Plan. January 1991. 

U.S. Congress. Congressional Record. 2nd Session, 94th Congress, August 30, 1976, Volume 122, 

Part 22, 28405. 

______. Congressional Record. 2nd Session, 93rd Congress, August 1, 1974, Volume 120, Book 20, 

26466-26467. 

______. Congressional Record. 1st Session, 102nd Congress, November 6-13, 1991, Volume 137, 

Book 21, 30401-32076. 

______. Congressional Record. Public Law 95-625, November 10, 1978, 3547. 

______. Congressional Record. October 3, 1986, 28466. 

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. Criteria for Boundary Adjustments: 

Supplement to Planning Process Guideline. 1991, MPF, Box 46, L1417. 

______. Documented Safety Program. Health and Safety, 1978-1988, MPF, A7615. 

______.General Management Plan (NERI). November, 1983. 

______. Emergency Operation Plan. 1993, MPF, Box 60, A7619. 

______. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Boardwalk and Trail Construction, Sandstone Falls, 

New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. April, 1991, 11. 

______. Final Wild and Scenic River Study: Bluestone River, WV. August 1983. 
Bibliography 

347 

______. Fire Program. 1995, MPF, Box 74, Y14. 

______. General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement/Land Protection Plan, 

Volume 1: Gauley River National Recreation Area. 1996. 

______. Land Protection Plan: New River Gorge National River. July, 1984. 

______. Management and Development Guidelines, New River Gorge National River, WV. 1988. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Annual Report,

Washington, DC, 1999. 

U.S. Federal Power Commission. Establishment of the New River Gorge National River, West 

Virginia, A report on the November 9, 2003, panel proceedings. Report Opinion. 968, June 14, 1974. 

IV. Newspapers 

Beckley Post-Herald Register 

Charleston Gazette Mail 

Fayette County Tribune 

Highlands Voice 

Hinton Daily News 

New York Times

V. Interviews 

All oral history interview tapes and transcripts are deposited with the library at New River Gorge 

National River. 

Interviews conducted by Lynn Stasick: 

Atwell, Randy. Fayetteville, WV, July 13, 2005. 

Bailey, Edith. Glen Jean, WV, June 25, 2004. 

Dragon, Jon. Glen Jean, WV, September 9 & 10, 2004. 

Fuerst, David. Glen Jean, WV, September 10, 2004. 

Hartley, Gary. Glen Jean, WV, June 22, 2004. 

Hite, Calvin. Glen Jean, WV, June 21, 2004. 

Jarvis, Destry. Telephone interview. April 23, 2004. 

Maddy, Doug. Glen Jean, WV, September 14, 2004. 

Pearson, Mary. Oak Hill, WV, June 24, 2004. 

Steel, Andrew. Glen Jean, WV, August 9, 2005. 

Watkins, Jim. Frankfort, WV, September 10, 2004. 

Interviews conducted by Gregory A. Good: 

Darden, Deborah. Glen Jean, WV, November 16, 2006. 

Loetterle, Lynn. Glen Jean, WV, November 17, 2006. 

Maddy, Peggy. Glen Jean, WV, November 17, 2006. 

Sprague, Lorrie. Glen Jean, WV, November 17, 2006. 

Steel, Andrew. Glen Jean, WV, November 17, 2006. 

Stephens, Ken. Glen Jean, WV, November 16, 2006. 

VI. Selected Internet Sources 
Bibliography 

348 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to 

Section 106 Review. [cited September 20, 2005]. http://www.achp.gov/citizensguide.html. 

Bluestone Turnpike. “...most of these administrative roads...” [cited November 1, 2005]. 

http://www.nps.gov/neri/trails.htm. 

Citizen’s Conservation Corps of West Virginia. “...have become involved in eradication 

programs...” [cited February 27, 2005]. www.wvccc.com/trails1.html. 

Bridge Day History. “The bridge was closed to traffic...” [cited February 18, 2005]. 

http://members.citynet.net/skydiver/. 

McDonnell, Janet A. “The National Park Service looks toward the 21st Century: The 1988 General 

Superintendents Conference and Discovery 2000.” January 2001. Available at 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSThinking/suptreport.htm. 

Mountain Biking. “...potentially has same effects...” [cited November 1, 2005]. 

http://www.nps.gov/blue/pphtml/activities.html. 

National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Rev. ed. 

Harpers Ferry, WV: National Parks Service, 2005. The first edition, by Bureau Historian 

Barry Mackintosh, appeared in 1985. The revised edition, updated by Bureau Historian 

Janet McDonnell in 1991, modified again by the Harpers Ferry Center in 2005, is available 

at http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/shaping/index.htm. 

Sontag, William H. National Park Service. The First 75 Years. Preserving our Past for the Future.

N.p.: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1990. An updated version is 

available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sontag/index.htm. 

National Park Service. Cultural Resource Management Guideline. Washington, DC: National Park 

Service, Release No. 5, 1997. [cited September 20, 2005]. Available at 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm. 

National Park Service. “The festival is now celebrated ...,” [cited February 2, 2005]. 

www.nps.gov/neri/news020403.htm. 

National Park Service. “Bridge Day...” [cited February 26, 2005]. 

http://www.nps.gov/neri/bridgeday.htm. 

New River Friends. [cited April 2, 2005]. www.newriverfriends.org/background.htm. 

New River Gorge Bridge History and Facts. “The project’s completion reduced...” [cited 

February, 2005]. http://www.officialbridgeday.com/facts.html. 

Park-wide Perceived or Potential Threats to Natural Resources at New River Gorge National 

River. “...biking potentially has...” [cited October 18, 2005]. 

http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/FINAL/NERI_Assess/NERI_Assessment4.pdf. 

Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resource Stewardship and 

Partnerships, NPS, US Dept. of Interior, before the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Recreation and Public Lands of the House Committee on Resources, concerning HR 3858, 

the New River Gorge Boundary Act of 2002. May 16, 2002. 

http://www.nps.gov/legal/testimony/107th/rivgorg.htm. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Huntington District Web Page, Bluestone Hydropower: Events 

and Announcements. “Presently (2005), agreements are being negotiated to satisfy...,” 

[cited March, 2004]. http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/. 

Peregrine Fund Web Site. “...the Fund’s mission is to help restore...” [cited February 26, 2005]. 

www.peregrinefund.org/about_us.asp. 
Bibliography 

349 

Whisman, Steven A. “Limits of Acceptable Change Management Plan: A Summary of LAC 

Indicators for Commercial Rafting Use of West Virginia Rivers, 1998 Annual Report.” 

[cited September 25, 2005]. 

http://www.wvdnr.gov/LEnforce/White/RiverMgt/98lac_rpt.pdf.