Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:03 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

Guadalupe

Mountains

National Park:

An Administrative History

Judith K. Fabry

December 1988

Southwest Cultural Resources

Center

Professional Papers No. 19

Southwest Region

Division of History

Santa Fe, NM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhi.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION

Location, Access, and Public Facilities

Physical Description

Previous Uses of the Park Lands

Administration of the Park

Chapter II. THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

The Forces at Work

Judge J.C. Hunter and Early Park Plans

The El Paso Boosters and the Texas Legislature

The Proposed Extension of Carlsbad Caverns

The National Park Service and the Grisham-Hunter Ranch

The 1938 Revival

The 1940s and 1950s

The Early Park Movements in Retrospect

Chapter III. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT AND J.C. HUNTER, JR.

The Role of Wallace Pratt

National Park Service Interest in the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch

J.C. Hunter, Jr., and Glenn Biggs

Chapter IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Joe Pool and H.R. 3100

Hunter, Pratt, and the Congressmen

The Committee of Five

Political One-Upmanship

Gaining Support for the Park

The Congressional Hearings, 1965

The Kelly Report

The House Hearings, 1966

The Senate Hearings, 1966

The Texas Legislature

Appropriations Legislation
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

Establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

The McKittrick Canyon Access Road

Wilderness Designation and Development Ceiling Increase

Legislation in 1987

A Perspective on the Legislative History

Chapter V. MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

Donation of Mineral Rights

Acquisition of the J.C. Hunter, Jr., Land

Acquisition of Smaller Tracts within the Park Boundaries

The Hammack Exclusion and Easement

Acquisition of the Glover Property

The Shivers Mining Claims

The McKittrick Canyon Right-of-Way Exchange

West Side Access Road Right-of-Way

Acquisition of the Texas Highway Department Maintenance Area

Excess Land Acquired Outside the Park Boundaries

Chapter VI. PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S

Planning in the National Park System

Master Planning Process

 Master Plan

 Pine Springs Development Concept Plan and the Tramway Study

Other Plans for Development

 Environmental Assessment for McKittrick Canyon

 Upper Dog Canyon Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessmen

Statement for Management

Interpretive Plan

Resource Management Plans

 Cave Management

 Backcountry Management Plan

 Natural Resources Management Plan

Trail Planning

The Contribution of Donald Dayton

Chapter VII. PLANNING IN THE 1980S

Economic Feasibility/Market Study

Master Plan Supplement

West Side Boundary Study

Resources Management Planning-1980s

 Cave Management Plan

 Backcountry Management Plan

 Cultural Resources Management Program

 Fire Management Plan

 Resources Management Plan Revisions, 1987

Statement for Management

Chapter VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK

Residential Area for Park Personnel

McKittrick Canyon

Dog Canyon
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

Backcountry

 Trail Construction

 Pine Springs Campground

Administrative Facilities

 Fencing

 Williams Ranch Access Road

 Information and Operational Headquarters

Chapter IX. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

Water Resources

Fire Management

Backcountry Use

Mountain Lions

Reintroduction of Native Species

Trespass Grazing

Pesticide Control

Endangered Species

Oil and Gas Development

Collecting of Plant Material by Native Americans

Chapter X. CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

Preservation of Historic Structures and the Emigrant Trail

 The Pinery

 The Emigrant Trail to California and the Butterfield Stage Route

 Williams Ranch

 Pratt Stone Cabin

Adaptive Use of Historic Resources

 Frijole Ranch Facilities

 Ship on the Desert

Managing the Historic Resources

 Archeological Issues

 The Glover Site

Chapter XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATION

Events Sponsored by the National Park Service Dedication Ceremony--September 30, 1972

Opening of Facilities in Dog Canyon--May 22, 1982

 Tenth Anniversary Celebration--November 6, 1982

 Color Weekends

Other Special Events

 Bicentennial Flag Ceremony--July 28, 1975

 Climb of Guadalupe Peak by Members of POINT--July 12-17, 1982

Chapter XII. IN RETROSPECT

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Legislation
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

Public Law 89-667, Establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Public Law 94-174, Land Exchange, McKittrick Canyon

Public Law 95-625, National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Title I and Title IV)

APPENDIX B: Personnel

Superintendents

 Donald A. Dayton

 William W. Dunmire

 Richard B. Smith

List of Permanent Personnel (Tentative)

APPENDIX C: Cooperative Agreements

Memorandum of Understanding between the National Park Service and The Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department (1987)

Agreement between National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, and the Carlsbad

Caverns Natural History Association (1978)

Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Carlsbad Caverns National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park; the Bureau of Land

Management, Roswell District Office, Carlsbad Resource Area Headquarters; and the United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Concerning the Management and

Suppression of Wildfires Along Common Boundaries (1988)

Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and the

Department of Highways and Public Transportation, State of Texas (1980)

Interagency Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) between the National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, and the Lincoln

National Forest, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (for management of North McKittrick

Canyon) (1988)

Memorandum of Understanding between Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Culberson County

Hospital District for Operation and Maintenance of an Ambulance Service (1987)

APPENDIX D: Collecting and Research Permits

Collecting Permit Procedures

 Appendix A: Research/Collecting Permit Certification Request Form

 Appendix B: Criteria Checklist for Collecting Permit Applicants

LIST OF FIGURES

I. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Vicinity of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Figure 2. Map of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Figure 3. El Capitan

Figure 4. View from Guadalupe Peak
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

Figure 5. View down Guadalupe Canyon

Figure 6. View of the Bowl

Figure 7. Scene in McKittrick Canyon

Figure 8. Williams Ranch

III. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT AND J.C. HUNTER, JR.

Figure 9. Wallace Pratt

Figure 10. Park Service survey party

Figure 11. Guadalupe Mountain Ranch sales brochure

IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Figure 12. Key figures in the legislative process

V. MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

Figure 13. Map of mineral rights ownership

Figure 14. Map of land ownership

VI. PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S

Figure 15. Wilderness recommendation

Figure 16. General development of park

Figure 17. Route of proposed tramway

Figure 18. Developments approved for the Pine Springs area

Figure 19. Conditions existing at Dog Canyon development site in mid-1970s

VII. PLANNING IN THE 1980S

Figure 20. Existing boundaries and non-park sections, as of 1980

Figure 21. Boundary expansion proposed for west side of park

VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK

Figure 22. Temporary housing at Signal Peak

Figure 23. Duplex apartments at Pine Springs residential area

Figure 24. Temporary contact station at McKittrick Canyon

Figure 25. Permanent visitor contact station at McKittrick Canyon

Figure 26. Temporary ranger housing at Dog Canyon

Figure 27. Permanent ranger residence at Dog Canyon

Figure 28. Visitor contact station at Dog Canyon

Figure 29. Temporary facilities near Frijole

Figure 30. Artist's rendering of visitor center and operational headquarters

X. CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

Figure 31. North wall of Pinery stage station

Figure 32. Pilot memorial on Guadalupe Peak

Figure 33. James Adolphus Williams at Williams ranch house

Figure 34. Williams ranch house

Figure 35. Wallace Pratt's stone cabin

Figure 36. Walter and Bertha Glover at Frijole ranch house

Figure 37. Frijole ranch house, 1980

Figure 38. The Ship on the Desert
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhit.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:06 PM]

Figure 39. Ship during construction

XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Figure 40. Distinguished guests at dedication ceremony for Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Figure 41. Mary and J.C. Hunter, Jr.

Figure 42. Bicentennial flag ceremony on Guadalupe Peak

Figure 43. Wheelchair climb of Guadalupe Peak

APPENDIX B: Personnel

Superintendents

 Donald Dayton

 William Dunmire

 Richard Smith

gumo/adhi/adhit.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Acknowledgements)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi0a.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:07 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Two people deserve special recognition and thanks for their parts in this work. The project could not have been

accomplished without the help of Bobby L. Crisman, Management Assistant for Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

His willingness to share his voluminous personal files and his excellent memory made it possible to retrieve much

information that was unavailable elsewhere. Melody Webb's patient editorial work and her demand for conciseness

helped to produce a more readable final project. Many other people at the park, at the headquarters in Carlsbad, and at

the Regional Office, gave freely of their time and knowledge during the research phase of the project. Each of them

has my sincere thanks.

Judith K. Fabry

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhi0a.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Executive Summary)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi0b.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:08 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, authorized by an act of Congress in 1966 and established in 1972, comprises

76,293 acres of mountain and desert land in West Texas. Congress established the park for its scientific and scenic

values. The escarpments and canyons of the high country provide dramatic displays of geological sequences.

McKittrick Canyon, which contains a perennial stream and unusual biotic associations, and the Bowl, which contains a

relict forest, are the focal points of the park's biological values. The park also contains archeological resources and

historic resources related to westward emigration and early ranching operations. Of the area within the boundaries of

the park, 46,850 acres are Congressionally designated wilderness.

The park is located on the Texas-New Mexico border, 110 miles east of El Paso, Texas, and 55 miles southwest of

Carlsbad, New Mexico. U. S. Highway 62/180, which passes through the southern end of Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, is the primary route by which visitors reach the park. The area in which the park is located is

undeveloped and sparsely populated; the land is used predominantly for cattle and sheep ranching. However, the

entrance to Carlsbad Caverns National Park is only 35 miles northeast of Guadalupe Mountains on Highway 62/180

and at one point the boundaries of the two parks are only five miles apart. The few tourist facilities between El Paso

and Whites City, New Mexico, consist primarily of small cafe-gas stations.

Nomadic peoples utilized the resources of the mountains and desert lands of the park for at least 10,000 years before

Europeans arrived in the area, but there were no permanent settlements until the late-nineteenth century, when settlers

moved in and began cattle and sheep ranching. Later, in the 1920s, Wallace Pratt bought the first of several parcels of

land he would acquire in McKittrick Canyon. He built a summer home and a later a permanent residence on the

property. In the early 1960s he donated 5,600 acres of his property in McKittrick Canyon to the federal government to

be used for a park.

J. C. Hunter also purchased land in McKittrick Canyon in the 1920s and thereafter managed the canyon property as a

wildlife preserve. It was part of his 72,000-acre Guadalupe Mountain Ranch, on which he raised sheep, goats, and

cattle. In 1969, three years after Congress authorized the establishment of a national park in the southern Guadalupe

Mountains, the federal government purchased the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch from Hunter's son, J. C., Jr. Between

1966 and 1972 the government also purchased a number of smaller parcels of land that had been included within the

park boundaries and acquired through donation the mineral rights to the park lands.

Planning for the park began in 1961, shortly after the Park Service began managing Pratt's donation in McKittrick

Canyon as part of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. By 1979, master planning and most of the planning for

development of the new Guadalupe Mountains National Park were complete. Wilderness designation for much of the

park limited its uses primarily to hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and scientific research. Developments planned

to enhance those uses included a professionally planned trail system, two developed campgrounds, and a number of

primitive campgrounds. Two visitor contact stations, a main visitor center and operations headquarters, housing for

park personnel, and a maintenance facility rounded out the developments planned for the park.

Construction of the park facilities began in 1977 and, except for the visitor center and operational headquarters, was

mostly complete by late in 1982. After numerous design changes to reduce the cost of the combination visitor center

and operational headquarters, in 1987 Congress approved funding for construction. Ground breaking took place in May

1988.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Executive Summary)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi0b.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:08 PM]

From its establishment in 1972 until late in 1987, Guadalupe Mountains National Park was administered jointly with

Carlsbad Caverns from a headquarters in Carlsbad, New Mexico. From 1973 until 1987 an Area Manager lived at the

park and oversaw day-to- day operations. Since October 1987, Guadalupe Mountains has had its own resident

Superintendent and management of the two parks has been separated except for shared administrative services.

During the first fifteen years after establishment of the park, resource management focused on research to identify and

evaluate the natural and cultural resources of the park. Under the mandates of wilderness management, park personnel

worked to return the park lands to their natural state and to protect the flora and fauna found there. Significant cultural

resources were either stabilized and preserved or adapted for use as administrative facilities.

By 1988, with construction of the visitor center and operational headquarters underway, development was nearly

complete. Similarly, much necessary research to establish baselines for resource management had been accomplished.

Fifteen years after its establishment, the park had assumed the form and substance of maturity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhi0b.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:09 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, authorized by an act of Congress in 1966 and established in 1972, comprises

76,293 acres of mountain and desert land in West Texas. Congress established the park for its scientific and scenic

values. The park consists primarily of the highest and southernmost portion of the Guadalupe Mountains, a range that

extends northeasterly into New Mexico. The escarpments and canyons of the high country provide dramatic displays of

geological sequences and contain relict and unusual plant communities. Of the area within the park's boundaries,

46,850 acres are Congressionally designated wilderness. This designation precluded extensive development within the

park and has limited the uses of much of the park to hiking, horseback riding, backpacking, and approved scientific

research.

Location, Access, and Public Facilities

Guadalupe Mountains National Park is located on the Texas- New Mexico Border, 110 miles east of El Paso, Texas,

and 55 miles southwest of Carlsbad, New Mexico (see Figure 1). Part of the northern boundary adjoins the Lincoln

National Forest and lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. Other mountain ranges lie within or in

proximity to the park: the Brokeoff Mountains to the north, the Delaware Mountains, Patterson Hills, and Sierra

Diablo Mountains to the south (see Figure 2). U.S. Highway 62/180 passes through the southern end of the park and is

the primary route by which visitors reach the park. State Road 137 in New Mexico provides access to the northern part

of the park.

The park is located in an undeveloped and sparsely populated area where the land is used predominantly for cattle and

sheep ranching. However, another national park--Carlsbad Caverns--is only 35 miles away on Highway 62/180 and at

one point the boundaries of the two parks are only five miles apart. The tourist facilities that have been developed

along the highway between El Paso and Carlsbad consist primarily of small cafe-gas stations. Dell City, Texas, a

farming and ranching community with a population of about 400, is the town nearest to the park, but it has only

limited services for tourists. A larger development of tourist facilities is located at Whites City, New Mexico,

approximately 35 miles northeast of the park. Van Horn, Texas, 60 miles south of the park, also has tourist facilities.

Guadalupe Mountains National Park provides the only campground between Whites City and Hueco Tanks, a state

park on the eastern outskirts of El Paso.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi1.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:12 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER II: THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

The Forces at Work

During a period of fifty years a number of social, political, and economic factors combined to bring about the

establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Three of those factors might be singled out as crucial. One was

philosophical: the belief in the necessity for parks in American society. The other two factors were economic: rapid

development and population growth in West Texas and southern New Mexico, and the increasing use of the

automobile, which provided a means to escape the pressures that development and increasing population created.

Parks were an accepted part of American life by the 1920s. Congressional authorization of the National Park Service

in 1916 reflected public interest in material and spiritual conservation. This philosophy was based in the belief that

scenic grandeur, experienced in a relatively primitive state, could revitalize people who lived daily with the forces of

industrialization and urbanization. Since the country had a non-renewable supply of scenic resources, people believed

they should be conserved and managed for use by present and future generations. [1]

Although the entire Southwest was less than thirty years past its frontier stage, the area was growing up. People living

in small and scattered agricultural and ranching communities in New Mexico and Texas watched towns like Las

Cruces, Roswell, Artesia, Carlsbad, and El Paso grow to be prosperous centers of economy and culture.

"Boosterism," a popular term of the early twentieth century, described the efforts made by individuals and

organizations to advertise the potentials of a locale for economic development and personal contentment. Boosters

wanted to put their towns "on the map." Chambers of commerce, the institutions of boosterism, seemed to grow

spontaneously once a town achieved a population of several thousand.

El Paso, Texas, a city by local standards, was geographically isolated from other centers of population in Texas. The

El Paso Chamber of Commerce looked east, therefore, to the rapidly developing oil fields of the Permian basin as a

market for goods and services and to the newly established Carlsbad Cave National Monument in southeastern New

Mexico as a source of expanding tourism.

Boosters of Carlsbad, New Mexico, were equally aware of the economic potential of their area. After Carlsbad Cave

was designated a National Monument in 1923, tourism became the most frequently mentioned topic in the local

newspaper. In addition to the spectacular cave, the boosters of Carlsbad pointed to the rugged beauty and archeological

artifacts to be found in the canyons of the nearby Guadalupe Mountains; the beautiful and healthful waters of Sitting

Bull Falls and Carlsbad Spring; and the tamer diversions the city offered, such as swimming and golf. [2]

The automobile provided the means for many people to make excursions to relatively distant points on their own time

schedules. Without access to the diversions afforded by major metropolitan areas, and living in a climate that provided

long seasons for enjoyment of the outdoors, residents of West Texas and southern New Mexico often spent vacation

times camping and exploring archeological ruins or geological formations. The guano cave near Carlsbad, where Jim

White was the resident foreman and guide, was a popular recreation destination for people from the area even before it

became a national monument. Because they were proud of their scenic resources, local people also wanted the rest of

the country to appreciate them.

As automobile use expanded, people became more aware of the limitations of the old wagon roads. Local good roads
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:12 PM]

committees grew up with the chambers of commerce. Those committees, magnified to state and federal proportions,

served as the lobbying forces to promote the establishment of a national highway system. Although people began to

think it would be a good idea to establish a park in the scenic Guadalupe Mountains located between Carlsbad and El

Paso, a park could develop only after roads opened the remote area. On the other hand, tax dollars would not be spent

on improving or building a road unless the road led somewhere. In West Texas and southern New Mexico,

automobiles, roads, and parks were inextricably linked.

Motorcades were a phenomenon of the 1920s, expressive of the country's newfound mobility, the spirit of boosterism,

and goodwill toward neighboring communities. Organized by chambers of commerce, these events involved from

several dozen to hundreds of vehicles traveling together, usually for a few days, but sometimes for weeks at a time.

The motorcade was met with enthusiasm wherever it stopped because it occasioned an opportunity to show off each

locality's particular attractions to an appreciative audience. During the social activities there was always time to discuss

ways to strengthen ties between towns. Good roads were usually the principal topic.

In the 1920s no direct route existed between El Paso and Carlsbad. Instead, travelers from El Paso went to

Alamogordo, then through the Sacramento Mountains to Artesia, then south to Carlsbad, a scenic but indirect route. In

1927, after a motorcade of El Pasoans through the "El Paso trade territory," the Carlsbad newspaper reported that there

was much interest in building a highway to link El Paso and Carlsbad. To get such a project underway, one wealthy

businessman from El Paso had put up $5,000 and challenged twenty others to match the amount. [3]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi2.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:13 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER III: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT

AND J. C. HUNTER, JR.

The Role of Wallace Pratt

Wallace Pratt, the man Roger Toll had described in 1934 as being uninterested in a park in the Guadalupe Mountains,

ultimately became the man who brought the decades of hopes for a park to reality. Pratt was a geologist--the first

employed by Humble Oil Company. He was one of the new generation of scientists who used their knowledge of the

origins of oil and micropaleontology to rationalize oil exploration. A slight and gentle-mannered man, Pratt once

called himself a "never prepossessing 115-pound Kansas Yankee." He loved nature, but especially he loved rocks. In

later years, when an interviewer questioned Pratt about the origin of the name of McKittrick Canyon, he confessed that

because he was "more interested in rocks than men" he merely accepted oral tradition that attributed the name to an

Army officer, Felix McKittrick. Until his death in 1981, Pratt spoke and wrote tirelessly and eloquently of the

geological history revealed in the canyons and escarpments of the southern Guadalupes, always seeking to imbue some

of his love of natural history in his listeners and readers (see Figure 9). [1]

In 1921, Pratt was in the area of Pecos, Texas, investigating oil leases for Humble Oil. One enterprising real estate

agent captured Pratt's attention by offering to show him "the most beautiful spot in Texas." After driving the dusty and

rough 100-mile round trip from Carlsbad to see McKittrick Canyon, Pratt had to agree with the agent's appraisal of the

land. He was fascinated not only by the primitive beauty of the green and watered canyon, but with the geological

history exposed in the canyon walls. Pratt knew he could not purchase the property himself, so he shared his find with

friends Rupert Ricker and Floyd Dodson. Later in 1921 the three entered into a partnership agreement to purchase

eleven sections in McKittrick Canyon that were part of the McComb Ranch. [2]

The partners were surprised in 1925 when J. C. Hunter purchased a section of land adjacent to the western boundary of

the McComb Ranch. The surprising aspect of the news was that the section contained much of the land in South

McKittrick Canyon that Pratt and his friends thought they owned. Ambiguous surveys caused the confusion. Years

later, as he recalled the chagrin of the partners at this turn of events, Pratt pointed out that Hunter had been building up

his holdings in the Guadalupe Mountains for some time prior to his purchase of the section in McKittrick Canyon.

While Pratt and his friends depended on McCombs' oral description of the boundaries of the property they purchased,

Hunter was better informed. He was familiar with the surveys in the land office, and he knew that the State still held

title to the section in McKittrick. Pratt believed that when Hunter learned of the purchase of the canyon land by Pratt

and his friends and became aware of the scenic value of the canyon, he "simply beat [them] to it." [3]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:13 PM]

Figure 9. Wallace Pratt in 1964, speaking to members of the Roswell Geological Society

who were on a field trip in McKittrick Canyon. A professional geologist, Pratt loved to tell

the geological history revealed in the walls of McKittrick Canyon. He donated his land in

McKittrick Canyon to the federal government to be used as a park. (NPS Photo)

Financial reverses in 1929 caused Pratt's partners, Ricker and Dodson, to offer their shares of the property to Pratt. In

1930, with a loan from friend and financier Robert A. Welch, Pratt acquired full title to the partners' portion of the

canyon land. During the winter of 1930-31 Pratt commissioned Houston architect John Staub to design a home for his

family, to be built at the junction of North and South McKittrick Canyons. [4]

Staub designed a house that would fit the wilderness setting of McKittrick Canyon. The Stone Cabin, as it came to be

known, was built entirely of native stone and comprised four rooms: two bedrooms, each with its own bath, a kitchen

and a living area. The stone came from a quarry on the McComb ranch. Four men--a civil engineer, a carpenter, a

stone mason, and a laborer-- accomplished all phases of construction, including the stone quarrying. Until 1945 this

cabin served as the summer home for the Pratt family. [5]

Pratt's scientific approach to oil exploration served him well and allowed him to retire a wealthy man. He rose quickly

in Humble Oil, becoming a member of the board of directors and then a vice president. From 1937 until his retirement

he lived in New York City and served on the board of directors of Standard Oil of New Jersey, Humble's parent

company. By the time he moved to New York, Pratt was thinking of retirement and establishing a permanent residence

at the Manzanital Ranch, the name he had given to his property in McKittrick Canyon. He had intended to use the

Stone Cabin as a retirement home, but a flood, which trapped the family in the canyon for several days, caused him to

rethink his plans. Subsequently, New York architect Newton Bevin designed the home that was built outside the

canyon, on a promontory at the base of the mountain. In 1941, Ed Birdsall of Carlsbad, the man Pratt hired as his

general contractor, began construction of the house. Work was interrupted, however, by World War II and was not

completed until 1945. [6]

The Ship on the Desert, the name the Pratts gave to their retirement home, was a long, single-story, rectangular
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:13 PM]

structure. Centered over the main floor was a much smaller second-story "deck" room. Transverse walls of native rock,

tied together by steel beams, formed six rooms on the main floor and the deck room. Other walls were glass or formed

by steel studs with stucco and plaster finish on steel lath. The only wood utilized in the entire structure was in the

outriggers for the roof overhang. [7]

Wallace and Iris Pratt spent fifteen years in their desert home. They enjoyed the telephone-less isolation of the Ship

until the late 1950s when health considerations forced them to make plans to move closer to medical facilities. Though

the Pratts had been isolated, the years of their canyon life had not been lonely. During the years that they owned the

Manzanital Ranch they often shared their beautiful canyon lands with friends and with scientists who wanted to study

the geologic formations and wildlife there. The years and his experiences convinced Pratt of the canyon's

appropriateness for a park. However, he also recognized the need for professional management of a fragile resource.

In February 1958, after the idea of a park in McKittrick Canyon had laid dormant for some twenty years, Pratt

approached Taylor Hoskins, Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns, with his offer to donate 7,000 acres in the canyon to

the National Park Service. He valued the property and improvements at more than $200,000. [8] In April 1958 a team

from the Park Service inspected Pratt's property. Eight months later, on December 19, 1958, Pratt received notification

of acceptance of his donation. [9]

The area the Park Service agreed to accept included 5,632 acres, which were deeded to the federal government in three

parts. All of the Pratt land was acquired under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (16 USC, Sec. 431).

The first donation of 4,942 acres was accepted December 30, 1959. The second donation, a one-third interest Wallace

and Iris Pratt held in 690 acres, was accepted on December 28, 1960. The deed to the other two-thirds interest in the

690 acres, which belonged to the Pratt children, sons Houston and Fletcher, and daughter Nancy Jane Tucker, was

accepted January 2, 1961. [10]

The property was accepted subject to the oil, gas, and mineral rights of the State of Texas and a lease held by Humble

Oil Company on Section 14, Block 65, Township 1 South. [11] The Pratts also reserved their rental and royalty rights

to Section 14 for the term of the lease as well as the rentals and royalties that might accrue from oil and gas leases on

Section 11, Block 65, Township 1 South, for twenty years following execution of the deed. [12]

In later years, when some people criticized J.C. Hunter, Jr., for making a profit on the sale of his land, Pratt came to his

defense. He pointed out that the Pratt family had also benefitted financially from their donation. Although they had

donated their property to the federal government, the members of the family had been allowed to deduct the full

commercial value of the property from their income taxes. [13]

Pratt's interest in providing the country with a park did not end with his land donation. He immediately began a

personal campaign to increase the size of the McKittrick Canyon park. In February 1961, Pratt wrote a purposely

provocative letter to Frank Tolbert of the Dallas Morning News to ask for his help. Tolbert, the author of a column

popular among Texas nature-lovers, "Tolbert's Texas," had recently devoted one of his articles to McKittrick Canyon.

Pratt asked Tolbert's support in seeking "some public-spirited and loyal Texan with sufficient means (or a group of

such Texans) to buy . . . the remaining critical area not included in our recent gift, and present it . . . to the National

Park Service." [14] The "critical area" to which Pratt referred was an additional 6,000 acres of mountain upland owned

by J. C. Hunter, Jr., adjacent to the land Pratt had donated. If that land could be acquired, Pratt, like Roger Toll before

him, envisioned the construction of a mountain highway to connect the salt flats west of the Guadalupe Mountains

with Carlsbad Caverns. [15]

Pratt was not content with provoking only Tolbert; he also sent a copy of the letter to J.C. Hunter, Jr. Hunter replied

quickly and applauded Pratt's letter to Tolbert. He emphasized the fact that a "wealthy benefactor" was of "prime

importance" and continued to say that he believed more than 6,000 acres would be required to prevent commercial

development so close to the scenic lands. Hunter also pointed out that he could not afford to sell only the scenic

portion of his Guadalupe Mountains property, for much of the value of the entire ranch was tied up in the "aesthetic

attraction of McKittrick Canyon." Hunter advised Pratt that on January 10, 1961, Leslie Arnberger, Chief, National

Park System Planning, from the southwest regional office of the Park Service, had visited his office and made

arrangements for regional staff members to survey his Guadalupe Mountain Ranch the week of May 15-20. Hunter
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:13 PM]

invited Pratt to join the investigating party. Hunter responded positively to Pratt's suggestion of a parkway but he had

his own ideas about the route it should follow. He preferred to see the road along the ridge-top come off the mountain

along the slope of Pine Canyon and return to the U.S. highway in the vicinity of Frijole, which he believed offered a

better location for development of park services. [16]

A week later, Pratt accepted Hunter's invitation to join the investigating party and responded positively to his other

comments. He sent a copy of his letter to Oscar Carlson, who had become Superintendent at Carlsbad Caverns. Pratt

hoped to convey to the Park Service Hunter's interest in selling his ranch for the purpose of establishing a park. [17]

Wallace Pratt continued to participate in the movement to establish a separate national park in the Guadalupe

Mountains of Texas. He solicited among the circle of personal and professional acquaintances he had established

during his career in the oil industry for the much-desired wealthy benefactor who would purchase Hunter's land. Pratt

also testified as both interested person and expert geologist during the congressional hearings preceding the creation of

Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

After the park was finally established, the Park Service continued to seek Pratt's advice about resource uses and

interpretation. Recognizing his valuable knowledge of the geologic history revealed in the mountains and canyons of

the southern Guadalupes, the park managers arranged to have Pratt tell on tape the story that he loved so much, about

the formation of the Capitan Reef and the Permian Basin. Pratt died in 1981, but visitors to McKittrick Canyon can

still hear his voice, telling the story the canyon reveals.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi3.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:14 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Joe Pool and H. R. 3100

A freshman Congressman-at-Large from Texas, Joe Pool, took the next step toward the creation of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park. Though a newly elected congressman, Pool previously had served three terms in the Texas

legislature. He resided in Dallas but had family ties to Carlsbad, New Mexico, and was no stranger to West Texas.

During his campaign in West Texas, he became interested in the Guadalupe Mountains. Conversations with many

people in the area convinced him that the southern part of the Guadalupes should be preserved as a national park. In

January 1963, without consulting Hunter, Biggs, the Park Service, or the Interior Department, Pool introduced H.R.

3100. The bill called for the Secretary of the Interior to study the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch to determine its

appropriateness as a national park. Pool was as surprised to learn that just such a study had been completed nearly two

years earlier as the affected individuals and agencies were to learn of Pool's interest in sponsoring a park bill.

Secretary Udall commended Pool's plan and agreed to have the area investigation report of 1962 updated. [1]

Hunter, Pratt, and the Congressmen

Although Hunter was pleased by the interest that Pool's bill generated in his property, he faced the probability of

purchase by the federal government realistically. He wrote to Wallace Pratt soon after Pool's announcement to thank

Pratt for the geological report he had prepared for the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch and to express his feelings about the

park project. He anticipated that Congressional approval of the park would take a long time, particularly if an

appropriation bill was involved. He also acknowledged that purchase of his property by a benefactor, who would

donate the property to the federal government, would undoubtedly speed approval by Congress. Hunter intimated to

Pratt, however, that he could not hold his property off the market until Congress authorized the park. [2]

Pratt sympathized with Hunter's position and advised him to accept any reasonable offer he received. [3] He also

passed on some information to Hunter regarding a gas test in a well east of Carlsbad. He interpreted the test results to

mean that certain areas of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch might contain gas-producing formations. He ended his letter

to Hunter emphatically: "Retain part of your mineral rights!" [4]

During the spring and summer of 1963 Biggs and Hunter stepped up their efforts to gain support for the park idea. At

least once a month they entertained members of chambers of commerce from western and central Texas and southern

New Mexico, newspaper people, travel writers, and Texas and New Mexico politicians at the ranch. Visits lasted two

days and involved trail rides into the back country as well as short hikes into the more accessible areas. Hunter

provided food, horses, and other necessary accommodations for his guests. [5]

In early August 1963, Ed Foreman, Congressman from Odessa, added his support to the park movement. He and Pool

both agreed that private acquisition of the ranch with the intent to donate it to the federal government was more

desirable than depending on an appropriation from Congress. Foreman approached national organizations while Pool

negotiated with local groups. [6]

At the same time that Foreman and Pool joined forces, Glenn Biggs's diplomatic skills came into play. He met with

Ralph Yarborough, the senior Senator from Texas, who apparently was miffed because the legislative efforts were

proceeding without his input. Biggs reminded Yarborough of Pool's failure to notify anyone involved before he
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:14 PM]

introduced the legislation. Biggs also pointed out that when he had been in Washington in March he had tried

unsuccessfully to meet with Yarborough to discuss the legislation. Since that time Biggs had also tried to keep

Yarborough up to date on local support by sending news clippings and copies of resolutions for his file. [7] The

meeting with Yarborough was only one of many such situations that Biggs handled to keep the park project going and

to garner support from as many individuals as possible.

The Committee of Five

John Ben Shepperd was another pivotal person in the campaign to establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Sheppard formerly had served as Secretary of State and Attorney General of the State of Texas; in 1963 he was

president of the Texas State Historical Survey Committee. In September 1963 he notified the county chairmen of the

Survey Committee in the Permian and Trans-Pecos areas of his support for the creation of the park in the Guadalupes.

He asked the county committees to consider drawing up resolutions in support of the park. [8] Shepperd also

participated in the U. S. Highway 180 Association, a group organized to promote cooperation among the cities along

U.S. 180 in West Texas and southern New Mexico. J.C. Hunter, Jr. and Glenn Biggs appeared before the association

and asked them to lend their support and guidance to the movement to establish the park in the Guadalupes. From

among the people present at that meeting, five emerged who spearheaded the support group which came to be called

the Committee of Five: John Ben Shepperd; Tom Brown, from Artesia, New Mexico, who was National Democratic

Committeeman for the State of New Mexico; Adair Gossett, the mayor of Carlsbad; Louis Whitlock, director of the

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce; and Glenn Biggs. [9]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi4.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:15 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

Donation of Mineral Rights

During the debates over the Guadalupe Mountains park bill, Congressional committee members worried about the

problems inherent in acquiring surface rights to the park lands before the mineral rights. The cost of land acquisition

was a fairly firm figure, assuming the purchase took place within a few years. The cost of the mineral rights was an

unknown. What if the value of the mineral rights increased unexpectedly? What if the cost to acquire the mineral rights

was more than the surface rights? To circumvent these possibilities, the park bill had required that all mineral rights be

donated.

More than two years before Congress authorized the park, officials of the Park Service began investigating the

ownership of the mineral rights to the Hunter ranch. Their search revealed that J. C. Hunter, Jr., owned the rights to

only 1,192.50 acres, the Texas Company (Texaco, Inc.) owned the rights to 25,296.83 acres, and the State of Texas

owned the rights to 45,489.55 acres. [1] Hunter agreed to donate his mineral interests. By conveying his surface

interests in the 45,489.55 acres to which the State owned the mineral rights, Hunter relinquished his right to act as

agent for the State for oil and gas leasing. Under the terms of his agreement with the federal government, however, he

retained the right to receive all royalties or rentals payable to him under leases which were in effect at the time of the

sale.

In February 1964, Donald E. Lee, Chief of Land and Water Rights for the Park Service, visited Texas to investigate

mineral rights for the proposed park. He learned that Texaco's mineral rights consisted of alternating sections in the

upper two-thirds of the proposed park. The State of Texas owned the rights to the intervening sections. Most of the

State's mineral rights in those sections were not leased. The remainder of the ranch land, in the southern portion of the

proposed park, had been leased by Hunter in 1959, 1960, and 1961 (see Figure 13). All leases ran for 10 years and

could continue in effect after that time if oil and/or gas were being produced in paying quantities.. [2] Lee estimated

the cost to buy out the existing leases and investments to be approximately $450,000. Rather than incur that expense,

he recommended that existing leases be allowed to run out if the owners agreed to donate their mineral rights. [3]

Although Lee's estimate of the value of the mineral rights was substantial, others believed it should be even more. As

discussed in Chapter IV, during the Congressional hearings Texaco officials took exception to Lee's appraisal, saying it

was too low, but they also were unable to provide a more realistic figure. Similarly, the Texas land commissioner

argued that relinquishment of the State's mineral rights would deprive the school fund of important real and potential

income. The crux of the problem was the speculative nature of the oil and gas industry, making objective evaluation of

unexplored resources difficult.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:15 PM]

Figure 13. Mineral rights ownership within Guadalupe Mountains National Park boundaries.

The ownership of mineral rights on Hunter's land by the State of Texas and Texaco created

a checkerboard pattern. On only a few sections of the designated park lands did the owner

of the surface rights also own the mineral rights. Legislation authorizing the establishment

of a park mandated that all mineral rights be donated rather than purchased.

The amendment to the park bill that granted previous owners preferential rights to repurchase their mineral rights if oil

and gas production was ever permitted within the park gave Texaco officials and the Texas legislators the security they

desired to make donation of their mineral rights feasible. Both Texaco and the State of Texas conveyed their mineral

rights to the federal government within a year after the park was authorized. In March 1967, Texas Governor Connally

signed the bill approved by the Texas legislature that donated the State's mineral rights on the Hunter ranch. The

legislature reimbursed the school fund $5 per acre (approximately $230,000) for the loss of income-producing rights.

[4] In a formal ceremony on November 16, 1967, Connally gave the hand-lettered quitclaim deed to Interior Secretary

Stewart Udall. On November 2, 1967, Texaco division manager Joe Markley transferred the company's subsurface

rights to the federal government. [5]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi5.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:16 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VI: PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S

Planning in the National Park System

Decisions affecting the national parks are not made quickly. To ensure that each park is preserved, used, and developed

in accordance with its specific purposes, planning takes place systematically, following agency guidelines. The most

general planning document is the park's Statement for Management. The Statement for Management, prepared by the

superintendent and staff of the park, describes the park's purpose, its current management and use. It identifies

influences that affect the park, reports the status of research projects, and identifies major issues and management

objectives. The Statement for Management does not suggest ways to handle issues or to meet objectives. Ideally, this

document is updated every two years.

According to the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, each park should have and regularly revise a General

Management Plan, the next higher level of planning above the Statement for Management. The General Management

Plan replaced the Master Plan, the planning document that was in use when Guadalupe Mountains National Park was

authorized. Both the Master Plan and the General Management Plan set forth the plan for management of the park and

for its use by the public. The primary difference is that in the draft stage the General Management Plan provides

several alternatives and sets out the environmental impact of each alternative. Alternatives are compared and evaluated

before adoption of one for the General Management Plan. The Master Plan required preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement, setting forth the environmental impacts of the plan to resources of the park and describing

mitigating measures and unavoidable adverse effects. The Master Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact

Statement were subject to review by the public and other government agencies before acceptance.

Development Concept Plans are the most specific level of planning and are created to implement the strategies

suggested in the General Management Plan or Master Plan. They also require Environmental Impact Assessments.

Drafts of Development Concept Plans are circulated for review by the public and by other government agencies. Other

planning documents at the same level as Development Concept Plans that have affected Guadalupe Mountains

National Park include a Wilderness Recommendation, an Interpretive Prospectus, and Resource Management Plans, as

well as studies undertaken to find solutions to specific questions.

The process of planning for Guadalupe Mountains National Park began in 1961, after the Pratt family donated their

land in McKittrick Canyon. At first, park managers treated McKittrick Canyon as a detached unit of Carlsbad Caverns,

but after Congressional authorization of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the parks were managed as separate

entities that shared common regional interests. Although all major planning documents were in place by 1978, the

planning process was ongoing. During the 1980s park managers drafted new versions of a number of planning

documents.

A discussion of planning for Guadalupe Mountains National Park cannot be organized neatly either by chronology or

by topic because much of the early work was interrelated and accomplished concurrently. Therefore, the first section of

this chapter discusses development of the Master Plan and documents related to it: the Wilderness Proposal, the

Development Concept Plan for Pine Springs, and the tramway study. Subsequent sections are arranged in topical order.

CONTINUE >>>
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:16 PM]

gumo/adhi/adhi6.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:17 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VII: PLANNING IN THE 1980S

Planning continued in the 1980s. Park managers considered adding more land to the park, but in most cases, the plans

that management adopted were revisions or more detailed versions of earlier plans rather than being totally new

concepts. With planning for development nearly complete, planning for preservation of the natural and cultural

resources of the park became the highest priority. Ralph Harris, the Area Manager of the park from 1981 to 1987,

suggested that prior to 1984, when the first full-blown resource management plan was approved, management

decisions often had to be made as individual problems occurred. Running a park that was in a reaction mode rather

than an action mode made the job of the area manager hectic and frustrating. [1]

Economic Feasibility/Market Study

The Concessions Management Branch of the Professional Support Division at the Denver Service Center studied the

feasibility of establishing a horse concession, a camper/hiker store, and a food service at Guadalupe Mountains

National Park. A random sample survey of visitors, taken between January and August 1980, provided some input to

the study, as well as comparison with similar concessions at Big Bend National Park. None of the surveys developed

for the study showed that concessions would be economically viable at that time. [2]

Master Plan Supplement

In 1980 park planners initiated a study to investigate the possibilities of revising the boundaries of the park and to

provide a Development Concept Plan for the west side of the park. In the House Committee Report accompanying P.L.

95-625, the law that gave wilderness designation to 46,850 acres in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, committee

members asked that the park's west side land be re-evaluated for wilderness designation after development plans were

complete. Therefore, in compliance with the House request, the Master Plan supplement also made recommendations

regarding increasing the amount of land in the park that was designated as wilderness.

Planners considered three locations for boundary revisions. One, on the west side of the park, involved acquiring

approximately 9,500 acres of red quartoze and white gypsum sand dunes immediately adjacent to the park's western

boundary. The second location included several areas along U.S. Highway 62/180 that had been designated as part of a

"critical scenic preservation zone" in the Master Plan approved in 1976. Since the plan did not provide any means of

retaining the scenic qualities of the zone, the study undertaken in 1980 addressed whether any boundary expansion was

needed in those areas and, if expansion were necessary, what type of ownership or control would be most appropriate.

The third part of the boundary study included the disposition of two sections on the west side controlled by a scenic

easement. [3] It also included consideration of two and one-half sections of land outside of the park boundary that had

been acquired for trade purposes at the time of the purchase of J.C. Hunter, Jr.'s, property but had not been used and

were still owned by the federal government. Figure 20 shows the conditions existing in 1980 and the areas affected by

the proposed boundary revisions. [4]

Besides no action, the Environmental Assessment for the Master Plan supplement provided four alternatives for

development on the west side of the park. The alternatives proposed varying levels of resource protection, facility

development, wilderness designation, and different locations for the access road and facilities. The Environmental

Assessment and Master Plan supplement were available for public comment from December 1980 to February 1981.

During this period, park officials received 72 letters and a petition related to the plan. Three persons attended a public
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:17 PM]

meeting about the plan held in Carlsbad on January 14, 1981. A similar meeting, held the next day at a location near

the park, drew about 85 persons. Local citizens who expressed opinions generally were opposed to any form of land

acquisition, either in fee or easement, unless the landowner was willing. However, many local people were in favor of

an improved road connecting Dell City with the west side of the park. Park visitors and representatives of conservation

organizations favored the alternative that proposed acquisition of the entire sand dune area in fee, as well as

acquisition in fee of an area near Guadalupe Pass and a scenic easement near McKittrick Canyon. This alternative did

not include a road between Dell City and the west side of the park and proposed the addition of 33,200 acres to

wilderness designation. [5]

Congressman Richard White supported the suggested boundary revisions and the development of visitor and

administrative facilities on the west side of the park; however, in a conversation with Donald Dayton in August 1980,

he indicated strong opposition to additional wilderness. Reminding Dayton that he had gone along with what to him

seemed to be more than adequate wilderness in the original legislation, he was unwilling to support an addition,

especially in the vicinity of Pine Canyon. Although he realized the tramway was a "dead issue," he believed that the

focal point of visitor interest should not be under the restrictions of wilderness designation. He also indicated his

unwillingness to cooperate with environmental groups that "keep coming back for more" every time Congress

approved wilderness legislation. [6]

Figure 20. Existing boundaries and non-park sections as of 1980.

West Side Boundary Study

In August 1981, because of changing policies and funding constraints, Interior Secretary James Watt indefinitely

postponed the proposed park expansion. In 1985, however, the possibility of acquiring the red and white sand dunes

was revived. The landowner who controlled the major portion of the sand dunes area contacted the Department of the

Interior and offered to exchange his lands in the dune area for federal lands in another area or state. A new study was

undertaken to update the work done in 1980.

The area under consideration comprised 10,123 acres, somewhat more than proposed in the Master Plan supplement

because it included the grasslands lying between the sand dunes and the access road. The area recommended as an

addition to Guadalupe Mountains National Park included all of the red and white sand dunes, which have been

identified as Texas Natural Landmarks (see Figure 21). Within the sand dune area were many unusual plant
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:17 PM]

associations and rare species, one of which, scale broom (Lepidospartum burgessii), was eligible for federal

endangered species status. The sand dunes also contained numerous archeological sites. The study pointed out that the

west side of the park provided a good area for winter visitors. Temperatures were more moderate than in the

Guadalupe Pass and high country areas, and in the spring, blooming wildflowers and less severe winds made the desert

area especially appealing. A private landowner had donated the right-of-way for a road to be built by Hudspeth

County connecting Dell City with the park boundary, south of the main dune field. The county consulted with park

managers and officials from the regional office before selecting the route for the road. [7]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi7.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:18 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VIII: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK

Development of the park proceeded by steps, with temporary facilities serving until permanent ones were planned,

funded, and constructed. For the first decade of park operation, personnel utilized existing or temporary facilities for

employee housing and maintenance activities at Signal Peak and Dog Canyon. They also made do with temporary

facilities for visitor contact at Frijole, McKittrick Canyon, and Dog Canyon; with temporary campgrounds; and with

the existing trails, boundary fence, and roads to McKittrick Canyon and Dog Canyon until permanent improvements

were made.

Residential Area for Park Personnel

From 1962 through 1963, Ranger Peter Sanchez lived at the Ship on the Desert; Roger Reisch also lived there after he

took over Sanchez's position in 1964. In 1966, after Congress authorized the park, Noel Kincaid, foreman for J. C.

Hunter, Jr., continued to live at the ranch house at Frijole and kept an eye on that area of the yet-to-be established

park. However, after the Kincaids moved from Frijole in 1969, Reisch believed he could supervise the entire park

better from Frijole than from the isolation of the Ship on the Desert location, so he asked to move to the old ranch

house, even though he knew the house was well below the housing standards of the Park Service. In 1972, when John

Chapman became the Chief of Operations for Guadalupe Mountains, he and his family moved into the Ship on the

Desert. The Ship served as housing for area managers until completion of the permanent residential area in 1982.

Reisch lived at Frijole until he became ranger for the Dog Canyon district in 1980. [1]

In 1972, in addition to Chapman, several other full-time employees were assigned to the park and needed housing

nearby. The site of the Signal Peak Service Station, on one of the non-park sections of land acquired from J. C.

Hunter, Jr., had electrical service and water could be piped to the area from Guadalupe Spring. Management selected

this site, several miles west of the Pine Springs area, at the foot of Guadalupe Pass, for the temporary housing area.

Three double-wide trailers and one single-wide trailer, all used, served as housing. During the next two years, the

water and sewage systems at the site were upgraded. In 1976 contractors completed a new well; in 1977 it was

connected to the water system, permitting abandonment of the unreliable line to Guadalupe Spring. As the staff of the

park grew, management found more used trailers to add to the housing area (see Figure 22). The maintenance shops

also were located at Signal Peak. By 1980, the Park Service had made a considerable investment in the site at Signal

Peak. Management believed that although the site was outside the park boundaries, the well-developed water system at

Signal Peak was a valuable asset which could be of future use to the park. [2]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:18 PM]

Figure 22. From 1973 to 1982, park personnel lived in this temporary housing area west of

the park, below Signal Peak. As the staff grew, management added more used trailers. The

maintenance shops for the park also were located in this area. (NPS Photo)

The Master Plan approved in 1976 placed the permanent residential area near Pine Springs, south of U.S. Highway

62/180. During the master planning process, environmental groups opposed placing the housing and maintenance

facilities on the north side of the highway where natural screening was available but the major resource was closer.

They agreed to the location on the south side of the highway in spite of the fact that less natural screening was

available there. Planners provided for screening of the residential area by earth berms and vegetation irrigated by

sewage grey water. [3]

Even before approval of the Master Plan, however, park planners began seeking an adequate water source for all of the

development anticipated for the Pine Springs area. In 1973, a well drilled north of the Frijole ranch house, near the

mouth of Smith Canyon, failed the pump test. In 1974, Garland Moore, Hydrologist for the Southwest Region, selected

a new well site at the mouth of Pine Canyon, near a former Texaco well site. Moore expected drilling to go to 5,000

feet. However, the drillers hit water at 2,673 feet and completed the well in 1976. [4]

After approval of the Master Plan, design work for the residential area progressed rapidly. The architects, a joint

venture involving Pacheco and Graham of Albuquerque and Fred Buxton Associates of Houston, met with Park

Service representatives in the fall of 1977 to establish design guidelines and concepts. They also met with the residents

of the Signal Peak housing area to survey the desires and needs of the people who would live in the new residences.

[5]

In December 1979, the initial phase of construction began. McCormick Construction Company, Inc. of El Paso won

the contract for construction of roads and utilities in the Pine Springs area; the bid was $1,383,292. The contract

included construction of an entrance road, picnic parking area, and restrooms in the campground area north of

Highway 62/180, as well as the roads, utility system, water diversion and distribution facilities, and sewage collection

and disposal facilities in the residential area south of the highway. Early in 1980, Kent Nicholl of Ramah, New
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:18 PM]

Mexico, bidding $236,000, received the contract for construction of the sewage treatment plant. Nicholl completed the

treatment plant in July 1980, but McCormick did not complete the roads and utilities contract until July 1981,

considerably behind schedule. [6]

Federal law required all government agencies to negotiate a certain percentage of construction contracts through the

U.S. Small Business Administration under the Minority Business Program. In government jargon these were called

"8(a) contracts," referring to that section of the legislation that the contracts fulfilled. Under 8(a) contracts, the Small

Business Administration was the contractor; a sub-contractor, the minority business, did the work. By early 1980

Superintendent Donald Dayton was frustrated by the 8(a) process. In a briefing document outlining the major issues

affecting the park, he addressed the contracting problem: "Excessive delays in negotiating, and unreasonable cost

estimates . . ., are causing large losses to the park in what it can expect to obtain from available funds, due to

inflationary increases during the long delays. SBA has had letter contracts on three major park projects for 15 months

and the projects are still not negotiated." [7]

In October 1980, Park Service officials announced the completion of negotiations with the Small Business

Administration for the contract for construction of the housing and maintenance facilities at Pine Springs. The Small

Business Administration designated El Paso Builders as the sub-contractor. Included in the contract, which amounted

to $1,842,861, were ten three-bedroom and two two-bedroom family units for permanent employees, two two-bedroom

apartments, two studio apartments, and three duplex apartments comprising six one-bedroom units. The contract also

included a building for maintenance shops and offices. Because construction estimates submitted by the Small

Business Administration were much higher than planners anticipated, Park Service negotiators were forced to cut costs

for the project. They elected to eliminate the multi-purpose community building planned for the residential area as well

as two buildings in the maintenance area, a parking garage for maintenance and ranger vehicles and a storage building

for flammable materials. Cost-cutting also forced managers to eliminate the screening measures planned for the

residential area. [8]

In February 1981 construction began on the housing and maintenance areas, with completion scheduled for October

1981. In his annual report for that year, William Dunmire, who replaced Dayton as Superintendent in February 1981,

noted cryptically that there had been a number of problems associated with the project, problems he hoped would soon

be resolved. Jay Bright, a planner from the Denver Service Center who managed the project, spoke less guardedly

about some of the problems when he wrote to the Regional Director late in June 1981. He reported that three of the

modular residences had been placed and a fourth was on the road. The positions of driveways made maneuvering the

truck trailers difficult; Bright predicted continuing damage to road shoulders until all units had been placed. He also

noted that the swamp coolers for the installed units had no water supply pipes, but he admitted that the plans had been

vague on this matter and suggested that the contractor might justifiably submit a claim for increased costs. [9]

In March 1982 the builders re-roofed all of the new housing because of the inadequacy of the original roofing. This

was the last major problem prior to final inspections and approval of both the housing and maintenance areas, which

took place early in April 1982. Figure 23 shows part of the residential area, the duplex apartments for seasonal

employees. After moving employees to new residences and offices, management sold as surplus all but three of the

mobile homes which had been in use at Signal Peak, retaining two 12x60-foot trailers to reuse at Dog Canyon and the

third, a double-wide, to serve as the community center for the new residential area. Later in 1982, O&A Contractors of

El Paso constructed the paint storage building that had been eliminated from the 8(a) contract for the maintenance

area; the cost was $16,997. In 1983, park personnel created a garage for the park's new fire engine from a

prefabricated metal building obtained from Salt Flat. [10]

Another type of recycling took place in 1986. In February park personnel planted twenty-eight maple and five

madrone trees in the housing area and the campground at Pine Springs. The plants came from a nursery in El Paso and

were grown from seeds collected more than ten years earlier from trees in McKittrick Canyon. [11]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi8.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:19 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IX: NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

The Resource Management Plans developed for the park reflect the breadth and depth of issues and problems to be

considered in the management of a park established to preserve natural values. During the first fifteen years of the

operation of Guadalupe Mountains National Park the list of issues relating to natural resources grew and grew as more

research was completed and resource managers obtained a better understanding of the ecology of the park. The

discussion that follows focuses on issues that have received particular attention since the establishment of the park.

Although the issues are approached individually, they are interrelated and management of one resource affects the

management of many others.

Water Resources

Previous chapters on planning and development revealed the importance of water to Guadalupe Mountains National

Park. Water to support extensive development never was immediately available, nor was it easy to locate, as

experiences at Pine Springs and Dog Canyon showed. However, for centuries before the creation of a national park on

the land, humans utilized the natural water sources found there. During the 1970s, researchers identified nine

permanent springs on the park lands and 28 wells in or near the park. Archeological investigations in the park revealed

the presence of temporary camps made by prehistoric peoples near the springs. As Americans moved westward, El

Capitan served as a landmark for both a passage through the mountains and a source of water for desert travelers.

Later, ranchers settled near the natural springs. As their operations grew, they sank shallow wells, installed windmills

and stock tanks, and developed networks of pipelines to carry water to unwatered areas where their livestock grazed.

For less pragmatic reasons, Wallace Pratt sank a well in McKittrick Canyon, to provide water for the stone cabin that

served as his sanctuary. [1]

As described in Chapter VIII, the Park Service developed new wells to provide water for the park facilities. A well at

Signal Peak provided water for the temporary residential area. The well at Pine Springs provided water for the

residential and maintenance areas, the campground, the temporary visitor center and operations headquarters, and the

Frijole ranch complex. New wells also were drilled for the developments in Dog Canyon and McKittrick Canyon.

While developing new water sources, park managers also continued use of several wells that existed at the time of

acquisition of the park. In 1978, Red Well and PX Well, on the west side of the park, were cleaned out to provide

water for wildlife and emergency water for hikers and park personnel. Red Well operated with a submersible pump,

the PX Well by a windmill. A utility-purpose well existed at Salt Flat, on one of the sections detached from the park.

In 1987, the wells at the Pratt Cabin and the Ship on the Desert continued to function. [2]

In accordance with the wilderness values of the park, one of the early goals of the park's resource managers was

restoration of the natural conditions of the springs within the park. By 1987, except for a concrete retaining wall

remaining at Manzanita Spring, all springs had been restored, as nearly as possible, to their natural conditions. In 1975,

after removing an impoundment device and pipelines, work began to channel visitor use and protect the delicate plants

associated with Smith Spring, located a short distance from the Frijole ranch site on a trail that received a considerable

amount of traffic. Park personnel installed a flagstone walk, curbing, and wooden guardrail to prevent visitors from

walking above the spring and polluting the water. At Upper Dog Canyon and Upper Guadalupe Springs, spring boxes

were removed. Until 1986, Frijole Spring, which had been developed during the ranching era, provided water to the

Frijole site. In 1986 connection of the ranch house complex to the Pine Springs water system permitted abandonment
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:19 PM]

of use of Frijole Spring. [3]

Resource managers recognized that while restoration of the natural condition of the springs in the park was necessary

to return the land to its natural state, the wildlife of the park might be adversely affected by the change. They

speculated that removal of the system of pipelines and tanks built by ranchers might have a negative influence on the

populations of deer and elk in the park, and, continuing the domino effect, might affect the numbers and activities of

predators. The number of elk in the park had been declining steadily, however, for more than thirty years. In 1984

wildlife managers estimated that perhaps only 70 or 80 elk remained in the park, relatives of the herd of elk established

by J.C. Hunter. During the 1950s the herd size was estimated to be 300; by 1978 it had been reduced to 125. Although

other factors also contributed, wildlife managers suggested that water supply probably was the most important factor

limiting the size of the elk herd. [4]

Besides the natural springs and seeps supporting the flora and fauna of the park, there is also one perennial stream in

the park, McKittrick Creek. The mere existence of the stream in an arid region is significant. In addition, the aquatic

fauna associated with the stream are typical of more northerly streams, lending support to the theory that McKittrick

represents an isolated relict of a montane climate. Because of the fragility of the surface water resources and their

exposure to contamination from increased human use of the parklands, resource managers sought a way to preserve

the quality and quantity of water flowing in the park. To that end, in 1979, researchers from Texas Tech designed a

water sampling scheme and established sampling locations at five places in McKittrick Canyon and at five major

springs--Smith, Manzanita, Choza, Frijole, and Upper Pine--thus initiating long-term monitoring of certain parameters

of water quality. [5]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi9.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:20 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

Cultural resources comprise remnants and evidence of human activity in the natural environment. Substantial federal

concern with management of cultural resources on public land began with the Antiquities Act of 1906, was

strengthened by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and culminated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

which established the present National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the latter piece of legislation

provided complicated review procedures to ensure that federal agencies gave proper consideration to cultural

resources. In addition, Executive Order 11593, issued in 1971 and incorporated into the National Historic Preservation

Act in 1980, required federal agencies to inventory cultural resources on the public lands they managed to determine

which were eligible for listing in the National Register. Finally, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

provided more specific guidelines for the protection of archeological resources on federally managed lands. These

mandates all apply to Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Therefore, from fragmentary evidence of prehistoric use

down to the Wallace Pratt residence that was built in the 1940s, park managers have been mandated to identify,

evaluate, and, as appropriate, protect, and preserve the cultural resources found within the park boundaries.

While the array of responsibilities generated by the natural resources of the park has grown bewilderingly large since

the establishment of the park, the demands of cultural resource management have remained relatively unchanged.

During the first fifteen years of the park's operation, resource managers have identified and evaluated the historic

structures and trails within the park and have determined the type of care each would receive. They have identified and

evaluated prehistoric sites and have determined what means of preservation would be undertaken. They have also

approved and supervised modifications made to adapt some historic structures for administrative use by park personnel

and researchers.

When the park was established, many historic structures relating to nineteenth and twentieth century ranching

operations existed within the boundaries of the park. In 1973, a survey of historic sites, conducted under contract by a

team headed by William Griggs of Texas Tech University, established a baseline from which management decisions

could be made. The report of the survey included photographs, scale drawings, and geographic locations for each of 47

sites. The team rated the structures for intrinsic and exemplary values and recommended treatment for them. [1]

Historians in the Regional Office used the information from the Texas Tech survey to classify the less obviously

significant historic structures and sites in the park. When determining the historical significance of these sites,

however, the regional staff apparently had some difficulty interpreting the assessments of the Texas Tech survey team.

The survey report recommended preservation or restoration for interpretation for a number of the historic sites. In 1973

Park Superintendent Donald Dayton notified the Regional Director that he felt Regional personnel had "inadvertently

made" a "false assumption" about the meaning of the term "historic" in the Texas Tech survey report. He was

concerned because the historians in the Regional Office had recommended preservation for the entire complex of

buildings at the Glover site. Dayton stated that he believed the survey team had used the term "historic" to distinguish

modern structures from prehistoric structures, and had not used the term in the sense that it was used to determine

eligibility for the National Register. While the Texas Tech survey recommended that seven of the sixteen structures in

the Glover complex be preserved, Dayton pointed out that many of the structures the survey team recommended for

preservation or restoration were simply "'best examples of' certain types of structures to be found within the park

boundaries" and did not "have even 'Regional' significance as historic structures." [2]

Dayton apparently convinced Theodore Thompson, the Acting Regional Director, of the false assumption of Regional
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:20 PM]

historians. Thompson responded to Dayton early in 1974 and provided a new list of classifications for all of the

structures in the Texas Tech survey. Thirteen of the buildings on the Glover property that were under 50 years old had

been determined to be of no historical or architectural value and had been delegated to the authority of the Park

Superintendent for disposition. The Glover ranch house and cafe, both more than 50 years old, had been classified as

having no historical or architectural value but required authority from the Associate Director of Professional Services

in the Washington office for disposition. Seven structures or sites were classified as having obvious or possible

historical value, regardless of age, and required interim preservation and protection until further research was

completed to determine National Register eligibility. Finally, 18 structures, primarily small cabins, dugouts, and

structures related to historic water systems in the high country, were determined to have no potential for listing in the

National Register, but they were of enough interest to "warrant strong recommendation that they be left undisturbed

except by justifiable action." [3]

Regional historians concluded that only one of the seven sites classified as needing more research was eligible for

nomination to the National Register: the Wallace Pratt residence. The other sites were treated in varying ways. In 1975,

the Houser house, dugout, and sheep-shearing pens near the Pine Springs campground were evaluated and determined

to be insignificant historically, clearing the way for removal of the badly deteriorated structures in the following year.

Historians determined that backcountry structures should be treated as discovery sites and allowed to molder naturally

unless they posed a hazard to human safety. [4]

The Statement for Management that was approved in 1976 established four "historic zones" in the park. According to

the statement, resources in these zones had been listed or had been determined to be eligible for listing in the National

Register. The resources in these zones did not include any of those identified in the Texas Tech survey. The zones

included: an area near Pine Springs that contained two sites, the ruins of the Pinery, which was a stage-stop on the

Butterfield Overland Mail route, and an early cavalry encampment; an area surrounding the Williams ranch house; an

area around the Frijole ranch house; and the area around the Pratt's stone cabin in McKittrick Canyon. Management

planned that development in the historic zones would be minimal. [5] Since 1976 one additional historic resource has

been identified and, while not part of a designated historic zone within the park, has claimed particular attention from

resource managers: the Emigrant Trail. The trail coincides in many places with the route traveled by the wagons of the

Butterfield Overland Mail.

While prehistoric resources also required the attention of management, they were less easily identified. Site surveys

conducted in the early 1970s comprised the baseline for management of these resources, but trained personnel from the

park, the Southwest Regional Office, and the Texas Historical Commission conducted additional surveys before each

construction project was initiated in the park to ensure that important prehistoric cultural resources were not destroyed.

In this chapter four major issues relating to cultural resources will be considered: preservation of historic structures

and the Emigrant Trail, adaptive use of historic structures, archeological issues, and finally, problems relating to the

Glover property as a cultural resource.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi10.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:22 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER XI: SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Since the establishment of the park in 1972, Guadalupe Mountains has been the scene of a number of special events.

The dedication ceremony and celebration in September 1972, the opening of the new facilities at Dog Canyon in May

1982, and the tenth anniversary celebration and opening of the contact station in McKittrick Canyon in November

1982 were single-day events, sponsored by the Park Service with the assistance of civic organizations from nearby

communities. Each year the park also had a spontaneous special event--the magnificent colors of autumn--which

attracted many visitors. On two occasions the park was the staging ground for events that were not planned by the Park

Service but captured widespread public attention: a flag ceremony on Guadalupe Peak in recognition of the U.S.

bicentennial anniversary and a climb of Guadalupe Peak by small group of paraplegics who made the trip in

wheelchairs. All of these events served to increase public awareness of and interest in the park. As such they are an

important aspect of the administrative history of the park.

Events Sponsored by the Park Service

Dedication Ceremony--September 30, 1972

The year in which the park was established was also the centennial anniversary of the establishment of Yellowstone

National Park, the nation's first park. For that reason, the Washington office of the Park Service participated more

actively than usual in events taking place in the parks. During the centennial year, to bring the anniversary observance

to as many parks as possible, national-level staff members and other significant people related to the government took

part in such functions as the Guadalupe Mountains dedication. Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of President Richard

Nixon, and Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, participated in the

festivities at Guadalupe Mountains and were the principal speakers at the dedication ceremony (see Figure 40). [1]

Although the drawn-out legislative struggle to establish the park had generated much public interest, particularly in

West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, park managers were unwilling to rely on that interest to bring people to the

dedication ceremony. To assure a good turn-out, they launched a major publicity campaign in advance of the date. The

El Paso, Dell City, Van Horn, and Carlsbad chambers of commerce and the Carlsbad Caverns Natural History

Association cooperated in the publicity effort and helped to make the day-long occasion a success. [2]

The dedication ceremony, attended by some 2,400 people, took place near the temporary office and information station

at Frijole, a location that in 1972 had no other facilities that would attract visitors. That so many people were willing to

travel the considerable distance to the park to attend the ceremony attests to the effectiveness of the publicity campaign

as well as the high level of local interest in the park. The ceremony included all of the pomp necessary to properly

initiate a new facility: a U.S. Army color guard from Fort Bliss, Texas, to present and retire the colors; the Van Horn,

Texas, high school band to provide music; local clergy to lead the invocation and benediction; and Park Service

Associate Director Stanley W. Hulett (see Figure 40) to serve as master of ceremonies. The speaker's platform was

filled with people who had been instrumental in the establishment of the park: J. C. Hunter, Jr., and his wife, Mary (see

Figure 41), former owners of the largest portion of the park lands; former Senator Ralph Yarborough and

Congressman Richard White (see Figure 40), who had initiated the legislation to establish the park; and John Ben

Sheppard, who had been chairman of the Citizens Committee for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. While the

infirmities of age prevented Wallace Pratt from attending this occasion of which he had long dreamed, his seminal

contribution to the establishment of the park did not go unrecognized. After speeches by Reed and Eisenhower, a
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:22 PM]

welcome by Superintendent Donald Dayton, and remarks by White, Theodore Thompson, Associate Director of the

Southwest Region, unveiled a special plaque honoring the Pratt family. [3]

After the dedication ceremony, Cavern Supply, concessioner at Carlsbad Caverns, prepared and served a free barbecue

lunch for all who had attended. Park managers invited the public to tour McKittrick Canyon in the afternoon. [4]

Opening of the Facilities in Dog Canyon--May 22, 1982

In 1982, the beginning of the season of summer visitation coincided with completion of the ranger and visitor facilities

in Dog Canyon and of the access road to the area. Hoping to generate more interest in the Dog Canyon area, which

previously had received far less traffic than the southern areas of the park, management again initiated a heavy

promotional campaign to encourage attendance at the ribbon-cutting ceremony and barbecue on May 22. For several

weeks before the date of the occasion local newspapers carried announcements of the dedication and maps showing

how to reach Upper Dog Canyon. Park managers invited newspaper, television, and radio people from Carlsbad, El

Paso, Roswell, and Albuquerque to attend. They also sent individual invitations to people in Dell City and Carlsbad

whom they considered to be special friends of the park. [5]

Figure 40. Distinguished guests at the dedication of Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

September 30, 1972: (L-R) Donald Dayton, Stanley Hulett, Richard White, Julie Nixon

Eisenhower, Ralph Yarborough, Nathaniel Reed. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:22 PM]

Figure 41. Mary and J. C. Hunter, Jr., (right) at the dedication of Guadalupe Mountains

National Park. The Hunters' 70,000-acre ranch was the largest parcel the federal government

purchased to establish the park in the southern Guadalupes. (NPS Photo)

An estimated 300 people traveled the newly improved road to Dog Canyon on May 22. Much less formal than the

park's dedication ceremony, a simple ribbon-cutting initiated the Dog Canyon facilities. William Dunmire,

Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, served as master of ceremonies. Donald Dayton, who

by 1982 was Deputy Regional Director for the Southwest Region, gave the principal remarks. The mayors of Carlsbad

and Dell City and the presidents of the chambers of commerce of both towns joined Dunmire and Dayton in the

ceremony. After the ribbon-cutting the Eddy County Mountain and Desert Res-Q Squad prepared and served a Dutchtreat barbecue lunch. The public was invited to tour the campground, contact station, residential, and barn areas during

the afternoon. [6]

Tenth Anniversary Celebration--November 6, 1982

Later in 1982 the McKittrick Canyon contact station was completed in time to be the focus for the tenth anniversary

celebration of the park. Instead of taking place on September 30, the occasion was scheduled for November to coincide

with the height of fall colors. The chambers of commerce of Dell City, Van Horn, Sierra Blanca, and Carlsbad

exhibited their continuing interest in the park by their promotion of and involvement in the event. The Carlsbad

Caverns Natural History Association provided all of the printing services associated with promotion. [7]

Approximately 1,300 people attended the Dutch-treat barbecue prepared and served throughout the day by the Dell

City Chamber of Commerce. During the day-long event, park rangers led guided tours into McKittrick Canyon, and

trails were open at all times for public use. [8]

The formal program to observe the park's anniversary and to dedicate the McKittrick Canyon contact station recalled

the dedication ceremony of 1972. An address by Congressman Richard White, highlighting colorful persons and events

related to the park, was the focal point of the program. An Army color guard from Fort Bliss presented and retired the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:22 PM]

colors, a resident of Van Horn sang the national anthem, and local clergymen gave the invocation and benediction.

Superintendent William Dunmire was the master of ceremonies. Honored guests on the speaker's platform were

Congressman Ronald Coleman, former Senator Ralph Yarborough, Judge Doyle Ziler of Hudspeth County, Judge

John Conoly of Culberson County, and Deputy Regional Director Donald Dayton. Regional Director Robert Kerr

presided at the ribbon-cutting to officially open the visitor contact station. [9]

Color Weekends

The "first annual fall color cavalcade" took place in October 1971; 135 people participated in three guided tours of

McKittrick Canyon. [10] Each year thereafter park managers watched the development of fall colors and announced

the weekends when they anticipated color-viewing would be at its peak. The number of visitors to the canyon during

the two or three designated weekends gradually increased to approximately 700 in 1976, jumped to 1,450 in 1978, and

nearly doubled again to reach 2,800 in 1979. Although fall visitation fell off in 1981 and 1982, by 1983 it had returned

to the peak level of 1979. [11]

By 1986 visitors coming to see the fall colors in McKittrick Canyon had increased to such a point that management

decided to institute a new policy for the color weekends in 1987: during those weekends McKittrick Canyon would be

administered under an "incident command system" where the gate at the highway would be closed when a certain

number of people had entered the canyon. A publicity campaign describing the new policy began early in October

1987. Managers advised the public to visit the park on weekdays if possible, then outlined the procedures for the lateOctober, early-November weekends. After the 110-car parking lot at the mouth of the canyon was full, additional

vehicles would be permitted to enter the canyon only as other vehicles left and parking spaces became available. The

news stories suggested alternative locations within the park for color-viewing; they also encouraged large groups, such

as bus tours, to make reservations to visit the canyon. The publicity campaign was a valuable effort; park managers

received strong public support for the limited access program initiated during the color weekends of 1987. [12]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi11.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 12)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi12.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:23 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER XII: IN RETROSPECT

In May 1980, Roger Reisch, who began working at Guadalupe Mountains in 1964, addressed a training session for the

park's seasonal employees. Speaking from personal observation, he succinctly summarized the workings and history of

the park: "Nothing goes very fast."

Historical research has confirmed Reisch's observations. People first began advocating a park in the southern

Guadalupe Mountains in 1925. More than forty years later, in 1966, Congress finally authorized such a park. The park

could not be established, however, until mineral rights to the land had been donated and the surface rights purchased.

Those processes took another six years, ending in the establishment of the park in 1972. The land acquired for the park

had virtually no existing facilities that were appropriate for visitor or administrative use, but suitable facilities could

not be constructed until detailed plans had been completed and approved. Six more years, which were filled with

controversy, passed before the plans were complete. Compared with the time required to establish and plan the park,

development of most of the planned facilities took place in a relatively short three-year period, from early in 1980

through 1982. However, the main visitor center for the park was not among the facilities built during that period.

Funding limitations for the visitor center necessitated design changes and delayed construction of that facility until

1988.

Why did everything take so long? During an interview in 1987, John Cook, Regional Director of the Southwest

Region, suggested that personalities, timing, and national politics had been the most decisive factors affecting

development of the park, particularly the visitor center. With slight modifications, Cook's factors also may be applied

to the longer view of Guadalupe Mountains National Park and used to explain why it took so long to reach the point of

development achieved by 1988.

In the 1920s and 1930s the dynamic personalities needed to press the park issue were present, but state and national

politics were wrong. The enthusiastic support of men like J. C. Hunter and E. H. Simons fell on deaf ears in the Texas

legislature. Within the Park Service, Ben Thompson and Roger Toll, advocates of a park in the southern Guadalupes,

knew that the land for all other national parks had been taken from the public domain or had been donated by the states

or private philanthropists. They realized Congress was unlikely to appropriate money to purchase private land to create

a national park. The inability or unwillingness of the State of Texas to purchase the land severely limited the chances

for establishment of a park.

World War II, followed by post-war efforts to rehabilitate the existing system of national parks, prohibited serious

consideration of establishing a new park in the Guadalupe Mountains during the 1940s and 1950s. At the end of the

1950s, however, personalities once again entered the picture. Wallace Pratt's donation of his land in McKittrick

Canyon and his subsequent advocacy of acquisition of J. C. Hunter, Jr.'s, land rekindled interest in establishing a

major park. In 1961, when Congress approved the Cape Cod National Seashore, it established the precedent of

appropriating money to purchase land for a park and removed one of the earlier barriers to a park in the Guadalupes.

The aggressive work of Texas Representatives Joe Pool and Richard White and Senator Ralph Yarborough combined

with large-scale local interest in the park project to bring about Congressional authorization of the park.

Politics, economics, and personalities affected the time required for acquisition of the surface and mineral rights to the

park lands. Politics and economics determined that the mineral rights should be donated as well as the timing and

amount of funds that were appropriated for land acquisition. Personalities--the owners of surface and mineral rights

who did not wish to give up their property--further delayed the acquisition process.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 12)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi12.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:23 PM]

After establishment of the park, national politics and timing became especially important. The park was established at

a time when national values were shifting. Plans that would have been accepted easily a decade earlier met with strong

opposition and had to be revised, lengthening the planning process for the park. Finally, in the period when

development began to occur, the park did not have the strong support it needed in Congress to get its projects funded.

Park managers soon realized this problem and sought to cultivate the support of Representative Ronald Coleman, who

was the political personality ultimately responsible for obtaining funding for the visitor center.

During the time from 1925 to 1988, ideas of what the park should offer to the public changed dramatically. Advocates

of a parkway between Pine Springs and Carlsbad Caverns, which would have permitted visitors to enjoy the

spectacular views afforded by the escarpment from the comfort of their automobiles, gave way to the advocates of

wilderness preservation. Instead of a parkway, park planners designed footpaths and horse trails. Hikers willing to

carry their own water and provisions replaced tramway riders as the target clientele for the park.

Although the level of development achieved by 1988 had come slowly and park personnel had made do with makeshift

and temporary facilities for over a decade, by 1988 the park had reached a point that could be called mature. It had

assumed the form and substance that planners had intended and had become a park of which Wallace Pratt and the

Hunters undoubtedly would have approved.

<<< CHAPTER XI CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhi12.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhib.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:24 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY

Background

Several books are available that give good overviews of the history and philosophy of the National Park Service. The

National Park Service, by William C. Everhart (New York, Washington, London: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1972);

National Parks: The American Experience, by Alfred Runte (Lincoln, Nebraska, and London: University of Nebraska

Press, 1979); Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks by Joseph L. Sax (Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press, 1980); and America's National Parks and Their Keepers, by Ronald A. Foresta

(Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1984) are complementary and provide varying points of view.

Other books to consider include Parks, Politics and the People, by Conrad L. Wirth (Norman, Oklahoma: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1980), which contains many of Wirth's reminiscences, but is particularly valuable for its description

of MISSION 66. Another book that gives an overview of park policies and problems prior to 1960 is John Ise's Out

National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961).

Ise also provides good descriptions of the Directors of the Park Service, their points of view, and experiences that

influenced the leadership they gave the agency. An older publication by the Park Service, A Study of the Park and

Recreation Problem of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office, 1941), provides a

perspective for the situation with national and state parks at the end of the 1930s and shows how weakly developed the

park program was in Texas.

The beautifully illustrated book by Alan Tennant and Michael Allender, The Guadalupe Mountains of Texas

(University of Texas Press, 1980) describes the area of the park and some of its natural resources. Patricia Patterson's

book, Queen, New Mexico: A Historical Perspective on the Settlement in the Guadalupe Mountains, 1865-1975

(Roswell, New Mexico: Hall-Poorbaugh Press, Inc., 1985), while less than scholarly, does contribute to under standing

of the early settlements near the park.

Early Park Movements, J. C. Hunter, and Wallace Pratt

The Carlsbad and El Paso newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s contained many references to proposed parks and

extensions to Carlsbad Caverns. Combined with the material from the Park Service which Bobby Crisman has

assembled in Background Book #4, it was possible to piece together the history of the early movements to establish a

park in the southern Guadalupes and the roles played by J. C. Hunter and Wallace Pratt.

Legislative History and Acquisition of Land and Mineral Rights

The Glenn Biggs Collection in the Southwest Collection of Texas Tech University at Lubbock, Texas, provided

information about the legislative history of the park and about early negotiations with landowners that was not

available elsewhere. The correspondence in the collection also helped to understand J. C. Hunter, Jr.'s position as

owner of the Guadalupe Mountains Ranch. For information about acquisition of surface and mineral rights, however,

the Land Resources Office at the Southwest Regional Office had the most complete files. Also, the files in the Land

Resources Office relating to the Glover property were voluminous and up-to-date.

Planning, Development, and Resource Issues
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhib.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:24 PM]

The park's Master Plan, Wilderness Proposal, the Pine Springs Development Concept Plan, and the environmental

reviews prepared for all three of those documents, contain not only the plans and analyses of environmental impacts,

but also letters and comments received during the review process. In addition to documenting the planning process, the

planning documents for the park provide a good historical perspective for the changes in attitude that took place

regarding the kind of recreational experience Guadalupe Mountains should provide for visitors. Resource Management

Plans, which were updated every five years, documented the refinements that took place in understanding the park's

natural and cultural resources.

The files maintained by Bobby Crisman were an invaluable source of information. They contained news clippings as

well as Park Service documents. His complete set of park logs and annual reports formed the backbone of the latter

chapters of this work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhib.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TEXAS

PUBLIC LAW 89-667; 80 STAT. 920

[H. R. 698]

An Act to provide for the establishment of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in the

State of Texas, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That:

In order to preserve in public ownership an area in the State of Texas

possessing outstanding geological values together with scenic and other

natural values of great significance, the Secretary of the Interior shall

establish the Guadalupe Mountains National Park, consisting of the land

and interests in land within the area shown on the drawing entitled

"Proposed Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas", numbered SA—

GM—7100C and dated February 1965, which is on file and available for

public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of

the Interior.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Secretary shall omit from the

park sections 7 and 17, P.S.L. Block 121, in Hudspeth County, and revise

the boundaries of the park accordingly if the owner of said sections agrees,

on behalf of himself, his heirs and assigns that there will not be erected

thereon any structure which, in the judgment of the Secretary, adversely

affects the public use and enjoyment of the park.

Sec. 2. (a) Within the boundaries of the Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, the Secretary of the Interior may acquire land or interests therein by

donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or in such

other manner as he deems to be in the public interest. Any property or

interest therein, owned by the State of Texas, or any political subdivision

thereof, may be acquired only with the concurrence of such owner.

(b) In order to facilitate the acquisition of privately owned lands in the park

by exchange and avoid the payment of severance costs, the Secretary of the

Interior may acquire approximately 4.667 acres of land or interests in land

which lie adjacent to or in the vicinity of the park. Land so acquired outside

the park boundary may be exchanged by the Secretary on an equal-value

basis, subject to such terms, conditions, and reservations as he may deem

necessary, for privately owned land located within the park. The Secretary

may accept cash from or pay cash to the grantor in such exchange in order
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

to equalize the values of the properties exchanged.

Sec. 3. (a) When title to all privately owned land within the boundary of the

park, subject to such outstanding interests, rights, and easements as the

Secretary determines are not objectionable, with the exception of

approximately 4,574 acres which are planned to be acquired by exchange, is

vested in the United States and after the State of Texas has donated or

agreed to donate to the United States whatever rights and interests in

minerals underlying the lands within the boundaries of the park it may have

and other owners of such rights and interests have donated or agreed to

donate the same to the United States, notice thereof and notice of the

establishment of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park shall be published

in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the Secretary may continue to acquire

the remaining land and interests in land within the boundaries of the park.

The Secretary is authorized, pending establishment of the park, to negotiate

and acquire options for the purchase of lands and interests in land within

the boundaries of the park. He is further authorized to execute contracts for

the purchase of such lands and interests, but the liability of the United

States under any such contract shall be contingent on the availability of

appropriated or donated funds to fulfill the same.

(b) In the event said lands or any part thereof cease to be used for national

park purposes, the persons (including the State of Texas) who donated to

the United States rights and interests in minerals in the lands within the

park shall be given notice, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed

by the Secretary, of their preferential right to a reconveyance, without

consideration, of the respective rights and interests in minerals which they

donated to the United States. Such notice shall be in a form reasonably

calculated to give actual notice to those entitled to such preferential right,

and shall provide for a period of not less than one hundred and eighty days

within which to exercise such preferential right. The preferential right to

such reconveyance shall inure to the benefit of the successors, heirs,

devisees, or assigns of such persons having such preferential right to a

reconveyance, and such successors, heirs, devisees, or assigns shall be

given the notice provided for in this subsection.

(c) Such rights and interests in minerals, including all minerals of whatever

nature, in and underlying the lands within the boundaries of the park and

which are acquired by the United States under the provisions of this Act are

hereby withdrawn from leasing and are hereby excluded from the

application of the present or future provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act

for Acquired Lands (Aug. 7, 1947, c. 513, 61 Stat. 913) or other Act in lieu

thereof having the same purpose, and the same are hereby also excluded

from the provisions of all present and future laws affecting the sale of

surplus property or of said mineral interests acquired pursuant to this Act

by the United States or any department or agency thereof, except that, if

such person having such preferential right to a reconveyance fails or refuses

to exercise such preferential right to a reconveyance as provided in

subparagraph (b) next above, then this subsection (c) shall not be applicable

to the rights and interests in such minerals in the identical lands of such

person so failing or refusing to exercise such preferential right to a

reconveyance from and after the one hundred and eighty-day period

referred to in subparagraph (b) next above.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

(d) If at any time in the future an Act of Congress provides that the national

welfare or an emergency requires the development and production of the

minerals underlying the lands within the boundaries of the national park, or

any portion thereof, and such Act of Congress, notwithstanding the

provisions of subsection (c) of this section or any other Act, authorizes the

Secretary to lease said land for the purpose of drilling, mining, developing,

and producing said minerals, the Secretary shall give the persons (including

the State of Texas) who donated such minerals to the United States notice

of their preferential right to lease, without consideration, all or any part of

the respective rights and interests in minerals which they donated to the

United States, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may

prescribe. Such preferential right shall inure to the benefit of the successors

or assigns, and of the heirs or devisees of such persons having such

preferential right in the premises. The persons entitled to a preferential right

under this subsection shall be given the same notice thereof as persons

entitled to preferential rights under subsection (b) of this section. If such

person having such preferential right fails or refuses to exercise such right

within the time specified in the above notice, the Secretary may thereafter

lease the minerals involved to any other person under such terms and

conditions as he may prescribe.

(e) If at any time oil, gas, or other minerals should be discovered and

produced in commercial quantities from lands outside of the boundaries of

the park, thereby causing drainage of oil, gas, or other minerals from lands

within the boundaries of the park, and if the Secretary participates in a

communitization agreement or takes other action to protect the rights of the

United States, the proceeds, if any, derived from such agreement or action

shall inure to the benefit of the donors of the oil, gas, or other minerals, or

their successors, heirs, devisees, or assigns.

Sec. 4. The Guadalupe Mountains National Park shall be administered by

the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Act of

August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1—4), as amended and

supplemented.

Sec. 5. Any funds available for the purpose of administering the five

thousand six hundred and thirty-two acres of lands previously donated to

the United States in Culberson County, Texas, shall upon establishment of

the Guadalupe Mountains National Park pursuant to this Act be available to

the Secretary for purposes of such park.

Sec. 6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums, but not

more than $1,800,000 in all, as may be necessary for the acquisition of

lands and interest in lands, and not more than $10,362,000, as may be

necessary for the development of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Approved October 15, 1966.

PUBLIC LAW 94—174 [S. 313]; Dec. 23, 1975

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK—

LAND EXCHANGE, ETC.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

An Act to authorize an exchange of lands for an entrance road at Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Texas, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b)

of section 2 of the Act approved October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 920),

providing for the establishment of the Guadalupe Mountains National

Park in the State of Texas, is amended by a adding the following after

the third sentence: "In order to provide for an adequate entrance road

into the M McKittrick Canyon area of the park, the Secretary may

accept title to and interests interests in lands comprising a right-ofway for a road or roads outside of the boundary of the park from

United States Highway numbered 62 and 180 to the park boundary,

and in exchange therefor he may convey title to and interests in lands

comprising a right-of-way from said highway to the boundary which

have been donated to the United States. The Secretary may accept

cash from or pay cash to the grantor in such exchange in order to

equalize the values of the properties exchanged. Lands and interest in

lands comprising the right-of-way acquired pursuant to this subsection

shall be administered as part of the park."

Approved December 23, 1975.

Guadalupe

Mountains

National

Park,

Tex.

Lands

exchange.

16 USC

283a.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

HOUSE REPORT No. 94—683 accompanying H. R. 1747 (Comm. on Interior

and Insular Affairs).

SENATE REPORT No. 94-164 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 121 (1975):

 June 4, considered and passed Senate.

 Dec. 1, considered and passed House, amended in lieu of H. R. 1747.

 Dec. 17, Senate concurred in House amendment.

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.

3467

Public Law 95—625

95th Congress

An Act

To authorize additional appropriations for the acquisition of lands and interests in

lands within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho.

No. 10, 1978

[S. 791]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

National Parks

and Recreation

Act of 1978.

SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "National Parks and

Recreation Act of 1978".

16 USC 1

note.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

Sec. 1. Short title and title of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition.

Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I—DEVELOPMENT CEILING INCREASES

Sec. 101. Specific increases.

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument.

Andersonville National Historic Site.

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

Biscayne National Monument.

Capitol Reef National Park.

Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

Cowpens National Battlefield Site.

De Soto National Memorial.

Fort Bowie National Historic Site,

Frederick Douglass Home, District of Columbia.

Grant Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site.

Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Gulf Islands National Seashore.

Harper's Ferry National Historical Park.

Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site.

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

John Muir National Historic Site,

Lands in Prince Georges and Charles Counties, Maryland.

Longfellow National Historic Site.

Pecos National Monument.

Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial.

San Juan Island National Historical Park.

Sitka National Historical Parke

Statue of Liberty National Monument.

Thaddeus Kosciuszko Home National Historic Site.

Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site.

Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area.

William Howard Taft National Historic Site,

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield.

TITLE II—ACQUISITION CEILING INCREASES

Sec. 201. Acquisition ceilings.

Big Cypress National Preserve.

Buffalo National River.

Cumberland Island National Seashore.

Sec. 202. Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

.

.

.

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.

3470

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

TITLE VII—WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

AMENDMENTS—Continued

Subtitle D—Amendments to Public Law 90-542

Sec. 761. Technical amendments.

Sec. 762. Federal lands; cooperative agreements.

Sec. 763. Miscellaneous technical amendments.

Sec. 764. Lease of Federal lands.

TITLE VIII—RECOGNITION OF THE HONORABLE

WILLIAM M. KETCHUM

Sec. 801. Recognition of the Honorable William M. Ketchum.

TITLE IX—JEAN LAFITTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

TITLE X—URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY

PROGRAM

TITLE XI—NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER

TITLE XII—FORT SCOTT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

TITLE XIII—REPORT AND BOUNDARY REVISION

Sec. 1301. Beaverhead or Gallatin National Forests.

Sec. 1302. Hampton National Historic Site.

DEFINITION

Sec. 2. As used in this Act, except as otherwise specifically

provided, the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 3. Authorizations of moneys to be appropriated under this Act

shall be effective on October 1, 1978. Not withstanding any other

provision of this Act, authority to enter into contracts, to incur

obligations, or to make payments under this Act shall be effective

only to the extent, and in such amounts, as are provided in advance

in appropriation Acts.

TITLE I—DEVELOPMENT CEILING INCREASES

Effective date.

SPECIFIC INCREASES

Sec. 101. The limitations on funds for development within certain

units of the National Park System and affiliated areas are amended

as follows:

Appropriation

authorization.

(1) Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska: Section 4 of

the Act of June 5, 1965 (79 Stat. 123), is amended by changing

"$1,842,000" to "$2,012,000".

(2) Andersonville National Historic Site, Georgia: Section 4 of the

Act of October 10, 1970 (84 Stat. 989), is amended by changing

"$1,605,000" to "$2,205,000 for development.", and by deleting

16 USC 431

note.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

"(March 1969 prices), for development plus or minus such

amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of ordinary

fluctuation in construction costs as indicated by engineering cost

indices applicable to the types of construction involved herein.".

(3) Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, Tennessee: Section 3

of the Act of December 11, 1963 (77 Stat. 350) is amended by

changing "$266,000" to "$286,000".

(4) Biscayne National Monument, Florida: Section 5 of the Act of

October 18, 1968 (82 Stat. 1188), is amended by changing

"$2,900,000" to "$6,565,000".

16 USC

450qq-4

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.

3471

(5) Capitol Reef National Park, Utah: Section 7 of the Act of

December 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 739), is amended by changing

"$1,052,700 (April 1970 prices)" to "$1,373,000 for

development.", and by deleting "for development, plus or minus

such amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of ordinary

fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by engineering cost

indexes applicable to the types of construction involved herein."

(6) Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, North Carolina:

Section 3 of the Act of October 17, 1968 (82 Stat. 1154), is

amended by changing "$952,000" to "$1,662,000".

(7) Cowpens National Battlefield Site, South Carolina: Section 402

of the Act of April 11, 1972 (86 Stat. 120), is amended by

changing "$3,108,000" to "$5,108,000".

16 USC 273f.

(8) De Soto National Memorial, Florida: Section 3 of the Act of

March 11, 1948 (62 Stat. 78), as amended, is further amended

changing "$3,108,000" to "$5,108,000".

(9) Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona: Section 4 of the

Act of August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 681), is amended by deleting

"$550,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act,", and inserting in

lieu thereof: "$85,000 for land acquisition and $1,043,000 for

development".

(10) Frederick Douglass Home, District of Columbia: Section 4 of

the Act of September 5, 1962 (76 Stat. 435), is amended by

changing "$413,000" to "$1,350,000".

(11)Grant Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, Montana: Section 4

of the Act of August 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 632), is amended to read as

follows: "SEC. 4 There are authorized to be appropriated such

sums as may be necessary to carry out the provision of this Act,

but not to exceed $752,000 for land acquisition and not to exceed

$2,075,000 for development."; the additional sums herein

authorized for land acquisition may be used to acquire the fee

simple title to lands over which the United States has acquired

easements or other less than fee interests.

16 USC 450dd

note.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

(12) Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas: Section 6 of the

Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 920), is amended by changing

"$10,362,000" to "$24,715,000", and by adding the following new

sentence at the end of the section: "No funds appropriated for

development purposes pursuant to this Act may be expended for

improvements incompatible with wilderness management within

the corridor of the park leading to the summit of Guadalupe Peak".

16 USC 283e.

(13) Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida-Mississippi: Section

11 of the Act of January 8, 1971 (84 Stat. 1967), is amended by

changing "$17,774,000" to "$14,224,000", and by deleting the

phrase, "(June 1970 prices) for development, plus such amounts, if

any, as may be justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in

construction costs as indicated by engineering costs indices

applicable to the types of construction involved herein.", and

inserting lieu thereof "for development.".

16 USC

4592h—10.

(14) Harper's Ferry National Historical Park, Maryland-West

Virginia: Section 4 of the Act of June 30, 1944 (58 Stat. 645), is

amended further by changing "$8,690,000" to "$12,385,000".

16 USC 450bb

note.

(15) Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, Arizona: Section

3 of the Act of August 28, 1965 (79 Stat. 584), is amended by

changing "$952,000" to "$977,000".

.

.

.

16 USC 461

note.

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.

3489

shore and, in addition, the waters surrounding said area to

distances of some thousand feet in the Atlantic Ocean and up to

four thousand feet in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay and, in

addition, mainland terminal and headquarters sites, not to exceed a

total of twelve acres, on the Patchogue River within Suffolk

County, New York, all as deliniated on the map identified as "Fire

Island National Seashore", numbered OGP-0004, dated May 1978.

The Secretary shall publish in the offices of the Department of the

Interior."

Map,

publication

in Federal

Register.

(b) Section 2 of such Act is amended by adding the following new

subsection at the end thereof:

"(g) The authority of the Secretary to condemn undeveloped tracts

within the Dune District as depicted on map entitled "Fire Island

National Seashore" numbered OGP-00004 dated May 1978, is

suspended so long as the owner or owners of the undeveloped

property maintain the property in its natural state. Undeveloped

property within the Dune District that is acquired by the Secretary

shall remain in its natural state.".

Undeveloped

tracts and

property

16 USC

459e&3151;1.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

(c) Section 7(b) of such Act is amended by striking the phrase

"Brookhaven town park at", and inserting in lieu thereof: "Ocean

Ridge portion of".

16 USC 459e

—6.

(d) Section 10 of such Act is amended by striking "$18,000,000",

and inserting in lieu thereof "$23,000,000".

16 USC 4593

—9.

CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL SEASHORE

Sec. 323. Section 1 of the Act of October 23, 1972 (86 Stat. 1066),

is amended by changing the phrase "numbered CUIS 40,000B, and

dated June 1971,", to read "numbered CUIS 4,000D, and dated

January 1978,".

16 USC 459i.

TITLE IV—WILDERNESS

DESIGNATION OF AREAS

Sec. 401. The following lands are hereby designated as wilderness

in accordance with section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat.

890; 16 U.S.C. 1132(c)), and shall be administered by the

Secretary in accordance with the applicable provisions of the

Wilderness Act:

Administration

16 USC 1132

note.

16 USC 1131

note.

(1) Buffalo National River, Arkansas, wilderness

comprising approximately ten thousand five hundred

and twenty-nine acres and potential wilderness

additions comprising approximately twenty-five

thousand four hundred and seventy-one acres depicted

on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Buffalo National

River, Arkansas", numbered 173 20,036 B and dated

March 1975, to be known as the Buffalo National

River Wilderness.

(2) Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico,

wilderness comprising approximately thirty-three

thousand one hundred and twenty-five acres and

potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately three hundred and twenty acres,

depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Carlsbad

Caverns National Park, New Mexico," numbered 130-

20,003-B and dated January 1978, to be known as the

Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness. By January 1, 1980, the

Secretary shall review the remainder of the park and

shall report to the President, in accordance with

section 3 (c) and (d) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat.

891; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c) and (d)), his recommendations

as to the suitability or nonsuitability of any additional

areas within the park for preservation as wilderness

and any designation of such areas as wilderness shall

be accomplished in accordance with said subsections

of the Wilderness Act.

Report to

President.

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

3490

(3) Everglades National Park, Florida, wilderness comprising

approximately one million two hundred and ninety-six thousand

five hundred acres and potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately eighty-one thousand nine hundred acres, depicted

on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Everglades National Park,

Florida", numbered 160-20,011 and dated June 1971, to be known

as the Everglades Wilderness.

(4) Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas, wilderness

comprising approximately forty-six thousand eight hundred and

fifty acres, depicted on the map entitled "Wilderness Plan,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas," numbered 166-

20,006-B and dated July 1972, to be known as the Guadalupe

Mountains Wilderness.

(5) Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida, and Mississippi,

wilderness comprising approximately one thousand eight hundred

acres and potential wilderness additions comprising approximately

two thousand eight hundred acres, depicted on a map entitled

"Wilderness Plan, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Mississippi,

Florida", numbered 635-20,018-A and dated March 1977, to be

known as the Gulf Islands Wilderness.

(6) Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii, wilderness

comprising approximately one hundred and twenty-three thousand

one hundred acres and potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately seven thousand eight hundred and fifty acres,

depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Hawaii Volcanoes

National park, Hawaii", numbered 124-20,020 and dated April

1974, to be known as the Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness.

(7) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, wilderness

comprising approximately three hundred and twelve thousand six

hundred acres and potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately one thousand two hundred and forty acres, depicted

on the map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument, Arizona", numbered 157-20,001-B and dated October

1978, to be known as the Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness.

(8) Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park, North Dakota,

wilderness comprising approximately twenty-nine thousand nine

hundred and twenty acres, depicted on maps entitled "Theodore

Roosevelt National Memorial Park, North Dakota" (North Unit and

South Unit) numbered 387-20,007-E and dated January 1978, to be

known as the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness.

16 USC 1131

note.

MAP AND DESCRIPTION

Sec. 402. A map and description of the boundaries of the areas

designated in this title shall be on file and available for public

inspection in of office of the Director of the National Park Service,

Department of the Interior, and in the Office of the Superintendent

of each area designated in this title. As soon as practicable after

Public

availability.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

this Act takes effect, maps of the wilderness areas and descriptions

of their boundaries shall be filed with the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States

Senate, and such maps and descriptions shall have the same force

and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, That correction of

clerical and typographical errors in such maps and descriptions

may be made.

Filing with

congressional

committees.

PUBLIC LAW 95—625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT.

3491

CESSATION OF CERTAIN USES

Sec. 403. Any lands which represent potential wilderness additions

in this title, upon publication inn the Federal Register of a notice

by the Secretary that at all uses thereon prohibited by the

Wilderness Act have ceased, shall thereby be designated

wilderness Lands designated as potential wilderness additions shall

be managed by the Secretary insofar as practicable as wilderness

until such time as said lands are designated as wilderness.

ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 404. The areas designated by this Act as wilderness shall be

administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the

applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas

designated by that Act as wilderness, except that any reference in

such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be

deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this Act, and,

where appropriate, any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture

shall be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of the Interior.

SAVINGS PROVISIONS

Sec. 405. Nothing in this tithe shall be construed to diminish the

authority of the Coast Guard, pursuant to sections 2 and 81 of title

14, United States Code, and title 1 of the Ports and Waterways

Safety Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1221), or the Federal Aviation

Administration to use the areas designated wilderness by this Act

within the Everglades National Park, Florida ; and the Gulf Islands

National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi, for navigational and

maritime safety purposes.

Designation

notice.

publication in

Federal

Register.

16 USC

1131B

note.

Management.

TITLE V—ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AREAS AND

ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Subtitle A—Parks, Seashores, Etc.

GUAM NATIONAL SEASHORE

Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary through the Director of the National

Park Service, shall revise and update the National Park Service

study of the Guam National Seashore and, after consultation with

the Secretary of the Department of Defense and the Governor of

Study

revision,

transmittal to

congressional

committees.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:25 PM]

Guam, shall transmit tine revised study within two years to the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of

Representatives including his recommendations and a series of

options for congressional consideration each of which—

(1) will encompass the area from Ajayen Bay to

Nimitz Beach including Cocos and Anac Islands and

extending inland as far as the Fena Valley Reservoir

and Mount Sasalaguan, and

(2) if implemented, will afford protection to the natural

and historic resources of the area as well as providing

visitor access and interpretive services.

(b) The Secretary, and the Secretary of tine Department of

Defense, shall take such actions as they may deem appropriate

within their existing authorities to protect the resource values of

the submerged lands within the area of the study referred to in

subsection (a) of this section.

Submerged

lands

resource

values,

protection.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhiaa.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiab.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:26 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX B: PERSONNEL

LIST OF PERMANENT PERSONNEL (Tentative)

SUPERINTENDENT AREA MANAGER

Neal Guse ?-1970 John Chapman 1973-1975

Donald Dayton 1970-1981 Bruce Fladmark 1976-1980

William Dunmire 1981-1985 Ralph Harris 1980-1987

Richard Smith 1986-87

Karen Wade 1987-

CHIEF RANGER CHIEF, INTERPRETATION

Phil Koepp 1981-1988 William Laitner 1981-1984

Jan Wobben Horst 1988- Bob Valen 1984-

PARK RANGER RANGER-INTERPRETATION

Peter Sanchez 1962-1963 Dava Davy 1976-1978

Roger Reisch 1964- Caroline Wilson 1978-?

Cordell Roy ?-1978 Diane Allen 1981-1984

Oscar Rodrigues 1978-1981 John Lujan 1984-1987

John Jarvis 1982 Karen Haner 1986-1987

Rudy Carrasco 1982-1984 Linda Brindle 1986

Todd Brindle 1982-1986

Douglas Raeburn 1982-1984 CHIEF, MAINTENANCE DIV./

Olav Olsen 1984- FACILITY MANAGER

Jim Carson 1984-1988 Lloyd Gurley ?

Cindy Purcell 1986- Herschel Fowler 1979-80

Jim Gallaher 1980

PARK TECHNICIAN Doyle Townsend 1981-1982

Robert Turner 1972-? David Kangas 1982-

Robert King 1972-1976 Bruce Reed

Norman Stephan 1974-1976

Mary Jane Tate 1973-? SUPERINTENDENT'S SECRETARY

Harry Steed 1976-? Edith Scott ?-1987

Cathy Rudy 1984-1986 Di Shute 1987-1988

Nedra Parker Barbara Lujan 1988-
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiab.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:26 PM]

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

SPECIALIST CLERK-TYPIST

Vidal Davila 1985- Carole Bryant 1980-1984

Donna Hendricks 1984-1988

Donna Valen 1988

MAINTENANCE FOREMAN MAINTENANCE WORKER

Francis Schneider 1973 Rito Perez 1971-?

Lloyd Gurley 1975- Alan Cox ?-1978

Harold Anderson 1978-1979 Don Cory

Glen Bodin

ROADS AND TRAILS FOREMAN Arch Chaney

Bill Nichols 1978-? Diane Blackard

Ed Uptain 1981-1983 Lidia Salcido

Lee Baiza 1984 -

BUILDING AND UTILITIES

FOREMAN MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR

Larry Rogers 1978-1979 Mark Hanson 1978

Harold Anderson 1979-1987 Arch Chaney 1986

ELECTRICAL WORKER

ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR, R&T

Johnny M. Sanders 1973-1988 Antonio Armijo 1974-

Gerald Lange 1974-

Eliseo Riojas 1975

AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC LABORER

Dan Muntean 1985-1988 Catarion Rivas 1974

PARK AIDE

Karen Parker 1971

Sharon Reece

Alan Cox

Kim Clegg

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhiab.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX C: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

and

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

This Memorandum of Understanding is between the National Park Service represented by the Regional Director and

hereinafter referred to as the Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department represented by the Director and

hereinafter referred to as the Department.

WHEREAS, the Department has the responsibility under the laws and constitution of the State of Texas for the

management, propagation, and protection of resident species of fish and wildlife found within the borders of the State,

and is responsible for the benefit of the people of the State of Texas, and

WHEREAS, the Service is responsible under various acts, laws and treaties of the United States to administer and

manage the lands, waters, natural and historic resources contained within the boundaries of National Park Service

administered areas within the State of Texas, and

WHEREAS, the Department and the Service recognize the necessity for ecologically sound regional planning to

perpetuate, and restore where opportunity presents, the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife resources within

the State of Texas, and desire to conduct joint and cooperative endeavors which will focus the skills and abilities of the

Department and Service toward resolving mutual fish and wildlife problems, achieving maximum public benefits from

the fish and wildlife resources, and ensuring that the respective objectives and responsibilities of the Department and

Service are fulfilled.

NOW THEREFORE:

A. The Service agrees:

1. To consult with the Department prior to initiating any fish or wildlife research project or

implementing any plan, program, or regulation that may affect distribution, numbers, species, or

public use of fish and wildlife found within or adjacent to areas administered by the Service.

2. Consistent with the respective official Service policies and objectives for natural and historic areas,

the Service will practice those forms of management that will benefit fish and wildlife.

3. To provide the Department with copies of all vital reports and correspondence directly related to this

agreement.

4. To cooperate with the Department in the joint enforcement of applicable game and/or fish and

boating laws on lands and waters administered by the Service.

5. To provide the Department with copies of general wildlife studies, surveys, and reports of mutual
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

interest.

6. To consult with Department biologists on studies, research, or management of endangered species.

B. The Department agrees:

1. To consult with the Service before establishing hunting and fishing seasons and regulations or

implementing management programs that may affect the fish or wildlife resources of the areas

administered by the Service.

2. To provide necessary authorization or permits to the Service for management or restoration of

wildlife populations in Service areas.

C. The Department and the Service mutually agree:

1. To establish a Technical Study Committee or Committee as needed, composed of biologists,

wildlife managers and other professionals of both agencies to jointly study regional fish and,

wildlife problems and develop recommendations for long-range and annual fish and wildlife

programs.

2. To meet jointly at least once annually to consider recommendations of the Technical Study

Committee and other subjects of mutual interest.

3. To encourage the joint publication of press releases and interchange between parties of all pertinent

agency policy and objectives, statutes, rules and regulations and other information as required for

the wise use and perpetuation of regional fish and wildlife resources.

4. To enter into working arrangements as occasion demands for the use of lands, buildings, and other

facilities owned and operated by either party hereto, for special projects.

5. To enter into supplemental agreements to this Memorandum of Understanding as necessary to carry

out joint programs in the individual units administered by the Service.

6. That nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding shall be construed as obligating either party

hereto to the expenditure of funds or for the future payment of money in excess of appropriations

authorized by law.

7. That nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting in any way the responsibility and

authority as defined by law, of the Director, National park Service, and the Director of the Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department, in connection with the administration and protection of lands and

resources under their respective administration.

8. That no member of, or Delegate to Congress, or Resident United States Commissioner, shall be

admitted to any share or part of the Memorandum of Understanding or to any benefit to arise

therefrom, unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit.

9. That this Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective when signed by the parties hereto

and shall continue in force for a period of 5 years from its effective date. It may be terminated by

either party upon 60 days notice in writing. Amendments to this Memorandum of Understanding

may be proposed by either party and shall become effective upon written approval by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date last

signed below.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

Regional Director

Date: 3/13/87

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

Director

Date: 4-6-87

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AND THE

Carlsbad Caverns Natural History ASSOCIATION*

This Memorandum of Agreement is between the National Park Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Service"), an

agency of the United States Department of the Interior, acting in this behalf through the Director, National Park

Service, or his designee, and the Carlsbad Caverns Natural History Association (hereinafter referred to as

"Association"), acting through the Chairman of its Board of Directors or the Board's designee.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the Service to preserve, interpret, and manage the National Park System for the

benefit, education, and enjoyment of the people of the United States, as provided for in the Act of August 25, 1916 (16

U.S.C. Sec. 1, et seq.); and

WHEREAS, the Service desires to provide facilities and cooperating services for the sale of materials of interpretive

and educational value and for the presentation of specified programs relating to the interpretive themes of areas of the

National Park System; and

WHEREAS, the Association has the education, historical, scientific, and nonprofit purposes of assisting historical,

scientific, educational, and interpertive activities of the Service;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to authority contained in the Acts of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1-3), August 7,

1946 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 17j-2), August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 461-468e), June 5, 1920 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 6), August 8,

1953 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1b5), August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1a-2(g)), and other laws supplemental thereto and

amendatory thereof, and in consideration of the mutual benefits which will accrue to the Service and the Association,

the parties agree as follows:

1. AUTHORIZATION

The Service authorizes the Association to provide, and the Association agrees to provide, the hereinafter described

interpretive and educational services to the visiting public for a period of five years conmencing on the day following

the ratification of this Agreement by the Service. This Agreement will automatically renew for another five year period

on October 1 of the last year, unless reasonable notice of cancellation is given by either party before the date of

renewal. While the Service reserves the right to terminate the Agreement, or any part thereof, at any time upon

reasonable notice without the necessity of any legal process, the Service will hold a meeting with the Association prior

to the termination setting forth the reasons for termination.

2. ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES

The Association may use facilities within the Park for the sale of educational and interpretive items for the benefit of

the visiting public.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

A. Sales Items

(1) The Association may sell only interpretive and educational items, such as publications, maps, visual

aids, handicrafts, and other objects directly related to the interpretive and educational themes of the Park

and Park System. This does not prohibit granting of a con cession permit to an Association authorizing the

sale of other items.

(2) The Association shall not sell original artifacts, such as potsherds or battlefield relics, to which the

Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 431-433) or 43 C.F. R., Part 3, would apply if discovered

on public lands, notwithstanding whether such objects were in fact discovered on lands owned or

controlled by the United States.

(3) The Association is not by this Agreement granted the right to sell items, the sale of which would

infringe on applicable contract rights of a concessioner.

(4) The Association shall maintain a high standard of quality in all items produced or sold.

(5) The Association shall not sell any item which has not been approved by the park superintendent or an

appropriate Service person, as designated by the Director. The Association shall allow publications to be

reviewed by the Service on editorial and design quality.

(6) The Association shall sell items at fair market value provided that such prices shall be approved in

advance by the park superintendent or an appropriate Service person, as designated by the Director.

(7) The Association shall display the sales items in good taste and in keeping with the general design and

decor of the Park.

B. Facilities

(1) The Association may redesign and renovate existing sales facilities as necessary, including renovation

of display structures, furnishings, equipment, signing, display lighting, and lighting in the immediate area

of the facility, provided that all plans therefore are approved in advance by the Service.

(2) The Association shall keep the sales facilities clean and presentable throughout the workday.

(3) The Association shall exercise reasonable care to prevent damage to any Government property used by

it during its operation and shall, insofar as possible, protect all such property.

(4) **

C. Records and Accounting

(1) The Association shall conduct its fiscal operations in accordance with accepted business practices,

utilizing purchase orders, receipts, invoices, and inventory records.

(2) The Association shall comply with the Standard Accounting System for cooperating associations,

which is attached as Exhibit A.

(3) The Association shall submit to the Director, through the Superintendent and the Regional Director,

annually within 90 days following the end of each fiscal. year a complete financial report. The report shall

be accompanied by a written summary of Association activities for the year.

(4) The Director, or his designee, may review the records of the Association during the term of this

Agreement.

D. Personnel
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

(1) The Association shall provide such personnel as are reasonably necessary to operate the sales facilities

as indicated by the level of gross sales. These personnel may include, as necessary, a central business

office staff, local facility managers, and sales clerks. Otherwise, Service personnel may offer sales items

to the public as an incidental supplement to their interpretive duties.

(2) The Association shall designate an Association member or employee who is authorized to act as

liaison with the Service.

(3) All Association employees involved in visitor contact shall be oriented in the park's visitor service

programs and shall be certified by the park superintendent before assuming such responsibilities.

(4) An evident and distinct separation shall be maintained between the activities of the Association and

those of the Service. All steps shall be taken to avoid even an appearance that the Service directs the

management or decision-making process of the Association.

(5) Association personnel are not Government employees and are not authorized to undertake any

Governmental function or activity on behalf of the Service beyond routine visitor information services and

participation in museums and living history or like programs. Association employees shall not engage in

activities which would reasonably lead the visiting public to conclude that they are Government

employees. No Association employee shall wear a Service or other Government uniform. All Association

employees shall wear some easily observable and readily identifiable indicia of Association affiliation

while in the Park on Association business.

E. Approvals

(1) Hours of operation, rates and prices, standards of service, and merchandise to be sold shall be subject

to the approval of the Director.

(2) The Association may at any time make a written request for such necessary approvals. Failure to

disapprove within thirty days of receipt of such written request shall be deemed to constitute Service

approval. This subparagraph does not apply to the approval required by subparagraph 2B

F. Interpretive Activities

(1) Interpretive activities engaged in by the Association must meet Service standards and be approved by

the Park Superintendent.

(2) Interpretive activities conducted by the Association will be directed by the Park Superintendent or

through the executive secretary, when a Service employee, provided, however, the Association personnel

shall only be available for the purposes of the interpretive activity.

3. SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Service agrees to allow the Association to use those facilities within the Park which are designated in Exhibit B

for the sale of educational and interpretive items for the benefit of the visiting public.

A. Sales Items

The Service shall cooperate with the Association in the planning and design of merchandise appropriate

for sale by the Association at the facilities provided therefore by the Service.

B. Facilities

(1) The Service shall provide the Association with such sales and other facilities as are identified in

Exhibit B, and such other facilities as may hereafter deemed necessary or desirable by the Service,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

provided that the Service reserves the right to relocate or withdraw any such facilities in order to meet

needs of the Service upon reasonable notice. The Service shall have emergency access to all facilities,

which shall also be subject to the right of the Service to make such surveys and inspections as the Service

deems necessary.

(2) The Service reserves the right to design and construct any new facilities, and shall allow the

Association to review and comment on any plans therefore.

(3) The Service shall provide the Association with incidental utility services at each assigned facility,

including water, electricity. heat, air conditioning (if available in the building), to the extent these utilities

are required for the operation of the building for Governmental purposes. All other utilities will be

provided the Association on a reimbursable basis.

(4) The Service shall provide all general maintenance and repair services for the Government-owned

buildings.

(5) The Service shall designate an employee who shall act as liaison with the Association.

4. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS

The Service and the Association further agree that, by supplemental agreement, the Association may offer additional

educational and interpretive services which support the mission of the Park. This includes assisting, planning, and

conducting the presentation of interpretive and educational programs, involving as needed, but not limited to,

employment of interpreters, purchasing of supplies, and sale of program products.

5. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

A. The Association shall indemnify, save and hold harmless and defend the United States against all fines, claims,

damages, losses, judgments, and expenses arising Out of or from any omission or activity of the Association in

connection with activities under this Agreement.

***B. The Association shall procure public and employee liability insurance with a minimum limitation of $100,000

for any number of claims from any one incident, with respect to the activities of the Association and its employees.

The United States of America shall be named as an additional insured on all such policies. All such policies shall

specify that the insurer shall have no right of subrogation against the United States for payment of any premiums or

deductibles thereunder, and such insurance policies shall be assumed by, credited to the account of, and undertaken at

the Association's sole risk.

6. ASSOCIATION ORGANIZATION

A. The Association's Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws shall comply with requirements of the State in which the

Association is in corporated. Non-profit status must be maintained in accordance with Federal and State laws and the

Association will make available for inspection at the request of the Service documents demonstrating non profit status.

This contract will automatically terminate if non-profit status is lost.

B. Non-Service representation on the Board of Directors must be a majority. Service employees shall not represent the

Association in any matter between the Association and the Service. When acting as an Officer or Association Board

Member, a Service employee shall not participate in any Association decision concerning the relationship of the

Association to the Service, including, but not limited to, executing or negotiating contracts, signing checks or hiring or

firing Association employees.

C. The role of the Executive Secretary, or, in the case of an amalgamation, the equivalent position, when a Service

employee, is to represent the interests of the National Park Service and to provide cooperative assistance to the

Association. His or her scope of Association responsibility shall be limited to providing assistance in over seeing the

day-to-day, routine business of the Association, and serving as liaison between the Service and the Association.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

D. The Association treasurer shall not be a Service employee.

7. ASSIGNMENT

No transfer or assignment of this Agreement or of any part thereof or interest therein, directly or indirectly, voluntary

or involuntary, shall be made unless such transfer or assignment is first approved by the Director or his authorized

representative in writing.

8. APPROPRIATIONS

Nothing herein contained shall be construed as binding the Service to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess

of appropriations made by Congress or administratively allocated for the purposes of this Agreement for the fiscal

year, or to involve the Service in any contract or other obligation for the further expenditure of money in excess of

such appropriations or allocation.

9. MISCELLANEOUS

A. The rights and benefits conferred by this Agreement shall be subject to the laws of the United States governing the

National Park Service and to the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, whether now in force or hereafter

enacted or provided; and the mention of specific restrictions, conditions, and stipulations heroin shalt not be construed

as in any way impairing the general powers of super vision, regulation and control by the Service.

B. No member of, or delegate to, Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this

Agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this

Agreement if made with a corporation or company for its general benefit.

C. The Association agrees that all its activities shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and

regulations, both State and Federal. Specifically, the Association shall comply with the requirements of (a) Executive

Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1967, (b) Title 7., Section 503 of the Rehabilization act m. of September 26, 1968

(P.L. 93-112), which requires Government Contractors and Subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and to

advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals, and (c) with regulations heretofore or hereafter

promulgated, relating to nondiscrimination in employment and in providing facilities and service to the public, as set

forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part thereof.

D. In all cases where rights or privileges are granted herein in general or indefinite terms, the extent of the use of such

rights or privileges by the Association shall be determined by further written agreement.This Agreement is effective

between the Association and the Service with regard to the following specified national park sites, which are

collectively referred to throughout this Agreement as the "Park," to wit:

(1) Carlsbad Caverns National Park

(2) Guadalupe Mountains National Park

(3) 

(4) 

etc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Association has caused this Agreement to be executed this 30th day of January 1978.

Carlsbad Caverns Natural History Association

Cooperating Association

By: Chairman, Board of Directors

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Service has caused this Agreement to be ratified this 3rd day of March, 1978.

National Park Service
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

* The following agreement is non-negotiable except where indicated.

** Paragraph (4) has been designated to handle any special or unique problems. This point is negotiable.

*** This paragraph is non-negotiable except the "minimum limitation" of insurance. Acceptable coverage is left to the

discretion of the Association. A $100,000 minimum is advised even for the smaller Associations.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK

AND

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

THE

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

ROSWELL DISTRICT OFFICE

CARLSBAD RESOURCE AREA HEADQUARTERS

AND THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST

CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPPRESSION

OF WILDFIRES ALONG COMMON BOUNDARIES

Fire loss in the forests and on the rangelands of the Nation continues to be a matter of great concern to the American

public, the State of New Mexico, and to the land management agencies in the Department of the Interior and the

Department of Agriculture, Many of the land areas under the jurisdiction of these agencies are so located

geographically that fire on lands in one jurisdiction may burn onto the lands of an adjoining jurisdiction. The

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into in order to provide a framework for cooperation in the

management and suppression of wildfires along the common boundaries of the participating agencies.

This type of agreement is provided for in the 1986 Joint Powers Agreement between the State of New Mexico and the

Federal Agencies of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. It is also provided for in the Interagency Agreement

that exists between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture in the Federal government.

The intent of these broad agreements is that local agreements may be entered into which provide for the sharing of

resources, the utilization of the closest resource, and the use of suppression tactics which are the most cost effective

and which most protect the resources to be managed, regardless of ownership. This Memorandum of Understanding is

intended to be that type of local agreement.

A general basis for cooperation between the agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture on all aspects

of wildfire management is provided by the 1983 Interagency Agreement between the BLM, BIA, NPS, USF&WS, and

the USFS (83—SIE—001).

This MOU is entered into by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, under the authority of 16

U.S.C. Sec. 1b; the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, under the authority of 43 U.S.C.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

Sec. 1701; and the U.S. Forest Service, under the authority of the Forest Service Cooperative Agreement Act of 1975

(16 U.S.C. 565 a1—3). These three Federal agencies will hereafter be referred to as the "agencies".

While the individual agencies will conduct fire management operations in keeping with their respective policies, they

are also aware that there can be considerable benefits in cost effectiveness and safety if natural features are used to

assist in the containment and/or control of wildfires. These natural features frequently transcend administrative

boundaries dividing the agencies.

These agencies also recognize that the existing fire suppression mandates regulating individual agencies provide for

management actions which will allow fires to burn or move into areas where safety, logistical, and resource

management considerations warrant the fires can be better managed and/or contained. These agencies recognize that

the above conditions may require that fires be allowed to burn across administrative boundary lines.

Further, it is recognized by all agencies that a better utilization of Federal funds can be accomplished through a

cooperative effort of fire management, including prescribed fire. It is therefore considered beneficial for the three

agencies to develop a cooperative effort in administering their fire programs.

NOW THEREFORE, in view of the above considerations, the three agencies agree as follows:

1. Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate any agency to expend or incur obligations for further payment of

money in excess of amounts appropriated and allotted for administration of their respective areas.

2. The agencies will continue existing fire management cooperative efforts including the use of equipment caches,

training opportunities, and the staffing of an inter-agency fire crew.

3. The agency upon whose land the fire originated will observe routine fire communication procedures and will

begin communication with the adjoining agency as soon as the possibility of the fire crossing mutual boundaries

becomes evident.

4. Each agency will respect the management ethics of its neighbor and will take reasonable action to prevent a fire

from crossing mutual boundaries if the fire is deemed unacceptable by the receiving agency.

5. An agency which allows a fire to burn into its land will accept the responsibility of managing the suppression

effort for that portion of the fire within its administrative boundaries.

6. The costs of extinguishing a fire, regardless of agency boundaries, will be borne by each agency according to its

own involvement.

7. The agencies will meet annually at a mutually agreed upon date to review the operation effectiveness of this

document and make any needed revisions.

8. Each party to the agreement does hereby expressly waive all claims against the other from compensation for any

loss, damage. personal injury, or deaths occurring as a result of the performance of this MOU.

This MOU will become effective upon approval by all parties and will extend for a period of five years thereafter. The

MOU may be amended, revised, or terminated in writing at any time by joint agreement of the supervisors, or their

representatives, of the agencies after 30 days written notice.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the agencies hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the last date

written below:

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Approved by: Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

Date: 6/14/88

Approved by: Superintendent, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Date: 6/15/88

Bureau of Land Management

Approved by: District Manager, Roswell District

Date: 7/15/88

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Approved by: Forest Supervisor, Lincoln National Forest

Date: 8/5/85

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AND THE

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF TEXAS

This Cooperative Agreement is entered into under the authority of the Act of August 25, 1916, as amended, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1, et. seq., the Act of October 15, 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 283, and the Act of July 15, 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 460L—22, by

and between the United States, hereinafter referred to as the Service, and the State of Texas, acting through the

Department of Highways and Public Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the Highway Department.

The purposes and mutual benefits of this agreement are as follows:

1. To facilitate relocation and replacement of the obsolete Texas Highway Department maintenance camp

facility at Pine Springs, Texas, presently on the north edge of U. S. Highway 62-180 and in a scenic area

within Guadalupe Mountains National Park, to a new site south of U. S. Highway 62-180 outside the park

boundary and near the Service's maintenance and residential facilities.

2. To provide a suitable access route to the new Highway Department camp location for the use and

purpose of serving the new camp as long as the camp facility is needed and is located in this area.

3. To help assure that maintenance work, including emergency storm response action on the portion of U.

S. Highway 62-180 through and adjacent to Guadalupe Pass, including the portion of this primary road

which passes through the park, is carried out to the benefit of park visitors and other travelers using this

road.

4. To help assure that health and sanitary conditions and the appearance of both Service and Highway

Department facilities in the area are compatible and meet acceptable standards.

This agreement will become effective upon signature by both parties and will continue in effect for as long as the new

Highway Department camp facility occupies the new camp location immediately outside the park boundary and there

is no other suitable and/or mutually agreeable access route to the new camp site. The agreement will not be terminated

by either party without at least 60 days advance notice and without mutual agreement on an alternate access route

and/or utility services to the new camp, unless the Highway Department and Service should mutually decide to close or

move both its facilities, residential area, or camp to another location in the future, in which case they would be free to

do so and the agreement would terminate without obligation. At present, it is agreed that the access route described in
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

the following sections of this document is the only feasible route to the new maintenance camp facility.

THEREFORE, in order to accomplish the desired objectives and purposes of this agreement, the parties hereto in

consideration of the considerations, benefits, promises, and convenants contained herein mutually agree as follows:

 THE SERVICE AGREES:

1. To grant the Highway Department an easement for access along a route from U.S. Highway 62-180 to

the new camp location described in the attached Exhibit "A," pages 1 and 2, labeled "Joint Use" and

"Exclusive Use by the State of Texas." This easement will be granted contemporaneously with the granting

by the State of Texas of a quitclaim deed for that property described in Exhibit "B" hereto. Until this

exchange can take place, the Service will issue a Special Use Permit for the easement to the Highway

Department. A drawing of this route, Exhibit "A," page 3, is also attached.

2. To allow the Highway Department to connect with the Service's main tenance area service road being

built on a portion of this easement and to construct a paved extension in a southeasterly direction along

the easement to the park boundary, a distance of approximately 20 feet, using State funds.

3. To construct and maintain the Service's portion of the road with a 6-inch bituminous surface to the

point of connection to accommodate heavy equipment using the road.

 THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AGREES:

1. To construct and maintain the service road extension described under No. 2 above, using State funds.

2. After the new Highway Department maintenance camp facility is built and occupied, the Highway

Department agrees to remove all buildings and structures from the old camp location and to clear the site,

at State expense, leaving as much natural vegetation as possible. It is agreed that this will be done within a

reasonable length of time as funds and Highway Department work schedules permit.

3. That at such time as the present site becomes surplus to the State's needs, the Highway Department will

recommend that the Governor of Texas execute a proper instrument conveying title to the .94 acre of land

at the old camp location, as described in the attached Exhibit "B," pages 1 and 2, labeled "Tract No. 01—

122," to the National Park Service in exchange for the easement for an access route to the new camp. The

Texas Highway Department agrees that it will make no financial claims against the Service for relocation

expenses.

4. To continue to provide maintenance work and emergency storm response service on the portion of U.S.

Highway 62-180 which crosses through Guadalupe Mountains National Park, as the Highway Department

has done in the past from the old camp location.

5. To cooperate in having residents and workers at the Highway Department camp adhere to park rules

and regulations, including those relating to speed limits on the park road.

6. To use the access route to the Highway Department camp only for the purpose of using, operating,

servicing, or maintaining the camp and not as a through road or route to other locations not related or

associated with the camp.

FURTHERMORE, in order to accomplish the purposes and objectives of this agreement,

THE SERVICE AND HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MUTUALLY AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. The Highway Department will be allowed to tap into the park's Pine Springs water and sewer systems at

the nearest feasible locations. The nearest 6-inch water main is located just inside the park boundary along

the south fence of the Service's maintenance compound, and the nearest sewer lift station is approximately
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

375 feet inside the boundary.

2. The cost of tapping into Service lines and extending water and sewer service from the park-owned lines

at the point of connection southward to the Highway Department camp will be paid by the Highway

Department.

3. The Highway Department will provide a master water meter on the main water line to the camp either at

the point of connection or at some other suitable location between the point of connection and the park

boundary to measure water used by the camp.

4. A monthly charge will be made for water and sewer service provided to the camp. Rates will be based

on the principle of comparability, as with park concessions, and will be the same as in the nearest

community of Carlsbad, New Mexico. After the first year, rates may be adjusted and based on actual costs

for operation of the park water and sewer systems, with charges pro-rated according to the amount of

water used by both parties. Copies of current rate schedules for the city of Carlsbad, New Mexico, are

attached, as Exhibit "C," pages 1 and 2.

5. Water supplied by the Service to the Highway Department will be for residential or domestic use only

and not for highway construction or road project work. Water for actual highway maintenance and

construction work will continue to be the responsibility of the Highway Department and will have to come

from other sources.

6. The Service will continue to supply water for residential or domestic use at the camp as long as the

Service occupies its Pine Springs residential and maintenance facilities and for as long as the well, which

is the source of the park system, continues to produce a sufficient quantity to meet the needs of both

parties. If an unexpected or unanticipated failure or decline in well water production should occur and

conservation measures undertaken by both parties should not prove adequate to bring water supply and

demand use into balance, the Service would be relieved of its responsibility to furnish water to the

highway Department camp.

7. If the size of the Highway Department camp should be increased in the future, after initial construction,

to the point where the park's Pine Springs sewage treatment facility would not be able to handle the added

load, the Highway Department would be responsible for either providing its own sewage treatment facility

for the camp expansion or for paying costs to expand the park sewage treatment facilities to handle the

added load from the Highway Department camp. If both park and Highway Department camp facilities

should be expanded and add to the load, needed sewage treatment plant expansion costs would be prorated proportionately.

8. That no member of, or delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share

or part of this agreement or to any benefit to arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to

extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.

9. That parties to this agreement will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment

because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

10. Nothing in this agreement shall commit either party to obligate funds in excess of those appropriated

for the fiscal year in which the obligation is to be incurred.

A map, showing the park water and sewer lines in the area and the planned points of connection, is

attached as Exhibit "D."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the National Park Service and the State Department of Highways and Public

Transportation cause this Cooperative Agreement to be executed as of the date last signed below.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE THE STATE OF TEXAS
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

By: Region Director, Southwest Region

Date: 8/6/80

Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of activating

and/or carrying out the orders, established policies, or work programs

heretofore approved and authorized by the State Highway and Public

Transportation Commission:

By: Assistant State Engineer-Director

Date: 9-24/80

Executed and approved for State Highway and Public Transportation

Commission, under authority of Commission Minute No. 77446

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED

Right-of-Way Engineer

District Engineer

Chief Engineer of Safety and Maintenance Operations

EXHIBIT "A" page 1

"JOINT USE"

All that certain twenty two (22) foot strip of land, being a portion of a National Park Service (NPS) Entrance Road,

and a National Park Service (NPS) Access Road to a Maintenance Camp, lying in Sections 44 and 45, Block 64,

Township 1, Texas and Pacific Railway Co. Survey, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Culberson County, Texas,

said strip of land being eleven (11) feet on either side of the following described centerline:

Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way (R/W) line at U. S. Highway 62-180, said point being

South 4°29'59" East — 60.00 feet from U. S. Highway 62-180 Station 977 + 82, said point also being

Station 0 + 60 on the centerline of National Park Service (NPS) Entrance Road (Line "A"); thence South

4°29'59" East, along said centerline, 3.0 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; thence along

said curve, having a radius of 268.87 feet, central angle of 71°54'12", an arc distance of 337.42 feet (chord

bearing South 31°27'07" East 315.71 feet), to the beginning of compound tangent curve to the left; thence

along said curve, having a radius of of 875.17 feet, central angle of 17°17'22", an arc distance of 264.09

feet (chord bearing South 76°02'48" East 263.09 feet), to a point, said point being Station 6 + 64.51 on the

centerline of Entrance Road (Line "A"), said point also being Station 0 + 00 on the centerline of National

Park Service (NPS) Maintenance Road (Line "B"); thence South 2°35'50" West along said centerline of

National Park Service (NPS) Maintenance Road (Line "B") 292.39 feet to a point, Station 2 + 92.39, said

point being the beginning of the entrance to the National Park Service Maintenance Camp Parking Area,

and being the terminus of the joint use area.

EXHIBIT "A" page 2

"EXCLUSIVE USE BY THE STATE OF TEXAS"

All that certain fifty (50) foot strip of land, being a continuation from the terminus of a National Park Service

Maintenance Road to the South Boundary of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, lying and being in Sections 44 and

45, Block 64, Township 1, Texas and Pacific Railway Co. Survey, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Culberson

County, Texas, said strip of land being twenty five (25) feet on either side of the following described centerline:

Beginning at a point in the centerline of a National Park Service Maintenance Road (Station 2 + 92.39),

said point bearing South 2°35'50" West 292.39 feet from the intersection of the centerline of aforesaid

Maintenance Road (Station 0 + 00) and a National Park Service Entrance Road (Station 6 + 64.51); thence

from said Point of Beginning on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 90.00 feet, a central angle of

44°42'00", an arc distance of 70.21 feet (chord bearing South 19°48'26" East) 68.83 feet to a point on the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

south boundary line of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the terminus of the above described

centerline; from said terminus point National Park Service Monument "C" bears North 88°55'33.8" East

554.62 feet, NPS Monument "C" leaving Texas Central Zone coordinates North 836,680.171, East

610,892.568.

Excepting that portion thereof used for access to a National Park Service Maintenance Camp parking lot.

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT

(Memorandum of Understanding)

between the

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

and the

LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The purpose of this interagency agreement is to provide joint cooperation in the management of North McKittrick

Canyon.This agreement in no way waives existing laws, regulations, or policies, nor does it obligate money.

This interagency agreement is entered into by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, hereafter

referred to as the Park Service, under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1 (1976) and by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service, under the authority of the Organic Act of June

4, 1897 (7 U.S.C. 2201).

The area referred to in this document is defined as that portion of North McKittrick Canyon within the boundaries of

the Guadalupe Mountains National Park as shown on USGS topographic map titled "Guadalupe Peak Quadrangle".

and that portion of North McKittrick on USGS topographic map titled "El Paso Gap Quadrangle". It includes the main

canyon and its tributaries from the canyon bottom to the hydrographic divide.

The Park Service has jurisdiction over the lover portion of the North McKittrick Canyon drainage in the Guadalupe

Mountains National Park. The Forest Service has jurisdiction over the upper reaches of the canyon. including

approximately one-half mile of exceptionally attractive perennial water near the Forest boundary on the Guadalupe

District of the Lincoln National Forest. The canyon contains geographically unique floral and faunal species as well as

significant archeological sites which may be irreparablely damaged by inappropriate use.

NOW THEREFORE, in view of the above conditions, the agencies hereto agree as follows:

A. It is mutually agreed between the two agencies that:

1. The Forest Service and Park Service will enter into m two (2) year cooperative research study effort to assess the

following for their respective areas:

a. Resources

(1) archeological findings

(2) threatened and endangered species

(3) current natural resource status
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

b. Visitation

(1) use and impact

2. These findings will be continually exchanged between agencies (cooperatively develop as possible) and upon

completion of the cooperative research effort, a North McKittrick Canyon Agreement will be mutually

developed and implemented.

3. The agencies will conduct an annual (July) management meeting at a mutually agreed upon date to review the

operational efficiency of this document and make any necessary revisions.

4. Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate either agency to expend or incur obligations for future payment for

money in excess of amounts appropriated and allotted for administration of the area.

5. Agency plans for future development of North McKittrick Canyon will be reviewed by the other agency prior to

a final decision.

6. Both agencies will inform the visitor of the regulations governing the use of both the National Park and the

National Forest portions of North McKittrick Canyon through personal contacts.

7. No member of, or delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this

agreement or to any benefit to arise therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this

agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit.

8. Agencies to this agreement will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of

race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

9. Each agency may issue camping permits for administrative studies or research on their respective lands.

B. The Park Service will establish the following management direction over the National Park portion of North

McKittrick Canyon:

1. Restrict to day use only.

2. Prohibit campfires.

3. Require visitors to pack out their own litter.

4. Prohibit swimming and bathing in the park section of McKittrick Canyon.

5. Prohibit the taking or destruction of floral, faunal, archeological, geological and historical items without a

permit.

6. Prohibit hunting and possession of firearms which are not unloaded or cased.

7. Manage caves in the canyon in accordance with the Cave Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National

Park.

8. Discourage use of North McKittrick Canyon by:

a. Removal of North McKittrick signing at Pratt Cabin.

b. Direct visitation to other areas within the Park through visitor contacts.

c. Remove trail by elimination of trail markings and discontinued trail maintenance.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

C. The Forest Service will establish the following management direction on the National Forest portion of North

McKittrick Canyon:

1. Eliminate and remove existing campfire rings and debris along trails in North and Middle McKittrick Canyons

within the Forest Service boundary.

2. Permit day use only from the Forest boundary to a point one-half mile up canyon.

3. Permit no campfires from the Forest boundary to a point one-half mile up canyon.

4. Require visitors to pack out their own litter.

5. Prohibit the taking or destruction of floral, faunal (except legal hunting), archeological, geological and historical

items without a permit.

6. Permit no range development.

This interagency agreement will become effective upon approval by both agencies. The agreement may be amended in

writing at any time by joint agreement of the Superintendent of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and the

Supervisor of the Lincoln National Forest. This agreement may be terminated by the Superintendent of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park or by the Forest Supervisor of Lincoln National Forest, or their designated representative,

after sixty (60) days written notice.

In Witness Thereof, the agencies hereto have executed this agreement as of the last date written below:

Superintendent

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

National Park Service

Date: 6/27/88

Supervisor,

Lincoln National Forest

U.S. Forest Service

Date: 6/27/88
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK AND CULBERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT

FOR

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AN AMBULANCE SERVICE

This Memorandum made and executed this 1st day of January, 1987, by and between the Culberson County Hospital

District, (hereinafter referred to as Hospital) and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park (hereinafter referred to as

Park).

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, Hospital possesses an ambulance made available to it under a grant by the State of Texas for emergency

medical services; and WHEREAS, Hospital desires to make the aforesaid ambulance available for service to residents

of, and visitors to, the remote and isolated sections of northern Culberson County; and

WHEREAS, Park has the trained personnel to operate the aforesaid ambulance and the facilities to properly service

the aforesaid ambulance; and

WHEREAS, under the Act of August 8, 1953 (67 Stat. 495) the National Park Service is authorized to provide

emergency rescue, firefighting and other cooperative assistance to nearby law enforcement and fire prevention

agencies;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, it is hereby agreed

by and between parties hereto as follows:

1. Hospital shall provide to Park an ambulance which meets the standards of 25 TAC 157.61 — 157.73.

2. Park, shall, during the duration of this agreement, provide ambulance services for service to any person needing said

service and requesting same. In providing said service, Park shall provide said service in a manner consistent with all

applicable state laws and regulations.

3. Park agrees to provide qualified drivers and medical attendants trained in emergency medical services and so

certified under all applicable laws and standards of the State of Texas. Said medical attendants and drivers shall be

provided as necessary or required.

4. Hospital hereby agrees to establish, bill and collect standard ambulance rates for services provided by the aforestated

ambulance service, except that Park personnel and their immediate families shall not be billed by Hospital for services

rendered to them.

5. Hospital shall retain fifteen percent (15%) of the gross of collections for payment of administrative coats; the

remainder of the collections shall be placed in a fund for the replacement and maintenance of the ambulance.

6. Park and Hospital will keep and maintain such records and on such forms as necessary for a period of three (3)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:27 PM]

years after services are performed. Copies of these records shall be provided to either party upon request.

7. Park shall maintain and keep in good repair the aforesaid ambulance by performing those duties and obligations

which by customary usage and language are defined as preventive maintenance. Hospital will be responsible for the

cost of any major repair work which may be necessary to keep the aforestated ambulance operational.

8. Park shall initially equip the aforestated ambulance with park-owned ambulance equipment and supplies on hand.

Park and Hospital, jointly, shall thereafter share in equipping and stocking said ambulance to meet standards required

by law, Park shall be responsible for routinely keeping said ambulance stocked with necessary supplies and first mid

equipment required for adequate service and operation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may provide

equipment and/or supplies as they are available.

9. This Memorandum of Understanding is to take effect on January 1, 1987, and is to continue in force for the term of

three (3) years, subject to the right of either party to terminate this agreement on one hundred twenty (120) days

written notice by registered mail, or personal delivery of written notice, to the other party. This Memorandum will be

reviewed by both parties prior to expiration and amended as appropriate.

10. It is understood by the parties that this Memorandum of Understanding is conditioned upon the availability of

either party of funds appropriated to comply with the terms of said agreement. Should necessary funding become

unavailable, each party agrees to notify the other, as appropriate, of such fact by written notice by registered mail, or

personal delivery of said written notice. Such notice shall immediately operate to terminate the agreement without the

necessity of further notice, or compliance with the terms of paragraph nine (9) of this contract.

11. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no statement, promises, or inducements

made by either party or agent of either party that is net contained in this written document shall be valid or binding;

and this Memorandum may not be enlarged, modified, or altered except in writing signed by the parties and endorsed

hereon.

12. Neither members of, nor delegates to, Congress or Resident Commissioners shall be admitted to any share or part

of this permit or device, either directly or indirectly, any perculiary benefit to arise therefrom; provided however, that

nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to any incorporated company, if the agreement be for the benefit

of such corporation.

13. During the performance of this agreement, the participants agree to abide by the terms of Executive Order 11246

on non-discrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin. The participants will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race,

color, religion, sex, or origin.

Culberson County Hospital District

by: Administrator

Date: 12-15-86

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

by: Superintendent

Date: 3/30/87

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhiac.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix D)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiad.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:29 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX D: COLLECTING AND RESEARCH PERMITS

March 17, 1988

A90 (GUMO)

Resource Management and Visitor Protection - 1

Contact: Resource Management Specialist

Interim (3/88)

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Collecting Permit Procedures

Collecting Permit Guidelines and Regulations

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Life Forms - Rocks - Minerals

Archaeological and Paleontological Remains

Code of Federal Regulations: Title 36, Paragraph 2.5

I. STANDARDS AND PREREQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE CF COLLECTING PERMITS.

A. Collecting Permits are issued only to official representatives of:

1. Reputable scientific or educational institutions

2. State or Federal agencies

. . . for the purpose of:

1. research intended for the advancement of scientific knowledge of park resources, features, processes and life forms.

2. documentation of research or management activities

3. baseline inventories

4. monitoring

5. avoiding unnecessary duplication in future efforts

6. impact analysis

7. interpretive and/or resource management programs

8. museum displays

9. facilitating acquisition of final reports

10. group study

11. providing a vehicle for imposition of other management constraints on the conduct of activities

B. In park areas where enabling legislation does not expressively prohibit the collecting of plants, fish, wildlife, rocks, minerals, and archaeological/paleontological remains, permits may be issued when, at his/her discretion the

Superintendent determines:

1. collections will not result in derogation of values purposes, and resources for which the park was established;

2. collections have potential for conserving and perpetuating a species and/or those values, purposes and resources;

3. collection will not result in damage to other natural or cultural resources nor adversely affect environmental or scenic values;

4. specimens are not available outside of the park area;

5. all applicable Federal and State permits have been acquired ;

6. collection is necessary to stated scientific or resource management goals of the institution or agency;

7. intended use of specimens and final disposal is in accordance with applicable law and Federal administrative policies;

8. the application is accompanied/supported by an acceptable, written proposal, scope of work or other document describing the purpose and extent of anticipated collections;

9. the application is supported by an approved resource management plan, interpretive plan, General Management Plan, or other written authorization from the superintendent;

10. permits for collection of specimens for group study or museum display purposes meet a further test of being< crucial to the institution's goals.

C. Special Collection Permit Conditions:

1. Findings/Results - A minimum of two copies of reports or publications resulting from research specimen collection permits shall be filed with the Superintendent within one year of project completion.

2. Data/Field Notes - Researchers will be required to provide appropriate collection data (including University or Agency accession and catalog numbers) to facilitate the cataloging of specimens (researchers may also be required to

complete all or portions of the NPS National Catalog cards). If the researcher is required to complete the National Catalog Cards (with catalog numbers), the cards and appropriate instructions will be provided by the park's curator.

Field notes or copies thereof may be required of each researcher. The requirement level (e.g. for all or portions of the field notes) will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

3. Museum Labels - Specimens placed in displays or collections will bear official National Park Service museum labels bearing a Guadalupe Mountains National Park accession/catalog number (accession/catalog number will be

assigned to each collector by the park curator prior to initiation of collecting). If NPS museum labels are not available at the start of the collection period, the NPS will provide labels during the project or require the use of spas

other type of labels which must be approved by the curator.

4. Repositories - The park will generally approve the disposition of specimens to appropriate repositories. All specimens, however, remain the property of the park and will be placed in the repository "on loan" from the park. The park

will require, on a case-by-case basis that all, some or none of the specimens be returned to the park.

5. Curatorial Supplies - Curatorial supplies must be supplied by the researcher. Specimens which are to be returned to the park for inclusion in park collections must be prepared in accordance with NPS standards (e.g. relative to

containers and methods of preservation). In some cases, if the preparation of specimens for park collection is significantly different than that used by the researcher, and imposition of park standards would constitute a burden on the

researcher, the park may furnish curatorial supplies for the specimens which are to be returned to the park.

6. Public Information - Specimens and any data derived from consumed specimens, will be made available to the public.

7. Additional Stipulations - Any additional conditions as stipulated by the Superintendent to ensure protection of other resources and values and to insure proper management of the park. . . .may be attached to or associated with a

collecting permit.

SCOPE: The following statements are beneficial to and should be understood by all collecting permit applicants.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.5, specifies that the enabling legislation for a park or monument determines whether or not scientific collections may be permitted in that area and the conditions under

which a permit may be obtained. Since the Presidential Proclamations and Acts of Congress establishing Guadalupe Mountains National Park neither authorize nor prohibit the taking or manipulation of any life forms, rocks,

minerals, or archaeological/paleontological remains,... collection for scientific, management and interpretive purposes may be allowed if the Superintendent, in a written, case-by-case determination, finds such collection is

consistent with the constraints noted above. All collections and/or manipulations of any life form, rocks, minerals and/or archaeological or paleontological remains must have m collecting permit and will be governed by the

provisions of that collecting permit.

****** Violation of the terms and conditions of a park permit issued in accordance with Federal regulations is prohibited and will result in suspension or revocation of a permit.

D. Endangered Species - Any permit to collect an endangered or threatened species:

1. must be in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and approved Recovery Plan for the species;

2. cannot be issued when specimens are available outside the park;

3. must be for the express purpose of and crucial to enhancing protection/management of the species;

4. must be approved by the Regional Director of the Region in which the park is located.

5. will be legal only if used in conjunction with an equally valid U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit issued by the Regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office for the particular species involved.

K. Protocol for Issuance of Collecting Permits.: The following protocol will be observed for issuing collecting permits in Guadalupe Mountains National Park:

1. All applications for collection of life forms, rocks, minerals, and/or archaeological/paleontological remains and the like will first receive an independent review by the Resource Management Specialist.

2. The Resource Management Specialist will prepare a written evaluation form for the Superintendent, recommending approval or denial of the application.

3. All Collecting Permits must be signed by the Superintendent or his/her designee for approval.

4. Copies of all approved Collecting Permits (or applications thereof) will be retained in general files. Copies of Collecting Permits which will result in additions to the park's collections will be provided to the park's curator for

inclusion in the accession files.

Karen P. Wade

Appendix A
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix D)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhiad.htm[2/24/2014 5:03:29 PM]

RESEARCH/COLLECTING PERMIT CERTIFICATION REQUEST FORM

1. Name(s), address(es), telephone #(s), of investigator(s):

2. Affiliation of investigator(s):

Institution:

Address:

Telephone # (include area code):

3. Title of proposed study, research, or project

4. Source of funding:

5. Starting date:

6. Length of study or research (include period (a) you will be in the park as well as approximate date of study or research conclusion):

7. Explain why it is necessary to conduct your research and/or collecting within the park rather than in an area outside park boundaries:

8. What will your research accomplish for Guadalupe Mountains National Park?

9. Describe or explain in detail your purpose, objectives, and the extent and /or scope of your study or research (as an alternative, attach an ADEQUATE proposal and any other supporting document (a) if available).

10. If you intend to collect any specimens, provide detailed information pertaining to the items below:

a. exact type of specimens:

b. number or amount of specimens:

c. collecting methods/techniques:

d. preparation/preservation methods/techniques:

e. disposition of specimens:

11. An Annual Investigators Report is required and due Dec. 31 of each year of your study/research project. Your signature on this questionnaire signifies that you agree to provide this official report.

12. Are you willing to provide at least two copies of all reports or publications resulting from your research to the Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park?:

13. Please enclose a professional resume of all investigators involved with research, study or project.

14. Please identify any assistance you will require from park staff.

15. Signature of investigator:

Signature Title Date

Appendix B

CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR COLLECTING PERMIT APPLICANTS

NOTE: Correct answers ace underlined. If, after review and consideration of any application, an answer is opposite of that indicated as correct, permit should be denied or application re evaluated.

1. Permittee is member in good standing of reputable scientific/educational institution. or state/federal agency? (36 CFR 2.5b) YES NO

2. Collecting necessary to stated scientific/resource management goals of requesting institution/agency? YES NO

3. Permit in question is to be issued tor the express purpose of one or more of the following:

 a. research intended for the advancement of scientific knowledge of park resources, features, processes and/or lifeforms;

 b. documentation of research or management activities; YES NO

 c. baseline inventories; YES NO

 d. monitoring; YES NO

 e. impact analysis; YES NO

 f. interpretive and/or resource management programs YES NO

 g. avoiding unnecessary duplication in future efforts; YES NO

 h. museum displays; YES NO

 i. facilitating acquisition of final reports; YES NO

 j. group study; YES NO

 k. providing a vehicle for imposition of other management constraints on the conduct of activities. YES NO

4. Collecting will result in derogation of values, purposes, and resources for which the park was established? (36 CFR 2.5e) YES NO

5. Collecting/manipulation has real potential for conserving and perpetuating a species and/or those values, purposes and resources. YES NO

6. Collecting will result in adverse impacts upon environmental or scenic values of the park? YES NO

7. Collecting will result in damage to other park resources? (36 CFR 2.5b) YES NO

8. collecting will benefit science or improve management and protection of park resources? (36 CFR 2.5d) YES NO

9. Will research needlessly duplicate previous studies? YES NO

10. Application is accompanied and supported by an approved/acceptable, written proposal, scope of work, resource management plan, interpretive plan. General Management Plan, or other document describing

the purpose and extent of anticipated collections (or application has been authorized and/or approved in writing by the Superintendent). (36 CFR 2.5e)

YES NO

11. Intended use of specimen(s) and final disposition is in accordance with applicable law and policy. Applicant understands that all specimens remain the property of the park and will be placed in an approved

repository - "on loan only" - from Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

YES NO

12. Is researcher willing to provide copies of collection data, field notes or information pertaining to current progress of research at any time upon official request? YES NO

13. Is researcher willing to complete National Catalog Cards and register catalog numbers in the National Park Service Catalog System? (36 CFR 2.5 (1)) YES NO

14. Permit applicant agrees that specimens placed in displays or collections will bear official National Park Service museum labels hearing Guadalupe Mountains National Park accession numbers. YES NO

15. Permit applicant understands that curatorial supplies must be provided by the researcher and that specimens which are to be returned to the park for inclusion in park collections must be prepared in accordance

with National Park Service standards (e.g. relative to containers and methods of preservation 'etc.').

YES NO

16. A minimum of (2) copies of reports and publications resulting from specimen collection, in whole or part, will be provided to the park within one year of project completion? (36 CFR 2.5g (2. Applicant

agrees to provide an Annual Investigator's Report for each year of the proposed study/research project.

YES NO

17. Specimens and data derived from consumed specimens will be available to the public.? (36 CFR 2.5 (2) YES NO

18. If the requested specimen is a threatened or endang ered species, the following must be addressed:

a. Is applicant's request approved by the Regional Director of the region in which the park is located? YES NO

b. Have all applicable federal/state permits been acquired? (36 CFR 2.5 b) YES NO

c. Is the express purpose of collecting crucial to and will it enhance protection and management of the species? YES NO

d. Is the proposed collecting or manipulation of the species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and approved Recovery Plan for the species involved? YES NO

e. Are specimens available outside of Guadalupe Mountains National Park? YES NO

19. Applicant agrees to exercise discretion and collect out of view of general public. YES NO

20. Applicant understands that violation of the terms and conditions of any park permit issued in accordance with Federal regulations is prohibited. will result in suspension or revocation of that permit and

rejection of any future applications?

YES NO

21. Applicant understands that he/she must consult with the Superintendent, Resource Management Specialist or Chief Ranger before beginning research/collecting in the park. YES NO

Approved _____________ Disapproved Date _______________ Date _____________

By: __________________________

Resource Management Specialist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhiad.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig1.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:30 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig2.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:30 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig3.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:31 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig4.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:32 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig5.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:33 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig6.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:33 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig7.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:34 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig8.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:35 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig9.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:35 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig10.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:36 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig11.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:37 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig12.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:38 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig13.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:38 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig14.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:39 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig15.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:40 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig16.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:41 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig17.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:41 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig18.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:42 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig19.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:44 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig20.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:44 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig21.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:45 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig22.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:45 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig23.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:46 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig24.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:47 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig25.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:47 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig26.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:48 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig27.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:49 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig28.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:50 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig29.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:50 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig30.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:51 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig31.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:52 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig32.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:52 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig33.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:53 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig34.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:53 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig35.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:54 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig36.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:54 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig37.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:55 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig38.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:56 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig39.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:56 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig40.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:57 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig41.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:58 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig42.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:58 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/fig43.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:59 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dayton.jpg[2/24/2014 5:03:59 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dunmire.jpg[2/24/2014 5:04:00 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/smith.jpg[2/24/2014 5:04:00 PM]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:02 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION (continued)

Physical Description

Included within the boundaries of the park are the sheer cliffs and peaks more than 8,000 feet high that make up the Vshaped southernmost extension of the Guadalupe Mountains. The mountain range is an uplifted segment of the Capitan

reef, a limestone barrier reef that formed some 280 million years ago from algae in a shallow inland sea. The

geological information revealed in the sheer escarpments and deeply incised canyons of the Guadalupe have made this

exposed portion of the Capitan reef one of the world's best-known and most-studied fossil reefs.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:02 PM]

Figure 1. Vicinity of Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:02 PM]

Figure 2. Map of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

The precipitous cliffs of El Capitan punctuate the southern tip of the Guadalupes and jut above the desert floor like the

prow of a great ship (see Figure 3). In 1858, a traveler, seeing El Capitan for the first time, wrote: "It seemed as if

nature had saved all her ruggedness to pile up in this colossal form. . . ." [1] Visible for many miles from both east and

west, the peak has served as a landmark for travelers for unnumbered centuries. Northeast of El Capitan are the four

highest peaks in Texas: Guadalupe Peak at 8,749 feet, Bush Mountain at 8,631 feet, Shumard Peak at 8,615 feet, and

Bartlett Peak at 8,513 feet. The top of the escarpment offers unparalleled views of the Delaware basin to the east and

the salt basin to the west (see Figures 4 and 5). Hidden between the escarpments that form the V-shaped terminus of

the Guadalupe range are two other manifestations of the scientific and scenic values preserved in the park: the relict

forest in the Bowl and the aquatic habitat of McKittrick Canyon (see Figures 6 and 7). The unique and fragile

variations of plant life in these areas create a museum-like atmosphere, vestiges of a time when the climate of this land

was less arid.

The park also includes desert lowlands. The western side of the park encompasses a portion of the salt basin lying

between the Guadalupes and the next range of mountains to the west, the Cornudas. These lowlands contain flora and

fauna typical of the Chihuahuan desert of which they are a part. They also exhibit the ecological changes caused by

overgrazing of domestic livestock. Williams Ranch, one of the park's cultural resources, located at the base of the

mountains on the west side of the park, gives visitors a sense of the isolation of a rancher's life. The ranch site also

provides a dramatic point from which to view the steep scarp of the western side of the Capitan reef (see Figure 8). On

the eastern side, the park does not extend far beyond the base of the mountains. The park lands there are characterized

by deep and mostly waterless canyons that lead to the high country.

Although the variations in elevation in the park may produce extremes of temperatures, the climate of the park is

generally mild. During the summer the pine forests of the high country offer a cool respite from the intense heat of the

desert lowlands. In winter, the lower elevations and west side of the park remain comfortably warm even when snow

blankets the mountains. Strong winds in late winter and spring and severe electrical storms accompanied by torrential
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:02 PM]

rains during the summer pose some natural hazards for hikers.

The scarcity of water determines the patterns of life in the park lands. Although an extensive variety of animals, from

large ungulates to the smallest mammals, make their homes in the park, the water available from small springs

scattered throughout the park dictates their numbers and ranges. Similarly, the locations of these water sources became

the camping places of nomadic peoples and the settlements of early ranchers. McKittrick Canyon contains the only

perennial stream in the park. The rarity of perennial streams in this arid region has made McKittrick Canyon more than

just "the most beautiful spot in Texas," as its former owner called it; the canyon is a showplace for biotic associations

otherwise unknown in western Texas and southern New Mexico. [2]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi1a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

ENDNOTES

Chapter I

1 Waterman L. Ormsby, The Butterfield Overland Mail, ed. Lyle H. Wright and Josephine M. Bynum (San Marino,

California: The Huntington Library, 1942), 73-74.

2 Wallace Pratt to The Editor, San Angelo (Texas) Standard Times, February 8, 1967, in file C45.3B, #10-Guadalupe,

1966-1970, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

3 For more information about the prehistoric uses of the Guadalupe Mountains by humans see Paul R. Katz, "An

Inventory and Assessment of Archeological Sites in the High Country of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas,"

Archaeological Survey Report no. 36 (San Antonio, Texas: University of Texas, Center for Anthropological Research,

1978) and James E. Bradford, "Upper Dog Canyon Archeology: Guadalupe Mountains National Park," (Santa Fe:

National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, 1980).

4 Grant Foreman, Marcy and the Gold Seekers: The Journal of Capt. R.B. Marcy, with an Account of the Gold Rush

Over the Southern Route (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939), 351.

5 For a description of the Pinery stagestop and the route of the Butterfield Mail through the park lands see Roscoe P.

Conkling and Margaret B. Conkling, The Butterfield Overland Mail, 1857-1869, Vol. 1 (Glendale, California: The

Arthur H. Clark Co., 1947), 389-396.

6 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 1; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1975, 1; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 2; Superintendent's Annual

Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980, 2; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, 1987, 2-3.

7 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, numerous references; Donald Dayton,

interview with author, May 20, 1987.

8 Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1988, 18; John Cook, interview with

author, May 20, 1987; Bobby L. Crisman, personal communication to author, June 1988.

Chapter II

1 Ronald A. Foresta, America's National Parks and Their Keepers, (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1984,

pp. 9-13.

2 Carlsbad Current-Argus, March 1, 1927.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

3 Ibid., March 11, 1927.

4 Roger W. Toll report to A. B. Cammerer, Director, National Park Service, February 21, 1934, p. 25, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

5 Ibid.

6 National Geographic, 48(September 1925): 301, 316-17.

7 Roger W. Toll report to A.B. Cammerer, Director, National Park Service, February 21, 1934, p. 25, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

8 Carlsbad Current-Argus, March 16, 1928.

9 Ibid., August 10, 1928.

10 Ibid., September 18, 1928.

11 Ibid., February 1, 1929.

12 El Paso Times, July 22, 1931.

13 Roger W. Toll report to Director, National Park Service, January 20, 1932, p. 7, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

14 Ibid., February 27, 1931 and March 4, 1931.

15 Roger W. Toll, report to Director, National Park Service, January 11, 1932, p. 1, in Bobby L. Crisman personal

files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

16 George M. Wright, Joseph S. Dixon, Ben H. Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: A

Preliminary Survey of Faunal Relations in National Parks, Contribution of Wildlife Survey, Fauna Series No. 1, May

1932, Washington, D.C., 1933, 89-90; Roger W. Toll, report to Director, National Park Service, January 11, 1932, p.

59, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

17 Ibid., 71.

18 Ibid., 44.

19 Ibid., 47-50a.

20 Ibid., 2.

21 Roger W. Toll report to Director, National Park Service, January 20, 1932, p. 1, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

22 Ibid., pp. 2-3.

23 Roger W. Toll report to A.B. Cammerer, Director, National Park Service, February 21, 1934, p. 15, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

24 Ibid., pp. 25-26.

25 Ibid., p. 13.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

26 Ibid., cover letter.

27 Ibid. p. 28.

28 George M. Wright and Ben Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: Wildlife Management in

the National Parks, Contribution of Wildlife Division, Fauna Series No. 2, July 1934, Washington, D.C., 1935, p. 103.

29 "Proposed Guadalupe National Park in Texas," p. 1, in file 1950-59 Land File--CACA, in Bobby L. Crisman

personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

30 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934 through June 30, 1945,

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office).

 Herbert Maier, Outline of Investigations and Conclusions, 1938, p. 2, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

31 El Paso Times, October 5, 1938.

32 Ibid., October 7, 1938; October 16, 1938; November 6, 1938.

33 D.D. Obert, Narrative Report on McKittrick Canyon, Culberson County, Texas for the Texas State Parks Board, pp.

8-11, typescript in Folder C45.4A, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,

Texas.

34 El Paso Times, November 3, 1938; November 4, 1938; November 15, 1938.

35 H. Maier to Director, NPS, August 18, 1939, in Report of Wendell Little to Director, August 1, 1940, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

36 Memorandum to Director, August 1, 1940, in Report of Wendell Little to Director, August 1, 1940, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

37 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, (Lincoln, Nebraska and London: University of Nebraska

Press, 1979), 136-37.

38 Foresta, America's National Parks and Their Keepers, 43-52; Susan R. Schrepfer, "Newton B. Drury (1890-1978),"

in Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History, ed. Richard C. Davis, Vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company, 1983), 136.

39 Ben Thompson to Regional Director, June 4, 1945, in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative History, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

40 E.H. Simons to Roger Toll, December 22, 1931, in Roger W. Toll report to Director, National Park Service,

January 20, 1932, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad,

New Mexico.

Chapter III

1 American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 66(September 1982): 1415; interview with Wallace E. Pratt

by William C. Griggs, Texas Tech University, December 29, 1973 (hereafter Pratt interview), transcription, p. 25, in

file History File--GUMO, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

2 Pratt interview, 4-5.

3 Ibid., 26-27.

4 Vance Phenix, History of Pratt Lodge, 1981, typescript in V.F. 578, V.F. Box 15, in library, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park (hereafter Phenix) and Wallace Pratt to Donald Dayton, dated June 13, 1974, in file Wallace Pratt--

Interviews and Letters, Guadalupe Mountains NP-- Historical Data, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

5 Ibid.

6 National Register of Historic Places Inventory--Nomination Form: Pratt, Wallace Residence, p. 2; Wallace Pratt to

Donald Dayton, dated June 13, 1974, in file Wallace Pratt--Interviews and Letters, Guadalupe Mountains NP--

Historical Data, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad,

New Mexico.

7 Ibid.

8 Wallace Pratt to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns, March 20, 1958, in file Wallace Pratt--Interviews and Letters,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park--Historical Data, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

9 Background of Wallace Pratt Land Donation, compiled by Peter Sanchez, typescript, in file Wallace Pratt--

Interviews and Letters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park--Historical Data, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

10 Ibid.; Director, NPS, to Wallace Pratt, June 19, 1961, in Background Book #4, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

11 In Texas, mineral rights to any sections designated as Public School Lands (PSL) belong to the State. If PSL land is

purchased, the purchaser may act as the agent for the State and enter into oil, gas, or mineral extraction contracts.

Bonuses, royalties, or rents accruing from those leases are shared on a 50-50 basis by the landowner and the State of

Texas. PSL mineral rights can only be waived by an act of the Texas legislature.

12 Deed from Wallace E. Pratt and Iris Colderhead Pratt to United States (4,942 acres), dated December 14, 1959 and

Deed from Wallace Pratt and Iris Colderhead Pratt to the United States (690 acres), dated January 2, 1961, in

Background Book #4, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.

13 Pratt interview, 27.

14 Wallace Pratt to Frank Tolbert, February 27, 1961, in file Wallace Pratt--Interviews and Letters, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park--Historical Data, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

15 Ibid.

16 J.C. Hunter to Wallace Pratt, March 3, 1961, in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative History, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

17 Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter, March 5, 1961, in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative History, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

18 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience (Lincoln, Nebraska and London: University of Nebraska

Press, 1979), 49, 188-89.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

19 "Guadalupe Mountains of Texas: An Area Investigation Report," (National Park Service, Southwest Region, Santa

Fe, March 1962, revised September 1962), 7-8.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., 12-22.

22 Ibid., 28.

23 Ibid., 2.

24 Acting Director, National Park Service to Secretary of the Interior, July 11, 1962, in Box 5, V.F. 45, in library,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

25 Ben Thompson, Assistant Director to Regional Director, Southwest Region, October 11, 1962 in Box 5, V.F. 45, in

library, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

26 Biggs to Olin Ashley, July 8, 1963, in file C45.3A #3, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas.

27 Within a few weeks after introducing H.R. 3100 (February 1963) Joe Pool wrote to Biggs to ask him to "let future

press comment about the proposed park stem from this office." Pool noted that he had begun receiving clippings from

around Texas and many of them quoted Biggs and stressed the commercial side of the venture, an aspect Pool wanted

to play down. (File C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,

Texas.)

In 1964 Pool wrote to Hunter, asking that Biggs restrict his contacts in Washington. He suggested that Biggs annoyed

some busy Congressmen with his persistence. Hunter responded to Pool's charges, however, by writing that Biggs only

attended meetings or conferences to which he had been invited during the trip in question. (File C45.3B #5, Glenn

Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.)

28 J.C. Hunter to McMahon, July 5, 1962, in Background Book #4, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Biggs to Olin Ashley, July 8, 1963, in file C45.3A #3,

Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest [ missing text???]

Chapter IV

1 Biggs to Olin Ashley, July 8, 1963, in file C45.3A #3, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas.

2 J.C. Hunter to Wallace Pratt, February 18, 1963, in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

3 Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter, February 28, 1963, in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

4 Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter, March 11, 1963, in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

5 References throughout file C45.3A #3, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, Texas.

6 Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, August 3, 1963.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

7 Biggs to Richard Yarborough, August 28, 1963, in file C45.3A #3, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

8 J.B. Shepperd to County Chairmen, September 5, 1963, in file C45.4A, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

9 Bobby L. Crisman, interview with author, April 13, 1987; Louis Whitlock, telephone interview with author, January

24, 1988.

10 Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, November 1, 1963; Carlsbad Current-Argus, November 1, 1963.

11 Ibid.

 Carlsbad Current-Argus, November 8, 1963, December 12, 1963; Abilene Reporter-News, November 22, 1963; Ralph

W. Yarborough, The Guadalupe Mountains: A Congressional Record Bibliography, 1971, typescript, p. 1-2, in

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

12 Glenn Biggs to Dan Ponder, December 10, 1963; Dan Ponder to John Connally, December 20, 1963, in file C45.3A

#4, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

13 Stewart Udall to John Connally, December 27, 1963, in file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

14 John Connally to Stewart Udall, January 17, 1964, in file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

15 Jack Campbell to Dan Ponder, February 10, 1964, in file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

16 Glenn Biggs to various Chamber of Commerce Presidents, C45.3B #6, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

17 Carlsbad Current-Argus, July 16, 1964.

18 Glenn Biggs to Joe Pool, July 16, 1964, Folder C45.3B #6, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas

Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

19 Ralph Yarborough, A Congressional Record Bibliography, 3-5.

20 Carlsbad Current-Argus, December 13, 1964.

21 J.C. Hunter to Jim Bowmer, March 10, 1965, in file C45.3B #8, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

22 References throughout file C45.3B #9, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, Texas.

23 Stanley Cain to Wayne Aspinall, July 14, 1965, Background Book #4, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

24 Stanley Cain to Henry Jackson, July 14, 1965, Background Book #4.

25 Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, July 18, 1965.

26 El Paso Times, July 21, 1965.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

27 Ibid.; Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter, Jr., March 11, 1963, in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

28 Ibid.

29 El Paso Times, March 2, 1966.

30 Memorandum from John M. Kelly to the Director, March 22, 1966, pp. 1-4, in Background Book #4, in Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

31 El Paso Times, March 11, 1966.

32 Ibid.

33 House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas: Report to

Accompany H.R. 698, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 1966, H. Rept.1566, 1, 2, 5.

34 June 20, 1966, Congressional Record, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 13027-31.

35 El Paso Times, April 14, 1966. The negative results of this stratigraphic test would later be added to the growing

accumulation of evidence against the probability of finding extensive oil or gas reserves within the park boundaries.

36 San Angelo Standard-Times, April 14, 1966.

37 Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Hearings on S. 295 and H.R. 698, July 21, 1965 and August 9, 1966, 89th Cong., 1st and 2d

sess., 1965 and 1966, 69-70.

38 Ibid., 71.

39 Ibid., 72-76.

40 Ibid., 76.

41 Ibid., 78-87.

42 Ibid., 88.

43 Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas: Report to

Accompany H.R. 698, 89th Cong. 2d sess., 1966, H. Rept. 1682, 3, 5-6.

44 El Paso Times, January 24, 1967.

45 Ibid., February 10, 1967.

46 San Angelo Standard-Times, February 23, 1967. Texaco found no oil or gas, but the drilling logs from this well

later proved valuable when hydrologists were selecting the location for the water well that would support park

development in the Pine Springs area.

47 El Paso Times, February 24, 1967.

48 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns to Regional Director, SWRO, May 5, 1967 and December 5, 1967 in V.F. 128,

Box 7, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

49 Dallas Morning News, April 22, 1968; Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, April 25, 1968.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

50 San Angelo Standard-Times, June 20, 1968 and June 21, 1968; El Paso Times, July 12, 1968.

51 El Paso Times, November 3, 1968.

52 Ibid., January 16, 1969 and September 23, 1969.

53 Federal Register, 37(October 6, 1972): 21193.

54 December 1, 1975, Congressional Record, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 37883.

55 Ibid., 37884.

56 Carlsbad Current-Argus, March 18, 1970.

57 Ibid.

58 El Paso Herald Post, March 18, 1970.

59 Carlsbad Current-Argus, May 15, 1970.

60 Ibid., May 21, 1970; June 9, 1970; July 22, 1970; July 31, 1970.

61 Ibid., October 13, 1971; Bobby L. Crisman, letter to author, April 1988.

62 Ibid., November 19, 1971 and November 22, 1971.

63 El Paso Times, October 17, 1972.

64 Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on S.

2976, 95th Cong., 2d sess., 1978, 25.

65 Richard Smith, interview with author, April 14, 1987; Bobby L. Crisman, interview with author, April 14, 1987 and

letter to author, April 1988.

66 John Ise's book, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: Resources for the Future, Inc. by the

Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), provides a good, though dated, perspective on the legislative processes required to

establish and administer the national parks. Most parks, like Guadalupe Mountains, required little Congressional

attention after authorization. Others, such as the Everglades, have been beset by problems requiring Congressional

intervention.

Chapter V

1 Chief, Division of Land and Water Rights to Director, April 6, 1964, p. 4, in Background Book #4, Bobby L.

Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

2 Ibid., 5.

3 Ibid., 6.

4 San Angelo Standard-Times, July 19, 1967.

5 Ibid., November 2, 1967.

6 Trip report by Thomas Kornelis and J. H. Cameron, October 24-26, 1967, in file L1425, GUMO, General, Part I, in
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

7 Howard Cameron to Tom Kornelis, 13 October 1967, in file L1425, GUMO, General, Part I, in Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

8 Trip report by Thomas Kornelis and J.H. Cameron, October 24-26, 1967, in file L1425, GUMO, General, Part I, in

Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

9 Exchange Officer to Chief, Office of Land and Water Rights, SSC, undated, p. 1, in file L1425, GUMO, General,

Part I, in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

10 J.C. Hunter to Neal Guse, Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns, December 10, 1969, in file L1425, GUMO, General,

Part I, in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

11 Glenn Biggs to Robert Barrel, January 21, 1964, file C45.4A, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas

Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

12 Regional Chief to Assistant Regional Director, Cooperative Activities, May 22, 1964, V.F. 45, Box 5, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Library.

13 Ibid.; Regional Director to Director, May 27, 1964, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

14 Regional Director to Director, May 27, 1964, p. 3, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

15 Ibid., 2.

16 Ibid., 3-4.

17 Chief, Acquisition Section to Chief, Office of Land Acquisition and Water Resources, Western Service Center,

February 4, 1970, in file L1425, GUMO, General, Part II, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa

Fe, New Mexico; Exchange Deed dated November 12, 1970, between the Six Bar Ranch, Inc. and the United States of

America, in file "Deed Covering Exchange with Six-Bar Ranch, Inc. on Tract 01-113 + (000003)-GMNP"; Special

Warranty Deed No. 6604 in file "Deed to Tract 01-111 + (000001) (Texas Pacific Land Trust) (exchange with

Meyers)", both files kept in safe at Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

18 Mr. and Mrs. Ed Hammack to Ralph Yarborough, April 6, 1964, file C45.35 #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

19 Regional Director to Director, May 27, 1964, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

20 C. Gordon Fredine, Acting Assistant Director to Ralph Yarborough, June 16, 1964, file C45.3B #6, Glenn Biggs

Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

21 George Hartzog to Ralph Yarborough, February 16, 1966, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal

files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

22 Public Law 89-667, 80 Stat. 920, signed October 15, 1966.

23 Scenic Easement, in file "Scenic Easement Deed on Tract 01-116 (Hammack) GMNP" kept in safe at Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

24 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks to Regional Director, Southwest

Regional Office, May 30, 1978, p. 6, in file L1425, General, #3, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

Santa Fe, New Mexico.

25 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 15.

26 Bobby L. Crisman, telephone conversation with author, May 29, 1987.

27 Glenn Biggs to Robert L. Barrel, January 21, 1964, in file C45.4A, Land Ownership, Glenn Biggs Collection,

Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

28 Glenn Biggs to Noel Kincaid, January 21, 1964, file C45.4A, Land Ownership, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

29 Paul Wykert to Robert Barrel, March 5, 1964; Leslie Arnberger to Noel Kincaid, March 12, 1964; V.F. 45, Box 5,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

30 Regional Chief, National Park Systems Studies to Assistant Regional Director, Cooperative Activities, May 22,

1964, V.F. 45, Box 5, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library; Glenn Biggs to Mr. and Mrs. Walter Glover,

March 16, 1964, file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,

Texas.

31 Glenn Biggs to Mr. and Mrs. Walter Glover, April 1, 1964, file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

32 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns to Regional Director, March 27, 1964, in V.F. 45, Box 5, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Library; Louis Whitlock, telephone interview with author, January 24, 1988.

33 Regional Director to Director, May 27, 1964, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

34 Ibid., 3.

35 Howard Cameron to File, January 15, 1968, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

36 J.E. Williamson, Negotiator's Progress Record, December 12, 1969, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

37 Ibid., 3.

38 J.E. Williamson, Negotiator's Progress Record, January 10, 1970, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

39 Assistant Director to Regional Director, Southwest Regional Office, March 3, 1970, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29,

Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

40 Acting Director to Chief, Office of Land and Water Rights, Western Service Center, March 24, 1970, in file Civil

No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

41 J.E. Williamson, Negotiator's Progress Report, April 14, 1970, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

42 Robert H. Alsover, Chief, Appraisal Section to Anthony C. Liotta, Chief, Land Acquisition Section, September 21,

1971, GUMO Tract Files, Appraisals, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

43 Judgment on Stipulation #13,081, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, Civil No.

P-70-CA-29, Tract No. 01-112, file L1425-Glover, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

Mexico; Bobby L. Crisman, note to author, May 1988.

44 J.C. Hunter, Jr. to Bill Orr, November 13, 1964, file C45.3B #8, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

45 Ibid.

46 Thomas Kornelis and J.H. Cameron, trip report for October 24-26, 1967, file L1425, GUMO, General, Part I, in

Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

47 Howard Cameron to File, February 29, 1968, in file L1425- Shivers, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional

Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

48 Howard Cameron to File, April 3, 1968, in File L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office,

Santa Fe, New Mexico.

49 J.E. Williamson, Negotiator's Progress Record, December 8, 1968, in file L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

50 Ibid.

51 A.W. Gray, trip report, December 18, 1969, in file L1425, GUMO, General, Part II, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

52 J.E. Williamson, Negotiator's Progress Report, 24 July 1970, in file L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

53 Ibid.

54 Chief, Office of Land Acquisition and Water Resources, Western Service Center,to Director, July 28, 1970, in file

L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

55 Director, Southwest Region, to Assistant Director Edward A. Hummel, Washington Office, August 5, 1970, in file

L1425- Shivers, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

56 Chief, Office of Land Acquisition and Water Resources, Western Service Center, to File, August 17, 1970, in file

L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

57 Chief, Office of Land Acquisition and Water Resources, Western Service Center to Director, National Park Service,

Attn: Chief, Division of Land Acquisition, November 2, 1970, in file L1425-Shivers, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

58 Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 13, 1987; Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains

to Director, Southwest Region, April 30, 1973, in file L1425-Edwards/Pratt I, Land Resources Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

59 Ibid.

60 Donald Dayton to Mrs. Fletcher Pratt, December 1973, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt I, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

61 Assistant Chief, Division of Land Acquisition, Southwest Region to Chief, Division of Land Acquisition, Southwest

Region, April 10, 1973, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt I, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe,

New Mexico.

62 Brewster Lindner to File, March 8, 1974; Acting Regional Director Theodore R. Thompson to Mrs. Fletcher Pratt,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

March 21, 1974, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt I, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New

Mexico.

63 Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 13, 1987; Odessa American, June 24, 1973.

64 Alice E. Pratt to Brewster Lindner, March 2, 1976, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt II, Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, 1980, 1.

65 Deed to Right-of-Way and Scenic 'Easement Across' Section 30 for West Side Access Road--S.E. Corner--GUMO

Exchange D-18, Tract 01-124, Deed files, kept in safe at Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad,

New Mexico.

66 Ibid.

67 Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988; Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service, United

States Department of the Interior and the Department of Highways and Public Transportation, State of Texas, in file

A-44, Cooperative Agreements, State of Texas, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New

Mexico.

68 Ibid.; William Dunmire to Joe M.Battle, February 22, 1985, in file A-44, Cooperative Agreements, State of Texas,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; April 1986 Log, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 2, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Bobby L. Crisman, note

to author, May 1988.

69 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, May 30,

1978, in file L1425, General, #3, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Chapter VI

1 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns to Regional Chief of Operational Plans and Requirements, April 26, 1963, Box 5,

V.F. 45, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

2 Ibid.

3 Master Plan Brief for Proposed Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

4 Ibid.

5 Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.

6 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns to Files, November 26, 1969, in Master Plan Brief for Proposed Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.

7 Ronald A. Foresta, America's National Parks and their Keepers (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc.,

1984), 59-67.

8 See pages 91-93.

9 Wilderness Recommendation, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas, (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, August 1972).
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

10 Master Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

October 6, 1976), 17-21.

11 Ibid., 21.

12 Ibid., 22.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., 25-26.

15 Ibid., 26-30.

16 Ibid., 28-29.

17 Ibid., 37-39.

18 Tramway Study, Pine Springs Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, undated), 1-6.

19 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, January 7,

1975, file W3815-Proposed Legislation, closed December 1977, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.

20 Carlsbad Current-Argus, March 3, 1975.

21 National Park Courier, September 1975, 3.

22 Carlsbad Current-Argus, November 6, 1975.

23 Ibid., November 13, 1975.

24 El Paso Times, January 6, 1976.

25 Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service, October 1976), 9.

26 Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, 5-10.

27 Ibid., 11-16.

28 Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.

29 Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, 18-21.

30 Master Plan, errata sheet.

31 Environmental Assessment, Buildings and Utilities, McKittrick Canyon (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Denver Service Center, October 1976).

32 Environmental Assessment, Development Concept Plan, Upper Dog Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, April 1978), 2-3.

33 Ibid., 18-27.

34 Ibid., 29-35.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

35 Statement for Management and Planning, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, prepared by Neal G. Guse,

Superintendent, March 2, 1970, Box 5, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

36 Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, January 1976), 5-10.

37 Ibid., 13-14.

38 Ibid., 14-15.

39 Interpretive Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, February 4, 1977, in V.F.47, Guadalupe Mountains National

Park Library, 6-25.

40 Ibid., 25-35.

41 Ibid., 36-38.

42 Ibid., 38-39.

43 Ibid., 39.

44 Ibid., 41-41a.

45 Ibid., 40-41.

46 Ibid., 42-45.

47 Ibid., 46-49.

48 Cave Management, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1975,

pages unnumbered.

49 Backcountry Management Plan, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

January 1975, pages unnumbered.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1975 (pages unnumbered).

56 Ibid.

57 Fire Management Plan, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1975

(pages unnumbered).

58 Archeological Management Plan, Historical Management Plan, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, January 1975 (pages unnumbered).

59 Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

60 Phil Koepp, interview with author, June 3, 1987.

61 Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987.

62 Joseph L. Sax, Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks (Ann Arbor: The University of

Michigan Press, 1980), 63.

Chapter VII

1 Ralph Harris, interview with author, June 4, 1987.

2 Economic Feasibility/Market Study, Guadalupe Mountains National Park (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Denver Service Center, Professional Support Division, Branch of Concessions Management, undated).

3 The Hammack family owns the sections controlled by scenic 3 easement. For a discussion of this situation see pages

109- 112.

4 Environmental Assessment for the Master Plan Supplement, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, November 1980), 1.

5 West Side Boundary Study, Guadalupe Mountains National Park (National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office,

April 1987), 13.

6 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, September 2,

1980, in file D18, History Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

7 West Side Boundary Study, 2-9.

8 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, March 1984,

4.

9 Ibid., 4-5.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., Resources Planning Sheet for Natural Resources, 1.

12 Ibid., 19-20.

13 Backcountry Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1984), 7.

14 Ibid., 7-8, 31.

15 Ibid., 18-19.

16 Ibid., 19-20, 31.

17 Ibid., 21-24, 26, 35.

18 Ibid., 25.

19 Ibid., 27.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

20 Ibid., 29-30.

21 Ibid., 34.

22 Ibid., 66-67.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 94.

25 Phil Koepp, interview with author, June 3, 1987.

26 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 1-4.

27 Ibid., 37, 50.

28 Ibid., 64-65.

29 Mountain Lion Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico

and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, undated), 9-

10.

30 Resources Management Plan recommended February 1987, 68-69.

31 First Draft, Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, prepared by Guadalupe Mountains

National Park and Division of Planning and Design, Southwest Regional Office, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New

Mexico, 8-11.

32 Ibid., 12-13.

33 Ibid., 15-29.

34 Ibid., 29-31.

35 Ibid., 34.

Chapter VIII

1 Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987.

2 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1982,

1983; Briefing Statement, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, revised January 1980, in V.F. 15, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Library.

3 Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988.

4 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976.

5 Notes from meetings held September 7, 1977, by Christopher Larson of Pacheco and Graham, in V.F. 634, Box 5,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

6 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981; National Park

Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, December 18, 1979, from news
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

7 Briefing Statement, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, revised January 1980, in V.F. 15, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Library.

8 Ralph Harris, interview with author, June 4, 1987; National Park Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and

Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, October 14, 1980, new release file, Operations Headquarters, Gudalupe

Mountains National Park; Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988.

9 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981; John W. Bright, Assistant Manager,

SE/SW Team, Denver Service Center to Regional Director, Southwest Region, June 23, 1981 in file D30-Roads and

Trails (closed 12/83), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

10 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982, 1983; Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, March 1982.

11 Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, February 1986.

12 See Chapter IV: Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition, McKittrick Canyon Right-of-Way Exchange.

13 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1978, 1979.

14 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980, 1981, 1982; Park Log, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, June 1982, October 1982.

15 Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, November 1982, May 1983.

16 Notes from interview with Laurie Kincaid, 6/28/78, by Bobby L. Crisman and Roger Reisch, in file L3027-Dog

Canyon Road (closed 12/78), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

17 Negotiations Regarding Dog Canyon Road Access, in file Dog Canyon History, Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

18 Ibid.; Carlsbad Current-Argus, April 20, 1973.

19 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Field Solicitor, Gayle Manges, through Regional

Director, Southwest Region, July 9, 1976 in file Dog Canyon History, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Gayle E. Manges to Victor R. Ortega, August 25,

1976, in L1425-General #3, Part III, July 1, 1971- , Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New

Mexico; Donald A. Dayton to Mike McCormick, February 17, 1977 in file Dog Canyon History, Bobby L. Crisman

personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

20 Carlsbad Current-Argus, July 26, 1977, September 7, 1977; Donald A. Dayton to James B. Grant, November 10,

1977 in file L1425-General #3, Part III, July 1, 1971- , Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe,

New Mexico.

21 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, August 23,

1978 in file L3207-Dog Canyon Road (closed 12/78), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad,

New Mexico; National Park Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, May

22, 1980, news release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

22 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 1985; National Park Service News

Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, May 22, 1980, news release file, Operations

Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park; Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, March 1986.

23 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

24 Roger Reisch, July 21, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 1980,

1981.

25 Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, October 1980.

26 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984.

27 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 1983; Richard Smith, interview with

author, April 14, 1987; Bobby L. Crisman, interview with author, April 14, 1987.

28 Outdoor Recreation Planner, DSC, TSE/SW to Superintendent, CACA-GUMO, September 5, 1980 in file D30-

Roads and Trails, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

29 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979.

30 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, August 31,

1979 in file D30-Roads and Trails, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Donald

Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.

31 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 1980.

32 Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980.

33 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982, 1983; Superintendent, Carlsbad

Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, June 7, 1982 in file D30-Roads and

Trails, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987.

34 Trail Construction Summary, compiled 6/21/83, from Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Outdoor Recreation Planner, DSC/TSE-SW to Superintendent,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, September 22, 1982 in file D30-Roads and Trails (closed 12/83), Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

35 1986 FY Construction Funding Needed, in file History of Development of Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

36 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978,

1979, 1980.

37 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, l981, 1982, 1983, 1984; Bobby L. Crisman,

personal communication to author, May 1988.

38 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1985.

39 William Dunmire to A.O. Anderson, July 23, 1982, in file D46-Other Structures, GUMO (closed 12/84), Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

40 Ibid.; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982, 1983.

41 Resource Management Specialist to Superintendent, April 3, 1984 in file D46-Other Structures, GUMO (closed

12/84), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

42 Notes on Meeting Held August 30, 1984, National Park Service Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico on

Hinson/Estes Water Issue, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, in file L54, main files, Southwest Regional Office,

Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

43 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1985; Resources Management Plan and

Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended February 1987, 1.

44 See Chapter IV: Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition, West Side Access Road Right-of-Way.

45 Environmental Assessment for Rerouting of the Initial 2.6 Miles of the Williams Ranch Road, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park (undated); Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987.

46 Ibid.; Bobby L. Crisman, note to author, August 1988.

47 House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Hearings, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Second Session,

1976, 24, 29, 53; Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988.

48 Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Pine Springs Operational Headquarters/Visitor Center, in file History of the

Development of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

49 Ibid.; Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; Assistant Manager, Southeast/Southwest Team, DSC to Regional Director,

Southwest Region, June 23, 1981 in file D30-Roads and Trails (closed 12/83), Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

50 Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Pine Springs Operational Headquarters/Visitor

Center in file History of Development of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Bobby L. Crisman personal files,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

51 Acting Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural Resources, Southwest Regional Office to Manager,

Denver Service Center, Attn: Assistant Manager, Central Team, April 28, 1987 in file D18-1986-88, main files,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; El Paso Times, December 19, 1987.

52 John Cook, interview with author, May 20, 1987; Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987.

53 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1978.

54 The Temporary Frijole Contact Station (Double-Wide Trailer) Interior and Exterior Design Objectives in file

D3415- Buildings, GUMO (closed 12/79), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

55 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1983; Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987.

56 Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; William Dunmire, tape recorded responses to author's questions, February 1988.

Chapter IX

1 Water Resources Management Profile, approved October 1984, appended to Resources Management Plan and

Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, approved March 1984, D-19.

2 Ibid., D-21; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1978.

3 Water Resources Management Profile, D-20; Ralph Harris, interview with author April 14, 1987; Vidal Davila, letter

to author, September 16, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1975, 1976,

1985.

4 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 28-29.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

5 Ibid., 21-27.

6 Ibid., 11; Backcountry Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

January 1984 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, May

23, 1983, in news release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

7 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 10.

8 Phil Koepp, interview with author, June 3, 1987.

9 Superintendent's Annual Reports, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 1979.

10 Richard Smith, interview with author, April 14, 1987; Phil Koepp, June 3, 1987.

11 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, approved

March 1984, 15-16.

12 Outdoor Recreation Planner, Denver Service Center, TSE/SW to Superintendent, Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, February 25, 1981, in file D30-Roads and Trails, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad,

New Mexico; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1985.

13 National Park Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, March 29, 1983,

in news release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

14 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, approved

March 1984, 12; Superintendent's Annual Reports, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1981.

15 William Dunmire, tape recorded responses to author's questions, February 1988.

16 Mountain Lion Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico

and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, undated) 3,

B-2.

17 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981.

18 Mountain Lion Management Plan, 3-4.

19 Ibid., 4; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982.

20 Mountain Lion Management Plan, 5-8.

21 Decision Document and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Mountain Lion Management Plan and

Environmental Assessment, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico and Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

Texas.

22 National Park Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, August 14, 1987,

in news release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

23 El Paso Times, February 1, 1985.

24 Ibid., April 12, 1987; Rick Smith, April 14, 1987.

25 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1983, 1984, 1985; Park Log, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, October 1986; Phil Koepp, June 3, 1987.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

26 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 45.

27 Ibid., 46.

28 Ibid., 47-49; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Barbary Sheep Management

Program, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks.

29 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 40.

30 Ibid; Vidal Davila, letter to author, September 16, 1987.

31 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1984.

32 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 43.

33 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 37-38.

34 Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended

February 1987, 59; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980.

35 Final Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Celeron/All American and Getty

Pipeline Projects, California State Lands Commission and Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior,

January 1985, in file Oil Pipelines, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

36 Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987; Ralph Harris, interview with author, April 14, 1987; Bobby L.

Crisman, interview with author, April 14, 1987; Richard Smith, interview with author, April 14, 1987.

Chapter X

1 College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Park Administration and Horticulture, "A Survey of Historical

Structures, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas" (Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1973), cover letter,

James W. Kitchen to Bill Brown, September 27, 1973, (hereafter "A Survey of Historical Structures, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Texas") in library, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New

Mexico.

2 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, December 7, 1973 in file H30-

Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural

Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

3 Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains,

January 11, 1974, in file H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

4 Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Master Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, April, 1976), 43-44;Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 1975, 4; James W. Kitchen to Bill Brown, September 27, 1973 in "A Survey of Historic Structures,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas; Survey Historian, Division of History, Southwest Region to Associate

Regional Director, Planning and Cultural Resources, SWR, April 14, 1983, in file H30 Historic Sites and Structures
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

5 Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, January 1976), 3-4.

6 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 2-3.

7 Dava McGahee Davy, The Pinery Station (Carlsbad Natural History Association, undated); David G. Battle,

"Guadalupe Mountains National Park: The Pinery, Historic Structure Report" (U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Division of History, February 1973), 4-5.

8 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 2-3; Battle, "The Pinery," 6.

9 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 4; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1974, 5; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1975, 4; Jane E. Scott, "Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Overview of Historical Research: Annotated

Bibliography and Recommendations for Future Studies" (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Division of History, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 1978), 13.

10 V. H. Brown to J. C. Hunter, Jr., May 19, 1955; V. H. Brown to J. C. Hunter, Jr., June 29, 1958 in file C45.4A--

Guadalupe: The Pinery, 1952-1964 and undated, in Glenn Biggs Collection, The Southwest Collection, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, September 30, 1958; Bobby L. Crisman, personal

communication to author, June, 1988.

11 Donald Dayton to Dr. F. T. Darvill, January 22, 1975; Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, Monte E. Fitch

to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, February 25, 1975 in file Guadalupe Peak Pilot

Memorial, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountain National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

12 Survey Historian, Division of History, SWR to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural Resources,

SWR, November 7, 1986, in file H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico;

Melody Webb, personal communication to author, June 1988.

13 Ibid.; Superintendent's Annual Report, 1980, 4.

14 Ibid.

15 Historian, Division of History, SWR to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural Resources, SWR, April

4, 1987 in file H30-Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

16 West Side Boundary Study, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, (U.S. Department of Interior, National Park

Service, Southwest Regional Office, April 1987, 7; LaVerne Herrington to John E. Cook, September 29, 1986 in file

H4217-GMNP- Section 106, History Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; LaVerne Herrington

to John Cook, January 7, 1987 in file D18-1986-88-GUMO, Main Files, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New

Mexico; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1987, 10.

17 The Williams Ranch House folder (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service); First draft for

interpretive material about Williams Ranch, in file K1817 closed 12/78, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; taped interview with Thomas Williams, July 1983, Tape A.T.52, Cat.6, History,

in Guadalupe Mountains National Park audio tape file (tape is marked "Hammack interview"; Melody Webb, personal

communication to author, June 1988.

18 Environmental Impact Appraisal, signed by Donald A. Dayton 6/23/72, in file L-Lands and REc Planning-GUMO,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Final Environmental

Statement, Proposed Master Plan, 1976, 41.

19 Exhibit Specialist, Division of Conservation, Southwest Cultural Resources Center to Superintendent, Carlsbad

Caverns, May 5, 1977, in file Williams Ranch, Bobby L. Crisman personal fiels, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Melody Webb, personal communication to author, June 1988.

20 Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Master Plan, 41; Wallace Pratt to Donald Dayton, June 13, 1974, in file

Wallace Pratt Interviews and Letters, B. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.

21 Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Master Plan, 41.

22 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1975, 4; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 5; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1977, 4; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980, 4; Superintendent's Annual

Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981, 6; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, 1983, 5; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1984, 6; "History of Pratt Lodge"

by Vance Phenix, 1981, typescript, V.F. 578 in V.F. Box 15, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

23 Dave Kangas, Guadalupe Mountains to Jerry Hoddenback, Southwest Region, March 5, 1985 in file H30 Historic

Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource

Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

24 National Register of Historic Places Inventory--Nomination Form, "Guadalupe Ranch," prepared by Dwight

Pitcaithley, NPS Historian, August 1977; "The Frijole Ranch Complex" typescript by David Madden, September 1980,

in Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

25 "Guadalupe Ranch" National Register Nomination Form; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 1978, 7; Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park (U.S. Department of Interior,

National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office,Division of Planning and Design, Santa Fe, New Mexico, January

1987), 15.

26 See Statement for Management, 1976, 4; Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, January 1975, pages unnumbered; Master Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of

Interior, National Park Service, October 6, 1976), 15; Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center,

September 20, 1976), 10; Guadalupe Mountains National Park Interpretive Plan, approved February 4, 1977, 23, 38;

Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987.

27 Master Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 44; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 1976, 5: Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 4.

28 Survey Historian, Division of History, Southwest Region to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural

Resources, SWR, April 14, 1983 in file H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico;

Historical Architect, Southeast/Southwest Team, DSC to Assistant Manager, Southeast/Southwest Team, DSC,

undated trip report, June 10-11, 1983 in file D46-Other Structures GUMO, closed 12/84, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Survey Historian, Division of History, Southwest Region to

Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural Resources, SWR, June 15, 1983, in file H30 Historic Sites and

Structures Management and Preservation- Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource

Center,Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 1983, 5; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1985, 8, 11.

29 Peter Flagg Maxon to John Poston White, October 29, 1985, in file Pratt Residence-"Ship", B. Crisman personal
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; National Register of Historic Places

Inventory-- Nomination form, "Pratt, Wallace Residence" prepared by John P. White, Architect, November 1985, in

file H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest

Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

30 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1983, 7; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1984, 8; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1985, 10; Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, September 1986, 2.

31 Chief, Division of Conservation, SWR to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns/Guadalupe Mountains, September 12,

1986 in file H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

32 James E. Bradford, "Upper Dog Canyon Archeology, Guadalupe Mountains National Park" (U.S. Department of

Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Santa Fe, 1980), 2-14; Final Environmental

Statement, Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, 43-44.

33 Final Environmental Statement, Master Plan, 48-49; Resources Management Plan and Environmental Statement for

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended February 1987, 77.

34 Final Environmental Statement, Master Plan, 51; Final Environmental Statement, Development Concept Plan, Pine

Springs, 44-45; Carlsbad Current-Argus, August 11, 1974.

35 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 6; Paul R. Katz, "An Inventory and

Assessment of Archaeological Sites in the High Country of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas,"

Archeological Survey Report, No. 36 (Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1978,

typescript) 64; Resources Management Plan, 1987, 4; Ron Ice, personal communication to author, June 27, 1988.

36 Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, December 8,

1978 in file H2215-(1970-79)-GUMO, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe,

New Mexico; James E.Bradford, "Upper Dog Canyon Archeology, Guadalupe Mountains National Park" (U.S.

Department of Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Santa Fe, 1980), 45-46;

Archeologist, Division of Anthropology, Southwest Region to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Cultural

Resources, Southwest Region, April 12, 1985 in file H2215 (85-)-GUMO, Southwest Cultural Resource Center,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

37 Chief, Division of Anthropology, Southwest Region to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns/Guadalupe Mountains,

June 4, 1980 in file H2215-(80-84)-GUMO, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa

Fe, New Mexico; Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns & Guadalupe Mountains to Chief, Division of Anthropology,

Southwest Region, March 25, 1981 in file H2215-(80-84)-GUMO, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Research Archeologist, Division of Anthropology, SWR to Regional

Archeologist, Southwest Region, January 29, 1982 in file H2215-80-84)-GUMO in History Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

38 Resources Management Plan, 1987, 77, 81.

39 Information Background, Pine Springs Store/Cafe, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, revised 9/87 in V. Davila

personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

40 Area Manager to Superintendent, November 17, 1982 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land

Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; W. E. Bramhall to Mrs. Mary Hinson,

September 21, 1982, in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Regional Director, Southwest Region to Associate Director, Cultural

Resources Management, WASO, October 12, 1982 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land

Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

41 USA Today, October 26, 1982; El Paso Times, December 23, 1982; William Dunmire, tape recorded responses to

author's questions, February 1988.

42 William Dunmire to Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, November 2, 1982 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover,

Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

43 Associate Director, National Park Service To Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks, November 10, 1982, in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Gloer, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

44 William Dunmikre to Ms. Mary Hinson, November 20, 1982; William Dunmire to Honorable Lloyd Bentsen,

December 1, 1982 both letters in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, NEw Mexico.

45 William Dunmire to Honorable Richard C. White, November 24, 1982 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover,

Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

46 William Dunmire, taped responses to author's questions, February 1988.

47 Briefing statement, Mary Hinson/J.C. Estes Water Issue, undated, in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover,

Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; William Dunmire to Ms.

Mary Hinson, September 17, 1984 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office,

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

48 LaVerne Herrington to Robert Kerr, 12/14/83, in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land

Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

49 Chief, Division of History, Southwest Region to Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns/Guadalupe Mountains, January

18, 1984 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office,

Santa Fe, New Mexico.

50 Superintendent Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains to Regional Director, Southwest Region, April 24,

1986 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office,

Santa Fe, New Mexico.

51 Acting Regional Director to Associate Director, Park Operations, WASO, June 6, 1986 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-

112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

52 Richard Smith to Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., June 20, 1986 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover,

Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

53 Richard Smith to Ms. Mary Hinson, June 26, 1986 in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land

Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

54 Richard Smith to Ms. Mary Hinson, July 22, 1986, in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land

Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

55 Carlsbad Current-Argus, September 22, 1986; Washington Post, September 25, 1986.

56 Richard Smith to Honorable Lloyd Bentsen, March 13, 1987; Richard Smith to Ms. Mary Hinson, March 16, 1987

both in GUMO Tract Files, 01-112/Glover, Bertha/GUMO in Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office,

Santa Fe, New Mexico; Bobby L. Crisman, personal communication to author, June 1988.

Chapter XI
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

1 Van Horn (TX) Advocate, September 23, 1982.

2 News release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, September 26, 1972, in file GUMO Basic

Data-- Administrative History, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters,

Carlsbad, New Mexico.

3 Van Horn (TX) Advocate, September 23, 1982; news release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National

Parks, September 26, 1972, in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative History, Bobby L. Crisman personal file,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1.

4 Van Horn (TX) Advocate, September 23, 1982; news release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National

Parks, September 26, 1972, in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative History, B. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

6 All of the local newspapers carried stories about the anniversary celebration: Carlsbad Current-Argus, May 9, 1982;

Van Horn (TX) Advocate, May 13, 1982; Hudspeth County (TX) Herald-Dell Valley Review, May 14, 1982; Eddy

County (NM) Times, May 14, 1982; William Dunmire to various media representatives in Texas and New Mexico,

May 4, 1982, in file Dog Canyon Dedication, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico; William Dunmire, individual letters to Mary Lynch, Perry Denton, Mrs. (Jack)

Lee Black, and George Crump, in file Dog Canyon Dedication, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

7 Carlsbad Current-Argus, May 9, 1982; Van Horn (TX) Advocate, May 13, 1982; Hudspeth County (TX) Herald-Dell

Valley Review, May 14, 1982; Eddy County (NM) Times, May 14, 1982; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, 1982, 3.

8 News release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, September 18 and 29, 1982, in News

Release File, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

9 Ibid.; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982, 3.

10 Ibid.

11 Carlsbad Current-Argus, October 27, 1971.

12 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 4; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 7; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1974, 8; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 8; Superintendent's Annual

Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1978, 14; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, 1979, 16; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980, 7;

Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981, 10; Superintendent's Annual Report,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1983, 6.

13 Robert Valen, Chief, Interpretation and Visitor Services, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, interview with

author, June 4, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1986, 1; News release,

Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, October 2, 1987, in news release file, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1987, 6.

14 Superintendent to Area Manager GUMO, June 10, 1975; typescript of schedule for climb; News release, Carlsbad

Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, July 24, 1975, all in file GUMO Basic Data--Administrative

History, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhie.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:03 PM]

15 Ibid.

16 Bob Crisman, "Paraplegics Make History Conquering Guadalupe Mountains' Highest Peak," typescript in file

Wheelchair Climb of Guadalupe Peak by POINT, 7/12-17/82, Bobby L. Crisman personal file, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/adhie.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:05 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER II: THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

(continued)

Judge J. C. Hunter and Early Park Plans

The occasion of the motorcade in 1927 was not the first time West Texans had considered the advantages of a road to

connect El Paso and Carlsbad. In 1925, McKittrick Canyon, located partly in Texas and partly in New Mexico, in the

southern Guadalupe Mountains, had attracted the attention of some Texans who wanted to create a state park there.

The park plan was part of a larger effort to get a road built between Carlsbad and El Paso.

J. C. Hunter was a prime mover in the group boosting the park and highway. In 1924 he had visited the inaccessible

but spectacular canyon for the first time. Hunter was from Van Horn, Texas, a ranching community approximately

halfway between Carlsbad and El Paso, and 65 miles south of the southern end of the Guadalupe range. As judge for

Culberson County, Hunter was an influential and respected man in West Texas. He also was an oilman with a

substantial income. After seeing McKittrick Canyon, Hunter began working with others who were also interested in

establishing a park there. [4]

In the spring of 1925, a group of about 100 persons, including the highway commissioners of both Texas and New

Mexico, Governor Pat Neff of Texas, and members of the newly created Texas State Parks Board visited Carlsbad

Cave and McKittrick Canyon. Considerable enthusiasm existed for the park project. After the highway commissioners

agreed to build the road, Hunter purchased a section of land in the canyon, intending to donate it as part of the 6,000 to

8,000 acres that the group had pledged to help create a Texas state park. Hunter also secured a promise from the State

Banking Department, which owned some of the land at the mouth of the canyon, that the land would not be sold. [5]

In September 1925, National Geographic carried a long article about the new discoveries their explorers were making

at Carlsbad Caverns. Wilis T. Lee, leader of the exploration group and author of the article, apparently had been

impressed by the dynamism and positive action of the Texas state park group. A portion of the article described a new

Texas state park in the southern Guadalupes that had been established as a result of the Society's activities at Carlsbad

Cave. Photographs of El Capitan and a canyon scene accompanied the article. [6]

In spite of initial enthusiasm, the idea of a park in McKittrick Canyon did not go beyond Hunter's initial one-section

purchase. The State Banking Department reneged on its promise and sold the land at the mouth of the canyon.

Disappointed, Hunter gave up the idea of a park, but continued to acquire land in the southern Guadalupe Mountains.

Around 1928 he sold all of the land he had acquired to a corporation he had formed with M. McAlpine and Thomas

and Matt Grisham. The corporation, headquartered in Abilene, Texas, engaged in oil and gas exploration. By 1934 the

Grisham-Hunter Corporation had acquired ownership or control of 43,200 acres between the New Mexico-Texas

boundary and El Capitan. [7]

Early in 1928, Stephen T. Mather, Director of the National Park Service, visited New Mexico and expressed his belief

that either the Frijole Canyon area near Santa Fe (later to become Bandelier National Monument) or Carlsbad Cave

could be considered logical locations for a national park. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce immediately went to

work lobbying for the cave and suggested that sections of the Guadalupe Mountains, including Guadalupe Peak and El

Capitan, should also be a part of the park. [8]

Although Judge Hunter had given up the idea of a park in McKittrick Canyon, his Grisham-Hunter Corporation
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:05 PM]

remained a strong supporter of tourism in West Texas and southern New Mexico and an advocate for the El Paso to

Carlsbad highway. As an expression of that support, in August 1928 the corporation hosted a 24-hour picnic in

McKittrick Canyon, attended by some 500 persons, including members of the West Texas Chamber of Commerce, the

governors of Texas and New Mexico, Texas Highway Commissioner R.S. Sterling, and a contingent of the Army from

Ft. Bliss, which took care of the housekeeping details for the large party. Among the speakers at the festivities,

Highway Commissioner Sterling spoke about the park potentials of the Guadalupes, calling it the "recreation center of

Texas." He recommended that the state acquire the land in McKittrick Canyon for a park and asserted that then there

would be no problem with building a road to it. [9]

Not long after the big picnic in McKittrick Canyon, J. Stokely Ligon, a biologist for the U.S. Biological Survey who

had recently spent two years doing a wildlife survey of the Guadalupes for the State of New Mexico, expressed his

ideas about providing public access to the Guadalupes. He envisioned a scenic loop drive touching El Paso on the west,

El Capitan at the south, Roswell on the east, and White Sands National Monument on the north. Ligon suggested that

many organizations and government agencies would have to cooperate to advertise the loop route and to help visitors

understand its features. He emphasized, however, that while roads should be built to the canyons in the Guadalupes,

the canyons themselves should only be accessible by foot or horseback. Ligon said, "The great trouble with us is that

an ease-loving people want to sit in their cars and reach the few spots of natural wild life and then the wild life

vanishes." [10]

Although the proposed park in McKittrick Canyon failed to materialize, two highways connecting El Paso and

Carlsbad were completed by 1931. The first, the "short line" (later to become U.S. 62) was in use by the summer of

1929. [11] The other highway, U.S. 80, which linked El Paso with Van Horn, was completed in the summer of 1931.

[12] Completion of these highways would enhance the credibility of later efforts to establish a park in the southern

Guadalupe Mountains of Texas.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi2a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:06 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER III: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT

AND J. C. HUNTER, JR. (continued)

National Park Service Interest in the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch

In May 1961, the team from the Southwest Regional Office of the Park Service, accompanied by J.C. Hunter, Jr., and

Wallace Pratt, surveyed Hunter's Guadalupe Mountain Ranch (see Figure 10). A report to the Regional Director, issued

in March 1962, summarized the investigation of the area. The group was favorably impressed with most parts of the

ranch as potential park property, particularly the mountain uplands that included El Capitan and Guadalupe Peak.

Echoing the long-time philosophy of the Park Service that parkland should be of little economic value, [18] the report

emphasized the meagerness of economic resources on the ranch. Ground water received a "valuable" assessment, while

the potential values of building stone, road material, salt, oil, and gas were minimized. The only economic utilization

of the 110-section ranch was for Angora goat production. [19]

Figure 10. In 1961 a team from the Southwest Regional Office of the Park Service surveyed

the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch to determine its appropriateness for a national park and

were favorably impressed with what they saw. Pictured above, left to right, are T. J. Allen,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:06 PM]

Regional Director; G. W. Miller, Assistant Regional Director: Noel Kincaid, foreman of the

ranch; J. C. Hunter, Jr., owner of the ranch; L. P. Arnberger and Paul Wykert, Regional

Office staff members. (NPS Photo)

The report pointed out Hunter's conservation-minded management and the fact that wildlife resources had increased

under his ownership. The team viewed the introduction of elk (1929), Merriam turkeys (1954), and the planting of

bluegill and rout in McKittrick Creek as positive aspects of management by the Hunter family. Although Hunter had

allowed the north and west sectors of the ranch to be badly overgrazed by the goats, drift fences separated this area

from the scenic uplands of the mountain range. [20]

The report also included geological, biological, archeological, and historical assessments of Hunter's ranch. The

geological report emphasized the uniqueness of the Capitan reef, pointing out the "remarkable display of deep-water

basin deposits, of reef and reef talus, and of shallow-water shelf sediments, all formed at the same time but differing

because of differences in the environments in which they originated." The botanical report emphasized the range of

botanical features found within the boundaries of the ranch. The team observed ecological variations from Chihuhuan

desert to Canadian zones. Native animal life included small and large mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

Archeological resources, largely cave sites, included evidence of long-term occupancy beginning 6,000 years ago and

continuing through the time of the Mescalero Apaches. Historic resources included remnants of the Butterfield Trail

stage station. [21]

The survey team found the climax-type vegetation existing in the ridge area worthy of protection from overuse and

fire. They also suggested that the varied terrain offered the opportunity for roadless sections as well as areas developed

for heavy public use. One possible form of development suggested was a ridge road, similar to the ones envisioned by

Toll, Pratt, and Hunter. The accessibility of the property seemed problematical, and the team recommended access

from the east via U.S. 62-180. The team concluded that the scenic and scientific values of the Guadalupe Mountains,

particularly in South McKittrick Canyon, were worthy of serious consideration as park lands and would "round out"

the land donated by Pratt. [22]

The introduction to the study revealed the attitude toward acquisition of the Hunter land that would prevail for nearly a

decade: that Hunter had little choice but to wait for the government to buy his land. The investigators believed Hunter

had few potential buyers for his land and that there was ample time for the Park Service to consider acquisition. [23]

In July 1962, A. Clark Stratton, Acting Director of the Park Service, made the results of the investigation of Hunter's

ranch known to Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall. Stratton pointed out that the area recommended for park status

involved only 27,000 of nearly 72,000 acres that Hunter wished to sell for $1,500,000. Stratton also anticipated that in

this situation Udall might suggest that Hunter exchange the acreage for which the Park Service did not wish to pay for

other land in the public domain. In this regard, Stratton reminded Udall that Texas contained no public domain, thereby

making it necessary for Hunter to exchange for land in some other state if the idea of an exchange were pursued.

Stratton concluded by noting that the acreage deemed undesirable by the Park Service was generally unattractive and

unproductive, that the U.S. Forest Service had already indicated its lack of interest in the property, and that it would be

difficult to sell apart from the rest of the ranch. [24]

Udall recognized the limitations of the situation and the need to purchase all of Hunter's property, not just the scenic

parts. In response to Stratton's report, he began soliciting benefactors who might purchase Hunter's property and

donate it to the federal government. On the recommendation of Hunter's agent, Glenn Biggs, Udall contacted the heads

of three philanthropic organizations located in Texas: the Braniff Foundation, the Robert Welch Foundation, and the

Amon Carter Foundation. Although records do not contain the responses to Udall's solicitations, none of the

foundations was involved in subsequent negotiations for the park lands. [25]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi3a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:08 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

Political One-Upmanship

Secretary Udall planned to release the updated version of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch area investigation at the

meeting of the Advisory Board on National Parks, to be held at Big Bend National Park on November 3, 1963. The

Advisory Board was a group of private citizens that advised the Secretary of the Interior regarding national parks and

monuments. Among the board members in 1963 were a university president emeritus, a naturalist-writer, a museum

director, a labor union president, the owner of a major carpet manufacturing company, the president of the National

Geographic Society, and the chairman of the National Conference of State Parks. Prior to their meeting in Big Bend,

the Advisory Board had spent two weeks touring national parks. The Guadalupe Mountain Ranch was the last item on

their itinerary before the meeting at Big Bend. [10]

On November 1, 1963, Hunter accompanied the Advisory Board, headed by Harold P. Fabian, as well as Park Service

Director Conrad Wirth and Associate Director George Hartzog, on a tour of McKittrick Canyon and the foothills of

the Guadalupes. An old friend of the park, Ben Thompson, who by then had become an Assistant Director of the Park

Service, was among the visitors to the ranch. The officials were particularly impressed by what they saw during their

tour, perhaps because their visit coincided with the height of the fall colors. [11]

At this point Senator Yarborough took his turn at political one-upmanship. On November 7, without official

notification about the Advisory Board's recommendation, the Senator introduced S. 2296 to create Guadalupe

Mountains National Park. That same day Yarborough inserted in the Congressional Record five articles about the

Guadalupe Mountains and fourteen resolutions favoring the park that had been submitted by organizations and

agencies from Texas and New Mexico. Two weeks later Yarborough announced that the Advisory Board had formally

recommended that the Guadalupe Mountain Peak area be made a national park. The same day, Pool announced that he

would introduce a bill recommending a 77,959-acre park. Still smarting from Yarborough's early start, Pool called his

bill the "official Interior Department measure resulting from its formal study." He introduced his bill, H.R. 9312, on

December 2. [12] On December 4 Yarborough amended his bill to delineate the boundaries of the proposed park. After

Yarborough added the metes and bounds description of the park to his bill, the two park bills were virtually identical.

Gaining Support for the Park

During the early months of 1964 Glenn Biggs began gathering evidence of support for the park project. He contacted

Dan Ponder, a prominent El Paso businessman, asking him to solicit statements of support from Texas Governor John

Connally and New Mexico Governor Jack Campbell. [13] Secretary Udall also wrote to Connally because he wanted

to be certain that national park status did not conflict with any plans the State of Texas had for the Guadalupe Peak

area. [14] Connally's response to Udall cleared the way for a national park. He advised that Texas was not in a position

to undertake such a large-scale project. [15]

Governor Campbell's letter to Ponder was terse but useful. He stated simply that he knew of no opposition to the park

among the residents of New Mexico, and in fact, he had received quite a bit of correspondence in favor of the park.

[16]

Congressional hearings about the proposed park were scheduled for April 1964, and the Texas support group worked
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:08 PM]

quickly to ready the witnesses who would testify. At the last moment, the hearings were cancelled because of

prolonged debate in the civil rights hearings that were taking place. Although Glenn Biggs activated his network of

influential people to seek Yarborough's help in getting the hearings rescheduled, the 88th Congress took no action on

the Guadalupe park proposal. [17]

In 1964, Thomas Morris, Congressman from New Mexico, chaired the House Subcommittee on National Parks. In July

of that year, he visited McKittrick Canyon with a number of Carlsbad civic leaders. Morris, however, was slower than

the Texas Congressional delegation to throw his support to the park project. After his visit he told reporters that the

Department of the Interior had not issued an official report on the proposed park, something his committee needed in

order to consider the proposal. He also expressed concern about acquiring the mineral rights to Hunter's property: they

belonged primarily to the State of Texas, not to Hunter. Morris also pointed out to news people that national park

status would close the land to hunting, fishing, grazing, timber cutting, or mineral prospecting. [18]

Biggs was concerned with Morris's attitude toward the project and worked with his connections in New Mexico to gain

the firm support of Morris. After Morris visited the canyon, Biggs also wrote to Joe Pool and expressed his hope that

the Texas delegation would not pick up the suggestion made by Morris that to preserve the uses precluded by park

status the ranch should become a national recreation area rather than a national park. [19]

During the spring and summer of 1964, support for the park increased. Many articles about the proposed park appeared

in publications all over Texas. More organizations adopted resolutions in favor of the project. Pool and Yarborough

both inserted representative samples of this material into the Congressional Record. [20]

On December 13, 1964, Secretary Udall expressed strong support for the park proposal after he visited McKittrick

Canyon and other parts of Hunter's ranch. A number of officials from the Interior Department, staff members from

Carlsbad Caverns, and newspaper people accompanied Udall on the ground and aerial tour. Afterward, Udall revived

an old idea and talked about building a parkway between Carlsbad Caverns and the new park. He reported that once

the bill was through Congress and the park was established, a superintendent would be named and an appropriation

would be acquired. Estimating that the park would be available for public use within four years from establishment,

Udall expected all facilities could be completed within seven to ten years. [21]

At the opening of the 89th Congress, in January 1965, both Yarborough and Pool reintroduced their bills, which

contained identical provisions but were worded slightly differently. In a show of support for the proposal,

Congressman Richard White of El Paso also introduced a bill identical to Pool's. Although the reason for the action is

not clear, Pool's bill was dropped and White's bill, H.R. 698, persisted. The House committee may have preferred to

retain the bill proposed by the Congressman who represented the district in which the park was located.

J.C. Hunter, Jr.,

owner of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch.

Glenn Biggs,

Real Estate Broker who represented Hunter.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:08 PM]

Congressman Joe Pool

who proposed legislation to investigate the

possibility of establishing a park in the southern

Guadalupe Mountains.

Senator Ralph Yarborough,

who initiated park legislation in the Senate and

was instrumental in obtaining funds to

purchase Hunter's ranch.

Figure 12. Key figures in the legislative process to authorize Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi4a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:09 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

(continued)

Acquisition of the J. C. Hunter, Jr., Land

Once Texaco and the State of Texas had donated their mineral rights to the Government, acquisition of surface rights

began. According to the Offer to Sell Real Property executed by J. C. and Mary Hunter on August 26, 1966, the

federal government had an 18-month option, expiring February 26, 1968, to buy Hunter's 71,978 acres for $1,500,000.

Hunter hoped to complete the sale by June 30, 1968, and was reluctant to hold his price any longer than that. [6]

The first Congressional appropriation for land acquisition for Guadalupe Mountains National Park was only $280,000,

considerably less than Hunter's sale price. In October 1967, Thomas Kornelis, Chief of Land and Water Rights for the

San Francisco Service Center, began negotiating with Hunter about buying his land in two or three parcels. Hoping to

make the best possible use of the $280,000 appropriation, Kornelis and Howard Cameron, a Park Service Realty

Specialist, proposed using the appropriation to purchase Hunter's tracts of land outside the park boundary, tracts that

had been authorized by the park bill to be used as exchange property. These tracts would then be offered to the

landowners who held smaller pieces of property within the park boundary. Assuming everyone was willing to accept

an exchange, the federal government then would have only one landowner, J. C. Hunter, Jr. to tie to a firm price. [7]

Hunter realized nothing could be done to avert the piecemeal sale of his property, but he sought to protect his interests

in some way. Refusing to sell any but the least desirable portions of his property first--the western and southernmost

sections--he also asked that no negotiations be made with the smaller landowners until the government actually owned

the lands that would be exchanged. [8] Hunter's requests were met. In February 1968, Hunter deeded 14,007.6 acres of

his property to the federal government for $280,000. Except for two sections on the northern boundary of the park,

which were adjacent to the Pratt donation, the land was all on the west side of the Guadalupes.

Appropriations for the fiscal year of 1969 were even less than before. The House Appropriations Committee vetoed

any funding whatsoever, but Senator Yarborough managed to convince the Senate committee to appropriate $205,000,

an amount with which the House eventually concurred. Kornelis again approached Hunter and once again Hunter

refused to sell any land but sections on the west side, south of the previous tract. However, he agreed to sign a contract

for the purchase of the remainder of the property contingent upon the availability of funds in 1970. In May 1969, for

$205,000, Hunter conveyed to the federal government an additional 9,773.25 acres of the ranch. At the time of this

transaction, Hunter gave immediate possession of the tract to the Park Service, but he reserved a six-month period of

possession after the sale of the remaining tract in order to allow his long-time foreman and ranch resident, Noel

Kincaid, to move his ranching business. [9]

A special appropriation from the general fund of the Interior Department made possible the acquisition of the third

tract of Hunter's land. Hunter deeded the final 48,290.55 acres of his ranch to the government on November 20, 1969,

for $1,015,000. The sections of land outside the park boundary to be used for exchange with other landowners were a

part of this transaction. On December 10, 1969, in a letter to Neal Guse, Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns, Hunter

acknowledged receipt of the final payment for his property and waived his six-month right of possession, stating that

Kincaid was no longer in his employ. [10] The government acquired the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch, 72,071.40 acres

comprising more than 90 percent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, for a total of $1,500,000. Figure 14

summarizes the Hunter acquisitions and shows the other individual tracts in the park.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:09 PM]

Figure 14. Land ownership within the boundaries of Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

When the first Congressional appropriations for land acquisition were small, J.C. Hunter,

Jr., protected his interests by selling the least desirable portions of his property first. The

map shows the sequence of purchases from Hunter as well as the parcels belonging to other

landowners with whom the Park Service had to negotiate.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi5a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:10 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VI: PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S (continued)

Master Planning Process

In 1961, Oscar Carlson, Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns, assumed the responsibility for administering McKittrick

Canyon and drafted a development plan for the area. He proposed using the Ship on the Desert as a visitor center and

headquarters, and establishing a campground at the mouth of the canyon. He envisioned a circular trail system in the

canyon as well as two short nature trails near the visitor center. Carlson estimated that seven full-time personnel would

be required to staff the McKittrick branch of Carlsbad Caverns and suggested that ten residences would be needed. He

emphasized the importance of obtaining J.C. Hunter's property in McKittrick Canyon to eliminate automobile traffic in

the canyon. [1]

Three members of the planning staff at the Southwest Regional Office reviewed Carlson's plan. While two of them

found his plan too ambitious, the third thought the road in the canyon should be improved as far as the Pratt's stone

cabin, saying visitors would object to walking over a road that was obviously used by vehicles going to Hunter's

property. Ultimately, all three reviewers recommended moving slowly and waiting to see whether more land would be

acquired. [2]

Carlson's plan never went beyond the proposal stage. By 1965 negotiations to acquire Hunter's ranch were well

advanced and legislation to establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park was being considered. A Master Plan brief,

compiled in October 1965, outlined the basic form that all subsequent planning for the park would follow: Guadalupe

Mountains National Park would be managed as a natural park with emphasis on its unique geological and biological

features. Historical and archeological features would be of secondary importance. [3]

The Master Plan brief also identified the park's major problem: how to provide visitor access to the small and

ecologically fragile areas of McKittrick Canyon and the Bowl. A mechanical lift was proposed as the means of

transport to the Bowl, while tours in an open-sided vehicle, guided by a concessioner, were suggested as a way to

handle visitation in McKittrick Canyon. Hiking and horseback trails would provide access to other parts of the park.

The ranch complex at Frijole Spring would contain the visitor center, a lodge, and a major campground. A facility

providing meals, sleeping quarters, hiker supplies, and a horse corral would be located on Pine Ridge, at the top of the

mechanical lift. Before further planning took place, surveys of plant and animal life within the park were needed, as

well as an assessment of the possibility of getting water to facilities on the ridge. The writers of the brief expected that

Guadalupe Mountains National Park would be a self-sufficient organization and would not utilize the existing facilities

and staff of Carlsbad Caverns. [4]

President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill authorizing Guadalupe Mountains National Park in 1966, but the lengthy

land acquisition process lay ahead. In the meantime, planning continued. In June 1969 work began on a Master Plan

study for Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains. Members of the House committee investigating the

establishment of a park in the Guadalupes had been concerned that McKittrick Canyon extended into land managed by

the U.S. Forest Service. They had recommended that the Park Service and the Forest Service work together to manage

the area. For that reason, managers from both agencies tried to work out a Regional Master Plan. [5]

By late 1969, the working version of the joint Master Plan included a road through the Lincoln National Forest from

Carlsbad Caverns to Dog Canyon, where a road through Guadalupe Mountains National Park would connect with Pine
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:10 PM]

Springs. Soon after this draft had been prepared, and, for reasons that the records do not make clear, the master

planning team abandoned the idea of a regional or joint Master Plan for Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains.

Early the following spring the team completed drafts of separate Master Plans for the parks. The primary concern of

the planners for the Guadalupe Mountains National Park area was to achieve the proper balance between preservation

and use. In the draft completed in 1970, a tramway, rather than the previously proposed road, provided access to the

high country. The planning team decided that McKittrick Canyon would be devoted primarily to scientific research

with visitor use limited to that which would not have a significantly adverse effect on the ecology of the canyon. [6]

Outside forces, including changing cultural values, affected planning for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. During

the late 1950s and early 1960s visitation to state and national parks increased rapidly. While MISSION 66, the decadelong (1956-66) effort by the Park Service to upgrade and develop existing facilities, seemed to provide what visitors to

the parks needed, it was not in step with beliefs of the new breed of conservationists. Conservationists traditionally had

been among the chief supporters of the Park Service. However, the environmentalists, who were the conservationists of

the 1960s and 1970s, assumed a new role in park planning. Instead of providing consultative and usually supportive

guidance, they became a force in active opposition to any park development that took place at the expense of nature.

[7]

Within the Park Service, planning for Guadalupe Mountains began in the wake of the spirit of development that

typified MISSION 66. George Hartzog, Jr., Director of the Park Service, and the officials who worked under him

believed roads could have a negative impact on park lands. Therefore, they wanted planners to develop alternative

methods of in-park transportation. Hartzog and his staff directed that the Master Plan for Guadalupe Mountains would

include a tramway to make the beauties of the high country accessible to the largest number of visitors with the least

impact on the park's resources. However, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the environmentalists who supported the

values embodied in the act, created major stumbling blocks for the tramway concept.

According to the Wilderness Act, any roadless areas of more than 5,000 acres within a national park must be

considered for wilderness designation. Guadalupe Mountains National Park contained two such areas, one of which

comprised 62,300 acres, a major portion of the park. A Congressionally designated wilderness is an undeveloped area

of federal land of primeval character, without significant human developments or habitation and is protected and

managed to maintain that character. Wilderness designation precluded developed campgrounds and paved trails. In the

case of Guadalupe Mountains, it also meant that water resources could not be developed in the high country, thereby

limiting how long campers and hikers might stay. Similarly, wilderness areas may not contain roads nor permit

motorized vehicle use, except in rare emergencies. Rescues and fire-fighting must be accomplished on foot or

horseback or by helicopter, limiting aid to stranded or injured visitors. Environmentalists sought this type of

designation for much of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, believing that wilderness should be preserved intact for

future generations. Wilderness designation for Guadalupe Mountains National Park meant that only visitors willing to

enter the wilderness on its own terms would have the privilege of seeing much of the land that embodied the values of

the park.

The battles for wilderness designation for the park and for the Master Plan were fought in the public arena, as law

required. The tramway to the top of the escarpment that the Park Service proposed to build became the issue on which

planning hinged, since its presence or absence ultimately determined the character of the park. Opinions expressed at

the hearings in 1971 have been discussed earlier in this paper. [8] As a result of those hearings and as a compromise

between development and wilderness protection, park planners adopted an alternative tramway plan proposed by a

group called Americans Backing Better Park Development. The original plan set forth by the Park Service had

proposed a tramway from near Frijole to a point on the east escarpment between Pine Top Mountain (later renamed

Hunter Mountain) and McKittrick Canyon. This plan provided easy access from the upper terminus to the Bowl, the

summit of Pine Top, and an overlook above McKittrick Canyon. The alternative plan shifted the proposed tramway to

Pine Springs Canyon with a terminal below Guadalupe Peak, thus removing heavy visitor traffic from a fragile area

while still providing a spectacular view.

Environmental concern expressed during the public hearings also changed the planners' Wilderness Proposal.

Relocating the tramway freed an additional 3,000 acres to be added to the wilderness proposal. Another 5,000 acres,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:10 PM]

primarily on the west side of the park, and including areas that had previously been excluded as "management" areas

for fire control and rescue provisions also were added. As a result of input by the public and other government

agencies during the review of the Wilderness Proposal and its accompanying Environmental Impact Statement, the

proposed wilderness area in the park was increased from 39,000 acres to 46,850 acres (see Figure 15). The

Environmental Impact Figure 15. The areas recommended for wilderness designation. Cross-hatched areas were added

after public input during the review process. Statement was approved in August 1973. Wilderness designation for the

proposed 46,850 acres came in 1978 under Title IV of the National Parks and Recreation Act. [9]

In September 1972, when the park was established, master planning still was incomplete. However, by early 1973,

Donald Dayton, Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, and personnel at the Denver Service

Center were satisfied with the Master Plan they had developed for the park, which was based on the revised

Wilderness Proposal. Three years later the Master Plan and its Environmental Impact Statement received official

approval. In 1988, the Master Plan that was approved in 1976 remained as the primary planning document for

Guadalupe Mountains. Although by that time many aspects of the plan were outdated, funding constraints had

prevented park managers from replacing the Master Plan with a General Management Plan, as required by the

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi6a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:11 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VII: PLANNING IN THE 1980S (continued)

Resources Management Planning--1980s

During the 1980s park planners also refined and expanded the Resources Management Plan. The plan written in 1982

and approved in 1984 outlined a five-year program of actions; in 1987 the five-year plan was updated and new

priorities were established. The plan written in 1982 included extensive refinements in planning for management of

natural resources, as well as revised cave and backcountry plans and a Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Management objectives set forth in the new plans remained virtually unchanged from those expressed in the Statement

for Management written in 1976.

Figure 21. Boundary expansion proposed for west side of park in 1987.

Development of new monitoring programs received much emphasis in the plan of 1982. The plan recommended

programs associated with fire management, backcountry use, cave protection and use, the preservation of McKittrick

Canyon,utilization of vegetation by ungulates, and oil and gas development. Other programs included monitoring the

surface water resources of the park, and monitoring threatened and endangered species found in the park, particularly

the peregrine falcon. The encroachment of Barbary sheep on park lands and trespass grazing by livestock from nearby

ranches were two other problems needing documentation. Along with documentation and monitoring of resources, the

management plan reiterated the continuing need for an information retrieval system to make the accumulated research

data useful. [8]

The Natural Resources Management Plan reflected new concerns for wildlife in the park and included plans for
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:11 PM]

reintroducing two native species, the desert bighorn sheep and the Montezuma quail. Control of non-native species,

particularly Rocky Mountain elk and Barbary sheep, was identified as a management objective. The plan also

addressed the park's mountain lion population, an issue that required extensive attention from management during the

1980s. In conjunction with monitoring the mountain lion population, resource managers recommended monitoring the

mule deer population; both populations had increased with park protection and were interdependent. The plan also

reflected the continuing concern of management with the water resources of the park. Water resources limited the

ungulate population of the park and were affected by visitor use, park development, and external influences. [9]

Park planners recognized that designation as a national park and federally protected wilderness did not erect an

impermeable barrier around Guadalupe Mountains National Park. In fact, those designations laid a heavy burden on

park managers to be constantly alert to obvious and insidious outside influences that might harm the resources they

were mandated to protect. By 1982, managers were more aware of the extent of external influences on the park than

they had been a decade earlier. Oil and gas development in the area, ranching and hunting activities, regional pesticide

use, and industrial activity in El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico, all affected the resources of the park. Similarly, park

planners were more aware of the need for cooperative efforts with other governmental agencies to manage such

resources as the peregrine falcon, mule deer, and mountain lions; to cooperate in the reduction of Barbary sheep; to

control harmful forest insects and diseases; to reintroduce native species; and to assure that oil and gas development

did not adversely affect designated wilderness areas. [10]

The planning document listed priorities for management of the park's natural resources. The first five priorities, in

order of importance, were to conduct studies of predator populations, to begin an affirmative management effort to

improve communications with the neighbors of the park regarding predator populations, to rewrite the Backcountry

Management Plan, to institute monitoring programs in the backcountry, and to revise the Fire Management Plan. [11]

Cave Management Plan

The Cave Management Plan, rewritten in 1981 and incorporated into the larger Resources Management Plan, contained

objectives similar to the Cave Management Plan written a decade earlier: protection and perpetuation of the caves in

the park, provision of recreational and educational experiences for visitors, provision of opportunities for scientific

research, classification of caves into management categories, and the establishment of regulations and guidelines to

ensure visitor safety and preservation of the resource. However, the new plan contained a major policy change: two

wild caves in Guadalupe Mountains National Park would be opened, on a permit basis, to the public. An administrative

system for reviewing permit applications would be established to ensure that visitors had the knowledge and

experience necessary to handle the hazards and conditions of the cave they wished to visit. Another provision of the

plan included monitoring of caves to document resource conditions under varying levels of use. In addition, park staff

would receive more information about caving techniques, safety, first aid, speleology, and search and rescue. The

public would be given more information about access routes, hazards, and permit requirements. New interpretive

programs would be aimed at increasing public appreciation of caves. [12]

Backcountry Management Plan

By early in 1984 the much-needed revision of the backcountry management plan was in place. Because the first

backcountry plan was written before the park acquired wilderness designation, policies relating to preservation of

wilderness values were non- existent. The management objectives and policies of the new plan first addressed the

needs of the wilderness resources, then the needs of visitors to the wilderness. Among the objectives outlined were

restoring conditions conducive to the perpetuation of natural processes and native animal and plant life, particularly

rare and endangered species. Land surfaces disturbed by humans would be returned to their natural appearances, but

significant cultural values would be retained. [13]

Wilderness policies outlined in the plan were based on the premise that visitors must accept the risks of wilderness

travel and the absence of modern conveniences. To protect the resource, campsites would be designated. At most,

campgrounds would include a site marker, tent sites, and a pit toilet. Trail width would be limited to that required for

single-file travel by foot or by horse. Research and data-gathering would be permitted as long as they did not modify

the physical or biological processes and resources. Motorized or mechanical equipment would be used in the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:11 PM]

backcountry only in emergency situations. To protect the fragile water sources within the park, camping near springs

and streams and wading and bathing in the streams would be prohibited. [14]

Plans for management of McKittrick Canyon included discontinuation of use of the Stone Cabin as a ranger residence.

Power and water lines to the cabin would be removed but the restroom facilities for visitors would be retained. In the

future, the cabin would serve as a cache for emergency equipment and as an administrative site. Although camping

was not permitted in the part of McKittrick Canyon managed by the Park Service, camping permits for that part of

North McKittrick Canyon lying within the Lincoln National Forest would be available at the McKittrick Canyon

contact station. [15]

By 1984 the first three phases of trail construction in the park had been finished. As outlined in the backcountry

management plan, Phase IV provided for rerouting and deleting some existing trails that were either unmaintainable or

redundant; a total of 29.7 miles was affected. At the conclusion of Phase IV the park would have 66 miles of trails, a

net decrease of 18 miles from the total in 1984. Forty-two miles of trails would be available for use with riding- and

pack-livestock. Parties with livestock would be limited to 15 animals and to day-use only. Visitors using livestock

would obtain a special permit from the park headquarters before entering the park. The Bowl would be closed to all

livestock. [16]

Under the new Backcountry Management Plan, visitors needed permits to use campsites. The permits were free and

issued on a first-come, first-served basis. At each campground, tent sites had been designated and planners intended

that eventually all tent sites would be "hardened." No more than four persons, occupying one large or two small tents,

would be permitted to camp at a tent site and for no longer than two consecutive nights at the same campground. Two

backcountry campgrounds had pit toilets, installed on an experimental basis. In addition to the designated campsites,

the management plan also established an "open" camping zone. Length of stay in the open zone also was limited to

two consecutive nights and regulations required that the tent site be moved after the first night. Most campgrounds

were approximately a half-day hike from backcountry entrance points. Open fires would not be allowed anywhere in

the backcountry. Visitors would be expected to pack out all trash and would be advised of the regulations regarding

disposal of human wastes before entering the backcountry. [17]

The management plan provided for some administrative facilities in the backcountry. A small patrol cabin near Pine

Top had replaced the log cabin in the Bowl, which formerly had been used for administrative purposes. Caches of fire

tools and water would be located strategically throughout the park. The radio repeater facility on Bush Mountain,

consisting of an antenna and small shed would be retained. In the future a small helipad might be constructed to

facilitate maintenance of the antenna. [18]

Wildlife management in the park favored the entire ecosystem rather than individual species. While no artificial

facilities would be maintained for the benefit of specific wildlife types, the plan provided for affirmative management

of two elements in the ecosystem: habitat for endangered species would be protected and enhanced and exotic species

would be controlled. By 1984 three species known or believed to be endangered had been found in the park: the

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), Sneed's pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii), and

McKittrick pennyroyal (Hedeoma apiculatum). [19]

The planners also were concerned with the cultural resources that existed in the backcountry. In spite of the mandate

that wilderness areas be free of substantial evidence of the presence of humans, other laws required that significant

cultural resources existing on federal lands be preserved. Planners determined, therefore, that some of the human-made

structures existing in the wilderness areas should be left as "discovery" sites, representative of the historic period of

ranching, and allowed to molder away naturally. Generally, these structures included remnants of the intricate water

system that had been established during the ranching era to maintain livestock and the elk population in areas where

surface water did not occur. Among these structures were tanks and pipelines in Bear Canyon, the Bowl, and at

Williams Ranch. Also, cabins near Lost Peak, in the Bowl, and at Cox Tank would be retained. Many other metal

tanks and pipelines, fences, stock pens, and small buildings would be removed and earthen tanks breached. [20]

Signage in the backcountry was not standardized, was weathered, and sometimes inaccurate. The management plan

proposed to replace all existing signs with anodized aluminum plates with standardized lettering, mounted on metal
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:11 PM]

posts. Registers, topographic maps, and a place for posting weather conditions would be established at each trailhead.

The number of interpretive signs in the backcountry would be minimal; instead, interpretation would be provided at the

entrances to the wilderness area. [21]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi7a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:12 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VIII: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK (continued)

McKittrick Canyon

Prior to 1978, the only entrance to McKittrick Canyon was through a private ranch road. The road was closed by a

locked gate, and visitors checked out a key through park headquarters at Frijole. Because the owner of the ranch

limited the number of vehicles traveling the road each day, park managers instituted an alternative system, transporting

visitors to and from the mouth of the canyon by Park Service van on a scheduled basis. The only facilities available to

visitors to the canyon were restrooms and picnic tables. After the federal government acquired the right-of-way for a

permanent access road, development of the area began. [12]

As at Pine Springs, development in McKittrick Canyon also began with a search for water. In 1976, drillers completed

a 71-foot well that pump-tested at 10 gallons per minute, an adequate supply for the planned visitor contact station.

Early in 1977, Borsberry Construction of El Paso began the first phase of construction of the new access road to the

canyon. During that year the Texas highway department completed the intersection of the park access road and

Highway 62/180. In July 1978, Armstrong and Armstrong of Roswell completed the second phase of the road

construction. The total cost for road construction was $922,900, with an additional $78,000 for guard rails. To handle

the anticipated increase in visitors to McKittrick Canyon, park managers moved a small camping-type trailer to the

mouth of the canyon to serve as a contact station (see Figure 24). [13]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:12 PM]

Figure 23. View of the duplex apartments, which are part of the permanent residential area

built near Pine Springs, south of Highway 62/180. The residential area includes ten threebedroom and two two-bedroom family units, two two-bedroom apartments, two studio

apartments, and three duplex apartments. (NPS Photo)

In 1979 officials of the Park Service negotiated an 8(a) contract for the construction of the contact station at

McKittrick Canyon. The Small Business Administration designated Designs by Oliver of El Paso as the subcontractor; the amount of the contract was $383,630. Construction began in February 1980 and was scheduled for

completion by December 4. In July, already frustrated by delays, the plumbing contractor walked off the job. By the

end of the year construction was still incomplete. In his annual report a year later, Dunmire's comments relating to the

construction project in McKittrick Canyon were less cryptic than those relating to construction at the residential area.

Noting that the scheduled completion date was more than a year past, he reported that the project had been turned over

to the bonding company. The most serious problem was the roof, which, because of improper installation, was

deteriorating under wind vibration. Inspectors also found rock debris in the water lines, as well as other lesser

problems. Six months later negotiations by the Park Service with the bonding company and Designs by Oliver

remained deadlocked. Finally, in October the bonding company took over the project and brought in another

contractor, who began repairs to the building and roof. The contractor finished in time for the contact station to open

on November 6, 1982, the date of the park's 10th anniversary celebration. The new contact station, designed to be

operated with or without a staff person, included office and information space, restrooms, a patio area with exhibits,

and an automatic audio-visual program with recorded narration by Wallace Pratt (see Figure 25). [14]

Approximately ten days after the opening ceremonies, management closed the McKittrick contact station because of

problems with the water system. Consultants from the Denver Service Center came to the park to decide how to repair

the system. The water system remained out of operation until May 1983, when it finally was repaired and judged safe

for use. [15]

CONTINUE >>>
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:12 PM]

gumo/adhi/adhi8a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:13 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IX: NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Fire Management

The Park Service recognizes the role of natural fire in maintaining ecological balances. Total suppression of fire allows

unnatural fuel loads to accumulate, creating the potential for very hot, destructive fires. However, allowing all fires

occurring in a park to burn is inconsistent with Park Service policies, in violation of state regulations, and would

threaten human safety, as well as park structures, cultural and natural resources. Therefore, agency guidelines require

parks to develop plans to manage naturally occurring and human-caused fires, and to establish fire prescriptions that

would allow park managers to use fire as a tool to reduce unnatural fuel loads.

The first Fire Management Plan for the park, approved in 1975, designated a natural burning unit on the west side of

the park, in the low desert land. The policy for the remainder of the park was full suppression of all fires, whether

naturally-occurring or caused by humans. Although interim policy statements appeared in 1979 and 1982, full

suppression remained in effect for the park until 1985, when a new Fire Management Plan was approved. The plan

allowed natural fires to burn without suppression unless they threatened human safety, developed areas, cultural or

natural resources, or neighboring lands. It also provided for the use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads, to restore

native biotic communities, to manage fuel near developed areas, to restore habitat for endangered species, and to

conduct fire research. The Backcountry Management Plan for the park outlined policy concerning use of fire in the

campgrounds. To protect vegetation and reduce the chance of human-caused wildfires, only containerized fuels were

permitted in the backcountry and Pine Springs campgrounds. Charcoal or wood fires, for which visitors provided their

own fuel, were permitted in the Dog Canyon campground. [6]

In 1973, Gary Ahlstrand, a Park Service research ecologist stationed at a Cooperative Park Studies Unit at Texas Tech

University, began a study of the ecology of fire in the southern Guadalupe Mountains. His research, which continued

into the early 1980s, provided the basis for the management plan adopted in 1985. Some of the methods Ahlstrand

employed included identifying former burn zones and establishing monitoring transects there to document the recovery

rates of various plants; using dendrochronology to document occurrences of major fires in the park and to detect

climatic changes; interviewing long-time residents of the area to learn of the effects of livestock, climate, and fire on

the vegetative associations in the park; and using photographs and written sources to identify changes in vegetation.

[7]

Tree-ring evidence from the Bowl area revealed that from 1696 to 1966 major fires occurred on an average of every 17

years. However, since 1910, no major fires had occurred in the parklands, because of heavy grazing by livestock that

reduced the fine fuel load. When the park was created and grazing effects were removed, grasses and white pine grew

up in the lower and middle stories of the forest. By 1987 resource managers considered the fuel load in the forest in

the Bowl to be unnaturally high. Chief Ranger Phil Koepp estimated the deadfall in that area to be about 12 tons per

acre. While the potential for a catastrophic fire existed, Koepp did not believe one would occur unless winds were

unusually high. He suggested that enough of the natural vegetative mosaic of the land existed to effectively stop a

wildfire before it destroyed a large portion of the park. The resident expert on fire prescriptions, Koepp expected the

first prescriptive experiments in the high country to be extremely cautious and low-key, probably on a shrubby southfacing slope adjacent to a snow-covered north-facing slope, and started by a match, not a helicopter. [8]

Park managers also targeted other areas of the park for fire research. During 1976 and 1979 park personnel attempted
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:13 PM]

prescribed burns on the desert lands of the west side of the park, to determine the effects of fire on the shrubby plants

there, particularly Larrea tridentata, or creosote bush. Testimony from long-time residents and written accounts from

the nineteenth century indicated that until the 1930s the decertified land between the western escarpment and the salt

basin had been good grazing land. Researchers postulated that fire would reduce the shrubby plants that had replaced

the grasses and permit the grasses to return. However, they found that the shrubby growth would not sustain a burn.

[9]

Besides the obvious reasons for attempting prescribed burns only after cautious research and observation, park

managers had another reason to approach prescribed burns with care: they had to deal with public opinion about fire.

The years of public education carried out under the aegis of Smokey the Bear were not without effect. In the latter1980s the problem for park managers was to provide public information about how fire could be employed positively

to manage parklands. Superintendent Richard Smith spoke of this problem and his intention to make the public fully

aware of any prescribed burn project before it began. Koepp also worried about the effect of public opinion on

prescribed burning Servicewide; he knew that one disastrous mistake could terminate a potentially beneficial program.

[10]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi9a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Preservation of Historic Structures and the Emigrant Trail

The Pinery

The ruins of the Pinery, a fort-like stone structure built in 1858 to serve as a stage station for the Butterfield Overland

Mail, demanded the immediate attention of cultural resource managers when the park was established. In 1972 David

G. Battle, Historical Architect for the Southwest Region, visited the park to determine which historic resources might

be eligible for nomination to the National Register. Although little remained of the Pinery's 30-inch thick and 11-foot

high walls built of limestone slabs (see Figure 31), there was little doubt that the site was significant enough to be

listed in the National Register. [6]

Between September 1858 and August 1859, the Pinery was a meal and mule stop for the "Celerity" wagons that carried

mail and passengers between St. Louis and San Francisco. It was built like a fort, with interior rooms attached lean-to

style to the thick exterior walls. The station comprised a wagon-repair shop and smithy, a kitchen, and a corral for

livestock. After the first year of operation of the mail service, Butterfield managers determined that a route passing by

Fort Stockton and Fort Davis offered more protection from Indians and better access to water, so the Pinery was

abandoned. The station, however, continued to serve as a stopping off place for west-bound emigrants, soldiers,

drovers, and freighters as late as 1885. [7]

In 1972, only the north wall of the original structure remained and Battle worried about the deterioration that was

taking place. He estimated that a substantial portion of the west end of the wall had collapsed since the Park Service

had acquired the property and noted that about half of the remaining wall listed at a 10-degree angle. [8] In 1973 the

Park Service took emergency measures to stabilize the wall and Battle completed a Historic Structure Report for the

Pinery. In 1974 Park Service specialists began realigning and re-mortaring the wall. Archeologists tested the site to

validate drawings and dimensions of the buildings that Battle had reported in the Historic Structure Report.

Stabilization of the wall was completed in 1975. The Pinery was nominated to the National Register in 1973 and was

accepted for listing. [9]

The Pinery is the most accessible of all the historic resources at Guadalupe Mountains, being visible from Highway

62/180 and on the road to the Pine Springs Campground. The site had attracted attention, however, even before being

acquired by the Park Service. During the early 1950s, J.C. Hunter, Jr., and the Glovers deeded the Pinery site and a

small parcel of adjacent land to American Airlines. Officials at the airline desired to restore the stage station as a

memorial to the carriers of the mail who had passed by Guadalupe Peak. During the 1930s American Airlines had

received the first government contract for air mail service between St. Louis and San Francisco, just as the Butterfield

Overland Mail Company had received the first government contract for overland mail service between the two cities.

Plans for restoration advanced to the point of requesting bids, but high costs forced the company to abandon the idea of

restoration and to return the land to the former owners. The officials at the airline were undaunted, however, and

refused to give up the idea of a memorial. At the Pinery on September 29, 1958, officials and veteran pilots of

American Airlines dedicated a granite monument that had been placed to call attention to another monument, a sixfoot high stainless steel trylon placed on Guadalupe Peak (see Figure 32). Both monuments were inscribed to

commemorate the centennial of the transcontinental overland mail and "the airmen who, like the stage drivers before

them, challenged the elements through this pass with the pioneer spirit and courage which resulted in a vast system of
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

airline transport known as American Airlines." The plaques on each of the three sides of the marker on Guadalupe

Peak also called attention to the three-way partnership of Federal government, private enterprise, and rugged

individuals that advanced westward expansion. [10]

Figure 31. A view of remnants of the north wall of the Pinery stage station, a historic

resource of Guadalupe Mountains National Park that has been listed in the National

Register. The station was a stop on the route of the Butterfield Overland Mail and was used

from September 1958 to August 1859. In 1975, Park Service specialists finished realigning

and remortaring the remains of the wall to prevent further deterioration. (NPS Photo)

The memorial on Guadalupe Peak has caught the attention of park visitors who wonder about the appropriateness of

such a monument in a national park. In 1975 Superintendent Dayton responded to a visitor who wrote to him with

such a complaint. Dayton suggested that although the Park Service probably would not have permitted installation of

such a marker if the park had been in existence, he felt that the marker should not be removed or relocated. He

admitted that if the history and purpose behind the marker were better explained to visitors, it might be more

acceptable to hikers and climbers who visited the peak. The next month Acting Regional Director Monte E. Fitch

corresponded with Dayton to affirm the stand Dayton had taken about the marker. [11]

The Emigrant Trail to California and the Butterfield Stage Route

Another historic resource of the park closely associated in time with the Pinery is the road traveled by Californiabound emigrants and later the Butterfield stages. Although park managers were aware of the existence of remnants of

the road within the park, it received little attention as a cultural resource until 1977 when Regional personnel

determined that a National Register nomination should be prepared. Since the best-preserved portions of the road are

on the west side of the park, it was that area that was selected for nomination. The nomination was submitted late in

1977 but was rejected because of "substantive and technical questions." The staff at the National Register wanted more

than a representative sample of the trail. They preferred to see the nomination include all vestiges of the trail that met
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

the qualification of historic integrity. [12] The revisions required for the nomination of the Emigrant Trail were not

simple to make. Regional personnel took another look at the traces of the road in 1980 and then let the matter drop for

several years. [13]

Figure 32. The pilot memorial erected in 1958 by American Airlines at the summit of

Guadalupe Peak. The six-foot high stainless steel trylon, erected before the authorization of

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, commemorates the carriers of transcontinental

overland and air mail. (NPS Photo)

In 1985, Betsy Swanson, who had a track record of writing successful National Register nominations, received a

contract to complete the nomination of the Emigrant Trail. After a year of work, Swanson still had many questions

about the nomination, such as whether natural landmarks should be included in the nomination, how wide the corridor

should be, whether portions of the trail that could not be verified because of time and funding constraints should be

included in the nomination, how the concept of integrity should be applied to trails, and how much examination of trail

remains outside the park should be accomplished to assist with research on the in-park remains. Diane Jung, Survey

Historian for the Southwest Region, visited the park late in September 1986, hoping to iron out the problems. After onsite research and discussions with National Register staff members, Jung and Swanson determined that natural

landmarks, such as springs and El Capitan, should be included in the nomination. They agreed to a 500-foot wide

corridor on either side of the nominated traces of the trail. Trail traces that could not be verified on the ground would

not be included in the nomination. Trail traces would be considered of sufficient integrity for nomination where

evidence on the ground agreed with documentary evidence. Swanson and Jung decided that the nomination should take

the form of a historic district with discontinuous boundaries. [14]

Six months later, James "Jake" Ivey, Historian and Historical Archeologist from the Regional Office, visited the park

to examine Swanson's claim that there was integrity to the section of the historic district near the Pinery. However, due

to the amount of disturbance caused by ranching use, he was unable to recognize any traces of the stage road or the

Emigrant Trail and concluded that the majority of the stage road probably was under the present highway. As a result,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

he could not justify including any area around the Pinery ruins as part of the discontinuous historic district for the

Emigrant Trail. Ivey agreed, however, that the trail was clearly visible in the west-side historic districts Swanson

designated for nomination. [15] By the end of 1987 no further work had been done on the nomination.

The proposed addition to the west side of the park being considered in 1987 included more traces of the Emigrant

Trail. If this area were added to the park, the additional traces of the trail would also have to be considered for

nomination to the National Register. During the study of the proposed boundary expansion, the Texas Deputy State

Historic Preservation Officer expressed concern that archeological data for the proposed acquisition was sketchy and

needed to be enlarged before sound cultural resource management plans for the area could be developed. In another

action related to the boundary expansion, Regional Office staff consulted with officials from neighboring Hudspeth

County who were planning to construct a road from Dell City to the western park boundary. The route originally

proposed by the county coincided with the route of the Butterfield Trail. After consultation, the county agreed to

relocate the route of the new road so that the historic trail could be preserved [16].

Williams Ranch

The Williams ranch house, located on the west side of the park near the mouth of Bone Canyon, may be the least

visited of the park's historic resources. During most of the year the eight-mile-long road from Highway 62/180 is

suitable only for 4-wheel-drive vehicles; the remainder of the time a high-clearance pick-up truck is required. The road

is blocked at the highway by a locked gate for which visitors may check out a key from the park's information center.

The frame house with steeply gabled roof (see Figures 33 and 34), reminiscent of houses more often found in the

Midwest than in the rural areas of West Texas, was built soon after 1900 with lumber hauled by mule train from Van

Horn, Texas. It served as headquarters for a longhorn cattle ranching operation for more than a decade. Ownership

changed in 1915 and the new owner raised cattle, sheep, and goats and farmed a limited amount of land until his death

in 1942. Historically, the house is significant as a remnant of the ranching operations that provided a livelihood for the

settlers of West Texas. In addition, the house is an architectural anomaly in the area, an attribute which adds to its

significance. [17]

David Battle visited Williams Ranch in 1972 to determine whether the house was eligible for nomination to the

National Register. While the house was the only intact structure at the site when the Park Service acquired the

property, ruins of a barn and water storage tank remained as evidence of other structures that once stood at the ranch

headquarters. Battle was as concerned about the deteriorating state of the ranch house as he was about the state of the

Pinery wall. Because he had determined informally that the structure was eligible for nomination to the National

Register it required protection. The frame structure was still in sound condition, but the stone foundation appeared to

be in danger of "imminent" collapse, a circumstance, he believed, that could destroy the entire resource. Battle

recommended repair of the foundation and other deteriorated structural elements and placement of temporary closures

over windows, doors, chimneys, and other openings that might admit animals or humans. [18]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

Figure 33. James Adolphus "Dolph" Williams and unidentified girls in front of the Williams

ranch house, date unknown. The Williams ranch house on the west side of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park is the most isolated of the park's historical resources. Constructed

around the turn of the twentieth century, the house stands as a reminder of the ranching

operations that provided a livelihood for residents of the area in the late-nineteenth and

early-twentieth centuries. Lumber for the structure had to be hauled by mule train from Van

Horn, Texas. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

Figure 34. Another view of the Williams ranch house. Its architectural design makes 

it an anomaly on the West Texas landscape. (NPS Photo)

Park personnel followed Battle's recommendations. In 1973 they replaced the roof of the ranch house and stabilized its

foundation. By 1977 the house had been treated with a wood preservative and the stone foundation rebuilt.

Photographs of the water system were made to provide documentation for future reference. After those measures were

complete, conservation specialists from the Regional Office considered the building to be stabilized and in a holding

condition. They recommended bimonthly inspections of the exterior and annual inspections of the interior. In 1984

park personnel followed preservation recommendations, treating the exterior surfaces with wood preservative every

fifth year after 1979. As of 1988, the Regional staff had not formally determined whether the ranch house was eligible

for listing in the National Register, so a nomination had not been prepared nor had a formal management plan for the

structure been written. [19]

Pratt Stone Cabin

The stone cabin that was formerly the summer home of the Wallace Pratt family stands on the flood plain at the

junction of North and South McKittrick Canyons. As described in Chapter III, Pratt had the cabin built in 1930 to

serve as a summer home for his family (see Figure 35). Two other structures complete the cabin complex: a building

that contains a two-car garage and caretaker's quarters, and a pumphouse. Stone fences border the property on the

south and west. [20] Soon after Battle's visit to the park in 1972, Regional staff prepared and submitted a National

Register nomination for the cabin complex, which was subsequently accepted. The structures are significant for their

unique architecture as well as for Wallace Pratt's stature in the nation as scientist, businessman, and conservationist.

[21]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:15 PM]

Although seasonal rangers were stationed at the Stone Cabin during the 1970s, and some researchers also used it

during this period, the cabin has been little used for administrative purposes since that time. It has never been open to

the public. For the comfort of personnel using the cabin, the Park Service installed electric heating. Later, contractors

and park personnel restored the roofs of the house, garage, and pumphouse in stages from 1976 to 1984. They replaced

roof supports, rafters, and decking and waterproofed the roofs. Vance Phenix, the architect who supervised the

construction of the cabin, visited the site in 1981 and viewed the roof repairs with some interest. He had been skeptical

about whether the roofs, constructed of natural stone shingles about one-half inch thick and mortared in place, would

prove to be substantial. While the major roof restoration necessary by the late-1970s may have validated Phenix's

initial skepticism about the permanence of the mortar bonds, it also may have been the result of less-than-regular

maintenance after the Pratts moved to the Ship on the Desert. [22]

Figure 35. Wallace Pratt's stone cabin in McKittrick Canyon. Pratt had the cabin built in

1930 to use as a summer home for his family. It was built from local stone quarried on a

nearby ranch. The Pratts intended to use the cabin as a retirement home but changed their

minds after being trapped one time in the canyon during a flash flood. The cabin and its

outbuildings are listed in the National Register. (NPS Photo)

The only other preservation problem at the Stone Cabin occurred early in 1985 when the park's Facility Manager

discovered an infestation of wood-boring ants in the cabin. Regional personnel recommended applying "Tie-Die PT

230" and "Perma-Dust PT240" insecticides. The applications were effective in controlling the ants, but park personnel

continued to monitor the situation. [23]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi10a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:16 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER XI: SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

(continued)

Other Special Events

Bicentennial Flag Ceremony--July 28, 1975

As part of the Texas celebration of the bicentennial anniversary of the United States, eight Boy Scouts and two

scoutmasters from Troop No. 3 of Abilene, Texas, climbed Guadalupe Peak to fly the flags of the United States,

Texas, and the Bicentennial. The Boy Scout group assembled at the Pine Springs campground on July 27, 1975, where

they were welcomed by members of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. A photographer and staff member from the

Abilene television station, a photographer from the Abilene Reporter-News, an administrator from the West Texas

Chamber of Commerce, and a Guadalupe Mountains Park Technician, Robert King, volunteered to climb with the Boy

Scouts. [13]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:16 PM]

Figure 42. Members of Boy Scout Troop No. 3, Chisholm Trail Council, Abilene,

Texas, in Bicentennial flag ceremony atop Guadalupe Peak, July 28, 1972. (NPS

Photo)

In 1975 the trail to the peak had not been improved. It covered a 3,500-foot rise in elevation in three and one-half

miles. (The improved trail, completed in 1980, reduced the steep gradient by increasing the length of the trail to five

miles.) The group made it to the top, however, and flew six flags: three flags of the United States from the Capitol in

Washington, furnished by Senators John Tower and Lloyd Bentsen and Congressman Richard White; three Texas State

flags from the State Capitol in Austin; and the official Bicentennial flag (see Figure 42). The filmed ceremony

appeared on KTXS, a television station in Abilene. [14]

Climb of Guadalupe Peak by Members of POINT--July 12-17, 1982

In July 1982 Guadalupe Peak was the site of another noteworthy climb. A group of six paraplegics, members of a

Dallas-based organization known as POINT (Paraplegics on Independent Nature Trails), set out to climb Guadalupe

Peak in wheelchairs. Jack Grimm, a noted oilman from Abilene, developed the idea of the climb only a week before it

happened. He conceived it in connection with a fund drive for the West Texas Rehabilitation Center in Abilene. Park

managers, who were aware of the potential dangers of the climb, and the advance scout for the group, who examined

the trail, expressed concern for the safety of the climbers. Park personnel foresaw a number of special difficulties for

the climbers, including the need to carry enough water for a five-day trip and the fact that there were no suitable places

along the trail where they could camp overnight. In addition, the regular occurrence of severe electrical storms in the

high country during July, and the 15- to 30-percent grades the climbers would encounter prompted park personnel to

suggest an easier route to a different destination. The men refused, however, and remained dedicated to the challenge
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:16 PM]

of climbing the highest mountain in Texas. [15]

Illness reduced the originally planned group of six men to five: Michael Powers, Robert Leyes, Donny Rodgers, Joe

Moss, and Dave Kiley. By the third day of the climb Powers and Leyes had to turn back because of physical

difficulties. The two "grounded" climbers stayed in radio contact with the three who continued, offering them moral

support until the last day of the climb, when the trail took the climbers behind a ridge that blocked radio reception.

Although the men asked that they be left on their own, park personnel checked in with them regularly to obtain

information for progress reports being carried by the news media. Park Ranger Jon Jarvis also stayed with the climbers

the last two nights and accompanied them the last mile to the summit. During the last few hundred yards the men had

to leave their wheelchairs and push or drag them as they crawled to the summit. The three men reached the top on the

evening of July 16 (see Figure 43). [16]

Public recognition of the accomplishment of the climbers came on July 17. The men spent the night of July 16 on the

peak and were lifted off the following morning by three U.S. Army helicopters from Fort Bliss. For safety reasons, the

climbers did not try to make the descent in their wheelchairs. Later that day the climbers were the honored guests at a

press conference and public reception at the Civic Center in Carlsbad. The nation-wide attention the men had attracted

became apparent. During the press conference the men received telephone congratulations from President Ronald

Reagan and New Mexico Governor Bruce King. Texas Governor William Clements sent a telegram with his

congratulations. [17]

Figure 43. (L-R) Donny Rodgers (behind monument), Joe Moss, and Dave Kiley on

Guadalupe Peak after a five-day climb in wheelchairs, July 12-16, 1982. (NPS Photo)

The special events that have taken place at Guadalupe Mountains show some of the ways in which management has

worked or cooperated with others to increase public awareness of the park. The Park Service-sponsored events also

provide evidence of the good relationships that have existed between the park and the neighboring communities and

the park and the media. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce was involved in the movement to establish a park in the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi11a.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:16 PM]

Guadalupes as early as the 1920s; its continuing support was particularly creditable since the park is in Texas, not New

Mexico. In the years since the park was established, the Dell City and Van Horn chambers of commerce also have had

strong relationships with the park. Cooperation with these organizations undoubtedly has been enhanced by

membership of park personnel in the groups. Similarly, the park has had a particularly good relationship with the

Carlsbad Current-Argus. The even-handed treatment by the newspaper of park controversies has permitted its readers

to understand both sides of issues and has made clear the legal constraints under which park managers must operate.

The work of Bobby Crisman in the area of public relations also cannot be overlooked. Crisman has been involved with

the administration of the park since its establishment and has served as Acting Superintendent during the interim

periods when new Superintendents were being selected. His participation in local civic organizations as well as the

public activities associated with both Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns, plus his longevity in an agency in

which personnel may change as often as the seasons, have made him a valuable liaison between park and community.

Crisman's production of hundreds of news releases, coordination of special events, and long-time participation in civic

affairs have been invaluable in establishing the positive public image of Guadalupe Mountains.

<<< CHAPTER X CONTENTS CHAPTER XII >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi11a.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dayton.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:18 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX B: PERSONNEL

SUPERINTENDENTS

Donald Dayton, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972-1981. (NPS Photo)

Donald Dayton

Donald Dayton became Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns in December 1970. In 1972, he also became

Superintendent of the newly established Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Previously, Dayton had

worked for the Department of Agriculture as a parasitologist for a year after receiving a bachelor's degree

in wildlife management from Ohio State University. He entered the Park Service in 1955, as a ranger at

Devil's Tower National Monument, Wyoming. During the next decade he also served at Glacier National

Park, Montana, and Sequoia and King's Canyon National Parks in California. Dayton's first

superintendency was at White Sands National Monument, New Mexico. From there he was promoted in

1967 to the superintendency of Petrified National Forest Park in Arizona.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dayton.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:18 PM]

Dayton's primary achievements during his superintendency of Guadalupe Mountains were in the realm of

planning. From 1970 to 1981 he guided the park's planning process and was involved in the initial phases

of construction of the planned facilities. He also helped to develop the park's first Resource Management

Plans. During this time he faced several major public issues: the controversy over wilderness designation

for the park, the proposed tramway, and the developing problem with mountain lion depredation on ranch

lands adjacent to the parks. While Dayton could resolve none of the controversies by himself, as the most

visible local representative of the Park Service he successfully articulated the agency's point of view to the

public and gradually gained their support.

In 1981 Dayton transferred as Superintendent to become Deputy Regional Director of the Southwest

Region.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/dayton.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dunmire.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:19 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX B: PERSONNEL

William W. Dunmire, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981-1985 (NPS Photo)

William W. Dunmire

Bill Dunmire arrived at the Carlsbad headquarters in January 1981 to fill the position left vacant by the

departure of Donald Dayton. His educational and professional backgrounds prepared him well to

superintend a wilderness park. He received both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of

California at Berkeley in the area of wildlife management and ecology. His career with the Park Service

began in 1957 when he became an Intake Trainee at Yosemite National Park, California. Subsequently, he

held positions as Park Naturalist at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; Chief Park Naturalist at Badlands
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/dunmire.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:19 PM]

National Mounument, South Dakota; Chief of Interpretation and Resource Management at Isle Royale

National Park, Michigan; and Chief Park Naturalist at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. From 1972

to 1973 Dunmire was Interpretive Coordinator at the Denver Service Center. He then transferred to the

Park Service's office in Washington, D.C., as Chief of the Division of Interpretation. In 1977 he became

Superintendent of Coulee Dam National Recreation Area, Washington.

Dunmire was Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns from January 1981 to

October 1985. During that time he coordinated most of the construction that took place at the park, guided

revisions and refinements of the park's Resource Management Plans, and was embroiled in two public

controversies: the mountains lion problem and the effort to gain possession of the Glover tract after the

death of Bertha Glover in 1982. While Dunmire's background in wildlife management provided a sound

basis from which to make decisions about the mountain lion issue, nothing had prepared him for the

emotional fireworks and national attention that accompanied the Park Service's attempt to dislocate Mary

Hinson from the Glover property.

Dunmire retired in October 1985, after 30 years of employment with the federal government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/dunmire.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/smith.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:20 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

APPENDIX B: PERSONNEL

Richard B. Smith, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1986-1987. (NPS Photo)

Richard B. Smith

Richard "Rick" Smith assumed the superintendency of Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns in

March 1986. His career with the Park Service began in 1959, as a Seasonal Ranger at Yellowstone

National Park, Wyoming. His first permanent assignment as a Ranger came in 1971, in Yosemite National

Park, California. Smith remained there until 1976, when he transferred to the Albright Training Center at

Grand Canyon, as a Training Specialist. From 1978 to 1980 he was a Legislative Affairs Specialist in the

Park Service's Washington, D.C., office. Smith returned to the parks in 1980 when he became the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/smith.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:20 PM]

Assistant Superintendent of Everglades National Park, Florida. He remained there through 1983. In 1984

he became Associate Director for Park Operations for the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Smith accepted the superintendency of Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns knowing that he

would make the necessary preparations to separate the management of the two parks. In addition to that

task, Smith worked with Congressman Ron Coleman to obtain funding for the park's visitor center and

operational headquarters. He also revived the proposed border expansion for Guadalupe Mountains that

had been tabled in 1981. He obtained Regional backing for the plan and gained the support of

Congressman Coleman for the proposal. Smith tried to resolve the situation with Mary Hinson but yielded

to the wishes of the Secretary of the Interior, who permitted her to continue to occupy the Glover tract

until 1992. By 1986, however, local support for Hinson's position was weakening and Smith was not the

focus of as much negative publicity as Dunmire had been four years earlier.

In October 1987, management of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains was separated and Smith

turned the superintendency of Guadalupe Mountains over to Karen P. Wade.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gumo/adhi/smith.htm

Last Updated: 05-May-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:21 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION (continued)

Figure 3. El Capitan, as seen from the southeast. Visible for many miles

from both east and west, the peak has served as a landmark for travelers for

unnumbered centuries. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:21 PM]

Figure 4. View from Guadalupe Peak, overlooking El Capitan. At 8, 749

feet, Guadalupe Peak is the highest point in Texas. A five-mile-long trail

makes it possible for park visitors to reach the summit of Guadalupe Peak.

(NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:21 PM]

Figure 5. The view down Guadalupe Canyon toward Guadalupe Pass from a

high point on the Guadalupe escarpment. (NPS Photo)

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi1b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:22 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER II: THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

(continued)

The El Paso Boosters and the Texas Legislature

During 1931 and 1932, the Guadalupe Mountain Park Association functioned as a branch of the El Paso Chamber of

Commerce. E. H. Simons, manager of the El Paso Chamber of Commerce, served as secretary for the Association. An

avid booster who stood by the idea of a park in the Guadalupes for a number of years, Simons approached the

chairman of the Texas highway commission about the possibility of establishing a park in the southern Guadalupes.

He proposed acquiring part of the ranch belonging to the Grisham-Hunter Corporation with funds raised by a county

bond issue. The chairman agreed that if El Paso County would donate the park site to the State of Texas, the highway

commission would build roads to scenic points within the park to a total cost of $500,000. Simons then secured an

option to purchase the 33,000-acre proposed park site for a total of $200,000. Undoubtedly aware of the unreliability

of funds available at the state level for park management and maintenance, Simons envisioned that after the state had

developed the park it would donate it to the national park system. [13]

Although Texas had set up a state parks board in the mid-1920s, by 1930 it still did not have a state park system. Early

in 1931, anticipating the access to the Guadalupe Mountains afforded by the new highways, the Texas legislature

considered a bill that would have provided $300,000 to acquire land for a park in the Guadalupe Mountains. The Davis

Mountain Park was proposed in the same bill. In March, the Texas State Parks Board made movies of the proposed

park areas to use for publicity purposes. Once again, however, enthusiasm did not carry the issue; the proposed park

bill died from lack of support. [14]

The Proposed Extension of Carlsbad Caverns

Concurrent with the Texas legislative efforts, the National Park Service investigated the possibility of extending the

boundaries of Carlsbad Cave National Monument, which at that time encompassed only one square mile. On May 14,

1930, Congress gave the area national park status and authorized the extension of the boundaries. A total of 192 square

miles of land surrounding the monument had previously been withdrawn by Executive Orders in 1924, 1928, and 1930.

The withdrawn lands were all in New Mexico and extended west to the Lincoln National Forest boundary. [15] The

proximity of these lands to the scenic splendors of Guadalupe Peak, El Capitan, and McKittrick Canyon raised the

issue of extending the Carlsbad Caverns boundaries even farther.

As a part of the preliminary survey of wildlife in the national parks undertaken in 1931, Ben Thompson and George

Wright, of the University of California, visited Carlsbad Caverns and the lands of the proposed extension. The

researchers expressed views that diverged slightly from the traditional "monumental" attitudes toward national parks.

Although they noted the relatively minor economic usefulness of the lands and recognized the scenic and recreational

values of the Guadalupe Mountains, they found the unique wildlife resources of the Guadalupes to be equally

important. They noted that the Guadalupe Mountains were then or previously had been home to four native species

which were not represented in other national parks: the Merriam turkey, the Texas bighorn, the collared peccary, and

the Mearns quail. Thompson and Wright suggested that the peccary, which had been extirpated from the park, could be

reintroduced. A remnant population still existed in the desert lands east of the Pecos River. Wright also noted the

possibility that Texas would make the southernmost tip of the Guadalupes a state park and might donate it to the

national park system if the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns were extended. [16]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:22 PM]

In September 1931, without visiting the area, F. A. Kittredge, Chief Engineer of the San Francisco Field Headquarters,

gave the Director a more traditional assessment of the lands of the proposed boundary expansion. He saw no advantage

in extending the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns. To him, the cave was the only attraction there, not the distant vistas

or archeological features. [17]

During the 1930s, years of rapid expansion of the national park system, Roger Toll, Superintendent of Yellowstone

National Park, spent his off-season time touring proposed park areas for the Park Service. As Superintendent of the

nation's premier park, Toll was a powerful person in the Park Service and his opinions carried much weight. In

November 1931, Toll visited Carlsbad and West Texas; he spent four days surveying the proposed extension to

Carlsbad Caverns. Toll suggested that the withdrawn lands would be valuable for park purposes only if some 55 square

miles of the southeastern part of the Lincoln National Forest were also added. The land in the Lincoln National Forest

contained the best scenic canyons and most of the known archeological features of the area. However, Toll believed

the archeological features were not "sufficiently remarkable" to justify extension of the park. [18] Two experts

supported his assessment of the archeological resources: Jesse Nusbaum, director of the Laboratory of Anthropology in

Santa Fe, and well-known archeologist H. P. Mera. [19] Ultimately, Toll recommended adding only 43 square miles

around Carlsbad Caverns. [20]

Toll made another report to the Director of the Park Service after his trip to New Mexico and Texas. The second report

concerned two park proposals that had been submitted to the Park Service. One, the Guadalupe Mountain National

Park, Texas, proposed principally for its mountain scenery, had been suggested by Harold J. Brodie of Winnipeg,

Canada. Brodie's proposal focused on the scenic qualities of El Capitan and Guadalupe Peak area. The other proposal,

McKittrick Canyon National Monument, Texas, had been proposed by Vance Prather, secretary of the Kentucky State

Park Commission. Prather had been impressed with the quantity of game in the canyon. After describing the proposals

to the Director, Toll suggested that the two proposals should be combined because they involved the same general

area. [21]

Although these proposals fell outside the proposed boundary extension for Carlsbad Caverns, Toll had investigated the

lands during his November trip. He met with Simons of the Guadalupe Mountain Park Association and learned about

the Grisham-Hunter Corporation's land holdings and of the existing option to purchase the land for $200,000.

Referring to his report on the lands that had been withdrawn around Carlsbad Caverns, Toll suggested to Director

Horace M. Albright that since the Texas land adjoined the southern boundary of the Lincoln National Forest it might

become valuable if the land in the Lincoln National Forest were also added to Carlsbad Caverns. He concluded,

though, that since the land in Texas was entirely in private ownership there was no need for action by the Park Service

at that time. [22]

Local stockmen disagreed with the assessment that had been made by the Park Service regarding the economic

importance of the withdrawn lands around Carlsbad Cavern. In 1933, Arno Cammerer, who had replaced Albright as

Director of the Park Service, notified Toll of the opposition expressed by this group to the westward expansion of

Carlsbad Caverns and told him that plans for the boundary extension had been dropped. As a result of this change, he

instructed Toll that the proposed park land in Texas be considered entirely on its own merits, separate and apart from

Carlsbad Caverns. [23]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi2b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:23 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER III: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT

AND J. C. HUNTER, JR. (contined)

J. C. Hunter, Jr., and Glenn Biggs

After his death in 1945, Judge Hunter's property had passed to his wife and son, J.C., Jr. The Hunters had continued to

buy land in the Guadalupes and to manage it conservatively. By 1961 the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch had reached a

total of some 72,000 acres.

J.C. Hunter, Jr., like his father, was a well-respected civic leader. During the early 1970s he was mayor of Abilene,

Texas, for six years. Besides being involved in the family oil business, he served on the boards of Hardin-Simmons

University, the Baptist Foundation of Texas, the Independent Petroleum Association, Citizens National Bank of

Abilene, and the West Texas Utility Company. Similarly, like his father, he was outgoing and generous and enjoyed

sharing the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch with friends and associates. However, after the visit by the Park Service

reconnaissance team in May 1961, Hunter began seriously considering the sale of the ranch. In September 1961,

without knowing the outcome of the Park Service study, Hunter put the ranch on the market and hired Glenn Biggs, a

partner in the Abilene, Texas, brokerage firm of Millerman and Millerman, to represent his property. [26]

Glenn Biggs played an important role in the creation of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Biggs was an ambitious

young man; after graduating in 1956 from Baylor University he had been the assistant manager of the Abilene

Chamber of Commerce for three years before going into the real estate business. The untiring effort he exerted from

1961 to 1965 in Hunter's behalf must not be overlooked. Although Biggs stood to make a substantial commission on

the sale of the property (5 percent of $1,500,000), he was also strongly committed to the idea of a park. Biggs was a

latter-day "booster." Some people considered him over-zealous because his good intentions often led him into territory

other than his own. [27] In spite of criticism, however, he continued to struggle through the legislative red tape that

was necessary to create Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Biggs donated his papers from the Guadalupe Mountain park years, 1961-65, to the archives of Texas Tech University

in Lubbock, Texas. The thousands of pages there testify to reams of letters Biggs wrote and answered, thousands of

miles he traveled, and uncounted days and nights he spent pursuing park status for the Hunter ranch.

Soon after Biggs took on the sale of Hunter's ranch, he published an attractive colored sales brochure filled with

photographs of the ranch and containing quotations from naturalists, government officials, and other writers about the

beauty of the property (see Figure 11). The brochure, however, was only a tickler. Serious prospects also received a

hefty notebook full of information about the ranch. Biggs utilized the network of real estate brokers of which he was a

part to search for a client of substantial means who would be interested in the type of property the ranch represented.

Between October 1961 and January 1963 Biggs negotiated with several persons who appeared seriously interested in

the Hunter property. However, none of them made Hunter an offer. In June 1962, when Hunter learned about the

favorable report the Park Service team had made about the ranch, he indicated his willingness to sell the land to the

federal government. [28]

The stage was set for the legislative process to begin. The Pratts and the Hunters, people whose lives testified to their

belief in the revitalizing qualities of mountains, canyons, and nature left to its own devices, stepped down. They
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi3b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:23 PM]

recognized the unique value of their lands and they trusted the federal government to preserve that value. The final

decisions about how their land would be preserved and developed fell into the hands of businessmen, politicians, and

environmentalists. The interests of all of these sectors would be expressed at various times and in various ways in the

ensuing decade and the balance of power would shift from the hands of the developers to the hands of the

environmentalists. Guadalupe Mountains National Park was created at a time when the values of Americans were

broadening. Material gain continued to be important to most people, but they were beginning to realize the nation

could be bankrupted, physically and spiritually, by unrestricted exploitation and depletion of natural resources.

Guadalupe Mountains National Park would be a preserve of wilderness resources, a product of the democratic system,

established to enhance both the material and the spiritual interests of the nation.

Figure 11. Guadalupe Mountain Ranch Sales Brochure

The sales brochure distributed by Glenn Biggs to advertise the sale of J. C. Hunter, Jr.'s, Guadalupe Mountain Ranch

emphasized the wildlife and scenic resources of the ranch and gave secondary importance to its economic value as a

working sheep ranch. Biggs and Hunter knew that the property was more likely to be purchased by a wealthy person

interested in a private hunting or nature preserve than by a working rancher. (From the Glenn Biggs Collection,

Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas)

<<< CHAPTER II CONTENTS CHAPTER IV >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi3b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:24 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

The Congressional Hearings, 1965

Anticipating the scheduling of the Congressional committee hearings, supporters of the Texas park once again began

preparing testimony and recruiting witnesses. They asked Hunter to prepare justifications for the price of his property

and the profit he would make. They also asked him to explain the commission Biggs would receive. Hunter outlined

the answers to those questions in a letter to Jim Bowmer, an attorney in Temple, Texas, who was a park supporter. He

justified the $20.84 per acre offering price on the basis of the commercial, speculative, and recreational values of the

ranch lands. He believed that the appraisers for the federal government and the appraisers he employed would have no

problem agreeing on a fair market value for the ranch. As for justifying the profit he would receive, Hunter believed

that the best route would be to calculate how much he might have received on the money if he had invested it in

something other than the ranch. He agreed with those who were anticipating the questions of the committeemen

regarding Biggs's commission: it was a matter to be dealt with head-on and matter-of-factly. Biggs would receive five

percent of the sales price of the ranch for the services he had rendered to Hunter. [22]

By June 1965 the hearings still had not been scheduled. On June 9, a group of politically powerful Texans and New

Mexicans met in El Paso to make plans to get the hearing process moving. After the meeting, Tom Diamond, chairman

of the El Paso County Democratic Party, wrote letters to all of his connections in Washington, D.C. Apparently his

promptings worked. The hearing before the House Subcommittee was set for July 20; the Senate Subcommittee hearing

would be July 21. Biggs then began the feverish work of soliciting more witnesses, making travel and room

arrangements for those who agreed to go, and briefing the witnesses on protocol and points of emphasis. [23]

Stanley Cain, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, prepared reports on the proposed park for each of the committees. The

reports made some recommendations for changes to the bills, primarily in the area of mineral rights acquisition. Cain

made it clear that the Department wanted "unconditional authority to acquire the mineral estate in order that it may

prevent any mineral development that would conflict with the public enjoyment of the park." He also pointed out that

the speculative nature of the existing oil and gas leases on the Hunter property might make it desirable to wait until

speculation decreased to acquire the mineral rights. [24] Cain also suggested eliminating survey ambiguities by

replacing the metes and bounds description of the bill with a map on which the boundaries had been drawn. The map

he proposed added 240 acres to protect the area at Pine Springs, which contained the ruins of the Butterfield stagestop,

and two sections on the western boundary of the park, which would be acquired by exchange. Finally, Cain's report

deleted the section of the bill that called for the construction of an access road from Highway 62/180 to the park

boundary. If such a road were needed, the Department believed it should be constructed by the State of Texas under

the federal-aid highway system. [25]

More than fifteen persons from Texas went to Washington to support the Guadalupe Mountains National Park bill in

the committee hearings. Among those attending were Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; Jim

Bowmer, attorney and close friend of Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas; C.W. Brown, Texas

Democratic committeeman; E.W. Cook, county judge of Winkler County; Mrs. L. E. Dudley, representative for the

Texas Federation of Women's Clubs and a member of the State Historic Survey Committee; Beeman Fisher, president

of Texas Electric Service Company and president of the Permian Basin Chamber of Commerce; Henry Hutson, mayor

of Carlsbad; Dr. Rupert N. Richardson, president emeritus of Hardin-Simmons University; John Ben Shepperd,

president of the State Historic Survey Committee; and Glenn Biggs. [26]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:24 PM]

On July 20 the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs conducted the first of its hearings. Most of the discussion focused on the value of the mineral rights to the

proposed park lands. Although Interior Secretary Udall spoke in strong support of the park proposal, he apparently was

unaware of the report prepared by Assistant Secretary Cain. Udall admitted that he did not know about the State of

Texas's mineral rights to more than 45,000 acres of Hunter's land until the day of the hearing. He suggested that park

proponents and Interior officials should meet to resolve the issue. [27]

Wallace Pratt spoke to the House Subcommittee regarding the value of the minerals on Hunter's land. He argued

logically that J. C. Hunter, a prominent oilman, would never have considered selling his ranch if he believed valuable

oil reserves existed there. Pratt also cited the negative results of test wells drilled in the area. His professional opinion

was that there was little chance finding oil or other valuable minerals on the property. [28] No record exists to show

why Pratt altered the position he had taken two years earlier when he encouraged Hunter to retain part of his mineral

rights. Perhaps, after recognizing the major stumbling block acquisition of mineral rights posed to establishment of the

park, he decided the park should not be traded off for the slim chance that valuable oil or gas reserves existed beneath

the park lands.

Other witnesses spoke in opposition to the relinquishment of mineral rights. H. H. Markley and Tom Sealy,

representing Texaco, Inc., holder of the mineral rights to more than 25,000 acres of Hunter's land, presented the other

side of the mineral question to the House subcommittee. They pointed to the incomplete exploration of oil resources in

the proposed park area and the proximity of the area to major oil and gas reserves. They also brought up the highly

charged issue of school children being denied their rightful share of the leases, royalties, and bonuses that might be

derived from oil production on the sections designated as public school lands. Congressman Richard White, the

sponsor of the park bill, showed his divided allegiance during the hearing. Although he favored the park, he did not

support the State of Texas relinquishing its mineral rights. He brought up Padre Island, Mount McKinley, and the

Florida Everglades as exceptions to the policy of no mineral development in national parks. Committee Chairman

Wayne Aspinall argued that those exceptions were made under different conditions. White was optimistic, however,

that a compromise could be reached that would satisfy the Interior Department as well as his Texas constituents. [29]

The House hearing closed at the end of testimony on July 20, to be reopened in February 1966, after committee

members inspected the park site.

The Senate Subcommittee hearing on July 21 was abbreviated. Conflicts on the committee's agenda made it impossible

to do more than accept prepared statements from the Texas witnesses who had traveled to Washington that week.

Although the postponement might merely have been accidental, in view of the questions raised during the hearing on

the previous day, the postponement may also have been an indication of the unwillingness of the senators to listen to

any more poorly prepared testimony.

The Kelly Report

After the close of the July hearings, Secretary Udall, no doubt embarrassed by his incomplete understanding of the

Guadalupe park proposal, asked John Kelly, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior from Roswell, New Mexico, to

compile a report on the mineral potential of the Guadalupe Mountains. Although Kelly apparently reported orally to

Udall, [30] his written report did not appear until late in March 1966, after the House Subcommittee hearings were

closed. Kelly based his report on other available reports, well logs, and on consultation with officials of the Geological

Survey, the Park Service, the State of Texas, and other organizations concerned with the area. Some observers

expected Kelly's report to neatly resolve the mineral rights issue. The report, however, contained little information that

had not been stated in other area surveys. Kelly briefly described the geology of the area and considered the potentials

for development of oil and gas, ground water, saline minerals, construction materials, lime, and copper. He concluded

that, other than water and construction materials, there were no valuable mineral deposits in the proposed park lands.

[31]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi4b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:24 PM]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:25 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

(continued)

Acquisition of Smaller Tracts within the Park Boundaries

After the Hunter acquisition was complete, eight landowners held a total of 4,574 acres within the park boundaries.

The hopes of Kornelis and Cameron for a quick and easy exchange for equal amounts of land outside the park

boundaries were not fulfilled. Although three landowners were offered a land exchange, only one accepted.

As early as January 1964, the Park Service had begun inquiring about the small landowners involved in the proposed

park. In response to a request from Robert Barrel of the Southwest Regional Office, Glenn Biggs outlined the situation

with six of the landowners, using information provided by Noel Kincaid:

1. The Ed Hammack property, Sections 7 and 17, Public School Land (PSL) Block 121, contained three wells, the only

water source for Hammack's ranching operation. Biggs recommended that these sections not be included in the

proposed park.

2. The F. G. Barrett property, the east half of Section 6, Block 65, Township 1, Culberson County was leased to Walter

Glover. It contained a water source that provided water to other sections leased or owned by Glover.

3. The Walter Glover property, approximately 86 acres, located in the northeast corner of Section 44, Block 65,

Township 1, Culberson County contained two wells, which provided water for domestic as well as livestock use. The

property also contained parts of the Butterfield stage station, which once stood at Pine Springs; the Glovers' residence;

and a combination country store and cafe that they had operated since 1928.

4. The Southwest National Bank Trust of El Paso owned Section 21, Block 121, PSL, Culberson County. Biggs

suggested a trade might be made for land in either of two nearby sections that were adjacent to other property owned

by the Trust.

5. The Six-Bar Ranch owned Sections 11, 14, and 23 in PSL Block 121. A contract existed between J. C. Hunter, Jr.,

and the Six-Bar Ranch stating that at the conclusion of existing oil and gas leases, the Six Bar would exchange its

sections for Sections 32, 42, and 44, Block 65, Township 2, Culberson County, which Hunter owned.

6. Biggs reported that one other half-section remained in private hands, the east half of Section 5, PSL Block 121. He

said J. F. Walcott and Misses Pearl and Joe Cole owned the land. Because the tract was unfenced and Hunter had used

a large portion of it for many years, Biggs expected a trade would be acceptable. [11]

In May 1964, Norman B. Herkenham, Regional Chief of National Park Systems Studies, visited some of the

landowners Biggs had identified. In a memorandum written after his visit, Herkenham stated: "For the record, although

it hardly requires emphasis, this visit was much overdue, and there has been considerable time for misapprehension

and suspicion to breed in the minds of the people concerned." [12]

Herkenham found the land situation to be as Biggs had represented it. He was so impressed with the adamancy of the

Hammacks' and the Glovers' refusals to sell their property that he recommended those sections be deleted from the

park proposal. He felt the landowners' response stemmed partly from a general attitude that "if it helps Hunter in any
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:25 PM]

way, we are against it," but he also felt that contacts made by Biggs and Kincaid with the Hammacks and Glovers had

exacerbated the situation. In his trip report Herkenham wrote, "The principal hostility of the local people seems to be

directed chiefly toward Mr. Glenn Biggs. . . . Mr. Biggs has made himself extremely unpopular through his aggressive

dealings and attempts to option the property of the smaller landowners, both in the past and now, in connection with

the park proposal." Herkenham doubted whether Hunter was aware of all of the actions of his representatives. [13]

Herkenham did not meet with F. G. Barrett, but the Glovers told him that Barrett's attitude would be similar to theirs.

Herkenham realized that the Glovers probably had more interest in Barrett's land than Barrett did, since they leased the

property. Because the scenic value of Barrett's half-section was important, Herkenham was reluctant to suggest that it

be excluded from the park. [14]

Joseph F. Irwin of the Southwest National Bank Trust in El Paso represented the individuals who owned Section 21,

PSL Block 121. He told Herkenham that the investors were already aware of the effect of the proposed park on their

property. Irwin indicated that he knew of no overt resistance to including the section of land in the park, but the

owners clearly expected any transfer of property to be financially advantageous to them. He thought an exchange

might be possible. [15]

Herkenham did not contact representatives of either the Walcott/Cole or the Six-Bar Ranch interests during his visit.

He reported, however, that he expected no problem with the acquisition of either tract. The agreement between Hunter

and the Six- Bar Ranch would accomplish what the Park Service needed, and Herkenham believed an exchange with

the Walcott/Cole interest would be "no serious problem." [16]

In 1970, when officials of the Park Service began full negotiations with the small landowners, the exchanges that had

been anticipated were, in most cases, refused. The Federal Government was forced to purchase the Cole tract ($6,404),

the Southwest National Bank Trust tract ($12,000), and the Barrett tract ($10,206). The exchange with the Six-Bar

Ranch took place as planned, but the federal government paid an additional $5,400 to the Six-Bar to equalize land

values. A quarter-section tract (Section 45, Block 65, Township 1, Culberson County) belonging to the Texas Pacific

Land Trust, which neither Biggs nor Herkenham had mentioned, was exchanged for three-eighths of Section 30,

Township 2, Block 65, Culberson County, but the Texas Pacific Land Trust retained a 60-foot right-of-way easement

across their original section. [17]

The Hammack Exclusion and Easement

Early in 1964, Ona and Ed Hammack learned from Biggs and Kincaid that two sections of their ranch had been

included in the proposed park. Biggs and Kincaid agreed that the land had no scenic value and was essential to the

Hammack's ranching operation because it contained their primary water source. Acting on the advice of Biggs, the

Hammacks wrote to Senator Yarborough to ask that their land be excluded from the park. They said that depriving

them of the use of Section 17 would destroy their ranching operation. [18]

After hearing from the Hammacks, Yarborough expressed to the Park Service his concern for his constituents.

Herkenham met with the Hammacks during his trip to Texas in May 1964 and discussed possible alternatives with

them, including acquisition by the Federal Government that left water rights and life tenancy with them, or exchange

for sections outside the park. Since neither possibility appealed to the Hammacks, Herkenham and Daniel Beard,

Regional Director of the Southwest Region, concurred in recommending to Park Service Director George Hartzog, Jr.,

that Sections 7 and 17 be excluded from the park proposal. [19]

In June 1964, the Acting Assistant Director of the Park Service, C. Gordon Fredine, wrote to Senator Yarborough,

reiterating the field assessments that found the Hammack property not essential to the development of the park and

assuring Yarborough that the Hammack's property would not be acquired without their permission. Fredine hoped that

this promise would remove the Hammack's objections to the park. [20]

Nearly two years later, in spite of recommendations and promises, the question of how the Hammack land would be

handled was still not settled. In February 1966 Senator Yarborough discussed the situation with Park Service Director

Hartzog. In a letter to confirm the points made during their conversation, Hartzog listed the sequence of acquisition
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:25 PM]

procedures which would be utilized for the park lands, including the Hammacks': (1) purchase based on fair market

values; (2) less than fee interest, such as a scenic easement, if such an interest met the needs of the park; (3) purchase

with reserved use and occupancy by the owner for a specified period; and (4) acquisition by right of eminent domain.

Hartzog emphasized that condemnation would only be used as a last resort. [21]

Both the House and the Senate subcommittees amended the park legislation to allow for omission of the Hammack

sections from the park. Instead of the federal government having a fee interest in the Hammack's land, the legislation

allowed a scenic easement, committing the Hammacks and successive owners to obtaining Park Service approval for

any construction on Sections 7 and 17. [22]

Late in November 1967, after the major mineral rights donations were complete, the Park Service began final

negotiations with the Hammacks to acquire the scenic easement that park legislation allowed. On June 14, 1968, for the

sum of one dollar, the Hammacks conveyed a perpetual scenic easement, following the language of the legislation, to

the federal government. The final clause of the easement granted the Secretary of the Interior or his representative the

authority to allow deviations from the covenant as long as the deviations did not interfere with the purposes of the

easement. [23]

The Hammacks accepted the easement for a number of years, but in 1976 they asked for a concession to allow

construction on one of the sections. The Park Service approved their plans. In 1978, aware of the fact that Ed

Hammack had a terminal illness and that both of the Hammacks were concerned that the easement clouded the title to

their property, Donald Dayton, the Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, asked the Regional

Director to consider removing the easement restrictions entirely. Dayton recommended the removal for two reasons: 1)

the easement had been unnecessary in the first place, and 2) it would be a good public relations move. [24] However,

when the Solicitor General determined that legislation would be necessary to remove the restrictions, the subject was

dropped. [25] Ona Hammack died on May 31, 1984, and Ed Hammack died March 26, 1985. Since the deaths of the

Hammacks, the heirs have expressed no concern about the easement restrictions. [26]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi5b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:26 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VI: PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S (continued)

Master Planning Process (continued)

Master Plan

Figure 16 shows the major components of the plan that was approved in 1976 for development of the park. The

primary visitor center for the park, located at Pine Springs, would provide parking, food service, restrooms,

interpretation, and orientation. Pine Springs also would be the lower terminus for the tramway to Guadalupe Peak. The

upper terminus, just below the summit, would have a shelter, orientation devices, and a staffed contact station. From

Guadalupe Peak visitors would have spectacular views of the high country, the salt flats, and the desert. During the

ride to the summit, visitors would learn of the geological significance of the fossil reef and the various biological life

zones represented in the park. From Guadalupe Peak, visitors who wished to do so could enter the wilderness area.

[10]

Figure 15. The areas recommended for wilderness designation. Cross-hatched areas were

added after public input during the review process.

The west side of the park would be developed for low-density use. Cooperation with the Texas highway department
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:26 PM]

would be necessary to provide an access road to this part of the park. Visitor access would be controlled, entrance fees

collected, and information services provided from an entrance station on the west side. A park road, traversing part of

the length of the west side of the park, would connect on the western boundary with a county road leading to Dell City.

Near this junction, a primitive campground and parking area would be located. A spur road would lead from the park

road to Williams Ranch. [11]

Access to the parking area at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon would be by road and private automobile. Guided foot

trips into the canyon, lasting approximately three hours, would interpret geology and the riparian and aquatic

communities. An interpretive center would provide information about the canyon for visitors who do not take the tour.

[12]

The high country would be reserved for wilderness-type experiences. Hikers would have access to the high country

from three main trailheads: the main trail, originating near Frijole and leading up Pine Springs Canyon; a secondary

trail originating in the northwest corner of the park; and, another secondary trail beginning in Dog Canyon, with a

primitive campground at the trailhead. The trail system would connect with a ridge trail following the McKittrick

Canyon divide. Development of the Dog Canyon trail and campground would depend upon the county providing an

access road to the area. [13]

The planners recognized the need for camping facilities for park visitors. While providing for a temporary campground

at Pine Springs Canyon, the planners expected that private enterprise would develop permanent campgrounds near the

park. The plan provided, however, that if such developments did not occur within five years after approval of the

Master Plan, the Park Service would construct campgrounds within the park. [14]

The Master Plan proposed various forms of management for the resources of the park. Geologic features would be

preserved by prohibiting destructive or obstructive development. Flora and fauna would be actively protected by

neutralizing the influence of humans. Water for human use would be obtained only where its extraction would not be

detrimental to the park. Visitation to McKittrick Canyon would be controlled and horse use prohibited in the lower

canyon. Use of the Bowl would be concentrated on the edge of the relict forest, which would be interpreted for visitors

as a "museum object" and for scientists as a "laboratory" for approved research. In the primitive areas, day use would

predominate; overnight horse trips would be prohibited. The trail system would be designed to avoid fragile areas.

Historic resources already identified, including Williams Ranch, Frijole Ranch, and the Pinery Stage Station would be

preserved; other historic and archeological sites would be preserved until fully evaluated. The plan also classified the

park lands into five categories to aid management decisions: developed areas, buffer areas, research (delicate) areas,

primitive land, and historic and cultural sites. [15]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi6b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:26 PM]

Figure 16. The general plan for development of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, as set forth in the Master Plan

approved in 1976.

The Master Plan set forth the administrative facilities necessary for the operation of the park. It provided for residences

and maintenance facilities at Pine Springs; a contact station, maintenance facility, and residence on the west side; and

a ranger station at Dog Canyon. To provide access to McKittrick Canyon, an exchange of right-of-way would be

required. [16]

Finally, the Master Plan outlined management objectives for visitor use and resource management. The planners

desired that all visitors be able to see the park from the high country as well as from below and that the modes of

access to these points be within the physical and financial capabilities of the majority of visitors. Interpretation would

focus on geology, the unique ecosystems found in the park, and the historic resources. Development in fragile areas

would not take place until research was completed showing there would be no adverse effects on the natural resources

located there. The water needs of native plants and animals would be met before human uses were developed. Fire

would be utilized as a management tool. [17]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi6b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:28 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VII: PLANNING IN THE 1980S (continued)

Resources Management Planning--1980s (continued)

Cultural Resources Management Program

The Cultural Resources Management Plan also was a major addition to the Resources Management Plan approved in

1984. By that time, surveys of the archeological resources of most of the park were complete. The archeological

surveys conducted in 1970, 1973, and 1976 identified seven periods of cultural history in the park, beginning around

8,000 B.C., but archeologists found no permanent prehistoric settlements. Researchers found archeological sites

associated with every road and trail in the park, as well as in less-accessible locations. Twenty-nine of the 299

archeological sites that had been identified during the surveys were considered eligible for nomination to the National

Register of Historic Places. Artifacts most commonly found in the park included projectile points, stone tools, and

pottery sherds. Although the surveys established a baseline for management of the archeological resources of the park,

planners noted that site excavations were still needed. [22]

The inventory of historic resources of the park also had been completed and actions to protect the most significant

structures had either been completed or were in process. The Pratt Stone Cabin and the Pinery Stage Station already

had been accepted for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but park managers still awaited decisions

about listings of the Pratt "Ship on the Desert" Residence and the Emigrant Trail. A listing of classified structures

within the park included those associated with the resources eligible for listing in the National Register as well as those

associated with the Williams Ranch. Researchers classified other historic structures in the park as "discovery" sites that

would be allowed to molder away naturally. [23]

The management plan contained a priority listing of projects related to the cultural resources of the park. The first five

priorities were: compilation of cultural resource data, establishment of a professionally curated museum collection,

archeological reassessments of high impact areas, preparation of Historic Structure Reports for the classified structures,

and preparation of Historic Structure Preservation Guides for the classified structures. [24]

Fire Management Plan

Approval came in 1985 for the park's first comprehensive plan for fire management. Until approval of this plan all fires

occurring in the park had been suppressed. Under the provisions of the management plan, naturally occurring fires

would be allowed to burn without suppression unless they threatened park facilities, visitor safety, major resources, or

park boundaries. Human-caused fires occurring during the natural fire season also would be permitted to burn within

the above conditions. The plan proposed to continue research concerning prescribed burning as a management tool.

[25]

Resources Management Plan Revisions, 1987

During 1987 park managers revised the Resources Management Plan. Priorities for management of cultural resources

remained unchanged from those established in 1984. However, while some of the natural resource issues that were

important in 1984 continued to be top priority items in 1987, some new issues dominated the list. In order of

importance, the priorities established in 1987 were: fencing of the park boundary; implementing a prescribed burning
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:28 PM]

program; funding of and equipment support for a new resource management position; implementing the earlier

recommendations for backcountry management, such as hardening of campsites, removal of fences, and establishment

of monitoring transects; and monitoring of predator populations in both Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns.

[26]

Except for new priorities, the Resources Management Plan recommended in 1987 was little changed from the version

written five years earlier. The list of endangered species found in the park contained a new addition: a hedgehog cactus

found at lower elevations on the west side of the park, Echinocereus lloydii. A new emphasis of the plan was the need

to construct or replace fences around the 63.25-mile boundary of the park. Only 18.25 miles of existing fence were

adequate, 22.75 miles were unfenced, 8.0 miles of existing fence was in bad repair, and 14.5 miles of the boundary was

fenced by old drift fences, which were not on park property. Trespass grazing by cattle and horses was a continuing

problem between the Big Canyon and Bell Canyon drainages below the eastern escarpment as well as in the

Guadalupe Canyon area, where boundary fencing in the area of Middle and Lower Guadalupe Springs was either

nonexistent or in poor repair. [27]

Another new natural resource project recommended in the revised plan was monitoring and eradicating exotic plants

growing within the park. While only a few plants of salt cedar (Tamarisk sp.) were found in the park, it was identified

as an exotic species to be eradicated before it became well established. Salt cedar threatened the water resources of the

park; plants growing near springs or in low places would dry up water sources with low flow rates. [28]

By 1987, completion of an extensive study of the mountain lion population in Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad

Caverns National Parks allowed resource managers to revise some of the natural resource priorities established in

1982. In 1986 resource managers completed a plan for management of the mountain lion population in the two parks.

The plan was based on the results of a three-year study, begun in 1982, to document the number, range, and feeding

habits of mountain lions in the parks. The study included monitoring of a number of radio-collared lions to determine

movement and dispersal of the animals, and scat analysis to determine food habits. The plan proposed four actions: (1)

maintenance of existing protection of mountain lions within the two parks, (2) continuation of monitoring of mountain

lion populations, (3) establishment of a program to monitor deer and elk populations, and (4) development of an interagency mountain lion task force. [29]

While the mountain lion issue was under better control, park planners recognized a new wildlife concern. Between July

1985 and June 1986, four black bears had been killed immediately outside the northern boundaries of the park,

apparently the victims of the ongoing predator control program supervised by the New Mexico Department of Game

and Fish. In January 1987, the Texas Park and Wildlife Department placed the black bear on its state list of

endangered and threatened species. Concerned that the black bear issue could become as sensitive as the mountain lion

issue, park planners recommended the initiation of a monitoring program for the bears so that park officials could

make well-informed responses to expressions of public concern. The planners also suggested positive action on the

part of the park service that might foster better inter-agency cooperation in management of the bear population. [30]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi7b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VIII: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK (continued)

Dog Canyon

From the time of the establishment of the park, road access to Upper Dog Canyon was a problem for park managers

and for the rangers assigned to duty at the Dog Canyon station. Although Dog Canyon is only some 15 miles north of

Pine Springs, by road the distance from Pine Springs to Dog Canyon is approximately 120 miles. In 1972, persons

traveling by vehicle to Dog Canyon followed New Mexico State Road 137 to El Paso Gap, then took Eddy County

Road 414 to the Hughes Ranch, about one and one-half miles north of the park boundary. Until 1975, the Hughes

permitted vehicles to travel the one and one-half miles to the park on a ranch road, the condition of which often

required a four-wheel-drive vehicle to negotiate.In 1975, because increased traffic to the park infringed upon the

Hughes's privacy and the safety of their livestock, they closed the ranch road to all but park personnel.

Figure 24. In 1978, after completion of the new access road to McKittrick Canyon, park

managers moved a camping trailer to the Canyon to be used as a visitor contact station until

a permanent facility was constructed. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

Figure 25. The permanent visitor contact station in McKittrick Canyon, completed late in

1982. Numerous problems plagued construction of this facility and delayed its completion

by nearly two years. The contact station includes office and information space, restrooms, a

patio area with exhibits, and an automatic audio-visual program with recorded narration by

Wallace E. Pratt, donor of much of the land in McKittrick Canyon. (NPS Photo)

Historically, another road, generally parallel to but about half a mile east of the one through the Hughes ranch,

provided access to Dog Canyon. This road, across the Magby ranch, was the route the Kincaids first used when they

lived at Dog Canyon. Apparently established in the early part of the century, the road was maintained by the county on

an irregular basis. In 1964, Laurie Kincaid, with the oral consent of the elderly Lee Magby, who lived on the family

ranch, convinced the Eddy County commissioners to improve the county road to the state line. The road crew

completed upgrading the road to the Magby ranch house. When they were about half the distance from the house to

the state line, one of Magby's sons, who had obtained power of attorney for his father, obstructed any further

improvement of the road. The Magbys refused to allow the Kincaids to use the road any longer, so the Kincaids

resorted to traveling across the Hughes ranch instead. [16]

While it was necessary to obtain passage of federal legislation to acquire the right-of-way for an access road to

McKittrick Canyon, Park Service officials believed the situation surrounding access to Dog Canyon was quite different

and could be resolved without the federal government acquiring more land. As early as 1972 officials of the Park

Service began negotiating with Eddy County and with the Hughes and Magbys for an access road to the park.

Although county officials indicated a willingness to construct a high-standard road to the state line, the estimated cost

to acquire the right-of-way, to meet the demands of the ranchers regarding fencing and underpasses, and to construct

the road was approximately $100,000, an amount the county officials considered excessive. [17]

In 1973 Park Service officials sought the cooperation of the State of New Mexico to resolve the problem of public

access to the northern part of the park. At that time, David King, planning officer for the state, said he would try to

obtain state assistance to fence the five and one-half miles of road north of the park boundary. His efforts, however,

were unsuccessful and in 1974 state officials indicated they could do nothing more to remedy the situation until Eddy
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

County acquired right-of-way for a road. [18]

Negotiations in 1975 accomplished nothing. Hughes demanded a financial consideration in addition to fencing and

underpasses, and Magby increased his price for the right-of-way. At this point Hughes closed the road across his ranch

to all but Park Service vehicles. In 1976 Superintendent Dayton sought the help and advice of the field solicitor, Gayle

Manges, in reaching a solution to the problem of a road to Dog Canyon. He asked Manges to investigate reopening the

Magby road, based on historical evidence that the road was a public road, or, alternatively, reopening the Hughes road,

based on the fact that it became a public road after 1964. Soon after receiving Dayton's request, Manges asked the U.S.

Attorney General for the District of New Mexico to initiate action to reopen the road through the Magby ranch. No

immediate action resulted, but in February 1977 Dayton consulted with Mike McCormick, the district attorney in

Carlsbad, and obtained help that ultimately resolved the situation. [19]

For reasons that are not clear, but which may have been related to the adverse publicity generated by the condemnation

proceedings undertaken by the government to acquire the Glover property for the park, Eddy County commissioners

resisted the idea of bringing suit against the Magbys and Hughes. However, when Tom Rutledge, assistant to

McCormick, approached the commissioners and recommended pressing suit to reopen both roads, they agreed to

negotiate again with the two families.

As a result of the negotiations, Rutledge and attorney Harvey Fort, who represented Hughes and Magby, achieved a

compromise acceptable to county officials, the ranchers, and park officials. Each rancher received $12,000 for a rightof-way three miles long and 60 feet wide, which ran along the fence line separating the two ranches. The county

agreed to install sheep fence on both sides of the right-of-way, to install a cattle guard at the beginning of the new

road, and to build two underpasses large enough for a horse and rider to pass through. The road would follow the fence

line to the southwest corner of the Magby property, then veer southwest to the state line. The agreement included

abandonment of the existing road to the Magby house and the construction, by Magby, of a new road to connect with

the county-maintained road. The ranchers retained the mineral rights to the right-of-way. [20]

Although the legal problems had been resolved, construction did not begin immediately. Costs for construction of the

road were to be shared equally by the state and the county. Since the state eventually would be responsible for

maintaining the road, it had to meet their design standards. Problems related to design delayed construction for more

than 18 months. At one point, in an effort to eliminate costly elevated crossings at washes, the county went back to the

ranchers to seek a different route for the right-of-way. After meeting stout refusals to renegotiate, state highway

officials agreed to allow several low-water crossings in the road. By that time, late 1978, park managers wanted to

begin drilling a well at Dog Canyon, but no road existed over which a drilling rig could be moved. Dayton devised a

creative solution to the problem. He engaged a U.S. Army Reserve engineering unit scheduled for a training session to

use their equipment to bulldoze a one-lane route, 10 feet wide, over the county's right-of-way. The county agreed to

provide a grader and crew to "finish" the primitive road, which would be used by administrative and contractor

vehicles. Eighteen months later, in May 1980, the county completed construction of the permanent access road. Further

improvement of the road to Dog Canyon occurred in 1984 and in 1986. In 1987 the state accepted transfer of the Eddy

County portion of the road and redesignated the route as part of New Mexico State Road 137. Only four miles of the

road, between the western boundary of the Lincoln National Forest and El Paso Gap, New Mexico, remained unpaved.

[21]

In 1979, day laborers, using rented equipment, built the road from the park boundary to the ranger station in Dog

Canyon. At the same time, park personnel built the permanent campground at Dog Canyon, which was ready for use

when the county road opened. The campground, built on the same site as the temporary campground, contained

chemical toilets, five parking spaces for recreational vehicles, and 15 walk-in tent sites equipped with tables, charcoal

fire grills, and trash receptacles. Until 1982, campers arriving at the park by vehicle had to bring their own water, but

the ranger provided water for backpackers hiking into the campground from Pine Springs or McKittrick Canyon. In

1982 contractors built a modern comfort station and brought water lines to the campground. In 1985 the graveled

parking area for recreational vehicles was extended 60 feet, and in 1986 park personnel installed a sink and light

behind the comfort station for the convenience of campers. [22]

While working to find a resolution to the problem of access to Dog Canyon, park managers also began searching for a
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

water source for a permanent ranger station and residence in Upper Dog Canyon. The rangers who lived in the old

Kincaid house (see Figure 26) from 1971 to 1975 hauled water for domestic use from a well 15 miles away. Drilling

efforts in 1973, 1974, and 1975 all failed to produce a good well. In 1975 workers cleaned out the spring above the

ranch house to provide a temporary on-site water source for the ranger. The next year a mile-long pipeline was laid

between the spring and the house and two water storage tanks were installed. In 1977, a chlorinator and cover for the

spring were added to the water system. [23]

Management refused, however, to give up the idea of a well. The spring system was less than satisfactory for the

development of a residential area meeting Park Service standards provided only emergency water for visitors. In 1978

Congress funded the construction of the new facilities for Dog Canyon, and Garland Moore, the hydrologist who

successfully located the well at Pine Springs, took on the job of trying one more time to locate a well site at Dog

Canyon. Roger Reisch, remembering Moore's work in the park, recalled that "he got us water everywhere he looked!"

In 1979 park managers awarded a contract for $129,546 to Perry Brothers Drilling Company of Flagstaff, Arizona, and

Dell City, Texas, to drill the well at Dog Canyon. By the end of 1980, after innumerable problems, creating delays that

extended the work over more than a year, and increasing the cost of the project by $30,000, a well, drilled to 3,000

feet, pumped water of acceptable quality at a rate of 12 gallons per minute. Late in 1981 the pumphouse was

constructed and plumbing work was completed. A 10,000-gallon reconditioned water storage tank, another salvage

item from the former FAA station at Salt Flat, was the reservoir for the new water system. In 1985 park personnel

removed the spring box and returned Upper Dog Canyon Spring to its natural state. [24]

Figure 26. An existing ranch house and a trailer moved to the site by the Park Service

served as ranger housing at Dog Canyon during the first decade of park operation. (NPS

Photo)

The contract for construction at Dog Canyon was one of three tied up in negotiations with the Small Business

Administration during 1979 and 1980. In October 1980 the Small Business Administration designated J. T.

Construction Company from El Paso to receive the $334,213 contract. The contract included construction of the ranger
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

station, residence, barn, corral, comfort station, and utilities at Dog Canyon. [25]

The Environmental Assessment for the Dog Canyon Development Concept Plan offered four alternative arrangements

for the campground and residential area. Management adopted the alternative in which the ranger's residence and a

separate contact station were nearest the entrance to the park, west of the entrance road (see Figures 27 and 28). The

barn and corrals for Park Service livestock and the corrals for visitors' horses were farther south on the entrance road,

near the trailhead on the west side of the road. Existing stock sheds and corrals were removed and an earthen stock

tank was filled and graded to match the natural contour of the land. A ribbon-cutting for the new facilities and a

barbecue to celebrate their opening took place in May 1982. [26]

Funding granted in 1978 only allowed for construction of one house. After 1979 a trailer, moved from Signal Peak,

served as a patrol bunkhouse and quarters for seasonal workers; in 1983 two additional mobile homes were moved

from Signal Peak to Dog Canyon to be used as housing for seasonal rangers and workers. Located near the old ranch

house, the mobile homes were out of sight of the campground and trailhead but were still located in a flood plain. In

1983 a new sewage disposal system was added to serve the ranch house and the two mobile homes. One of the mobile

homes was later relocated out of the flood plain and near the new ranger residence. Managers disposed of the other

mobile home, which was no longer safe for use. In 1987, park managers agreed that besides the visitor center at Pine

Springs, an additional residence at Dog Canyon was the only planned residential facility that the park still needed. [27]

Figure 27. The new residence for the Dog Canyon ranger, completed in 1982. Planners

located the house near the park entrance, on the west side of the road, a short distance from

the campground area. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:29 PM]

Figure 28. The visitor contact station at Dog Canyon, completed in 1982. The contact station

is near the ranger residence, which is visible at far right in the photograph. The contact

station is across the entrance road from the campground. (NPS Photo)

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi8b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:31 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IX: NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Backcountry Use

At Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the term backcountry refers to virtually all of the park, the primary exceptions

being the developed areas around Pine Springs and the Frijole ranch site. In accordance with wilderness designation

and existing management plans, the uses of the backcountry were limited to hiking, backpacking, horseback riding,

and research conducted by approved individuals, organizations, or institutions. The primary concern of resource

managers has been channeling visitor use and mitigating the effects of that use on the natural resources of the park.

The hierarchy of personnel established to manage the backcountry included the area manager; a chief ranger; two

district rangers, one for the Frijole district, and one for the Dog Canyon district; and one resource management

specialist. In 1987 the staff of the Frijole district included two other permanent rangers and both districts added

seasonal help during spring and summer. A two-person roads-and-trails crew, also augmented with seasonal

employees, performed maintenance on the trails in the park. [11]

Until 1978 visitors used trails that were vestiges of the ranching era and existed when the park was established.

However, by 1984, the managers of Guadalupe Mountains could boast of having one of the few professionally

designed and constructed trail systems in the Park Service (see Chapters VI and VIII). In 1987, only the final phase of

trail-building remained unfinished, the phase that would connect the already established primary routes, delete

unmaintainable or unnecessary trails, and complete hardening of the backcountry campsites.

The planners designed the trails to have the least possible impact on the natural resources of the park while providing

interesting and challenging hikes for backcountry visitors. Though well-planned and well-built, the new trails required

regular maintenance to keep them in optimal condition. As early as 1981, Jack Dollan, one of the trail planners, voiced

his concern that management was not allocating enough money for trail maintenance. He emphasized that in the first

five years after construction trails required extra maintenance until they became hardened. He suggested that five

percent of the capital investment was an adequate amount to budget annually for trail maintenance. In 1981, the park

budget contained $15,000 for trail maintenance; five percent of the capital investment would have been approximately

$75,000. Heavy rains and flash floods also played havoc with the trails and the maintenance budget. The damage

incurred during a deluge in 1984 required emergency funding of $17,000 to repair the backcountry trails. [12]

In April 1983, a group of Sierra Club members from Houston, Texas, and their families worked for a week, providing

extra labor for trail maintenance. This was only one example among many of the benefits of voluntarism to Guadalupe

Mountains National Park in a time of decreased funding to the national parks. [13]

In addition to trails, the backcountry contained designated campgrounds to channel visitor impact on the natural

resources of the park. Park policy limited the number of persons camping at any campground. In 1972 park personnel

marked and signed seven campgrounds. Additional campgrounds established in 1974, 1981, and 1982 brought the total

to ten. Pine Top Campground always received the heaviest use, followed by McKittrick Ridge Campground. Since the

establishment of the park, park managers have used monitoring systems to keep track of campground and trail usage.

The checkout system used for backpackers from 1972 to 1974 required only minor revision to conform to the agencywide backcountry permit system adopted in 1975. Beginning in 1976, trail registers located at the major trailheads

provided a way to measure trail use. Erosion transects, read on a regular basis, provided one other means of measuring

the impact of visitor use on the backcountry. [14]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:31 PM]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi9b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Adaptive Use of Historic Resources

Resources managers have overseen the modifications needed to adapt two of the historic resources of the park--the

ranch complex at Frijole Spring and the Ship on the Desert--for use by Park Service personnel and researchers who are

working at the park. While resource managers made certain that the historical integrity of building exteriors was

maintained, modifications to the interiors have made the Frijole buildings and the former Pratt residence into

functional administrative facilities.

Frijole Ranch Facilities

In 1876, near Frijole Spring, the Rader brothers built the front portion of the present ranch house using native stone as

their construction material. The Raders were the earliest cattle ranchers in this area of the southern Guadalupes. In

1906 the Smith family took over the ranch, becoming successful truck farmers as well as cattle ranchers. The Smiths

made numerous additions to the ranch house. In 1910 they added dormers and a gabled roof covered with shake

shingles. Then, around 1925 they built three rooms onto the rear of the house and added some new outbuildings--a

bunkhouse, double toilet, pumphouse, and a wall-- all built of rubble stone masonry (see Figures 36 and 37). During

the same time period the Smiths also constructed a frame spring-house and schoolhouse. While the Smiths lived at

Frijole their home served as a community center and also as the local post office. [24] At the time that the federal

government acquired the property, the Frijole ranch was the headquarters for J.C. Hunter, Jr.'s, Guadalupe Mountains

Ranch. The historical significance of the Frijole ranch complex lies in its representation of early ranching in the

Guadalupes as well as its significance to the community that grew up near Guadalupe Pass. In 1972, when Dave Battle

assessed the Frijole structures, he determined they were eligible for listing in the National Register. Regional historians

prepared and submitted the nomination late in 1977, which was subsequently accepted for listing. [25]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

Figure 36. Walter and Bertha Glover at the Frijole Ranch House, c. 1909. The Glovers were

neighbors of the Smiths, who owned the ranch at that time. The ranch served as the local

post office and rural community center. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

Figure 37. Frijole Ranch House, 1980. Listed in the National Register for its significance as

a remnant of the early ranching economy in the Guadalupes, the Park Service has adapted

the historic structure for administrative use. (NPS Photo)

Park managers immediately recognized the interpretive value of the Frijole ranch and spoke of it in those terms in the

early planning documents. All plans focused, however, on interpretations of the complex as a whole, to be viewed

from outside, rather than restoring the interior of the buildings for any kind of interpretation. These plans, which

persisted to 1987, may have reflected the long-term shortage of administrative facilities at Guadalupe Mountains that

made it almost imperative to adapt the Frijole buildings for administrative use. However, adaptive use also was in line

with the principles of cultural resource management, which encourage use of secondary structures to ensure their

preservation. Park Ranger Roger Reisch lived at the Frijole ranch house from 1969 until 1980; his good nature and

dedication to the park permitted him to accept without complaint a less-than-modern building that had also begun to

deteriorate. [26] During the latter-1970s park personnel made some repairs and changes, primarily cosmetic, to the

Frijole buildings. The ranch house was painted, the chimney was repaired and stabilized, and a new shake roof and

shutters were added. The barn and springhouse were treated with wood preservative, and the springhouse was

replastered. [27]

Between 1983 and 1985, personnel from the Regional Office and the park, assisted by contractors, completed major

rehabilitation and renovation of the ranch house, barn, and other outbuildings, added a new septic system, and

connected the water system for the Frijole complex to the Pine Springs well. In the ranch house, workers installed new

support timbers beneath the floors, insulated the interior walls, reconstructed the dormers, installed storm sashes,

replaced the electrical wiring, rebuilt and remortared portions of the chimney, and stabilized and remortared the

foundation and the southeast exterior wall. The barn renovation included removing and replacing rotten siding,

repairing doors, installing a plywood floor in the hay storage area, rodent-proofing the tack room, improving outside

drainage, and installing new wiring. The double outhouse received a new and stronger roof structure and new roofing

material; the wooden floor was strengthened and covered with tile flooring; interior finishes were restored or replaced

with tile; and doors, toilet, shower, and lavatory fixtures were replaced. Workers replaced the roof and roof structure

on the bunkhouse, replaced doors, reglazed windows, and repaired sashes. The springhouse also received roof work. A
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

temporary drainage system installed around the schoolhouse allowed the wooden siding to dry out after years of

contact with the earth. All utilities were placed underground and old lines were removed, but the posts and poles were

left in place. In October 1983 the Frijole Ranger Division took over the ranch house as its headquarters and work

space. [28]

Ship on the Desert

Regional historians believed that the importance of Wallace Pratt, combined with the style of architecture of the Ship

on the Desert, qualified the structure for listing in the National Register. Architects conceived the building in

International style and designed the former residence of Wallace and Iris Pratt to resemble an oil tanker. Begun in

1941 and completed in 1945, after wartime interruptions, the six-room house is basically a single story with a deck

room on the second story (see Figure 38). The main floor contains six massive transverse walls built of native stone

with structural steel providing the framework for the building (see Figure 39). A two-car garage and guest quarters

form an ell on the northwest end of the house. The Ship was nominated to the National Register in 1978. The Keeper

of the National Register returned the nomination in 1979, reminding the Regional staff of the Park Service that a

structure must be 50 years old to be listed in the National Register. The Pratt residence would not be eligible until

1995. In 1985 Peter Maxon of the Texas Historical Commission spoke with Bill Bushong at the National Register

office, inquiring whether there might be some flexibility about the Ship nomination. Maxon received a negative

response. Subsequently, White Associates, a Lubbock architectural firm, prepared a new nomination, to be retained by

the Regional Office until the appropriate time for submission. At the same time, White Associates developed a cyclical

maintenance plan for the Pratt residence, designed to keep the structure historically accurate and structurally sound

pending listing in the National Register. [29]

Figure 38. The Wallace Pratt residence, the Ship on the Desert. Constructed during the early

1940s, architects designed the house to look like an oil tanker, symbolic of Pratt's career as

a petroleum geologist. The structure will not be of sufficient age to list in the National

Register until 1995. Although it serves as housing for park and research personnel, care has
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

been taken to preserve the architectural integrity of the residence so that it may be listed in

the Register. (NPS Photo)

Figure 39. The Ship on the Desert during construction. The structural steel framework of the

building and massive walls of natural rock are apparent. (NPS Photo)

The Ship has seen nearly as much administrative use as the Frijole ranch house. It served as a residence for Peter

Sanchez from 1962 to 1963, for Roger Reisch from 1964 to 1969, then was the residence for Area Managers John

Chapman, Bruce Fladmark, and Ralph Harris. After Harris moved out, renovations began. Since the house is some

distance off the road to McKittrick Canyon and is unlikely to serve any interpretive purpose for the park in the

foreseeable future, park managers planned to use the Ship as living quarters and work space for groups that were doing

research at the park. In 1983 contractors installed 89 thermal windows. The next year a new pump and well equipment

improved the water system. In 1985 the kitchen was remodeled: workers repainted cabinets and covered red tile walls

and exposed wooden shelves with plastic laminate. In 1986 contractors reroofed the entire structure and supplied

information about periodic maintenance necessary to validate the ten-year guarantee. While park managers originally

intended to replace the flagstone deck that once covered the roof as a part of the re-roofing project, costs prohibited

the restoration. [30]

Barry Sulam, Regional Historical Architect, noted at the end of the roofing project that preparation of a Historic

Structure Report would enhance the chances of listing the Ship in the National Register. He also outlined a number of

tasks that remained to be completed to preserve the "more significant original features" of the Ship. They included:

replacement of the flagstone pavers on the roof deck, replacement of green glass and plexiglass panels with thermal

glass, repair and replacement of exterior doors and hardware, waterproofing of interior masonry walls, rehabilitation of

wooden slat blinds, restoration of interior color schemes and wall coverings, and replacement or repair of lighting

fixtures and door and window hardware. [31]

Managing the Historic Resources
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:32 PM]

The greatest handicap for resource managers as they made decisions relating to the park's historic resources was that a

Historic Structure Report had been prepared for only one structure: the Pinery. Similarly, there were no Historic

Structure Preservation Guides for the classified structures. Without these two documents, resource managers do not

have the baseline information from which management decisions can be made. Management recognized the need for

these documents and made them high-priority items in resource management plans in both 1984 and 1987, but as of

1987 lack of funding had prevented their accomplishment.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi10b.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:34 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION (continued)

Figure 6. View of the Bowl from a high point on the Guadalupe escarpment.

The Bowl contains a relict forest that is one of the park's primary natural

resources. (NPS Photo)
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:34 PM]

Figure 7. Scene in McKittrick Canyon. McKittrick Canyon contains an

oddity in arid West Texas--a perennial stream. The stream is a vestige of a

time when the climate of the area was less dry and may be considered a

museum of unusual aquatic and biotic associations. (NPS Photo)

Figure 8. Williams Ranch (left center), one of the park's cultural resources,

in its isolation at the foot of the western escarpment and El Capitan. The

west side of the park is a favored place for winter and spring visitors for it

remains comfortably warm even when the mountains are blanketed with
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:34 PM]

snow.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi1c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:35 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER II: THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

(continued)

The National Park Service and the Grisham-Hunter Ranch

In January 1934 Toll returned to Texas and toured the proposed park land with J. C. Hunter. Hunter indicated his

interest in creating a park and offered the Grisham-Hunter Corporation's 43,200 acres to the federal government for

$237,600, which was the corporation's cost for acquiring the land. Hunter also indicated that the corporation was not

interested in holding the land indefinitely and that if the Park Service did not buy the land, it would be disposed of in

some other way. He suggested that summer-home sites might be sold to wealthy people, while land unsuited to that

type of development could be held in joint ownership by the residents as a private game preserve. [24]

The Grisham-Hunter corporation did not own all of the land that was proposed for the Guadalupe Mountain park. Toll

learned that "Guadalupe Point" [El Capitan] was owned by J.C. Williams and 200 acres at Frijole Post Office were

owned by J.T. Smith, who valued his land and improvements at $10,000. Wallace Pratt owned the land at the mouth of

McKittrick Canyon and was not interested in selling it. Toll had been advised, by sources he did not reveal, that Pratt

had no interest in the park idea and preferred to see the land used for private summer homes. [25]

In the 1930s the federal government was not in the business of purchasing private property for park lands. National

parks created from private lands had been purchased by philanthropists who then donated them to the national park

system. Toll seemed to be undisturbed by the fact that all of the lands of the proposed Texas park were in private

ownership and that one of the owners was known to be uninterested in selling. Indeed, when he made his

recommendation, he even ignored Cammerer's directive that the Texas park would have to stand on its own. He

suggested that while the Texas land was not suitable as a separate national park, he did believe it would be a valuable

addition to Carlsbad Caverns, even if it had to be administered as a detached unit of that park. [26]

Toll was the first of many to suggest a road connecting the Guadalupe ridge with Carlsbad Caverns. Believing that the

road would provide a scenic and shorter alternative to U.S. 62 for visitors to Carlsbad Cavern, he envisioned a road

taking off from U.S. 62, west of El Capitan, skirting the west face of the mountains, reaching the crest, and then

continuing to the Caverns. To support this suggestion, Toll depended upon Simons' agreement with the Texas highway

commission to build $500,000 worth of roads if the park became a reality. [27]

The Director received more input about the proposed extension to Carlsbad Caverns in April 1934. George Wright and

Ben Thompson visited the area that month, this time as part of a survey of wildlife management in the parks. Wright

wrote the report of their findings. He recommended adding the southern Guadalupes to Carlsbad Caverns National

Park, but cautioned that the eastern boundary of the extension should lie close to the foot of the mountains so it would

not encroach on land used for livestock grazing. He added that McKittrick Canyon was the most scenic of the canyons

on the eastern face of the Guadalupes, providing opportunity for development of hiking and camping features as well

as possibilities for an "unusual wildlife preserve." Finally, Wright recommended that the elk herd introduced into

McKittrick Canyon be "either greatly reduced or extirpated entirely, if this area becomes a national park." Wright

viewed the Canadian elk (cervus canadensis canadensis), which Hunter transplanted to replace the extinct Arizona

Wapiti (cervus merriami), as an exotic species that inhabited the slopes of the canyon nearest the stream bed, and

destroyed "native and extremely picturesque vegetation." [28]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:35 PM]

Cammerer accepted the advice of Toll and Wright. In September 1934 he proposed to Secretary of the Interior Harold

L. Ickes that the area of the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and about 30 square miles of the Lincoln National Forest

in New Mexico be added to Carlsbad Caverns as a detached area. He also suggested that a 1,000-foot-wide parkway

connect the two areas. [29]

In spite of the flurry of reports and reconnaissance trips, the annual reports of the Secretary of the Interior indicate the

seriousness of the interest of the Department of the Interior in the Guadalupe Mountains park. Each year the report

listed areas that were being considered as additions to other parks or as separate parks. The Texas area received no

mention in any of the annual reports from 1934 to 1945. [30]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi2c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:36 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

The House Hearings, 1966

The House Subcommittee hearings reconvened on March 10, 1966, without Kelly's report. Again, the questions

focused on the mineral rights issue. The dilemma of Congressmen Pool and White, created by their support of a park

that required the State of Texas to make what appeared to some to be a considerable financial sacrifice, increased when

Jerry Sadler, commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, stated during the hearing that Texas did not want the

park if it meant giving up the State's mineral rights to the park lands. Sadler proposed the Guadalupe Mountains be

designated a recreation area rather than a national park. Pool, unwilling to make any real commitment, supported

Sadler's recommendation, but said if Texas would donate the mineral rights, he would also be agreeable to national

park status for the area. [32]

Tom Sealy again represented the interests of Texaco at the hearing. Texaco offered to relinquish its mineral

exploration rights to six sections at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon and on Guadalupe Peak until such time as policy

changed to allow mineral development within national park boundaries. [33]

As a result of the lengthy hearing and consultation process, the park bill that finally reached the floor of the House late

in May 1966 carried several important amendments: (1) A scenic easement would be sought for the sections belonging

to Ed Hammack on the west side of the park. (2) The park could be established only after the State of Texas donated

its mineral rights and all other mineral rights had been acquired through purchase or donation. Purchase options or

contracts for surface rights would be contingent upon appropriations until resolution of the mineral rights question. (3)

Former holders of mineral rights would be permitted to regain those rights at cost plus five percent interest per year if

the federal government abandoned the park within 20 years. (4) In the first five years, park acquisition and

development costs would be limited to $12,162,000. (5) The clause calling for construction of an access road outside

the park boundaries would be deleted. [34]

On June 20, 1966, after brief discussion regarding the reversionary mineral rights of the State of Texas and the size of

the appropriation requested, H.R. 698 passed the House floor. [35] The following day the bill was read in the Senate

and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The Senate Hearings, 1966

In April 1966, anticipating the resumption of the Senate Subcommittee hearings, Alan Bible, who was Chairman of the

Subcommittee, and Frank Moss and Len B. Jordan, members of the committee, visited the proposed park site,

accompanied by Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul Webb, Hunter, Biggs, and several other interested persons.

During the tour, the party observed well-drilling taking place at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon, exploration that was

permissible under the terms of the agreement of the Pratt land donation. [36] All of the senators were favorably

impressed with the proposed park. Senator Bible spoke optimistically to reporters about the park bill's passage, but he

also recognized the problem of acquiring the mineral rights. [37]

After a year's delay, the Senate Subcommittee hearings reopened on August 9, 1966. In spite of having had plenty of

time to prepare testimony and with knowledge of the questions posed by the House Subcommittee, the expert

witnesses of the day became a source of irritation to Chairman Bible. While Bible had been impressed with the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:36 PM]

proposed park lands, he still expected sound answers to the questions posed by the committee members. Stanley Cain,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior, who one year earlier had signed off on the report on the proposed park, represented

the Interior Department. When he was unable to respond satisfactorily to Bible's queries, Cain reported that his

appearance at the hearing was a last-minute decision, because of the death of Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul

Webb, who had been scheduled to testify. Bible's concern, which Cain could not address, was the $1,500,000 that the

Interior Department had earmarked for land acquisition for the park. Cain said that $165,000 of the amount was for

improvements. He divided that amount into two parts: $24,000 for six buildings and $141,000 for "improved farm

units." Under continued questioning by Bible, Cain admitted he did not know what constituted the improved units, nor

had he ever been closer to the proposed park than Carlsbad and Big Bend. At that point Bible's patience ended:

We are not qualifying you as a witness on Carlsbad or Big Bend but we would like to have a qualified witness on

Guadalupe, a man who has been over the grounds and knows it. We are not expert on the committee but I think each

of us has seen it. [38]

Max Edwards, assistant to Udall, stepped into the fray and attempted to clarify the points Cain stumbled over.

Somewhat pacified, Bible's focus then shifted to the cost of acquiring Texaco's mineral rights. He expressed concern

that the $1,500,000 did not include any amount for acquisition of mineral rights. Edwards guessed that the cost for

Texaco's rights would not exceed $75,000 for 25,000 acres, but he admitted that the Interior Department had made no

formal estimate of the amount. Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, another committee member, reminded

Cain and Edwards of the Department's gross underestimation of land acquisition costs at Point Reyes, Cape Cod, and

Padre Island. He expressed the hope that such errors would not be repeated at Guadalupe. [39]

Anderson returned to questioning Cain about farm units. Questioned directly about Hunter's land, Cain could not

answer questions about wells, whether the land was under cultivation, what type of livestock was run on the property

(he incorrectly assumed it was cattle), the reasoning behind the rangeland appraisals, how long Hunter had owned the

land, or his cost for acquisition. [40]

The senators excused Cain from further questioning. However, they expressed again their desire to talk with someone

who could explain why mineral rights could be bought for $3 per acre (Edwards's estimate) when Hunter's rangeland

had been appraised at an average of $20 per acre. [41]

Texaco representatives James Pipkin and Joseph Markley were resigned to the fact that Texaco would be forced to

relinquish mineral rights to the Hunter lands, either through donation or sale. They argued, however, to retain

reversionary rights to the minerals in the event that government policy or park status changed. They felt the 20-year

time limit imposed on reversionary rights by the House bill was unrealistic in view of the slow development of West

Texas. The Texaco men also addressed the question of the value of the company's mineral rights. Markley explained

the geology of the region, previous testing, and untested potential for oil and gas development. Although he suggested

Edwards's estimate of $3 per acre for mineral rights was far too low, neither Pipkin nor Markley were able to suggest a

more reasonable figure. [42]

After questioning the Texaco representatives, the senators agreed that there was little harm in adding Texaco's request

for reversionary interests in the mineral rights to the bill. Senator Bible said, "It is so unusual to find anything

governmental once created that is ever put out of business, and I would think that would probably be true of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, that once created, it is going to be there forever and a day. So I don't know that your

condition would be too burdensome on the Government . . . ." [43]

On October 7, 1966, the Senate approved H. R. 698. Several amendments were added to resolve the problems

confronted during the hearings: (1) All mineral rights, not just those belonging to the State of Texas, were required to

be donated. (2) Reversionary rights of those donors would be respected for an unlimited period of time. (3) Land

acquisition costs would be limited to $1,800,000. [44]

The House approved the Senate's changes on October 10 and on October 15, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson

signed the bill to authorize Guadalupe Mountains National Park (see Appendix A). In summary, the bill provided that:

(1) Land would be acquired as described on the map drawn by the Department of the Interior. The sections belonging

to Ed and Ona Hammack would be omitted upon receipt of a scenic easement from them. (2) Acquisition of the land
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:36 PM]

could be accomplished by purchase, donation, or exchange, with 4,667 acres specifically designated for exchange. (3)

Contracts for purchase would be contingent upon availability of appropriated funds. Establishment of the park would

occur after notification by publication in the Federal Register that title to all land had been vested in the United States

and all mineral rights had been donated. (4) Mineral rights would be reconveyed to donors if the land were abandoned

by the Park Service, if a national emergency required development of the mineral resources, or if mineral development

outside the park boundaries drained the reserves beneath the park. (5) Funds designated for the administration of

McKittrick Canyon would be transferred to Guadalupe Mountains National Park after the park was established. (6)

Cost limitations would be $1,800,000 for land acquisition and $10,400,000 for development of the park.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi4c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:37 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

(continued)

Acquisition of the Glover Property

In July 1964, when Glenn Biggs reported the ownership of the small tracts of land within the proposed park to Robert

Barrel, he mentioned water sources on the Glover property that made it particularly valuable to the owners. He also

revealed that the Glovers had previously deeded a small portion of their property, a one-half-acre tract containing

remnants of the old Butterfield stage station, to American Airlines. The airline company had planned to restore the

stage station but when costs made the plans unfeasible, the property reverted to the Glovers. Biggs speculated that the

Glovers might be convinced to make a similar agreement with the Park Service. [27]

The same day that he wrote to Barrel, Biggs also wrote to Noel Kincaid to thank him for helping provide the

information for Barrel. Biggs told Kincaid that Barrel had indicated to him in a phone conversation that the Park

Service did not find the Glover tract particularly significant. If the Glovers were willing to sell a small piece containing

the Butterfield stage station, the Park Service would be interested in acquiring that portion of their property. Biggs

ended his letter by saying, "I will be eternally grateful for all the help and kindness extended to me by you and I will

assure you that I will do everything possible to see that you are not embarrassed over the acquisition of any of the

aforementioned property." [28]

Noel Kincaid was a forthright man and a long-time friend and neighbor of the Glovers. In March 1964 he took matters

into his own hands and told the elderly couple of the proposed park and how it affected their property. Then he

notified officials at the Southwest Regional Office of what he had done and of the reaction of the Glovers. He said the

Glovers had no previous knowledge of the proposed park and were extremely upset by the news that their property was

included within the boundaries. Asking for more information to share with the Glovers, Kincaid learned that Barrel's

earlier opinion about the Glover property no longer held true. Inclusion of the Glover property in the park proposal had

become important for two reasons: to provide access to Pine Spring Canyon from Highway 62/180 and allow

preservation of the Butterfield stage station ruins. Regional officials apparently had no reservations about allowing

Kincaid to intercede with the Glovers on the part of the Park Service. They asked him to reassure the elderly couple

that they would be treated fairly when the time came to acquire their land. [29]

Records are not clear about whether Glenn Biggs knew of Kincaid's visit to the Glovers. However, when Biggs

stopped to see the couple a short time later, he was not well received. Finding that Biggs had brought them an option

to sign, the Glovers literally ran him off their property. In a letter to the Glovers dated March 16, 1964, Biggs told

them he would leave for Washington, D. C., the following day to talk with congressmen about deleting their property

from the park proposal. He said, "This was what I wanted to discuss with you while visiting with you last week, but I

never had a chance to finish. You won't believe this, but I had nothing to do with the Park Service including your

[land] in the designated area. As a matter of fact, and it is on record, I tried to get them to not include any other

property except that of J. C. Hunter, Jr." [30]

After his trip to Washington, Biggs again wrote to the Glovers. He had talked with Senator Yarborough and

Representative Pool and reported both were sympathetic. Biggs tried to explain the position of the Federal

Government regarding the Glover's property, saying a 50- to 99-year option to purchase their land would probably be

sought. He also acknowledged the fact that the Glovers probably would not be interested in selling for as long as thirty
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:37 PM]

years. Biggs advised the Glovers that the government would approach them "merely on the basis of finding out your

interest--not on the basis of forcing you off your property." [31]

Soon after Kincaid and Biggs talked with the Glovers, a delegation of interested persons from West Texas and

southeastern New Mexico met in Carlsbad to discuss testimony to be delivered at the upcoming Senate subcommittee

hearings on the Guadalupe Mountains park bill. As a result of the March 24th meeting, Carlsbad Mayor Hampton

Martin and New Mexico Governor Jack M. Campbell decided to speak against the acquisition of the Glover property

during the hearings. They believed the cafe operated by the Glovers had become an institution in West Texas and that

the Glovers should be permitted to retain their property. [32]

After his visit with the Glovers in May 1964, the report Norman Herkenham filed was not optimistic. He found them

"openly hostile to the park proposal and to any suggestion of including any part of their property within it. . . . [T]here

was absolutely no opportunity for compromise" as far as the Glovers were concerned. Herkenham determined that the

only critical acquisition would be the small tract of the Glover's land containing the ruins of the Pinery Stage Station.

He suggested that although the Glovers' attitude might soften, the only way to eliminate their opposition to the park

was to delete their property from the proposed park boundaries. [33] Regional Director Daniel B. Beard passed

Herkenham's recommendations on to Director Hartzog and suggested that the park bill be revised to say that the

Glover property would be acquired only with concurrence of the owners. [34]

The recommendations of Park Service personnel regarding the Glover property brought about no bill revisions. The

Glover tract remained a part of the park. In 1966, shortly after passage of the park legislation, Howard Cameron,

Realty Specialist for the Park Service, wrote a memorandum to the files, describing the Glovers as very much opposed

to the park, according to people in the area. He had spoken with Duane Juvrud, the Hammacks' attorney and a friend

of the Glovers. Juvrud advised extreme caution when dealing with the Glovers. Having had no personal contact with

the Glovers and even unaware of whether Glover was married, Cameron recommended trying to purchase the property

with a life estate for Glover. [35]

Two years later, in December 1969, J. E. Williamson, a negotiator from the Office of Land Acquisition and Water

Resources of the Western Service Center, visited the Glovers. He hoped to obtain their permission for an appraisal of

their property. In his notes, he bluntly assessed the Glover property and situation:

This is a problem tract. Owners are old and very hostile to the park. Mr. Glover is 91, Mrs. is 77. They have lived on

or near the tract for 55 years. . . . The improvements consist of several old unused tourist cabins and an old building

along the hwy. which is used as living quarters, service station and a very dirty little lunch stand. From what I could

see the improvements are of little value.

. . . [T]he purpose of my visit was to obtain permission for an appraisal. . . . I made several attempts to communicate

with Mrs. Glover and go over the map with her. I failed. She would take-off on a verbal barrage against the park, about

how I was trying to steal their land and that our appraisal would be just another trick by another crook. . . . She would

talk only on their refusal to have anything to do with the park. She would not listen. [36]

Williamson also met with Bertha Glover's brother, T. C. Miller, a retired Park Service ranger who lived in Carlsbad.

Miller was not surprised at the Glovers' response and told Williamson he doubted that there was an answer to the

problem. He recommended waiting until both Glovers died, since he did not think the Park Service would condemn the

property. Williamson advised Miller not to believe that condemnation would not be utilized. Miller agreed to try to

reason with the Glovers. [37]

A month later Williamson met with the Glovers again. This time Mrs. Glover said they would not sell their property

for less than a million dollars, but asked Williamson what the federal government would offer. He responded that until

an appraisal had been made, he could not make an offer. Mrs. Glover again refused to allow an appraiser to look at the

property. Williamson added a parenthetical note to his report, saying he thought an earlier estimated appraisal of

$50,000 to $75,000 was too high. [38]

As a means of acquiring the Glover property, the new Regional Director of the Southwest Region, Frank Kowski,

opposed condemnation. He suggested to Edward Hummel, Assistant Director of Park Management for the Park
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:37 PM]

Service, an arrangement with the Glovers that would permit stabilization and preservation of the stage stop ruins.

Hummel responded negatively to this idea, saying that federal funds could not be expended for historic preservation if

the property were not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Alternatively, Hummel suggested offering the

Glovers a life estate in the property. However, if that offer was refused, he recommended filing a complaint reserving

a life estate, believing such action would reduce "the sting of condemnation." [39] Carl O. Walker, Acting Director of

the Park Service, instructed the land office of the Western Service Center to try negotiating with the Glovers one more

time. If that effort failed, he recommended filing a complaint action. [40]

In April 1970, J.E. Williamson met with the Glovers again. To his relief, the Glovers had arranged for an attorney,

Hudson Smart, of Abilene, Texas, to represent their interests. At Smart's suggestion, he and Williamson talked alone.

Williamson offered $35,000 plus a life estate for the Glovers which allowed them the non-transferrable right to

continue their business as long as they wished or lived. Because Smart was not familiar with local land values he

preferred to wait to respond to the offer until the property had been appraised, telling Williamson he had made

arrangements for an appraisal before he left Abilene. [41]

It is unclear whether Smart refused the offer of the government to the Glovers or if he simply failed to produce an

appraisal. In any event, in June 1970 the government initiated condemnation proceedings against the Glovers. The

Glovers submitted two appraisals in September 1970, one for $69,300 and the other for $115,000. In March and June

1971, two government appraisers evaluated the property at $35,000 and $30,024. [42]

The condemnation judgment, filed March 10, 1972, gave the Glovers $55,000 for their land. The presence of water

wells on the land justified the increase over the government appraisals. The judgment also gave the Glovers the right to

use and occupy the property as it was then improved until the death of the last surviving spouse. [43] The Glover

property was the last piece of land to be acquired before official establishment of the park.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi5c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:38 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VII: PLANNING IN THE 1980S (continued)

Statement for Management

During 1987 planners at the park and at the Southwest Regional Office worked on a new Statement for Management,

the first revision since 1976-78. The draft document available in June 1987 listed a number of changes in legislative

and administrative requirements, including: (1) recognition of continued government ownership of the parcels of land

outside the park boundaries; (2) designation in 1978 of 46,850 acres of park land as wilderness and re-evaluation of

remaining park lands for wilderness designation in 1980; (3) recognition of the need to preserve natural research areas

in unmodified states because of the rare, endangered, or endemic species existing there; (4) recognition of the existence

of several special use permits, allowing park land to be used for utility and right-of-way easements; and (5)

establishment of concurrent law enforcement jurisdiction with the State of Texas. [31]

The Statement for Management also provided the names of 25 plants and animals found within the park that were

listed or were under review for listing as endangered or threatened species. Among cultural resources, the Emigrant

Trail was added to the previous list of historic resources deemed eligible for nomination to the National Register. [32]

The Statement for Management provided an analysis of visitor use, noting that the number of visitors to the park

increased "dramatically" until 1981, after which a slower upward trend began. Planners suggested that the only

limitation to greater visitor use was the lack of an adequate visitor center at the park. The inadequacy of the visitor

center and the campground at Pine Springs reappeared again in the Statement for Management when resource issues

were outlined. Other resource management issues identified were: (1) accumulation of data on plant and animal

populations and air quality, development of floodplain studies, and consolidation of geological data; (2) the use of

prescribed fire as a management tool; (3) construction of a boundary fence to exclude trespass grazing and exotic

species; (4) determination of carrying capacity for the backcountry; (5) the possible addition to the park of the sand

dune areas on the west side; (6) the need for increased funding to reevaluate, maintain, and preserve cultural resources;

and (7) the need to finish trail construction, which was only about 50 percent complete. [33]

The draft Statement for Management also outlined issues related to administration and maintenance. Offices and

administrative work space were inadequate, no facilities were available for visitor protection functions, an additional

residence was needed at Dog Canyon, and the Pine Springs Cafe was being operated outside normal contract and

permit procedures. [34]

Although management objectives were not exactly the same as those presented in 1976, they represented the same

issues and concerns. However, a new management objective appeared in the draft statement. Planners recognized the

need to provide handicapped accessibility to visitor facilities. Also, the Statement for Management emphasized that

important aspects of the park's resources, especially the less-accessible high country and canyons, must be

communicated to visitors who would not experience those resources personally. [35]

During the 1980s park managers and planners refined and enlarged planning documents related to the management of

the resources of the park. The great body of research completed in the late-1970s and early-1980s helped park

planners establish priorities for resource management. In the five years from 1982 to 1987 park managers made

considerable progress in meeting priorities established for natural resource management. However, cultural resources

received much less attention. During the five-year period, no cultural resource priorities were removed or changed.
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi7c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:38 PM]

Although in 1987 renewed efforts were underway to expand the boundary of the park on the west side, the dominant

concern of park planners was that a new interpretive center and administrative facility be constructed at the park.

While visitation had increased, the requirements of wilderness travel made the resources of the park unavailable to

many visitors. Media presentations of the less-accessible resources would enhance the understanding and enjoyment of

visitors, but the existing temporary facilities could not accommodate any increased levels of interpretation.

<<< CHAPTER VI CONTENTS CHAPTER VIII >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi7c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:39 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VIII: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK (continued)

Backcountry

Trail Construction

The unobtrusive backcountry trails in Guadalupe Mountains National Park belie the amount of money and work-hours

expended by the Park Service to plan and build those simple paths. By 1987, the Park Service had spent more than 1.6

million dollars to complete the first three phases of trail construction at Guadalupe Mountains. Phase IV was estimated

to cost an additional $500,000.

In mid-1979 Jack Dollan and Robert Steinholtz, park planners from the Denver Service Center, finished construction

plans for the first three phases of trail construction and established the priorities for the trail projects.

Phase I: Construction and reconstruction of Pine Canyon, Bear Canyon, and Foothills trails.

Phase II: Construction of Guadalupe Peak, El Capitan, and McKittrick Canyon trails.

Phase III: Construction and reconstruction of Marcus Cabin, Lost Peak, Williams Ranch, McKittrick (interpretive and

geology), McKittrick Ridge, and Mescalero Ridge trails; hardening of McKittrick, Mescalero, and Upper Tejas

campsites. [28]

Throughout the trail construction program, management faced a continuing problem of finding qualified contractors to

perform the work. Because of the limited demand for their services, only a few professional trail-building companies

existed. The requirement to utilize 8(a) contractors for the first phase of trail construction compounded the problem.

Although the Pine Canyon, Bear Canyon, and Foothills trails were the planners' first priorities, negotiations with the

Small Business Administration delayed the beginning of those projects for nearly a year. [29]

While negotiations with the Small Business Administration continued, Dayton worried that the Denver Service Center

would pull Dollan and Steinholtz off the Guadalupe project just as construction was scheduled to begin. His letter of

August 1979 to the Regional Director emphasized the critical nature of the supervisory role the two planners ultimately

played during trail construction. ". . . [I]t is essential that close supervision of these projects be provided for the

complete period of time that contractors are on the site. Because of the delicate ecological conditions at Guadalupe,

irreparable damage to the resources could be done by the contractors if they do not have daily inspection by

experienced trail project supervisors. . . . With the lack of trail experience of the 8(a) contractor, DSC personnel will

probably have to act as on-the-job supervisors." Apparently, the Regional Director agreed with the Superintendent's

assessment of the situation. In 1987 Dayton recalled the close supervision Dollan and Steinholtz provided and the care

that contractors were required to take so they did not damage land and vegetation along the trails. [30]

Although contract negotiations stymied Phase I construction, work began on the second phase of trail construction.

Between October 1979 and January 1980, Trio Construction, a professional trail-building organization from Priest

River, Idaho, constructed the Guadalupe Peak Trail. The McKittrick Canyon Trail, built by D.D.W. Construction of

San Antonio, Texas, was completed in March 1980; in May 1980 Raymond E. Walker, of Alamogordo, New Mexico,

completed construction of the El Capitan Trail. The total cost for Phase II projects was $659,000. [31]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:39 PM]

From March to June 1980 another professional trail-building company, High Trails, from Wilbur, Washington,

constructed the geology and interpretive trails in McKittrick Canyon. High Trails and Trio Construction proved to be

the best contractors employed on the trail construction projects. Elmo Warren, owner of High Trails, was a partner

with Ralph Larson in Trio Construction before forming his own company. In August 1980, when the sub-contractor

designated by the Small Business Administration, ITL Company of Denver, Colorado, finally began work on the trails

in Phase I, Warren served as their consultant. Phase I was completed early in November 1980 at a cost of $445,000.

While ITL finished Phase I, Warren began work on the contract for the Williams Ranch Trail, completing the project

in February 1981. [32]

During the winter of 1981-82, Melvin C. Adams, of Cloudcroft, New Mexico, worked to construct and reconstruct the

trails from Dog Canyon to Lost Peak and Marcus Cabin. From June to September 1982, Wilderness Construction

Company, from San Manuel, Arizona, built the trails around the Pine Springs and Frijole areas and renovated the

visitors' horse corral there. The bid submitted by Wilderness Construction Company began an unusual trend that

continued throughout the remainder of Phase III construction. Their bid, $24,999, was about half as much as the

highest bid, and much less than half of the engineering estimate of $62,917. In late 1982, the amount of the contract

awarded to Trio Construction for the final portion of Phase III was $58,575, again less than half of the highest bid. The

bottom had dropped out of the trail-building business and contractors were willing to work for a much smaller margin

of profit than only a year earlier. In 1987, Ralph Harris, Area Manager of Guadalupe Mountains, reported that trailbuilding costs had dropped even lower since 1983, to perhaps as little as one-third of the cost in 1980. [33]

The work completed by Trio Construction in May 1983, included constructing trails on McKittrick Ridge and

Mescalero Ridge and hardening three backcountry campgrounds: McKittrick, Mescalero, and Upper Tejas. The actual

cost for completion of the work was about $3,000 more than the bid price. Completion of Phase III brought the total of

constructed and re-constructed trails to some 52 miles, making the trail density in the park about one mile for every

950 acres. [34]

In 1984 Pete Domenici, senior Senator from New Mexico, unsuccessfully sought funding of the $500,000 needed to

complete Phase IV of the trail-building program. By 1986, the trail-building program at Guadalupe Mountains

National Park was fiftieth among priorities in the Region, and four hundredth Servicewide. The fourth phase included

rehabilitation of 34 backcountry campsites, installation of two pit toilets, and construction of some 28 miles of

connecting trails to complete the trail system. [35]

Pine Springs Campground

The Pine Springs campground opened in 1972, when the park was established. It was intended to be a temporary

facility, serving only until private enterprise developed a campground near the park. However, the expected privately

owned campground did not materialize. In 1974 park personnel installed charcoal cooking grates at the campsites and

a vault toilet. The number of campers staying at the campground increased rapidly, from 4,506 in 1972 to nearly

17,000 in 1979. In 1980 the location of the campground was moved a short distance to allow construction of the water

reservoir and utility lines for the Pine Springs development, and construction of the permanent restrooms and parking

area for the campground. [36]

In July 1981 park managers opened the new facilities at the Pine Springs campground: 19 tent sites and paved parking

space for 20 recreational vehicles. The campground had a restroom, but no utility hook-ups. While grills had been

removed because of continuing concern about fire danger and environmental concern about the use of native fuels,

campers were permitted to use containerized fuel for camp stoves. An error in the design of the sewage disposal

system for the campground created problems that were not resolved until 1983. Before the reconstructed sewer and

water systems were activated in March 1984, park personnel extended the water lines to four locations in the

campground, building pedestals with a spigot and a fountain for the convenience of campers. During 1983 park

personnel built a 6x6-foot kiosk for visitor registration and fee collection and constructed new benches for the

campfire circle, creating seating for 75 persons. In 1984 camping space was increased to 24 tent sites and two group

sites were added, each of which would accommodate 10 to 20 persons. The campground fee of $4 per vehicle per night

was first enforced from March to November 1984. Managers later changed the fee collection period to May 15 through

September 15 and after April 1987 began collecting fees throughout the year. In 1988 campground fees increased to $5
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:39 PM]

per vehicle per night or $10 for groups. [37]

Administrative Facilities

While wilderness designation precluded development in the backcountry, two administrative facilities were maintained

there: a patrol cabin and an antenna and radio repeater. When the park opened, a log cabin in the Bowl served as

patrol headquarters and equipment cache. In 1974 park personnel erected a prefabricated cabin west of the Bowl,

permitting abandonment of the log cabin. In 1975, a radio repeater, solar batteries, and antenna were installed on Bush

Mountain; in 1981 new equipment upgraded the installation. In 1985, after storm damage, the antenna was replaced.

[38]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi8c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:40 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IX: NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Mountain Lions

As discussed in Chapter VII, the most controversial natural resource issue with which the managers of Guadalupe

Mountains have dealt is the mountain lion population of the park. William Dunmire, who was Superintendent of

Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains during the height of public controversy about the lions, believed that

although records show the problem started first on ranches near Dog Canyon, it really belonged more to Carlsbad

Caverns than to Guadalupe Mountains. In any case, management decisions necessarily affected both parks. [15]

Although mountain lions inhabited the park, they were not confined to it; rather, they ranged widely from both parks

through the Lincoln National Forest, southward into the Delaware Mountains, and northward into the Brokeoff and

Sacramento Mountains. More importantly, the ranges of the mountain lions also extended to private lands. The primary

point of controversy was the loss of livestock to lions by ranchers adjacent to the public lands. The ranchers believed

the mountain lion population had increased since the park was established. They also asserted that the park provided a

refuge from which the lions made forays against their livestock.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations outlined the responsibilities of national parks for preserving natural

resources and protecting wildlife. The regulation made it illegal to possess, destroy, or disturb wildlife, and prohibited

hunting and trapping within a national park unless mandated by federal law. Therefore, federal law required the

managers of Guadalupe Mountains to protect mountain lions. However, adjacent to the park, in New Mexico,

mountains lions on private, state, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands were managed by the New

Mexico Department of Game and Fish as a game species. [16]

From 1973 to 1979, ranchers whose land bordered the northern side of the park complained increasingly about losses

of sheep to mountain lions. By 1977, park managers received correspondence from members of Congress about the

problem. In 1978 rangers found evidence of trapping of mountain lions within the park, west of Dog Canyon. The

following year they found boundary fences had been manipulated to direct predators into traps near the boundary, but

outside the park. Rumors also began to circulate that the Park Service was bringing mountain lions from other

locations and releasing them in the park. In September 1979, in an effort to find a mutually agreeable solution to the

problem, local and regional Park Service representatives, including the Field Solicitor, met with neighboring rancher

Milton (Marion) Hughes and his lawyer, and a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Park Service

agreed to allow a professional trapper, recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to trap and relocate problem

lions. During 1980 and 1981 several relocations took place, but the ranchers north of the park continued to lose sheep.

[17]

Early in 1982 local sheep ranchers requested that when trappers from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

were in hot pursuit of a specific problem lion they be permitted to enter parklands to capture it. The Department of the

Interior granted permission for this program, which included destroying any animals that could not conveniently be

relocated. Before this proposal could be instituted, however, the Park Service had to go through the standard process of

developing a management plan and assessing the environmental impact of the proposal. As a result, the plan came to

the attention of the national news media. Individuals and groups from around the country filed letters of protest; in the

Federal District Court of New Mexico the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife filed a suit seeking an injunction

against the plan. Early in 1983 the State of New Mexico withdrew its request to enter the parklands and the

conservation groups apparently withdrew their suit. [18]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:40 PM]

When resource managers began work on the Mountain Lion Management Plan, they realized how little biological data

they had upon which to base management assessments and strategies. Subsequently, in 1982, the Park Service initiated

a three-year research project to collect data relating to the mountain lion population of Carlsbad Caverns and

Guadalupe Mountains, including population densities, population characteristics, home ranges and movements, and

food habits. Harvey and Stanley Associates of Alviso, California, contracted to do the work; Thomas Smith was the

principal investigator. [19]

The investigators estimated that over the three years of the study, the maximum mountain lion population density

within the 400-square-mile study area was approximately 24 adults, 12 juveniles, and 22 kittens. To determine home

range and movement the researchers radio-collared and monitored 22 lions. Radio-monitoring revealed the extent of

the animals' ranges: the average home range of adult males was 80 square miles; of adult females, the average range

was 23 square miles. Monitoring also revealed how far individual cats traveled within a day, distances that varied

according to sex and age, and in what direction the animals moved. The investigators found north-south movements

most common, movement that often brought lions in contact with the neighboring sheep ranches. The study also

revealed that when a lion was destroyed or left the area, a new lion moved into the vacated range. Scat analysis

revealed food habits of the mountain lions. Mule deer remains occurred in 82 percent of the scats analyzed, followed

by porcupine (15 percent), rabbit (7 percent), and domestic sheep (6 percent). Rodent, cattle, and goat remains

occurred in less than five percent of the scats. [20]

Chapter VII contains a discussion of the Mountain Lion Management Plan approved in 1986 and developed from data

obtained in the study. The plan provided for continued protection and monitoring of the mountain lions, and

"preclude[d] the NPS from engaging in any program involving the destruction of mountain lions within the parks as

part of livestock depredation control efforts implemented on lands adjoining the park." [21] The plan also proposed to

monitor deer and elk populations in the park, since a marked decrease in those populations could cause an increase in

livestock depredations. Additionally, the plan proposed the development of an inter-agency task force for mountain

lion management. The task force proposal was dropped, however, because of negative responses received from the

Forest Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Representatives of both agencies expressed the

opinion that a framework for cooperation already existed and a new organization was superfluous. [22]

While the mountain lion issue received little press during the mid-1980s, it was far from dead. In February 1985, more

than a year before the adoption of the Park Service's lion management plan, the New Mexico Department of Game and

Fish instituted a new program for control of mountain lions. The program, scheduled to run until March 1987, allowed

destruction of a maximum of 14 lions each year in areas where ranchers were experiencing unusual losses of livestock.

In order to qualify for the program, ranchers had to provide evidence of four or more mountain lion kills on their ranch

between January 1983 and January 1985. [23]

In April 1987 the ranchers in Dog Canyon, organized as the Dog Canyon Wool Growers, petitioned the Game and Fish

Department to increase the control operation to include Forest Service land as well as private ranch land. While Park

Superintendent Smith realized at that time the continuing volatility of the mountain lion issue, he believed that the

availability of hard data compiled from the monitoring programs puts park managers in a better position to respond to

criticism of the park's policy. [24]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi9c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:41 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Archeological Issues

Humans have utilized the lands that make up Guadalupe Mountains National Park for at least 10,000 years. In

prehistoric times, nomadic people hunted game and gathered plant foods available at both low and higher elevations.

Until modern ranchers utilized water from drilled wells and the larger springs of the area to irrigate crops, the southern

Guadalupes had no permanent settlements or sedentary farmers. However, the archeological evidence of human use of

the Guadalupes is rich. [32]

Caves or rockshelters, middens, and open campsites were the most common types of sites found in the southern

Guadalupes and many are found in association with roads and trails. Park programs to aid in the protection of widespread archeological resources included non-disclosure of site locations, public education about the value and

vulnerability of the resources, controlled access to caves, and ranger patrols. Fortunately, most of the archeological

sites in the park were not discernible to the untrained observer and, therefore, were not apt to be wantonly damaged or

pilfered. [33]

Archeologists began investigating the southern Guadalupes in the 1930s, but park-related surveys did not begin until

1970. In that year Harry J. Shafer of the University of Texas headed a preliminary survey conducted by the Texas

Archeological Society. The volunteers visited 150 sites, 139 of which were previously unrecorded. The next year the

Society conducted a field school in the vicinity of Pine Spring. Students excavated a terrace southwest of the barn and

corral associated with the Houser house. In addition to this excavation, the field school also confirmed an area on the

north side of the drainageway from Pine Spring as the site of an army bivouac area. In May 1973 Rex Gerald of the El

Paso Centennial Museum made a professional field survey of the Pine Springs campground area and the route of the

proposed tramway. The following summer Paul and Susanna Katz of Texas Tech conducted a six-week field school

excavation in the Pine Spring campground area, continuing earlier efforts to analyze a site that would be negatively

affected by visitor use and park development. [34]

In 1976 the Katzes completed the necessary field work to produce a complete inventory and assessment of

archeological sites in the high country of the park, work they performed under a contract with the Park Service. They

assessed a total of 85 sites, including previously recorded sites as well as ones identified during their survey. The

report, published in 1978, listed 16 sites that the Katzes believed to be eligible for nomination to the National Register.

The Katzes also developed specific criteria by which archeological sites could be evaluated to determine eligibility for

listing, criteria that the legislative mandates did not make clear. The sites they believed to be eligible for listing were

primarily ones that contained multiple middens, but also included three lithic scatters, two single middens, and one

cave with a midden. As of 1987, researchers had recorded a total of 299 archeological sites in the park. Although they

had recommended that 29 of the sites appeared to be eligible for listing in the National Register, by 1988 Regional

historians had made no formal determinations of eligibility of any of the sites. [35]

Since the survey by the Katzes, most archeological resource management has taken the form of clearance surveys prior

to prescribed burns or construction. In 1978 the Regional Office sent an archeologist to examine prescribed burn plots

as park managers worked to develop a plan for fire management. The next year, prior to construction of the new access

road into Dog Canyon, Regional Archeologists Bruce Anderson and Jim Bradford surveyed the area and found one

midden mound in the path of the proposed road. They excavated and salvaged the mound and in 1980 published their
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10c.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:41 PM]

findings in a report titled "Upper Dog Canyon Archeology." In that document Bradford outlined the precautions that

were necessary during construction to protect other cultural resources near the roadway. He also expressed his concern

that one of the archeological features of Dog Canyon had recently been damaged, either as a result of road

construction or maintenance. He asked park managers to include archeological consultation in development projects as

early as possible. Bradford returned to Dog Canyon in 1985 to assess the impact of a proposed expansion of the

parking lot. His survey revealed that a midden mound would be directly affected, necessitating changes in the plans for

expansion. During that visit Bradford also began to train the park's Resources Management Specialist to conduct smallscale archeological assessments in emergency situations that might occur in the day-to-day operation of the park. [36]

From 1979 to 1982, as development of the trail system took place, archeologists visited the park several times to give

clearances before construction began. In some cases planners had to realign trails to avoid unrecognized archeological

sites or to avoid creating erosion patterns that would affect archeological sites. [37]

The impact of natural forces such as the freeze-thaw cycle, wind, wildfire, soil erosion, burrowing animals, and

grazing ungulates may be as harmful to archeological resources as the impacts of humans. Among the archeological

resources, park managers have recognized the particular fragility of rock art. Although sites containing rock art

comprise only four percent of the identified sites in the park, they typify the problems associated with managing

archeological resources. Mere protection from intentional or unintentional human damage does not mean the resource

will be preserved. Rock art, and all archeological resources, become part of the fabric of the land and are affected by

the same natural phenomena that affect natural resources. As of 1987, the lack of in-depth research relating to the

park's archeological resources had prevented park managers from developing long-term management plans for these

cultural resources. [38]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi10c.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:42 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION (continued)

Previous Uses of the Park Lands

Although there is no evidence of permanent settlement in the park lands until the late nineteenth century, archeological

evidence suggests that nomadic people, whose existence was based on hunting and gathering, utilized the natural

resources of the mountains and desert lands for at least ten thousand years before Europeans arrived in the area. In

historic times the Guadalupe Mountains served as a last refuge for the Mescalero Apaches as the westward movement

of the nation's frontier encroached upon their hunting grounds and way of life. [3]

In the late 1840s, after Mexico had ceded the lands of the Southwest to the United States, the federal government

began identifying routes for westbound emigrants. In 1849, Capt. Randolph B. Marcy of the U.S. Army camped on the

salt flats west of the park lands and wrote of the Guadalupe Mountains: "The peak of Guadalupe and the general

outline of the chain can be seen from here, and it appears to be impossible to pass through it with wagons anywhere

north of our route; and as the defile is near the peak, which can be seen for many miles around, it is a good landmark."

[4] The route became well known; in 1858 the Butterfield Overland Mail established a stagestop called the Pinery at

the top of Guadalupe Pass. A year later, however, the stage line abandoned the facility and began using a more

southerly route through the Davis Mountains. The protection offered by U.S. Army troops stationed at Fort Davis and

better availability of firewood, water, and grass made the southern route more advantageous. Emigrants, soldiers,

freighters, and drovers, however, continued to camp at the Pinery site well into the 1880s. [5]

In the 1870s, after the Apaches had been subdued and gathered onto reservations, settlers moved into the region and

took up farming and ranching. In the early 1920s, Wallace Pratt and some friends purchased more than 5,000 acres in

McKittrick Canyon. Pratt soon became sole owner of the property and managed the canyon as a nature preserve and

place for scientific study. Thirty years later he donated a portion of his ranch in McKittrick Canyon to the federal

government to be used as a park.

At the same time that Pratt and his friends bought the land in McKittrick Canyon, J. C. Hunter and two associates also

were acquiring land in the southern Guadalupe Mountains. Hunter, like Pratt, bought out his friends, eventually

acquiring some 72,000 acres, which he managed as a hunting preserve and cattle, sheep, and goat ranch. In 1969, three

years after Congressional authorization to establish a park in the southern Guadalupes, the federal government

purchased Hunter's ranch. The Pratt donation and the Hunter purchase made up the bulk of the lands that became

Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Administration of the Park

After Pratt donated McKittrick Canyon to the federal government and until 1972, when Guadalupe Mountains National

Park was officially established, the park lands were administered as a detached unit of Carlsbad Caverns National

Park. In 1972 the Park Service initiated joint administration of the two national parks. From a central office in

Carlsbad, New Mexico, a Superintendent and a full range of support staff managed both parks. Beginning in 1973, an

Area Manager who lived at the park oversaw the day-to-day operations at Guadalupe Mountains. John Chapman

served in that position from 1973 to 1975. Bruce Fladmark took over the duties of Area Manager in 1976 and served

until 1980, when Ralph Harris arrived. Harris was the last permanent Area Manager for the park. In June 1987 Harris

transferred out and Park Service management decided that the time was right to appoint a full-time Superintendent for
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi1d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:42 PM]

Guadalupe Mountains. In October 1987 Karen Wade accepted the position. [6]

Joint administration of the two parks was beneficial to Guadalupe Mountains in the early years. At that time, Carlsbad

Caverns National Park was nearly fifty years old and had the staff and funding of a well-established park. In the first

few years of Guadalupe's operation, the park had only a few full-time employees; in times of need they could draw on

the skilled employees and equipment available at Carlsbad Caverns. Similarly, the Carlsbad Caverns Natural History

Association, an organization established to aid the park through publication and sale of informational material, assisted

the interpretive effort at Guadalupe Mountains. Profits from the Association's book sales at the park were used to

purchase interpretive equipment that otherwise would have been unavailable. [7]

By 1987 Guadalupe Mountains had matured. Most major developments planned for the park were complete or were

scheduled for construction. The park had its own full-time interpretive, maintenance, and ranger staffs. Visitation to

the park had increased steadily from 50,000 in 1975 to more than 160,000 in 1986, an indication that the park had

developed its own image and clientele. Managers agreed that the time had come to separate the management of the

two parks. In the interest of cost efficiency, however, some personnel management, budgeting, and property and

procurement functions continued to be performed by the Carlsbad Caverns National Park Administrative Division

Office in Carlsbad. [8]

CONTENTS CHAPTER II >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi1d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:42 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER II: THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK

(continued)

The 1938 Revival

For three years the Guadalupe park proposal received little attention. Then, in April 1938, at the request of Director

Cammerer, Herbert Maier, Acting Regional Director of Region III in Santa Fe, and a team of four resource specialists

investigated the entire Guadalupe range, to its southern extremity in Texas. Maier and the survey team concluded that

except for the southern extremity of the range, the mountains provided little in the way of scenic or wildlife values.

They recommended against extending the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns to include the mountainous area. [31]

Shortly after 1934, Judge Hunter had acquired sole title to the Guadalupe Mountain lands formerly owned by the

Grisham-Hunter Corporation. During the period of corporate ownership, and subsequently during Hunter's individual

ownership, the ranch was managed with an eye to conservation. Although the land was open to deer hunting (by

invitation) each fall, much of the land remained undisturbed throughout the rest of the year. McKittrick Canyon was

protected from grazing and hunting. Hunter continued to believe the canyon land should be a park.

During 1938 Hunter proposed to donate a 1,000-acre site in McKittrick Canyon to the State of Texas. He included

several stipulations with his offer. Access to the park was a prime consideration. Hunter asked (1) that the state build

an 8-mile access road to the canyon, and (2) that development must begin immediately, preferably through the use of

Civilian Conservation Corps personnel. E.H. Simons convinced the members of the State Parks Board to tour the

proposed park site on October 5 and 6, 1938. He invited Herbert Maier to accompany the group. [32]

Maintaining the enthusiasm of earlier boosters and recognizing the potential economic and civic advantages of the

project, the writers for the El Paso Times covered the tour with considerable optimism even though no official

decisions had been made. A week later, the Sunday edition of the paper contained a full page of photographs taken

during the McKittrick tour. Three weeks after the McKittrick photo essay, the Times ran another full page of

photographs of the white sand dunes, which were located on the west side of the Texas Guadalupes. [33]

D. D. Obert, Assistant Landscape Architect for the Park Service, prepared a report for the Texas State Parks Board

about the proposed Hunter donation in McKittrick Canyon. Obert considered the landscape value of the Guadalupes

"unexcelled in Texas and. . . superb scenery anywhere." He also attributed the beauty of the area to private ownership

that had precluded public exploitation. In addition to scenery, the report covered forestry and wildlife, which Obert

considered equally important. Obert's conclusions brought new issues about park development to light. Some sound

surprisingly modern. He suggested that if the canyon were to be accepted for state park purposes, four points needed

careful consideration: location, size, accessibility, and type of development. He suggested that an open area near the

mouth of the canyon would be needed to provide service facilities for the park. Obert believed that the 1,000 acres

proposed for the park were not sufficient, that at least 2,500 to 3,000 acres were necessary for proper development of

the canyon resources. He emphasized that 150 acres of the additional acreage should be at the canyon mouth. He

believed that because the canyon was isolated from centers of population, its primary users would be tourists and

vacationers, not picnickers. Given those users, Obert suggested that the park should offer enough diversions to occupy

people for at least two weeks, not half a day. After evaluating the proposed land donation, Obert advised against

establishing a park in the canyon. He recommended leaving the area in private ownership rather than mar it with

overdevelopment. [34]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi2d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:42 PM]

Obert's recommendations apparently were not made public and enthusiasm for the project mounted. In early November

1938, Texas highway commission officials visited McKittrick. They expressed their desire to cooperate to get the road

issue worked out. The El Paso Times continued its support for the park. On November 4 an article and an editorial

discussed the fact that Hunter's entire ranch was for sale. The newspaper reported that E.H. Simons had negotiated a

deal to purchase the 44,000 acres for $6 per acre, providing the land was used as a state park and the purchase was not

made with funds appropriated by the legislature. During negotiations, Hunter had suggested that a purchase could be

accomplished by long-term notes, to be paid through user fees obtained from the park. Two weeks later, Texas

Governor-elect W. Lee "Pass the Biscuits Pappy" O'Daniel toured McKittrick with Hunter and Simons and pledged to

do everything he could to establish a park there. [35]

By August 1939 Texas still had taken no positive moves to acquire either the McKittrick donation or the entire ranch.

At that time Acting Regional Director Herbert Maier responded to another request to assess the appropriateness of

extending the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns to include portions of the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and New

Mexico. As a result of changes to the boundaries of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, which had been accomplished by

Presidential Proclamation in February 1939, Maier reversed the stand he had taken in 1938. The new park boundary

lay immediately adjacent to the most desirable park land in the Guadalupes. Maier agreed with technicians from the

regional office who recommended extending the present boundaries to the southernmost point of the Guadalupe

Mountains. He also emphasized the wildlife values present in the lands of the proposed expansion since he believed the

lands surrounding Carlsbad Caverns contained little in the way of wildlife. [36]

A year later, the Park Service was still debating the extension to Carlsbad Caverns. Planning Coordinator Wendell

Little of the Washington office of the Park Service wrote to Director Newton Drury, describing his trip to Carlsbad

and the Guadalupes in July 1940. Little recognized the scenic value of El Capitan and Guadalupe Peak, but also knew

the problems involved in the Park Service acquiring privately owned land. He presented a suggestion proffered by Ben

Thompson: that profits from the operation of Carlsbad Caverns could be used to purchase the private land in Texas.

Since that idea required Congressional approval to become reality, Little recommended that legislation to extend the

boundaries to El Capitan be drafted and submitted to the Interior Department for consideration. [37]

Within the Park Service during the 1930s, ideas of what constituted a park and how park lands should be acquired

were changing. Two new parks authorized in the mid-1920s, Shenandoah and Great Smoky, could be considered

transitional. While these parks contained scenic mountains and fit the visual standards of the great parks in the West,

they also contained the ecological qualities of later-twentieth century parks. Also, both of these parks required private

philanthropy to be purchased. The Everglades National Park, established in 1934, established a precedent for parks

created purely for conservation purposes. Cape Hatteras National Seashore (1937) confirmed that precedent. [38]

Both issues--park values and acquisition by purchase--were involved in the Park Service considerations of the

Guadalupe Mountain lands. None of the people who assessed the proposed Texas park lands denied the scenic value of

the mountainous area at the southernmost tip of the Guadalupe Mountains. Most were doubtful, however, that the

scenic quality of the rest of the Guadalupe range bordering on Carlsbad Caverns was of monumental value. Interests in

ecological values prompted the biologists to recommend establishment of the Texas park for the rare and endemic

plant and animal species they found in the proposed park lands. Finally, the preservation ethic of one evaluator caused

him to suggest that McKittrick Canyon be left in private hands rather than ruin it with development. Most of the

evaluators seemed to assume that the State of Texas would take the lead in establishing the park, then would turn it

over to the national system. While Texas had done little to give credence to this position, it provided a comfortable

starting point from which administrators could deal with boosters like Simon. More realistic points of view, such as

Little's suggestion that legislation be drafted to permit spending excess funds from Carlsbad Caverns to acquire the

land in Texas, apparently fell on deaf ears. No one considered purchase of the park lands by Congressional

appropriation. That approach would not be used for another twenty years.

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi2d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:43 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

The Texas Legislature

Soon after the opening of the Texas legislature in January 1967, Joe Christie, senator from El Paso, and Gene

Hendryx, representative from Alpine, introduced companion bills providing for the conveyance of the State's mineral

rights to 45,000 acres of J.C. Hunter's land to the federal government. [45] In the committee hearings that followed,

Texas land commissioner Jerry Sadler maintained the position he had taken in the Congressional hearings: Texas

should retain its mineral rights. Instead of a national park on the Hunter lands, Sadler advocated the creation of a state

park supported by mineral leases on the park lands. The West Texas Geological Society sent the House committee a

statement expressing the opposite viewpoint. The group believed that "the value of the Guadalupe Mountain area as a

national park will be far greater to the people of Texas than the worth of its minerals." [46]

In late February, Texaco made a move to delay passage of the mineral rights bill. The company began drilling a well

on its leased land within the proposed park boundaries, at the mouth of Pine Springs Canyon. Tom Sealy,

representative of Texaco, appeared before the House to ask that their final vote be postponed for 60 days, until the well

reached a level of 7,000 feet. Ostensibly, Texaco wanted to prove to the legislators that the State's mineral rights were

worth more than the $5 per acre that the bill proposed to pay to the school fund for relinquishment of the rights. In

actuality, a 60-day delay would have effectively killed the bill, postponing the decision until the legislature's next

session in 1969. [47]

Texaco's ploy was unsuccessful; the House confirmed the Senate-passed mineral rights relinquishment bill by a vote of

132 to 10 on February 23, 1967. [48] Governor John Connally signed the bill on March 6 and formal conveyance of

the deed took place on November 16, 1967. [49]

Appropriations Legislation

The legislative struggles to establish Guadalupe Mountains National Park did not end with the relinquishment of the

mineral rights belonging to the State of Texas. By the end of 1967 Texaco also had donated its mineral rights, clearing

the way for purchase of Hunter's land. But one stumbling block remained: funding of the $1,800,000 for land

acquisition. While Guadalupe Mountains National Park was still a question in the Congressional subcommittees, the

Interior Department had secured a three-year purchase option (to expire December 31, 1968) on 58,878 acres of

Hunter's land. In 1967, after authorization of the park, $354,000 was appropriated for Guadalupe Mountains, of which

$280,000 was earmarked for land acquisition. The Interior Department used that amount to secure some of the smaller

tracts within the park boundaries. Hoping to complete land acquisition in 1968, the Interior Department requested an

additional $1,446,000. Of that amount, $1,200,000 was needed to exercise the option on Hunter's land.

Representative Julia Butler Hansen of Washington chaired the House Appropriations Subcommittee. When George B.

Hartzog, Jr., Director of the Park Service, appeared before the committee, Hansen voiced her objection to such a large

amount of money going to one landowner: "If you think I am going to throw away money to make someone a

millionaire, you are wrong." She asked Hartzog whether anyone else was apt to buy Hunter's land immediately.

Hartzog admitted he knew of no immediate prospects, but he added that because there was water on the land, it was

particularly valuable. He suggested that Hunter could probably sell the land for more than the $1,200,000 price

guaranteed by the government's purchase option and estimated that the cost would increase ten to twenty percent if the
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi4d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:43 PM]

option were not exercised. When Hansen asked Hartzog to prioritize the Department's appropriation requests, however,

he placed land acquisition for Guadalupe Mountains third behind development monies for Indiana Dunes National

Lakeshore and Assateague National Seashore. [50]

In 1968, expenses of the Vietnam conflict and inflation compelled Congress to seek a $6,000,000,000 budget cut. In

response to that demand, Hansen's Appropriations Subcommittee refused to approve the $30,000,000 that the Interior

Department had requested for park acquisition funds; $1,200,000 for Guadalupe Mountains was part of that package.

The Senate, however, still had not acted on the appropriations bill. Senator Yarborough appealed to members of the

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and persuaded them to approve $200,000 for land acquisition for Guadalupe

Mountains. Although the appropriation was small, Yarborough hoped it would be enough to secure a purchase contract

on Hunter's land. The House agreed to the appropriation in a conference report. [51]

Yarborough was not content, however, with the token appropriation. After studying a 1968 amendment to the Land

and Water Conservation Act that gave the Interior Department power to use its general funds for authorized park

lands, Yarborough approached Secretary Udall with his plan. He proposed to use $1,020,000 of Department funds to

complete the purchase of land for Guadalupe Mountains. With Udall's approval, the plan did not require further action

by the full Congress, only review and approval by the appropriation committees of both houses of Congress.

Congressman Richard White worked with the House committee while Yarborough worked with the Senate committee.

[52] In January, President Lyndon Johnson recommended the expenditure to Congress in his budget message.

Congress approved final funding in September 1969. [53]

Establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park

After the federal government acquired all of the land within the authorized boundaries of the new park, and after the

mineral rights had been donated, a notice, prepared by the Park Service and dated September 30, 1972, appeared in the

Federal Register on October 6, 1972, announcing the establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The

September 30 date was chosen to coincide with the park's dedication ceremony. [54]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi4d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:44 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER V: MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

(continued)

The Shivers Mining Claims

In November 1964, Bill Orr, a member of the regional staff for National Parks Systems Studies, asked Biggs and

Hunter for information about mining claims in Sections 6 and 12, Block 66, Township 1, Culberson County, parts of

the proposed park. Hunter informed Orr that former Texas Governor Allan Shivers owned in fee (surface and minerals)

"The Valley Mining Claim," a 20.66-acre tract in Section 6. Hunter himself owned the surface rights to the remaining

725.82 acres in Section 6 and the State of Texas owned the mineral rights. In Section 12, Shivers owned 20.66 acres in

fee, the "Hard Scrabble #1." He also owned all valuable mineral rights but oil, natural gas, coal, and lignite under three

other 20.66-acre tracts in Section 12, the "Shary #1," the "Leon Brown," and the "Mary O'Brien" mining claims.

Hunter owned all surface rights to Section 12, and the State of Texas owned all mineral rights to the entire section

except for Shivers's claims. [44]

In his letter to Orr, Hunter summarized the unsuccessful core drilling done by the Eagle-Picher Company on one of the

Shivers claims in 1962. He suggested that the willingness of the Eagle-Picher owners to relinquish their lease reflected

the nominal value of Shivers's claims. [45]

When Kornelis and Cameron made their visit to Texas in October 1967, they approached Shivers's business manager,

Blaine Holcomb, about the donation of the mineral rights. Holcomb was not receptive to their request and suggested

that the tracts be excluded from the park. [46] Four months later, Glenn Biggs, a personal friend of Shivers, contacted

Holcomb independently about the mineral donation. Holcomb said that Shivers would donate his claims if their

appraised values totaled between $40,000 and $50,000. He wanted Biggs to find an engineering firm to conduct the

appraisal. Biggs contacted Cameron to pass on the information and to inquire about who might make the appraisal.

Cameron was unable, however, to suggest an engineering firm. [47]

Cameron waited six weeks. In April 1968 he called Holcomb again. Holcomb advised him that Biggs was handling the

appraisal of the claims and suggested Cameron contact Biggs to learn the results of the appraisal. He said he thought

John Kelly of Roswell (the same man who earlier had done the mineral report for Secretary Udall) was the mining

consultant doing the work. Holcomb also informed Cameron that if the completed appraisal amounted to about $50,000

he would ask the Internal Revenue Service for a ruling about the Shivers donation. [48]

In November 1969, when the Hunter land acquisition was nearly complete, J.E. Williamson, the negotiator who was

also working with the Glovers, contacted Biggs to determine the situation with Shivers. Biggs said he had exhausted

his contacts and had been unable to find an appraiser. Recommending that he and Williamson visit Shivers in person,

Biggs arranged a meeting in early December. [49]

Although other matters prevented Biggs from keeping the appointment, Williamson met with Shivers. At first Shivers

professed no knowledge of the mining claims, but he later recalled the mining operation and began reminiscing. He

claimed the mine had produced in the past and would again, given the right economic climate. When Williamson

explained the provisions of the act that authorized the park, and asked whether Shivers would donate his mineral

claims, Shivers responded negatively. Shivers ended the conversation by suggesting that Williamson arrange a meeting

with Holcomb in a week or two. He promised to discuss the donation with his business manager before that time. [50]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi5d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:44 PM]

A few weeks later, on December 18, 1969, A. W. Gray, Assistant Chief of Land Acquisition and Water Resources for

the Western Service Center, visited Shivers in an effort to secure the mining claims. This time Shivers said he wanted

a $25,000 valuation for the claims. He expected the Park Service to produce an appraisal for that amount and he also

wanted the Park Service to get the Internal Revenue Service to agree to the deduction. In his trip report, Gray

speculated about the tax benefits to Shivers of a sale rather than a donation, noting that a capital gain would be taxed at

half the amount of a donation. Therefore, purchase of Shivers's claims would allow a lower appraisal. [51]

In July 1970, negotiator Williamson met with Holcomb again. He reviewed the previous meetings and explained that

the establishment of the park was being blocked by the outstanding interests of Shivers. Holcomb "bristled" at the

suggestion and maintained that it was the federal government that was holding up the park by not providing the

$25,000 appraisal. Williamson explained once again that government appraisers could not arrive at that figure. [52]

After more discussion, Williamson succeeded in interesting Holcomb in the idea of a cash purchase of the two fee

tracts, made with the understanding that the three mining claims would be donated. He said the federal government was

prepared to offer $1,000 for each of the two fee tracts, 100 percent more that the appraised values. Holcomb refused to

consider $1,000 per tract and suggested $5,000 as a more reasonable figure. Williamson expressed his view that

$5,000 was out of line and far beyond the Department's authorization. Holcomb then telephoned Shivers in New York

City and asked Williamson to leave the room while they talked. The result of the conversation was that Shivers was

unwilling to accept $2,000, but was agreeable to $10,000. Williamson left an offer to sell form for Holcomb and

Shivers to fill out with the sale price of their choice. Holcomb assured Williamson that it made no difference to Shivers

whether the offer was accepted or not. [53]

When John Ritchie, Chief of Land Acquisition for the Western Service Center, received Williamson's report, he

solicited the help and advice of Director Hartzog, stating that the $10,000 offer could not be supported by appraisals,

but it was considerably lower than the earlier $25,000 offer. Ritchie felt his only alternative was to make a lower

counter-offer. [54]

Frank Kowski, Regional Director of the Southwest Region, also intervened. He contacted Edward A. Hummel in the

Washington office and suggested that Congressman White or Senator Yarborough might be able to talk with Shivers

and overcome the impasse. He ended his letter by suggesting that some other means than raising the appraisal needed

to be found to give Shivers his desired tax deduction. [55]

A week later, John Ritchie wrote a memorandum to the file, stating: "I am accepting the option on the properties

owned by ex-Governor Allan Shivers within Guadalupe National Park, Texas. While I do not believe the acceptance

can be justified on the basis of value there are other factors involved which justify such action." He said that he acted

under the direction of Philip O. Stewart, Chief of the Land Acquisition Division of the Park Service. [56] On

November 2, 1970, Allan Shivers signed one deed donating his three mineral interests within Guadalupe Mountains

National Park and another deed conveying his two fee interests to the federal government for $10,000. [57]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi5d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:45 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER VIII: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK (continued)

Fencing

As late as 1987, fifteen years after the establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, park managers regularly

dealt with the problems of trespass grazing, illegal trapping of predators and poaching of other wildlife in the park,

caused by the non-existence or inadequacy of fencing on the park's perimeter. Until 1982, any fences that protected the

park were remnants of the ranching era; some were as much as 50 years old, some were simply drift fences, either

outside of or well inside the park boundary, that served the purpose of diverting livestock from the area. According to

federal law, landowners were required to prevent livestock from trespassing on park land. In the interest of

maintaining good relations with local landowners, managers of Guadalupe Mountains chose to deal with trespass

problems unofficially, looking forward to the day when the park would be enclosed by a proper fence, constructed by

the Park Service. When rangers found livestock in the park, they herded the animals back across the boundary and

notified the owners of the problem. Trespass grazing by exotic wildlife, such as Barbary sheep, was a less-easily

controlled problem. [39]

In 1982 the park received its first funding allotment for boundary fencing work. Because a new landowner had recently

begun running cattle on several sections adjacent to the west boundary of the park, the most pressing need for fencing

was on the west side. In a ten-week program, under the auspices of the Youth Conservation Corps, Area Manager

Ralph Harris employed nine youths from the Dell City area. The workers removed old sections of fence, some of

which were as much as a half-mile inside the boundary, and put up new sections along the surveyed boundary line.

The following year workers from the Youth Conservation Corps took down much of the old fencing in the

backcountry and replaced some of the existing fence on the southeast side of the park, near Choza Spring, another area

of frequent trespass. [40]

In 1984, based on "environmental and 'political'" concerns, members of the park staff agreed that the next areas to be

fenced should be the boundary areas near Guadalupe Springs and Dog Canyon. At Guadalupe Springs, trespass grazing

was a frequent problem. Around Dog Canyon, the ill-defined boundary made it easy for hunters in "hot pursuit" of

mountain lions to enter park lands. During the spring and summer of 1984 a newly hired fence crew of three men

erected one and one-half miles of fence near Guadalupe Springs and two miles of fence along the northern boundary

of the park. The projects also served an experimental purpose, allowing management to learn how many miles of fence

a three-person crew could construct in rough terrain. During a helicopter training session for the park, fencing

materials were sling-loaded and placed at strategic locations along the fence line at Dog Canyon. The total cost of the

summer project was $30,000. [41]

Closure of the area around Guadalupe Springs to trespass grazing caused some controversy with the leaseholder on the

adjoining land, whose stock had used the water source. The leaseholder, J. C. Estes, appealed to the landowner, Mary

Hinson, who in turn contacted her lawyer, Duane Juvrud, and staff persons from the Roswell office of New Mexico

Congressman Joe Skeen. After a meeting with all concerned, the Park Service agreed to help Estes haul water for

several months until he could sell his livestock at a reasonable price. [42]

In 1985, the Park Service awarded park neighbor Milton (Marion) Hughes a fencing contract in the amount of $24,816.

He constructed four miles of fence along the northern boundary of the park, west of Dog Canyon. In 1987, resource

managers estimated that only 21 of 69 miles of the boundary had adequate fencing and completion of the boundary
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi8d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:45 PM]

fence was the park's first resource priority. [43]

Williams Ranch Access Road

Until 1985, park personnel and visitors traveled the initial three and one-half miles of the 10-mile distance from

Highway 62/180 to Williams Ranch over private property. While the access situation was similar to the situation at

Dog Canyon, that is, traffic to the park could be obstructed by the landowner, the government owned an unimproved

right-of-way nearby on which a road to the park boundary could be constructed. [44] However, given the low level of

traffic to Williams Ranch, and the willingness of the private landowner to allow traffic to use an already established

ranch road, management did not feel an immediate need to build a road on the legal right-of-way.

Although only high-clearance or four-wheel-drive vehicles could use the ranch road under normal conditions, during

the rainy season portions of the road often washed out where it crossed several natural drainages and became

impassable for vehicles of any sort. On those occasions, the park manager was forced to close the road to visitor use

and to expend money and work-hours to reopen the road. In 1985 park personnel engineered and built a new road

within the legal right-of-way. The new road met the old road inside the park boundary, 2.6 miles from Highway

62/180, and shortened the route to Williams Ranch by nearly a mile. [45]

Since the road was intended to be for four-wheel-drive vehicles, the methods used for construction were simple. A

road grader scraped vegetation from and levelled a 10-foot wide path, following the centerline established by survey.

Between Highway 62/180 and the park boundary the new route crossed only one major drainage. In that area the fivefoot high banks were excavated to provide more gradual access to the streambed. The road crossed the wash in an area

where natural dams would catch and hold gravel above the road crossing. Two other areas along the route with steeper

slopes required cutting and filling to a depth of several feet. The abandoned section of road within the park was

blocked with boulders and a gate. Total cost for the new road was less than $5,000. Although washouts continued to

occur periodically along portions of the road, they were less frequent than before. [46]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi8d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi9d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:46 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER IX: NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Reintroduction of Native Species

Park Service policy encourages the reintroduction of native species into parks when adequate habitat exists to support

them, when they do not pose a threat to the safety of visitors, and when the species disappeared because of a humaninduced change in the ecosystem. At Guadalupe Mountains, one native species, the Montezuma quail, was successfully

reintroduced. Last known to be in the parklands in the 1960s, the species probably was extirpated by loss of cover

caused by heavy grazing by livestock. In 1983 the Park Service approved the reintroduction program. The first 24

birds, transported from Arizona under an approved state permit, were released in Dog Canyon in December 1984. Over

the next six months the trappers from Arizona brought 36 more birds to Dog Canyon. After release of the first batch,

subsequent batches spent several weeks in an acclimatization pen to reduce the effects of stress created by capture and

transportation. When the birds appeared to be healthy and adjusted, the ranger caring for them just left the door to the

pen open. Phil Koepp recalled the reintroduction with some amusement. Wildlife specialists agreed that the

environment in Upper Dog Canyon was as nearly perfect for Montezuma quail as could be provided. Apparently the

quail were less than appreciative--they headed for the Hughes ranch! However, the loss was only temporary. In

October 1986 a reliable sighting reported a covey of 20 Montezuma quail, including a number of chicks, on the road

near the Dog Canyon campground. [25]

For a number of years park managers also have considered reintroduction of the desert bighorn sheep. The last reliable

sighting of this species in the parklands was in 1938, when 15 to 19 sheep were reported in and around McKittrick

Canyon. Historically, desert bighorns also utilized Dog Canyon. In 1979 and 1980, reliable sightings of desert bighorns

were reported on the western rim of the Guadalupe Mountains in New Mexico, some 25 to 40 miles north of the park.

Wildlife specialists did not know whether those sheep were a remnant of the original population, or whether they

migrated from a group released in 1973 in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, south of the Guadalupes. [26]

Several obstacles prevented reintroducing the desert bighorn as easily as the Montezuma quail. The west side of the

park and the McKittrick drainage provided suitable habitat, but the amount and distribution of water limited the

potential range for the animals and would force them to compete with mule deer, elk, exotic Barbary sheep, feral goats,

and domestic sheep and cattle. Contact with domestic stock also would expose the bighorns to fatal diseases and

parasites. Another contingency, a proposed trail from the top of the escarpment to the lowlands on the west side, would

alter the habitat enough so that the Park Service could not directly reintroduce the sheep into the park. In 1987 resource

managers chose to wait and see, but to cooperate with efforts by state game departments to re-establish the desert

bighorn on nearby non-park lands and to seek their cooperation in reintroducing the animals into the park. [27]

CONTINUE >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi9d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:47 PM]

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

The Glover Site

Chapter V describes the problems associated with the acquisition of the Glover property for inclusion in the park. In

1972, after condemnation proceedings, the Glovers accepted a cash settlement of $55,000 and received the right to live

on their property and operate their business until the death of the last surviving spouse. Walter Glover died in 1973 at

the age of 94; Bertha Glover died in August 1982 at the age of 89. [39] During the decade in which Bertha Glover

continued to operate the Pine Springs Cafe, she and the park personnel at Guadalupe Mountains maintained a friendly,

if distant, relationship.

A month after Bertha Glover's death, Area Manager Ralph Harris met with Mary Glover Hinson, the Glover's only

daughter, who had been living with her mother. They discussed how much time Hinson needed to close the business

and vacate the buildings. Hinson asked to wait at least until the end of the tax year. On September 14, 1982, after

personnel in the Regional Land Resources Office determined that December 31, 1982, would be a "fair and reasonable"

date for vacating the property, Superintendent William Dunmire sent a letter to Hinson notifying her of the year-end

deadline. A few days later, William Bramhall, Chief, Division of Land Resources, wrote to Hinson and informed her

of her eligibility for reimbursement for costs of moving. In mid-October, anticipating the imminent possession of the

buildings on the Glover tract, Regional Director Robert Kerr wrote to the Associate Director of Cultural Resources

Management in the Washington office of the Park Service, requesting authority to dispose of the structures in the

Glover complex that were more than 50 years old. [40]

The response of the Associate Director to Kerr's request was undoubtedly postponed by the unexpected turn of events

that occurred two weeks later. On October 26 a national newspaper carried the story of Mary Hinson and announced

that Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen had sent a written request to Superintendent Dunmire asking for an extension of

time for Hinson to vacate the cafe. Earlier in October, the El Paso Times had carried a story about Hinson's pending

dislocation, but it apparently drew little attention. The story in US News, however, definitely attracted attention. Early

in November the story received television coverage on NBC and ABC. The coverage was not favorable to the Park

Service. [41]

On November 2, Dunmire responded to the letter he had received from Bentsen. He acknowledged that the Park

Service would be amenable to allowing Hinson more time to vacate, but that she would be required to pay rent on the

buildings during the extended time period. He also addressed the planned removal of the buildings on the Glover tract.

Saying that he still believed that it was in the highest public interest to remove the buildings to enhance the scenic

integrity of the highway corridor, Dunmire told Bentsen that he had asked Park Service architects for another

evaluation of the Pine Springs structures. [42]

At the same time, staff members from the offices of Secretary of the Interior James Watt and Congressman Richard

White also became involved in the question of extending Hinson's occupancy of the Pine Springs buildings. Associate

Director for Operations, Stanley T. Albright, from the Washington office of the Park Service responded briefly and

factually to the query from the Interior Department, advising the staff member of the means of acquisition of the

Glover property, the reservation attached to it, and the termination of the reservation with the death of Bertha Glover.

He described the buildings on the property and emphasized the fact that the newspaper had distorted the situation by

referring to Hinson's dislocation as an eviction. [43]
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:47 PM]

Dunmire responded to Congressman White's inquiry, which had been prompted by a communication from Duane

Juvrud, Mary Hinson's attorney. White apparently was concerned with the water rights that were attached to the land

the Glovers sold to the United States. Dunmire assured White that the water rights and the severance of those rights

from the Glover's remaining 3,700 acres were included in the property for which the Glovers received compensation.

He also indicated that Hinson should not assume that there would be excess water available from the sources on the

former Glover property to divert to her ranch land adjacent to the park. Addressing another of White's queries,

regarding the feasibility of Hinson continuing to operate a facility such as her parents had operated, Dunmire told

White that a market study conducted in 1981 indicated a concession would not be economically feasible. He also

pointed out the high cost of rehabilitating the Pine Springs store building to meet standards of safety and structural

soundness. [44]

On November 30 Dunmire confirmed in writing the conversation he had with Mary Hinson the previous day. He had

agreed to her request for a six-month extension of occupancy, setting June 30, 1983, as the date by which she would

vacate the property. Dunmire also confirmed granting Hinson access to the Park Service water source at Pine Springs

for residential, non-commercial use on her property adjacent to the park boundary. Hinson would be responsible for

the cost of the line and hookup. A charge for water would be made, based either on cost or comparable rates in the

City of Carlsbad, New Mexico, when Hinson had relocated her residence to this property. The following day Dunmire

notified Senator Bentsen of the agreement. [45]

In spite of the apparent finality of the agreement between Dunmire and Hinson, due to the public and Congressional

support Mary Hinson was able to gain, she still occupied the Pine Springs Cafe beyond the June 1983 extension. In the

spring of 1983, hoping to "cool the issue" and believing that the decision was not harmful to the park, Superintendent

Dunmire acquiesced to Hinson's request to continue to occupy the Pine Springs buildings for another year. He renewed

her right to occupancy again in June 1984 and June 1985. [46] During these years Hinson paid $50 per month for rent

and charges for water used in the store. In 1984, when construction of the park boundary fence cut off the water supply

for livestock on land which Hinson had leased to J.C. Estes, park managers worked out an agreement with her to

continue to provide water for a specified time until Estes could get a fair price for his cattle. That same year Dunmire

also confirmed Hinson's right to use a Park Service access road to reach her property. Park Service personnel graded a

short spur road from the paved road to the boundary line between the park and Hinson's property and installed a gate

in the boundary fence to facilitate access to her property. [47]

Late in 1983 a staff member of the Regional History Division reassessed the historical significance of the buildings in

the Glover complex. In a report entitled "Evaluation and Alternative Management Strategies: Pine Springs Camp

(Glover Property) Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas," Laura Souilliere documented the Glover property from

its establishment in the early twentieth century to its contemporary status. The Texas Historical Commission reviewed

the report and determined the Glover property to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A, C,

and D: it represented "an historic type frequently seen in desert regions of the Western United States," had made a

"substantial contribution to the development of isolated desert population," and the oral history Mary Hinson could

provide, "together with documentation from the property, [could] yield information important to the understanding of

lifeways of early 20th Century families in this region of Texas. . . ." [48]

In January 1984, Melody Webb, Regional Chief of the Division of History, notified Dunmire of the decision of the

State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the Pine Springs buildings. In anticipation of Hinson's vacating the cafe

in June 1984, Webb advised Dunmire to add $7,000 to funds programmed for the demolition of the Pine Springs

buildings to ensure that adverse effects would be mitigated through additional oral history, photography, and a full

inventory of the contents of the buildings. [49] Webb's plans to document the buildings did not materialize, however,

because of Hinson's continued occupancy.

Richard Smith succeeded Dunmire as Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains on March 30, 1986. Smith attacked the

thorny problem of the Glover property with the vigor of a new man on the job. Within a month he had reviewed the

"voluminous" files relating to the property and had summarized their contents and implications for the Regional

Director. He recommended that Hinson's use and occupancy permit not be renewed for another year and suggested that

the Texas Congressional delegation and Hinson be notified immediately of that intention. He closed his memorandum

by saying:
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:47 PM]

I am well aware that we risk considerable public controversy if we decide to pursue this course of action. . . . I am

convinced, however, that we should not continue to issue the 1-year use and occupancy agreements to Mrs. Hinson.

The Congress has specifically prohibited the NPS from permitting activities in derogation of park values. . . . I am sure

we are sanctioning a use that we have no legal authority to permit. To close out the use and occupancy at the

expiration of the current permit would be the proper course of action for the preservation and protection of park values.

[50]

Early in June 1986, Donald Dayton, who was then the Acting Regional Director, notified the Associate Director for

Park Operations in Washington of the "potentially sensitive political issue" of the decision not to extend Hinson's

special permit. He noted that Hinson would be given four months past the June 30 expiration date to vacate the Pine

Springs buildings, that Congressional offices would be notified of the decision via letters dated June 20, and that

Hinson would be notified on June 26. He reviewed the unfavorable news coverage that occurred in 1982 and warned

that public controversy was again possible. [51]

The promised letters to the Congressional delegation recalled the original controversy, told of the annual renewals of

the special use permit, and described the only legal way in which the Pine Springs Cafe could continue to operate: as

an official concession that met public health and liability insurance standards and for which a fair market rent was

paid. Smith's letter also described the proposed four-month extension of time to permit Hinson to vacate the buildings

and the compensation for moving expenses for which she was eligible. Copies of the letter went to Senator Bentsen,

Senator Phil Gramm, and Congressman Ronald Coleman. [52]

Smith's letter to Hinson established November 1 as the final date for vacating. He pointed out that he had no legal

authority to continue the special use permit and offered no alternatives to her. Finally, he reiterated her eligibility for

reimbursement for moving expenses. [53] A month later Smith responded to a request from Hinson and sent copies of

the letters in which Dunmire had committed the Park Service to providing water and access to her property adjacent to

the park. He reassured her that the Park Service intended to honor these commitments. [54]

In September park managers released the news that funds to complete documentation of the history of the buildings on

the Glover tract would be available in 1987. The news story was released September 19 and appeared in the Carlsbad

Current-Argus on September 22. It contained the announcement that Mary Hinson's special use permit had not been

renewed. In spite of what appeared to be orderly progress toward the park's final possession of the Glover buildings,

Hinson was not ready to give up. Less than a week after Smith issued his news release about the Glover tract,

Secretary of the Interior Donald Paul Hodel overturned the Regional decision to not renew Hinson's special permit.

According to the story that appeared in the Washington Post on September 25, Hodel had learned of Hinson's problem

from Bentsen and had decided to permit Hinson's occupancy for five more years. [55]

Smith accepted defeat with grace. In March 1986 he complied with arrangements made after Hodel's decision and sent

the Congressional delegation copies of the "Letter of Authorization," which had been approved by the Department of

the Interior, to permit Hinson's continued use of the cafe until January 1, 1992. The authorization stipulated that no

capital improvements could be made to the building and that repairs affecting the historical integrity of the cafe were

to be coordinated with the Texas Historical Commission. (In his cover letter Smith reported that the Texas State

Historic Preservation Officer had already been consulted about a roof repair for the cafe.) The authorization also

required Hinson to meet applicable state health and safety codes and to assume liability for damages to third parties

which were incurred in the cafe. Hinson would continue to pay a nominal rental fee for the building. After obtaining

the new agreement, Hinson spent little time at the Pine Springs property. She lived in El Paso and the spouse of one of

the employees of the highway department operated the store for her. [56]

When the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer declared the Glover buildings eligible for listing in the National

Register, park managers were mandated to preserve the buildings, at least until they had been thoroughly documented.

The agreement reached with Hinson in 1987, which involved the State Historic Preservation Office in decisions about

repairs to be made to the cafe, gave the park managers somewhat more leverage in assuring that the integrity of the

buildings would be retained until they could be fully recorded. However, since the Park Service did not intend to retain

the buildings, repairs to the cafe or any of the other buildings in the complex would force expenditures which would

not have been incurred if the Park Service had obtained possession of the buildings in November 1986. In any event,
Guadalupe Mountains NP: An Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gumo/adhi/adhi10d.htm[2/24/2014 5:04:47 PM]

the cordial but distant relations between Hinson and the Park Service made management of the cultural resources at the

Glover site difficult.

By 1987 three superintendents had dealt with the problems associated with the Glover property. Donald Dayton's goals

had been to gain the confidence of Walter and Bertha Glover and establish a good relationship with them. In an

interview in 1987, Dayton concluded that he and other park personnel had succeeded in those objectives. Ralph Harris,

who became Area Manager after Dayton left the Superintendency, concurred with Dayton's assessment. The next

Superintendent, William Dunmire, faced a more difficult task--dislocating Mary Hinson from the property. He did not

succeed. Looking back at the events related to the Glover property that took place during his Superintendency,

Dunmire recalled that it was a "painful situation. We took some big knocks." He also believed, in retrospect, that the

lease extension did not hurt the park and "the whole deal wasn't worth the negative publicity [it generated]." His

hindsight suggested that the negative publicity might have been circumvented by a better public relations plan. The

next Superintendent, Richard Smith, tried a better public relations plan. He warned the Congressional delegation of his

plans to gain possession of the Glover property and even had the support of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and

staff members of the Current-Argus in his effort. But he was defeated by larger politics, the kind with which no Park

Superintendent or Regional Director could argue. The role of the new Superintendent, Karen Wade, will undoubtedly

be similar to Dayton's, to wait patiently until 1992, following the mandate to care for the buildings on the property and

trying to maintain good relations with Mary Hinson.

Management of the park's cultural resources placed decision-makers in the unenviable position of having to identify

and evaluate the resources, then wait for considerable periods of time until funding became available for the additional

research that was needed to rationalize the management process. By 1987 most classified historic structures had been

stabilized and could be held for a number of years without further serious deterioration. In addition, two of the park's

historic resources had been successfully adapted for reuse. Managers did well with their small budgets. In 1987 the

prehistoric resources also were in holding patterns, but more precariously so, because they were less easily monitored

than the historic structures. After fifteen years of operation, resource managers had fulfilled the requirements of the

law as well as funding had allowed, but it appeared that much more time might pass before they acquired more

sophisticated management tools.

<<< CHAPTER IX CONTENTS CHAPTER XI >>>

gumo/adhi/adhi10d.htm

Last Updated: 23-Apr-2001