SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

DIVISION OF HISTORY

I 29.116:19

Guadalupe Mountains Nationa... GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL PARK:

Clemson Universi

PUBLIC DOCH»-~

DEPOC': . . MAY 2 1 1990

CLEMG.M

LIBRARY

3 1604 019 687 997

AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

by Judith K. Fabry

Southwest Cultural Resources Center

Professional Papers No. 19
Division of History

Southwest Cultural Resources Center

Southwest Region

National Park Service

Department of the Interior

As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic

responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and water, energy and minerals, fish and

wildlife, parks and recreation areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The

Department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and

for the people who live in island territories under U. S. administration.
GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL PARK:

AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

by Judith K. Fabry

Southwest Cultural Resources Center

Professional Papers No. 19

Santa Fe, New Mexico

December 1988
Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/guadalupemountaiOOfabr
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

in

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
VI

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.

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

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Location, Access, and Public Facilities 1 Physical Description 1 Previous Uses of the Park Lands 11

Administration of the Park 12

II. THE MOVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PARK 15

The Forces at Work 15

Judge J.C. Hunter and Early Park Plans 17

The El Paso Boosters and the Texas Legislature 19

The Proposed Extension of Carlsbad Caverns 19

The National Park Service and the

Grisham-Hunter Ranch 21

The 1938 Revival 23

The 1940s and 1950s 26

The Early Park Movements in Retrospect 27

III. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT

AND J.C. HUNTER, JR 29

The Role of Wallace Pratt 29

National Park Service Interest in the

Guadalupe Mountain Ranch 34

J.C. Hunter, Jr., and Glenn Biggs 37

IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 43

Joe Pool and H.R. 3100 43

Hunter, Pratt, and the Congressmen 43

The Committee of Five 44

Political One-Upmanship 45

Gaining Support for the Park 46

The Congressional Hearings. 1965 49

The Kelly Report 51

The House Hearings, 1966 52

The Senate Hearings, 1966 52

vii
Vlll

Page

The Texas Legislature 55

Appropriations Legislation 56

Establishment of Guadalupe Mountains

National Park 57

The McKittrick Canyon Access Road 57

Wilderness Designation and Development

Ceiling Increase 58

Legislation in 1987 60

A Perspective on the Legislative History 60

V. MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION 63

Donation of Mineral Rights 63

Acquisition of the J.C. Hunter, Jr., Land 65

Acquisition of Smaller Tracts within

the Park Boundaries 68

The Hammack Exclusion and Easement 70

Acquisition of the Glover Property 72

The Shivers Mining Claims 76

The McKittrick Canyon Right-of-Way Exchange 79

West Side Access Road Right-of-Way 80

Acquisition of the Texas Highway

Department Maintenance Area 81

Excess Land Acquired Outside

the Park Boundaries 82

VI. PLANNING FOR THE PARK-THE 1970S 83

Planning in the National Park System 83

Master Planning Process 84

Master Plan 87

Pine Springs Development Concept Plan

and the Tramway Study 91

Other Plans for Development 97

Environmental Assessment for

McKittrick Canyon 97

Upper Dog Canyon Development Concept Plan

and Environmental Assessmen 97

Statement for Management 100

Interpretive Plan 101

Resource Management Plans 103

Cave Management 104

Backcountry Management Plan 104

Natural Resources Management Plan 106

Trail Planning 107

The Contribution of Donald Dayton 108
IX

Page

VII. PLANNING IN THE 1980S Ill

Economic Feasibility/Market Study Ill

Master Plan Supplement Ill

West Side Boundary Study 114

Resources Management Planning-1980s 114

Cave Management Plan 117

Backcountry Management Plan 117

Cultural Resources Management Program 119

Fire Management Plan 120

Resources Management Plan Revisions, 1987 121

Statement for Management 122

VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK 125

Residential Area for Park Personnel 125

McKittrick Canyon 129

Dog Canyon 131

Backcountry 141

Trail Construction 141

Pine Springs Campground 143

Administrative Facilities 144

Fencing 144

Williams Ranch Access Road 146

Information and Operational Headquarters 146

IX. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 153

Water Resources 153

Fire Management 155

Backcountry Use 157

Mountain Lions 158

Reintroduction of Native Species 161

Trespass Grazing 162

Pesticide Control 162

Endangered Species 163

Oil and Gas Development 164

Collecting of Plant Material by

Native Americans 165

X. CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 167

Preservation of Historic Structures and the Emigrant Trail. . . . 169

The Pinery 169

The Emigrant Trail to California and

the Butterfield Stage Route 172

Williams Ranch 175

Pratt Stone Cabin 178
Page

Adaptive Use of Historic Resources 180

Frijole Ranch Facilities 180

Ship on the Desert 184

Managing the Historic Resources 187

Archeological Issues 187

The Glover Site 190

XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATION 197

Events Sponsored by the National Park Service

Dedication Ceremony--September 30, 1972 197

Opening of Facilities in Dog Canyon--

May 22, 1982 198

Tenth Anniversary CelebrationNovember 6, 1982 201

Color Weekends 202

Other Special Events 203

Bicentennial Flag Ceremony--July 28, 1975 203

Climb of Guadalupe Peak by Members of

POINT-July 12-17, 1982 204

XII. IN RETROSPECT 207

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY 209
XI

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Legislation

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

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Vicinity of Guadalupe Mountains National Park .... 2

Figure 2. Map of Guadalupe Mountains National Park 3

Figure 3. El Capitan 5 Figure 4. View from Guadalupe Peak 6

Figure 5. View down Guadalupe Canyon 7

Figure 6. View of the Bowl 8

Figure 7. Scene in McKittrick Canyon 9

Figure 8. Williams Ranch 10

III. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF WALLACE PRATT

AND J.C. HUNTER, JR.

Figure 9. Wallace Pratt 30

Figure 10. Park Service survey party 35

Figure 11. Guadalupe Mountain Ranch sales brochure 40

IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Figure 12. Key figures in the legislative process 48

V. MINERAL RIGHTS AND LAND ACQUISITION

Figure 13. Map of mineral rights ownership 64

Figure 14. Map of land ownership 67

VI. PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S

Figure 15. Wilderness recommendation 88

Figure 16. General development of park 90

Figure 17. Route of proposed tramway 93

Figure 18. Developments approved for the Pine Springs area .... 96

Figure 19. Conditions existing at Dog Canyon development

site in mid-1970s 99

VII. PLANNING IN THE 1980S

Figure 20. Existing boundaries and non-park sections, as of 1980. . . 113

Figure 21. Boundary expansion proposed for west side of park . . . 115

VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK

Figure 22. Temporary housing at Signal Peak 126

Figure 23. Duplex apartments at Pine Springs residential area . . . 130

Figure 24. Temporary contact station at McKittrick Canyon .... 132

Figure 25. Permanent visitor contact station at McKittrick Canyon . . 133

xiii
XIV

Figure 26. Temporary ranger housing at Dog Canyon 137

Figure 27. Permanent ranger residence at Dog Canyon 139

Figure 28. Visitor contact station at Dog Canyon 140

Figure 29. Temporary facilities near Frijole 147

Figure 30. Artist's rendering of visitor center

and operational headquarters 150

X. CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES

Figure 31. North wall of Pinery stage station 171

Figure 32. Pilot memorial on Guadalupe Peak 173

Figure 33. James Adolphus Williams at Williams ranch house .... 176

Figure 34. Williams ranch house 177

Figure 35. Wallace Pratt's stone cabin 179

Figure 36. Walter and Bertha Glover at Frijole ranch house .... 181

Figure 37. Frijole ranch house, 1980 182

Figure 38. The Ship on the Desert 185

Figure 39. Ship during construction 186

XL SPECIAL EVENTS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Figure 40. Distinguished guests at dedication ceremony for Guadalupe

Mountains National Park 199

Figure 41. Mary and J.C. Hunter, Jr 200

Figure 42. Bicentennial flag ceremony on Guadalupe Peak .... 203

Figure 43. Wheelchair climb of Guadalupe Peak 205

APPENDIX B: Personnel

Superintendents

Donald Dayton 224

William Dunmire 226

Richard Smith 228
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.

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 V-shaped 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
Chapter I

to Sdnta fe

GUADALUPE

Gjjj MOUNTAINS

^—oLasiruus / NAT'L. PARKN

to

'

KJEW MEXICO

IuvpocK

Juarez.

to

Lflvm^ton

Variety4

TEXAS All

6rty

VUti Mc-morul

6UAPALUPE MOUNTAINS UAT10UA.L PARK'TEXA'b

U 5 PEtn-.OF THE INTERIOR* UP6 AU6 86/SW**0

Figure 1. Vicinity of Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Introduction

NEW MEXICO

TEXAS o

CHOW FLATS

.^suffer i^V e4 S&Q% &*?*$

.#" V"*- * a*-s*°* *'

.-4^35 ifl^r*'

jr.T.-' V , K v ^

v> "^i.^•»'; r''>1 ^ ^ ' , li.^iT: rfj- «*6^?^W to*5" ^ ^

fcS^

7

©

l_ If*.*.

o

B

Figure 2. Map of Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Chapter I

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.

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. . . ." 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 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

Waterman L. Ormsby. The Butterfield Overland Mail , ed. Lyle H. Wright and Josephine M. Bynum (San

Marino. California: The Huntington Library. 1942). 73-74.
Introduction

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)
Chapter I

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)
Introduction

Figure 5. The view down Guadalupe Canyon toward Guadalupe Pass from a high

point on the Guadalupe escarpment. (NPS Photo)
Chapter I

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)
Introduction

.tL-^'o-*-.

•" WE&i ^^m^^^^ £4*3e*^i^#* -*

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 snow.
Introduction 11

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."

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

"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.

xFor 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).

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.

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.
12 Chapter I

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. In October 1987 Karen Wade accepted the

position.

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.

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

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.
Introduction 13

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

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 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.

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

Ronald A. Foresta. America's National Parks and Their Keepers . (Washington. D.C.: Resources for the Future. 1984, pp. 9-13.

15
16 Chapter II

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 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.

"Carlsbad Current-Argus. March 1, 1927.

3

Ibid., March 11, 1927.
The Movements to Establish a Park 17

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.

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.

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.

^National Geographic , 48(September 1925): 301, 316-17.
18 Chapter II

By 1934 the Grisham-Hunter Corporation had acquired ownership or control of

43,200 acres between the New Mexico-Texas boundary and El Capitan.

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.

Although Judge Hunter had given up the idea of a park in McKittrick Canyon,

his Grisham-Hunter Corporation 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.

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."

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. The other

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.

8Carlsbad Current-Argus. March 16. 1928.

9

Ibid., August 10, 1928.

10

Ibid.. September 18, 1928. nibid., February 1. 1929.
The Movements to Establish a Park 19

highway, U.S. 80, which linked El Paso with Van Horn, was completed in the

summer of 1931. " Completion of these highways would enhance the credibility of

later efforts to establish a park in the southern Guadalupe Mountains of Texas.

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.

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.

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

12E1 Paso Times. July 22. 1931.

13Roger 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.
20 Chapter II

Forest boundary. 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.

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.

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

18 features were not "sufficiently remarkable" to justify extension of the park. Two

experts supported his assessment of the archeological resources: Jesse Nusbaum,

director of the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe, and well-known archeologist

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.

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.

I. May 1932, Washington, D.C.. 1933. 89-90: Roger W. Toll, report to Director. National Park Service. January

II, 1932, p. 59, in Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters. Carlsbad. New Mexico.

17

Ibid.. 71.

18

Ibid., 44.
The Movements to Establish a Park 21

H. P. Mera. Ultimately, Toll recommended adding only 43 square miles around

Carlsbad Caverns.

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."

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."

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.

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,

19

Ibid.. 47-50a.

20Ib ld .. 2.

_1 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.

-3Roger 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.
22 Chapter II

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.

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."

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.

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."

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

24

Ibid.. pp. 25-26.

25

Ibid.. p. 13.

Ibid., cover letter.

27

Ibid. p. 28.
The Movements to Establish a Park 23

"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 merriamO . as an exotic species that inhabited the slopes of the canyon

nearest the stream bed, and destroyed "native and extremely picturesque vegetation." 28

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

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.

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.

^8

~ 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.

~>Q 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.

Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for Fis 1945, (Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office)

Herbert Maier. Outline of Investigations and Conclus

files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters. Carlsbad, New Mexico

Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for Fiscal Year Ended June 30. 1934 through June 30.

Herbert Maier. Outline of Investigations and Conclusions. 1938. p. 2. in Bobby L. Crisman personal
24 Chapter II

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.

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.

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.

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

32E1 Paso Times. October 5. 1938.

33

Ibid., October 7, 1938; October 16, 1938; November 6, 1938.

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.
The Movements to Establish a Park 25

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.

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

35E1 Paso Times, November 3, 1938; November 4, 1938: November 15, 1938.

36H. 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.

37Memorandum 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.
26 Chapter II

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.

The 1940s and 1950s

In spite of the depressed state of the national economy, the 1930s had been a time

of expansion and improvement for the parks; the work performed by the Civilian

Conservation Corps had been particularly beneficial. The optimism of the park officials who investigated the Guadalupe extension to Carlsbad Caverns was part of that

wave of expansion and improvement. The 1940s, however, brought a new Director

to the Park Service and new attitudes toward the national park system.

Economies enforced by World War II and the conservative leadership of Director

Newton Drury caused the Park Service to languish during the 1940s. Drury came to the Park Service from a successful career in park work in California. He was known

for his skill in obtaining public support for preservation of the California redwoods

and private financial support for the establishment of park lands. However, during

his years as Director of the Park Service, his unaggressive style of management

generated criticism from those who believed in a stronger preservation ethic than

Drury exhibited. He called for minimal development of the visitor facilities of the

parks; restraint seemed to be his guiding principle.

In 1945, Ben Thompson, who was then Chief, Branch of Lands, for the Park

Service in Washington, expressed the subsidence of enthusiasm for expansion when

Alfred Runte. National Parks: The American Experience . (Lincoln. Nebraska and London: University

of Nebraska Press, 1979), 136-37.

39

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.
The Movements to Establish a Park 27

he once again addressed the subject of extension of the boundaries of Carlsbad

Caverns. He wrote to Regional Director Minor Tillotson in Santa Fe and told him

that he foresaw no major boundary changes for the park. He asked Tillotson to encourage the State of Texas to acquire McKittrick Canyon and the Guadalupe Peak

section of the Guadalupe Mountains. Thompson intimated that the Park Service

would probably be receptive if the state offered to donate the park lands at some

later date.40

When Conrad Wirth took over as Director of the Park Service in 1951, the entire

park system needed renovation. MISSION 66, a program undertaken in the mid-1950s

to improve all park access and facilities by 1966, proved to be a high point in

development of the national parks. However, the emphasis of MISSION 66 was on upgrading existing parks rather than adding new ones to the system. Throughout the

late 1950s and early 1960s, therefore, there was little interest within the Park Service

for creating a new park in Texas.

The Early Park Movements

From 1925 to 1945 a relatively sustained effort existed to establish a park in the

Guadalupe Mountains of Texas. The effort, however, was highly fragmented. Little

substantive exchange took place between interested citizens and park agencies.

Boosters were interested in expanding tourism because their communities would

experience economic benefits. The spiritual and psychological appeal of the

mountains and canyons of the Guadalupes so enthralled them that they gave little thought to the problems involved in administering a large park. Acquisition of the

land was the boosters' primary concern. On the other side, national and state park agencies worried about where they

would find the money to acquire, develop, and maintain park lands. The Texas

legislature was hesitant to make any move, partly because of lack of funds and

partly because every legislator was promoting his district's pet park.

Park Service personnel worked to justify either the creation of a separate Texas

national park or an extension to Carlsbad Caverns. Neither plan fit neatly into the

financial and ideological frameworks of the Park Service. By some analyses the

scenic value of the Texas park was limited. By other analyses, acquisition of the

land was the problem since purchase by the federal government was a method yet

untried. In addition to those problems, a wide range of viewpoints existed within

the Park Service regarding the character and purposes of park lands. The emerging

awareness of conservation of unique biota was apparent in the assessments of Wright,

Thompson, and Toll. Similarly, Obert recognized the fragility of McKittrick Canyon,

but he went further than his associates and addressed development needs and

compared them with the resource. He did not consider economic gain or recreational

40Ben 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.

41E.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.
28 Chapter II

values to be appropriate trade-offs for destruction of the canyon. A generation

later, environmentalists concerned with the development of Guadalupe Mountains

National Park would express beliefs similar to Obert's.
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."

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 thev 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

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.

2"Pratt interview, 4-5.

29
30 Chapter III

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)
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 31

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

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.

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.

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 structure. Centered over the main floor was a much

smaller second-story "deck" room. Transverse walls of native rock, tied together by

3

Ibid., 26-27.

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.

6National 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.
32 Chapter III

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.

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.

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. 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

7

Ibid.

a°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.

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.

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.
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 33

and gas leases on Section 11, Block 65, Township 1 South, for twenty years following

execution of the deed. 1-

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.

1

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." 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 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

ifDeed 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.

Pratt interview, 27.

14Wallace 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.
34 Chapter III

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.

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.

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.

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, 1 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.

16J.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.

17Wallace 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.

18Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience (Lincoln, Nebraska and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1979), 49, 188-89.

19 "Guadalupe Mountains of Texas: An Area Investigation Report," (National Park Service, Southwest Region, Santa Fe, March 1962, revised September 1962). 7-8.
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 35

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, 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)
36 Chapter III

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

i

• 20 the mountain range.

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.-1

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."

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.

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

20

Ib,d.

21

Ibid.. 12-22.

"Ibid.. 28.

-''ibid., 2.
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 37

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."

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."

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."

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

"4Acting Director, National Park Service to Secretary of the Interior, July 11, 1962, in Box 5, V.F. 45, in library, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Ben Thompson, Assistant Director to Regional Director, Southwest Region, October 11. 1962 in Box 5, V.F.

45, in library, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

26Biggs to Olin Ashley, July 8. 1963, in file C45.3A #3, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
38 Chapter III

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." 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

Oft land to the federal government.

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 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

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
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 39

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.
40 Chapter III

(Facing pages)

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)
The Contributions of Wallace Pratt 41

FOR SALE

^r One of Southwest's Fabulous Ranches ^T Located In Magnificent Splendor of the Guadalupes

-JL- Over 70,000 Acn Abundant Water

/ rotile of GUADALUPE MOUNTAIN RANCH

"If is the most fabulous property in the United States remaining in private ownership," as stated by a well known naturalist.

" . . . from a distance the Guadalupes seem barren but magnificent-looking, with great columns, spires and buttresses of limestone . . . There is much timber on the high ridges

of the range . . . McKittrick [Canyon] is still pretty much as it was in the days of the Apaches. An icy stream, fed by many springs, races for about five miles down the canyon

floor . . . the stream is well stocked with speckled rrout[rainbow trout], and there are hundreds of big mule deer." Frank X. Tolbert, INFORMAL HISTORY OF TEXAS.

Scenery in McKittrick Canyon is unparalleled ... In autumn colors, ney present nature in an extravaganza of color." Bernhardt Riske, EXAS PARADE.
42 Chapter III

"... scenic beauty found only in some areas of Colorado." Curtis Carpenter, TEXAS GAME AND

FISH.

r 1 ARTESIA NEW MEXICO \^s> <^

OBBS

£^CA81SBA0 ^^ , ANDREWS

CaSISBaD CAVEBNS^^ J A MIDLAND

^f El Paso

1 GUAOAIUPE ^^\

* KEB Ml j/oDISS*.

V MOUNTAIN V, ES RANCH J^\ PECOS TEXAS ^^ X*^NHOBN

€aUe Of&acts

LOCATION: 100 miles east of El Paso, 55 miles SW of Carlsbad, N. M. on

Federal Highway 180. Landing strips nearby. WATER: Abundant springs, numerous wells and surface tanks, extensive

pipelines. Subsurface water available for irrigating several hundred acres of

suitable land. Electricity from REA. PROPERTY: 108 1/2 sections, approximately 71,790 acres deeded land. 90

miles net wire fence, adequate corrals and ranch buildings, picturesque headquarters at Frijole, modest lodge in McKittrick Canyon. TERRAIN: 3700 to 8750 elevation-foothills to rugged mountains. VEGETATION: Many good grasses, abundant browse, fine stands of timber. OIL & GAS: 23,000 acres now under oil & gas leases. Substantial portion of

oil & gas mineral rights included in sale. HUNTING & FISHING: Numerous black tail deer and Rocky Mountain Elk. Rainbow trout in McKittrick Canyon. CARRYING CAPACITY: 2,000 animal units. TAXES: $2,700.00 per year. Inspection arranged by your broker through MILLERMAN &

MILLERMAN, Abilene, Texas-ORchard 4-1323.

Price $1,500,000.00
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.

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."

Pratt sympathized with Hunter's position and advised him to accept any reasonable

offer he received. 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

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.

3Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter. February 28. 1963. in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection. Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas.

43
44 Chapter IV

areas of the Guadalupe Mountain Ranch might contain gas-producing formations.

He ended his letter to Hunter emphatically: "Retain part of your mineral rights!"

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.

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 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. 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

4Wallace Pratt to J.C. Hunter, March 11, 1963, in file C45.3A #1, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Texas.

References throughout file C45.3A #3. Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, Texas.

Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, August 3. 1963.

7Biggs to Richard Yarborough, August 28, 1963, in file C45.3A #3. Glenn Biggs Collection. Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
Legislative History 45

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.

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.

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.

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 lar^r Yarborough announced that the Advisory Board had

8

J.B. Shepperd to County Chairmen, September 5, 1963, in file C45.4A, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Texas.

9Bobby L. Crisman, interview with author, April 13, 1987; Louis Whitlock, telephone interview with author,

January 24, 1988.

10Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News, November 1, 1963: Carlsbad Current-Argus, November 1, 1963.

"ibid.
46 Chapter IV

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.

1 " 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. 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. 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.

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.

Congressional hearings about the proposed park were scheduled for April 1964,

and the Texas support group worked 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.

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

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.

13Glenn 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.

14Stewart Udall to John Connally, December 27. 1963. in file C45.3B #5. Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock. Texas.

15John Connally to Stewart Udall, January 17, 1964. in file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas.

16Jack Campbell to Dan Ponder, February 10, 1964, in file C45.3B #5, Glenn Biggs Collection. Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

17Glenn Biggs to various Chamber of Commerce Presidents, C45.3B #6, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock. Texas.
Legislative History 47

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 ."

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."

1

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.

18CarIsbad Current-Argus. July 16, 1964.

19Glenn Biggs to Joe Pool, July 16, 1964, Folder C45.3B #6, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

- Ralph Yarborough. A Congressional Record Bibliography, 3-5.

"Carlsbad Current-Argus, December 13, 1964.
48 Chapter IV

J.C. Hunter, Jr., owner of the Guadalupe

Mountain Ranch.

Glenn Biggs,

Real Estate Broker who

represented Hunter.

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.
Legislative History 49

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."

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." 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

22

J.C. Hunter to Jim Bowmer, March 10, 1965, in file C45.3B #8, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest

Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock. Texas.

23References throughout file C45.3B #9, Glenn Biggs Collection. Southwest Collection. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

^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.
50 Chapter IV

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."

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."

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

27 issue.

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. 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

25Stanley Cain to Henry Jackson, July 14, 1965. Background Book #4.

26Abilene (Texas) Reporter-News. July 18, 1965.

27E1 Paso Times. July 21, 1965.

28Ibid.; 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.
Legislative History 51

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." 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

29

lb.d.

30E1 Paso Times. March 2, 1966.

31 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.
52 Chapter IV

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. 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.

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.

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.

32E1 Paso Times. March 11, 1966.

33Ibid.

"^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.

35June 20, 1966, Congressional Record , 89th Cong., 2d sess., 13027-31.
Legislative History 53

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.

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 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

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.

San Angelo Standard-Times, April 14, 1966.

^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.
54 Chapter IV

costs at Point Reyes, Cape Cod, and Padre Island. He expressed the hope that such

errors would not be repeated at Guadalupe.

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.

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.

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. "

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 . . . ."'

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.

39

Ibid., 71.

40

Ibid., 72-76.

41

Ibid., 76.

42

Ibid., 78-87.

43

Ibid., 88.

^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.
Legislative History 55

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 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.

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. 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."

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.

45E1 Paso Times, January 24. 1967.

46

Ibid., February 10, 1967.

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.
56 Chapter IV

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 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

48E1 Paso Times. February 24. 1967.

^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.

50Dallas Morning News. April 22, 1968: Abilene (Texas) Reporter- News, April 25, 1968.
Legislative History 57

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.

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 UdalPs 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.

The McKittrick Canyon Access Road

In January 1975, Congressman Richard White introduced H. R. 1747, amending

Section 2 of the 1966 Act that created Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The

amendment provided for an exchange of land so that an access road to McKittrick

Canyon could be built on Park Service land. When White defended the amendment

before the House in December 1975, he pointed out that visitors had to use a privately owned ranch road to reach McKittrick Canyon. The owner of the road,

Mrs. Fletcher Pratt, whose late husband was the son of Wallace Pratt, had limited

public access to four cars on weekdays and 10 cars per day on weekends. White

explained that visitors had to use the private road because engineers had determined

that the land the Park Service originally intended to be used for the access road was

too rough and was subject to flash floods. Mrs. Pratt had agreed to exchange her

property for the right-of-way originally donated by the Pratt family. White

51 San Angelo Standard-Times, June 20, 1968 and June 21. 1968; El Paso Times, July 12, 1968.

52E1 Paso Times, November 3, 1968.

53Ibid., January 16, 1969 and September 23. 1969.

54Federal Register , 37(October 6, 1972): 21193.
58 Chapter IV

informed the House members that the cost for the transaction was estimated to be

$3,750.55

In June 1975 the Senate had passed S. 313, an identical bill to White's H. R. 1747.

After hearing White's testimony, the House passed H.R. 1747, suspended the rules

requiring committee consideration of S. 313, amended the Senate bill by using the

wording of the House bill, and passed the Senate bill. The Senate concurred on the

amendment on December 17, 1975.56 The bill became Public Law 94-174 on December

23, 1975.

Wilderness Designation and Development Ceiling Increase

The Wilderness Act of 1964 required the Secretary of the Interior to review

roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more within national parks and recommend whether

such lands should be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. In 1970,

as the master planning process for Guadalupe Mountains began, the designation of

wilderness areas within the park became a hotly debated issue.

By the time of the Master Plan hearings in November 1971, most of the battle was over. The real debate had begun on March 17, 1970, when a large group of

interested persons met with the Park Service to voice their opinions about the park's

proposed master plan and wilderness proposal. The wilderness proponents hoped that

the park would not be developed in any way. Joseph Leach, regional chairman of

the Sierra Club from El Paso, spoke for his organization, asking that the park be left

entirely unchanged, with no roads to provide access for campers and trailers. Leach saw no harm, however, in the tramway which the Park Service proposed to build

through Pine Springs Canyon.

Clare Cranston of the U. S. Geological Services expressed a more

development-oriented viewpoint, suggesting keeping people out of Guadalupe

Mountains would be "discrimination of the worst kind .... against the bulk of our population." He asked a Sierra Club representative, "Do you mean that 10 years

from now I will not be allowed to visit the park just because I would be physically

unable to walk in?" Milo Conrad of the New Mexico Mountain Club responded, "Go

in while you're young."

R. W. Lee, an El Paso newspaper editor, attended the meeting. Viewing the heated

arguments objectively, he told his readers that the overriding concern of everyone

present was that the park should not be developed to such a point that preservation

of its wilderness state, which they all seemed to value, would become impossible.

December 1, 1975, Congressional Record . 94th Cong.. 1st sess., 37883.

56Ibid., 37884.

57Carlsbad Current-Argus. March 18, 1970.

58Ibid.

59

E1 Paso Herald Post , March 18, 1970.
Legislative History 59

In May the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the master planning

team for Guadalupe Mountains, expressing its belief that the majority of the

travelling public would be barred from the park if it became a designated wilderness.

The Chamber preferred to see development similar to that at Carlsbad Caverns.

The stand of the Chamber drew a spate of letters to the editor of the Carlsbad

newspaper in support of the wilderness designation. Also during this time, the

National Speleological Society prepared its own proposal for the designation of

156,000 acres of wilderness in portions of Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad

Caverns, and Lincoln National Forest, and submitted it to the National Park Service,

the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.61

The Carlsbad Current-Argus provided a forum for opinions about the park

throughout the next year. The newspaper did a commendable job of presenting both

sides of the issue and printing in-depth articles about the park and the planning

process. The educational campaign carried out by the Current-Argus no doubt

contributed to the spirit of compromise that led the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

to reverse its earlier opinion and announce in October 1971 its support for the Master

Plan and Wilderness Proposal as developed by the Park Service. The membership of

Superintendent Donald Dayton in the Chamber of Commerce and his active efforts

to establish good relations with that organization and other civic groups also aided

in obtaining the final support of the Chamber.

Thus, the November 1971 hearings were not as heated as they might have been.

Most speakers approved the Master Plan generally although they took exception to specific parts of it. Most attention was directed to the Pine Springs Canyon

Tramway Proposal, not the Wilderness Proposal.63

In October 1972, President Richard M. Nixon submitted to Congress the

Wilderness Proposal for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The proposal

recommended 46,850 acres of the 77,500-acre park be designated as wilderness and

managed accordingly.6464 Six years later, as a part Title IV of the National Parks and

Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625), the Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness

became official (see Appendix A).

Another section of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 also affected

Guadalupe Mountains. During the first five years after official establishment of the

park, $7,462,000 of the park's $10,362,000 development ceiling had been spent, but

little permanent development had taken place. While visitor facilities had been built,

a visitor center, headquarters complex, employee housing, and roads and trails

60Carlsbad Current-Argus, May 15. 1970.

61 Ibid„ May 21, 1970; June 9, 1970; July 22, 1970; July 31, 1970.

62

Ibid., October 13, 1971; Bobby L. Crisman, letter to author, April 1988.

63Ibid.. November 19. 1971 and November 22, 1971.

^El Paso Times, October 17, 1972.
60 Chapter IV

remained to be constructed. Most of the available funds had been spent on planning,

setting up temporary administrative and public-use facilities, exploring for water

sources, developing temporary water sources for the facilities, and stabilizing historic

structures and ruins. The Interior Department requested the development ceiling be

raised to $24,715,000. Guadalupe Mountains, however, was unique among the

twenty-nine areas of the Park Service that were seeking increases in their

development ceilings. The ceilings for the twenty-eight other areas were based on

needs through 1981 only. The ceiling for Guadalupe Mountains covered the

estimated cost of all future development.65 On November 10, 1978, Title I of the

National Parks and Recreation Act raised the development ceiling for the park to $24,715,000 (see Appendix A).

Legislation in 1987

In 1987 a Congressional "add-on" to the annual omnibus appropriation bill for the

National Park Service included $3,650,000 for construction of the visitor center and

operational headquarters facility for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas

Congressman Ron Coleman, who had succeeded Richard White as the Representative

from the 16th District, sponsored the add-on legislation. In 1987 Coleman also

indicated his willingness to sponsor legislation to add about 10,000 acres to the park.

The boundary expansion would incorporate into the park the most significant portion

of the red and white sand dunes immediately west of the park boundary.

A Perspective on the Legislative History

When considering the legislative history of other parks, the supporters of

Guadalupe Mountains National Park did not encounter unusual obstacles. Congress

had wrestled with the issue of the value of such resources as minerals or timber

many times in the past, such as when they authorized Isle Royale National Park , the

Everglades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Cape Hatteras National

Seashore and Recreation Area. During the 1940s and 1950s, formal establishment of

Cape Hatteras and the Everglades were stalled for as long as twenty years while state governments negotiated the values of mineral rights and surface rights so that they

could purchase the designated parklands and donate them to the national park

system. By the 1960s, when Guadalupe Mountains was authorized, Congress had

established the precedent of appropriating money to acquire privately held lands for

park use. Considering that acquisition of the surface rights to Guadalupe Mountains

National Park depended on the whims of Congressional appropriations committees

65Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing on S. 2976 , 95th Cong., 2d sess., 1978, 25.

66Richard Smith, interview with author. April 14. 1987: Bobby L. Crisman. interview with author, April 14, 1987 and letter to author, April 1988.
Legislative History 61

at a time when the nation faced other strong financial commitments, the acquisition

process took a relatively short period of time.67

Like all other parks, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, was created and

developed by political action. The establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National

Park required the sustained efforts of many politically adept and powerful people.

Without the combined work of Pool, Foreman, Yarborough, and White, the park

would not have been authorized. Private citizens used their political influence to get

the Congressional hearings scheduled. Later, after authorization of the park,

Yarborough's push for a different way to finance land acquisition, combined with

White's support in the House, undoubtedly shortened the time required for that phase

of park development. Finally, in 1987, the aggressive work of Ron Coleman brought

about funding for the park's visitor center and operations headquarters, a project

that had been financially stymied for a decade.

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

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." 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.

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

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.

63
64 Chapter V

(LOCATION OF PARKI

NT* netICO

State of Texas

p^jjl Texaco, Inc. White areas within park

boundary owned in fee

N

HALF-SIZE REPRODUCTION

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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 65

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.

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. 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.

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.

4San Angelo Standard-Times. July 19. 1967.

5

Ibid., November 2, 1967.

6Trip 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.

7Howard 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.
66 Chapter V

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.

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. 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.

8Trip 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.

9Exchange 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.

10J.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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 67

ShivSts

-claiajs —, Hunter I Pratt donation

JUj* / I \ / \ NEW MEi

'LOCATION OF PARKI

Pratt Donation — 1960-1961 Hunter I — February 1968 Hunter II — May 1969 Hunter III — November 1969 Smaller Parcels— 1968-1972 Exchange Tracts shown outside boundaries

HALF- SIZE REPRODUCTION

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.
68 Chapter V

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.

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

11 Glenn Biggs to Robert Barrel, January 21, 1964, file C45.4A, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 69

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." 1-

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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

12Regional 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.

14Regional 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.
70 Chapter V

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. 1

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

18Mr. and Mrs. Ed Hammack to Ralph Yarborough, April 6. 1964, file C45.35 #5, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

19Regional 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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 71

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 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."

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."

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.

The Hammacks accepted the easement for a number of years, but in 1976 they

askeu 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." 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."

21 George Hartzog to Ralph Yarborough, February 16, 1966. in Background Book #4. Bobby L. Crisman per- sonal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad. New Mexico.

22Public Law 89-667, 80 Stat. 920, signed October 15. 1966.

23Scenic Easement, in file "Scenic Easement Deed on Tract 01-116 (Hammack) GMNP" kept in safe at Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad. New Mexico.

^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, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

"^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 15.

26Bobby L. Crisman, telephone conversation with author. May 29, 1987.
72 Chapter V

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."

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."

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."

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

27Glenn Biggs to Robert L. Barrel. January 21. 1964. in file C45.4A. Land Ownership, Glenn Biggs Collection, Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas.

28Glenn Biggs to Noel Kincaid, January 21. 1964, file C

Southwest Collection, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

29 Paul Wykert to Robert Barrel, March 5, 1964; Box 5, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

28Glenn Biggs to Noel Kincaid, January 21, 1964, file C45.4A, Land Ownership, Glenn Biggs Collection,

29 Paul Wykert to Robert Barrel, March 5, 1964; Leslie Arnberger to Noel Kincaid, March 12, 1964; V.F. 45,
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 73

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 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 ."

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. "

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. . . . [TJhere 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.

3 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.

^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.

33Regional Director to Director, May 27, 1964, in Background Book #4, Bobby L. Crisman personal files. Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad. New Mexico.

^Ibid., 3.
74 Chapter V

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.

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

35Howard Cameron to File, January 15, 1968, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources Office, Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

^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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 75

to his report, saying he thought an earlier estimated appraisal of $50,000 to $75,000 was too high.

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 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

40 complaint action.

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.

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

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.

39Assistant 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.

40Acting 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, Negotiators Progress Report, April 14, 1970, in file Civil No. P-70-CA-29, Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

42Robert 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.
76 Chapter V

spouse. The Glover property w<

official establishment of the park.

spouse. The Glover property was the last piece of land to be acquired before

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.

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

-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 Mexico; Bobby L. Crisman, note to author, May 1988.

^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.

46Thomas 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.

47Howard Cameron to File, February 29, 1968, in file L1425- Shivers, Land Resources Office. Southwest

Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 77

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.

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.

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.

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. "

48Howard 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.

50Ibid.

51A.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.
78 Chapter V

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. 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.

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.

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

53Ibid.

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.

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.

56Chief, 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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 79

The McKittrick Canyon Right-of-Way Exchange

Even before the official establishment of Guadalupe Mountains National Park on September 30, 1972, park personnel realized the existing access road to McKittrick

Canyon presented a serious problem. When Wallace Pratt donated his land in

McKittrick Canyon, he gave the government a choice of access routes. The route was chosen from a map, rather than from a survey of the terrain. The chosen

right-of-way proved to be located in a canyon drainage where road construction

would be extremely expensive. Instead of using this right-of-way, visitors to McKittrick Canyon used an existing ranch road, belonging to Wallace Pratt's daughter-in-law, Alice Pratt. In April 1973, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

indicated their displeasure to the Park Service when they learned that Alice Pratt

had put a daily limit on the number of cars using her road: four on weekdays, ten on weekend days. Although Park Service officials already had begun negotiating for

a land exchange with Alice Pratt, Congressional legislation authorizing the exchange

would require considerable time.58

Three years passed before negotiations with Alice Pratt, Creighton L. Edwards, and

Nancy Jane Tucker, the joint owners of the approximately 80 acres in question, were

complete and legislation authorizing the exchange was passed. Donald Dayton,

Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks during

this period, recalled that negotiations with Alice Pratt required extreme delicacy.

The land exchange brought back hard feelings that had existed among the Pratt

children at the time of their father's land donation. They felt they had already

given enough. Wallace Pratt refused to intercede in the proceedings because he had

deeded the property containing the desirable right-of-way to his daughter-in-law and

no longer had control over the matter.

In spite of her concerns about family feelings, Alice Pratt's primary concern was

that Al Parker, the man who leased the ranch, was satisfied with the road and the

exchange agreement. Before Pratt agreed to the Park Service proposal, surveyors for

the government marked the route of the road so that she could see it on the land.

One of the first concessions required was construction of cattle underpasses to allow

Parker's cattle access to grazing and water.61 When the subject of transfer of mineral

rights came up, Pratt was adamant that Nancy Jane Tucker not be required to relinquish her 2/9 mineral interest in the property. In a telephone conversation with

Brewster Lindner, Chief of Land Acquisition in the Southwest Regional Office, Pratt

said that "the mere mention of Nancy Jane Tucker's name" made her want "to drop

the whole proposal." She feared that even though Lindner had assured her that

58Donald 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.

59Ibid.

^Donald Dayton to Mrs. Fletcher Pratt. December 1973, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt I, Land Resources

Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

61Assistant 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.
80 Chapter V

Tucker's interest would not be required, someone later would demand that the

interest be extinguished and then another "horrible" family feud would erupt. Within

two weeks the regional office provided an Administration Certificate guaranteeing

Tucker would not be approached for at least five years from the date of the property

exchange.

As negotiations continued, park personnel tried different ways to limit the number

of cars crossing the Parker ranch. Initially, visitors obtained keys to the gate of the

ranch road from the Frijole contact station and returned them on an honor system.

Although this method limited access to McKittrick Canyon, it still did not guarantee

that visitors would stay on the road and would not disturb Parker's land or cattle. In June 1973, in an effort to allow more persons to visit the canyon each day, a shuttle-van service was instituted. A ranger drove the 15-passenger van that departed

hourly from the McKittrick Canyon turn-off on Highway 62/180 and returned on the

half-hour. While this method created more traffic on the ranch road, it provided

better visitor control on the private property.

Alice Pratt recognized the care with which the Park Service personnel handled the

exchange of the McKittrick Canyon right-of-way. Her letter of March 1976,

transmitting the signed deed to Lindner said, "I hope that the end of these dealings

will not be the end of our contact as it has been a pleasure to deal with

representatives of the government with such kindness and consideration as yours."

However, Al Parker had to contend with the Park Service and the public for two more years. The first phase of construction on the road to McKittrick Canyon was

not finished until the summer of 1978. In May 1980, negotiators completed the

exchange of mineral rights for the right-of-way.

West Side Access Road Right-of-Wav

Part of one section of the land acquired from Hunter outside of the park

boundaries had been designated as an access route from Highway 62/180 to the west

side of the park. Rather than retain the entire section when only a road

right-of-way was needed, the government traded all but a 200-foot-wide strip through

the section, plus half of another of the sections outside the park boundary, to the

State of Texas for the same amount of land in Brewster County, Texas, to be used

by Big Bend National Park. The exchange was completed on November 4, 1974.

6-Brewster Lindner to File, March 8. 1974; Acting Regional Director Theodore R. Thompson to Mrs. Fletcher

Pratt, March 21, 1974, in file L1425-Edwards Pratt I, Land Resources Office, Southwest Regional Office, Santa

Fe, New Mexico.

Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 13, 1987; Odessa American , June 24, 1973.

^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.

65Deed 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.
Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition 81

A scenic easement, 1,320 feet wide (660 feet on either side of the right-of-way),

accompanying the right-of-way gave the Park Service the authority to approve or disapprove the construction of buildings within the area of the easement, to prohibit

the removal of timber or shrubs within the area of the easement without written

approval, to prohibit the placement of any offensive or unsightly material upon the

easement land, and to prohibit signs or billboards except those no larger than 18 by

24 inches, advertising the sale of property or produce.

Acquisition of the Texas Highway Department Maintenance Area

At the time Guadalupe Mountains National Park was authorized, the Texas

highway department had a one-acre maintenance facility on the north side of

Highway 62/180, across from the Glover cafe at Pine Springs, in an area of scenic

value to the park. The highway department was unwilling to abandon the camp,

claiming it was necessary for winter road maintenance. To facilitate removal of the

maintenance facility, the Park Service agreed to provide the highway department

with access right-of-way and water to a new site for their facility near the mountain

pass. In 1982 the Park Service and the Texas Highway Department signed a cooperative agreement to allow the exchange of the maintenance camp property for

a road easement through park property to a new highway department facility, to be

constructed on the south side of the highway, just outside the park boundary.

Under the terms of the agreement, the old maintenance camp site would be cleared

of all buildings and structures within a "reasonable length of time" after the new

facility was built. Deeds would be exchanged when the old site became surplus to the needs of the State.

67 The agreement also provided that the Park Service would

provide water, on a cost basis, to the new maintenance camp.

The highway department occupied its new camp in March 1984 and completed

clearing the old site in April 1986. As of January 1988, however, the State of Texas

had not conveyed the old 0.99-acre camp site to the government. A complication in

completing the exchange was the reserved right-of-way belonging to the Texas and

Pacific Land Trust that overlapped the location of the road to the new highway

camp. Although primarily a technical flaw and not a real problem, the existence of

this prior right-of-way was overlooked when the cooperative agreement was prepared

and signed.

^Ibid.

67Donald 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.
82 Chapter V

Excess Land Acquired Outside the Park Boundaries

In 1988, two and one-half sections remained of the land outside the park

boundaries that was acquired for exchange purposes. Section 18, Township 2 South,

Block 65, Culberson County, was used as a temporary residential area for park

employees until 1982, when permanent housing was completed. Although the Park

Service considered disposing of this section in 1978, Superintendent Dayton

recommended it be retained for its valuable water source and to help preserve scenic

views in Guadalupe Pass.

When the federal government acquired Hunter's land, El Paso Natural Gas

Company had a 99-year lease, terminating in 2046, on approximately 80 acres of

Section 25, Block 120, PSL, Culberson County. The leased site contained

company-owned residences. The remaining acreage in this half-section, however, was

unencumbered.

In 1988, the third excess section, Section 13, Block 120, PSL, Culberson County had

not been developed and was situated immediately south of the southern boundary of

the park and north of Highway 62/180.

In most cases, acquisition of the mineral and surface rights to the park lands took

place with little public controversy. After the concessions made during the

Congressional hearings regarding reversionary mineral rights, the State of Texas and

Texaco donated their mineral rights with little hesitation. While the government

was not able to exchange as much land as had been anticipated, the small

landowners, with the exception of the Hammacks and the Glovers, did not object to selling or exchanging their property. In the case of the Hammack tract, the park

legislation provided for a scenic easement, which made fee acquisition unnecessary.

The Glover property, however, had to be acquired through condemnation.

Negotiations with the Glovers marked the beginning of a sensitive park issue that was still a management concern in 1988.

^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

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

83
84 Chapter VI

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

3Master Plan Brief for Proposed Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Bobby L. Crisman personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters. Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 85

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.

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.

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 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.

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

decade-long (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

4

Ibid.

Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.

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.
86 Chapter VI

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.

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. 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

Ronald A. Foresta, America's National Parks and their Keepers (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future,

Inc., 1984), 59-67.

8See pages 91-93.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 87

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, 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.

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.

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

9Wilderness Recommendation, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas, (U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service, August 1972).
88 Chapter VI

EXHIBIT B

REVISIONS TO PRELIMINARY

WILDERNESS PLAN

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL PARK

LEGEND

EXISTING PARK BOUNDARY

WILDERNESS

PRIVATE LAND

A EA HIVZZZZZ2 MAJOR ROAD

MINOR ROAD

TRAIL -_--—_^-

INTERPRETIVE MARKER • ADDITION A B C.D.EF !*N«iQQ9«*a*

DELETION G.H &mm%m&

ACREAGES

PARK ACREAGE 77.500 ACRES

FEOERAL LAND 77.4(8 ACRES

PRIVATE LAND B« ACRES

WILDERNESS 46,860 ACRES

Figure 15. The areas recommended for wilderness designation. Cross-hatched areas were added after public input during the review process.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 89

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.

1

The west side of the park would be developed for low-density use. Cooperation

with the Texas highway department 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.

1-

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.

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.

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

10Master Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, October 6, 1976), 17-21. nIbid., 21.

12

Ibid., 22.

13Ibid.

14

Ibid.. 25-26.
90 Chapter VI

use/imtebpretivc

rOCUS/ HEADQUARTERS

• TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TERMINUS

• MAJOR INTERPRETIVE FACILITY

• LIGHT REFRESHMENTS

• PARKING

• OPERATIONS OFFICES

• RESIDENCES

• MAINTENANCE FACILITY

• HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION V1EWIHCXOME

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TERMINUS

• SHELTER

• RANGER OFFICE

• ORIENTATION DEVICE TRAILS

ON-SITE INTERPRETIVE DEVICES GENERAL DEVELOPMENT FEB. 73 DSC

Figure 16. The general plan for development of Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

as set forth in the Master Plan approved in 1976.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 91

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,

i c research (delicate) areas, primitive land, and historic and cultural sites.

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.

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

1

before human uses were developed. Fire would be utilized as a management tool.

Pine Springs Development Concept Plan and the Tramway Study

In 1973, planning began for the Pine Springs area. The area to be considered

included Guadalupe Peak, El Capitan, the meadow below Guadalupe Peak, Pine

Springs Canyon, the ranch house and associated buildings at Frijole Spring, the ruins

of the Pinery, the temporary ranger and information station, a primitive campground,

the trailhead for hiking and horse trails into the high country, several historic and

prehistoric archeological sites, a number of springs, the Glover property, and the

maintenance and residence areas for the Texas highway department.

Planning for Pine Springs took place simultaneously with the development of the

Master Plan and a study of the proposed tramway. The tramway study, completed

in 1974, recommended utilization of a mechanical system called Skytram (a registered

trade name). Skytram was composed of individually powered cars that moved along

a fixed cable. Each car had a capacity of 22 persons and would be driven by an

15

Ibid., 26-30.

16Ibid., 28-29.

17

Ibid., 37-39.
92 Chapter VI

operator. The lower terminus of the tram would be a part of the main visitor center

at Pine Springs, where visitors would be introduced to the park's resources. The

proposed route of Skytram closely followed the walls of Pine Springs Canyon,

running north from the visitor center at Pine Springs, then west to a landing in a meadow at an elevation of 8,150 feet. From the meadow, a separate shuttle would

carry passengers to the ledge about 500 feet below Guadalupe Peak, at an elevation

of 8,675 feet. From there, the peak would be accessible by a foot trail (see Figure

17). Planners estimated that five Skytram cars could deliver 110 persons to the

meadow each hour; the shuttle car could deliver 110 persons to the upper terminus

each hour. Water would be delivered to the meadow area in specially designed tanks

carried by the cars. Sewage would be removed from the meadow landing in a similar manner. Electrical power available at Pine Springs was sufficient to power Skytram

and power for facilities at the meadow landing would be generated by solar units.

The estimated price for Skytram was $5, 400, 000. 18

By early 1975, changing attitudes and concern with reducing park costs caused the

Department of the Interior to place an unofficial hold on the tramway project. As

a result, park Superintendent Donald Dayton faced a thorny problem. In January,

Dayton met with Texas Congressman Richard White, the park's chief advocate in

Washington. White was interested in developing a park that could be enjoyed by

many of his constituents. In 1975 he had two objectives for the park: one, that

legislation for the right-of-way exchange for the McKittrick Canyon access road be

pushed through the next session of Congress, and two, that the tramway be

constructed. Dayton did not tell White of the unofficial hold on the tramway

project, but he indicated the opposition of the Sierra Club to the idea. White told

Dayton that he would not support wilderness designation for the park until the

tramway was constructed. He refused to support the wilderness plan because he

believed the public had been cheated when plans for a ridge road between Guadalupe

Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns were abandoned. White argued that he had worked

to get the park authorized for the public to enjoy. He asserted that others, who had

not been involved in the initial park effort, now were trying to dictate how the park

would be used.

Dayton knew that support for wilderness designation by the district's Congressman

was essential to its adoption. The planners for the park were caught between the

powerful forces of Congressional support and the environmental lobby. In March

1975, Dayton spoke at the National Park Service Regional Advisory Committee

meeting in Carlsbad. He told the group, "The tram is controversial; we expect to get

considerable opposition. But we feel we don't have much choice if the public wants

to see it.

18Tramway Study, Pine Springs Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service, undated), 1-6.

^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.

20Carlsbad Current-Argus, March 3, 1975.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 93

PINE SPRINGS RANCH -

UPPER PINE SPRINGS

;#?] THD RESlDENCESSMAINTENANCE |NPS RESIDENCES* MAINTENANCE

llllll PARKING

ffitta PRIMITIVE CAMPGROUND

PICNIC

llllll OWE R TERMINAL

II TRAM ROUTE • TOWER —VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

TRAJI — WILOERNESS PROPOSAL BOUNDARY TRAMWAY

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK / PINE SPRINGS CANYON i

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 6

TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

MAINTENANCE S RESIDENTIAL AREA

itf*> 1 veer *

Figure 17. The proposed tramway between Pine Springs and Guadalupe Peak (from

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Tramway study, undated)
94 Chapter VI

In the summer of 1975 the Park Service adopted an innovative approach to put the

question of the development at Pine Springs to the public: a survey of opinions of

visitors to Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns. Visitors answered a questionnaire offering six alternatives to future development at Pine Springs. The

alternatives included a choice of maintenance of existing temporary facilities and

five other choices, all of which involved development of a visitor center,

maintenance shop, and employee residences, but offered different forms of

transportation into the interior of the park: (1) an aerial tramway, (2) phased

development with eventual construction of a tramway, (3) a helicopter shuttle, (4) a shuttle-bus road, (5) horse and foot trails. Exhibits and relief models helped visitors

understand and evaluate the alternatives. Park planners hoped that the public

opinion survey would provide input from park users, a group not usually represented

at public meetings and workshops. Between July 18 and August 17 approximately

7,200 visitors responded to the questionnaire.

At a public meeting held in Carlsbad in November 1975 to discuss the Pine Springs

development, park officials revealed the results of the visitor survey: 2,321 visitors

chose the alternative offering only foot and horse trail access to the high country;

2,165 chose the tramway alternative; 1,069 chose the shuttle bus alternative; lesser

numbers of visitors selected the other three alternatives, with the phased development

and helicopter alternatives receiving the least support. At the Carlsbad meeting, 26

speakers were in favor of the tramway while 11 were opposed."

The following day Park Service officials held another public meeting in El Paso.

The majority of the 86 persons who attended were not in favor of the tramway."

Apparently, expressions of public opinion at the park and in his district swayed

the support of Congressman White for the wilderness designation. In January 1976,

while touring his district, he told a group assembled in Van Horn that while he

opposed designation of the entire Guadalupe Mountains park as wilderness, he did

think delicate ecological parts of the park should be protected, while leaving other

areas open to the public. He made no remarks for or against the tramway.

In September 1975 park managers completed the Environmental Assessment for

the Pine Springs Development Concept Plan and a year later the plan was approved

by the Southwest Regional Office (see Figure 18). The plan for visitor development

provided for the possibility of a tramway but did not focus on it, using terminology

such as "if and when a tramway ... is constructed."

21" National Park Courier, September 1975, 3.

22"Carlsbad Current-Argus, November 6, 1975.

23

Ibid., November 13, 1975.

El Paso Times. January 6, 1976.

^Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, October 1976), 9.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 95

According to the Pine Springs Development Concept Plan, the visitor center

complex at Pine Springs would cover some five acres. Developments included the

visitor center, which would comprise approximately 9,100 square feet, a possible food

and sales concession, visitor parking, the temporary primitive campground, a future

walk-in campground, and a possible future tramway terminal. The Pinery stage

station would be accessible by a trail from the visitor center and would be

interpreted. Another trail, simulating the route of the Butterfield stage, would lead

from the visitor center to the vicinity of the Frijole ranch house. The springs,

military encampment, and Indian sites near the visitor center also would be

interpreted.

The Frijole ranch house and outbuildings, the nearby springs, and the old

schoolhouse would be interpreted as a typical early ranch development. The horse

concession would be located between the Frijole site and Highway 62/180. All horse

trails would originate there. The meadow, reached by hiking trail, would have a shelter and vault toilets. Horseback and foot trails would lead to Guadalupe Peak.

The plan provided for a future drive-in campground of 15 acres if private enterprise

did not construct one in the vicinity of Pine Springs."

Development for management in the Pine Springs area included separate

maintenance and residence areas for the park service and the highway department

on the south side of Highway 62/180. In 1987, Donald Dayton recalled the problems

involved in choosing sites for both the visitor center complex and the maintenance

and residence buildings. Because park boundaries had been dictated by property

ownership lines rather than by the lay of the land, only a small buffer zone existed

between the valuable visual resources of the park and its boundaries. The small

amount of land available between the park boundary and the escarpment in the

vicinity of Pine Springs severely limited the locations available for development.

Environmentalists, concerned with maintaining the impact of an unobstructed view

of El Capitan and Guadalupe Peak from the highway, lobbied for locating the

residence and maintenance areas south of the highway."

The Development Concept Plan also provided for utilities. Water for the entire

Pine Springs area would be supplied from a newly drilled well, which was completed

in March 1976. Above-ground electrical lines to the Frijole ranch house would be

maintained to preserve historical accuracy, but all other electrical and telephone

service lines would be underground. A sewage treatment plant would be located east of the Park Service residential area. The total estimated cost for buildings and

utilities for Pine Springs was $5,110,000. Planners estimated an additional $2,510,000

as the cost for roads and trails."

Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, 5-10.

27

Ibid., 11-16.

Donald Dayton, interview with author, May 20, 1987.

29Final Development Concept Plan, Pine Springs, 18-21.
96 Chapter VI

Figure 18. Developments approved in 1975 for the Pine Springs area.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 97

The Regional Director approved the Master Plan for Guadalupe Mountains a month after approving the Pine Springs Development Concept Plan. An errata

sheet attached to the plan stated that the decision on the tramway had been deferred

because of "grave concern on the part of many interested persons, uncertainties of

visitor use and demand in the immediate future, much more pressing needs for other

facilities, and the current national economic situation. That cryptic sentence

summarized all of the opposition to the tramway: the concern of the

environmentalists with preserving pristine wilderness, the change of attitudes within

the Park Service and the Department of the Interior about what experiences the

nation's parks should provide, and Congressional concern with reducing expenditures

in the parks.

Other Plans for Development

Environmental Assessment for McKittrick Canyon

In 1975, the government acquired the right-of-way for a new access road to McKittrick Canyon. Construction of a new road, which would make the canyon

much more accessible to visitors, made the need for visitor facilities in the canyon more imperative. The Master Plan provided for the road, as well as a parking area, and information and ranger station with a shaded waiting area. During 1976, staff

at the Denver Service Center completed the Environmental Assessment of the

buildings and utilities for McKittrick Canyon. The Environmental Assessment was

necessary to determine how the comfort station and utilities could be developed.

Under existing conditions, an aerial power line served the Pratt cabin, but there was

no comfort station, water, or telephone available for visitors. Besides no action,

three alternatives were proposed for the utilities for the ranger station and comfort

station. All of the alternatives included electrical and telephone systems; two also

included sewage treatment and water systems, the primary difference between the

two being the type of sewage treatment provided.31 The Environmental Assessment

merely described the alternatives and made no recommendation about which should

be adopted. Planners subsequently adopted the alternative that utilized a septic tank

and leach field.

Upper Dog Canyon Development Concept Plan

and Environmental Assessment

After 1975, the only way visitors could reach Dog Canyon was by using the trail

system from other parts of the park. Automobile access to Dog Canyon, in the

northern part of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, had been closed by landowners

who refused to allow park visitors to travel across their property. Negotiations

between the landowners and numerous government agencies were prolonged until

Master Plan, errata sheet.

^Environmental Assessment, Buildings and Utilities. McKittrick Canyon (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, October 1976).
98 Chapter VI

1977 when Eddy County acquired the necessary right-of-way and agreed to cooperate

with the State of New Mexico to build a road to the park boundary. Planning for

development near the northern boundary of the park progressed rapidly after road

access to the canyon had been assured. While the Master Plan had provided for a ranger residence, contact station, primitive campground, and corral for park stock

in Upper Dog Canyon, development of the area hinged upon the location of a dependable source of water for the residential area and for Park Service livestock.

Before the federal government acquired the land from J.C. Hunter, Jr., the Laurie

Kincaid family had lived at the Upper Dog Canyon site, in a house built a number

of years earlier by Fred Cox. In 1976, the park ranger lived in the old house.

Existing structures that dated from the 1930s included the house and a stockshed;

more recent structures included two fiberglass water tanks and a metal storage shed

(see Figure 19). Other facilities present in 1976 included a horse corral, a fenced

pasture, a fire circle, a pit toilet associated with the temporary camping area, a weather station, and two earthen tanks that had been used for stock water storage

prior to establishment of the park. Several midden sites, one deemed eligible for

nomination to the National Register, were associated with the development area. The

area also contained a one-mile nature trail and trailheads leading up Dog Canyon to Lost Peak and Pitchfork Canyon. Water for the ranger residence was obtained from

Upper Dog Canyon Spring, which flowed weakly at 0.3 gallons per minute. A septic

tank provided waste treatment for the residence. Electric power and telephone

service, with frequent interruptions, were supplied from El Paso Gap, via Dell City. ~

The Environmental Assessment for development of Upper Dog Canyon, completed

in April 1978, expanded on the scheme that had been set forth in the Master Plan.

The Environmental Assessment offered three alternatives besides no action. All three

provided for the demolition of existing structures and replacement with residential

and barn/storage units meeting park service standards. In each of the alternatives

the residential area contained a three-bedroom residence with garage for the park

ranger. The ranger's residence was combined with the contact station. The

residential area also included two two-bedroom apartments for seasonal employees,

with a garage for each residence. In each of the alternatives, the barn and corral

complex was located at the south end of the developed area, in the vicinity of the

existing stockshed. To provide water to the residences and for emergency visitor use, each alternative called for drilling a deep well and, if the flow justified

development, construction of a 20,000-gallon storage tank, and purification and

distribution systems. If the drilling effort failed to produce a sufficient supply of

water, the existing water source, Upper Dog Canyon Spring, would be renovated and

augmented with roof catchment and surface runoff collection. If necessary,

supplemental water would be trucked to the area.

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.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 99

«•» (rffeJijcrk cxupn

^ nalure- trai tsnpjT^ samp ansa UrPEK D06 CANYON

6UAD4LUPE MOUNTAINS? NATIONAL F^fK

EXfrTIN6 -*l

conm\ow>

O CO 2B> &>

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

site.
100 Chapter VI

Each of the three alternatives involved 9.5 acres of land and varied only in the

locations of the residential and campground areas. One alternative placed the

campground just inside the park boundary on the east side of the entrance road. The

residential area was also on the east side of the road, between the campground and

the barn area. A second alternative was similar to the first, but placed the

campground on the west side of the road and nearer to the residential area. The

third alternative placed the residential area west of the road, nearer the park

boundary, with the campground on the site of the existing camping area. Each

alternative had impacts on visitor use and experience, management, aesthetics, and

the archeological resources present at the site. The estimated cost for the first and

second alternatives was $613,000. The cost for the third alternative was $10,000 more

because of an additional structure needed to cross the drainage channel to the

residential area. The Environmental Assessment did not recommend any particular

alternative but merely pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each. Park

managers ultimately selected the third alternative.

Statement for Management

In 1970, Neal Guse, Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns, wrote the first Statement

for Management for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Guse defined the primary

purpose of the park to be the preservation of geologic, scenic, and other natural

values. Visitor use would be directed primarily to educational and inspirational

experiences, while outdoor recreation values would be subordinate. Guse recognized

the fragility of the Bowl and McKittrick Canyon. However, he also noted the

importance of the view from Pine Top Mountain, a view that would enable visitors

to understand the relationship of the park to its setting and, therefore, should be

available to all. Development of the highly visible areas around Frijole and Pine

Springs would need much care. Guse suggested that because the park contained no

pre-existing tourist facilities planners had an unusual opportunity to develop

facilities that would be most in line with the wilderness values of the park.

Donald Dayton, the first Superintendent after establishment of the park, updated

the Statement for Management during 1976, providing more information about the

current situation in the park. Changes since the 1970 statement included the pending

designation of 46,850 acres of the park as wilderness; acquisition of the right-of-way

and scenic easements for an access road on the west side of the park; condemnation

of the Glover property and Bertha Glover's continuing right to life-occupancy; the

recommendation of areas in North McKittrick, South McKittrick, and Devil's Den

canyons as research natural areas; and the adoption of a memorandum of

understanding between the Park Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department requiring cooperation between the two agencies in wildlife management.

^Ibid., 29-35.

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.

36Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1976), 5-10.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 101

Dayton's Statement for Management noted influences that had an impact on the

park. Among the influences outside the park, he included hunting and predator

control, especially control of mountain lions. Influences within the park included

steady increases in visitation, with backcountry use being up 31 percent in 1975.

Heavy backcountry use dictated the need for trail planning, with special

consideration given to flash flooding during the summer, extreme wind conditions,

and water sources.

37

Dayton expanded the management objectives for the park. In addition to preserving the resources of the park and providing an educational and interesting

experience for the visitor, he wanted to encourage continued research and to provide

for development and maintenance of facilities. He also saw the need to promote

harmonious interaction with neighboring landowners, federal and state agencies, and

regional community organizations.38

Interpretive Plan

During 1976 a team of persons from the park and the Harpers Ferry Center

developed the Interpretive Plan for the park that received Regional approval in

February 1977. The plan identified the four themes to be interpreted— geological,

biological, historical, and scenic--and the significant features of the park upon which

interpretation would focus--the forest in the Bowl, McKittrick Canyon, El Capitan,

and the Guadalupe escarpment. Development of the themes would be provided

through interpretation at the visitor center, and with on-site programs, including

self-guided tours of McKittrick Canyon, Williams Ranch, the Frijole Historic Site,

and the Pinery Stage Station. With abandonment of the tramway proposal, planners

estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the visitors to Guadalupe Mountains would never

see the "island in the sky," the metaphor commonly applied to the Bowl area. As a result, the planning team recognized the heavy burden of interpretation that media

presentations would have to bear.

The Interpretive Plan described the interpretive center to be built at Pine Springs.

The entrance area of the center would be a "visual gift" to the visitor, providing

strong visual impressions of the parts of the park that most visitors would not see. Inside, the lobby area would provide a place for contact with park personnel and

exhibits for orientation and information. Publication sales, restrooms, and a topographic relief map of the park would also be available in the lobby. In a separate audio-visual and auditorium area the primary media event of the center

would take place, a 10- to 12-minute film designed to create the mood of the park

and to present an impressionistic view of the ecological relationships found there.

The exhibit room would contain exhibits relating to the geological, biological, and

historical themes of the park, all of which would be unified by an emphasis on the

importance of water to the park lands and to the people who had used them.

37

Ibid., 13-14.

^Ibid., 14-15.

39Interpretive Plan, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, February 4, 1977, in V.F.47, Guadalupe Mountains

National Park Library, 6-25.
102 Chapter VI

Another separate area would be devoted to the backcountry registration and

information center, where visitors could learn of the physical and logistical

requirements of backcountry travel. Special publications related to the backcountry

experience also would be sold in this area. From the interpretive center, visitors

would be encouraged to walk to the Pinery along the trail, self-guided by a folder

and wayside signs.

The staffed contact station at McKittrick Canyon was also part of the interpretive

plan. Exhibits and personnel there would provide information, orientation, and

protection for the area. A sheltered, open-air space associated with the contact

station would have six to eight wayside exhibits highlighting the unique biological

and geological components of the canyon. A three-minute videotape would emphasize

the fragile nature of the ecosystem of the canyon, while the ranger, through personal

contact, would make apparent the ecological reasoning behind the rules to be

observed while in the canyon. A single folder would explain the nature trail and

geology trail which would originate at the contact station. A more detailed

self-guide to a day-hike in the canyon would also be available. Trail markers keyed

to the folder would mark points of special interest.

Less formal interpretation would take place at the Frijole ranch site and Dog

Canyon. At the Frijole site, a footpath marked with wayside units would lead to Manzanita and Smith springs. Interpretation would correlate settlement patterns with

the water resources. The Dog Canyon ranger station would provide personal contact

and orientation exhibits. A self-guided interpretive trail near the station would

identify flora and natural features.42

Guadalupe Peak and the meadow below it would provide opportunities for the

visitor to see the surrounding Chihuahuan desert and to identify distant landforms.

All interpretive items would be located in the meadow shelter area, including a topographic orientation display panel as well as panels relating to the history of the

park, geology, and flora and fauna.

From the Pine Canyon primitive campground, a self-guided "discovery" trail with

an accompanying publication would allow visitors to identify the sites of a military

encampment, prehistoric middens, and the remains of an early dugout. Campground

activities would include a self-guided nature walk, a campfire circle, and an outdoor

amphitheater with a screen for evening audio-visual presentations.

Along the road planned to traverse the west side of the park, wayside exhibits

would mark points of interest. A roadside pull-off that provided an unobstructed

view of Williams Ranch would contain an exhibit interpreting the transition in

40

Ibid., 25-35.

41

Ibid., 36-38.

42

Ibid.. 38-39.

43

Ibid., 39.

^Ibid., 41-41a.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 103

settlement patterns, from dugout to frame house construction. A wayside exhibit at another pull-off area would identify and locate the salt flats west of the park and

interpret their historical significance for the region. Secondary wayside pull-offs

would provide interpretation of the skyline of the western escarpment, a Butterfield

stage crossing, the red sand dunes, the gypsum sand dunes, and the grave of Jose

Maria Polancio.

The Interpretive Plan also provided the Collection Management Statement for the

park. Included in the Statement were policies for collection and storage of biological

and geological specimens, collection and loan of archeological objects, collection of

historical objects needed to furnish the ranch houses, collection of art and

photographs relating to the interpretive themes of the park, and the storage and

evaluation of "cultural debris" found in the park.46

The plan identified several new publications that were needed to aid in

interpretation. One was a natural history handbook serving both Guadalupe

Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns. A backcountry hiker's guide also would serve both parks. The third publication needed immediately was the self-guide folder for

McKittrick Canyon. Self-guide folders for Dog Canyon, Pine Springs, and the Pinery were already available. The plan also set out research priorities related to interpretation, including a determination of the scope of collections for the

archeological resources of the park, increased information about the native Indian

cultures found in the park, and more detailed research to establish the contribution

• 47 and significance of the historic resources of the park.

Resource Management Plans

Throughout the 1970s a number of plans for resource management were initiated.

Most were very general, providing little more than recognition of the variety of

natural and cultural resources of the park, the imperative need for research to document and evaluate those resources, and reiteration of the commitment of

management to preserve and maintain the existing situation until research could be

completed. However, these plans provided a baseline for the extensive refinements

that would take place in the next decade as well as management guidelines for the

interim.

In 1973, under a contract with the Park Service, researchers from Texas Tech

University began an ambitious program to collect basic resource data. The contract,

which was in effect for some eight years, called for a multi-disciplinary approach

to data collection, covering botanical, geological, historical, climatic, wildlife, and

water resources.

45

Ibid., 40-41.

46

Ibid., 42-45.

47

Ibid., 46-49.
104 Chapter VI

Cave Management

The first official Resource Management Plan for the park related to cave management, reflecting the close relationship of Guadalupe Mountains to Carlsbad

Caverns. The plan, adopted in 1972 and written to cover both Carlsbad Caverns and

Guadalupe Mountains, set forth a method for identifying, describing, and classifying

new caves, and noted that this system would also be utilized by the Forest Service

for caves within the Lincoln National Forest and on adjoining lands under the

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Caves would be classified in two

ways, one for hazard level and the other for significance of formations within the

cave. On the ground, caves would be identified with a brass cap set at the cave

entrance, giving the cave number and the name of the federal agency responsible for

the cave. Cave locations would not be disclosed to the public except at the

discretion of the park superintendent. Although management intended full cooperation with caving groups and researchers, no one could enter caves without

prior written permission from the superintendent.

Backcountry Management Plan

Guidelines for management and visitor use of the backcountry were among the

most pressing administrative needs during the early years of operation of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park. Late in 1973, some five years before the park obtained

official wilderness designation, the first Backcountry Management Plan was

approved. The primary objective of the plan was to provide maximum visitor

enjoyment, but with three limitations, the first of which was most important: (1)

activities that would not incur irreparable damage to the resource, (2) activities

appropriate to a Park Service natural area, and (3) considerations of sociological

factors associated with numbers of people using the backcountry.

During the second year of operation, visitation at the park increased 44 percent

and backcountry use increased 82 percent. According to observations by park

personnel, most visitors entered the park from the Frijole and Pine Springs areas and

use was concentrated in the southern half of the park. Because hikers had to carry

their own water, most trips into the backcountry did not exceed two days. Sixty

miles of trails existed in the high country and McKittrick Canyon, all of which had

been established as ranch roads and stock trails. Except for the trails up the

escarpment, which were rocky, narrow, of steep gradient, and subject to erosion, most

trails were located in stable areas. Although 80 percent of the trails were open to horseback riders, few visitors used horses. The existing trails circumvented the 150

identified archeological sites in the high country, and since none of the sites was

spectacular or contained formal structures, no active protection of them appeared to be necessary. A number of historic resources also existed in the backcountry,

including portions of the Butterfield stage route, Williams Ranch, Marcus Cabin, and

48Cave Management. Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. January

1975, pages unnumbered.

Backcountry Management Plan, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National

Park, January 1975, pages unnumbered.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 105

some old mine tunnels. Planners recognized that treasure-hunting might create a management problem in the backcountry.

The Backcountry Management Plan outlined research needs. Planners gave first priority to determining the carrying capacity of the backcountry. Data obtained

from ongoing research conducted by Texas Tech in the areas of biology, mammology,

archeology, and aquatic life would be utilized, and a range-analysis survey was

proposed. Transects would be established along trails and read regularly to observe

the impact of visitor use on vegetation and erosion. Patrols would be instructed to observe and report on the accumulation of litter, sanitation conditions at campsites,

the occurrence of illegal fire rings, and the impact of horse use in the backcountry.

Records would be maintained of trail usage by day-hikers, overnight use, transect

and patrol observations. Questionnaires and personal contact with local organizations

• • 51 would be utilized to solicit public opinion about facilities and visitor experiences.

The management plan addressed five areas where improvement was needed in

order to effectively handle or increase carrying capacity of the backcountry: trails,

campsites, horse use, water guzzlers, and a patrol cabin. Staffing and funding

increases would be needed so that a trail maintenance program could be begun.

Three new campsites would be designated. Future identification of alternate

campsites would allow the establishment of a rest-rotation system for campsites.

Non-intrusive sanitation systems for backcountry use also would be investigated.

During 1973 two changes had been made to accommodate horseback visits to the

backcountry: a corral was established on the west side of the park to allow a trip

longer than one day for visitors on horseback, and under the provisions of a special-use permit, a local rancher offered one-day trail rides to visitors. The plan

suggested exploring the potential of water guzzlers (a mechanical system involving

catchment and controlled release of water) as a water source for the backcountry.

While a log cabin in the Bowl, predating establishment of the park, served as a patrol

cabin and fire cache, planners recognized the need for a new site and cabin that

could be serviced by park livestock, probably along the main trans-park trail.

"

Another concern expressed in the Backcountry Management Plan was for the

removal of human-made intrusions from the backcountry. An inventory of such

structures was underway and priorities for their removal would be established.

In the interest of improved public relations, the management plan proposed to use

the media and printed handouts to inform the public of policy or backcountry

problems. Additionally, public appearances by park staff at meetings of local

organizations would provide better public understanding of the park's backcountry

50lbid.

51

lb,d.

52Ibid.

53

Ibid.
106 Chapter VI

policies. Finally, the management plan listed funding and personnel necessary to carry out the programs outlined in the plan.54

Natural Resources Management Plan

In January 1975, a Natural Resources Management Plan, incorporating the earlier

Cave and Backcountry Management Plans and a new Fire Management Plan, was

approved. Management objectives for visitor use were the same as those presented

in the Statement for Management written in 1970, generally, that all visitors should

have convenient access to the top of the escarpment, the Bowl, and McKittick

Canyon; that the geologic, biologic, and historic resources of the park would be

interpreted; and that park resources would be available to students and researchers.

Resource management objectives were also similar to those outlined in the early

Statement for Management: designation of research natural areas in North and South

McKittrick Canyons and the Bowl, protection of moisture-loving plants found within

the park, cooperation with the Forest Service to manage North McKittrick Canyon,

use of fire as a management tool in the Bowl area, protection of the open landscape

from visual intrusions and destruction of vegetation, restoration of wildlife habitat,

including reintroduction of the desert bighorn and Montezuma quail, and protection

and evaluation of archeological and historical resources. The plan also repeated the

land classifications set forth in the Master Plan.

The Natural Resources Management Plan also enumerated actions necessary to meet management objectives. Several of the actions would continue existing research

programs: monitoring the quantity and quality of the water sources in the park,

maintaining and reading elk and deer transects, conducting big game browse surveys,

and monitoring the forests for insects and disease. However, much new research also was needed, including inventories of vascular and non-vascular plants, fauna,

micro-organisms, significant geological features and processes, soils, and hydrologic

features. At the time of the publication of this plan, the tramway was still a possibility; therefore, another research priority was a climatological study of the

entire park, but especially to learn of wind velocities in the canyon where the

tramway would be located. Planners identified another much- needed management

tool, a soils map, and proposed that one could be created after completion of the soils

inventory and analysis. Fire management also was a major concern; the plan

proposed research to determine the extent to which the forests of the Guadalupe

Mountains depended upon fire to retain their natural state. Studies to determine the

impact of large ungulates and other fauna on the environment also were needed.

The planners realized, however, that accumulation of data was not enough; the data

must be available to management in a usable form. Therefore, they recommended

the use of a computerized data management system.

54Ibid.

55Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1975 (pages

unnumbered).

56Ibid.
Planning For The Park--The 1970s 107

Guidelines for fire management also were important to management of the park's

resources. The Fire Management Policy established in 1975 revised the previous

policy to suppress all fires. The new plan proposed to allow all naturally-occurring

fires in the low desert country to run their course within the limits of designated

burning units. However, within the designated burning units full control would be

exercised over fires occurring near park boundaries and near the boundaries of the

reef formation. All human-caused fires would be suppressed. The plan proposed to initiate research to investigate the potential effect of natural wildfire on the interior

mountain and canyon country, specifically on the relict plant communities. After

completion of the research, the designation of other areas as natural burning units

would be considered. Until research was completed, however, comprehensive control

would be exercised. Continuous observation would take place to detect fires and to monitor the progress of fires within natural burning units. Data would be

maintained on all fires, including cause, weather, size, vegetation, and burning

behavior and follow-up investigations would be conducted to determine the recovery

S7 rates of vegetation and the effects of fire on undesirable vegetation types.

Although the Natural Resources Management Plan apparently was intended to be

a comprehensive document that included recognition of the need to manage the

cultural resources of the park, the plans for management of historic and

archeological resources were cursory. The Archeological Management Plan referred

to "An Inventory and Interpretation of Prehistoric Resources in Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, Texas," by Susanna R. and Paul R. Katz, published in December 1974

under a Park Service contract, but identified it as "a documentation of archeological

values, not a management plan." Similarly, the Historical Management Plan consisted

of a reference to "A Survey of Historical Structures of Guadalupe Mountains

National Park, Texas," by Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Science,

Department of Park Administration and Horticulture, published in September 1973

under a National Park Service contract, also a "documentation of values."

Trail Planning

The trail system at Guadalupe Mountains National Park was one of only a few

in the park system completely designed and built by professionals. Beginning in

1977, two consultants planned the permanent trail system for the park. Jack Dollan,

a Wilderness Manager on loan to the Park Service from his Forest Service position

in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, began the project. He spent weeks

hiking the backcountry, determining how trails could be located or relocated to make

the least impact on the land and provide a safe but exciting route for hikers.

Originally, park planners intended that Robert Steinholtz, Landscape Architect with

the Denver Service Center of the Park Service, would take over the trail planning

when Dollan returned to his regular position. However, in 1978 Dollan transferred

57Fire Management Plan, Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. January 1975 (pages unnumbered).

58Archeological Management Plan, Historical Management Plan. Natural Resources Management Plan for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, January 1975 (pages unnumbered).

59Donald Dayton, interview with author. May 20. 1987.
108 Chapter VI

to the Denver Service Center and he and Steinholtz worked together to finish

planning the trails for the park. Phil Koepp, who became Chief Ranger of the park

in 1981, worked with the two men during the latter phases of construction of the

trails. In 1987 he recalled how the viewpoints of the two men were complementary;

while Steinholtz was an engineer, Dollan enjoyed the thrill of exploring wilderness

areas. The trails they designed reflected those interests. Roger Reisch, Park

Ranger at Guadalupe Mountains since 1964, also remembered Dollan's work: he

designed trails to keep hikers in suspense until they reached their destination, hiding

magnificent views until the last breath-taking moment. Reisch also noted that Dollan

and Steinholtz tried not to exceed a 10 to 11 percent grade on any trail. By 1979 more than 80 miles of trail construction and reconstruction had been planned. The

work was planned to be completed in four phases.

The Contribution of Donald Dayton

Donald Dayton played an important role in the administrative history of

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. As Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and

Guadalupe Mountains from 1971 to 1981, he guided the parks through the difficult

processes of master planning and wilderness evaluation. Dayton entered the Park

Service in 1955; by 1964 he had become a park superintendent. His career had

matured during the development-oriented time of MISSION 66. By the early 1970s,

however, the precepts that had guided park managers during the 1950s and 1960s were eroding. As Dayton directed the planning process for Guadalupe Mountains,

not only did he have to deal with public protest against Park Service plans, but he

also had to adjust to new attitudes brought about by the change of administration

in Washington. Further, Dayton had to achieve a workable balance between the

opposing points of view of the park's principal advocate in Congress and the

environmental lobby. Finally, Dayton faced the frustrations of a bureaucrat: the

master planning process itself was in a state of flux. Legislation passed two years

after the Master Plan for Guadalupe Mountains was finally approved made it obsolete.

In addition to planning for development, Dayton guided the formulation of the

basic plans for wilderness backcountry use and resource management for the new

park. While these skeletal plans recognized the need for research in many areas, they

provided the premises on which all future planning would be based.

Dayton's work required patience, flexibility, and an enduring belief in the

democratic process. Unlike a corporate manager, he could not make planning

decisions based on his past professional experience. Instead, he and other Park

Service officials had to seek public consensus about uses of the park, then plan for

those uses within the parameters established by the Department of the Interior and

Congress.

Phil Koepp, interview with author, June 3, 1987.

61 Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987.
Planning For The Park-The 1970s 109

At the close of the 1970s, major development planning and the environmental

reviews associated with the plans had been completed. Visitor facilities, housing for

personnel, and the trail system were under construction. Park managers, with input

from the public and other government agencies, had decided what kind of park

Guadalupe Mountains would be. In his book, Mountains Without Handrails. Joseph

Sax discussed the abandonment of the tramway at Guadalupe Mountains. His

attitude represented the attitude of the environmentalists who had helped to defeat

the tramway proposal. Sax said, "Peering at a wilderness from a tramway station,

is not a wilderness experience; the sense of wilderness is not achieved by

standing at its threshold, but by engaging it from within. Not everyone will seize

the chance to experience wilderness, even in the modest dose that Guadalupe Park

represents. The opportunity can and should be offered as a choice, to be accepted

or rejected; but it should not be falsified or domesticated." " Environmental and

financial concerns had determined that Guadalupe Mountains would be a wilderness

park. It would appeal primarily to hikers, backpackers, and researchers who were

willing to accept the land on its own terms.

62Joseph L. Sax. Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks (Ann Arbor: The University

of Michigan Press, 1980), 63.

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.

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."

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

Ralph Harris, interview with author, June 4, 1987.

2Economic 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).

Ill
112 Chapter VII

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 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.

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 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.

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

5 The Hammack family owns the sections controlled by scenic 3 easement. For a discussion of... this situation

see pages 109- 112

Environment.

(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Denver Service Center, November 1980). 1.

5 West Side Bound*

Office, April 1987), 13.

Environmental Assessment for the Master Plan Supplement, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas

r

West Side Boundary Study, Guadalupe Mountains National Park (National Park Service. Southwest Regional
Planning In The 1980s 113

-DELL CITY-\

NEW MLXio^

" Texas

l_INtf£T_N NATIONAL rWCCST UfTTP D(5>d CANY*PNn

rwrf

CAJ^LSBAD

V

WHITE SAND N

_- - \\ \

y

I

-

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

NATIONAL PARK

TEXAS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

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

also indicated his unwillingness to cooperate with environmental groups that "keep

coming back for more" every time Congress approved wilderness legislation.

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 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.

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.

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.

7West Side Boundary Study. 2-9.
Planning In The 1980s 115

V.EV/ M=X\65 KIATiOUAL FOREST

to £1 B>so

waA|i alters -uPSWousm^/Hairrreruiru*-

Pini Springs <Uanv*>n

LE.6EWP

Historic Site.

Utw*J K»<( 9 well fiwnMi£We*jwtTaiKiJSi.s<ju«dJ

Pnrpotti Ddu-vUv iacna*^ri!&

AJterrwttv*<> ffirm W&O ErviTBnmaT&l Ajftttwnr

AITiynurivt 6 ^ t'3 Ai.c»«> AttwTwhvfc Lt^t Sim A£.r«, Xltinwtivt t? \,LZ3.Ai.r£t> PiDpo&i** Aidrtipn 10, i2.3A^re&

BOUNDARY PROPOSAL

6UACALUPE M0UUTA1N5 UAT10VJAL PAKK'TEXAS lfafe/80 O^fe U S tTEPT OF THE INTERIOR* WPS AU6fl<*/£>Wl*0

Figure 21. Boundary expansion proposed for west side of park in 1987.
116 Chapter VII

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.

The Natural Resources Management Plan reflected new concerns for wildlife in

the park and included plans for 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.

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.

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

QResources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, March

1984. 4.

9

Ibid., 4-5.

10

Ib,d.
Planning In The 1980s 117

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.

1 "

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.

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

backcountry only in emergency situations. To protect the fragile water sources

11 Ibid., Resources Planning Sheet for Natural Resources, 1.

12

Ibid., 19-20.

13Backcountry Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park

(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1984), 7.
118 Chapter VII

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.

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.

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.

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

14Ibid., 7-8, 31.

15

Ibid., 18-19.

16

Ibid., 19-20, 31.

17

Ibid., 21-24, 26, 35.
Planning In The 1980s 119

be retained. In the future a small helipad might be constructed to facilitate

1ft maintenance of the antenna.

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').

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 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."

1

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

18

Ibid., 25.

19

Ibid., 27.

20Ibid., 29-30.

21

Ibid., 34.
120 Chapter VII

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."

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.

22

Ibid., 66-67.

23Ib,d.

^Ibid., 94.

Phil Koepp. interview with author, June 3, 1987.
Planning In The 1980s 121

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 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."

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."

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."

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

26Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987. 1-4.

27

Ibid., 37, 50.

28

Ibid., 64-65.
122 Chapter VII

deer and elk populations, and (4) development of an inter-agency mountain lion task

force."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

30Resources Management Plan recommended February 1987, 68-69.

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.
Planning In The 1980s 123

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.

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.

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.

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.

33

Ibid., 15-29.

^Ibid., 29-31.

35

Ibid., 34.

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

Roger Reisch, interview with author, July 21, 1987.

125
126 Chapter VIII

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)
Development Of The Park 127

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."

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988.

Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973. 1974. 1975, 1976.

5Notes from meetings held September 7, 1977, by Christopher Larson of Pacheco and Graham, in V.F. 634, Box 5, Guadalupe Mountains National Park Library.

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 release file. Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
128 Chapter VIII

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.

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

Briefing Statement, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, revised January 1980, in V.F. 15. Guadalupe

Mountains National Park Library.

oRalph 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.
Development Of The Park 129

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1982, 1983; Park Log, Guadalupe

Mountains National Park, March 1982. nPark Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, February 1986.

12See Chapter IV: Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition, McKittrick Canyon Right-of-Way Exchange.
130 Chapter VIII

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 three-bedroom and two two-bedroom family units, two two-bedroom

apartments, two studio apartments, and three duplex apartments. (NPS Photo)
Development Of The Park 131

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).

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 sub-contractor; 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).

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.

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,

^Superintendent's Annual Report. Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1978, 1979.

^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.
132 Chapter VIII

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)
Development Of The Park 133

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)
134 Chapter VIII

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.

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.

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.

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 County acquired

right-of-way for a road.

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

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.

17Negotiations 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.
Development Of The Park 135

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.

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 right-of-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.

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

^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.

20Carlsbad 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.
136 Chapter VIII

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."1

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."

While working to find a resolution to the problem of access to Dog Canyon, park

managers also began searching for a 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."

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

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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973. 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.
Development Of The Park 137

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)
138 Chapter VIII

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

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 station, residence, barn, corral, comfort station, and

utilities at Dog Canyon.

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

"4Roger Reisch. July 21, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979.

1980, 1981

25 Park Log, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, October 1980.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1981, 1982, 1983. 1984.
Development Of The Park 139

w

. <*£ 1^y. ' -*'

-

•

1

on

1

i m— - 1 H •— ~ ' — T71

_ - ^**«, fcifriSMi

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)
140 Chapter VIII

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)
Development Of The Park 141

Springs, an additional residence at Dog Canyon was the only planned residential

facility that the park still needed.27

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.

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."

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

^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.

28Outdoor 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.

Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979.
142 Chapter VIII

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.

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

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,

^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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1979, 1980.

32Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1980.
Development Of The Park 143

Area Manager of Guadalupe Mountains, reported that trail-building 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.

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.

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

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.

^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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 1973. 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980.
144 Chapter VIII

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 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

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

^Superintendent's Annual Report. Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984; Bobby L. Crisman, personal communication to author. May 1988.

-50 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1974, 1975, 1981. 1985.

39William 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.
Development Of The Park 145

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

40 trespass.

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.

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. ~

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 fence was the park's first resource priority.

40

Ibid.; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982, 1983.

41Resource Management Specialist to Superintendent. April 3, 1984 in file D46-Other Structures, GUMO

(closed 12/84), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Headquarters, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

42Notes 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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1985; Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended February 1987, 1.
146 Chapter VIII

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. 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 five-foot 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

Information and Operational Headquarters

In 1987 the information center and operational headquarters for Guadalupe

Mountains National Park still occupied temporary facilities (see Figure 29). In 1976,

preliminary planning for the combined visitor center and operational headquarters was complete, and, during that year Congress considered a request for $3,089,000 to complete planning and construction of the facility. In the House Appropriations

Subcommittee meeting in 1976, committee members recognized the need for a visitor

44See Chapter IV: Mineral Rights and Land Acquisition, West Side Access Road Right-of-Way.

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.

Ibid.; Bobby L. Crisman. note to author. August 1988.
Development Of The Park 147

Figure 29. Temporary facilities, near Frijole: visitor contact station (left) and

operational headquarters (right). The visitor contact station, a new double-wide

trailer, was installed in July 1979, permitting separation of visitor services and

operational headquarters. Previously, the house on right, in combination with a used

trailer, had served both functions. In 1983 park personnel added a second small

movable house to the operational headquarters, removed the old trailer, and

remodeled the newly-created building to better fit administrative needs.

(NPS Photo)
148 Chapter VIII

center and personnel housing at Guadalupe, but they also expressed strong opinions

against the tramway concept in the Master Plan for the park. Ultimately, however,

circumstances beyond the control of park managers caused the Appropriations

Subcommittee members to delete funding for the visitor center for Guadalupe

Mountains along with funding for eleven other visitor centers Servicewide. The

deletions took place after controversy erupted concerning high cost overruns on the

National Visitor Center in Washington, D.C.

During 1977 the Department of the Interior again requested $3,089,000 for the

visitor center at Guadalupe Mountains. Again, Congress deferred funding. A

supplemental appropriations bill requesting only planning funds also was deferred.

In the latter part of 1977 planners reduced the size of the proposed facility from

9,100 square feet to 8,600 square feet. In 1978 Congress deferred a request for

$2,580,000, the revised cost estimate for the building. Subsequently, planners made

more changes in the design of the visitor center and reduced the cost estimates by

another $700,000. Although in 1979 the Southwest Region listed construction of the

visitor center for Guadalupe Mountains as its first priority, the Department of the

Interior requested no funds for the construction of the visitor center in its appropriation for 1980. The approved appropriation did, however, include $298,000

for planning and design work for the facility.

48

The construction design completed by the Denver Service Center in March 1981

contained some surprises. The new estimated cost for construction was $4,658,000, some two million dollars more than preliminary estimates. Even more surprising to the personnel at the park, however, was the design of the building. They thought

the high-profile, triangular, sleekly modern building the architects had created was

inappropriate for the wilderness character of the park. By June, Jay Bright,

Assistant Manager of the planning team at the Denver Service Center, notified the

Regional Director that he would hold a "design-in" with staff members from the

park, Harpers Ferry Center, and the regional office in order to revise the plans at minimal cost.

In the Park Service, the decision to redesign any facility usually added

considerable time to the length of the project and often delayed its completion for

years. That was the choice park managers made in 1981 when they rejected the

costly triangular design for the visitor center. Between the time of the "design-in"

in December 1981 and October 1985, the staff of the park reviewed five designs. In January 1986 the Regional Director approved the design concept that had been

accepted by all other reviewers: a building of 7,613 square feet, constructed of stone

and wood in a style characteristic of West Texas architecture, with parking for 50

47House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Hearings. Ninety-Fourth Congress, Second

Session, 1976, 24, 29, 53; Donald Dayton, note to author, August 1988.

48Guadalupe 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.
Development Of The Park 149

cars, 10 recreational vehicles, and 3 buses. The estimated cost for the building and

visitor parking was $2,572, 000.50

Although by mid-1987 plans for the visitor center and operations headquarters had

been revised again, increasing the size of the building by approximately 3,000 square

feet, in December 1987 Congress appropriated $3,650,000 for construction of the

building. Park managers scheduled the ground breaking for the new facility for May

21, 1988 (see Figure 30).

51

During an interview in 1987, John Cook, Regional Director of the Southwest

Region, reflected on the problems encountered in designing and funding the facility

for Guadalupe Mountains. He admitted the design had been a major problem since

1981, but attributed the funding problems to timing, politics, and personalities.

Congressman Richard White had been unsuccessful in his attempts to convince the

appropriations subcommittee of the park's need for a visitor facility. However, the

current Congressman for the district, Ronald Coleman, served on the appropriations

subcommittee and apparently had the ear of Chairman Sidney Yates, who had been

chairman since the first request for funding for the visitor center. In 1986, working

in what Cook called a "forthright way," Coleman succeeded in obtaining the $250,000

needed to complete construction drawings for the visitor center. Early in 1987

Coleman correctly predicted that construction funding would be approved for 1988

if the construction drawings were ready by October 1987. Area Manager Ralph

Harris acknowledged the advantages of Coleman's advocacy for the park, but recalled

that Coleman did not come into office with a strong personal interest in the park,

such as White had. Superintendent Rick Smith and Harris waged an active campaign

to cultivate Coleman's interest in the park by keeping him posted on activities and

developments taking place there.

While hopes and plans for permanent facilities materialized and disappeared with

discouraging regularity during the park's first fifteen years, the staff patiently

developed their temporary facilities to maximize efficiency and create an acceptable

public image. In 1972, management moved one of the houses from the former FAA

station at Salt Flat to a location on the road to the Frijole Spring ranch house, just

off Highway 62/180 near Pine Springs. The house served as both information center

and operational headquarters for the park until 1978, when a used trailer, installed

next to the house, became the office of the area manager. A second trailer, installed near the Frijole ranch house, was the headquarters for the building and utilities

foreman until 1982, when maintenance facilities were completed. Although these

additions took some of the pressure of administrative personnel off the little house,

it still was undesirable as a contact station for a national park.53

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.

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.

52John Cook, interview with author, May 20, 1987; Ralph Harris. June 4, 1987.

53Superintendent's Annual Report. Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977. 1978.
150 Chapter VIII

Figure 30. Artist's rendering of visitor center and operations headquarters which was

under construction in 1988, the culmination of more than a decade of planning.

(Courtesy of NPS)
Development Of The Park 151

In July 1979, a new double-wide trailer, installed across the road from the

headquarters, became the visitor contact station, information center, and reference

library for the park. In the new facility, the interpretive staff for the park had room to present an audio-visual program to a small audience and provide a few

exhibits for visitors. The new facility also allowed for a sales area for interpretive

literature, as well as drinking water, restrooms, and a "rest space," out of the

weather.

Once Harris realized that a permanent operational headquarters for the park was

years away, he set about making the temporary facility as efficient as possible. In 1983 another movable house from Salt Flat was joined to the existing headquarters

building, replacing two trailers. Harris supervised the remodelling of the two

buildings, creating offices for the area manager, the chief ranger, and the chief of

interpretation and visitor services, as well as space for clerical staff, a workroom,

kitchen, and restroom. At the same time, adaptive restoration at the Frijole ranch

house made work and office space available there for the district ranger and

resource manager. Another house, moved from Salt Flat in 1983, was relocated in

the maintenance area to provide much-needed curatorial and storage space for the

park's museum collection.

Donald Dayton, William Dunmire, and Ralph Harris shared the headaches of

design, contracting, and construction during the period of active development at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, which stretched from 1979 through late 1982.

The shifting national economic situation made funding for all park projects more

difficult to obtain. Only facilities deemed absolutely necessary or unquestionable,

such as housing for employees, utilities, small contact stations, and maintenance

facilities were funded. After funding was obtained, prompt construction of the

facilities was hindered by the 8(a) contracting process. Most of the construction at Guadalupe Mountains took place at a time when little other construction was going

on in the Southwest Region. The bulk of the region's 8(a) contracting obligations fell to Guadalupe Mountains, thereby complicating the normal contracting process.

While inexperienced or under qualified contractors contributed to construction delays,

other delays resulted from failures or inadequacies in designs. Then, intra-agency

disagreements about the design of the visitor center and operations headquarters

added at least five years to development of the park's most visible facility. In spite

of the delays, however, actual construction of most of the planned facilities took

place in a relatively short five-year time period, from 1977 to late 1982. With

construction of the visitor center and operations headquarters underway in 1988, the

only development projects remaining to be completed were the boundary fence, Phase

IV of the trail system, an additional residence at Dog Canyon, a community center

for the Pine Springs residential area, and a garage for the maintenance area.

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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1983; Ralph Harris. June 4, 1987.

Ralph Harris, June 4, 1987; William Dunmire, tape recorded responses to author's questions, February 1988.

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.

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

Water Resources Management Profile, approved October 1984, appended to Resources Management Plan and

Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, approved March 1984, D-19.

153
154 Chapter IX

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."

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 of use of

Frijole Spring.

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.

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

"Ibid., D-21; Superintendent's Annual Report. Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1978.

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.

Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 28-29.
Natural Resource Issues 155

springs—Smith, Manzanita, Choza, Frijole, and Upper Pine--thus initiating long-term

monitoring of certain parameters of water quality.

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.

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

5

Ibid., 21-27.

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.
156 Chapter IX

the park; and using photographs and written sources to identify changes in

vegetation.

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 south-facing

slope adjacent to a snow-covered north-facing slope, and started by a match, not a helicopter.

Park managers also targeted other areas of the park for fire research. During

1976 and 1979 park personnel attempted 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.

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 latter-1980s 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.

1

7Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 10.

o Phil Koepp, interview with author, June 3, 1987.

qSuperintendent's Annual Reports, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1976, 1979.

10Richard Smith, interview with author, April 14, 1987; Phil Koepp, June 3, 1987.
Natural Resource Issues 157

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.

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.

1-

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

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.
158 Chapter IX

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.

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 agency-wide 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

William Dunmire, tape recorded responses to author's questions, February 1988.
Natural Resource Issues 159

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

^Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980,

1981.

18Mountain Lion Management Plan, 3-4.

19

Ibid., 4; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1982.
160 Chapter IX

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.

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.""1 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."

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

">Q Mountain Lion Management Plan, 5-8.

21Decision 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.

22National Park Service News Release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, August

14, 1987, in news release file, Operations Headquarters, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

23E1 Paso Times. February 1, 1985.
Natural Resource Issues 161

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.

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 human-induced

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.

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."6

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

^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.

"^Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 45.
162 Chapter IX

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."

Trespass Grazing

Trespass grazing has been a problem in the park because of the impact it has on

vegetation and water sources, and because it created unnatural competition for the

wildlife in the park. Trespass grazers included domestic livestock such as cattle,

horses, and sheep, and exotic animals such as Barbary sheep. They entered the park

easily because most of the boundary was unfenced. As discussed in Chapter VIII,

portions of the boundary most susceptible to trespass grazing have been fenced in

recent years, and in 1987, completion of the boundary fence was the number one

priority for natural resource management for the park.

In the interest of maintaining friendly relations with neighboring ranchers,

domestic livestock found in the park simply were herded off the parklands.

However, Park Service and park policies provided for more stringent measures to be

taken with exotics. Until 1987, the only exotic animal species threatening the park was the Barbary sheep, or aoudad. Barbary sheep moved into the vicinity from the

north, relatives of escapees from a ranch in the Hondo Valley, some 90 miles away.

After the escape, around 1950, the animals slowly dispersed southward, reaching the

southern Guadalupe Mountains in the late 1970s. Agency policy provided for control

or eradication of exotic species that threaten ecological communities and native

species. The diets of Barbary sheep overlap with those of mule deer and also would

compete with desert bighorn sheep, if they were reintroduced in the park. At

Guadalupe Mountains, a management program for Barbary sheep, adopted in 1979,

called for direct reduction of the species, through shooting by qualified park

personnel. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish agreed to cooperate with

the plan for direct reduction.28

Pesticide Control

At Guadalupe Mountains, pesticide control was an issue of concern to resource managers because of the effect of DDT on the peregrine falcons that nest in the

park. Because the American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum) was

recognized as an endangered species, park managers were not alone in their concern.

27

Ibid., 46.

Ibid., 47-49; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Barbary Sheep

Management Program, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks.
Natural Resource Issues 163

Scientists attributed the decline of the species since the 1950s to increased use of

organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT. The falcons feed on insectivorous birds

and bats, which may be contaminated with high levels of pesticides. DDE, the

chemical resulting from the digestive breakdown of DDT, affects the reproductive

system of the falcon, causing weak eggshells that break during incubation. Although

the U.S. banned DDT in 1972, farmers in Central and South America, areas where

the falcons winter, continued to use the pesticide."

Between 1975 and 1978, falcons nesting in the Peregrine Palace eyrie, above

McKittrick Canyon, produced fourteen young. This was one of the most productive

eyries recorded in the United States. However, the pair that returned in 1979

produced no offspring, and in 1980 and 1981 only a lone male was observed in the

canyon. A pair returned to the canyon eyrie each year from 1983 to 1986, and in

1986 fledged one young bird. In 1987 the pair fledged four offspring.

In 1977 the park cooperated with the Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute and

the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife in a study of peregrine falcons.

Analysis of eggshells collected from falcon nests in the area showed them to be 18

percent thinner than was considered normal prior to 1947. Lipids from the egg

showed 1,000 ppm of DDE. Eggshells collected in 1984, however, were not unduly

thin.31

The Endangered Species Act mandated federal agencies to manage their lands

affirmatively to preserve or to allow the recovery of endangered species. In 1987, resource managers of Guadalupe Mountains proposed studies to ascertain levels and

sources of DDT contamination in local prey species, asserting that failure to address

the problem of pesticide contamination could make attempts to manage the peregrine

futile.32

Endangered Species

Besides the peregrine falcon, resource managers have identified two other

endangered species in the park: Sneed's pincushion cactus ( Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii), which grows on limestone ledges at lower elevations; and Lloyd's hedgehog

cactus ( Echinocereus HoydiO. which grows only at low elevations on the west side

of the park. A threatened species, McKittrick penny royal ( Hedeoma apiculatum), which grows on limestone ledges at higher elevations, has also been found in the

park. Field surveys have been made to identify the distribution of these plants

within the park and newly found locations are recorded as they are reported. The

Fish and Wildlife Service provided recovery plans for each of these species and park

29Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 40.

30Ibid; Vidal Davila, letter to author, September 16, 1987.

31 Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1977, 1984.

"Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

recommended February 1987, 43.
164 Chapter IX

managers have been working to implement the recommendations. Before any

construction took place in the park, particularly trail construction, resource managers

made certain that these species would not be affected, either directly or indirectly,

by human-caused disturbances. A monitoring program for known populations also

has been established.

Oil and Gas Development

Before Guadalupe Mountains National Park was created, Congress and the

Department of the Interior haggled with the owners of the park's mineral rights

about their value and potential. Lying at the edge of the Permian Basin, the

possibility existed that the Guadalupe Mountains contained untapped oil and gas

reserves. Ultimately, the owners of the mineral rights donated them to the federal

government, but the legislation that was passed contained reversionary clauses

protecting the interests of the former owners (see Chapter IV). Since national park

policy prohibits exploration for or development of mineral resources within a park,

managers at Guadalupe Mountains are not concerned about oil and gas development

within the park per se. They are concerned, however, about development of those resources taking place on nearby lands that might affect the wilderness values and

water resources of the park, as well as the mineral resources that may lie beneath it.

Park managers must work through established channels to protect the resources of

the park. Most nearby oil and gas leases are on either Bureau of Land Management

or Forest Service lands. Both agencies must comply with the Environmental

Protection Act before allowing exploration and development to occur. They must

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment

describing the proposed development and its possible impacts and confer with other

governmental agencies that may be affected by the proposal, as well as submit the

document to public review. During the conference and review process the Park

Service has the opportunity to express opinions about the proposal and to suggest

potential impacts the development might have on parklands. The proposing agency

must then respond to criticisms or alternative proposals. Two such exchanges have

taken place during the 1980s.

In 1980 the U.S. Forest Service proposed to permit drilling of oil and gas wells on Wilderness Ridge, Forest Service land adjoining North McKittrick Canyon. To

facilitate the proposal the Forest Service removed the area from its Guadalupe

Escarpment Wilderness Study Area. As a result of Congressional debate about the

study area, the Forest Service agreed to retain wilderness study status for Wilderness

Ridge until 1986. Until then, existing roads could be used for oil and gas

exploration, but no new ones could be built. Approximately 200 acres of the

Wilderness Study Area contained existing oil and gas leases scheduled to expire in

1987. Sixteen other leases, which would cover most of the Wilderness Study Area, were pending. In October 1986 the Forest Service completed the environmental

assessment for the Wilderness Study Area. The agency recommended non-wilderness

33Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. recommended February 1987, 37-38.
Natural Resource Issues 165

status for the area, but indicated its intent to protect the wilderness values until

Congress made a decision. In 1986, when oil prices began to drop, drilling activity

in the area decreased. Managers of Guadalupe Mountains continued to monitor the

situation on Wilderness Ridge and review proposals submitted for oil and gas

development.

During 1984 the Bureau of Land Management presented a proposal for a pipeline

project to park managers. The proposed route for the pipeline was adjacent to the

southeastern corner of the park. Resource managers believed that construction

activity would leave a scar on the landscape near the park approximately four miles

long and would be obvious to persons traveling on Highway 62/180 or to persons

using the roadside park in Guadalupe Pass. They asked that the pipeline be rerouted

south and east of the highway. Bureau of Land Management officials agreed with

the assessment of the Park Service and realigned the pipeline to avoid the Guadalupe

Pass area.

35

Collecting of Plant Material by Native Americans

The Guadalupe Mountains were traditional hunting and gathering grounds for the

Mescalero Apaches well into the twentieth century. In 1987, members of the tribe

continued to live on the Mescalero reservation northwest of the park in New Mexico.

During the early years of operation of the park, rangers observed Mescaleros within

the park boundaries gathering sotol fruit, which they used for religious ceremonies.

Roger Reisch also recalled that on two occasions in the early 1970s some members

of the tribe performed religious ceremonies at Pine Springs and Guadalupe Spring.

Since that time, however, park managers and rangers have not been aware of anyone

from the Mescalero tribe entering the park except to use Park Service facilities. The

unwritten policy of park managers has been to permit in-park gathering of plant

material by the Mescaleros if it is to be used for religious purposes.

The primary theme of management of the natural resources of Guadalupe

Mountains National Park has been the restoration of the land to its natural state. Managers have sought to do that by mitigating the impact of human use in the

backcountry, by restoring water sources to their natural state, by reintroducing native

species, by protecting endangered species, and by adopting policies that would protect

the predator population of the park. During the first fifteen years of natural

resource management, research was the keynote. Managers worked to establish

baselines from which changes could be measured.

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.

^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.
166 Chapter IX

While each was Superintendent, William Dunmire and Richard Smith faced public

controversy over natural resource issues. Dunmire's educational and professional

background in wildlife management undoubtedly influenced the approach he took

to the mountain lion problem. He recognized the need for solid data on which to base management decisions and advocated an in-depth study of the lion population

of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains. Smith displayed a similar attitude

toward the issues of mountain lions, protection of black bears (see Chapter VII), and

prescriptive burning, advocating research and planned educational programs to head

off potential public controversy. Both men recognized that managing a wilderness

in the midst of civilization required knowledge based on scientific research and an ongoing program of public education to establish and maintain good relations with

the park's neighbors.
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

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.

167
168 Chapter X

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.""

Dayton apparently convinced Theodore Thompson, the Acting Regional Director,

of the false assumption of Regional 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."

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

2Superintendent, 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.

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.
Cultural Resource Issues 169

backcountry structures should be treated as discovery sites and allowed to molder

naturally unless they posed a hazard to human safety.

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. 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.

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.

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 Management and Preservation-Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource

Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

^Statement for Management, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1976), 3-4.
170 Chapter X

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1972, 2-3.

7Dava 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.

oSuperintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972, 2-3; Battle, "The Pinery," 6.

QSuperintendent'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.
Cultural Resource Issues 171

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)
172 Chapter X

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 six-foot 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 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.

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.

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 California-bound 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 the

10V. 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. nDonald 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.
Cultural Resource Issues 173

*>

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)
174 Chapter X

qualification of historic integrity. 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.

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 on-site 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.

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, 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. 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

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

Ib,d.

15Historian, 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.
Cultural Resource Issues 175

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.

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

1 H anomaly in the area, an attribute which adds to its significance.

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

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; Superintendents Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1987, 10.

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.
176 Chapter X

;;

• •! m

fJi v

:•

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)
Cultural Resource Issues 177

Figure 34. Another view of the Williams ranch house. Its architectural design makes

it an anomaly on the West Texas landscape. (NPS Photo)
178 Chapter X

foundation and other deteriorated structural elements and placement of temporary

closures over windows, doors, chimneys, and other openings that might admit animals

or humans.

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.

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." 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."

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

18"Environmental Impact Appraisal, signed by Donald A. Dayton 6/23/72, in file L-Lands and REc PlanningGUMO, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Master Plan, 1976, 41.

19Exhibit 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.

•'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.
Cultural Resource Issues 179

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)
180 Chapter X

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."

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."

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

"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.

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.
Cultural Resource Issues 181

BfW *»1

JN

&R

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)
182 Chapter X

HHE^^HHIH

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)
Cultural Resource Issues 183

their home served as a community center and also as the local post office." 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

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. 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 che 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,

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.

- 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.

27Master 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.
184 Chapter X

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 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 Friiole

Ranger Division took over the ranch house as its headquarters and work space."

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.

28Survey 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.

i729Peter Flagg Maxon to John Poston White, October 29, 1985, in file Pratt Residence- "Ship", B. Crisman

personal 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
Cultural Resource Issues 185

m

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 been taken to preserve the architectural

integrity of the residence so that it may be listed in the Register. (NPS Photo)

National Park, Southwest Cultural Resource Center, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
186 Chapter X

fti % c^m

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)
Cultural Resource Issues 187

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.

Managing the Historic Resources

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.

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

•^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.

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.
188 Chapter X

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 wide-spread 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.

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.

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

32James 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.

33Final Environmental Statement, Master Plan, 48-49; Resources Management Plan and Environmental

Statement for Guadalupe Mountains National Park, recommended February 1987, 77.

^Final Environmental Statement, Master Plan, 51; Final Environmental Statement, Development Concept

Plan, Pine Springs, 44-45; Carlsbad Current-Argus, August 11, 1974.
Cultural Resource Issues 189

be eligible for listing in the National Register, by 1988 Regional historians had made

no formal determinations of eligibility of any of the sites.

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 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

small-scale 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.

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,

35Superintendent'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.

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.
190 Chapter X

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.

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. 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

3QResources Management Plan, 1987, 77, 81.

5QInformation Background, Pine Springs Store/Cafe, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, revised 9/87 in V. Davila personal files, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

^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.
Cultural Resource Issues 191

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.

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. "

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.

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

41USA Today, October 26, 1982; El Paso Times, December 23, 1982; William Dunmire, tape recorded

responses to author's questions. February 1988.

42William 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.

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.

44William 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.
192 Chapter X

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

William Dunmire, taped responses to author's questions. February 1988.

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.
Cultural Resource Issues 193

important to the understanding of lifeways of early 20th Century families in this

region of Texas. . . .

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.4 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:

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.

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.

48LaVerne 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.

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.

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.
194 Chapter X

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. "

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. 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.

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.

Smith accepted defeat with grace. In March 1986 he complied with arrangements

-ade 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

ma

52Richard 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.

53Richard 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.

^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.
Cultural Resource Issues 195

Springs property. She lived in El Paso and the spouse of one of the employees of the

highway department operated the store for her.

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, 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

5 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.
196 Chapter X

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 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

Van Horn (TX) Advocate. September 23, 1982.

197
198 Chapter XI

commerce and the Carlsbad Caverns Natural History Association cooperated in the

publicity effort and helped to make the day-long occasion a success.

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 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.

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

2News 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.

3Van 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.

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.
Special Events and Public Relations 199

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)
200 Chapter XI

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)
Special Events and Public Relations 201

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.

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 Dutch-treat barbecue lunch. The public was invited to tour

the campground, contact station, residential, and barn areas during the afternoon.

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.

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.

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

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.

6Carlsbad 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.

nNews release, Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. September 18 and 29. 1982. in News Release File, Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

Ibid.; Superintendent's Annual Report, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1982, 3.
202 Chapter XI

Fort Bliss presented and retired the 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.

Color Weekends

The "first annual fall color cavalcade" took place in October 1971; 135 people

participated in three guided tours of McKittrick Canyon. 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. n

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. 1_

9

Ibid.

10Carlsbad Current-Argus. October 27, 1971.

11 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.

12Robert 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.
Special Events and Public Relations

Other Special Events

203

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

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)

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.
204 Chapter XI

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.

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 of climbing the highest mountain in Texas.

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

14

Ibid.

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.

16

Ibid.
Special Events and Public Relations 205

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)
206 Chapter XI

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

- 1

Governor William Clements sent a telegram with his congratulations.

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 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.

17

Ibid.
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

207
208 Chapter XII

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.

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.
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

209
210 Bibliographic Essay

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

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.
APPENDIX A: Legislation

211
212

Appendix A: Legislation

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TEXAS

PUBLIC LAW 89-667; 80 STAT. 920

[H. R. 098] A" AC

.! nA. PPori

d

'„ ,.°»,-ch

.

<'. eSt ?^i,hnle,,t °l the G«ad"upe Mountains Na- tlonal Park in the State of Texas, and for other purpose*.

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 ;uid 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 in- terests 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 ex- changed 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
Appendix A: Legislation 213

Oct. 15 GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS PARK P.L. 89-667

accept cash from or pay cash to the grantor in such exchange in order

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 con- tinue to acquire the remaining land and interests in land within the

boundaries of the park. The Secretary is authorized, pending es- tablishment of the park, to negotiate and acquire options for the pur- chase 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 un- der any such contract shall be contingent on the availability of ap- propriated 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 pro- visions 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
214 Appendix A: Legislation

P.L. 89-667 LAWS OF 89TH CONG.—2ND SESS. Oct. 15

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.

(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 tho 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 pro- visions 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.
Appendix A: Legislation 215

PUBLIC LAW 1)1-174 TS. 313]; Dec. 23, 1973

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARKLAND EXCHANGE, ETC.

An Act to authorize an exchange of lands for an entrance road at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas, and for other purposes.

lie it i ikii trr? by tlu Semite and House of UtfnvM utntuen of the

I niter? Stuli.s <jf Amfrrco in Coiu/rexs (/wembfed. That subsection (b)

of section •_' of tin- Act approved October 15, !!)«(! (HO Stat. !>-JO), proriding for the establishment of the (iiiadalnpc Mountains National

l\irk in the State of Texas, is amended by adding tlie following after

i lit* third sentence : "In order to provide for nn adequate cut ranee road

into the MeKittriek Canyon area of the park, the Secretary may accept

title to and interest.s in lands comprising a right-of-way for a road or

mails outside of the boundary of the park from United States Highway numbered (i-2 and 180 to the park boundary, and in exchange

therefor lie may convev title to and interests in lands comprising a right-of-way from said highway to the Iwnndary which have been

donated In 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 interests in lands comprising

llw right-of-way acquired pursuant to this subsection shall be administered as p;irt of the park.".

Approved December 23, 1975.

Guadalupe

Mountains

National Park, Tex.

Lands exchange,

16 USC 283a.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY!

liOUSE 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.
216 Appendix A: Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 95-625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT. 3461

Public Law 95-625

95th Congress

An Act

To authorize additional appropriations for the acquisition of lands and Interests Nov. 10. 19,8

in lands within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho. [S. 791

Be it enacted by the Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the- United States of A merica in Congress assembled, National Parks and Recreation 6HORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Act °' 19 ' 8

Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "National Parks and 16 USC 1 note. Recreation Act of 1978".TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sec. 1. Short title and tahle of contents.

Sec. 2. DeGnition.

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 Sandhurg 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'e Ferry National Historical Park.

Huhl>ell 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 J linn Island National Historical Park.

Sitka National Historical Park

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.
Appendix A: Legislation 217

92 Si AT. iJ47U

Effective date.

njtiLLL LAW 95-025—NOV. 10, 1978

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

TITLE VII—WILD AND SCENIC BIVEKS ACT AMENDMENTS—Continued

Subtitle D—Amendments to Public Law 90-542

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.

Sec. 7C2. Federal lauds; cooperative agreements.

Sec. 763. Miscellaneous technical amendments.

Sec. 764. Leu he of Federal lands. TITLE VIII—RECOGNITION OF THE HONOUABLE

WILLIAM M. KETCHUM

Sec. 801. Recognition of the Honorable William M. Ketchum.

TITLE IX—JEAN LAF1TTE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

TITLE X—UKBAN PARK AND RECBEATION RECOVERY

FROG It AM

TITLE XI—NEW RIVER GORQE NATIONAL RIVER

TITLE XII—FOUT 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 t lie Interior.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 3. Authorizations of moneys to be appropriated under this Act

shall be effective on October 1, 15)78. Notwithstanding 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

Appropriation •uihuhzAboob.

16 USC 431 note.

16 USC 450qq-4

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:

(1) Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska: Section 4 of the Act of June 5, 1965 (70 Stat. 123), is amended by

changing "$1,842,000" to "$2,012,000".

(2) Anilersonville National Historic Site, Georgia: Section 4

of the Act of October ]G, 1070 (84 Stat. 080), is amended by

changing "$1,005,000" to "$2,205,000 for development.", and by

deleting " (Match 1000 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 co~t indices applicable to the types of construction invoked herein.'". (3) Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, Tennessee: Section 3 of the Art of December 11, 1003 (77 Stat. 350) is amended

by changing "$260,000" to "$286,000".

(4) Biscayne National Monument. Florida: Section 5 of the Act of October 18, 1068 (82 Stat. 1188), is amended by changing

"$2,000,000" to "$6,565,000".

<r-
218 Appendix A: Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 95-o2j—NOV. 1U, 1978 92 51A1. J'*< 1

(5) Capitol Reef National Park, Utah: Section 7 of the Act of

December 18, l'J71 (85 Stat. 739), is amended by changing Ift HSC 273f. "$1,052,700 (April 1970 prices)" to "$1,373,000 for development.",

and by deleting "for development., plus or milium 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, 19(18 (82 Stat. 1154). is amended by changing "$l>52,0oo" io '•$ 1,(162 ,000".

(7) Cowpens National Battlefield Sue, South ( 'arolina : Seel ion 402 of the Act of April 11, 197:! (86 Slat. 120), is amended by

changing "$3,108,000" to "$5,108,000".

(8) De Soto National Memorial, Florida: Section 3 of the Act

of March 11, 11)48 (62 Stat. 78), as amended, is furl her amended l<> USC 4.r>(Md changing "$3,108,000" to "$5,I0S,0()0". no,c (9) Fort Howie National Historic Site, Arizona: Suction 4 of

the Act of August 30, 1904 (78 Stat. (181), 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 Se|)l ember 5, 19t52 (70 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, 11*72 (80 Stat. 632), is amended

to read as follows: "Sk<\ 4. There are authorized to be appropriated

such sums as may be necessary to carry out the. provisions 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 lee. simple title to lands over which the United States lias acquired easements or other less than fee interests. (12) Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas: Section G of the Act of October 15, 1900 (80 Stat. 920), is amended by lMJSC28.it-. changing "$10,302,000" to "$24,71.r),000", and by adding the: follow- ing 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.".

(13) Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida-Mississippi:

Section 11 of the Act of January 8, 11)71 (81 Stat. 1907), is amended by changing "$17,774,000" to "$:M,±M,ooo", 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 const ruction costs as indicated by engineering

costs indices applicable to the types of construction involved

herein.", and inserting in lieu thereof "for development.".

(14) Harper's Ferry National Historical Park. Maryland-West

Virginia: Section 4 of the Act of June 3o, 11144 (58'Slat. 045),

is amended further by changing "$8,090,000" Io "$12,385,000".

(15) Hubbcll Trading Post National Historic Site, Arizona:

Section 3 of the. Act of August 28, 1965 (79 Stat. 581), is amended lf> USC 461 note. by changing "$952,000" to "$977,000".

4r

16 USC

45921.-10.

16 USC 460tjb

note.
Appendix A: Legislation

219

PUBLIC LAW 95-625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT. 3489

shore ami. in addition, the waters surrounding said area to dislanees

of one thousand feet in the Atlantic Ocean and up to four thousand fret in Great South Bay and Moriches Bay and. in addition, luainhmd

terminal and headquarters sites, not to exceed a lutal of twelve aeres, on the Patchogue River within Suffolk ( 'ouniy. New Viu k, all as delin- eated on a map identified a- 'Fire l.-land National Seashore', mini

heicd O*jP-00iM, dated -May I97H. The Sen-elan shall publish said Mum. nuMim i map in I lit* Federal Register, and ii may also he examined in the oJliees m reiieul of the Departmenl of the Interior.". Kegiatrr.

(Ii) Seetion '2 of such Ael is amended by adding the following new Uudevdoiied subsection at t he end t hereof

Iraru «mi "(g) The authority of the Secretary to condemn undeveloped traets t»"i"'j IV ^ within the Dune District as depicted on map entitled 'Fire Island ° M ••»*•*- Nat ional Seashore' nuinhered ( HJP-0001 dated May, 1!>78. is suspended

so long as the owner or owners of the undeveloped property therein

maintain the properly in its natural state. Undeveloped properly

within (In; Dune 1 >istricl that is acquired by the Secretary shall remain

in its natural state.".

((•) Section 7(h) of such Act is amended by striking the phrase 16 US*; 45<>r-6. "Brook haven town park at", and inserting in lieu thereof: '•Ocean Ridge port ion of". (d) Section lit of such Act is amended by striking "$18,000,000". 16 USL 45«>e-«>. and inserting in lieu (hereof "$23,000,000".

i'i:Miii:i(L\Nn island national skasiiokk

Si:<\ 323. Section 1 of the Act of October '23. 197'2 (8(1 Slat. HKi(i), is l<> USU 459i. amended by changing the phrase "numbered CD IS-10,0(iOM, and dated

June 1971,'". to read '•numbered CUIS JO,000l>, and dated January

1978,".

TITLK IV—WILDKKNF.SS

DfcSIONATION OF AM.AS

Sko. 401. The following lands are hereby designated as wilderness A»lnii«i»irainin in accordance with section 3(e) of the Wilderness A<| (7b Stat. 890; "» US(: '

' »-

It; U.S.O. 1132(c)), and shall be administered by the Secretary in n,,,r accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Ael : H> list 1131 (1) Buffalo National Kivcr, Arkansas, wilderness comprising ix'ie approximately ten thousand five hundred ami iwenty-nine acies

and potential wilderness additions comprising approximately

twenty-live thousand four hundred and seventy-one aeres depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness I'lau, Buffalo National Kiver.

Arkansas", numbered I7.i '20,030 B ami dated March I97.'». tu be known as the Buffalo National Kivei Wilderness.

(J) Carlsbad Caverns National Park-. New Mexico, wilderness

comprising approximately thirty t liree thousand one hundred ami

twenty-live acres ami potential wilderness additions rompri-ing

approximately three hundred ami twenty aeres. depicted on a map cnl it led ''Wilderness Plan, Carlsbad Caverns National Park,

New Mexico." numbered 130-20,003 -R and dated January 197*.

to be known as the Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness. By January 1, K«-r(,rl iu luKU, the Secretary shall review the remainder of the park and I'rewdeiu. shall report to the President, in accordance with .-eel ion ',) (c) and

(<1) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891 ; lfi U.S.O 1 132 (c) and

(d)). his recoiuinendations as to (he suitability or nonsuilabilil

y

of any additional areas within the park for prescn at ion as wilder-
220 Appendix A: Legislation

92 STAT. 3490 PUBLIC LAW 95-625—NOV. 10, 1978

ncss, siD'l any designation of such areas ns wilderness shall be

accomplished in aceoi 'dnurc with s:ii<l subsections of (lie Wilder16 USC Mil ,,,-• \rl.

n " 1 '' (•'') Fverglades National Park, Florida, wilderness romprising

approximately one million Iwn hundred nnd ninety-six thousand

five hundred acres and potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately eighty-one thousand nine hundred acres, depicted on ;i map entitled "Wilderness Plan. Fverglades National Park,

Florida", nunihered 160-20,011 and dated .lune 107I, to l»e known

as (lie Everglades Wilderness.

(1) Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas, wilderness

comprising approximately forty six thousand eight hundred and

fifty acres, depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas". numl>ered lfifi- 20/MtO-H and .lated July P»72. to he known as the Guadalupe

Mountains Wilderness.

(5) f Jul f Islands National Seashore, Florida, and Mississippi,

wilderness riiinpri«ing approximately one thousand eight hundred

acres and potential wilderness additions comprising approximately two thousand eight hundred acres, depicted on a niap

entitled "Wilderness Plan. Gulf Islands National Seashore.

Mississippi. Florida*', numbered 035-20,0 18-A and dated March

1077, to he known as (lie Gulf Islands Wilderness.

(0) Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Hawaii, wilderness comprising approximately one hundred and twenty-three thousand

one hundred acres ami potential wilderness additions romprising

approximately seven thousand eight hundred and fifty acre1-, depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan, Hawaii Volcanoes

National Park, Hawaii", numbered 124-20.020 and dated April

107-1, to Im" known ns the Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness.

(7) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, wilder- ness comprising approximately three hundred and twelve thousand

six hundred acres and potential wilderness additions comprising

approximately one thousand I wo hundred and forty acres, depicted on a map entitled "Wilderness Plan. Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument, Arizona", numbered 157-20,001-1? and dated October

107N, to be known as the Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness.

(H) 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 I'nit and South I'nit) numbered 3«7-20.fK)7-E and dated

January 1078, to be known as the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness.

M.\r and nrscniiTioN

PuMic Sec. 402. A map and description of the boundaries of the areas

availability. designated in this title shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park Service. Department of the Interior, and in the ( XhVc of the Superintendent of each

Filing with area designated in this title. As soon as practicable after this Act takes

ronprc«i<innal effect, maps of the wilderness areas and descriptions of their bnundcommittere. aries 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: Proi'ifh'if, That correction of clerical and typographical errors

in such maps and descriptions may lie made.
Appendix A: Legislation 221

PUBLIC LAW 95-625—NOV. 10, 1978 92 STAT. 3491

K

iiMi> ation in Heral Hcgistrr. 16 USC 11.11 note. Management.

CESSATION <>F CERTAIN USES

Sec. 403. Any lands which represent potent in I wilderness additions Designation in this title, upon publication in the Federal Register of a notice by notir tho Secretary that nil uses thereon prohibited by the Wilderness Act have ceased, shnll thereby be designated wilderness. Lands designated

as potential wilderness additions shall be managed by the Secretary

insofar as practicable ns wilderness until such time as said lands are designated as wilderness.

ADMINISTRATION

Skc. 404. The areas designated by this Act ns 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 n reference to the Secretary of the, Interior.

SAVINGS PROVISIONS

Sec. 405. Nothing in this title shall be construed to diminish tho

authority of the Coast Guard, pursuant to sections 2 and SI of title 14, United States Code, and title 1 of the Ports and Waterways Safety

Act of 1972 (33 U.S.O. 1221), or the Federal Aviation Administration

to use the areas designated wilderness by this Act within the Kvcrglades National Park, Florida; and the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi, for navigational and maritime safety purposes. TITLE V—ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AREAS AND

ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Subtitlo 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 Nntional Park Service study

of the Guam National Seashore and, after consultation with the Sivrctary of the Department of Defense and the Governor of Guam, shall transmit the revised study within two years to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Con unit tee 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 Ajayan Bay to Nimitz Beach

including Cocos and Anac Islands and extending inland as far as tho 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 the 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.

Study revninn,

tran«mittal In congre««i<>nal committee*

Submerged lanH« resource values

protection.

APPENDIX B: Personnel

223
224 Appendix B: Personnel

SUPERINTENDENTS

Donald Dayton, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1972-1981.

(NPS Photo)
Appendix B: Personnel 225

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.

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.
226 Appendix B: Personnel

William W. Dunmire, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1981-1985 (NPS Photo)
Appendix B: Personnel 227

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 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.
228 Appendix B: Personnel

Richard B. Smith, Superintendent of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1986-1987.

(NPS Photo)
Appendix B: Personnel 229

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 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.
230 Appendix B: Personnel

LIST OF PERMANENT PERSONNEL (Tentative)

SUPERINTENDENT AREA MANAGER

Neal Guse ?-1970

Donald Dayton 1970-1981

William Dunmire 1981-1985

Richard Smith 1986-87

Karen Wade 1987-

CHIEF RANGER

Phil Koepp 1981-1988

Jan Wobben Horst 1988-

John Chapman 1973-1975

Bruce Fladmark 1976-1980

Ralph Harris 1980-1987

CHIEF. INTERPRETATION

William Laitner 1981-1984

Bob Valen 1984-

RANGER-INTERPRETATION

PARK RANGER

Peter Sanchez 1962-1963

Roger Reisch 1964-

Cordell Roy 7-1978

Oscar Rodrigues 1978-1981

John Jarvis 1982

Rudy Carrasco 1982-1984

Todd Brindle 1982-1986

Douglas Raeburn 1982-1984

Olav Olsen 1984-

Jim Carson 1984-1988

Cindy Purcell 1986-

PARK TECHNICIAN

Robert Turner 1972-7

Robert King 1972-1976

Norman Stephan 1974-1976

Mary Jane Tate 1973-7

Harry Steed 1976-7

Cathy Rudy 1984-1986

Nedra Parker

Dava Davy 1976-1978

Caroline Wilson 1978-7

Diane Allen 1981-1984

John Lujan 1984-1987

Karen Haner 1986-1987

Linda Brindle 1986

CHIEF. MAINTENANCE DIV./

FACILITY MANAGER

Lloyd Gurley 7 Herschel Fowler 1979-80

Jim Gallaher 1980

Doyle Townsend 1981-1982

David Kangas 1982-

Bruce Reed

SUPERINTENDENT'S SECRETARY

Edith Scott 7-1987

Di Shute 1987-1988

Barbara Lujan 1988-
Appendix B: Personnel 231

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

SPECIALIST

Vidal Davila 1985-

CLERK-TYPIST

Carole Bryant 1980-1984

Donna Hendricks 1984-1988

Donna Valen 1988

MAINTENANCE FOREMAN

Francis Schneider 1973

Lloyd Gurley 1975-

Harold Anderson 1978-1979

ROADS AND TRAILS FOREMAN

Bill Nichols 1978-?

Ed Uptain 1981-1983

Lee Baiza 1984 -

BUILDING AND UTILITIES FOREMAN

Larry Rogers 1978-1979

Harold Anderson 1979-1987

ELECTRICAL WORKER

Johnny M. Sanders 1973-1988

MAINTENANCE WORKER

Rito Perez 1971-?

Alan Cox 7-1978

Don Cory

Glen Bodin

Arch Chaney

Diane Blackard

Lidia Salcido

MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR

Mark Hanson 1978

Arch Chaney 1986

ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT

OPERATOR. R&T

Antonio Armijo 1974-

Gerald Lange 1974-

Eliseo Riojas 1975

AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC

Dan Muntean 1985-1988

LABORER

Catarion Rivas 1974

PARK AIDE

Karen Parker 1971

Sharon Reece

Alan Cox

Kim Clegg

APPENDIX C: Cooperative Agreements

233
234 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
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 235

ensuring that the respective ohjectives and responsibilities of the Department

and Service are fulfilled.

NOW THEREFORE:

A. The Service agrees:

1To 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, 9urvevs, and reports of mutual interest.

6. To consult with Department biologists on studies, research,

or management of endangered species.
236 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 237

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.
238 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

5

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 P

Regional Director

Date: 3//^/ & 7

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

By:1

Date: 4-6-87
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 239

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP 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 se£.); 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 interpretive 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. Ib5), August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C.

Sec. la-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 commencing on

* The following agreement is non-negotiable except where Indicated,
240 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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.

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 3ell 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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 241

(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, whfch 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 terra of this Agreement.

D. Personnel

(I) The Association shall provide such personnel as arc 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

* Paragraph (4) has been designated to handle any special or unique

problems. This point is negotiable.
242 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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(1).

P. Interpretive Activities

(1) Interpretive activities engaged in by the Association

must meet Service standards and be approved by the Park Superintendent.

(2) Interpretivu 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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 243

3. SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Service agrees to allow the Association to use those facilities

vlthin 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, 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 aiiow 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 provido all general maintenance and

repair services for the Gove rumen t -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
244 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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, end 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 incorporated. 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 nonprofit 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

* 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 oven for the smaller Associations
24S Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 overseeing the day-to-day, routine business of the Association, and serving

as liaison between the Service and the Association.

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 flny one fiscal year any su..i in excess of .appropriations

made by Congress or administratively £l 'coated for th*1 purposes cf

this Agreement for the fiscal year, or to involve the Service ir. any

contract or other obligation for the further expcnliture of muney 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 Unite! States governing the National Pork

Service and to the rules and regulations promulgate J thereunder,

whether now in force or hereafter enacted or provided; and the mention

of specific restrictions, conditions, and stipulations herein shall

not be construed as in any way impairing the general powers of supervision, regulation and control by the Service.

3. 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, hut tht3 restrict ton shall

not be construed to extend to this AfirecTont if inadu with a corporation

or cjmpany for its gene a I benefit.

C. The Association agrees that) all its activities shall he .'.en- ducted in accordance with all applicable laws and r . •)•,': lat ion.;, both

State "mi Federal. Specifically, the Association •-.hall eorply with

the requirements of (a) Executive Ordei- *?«>. 1124b M' S. pt> mber 2u, \}^7,

\.b) Titi..- 7., Section 303 of the R»habil I zntinn Act o;' :" premier :>,

I'* 1 (i\.\. J3'\12) l which requires tiuv'urnnvnt hVulvaclcLM a::a Sib-

-or.tractors to take at t I relative action to ir.plcy M\d to advance in
246 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 v.'itten

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 Lavi-rns National \\\rk

(2) f.uadalupe Mountains National I'ark

(3)

U> ;

,

etc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Association has caused this Agreement to be

executed this <;) M' day of Janua ry 1'».V .

Car J sh. id Ctvor.is .".ira •

'. ..• » .

.' • ,

;

> Cooperating Aw.sod.if. »n

Chairman, Board of Directors

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Service has caused this Agreement to be

ratified this **** lIay of Mltv'gL ,!<!>?&
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 247

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 LANO 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
248 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 , ana to the land management agencies 1n 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 1n 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 1s provided by the

1983 Interagency Agreement between the BLM, BIA, NPS, USF&WS, and the USPS

(83-SIE-O01).

This MOU is entered into by the National Park Service, U.S. Dftoartment of the

Interior, under the authority of 16 U.S.C. Sec. lb; the Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Department of the Interior, under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 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 al-3). These three Federal agencies will hereafter be referred to as the "agencies".

While the individual agencies will conduct fire management ooeratiqns 1n 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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 249

Further, 1t 1s 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 1s 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 1f the

fire 1s 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.

3. 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 HOU will become effective upon approval by all parties and will extend for a period of five years thereafter. The HOU may be amended, revised, or terminated

1n writing at any time by joint agreement of the supervisors, or their

representatives, of the agencies after 30 days written notice.
250 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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

Nati onal Park Service

Approved by: &Jg$o£_ //. C^&W-* ; Date 6//?-/'SrgApproved by ^AQUU^s^ LUO-tQ^ ' Data ,1 ISjflfi

superintendent, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Bureau of Land Management

Approved by: /Z^/i^c£P /C (_ ,/r o-r

r<^r / Date 7/4A>

Distdct Manager, Roswell District

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Servica

: orestl Supervisor, Lincoln National Forest Approved by ; fe^y^^^$(^' Date M/2^
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 251

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. 8 283, 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.
252 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

4. To help assure that health and sanitary conditions and the appear- ance 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 a6 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 the following sections of this document is the only feasible

route to the new maintenance camp facility.

THEREFORE, in order to accomplish ti;e 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 maintenance 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.

2
253

Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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.
254 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 255

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 6hould 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 bo 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 pro-rated 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."
256 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Da

Regional Director

Southwest Region

te: rfb/ro

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Certified as being executed for the pur- pose 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: -e-i^< ^v" <?'*€'?-*<

Assistant State Engineer-Director

Executed and approved for State Highway

and Public Transportation Commission,

under authority of Commission Minute

No. 77446

APPROVAL RECOMMENDED 0/;

\lv RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEER

T 'E'N

/ ->-j ? X2.,rri

DISTRICT 'ENGINEER
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 257

EXHIBIT "A" page 1

".JOINT USE"

All ili.it certain twenty two (22) foot strip of l;ind, being n portion

of .i National Park Service (NTS) Entrance.1 Road, ;ind a Naiion.nl Park

Service (NPS) Access Road to a Maintenance Camp, lying in Sections A4 and 45 , lilock 63, Township 1, Texas and Pacific Railway Co. Survey,

Coadalnpc Mountains National Park, Culberson County, Texas, said strip

of land belli]; eleven (11) foet on either side of the following describe. center] ine

Hef, inn Ing at a point on the southerly right-of-way (K/W) line ol U. S. Highway 62-180, said point being South

,',°29 lr>9" |:.ist - 60.00 feel f i om II. S. Highway 62-180

Si. il ion 977 SI!, said point also being Station + fill mi ill'' I'enierllne of National Park Service (NPS) Entrance

Pu.it] (I. Ine "A"); thenee South <4 e 29'59" Easl , along said center! Ine, 3.1)0 feel lo the beginning of a tangent curve

t> the left; thence along said curve, having a radius of 20H.H/ leet, central angle ot 7l"5A , 12", an arc distance

of 337.42 feel (chord bearing South 31 "27 '07" T.asl 31 5. 71 feet), to the beginning of compound tangent curve to the

leli; thence along said curve, having a radius of 873.17

feet, central angle of 17"17 , 22", an arc distance of 264 . 09

feel (chord bearing South 76°02'4R" F.ast 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

+ 00 on the centerline of National Park Service (NPS)

Maintenance Road (Line "ll") ; thence South 2*33'30" West along said centerline of Maintenance Road (I. Ine "ll") 292. 39 feet to a point. Station 2 + 92.30, said point

being tliu beginning of the entrance to the National Park

Service Maintenance Camp Parking Area, ami being the terminus of the Joint use area.

ft
258 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

EXHIBIT "A" pa);c 2

"EXCLUSIVE USE BY Till: STATE 01" TEXAS"

AN lli.it certain Tlfly (50) fool strip of land, being ;l continuation

from the terminus of ;i National Park Service Maintenance Road to the South Boundary 4>r Cu.idaliipc Moiml.i ins National I'ark, lying and being

ill Section!: V« and 45, Block 65, Township 1, Texas and Pacific Railwa;.

(.11. Survey, Cund.il npc Mount.i ins National Park, Culberson County, Texas said strip of land being twenty five (25) feet on cither side of tlie following described centorlinei

Beginning at a point in the eontorlinc of a National Park Seivlcc Maintenance Koad (Station 2 + 92.39), said point bear Ins South 2°35'50" West 292.39 feet from the Intersection

of the center! ines of aforesaid Maintenance Road (Station + 00) and a National Park Service Entrance (toad (Station

6 + 64. 51); thence from said Point of Beg Inn inf.; on a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 90.00 feet, a central angle of Vi °<i2 '00" , an arc distance of 70.21 feet (chord

hearing South 19°'t8'26" East) 68.63 feet to a point on the south bound. iry line of Guadalupe Mountains National Park,

1 he leriniuii.'i of the above described centerllne; from said

terminus point National Park Service Monument "C" hears North H!rV)'l3.8" East 5Vi.62 feet, NPS Monument "C" having Texas Central Zone conrdiniit.es North 836,680.171,

East 610,89:?. 568.

Except inc i li.it portion thereof used for access to a National Park Service Maintenance Camp parking, lot

f*
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 259

RECEIVED M 2 s m

69X0 ' JI5" |Wt |0JTI v1 LJ_j

1 1 -H , _

• ;

i

i ! ! 1 u] i

i <

i "; —-]-i-r-

-;-—

-H:.t-

- '.

'

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 k, 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

irreparablelydamaged 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 a 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
260 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

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 McKit trick 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.

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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 261

9- Manage caves in tlie canyon in uccordance with the Cave Maiiagemunt Plan

for Guadalupe Mountain National Park.

10. Discourage use of Nort* 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.

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:

<2>c£^JLrJVJa-(Qj^

Superintendent, \ Supervisor,

Guadalupe Mountains National Park ciogo^i National Forest

National Park Service U.S. Forest Service

6/3 7/00

(Date) " ""vOatej

-
262 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 263

Culbcraoif Coui/lv Hospital District

P.O. Box 609 Van Horn, Texas 79855 915 283-2760

R. Edwin Norrls

ADMINISTRATOR 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.
264 Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements

Culberson Courjty Hospital District

P.O. Box 609 Van Horn, Texas 79855 915 283-2760

R. Edwin Norris

ADMINISTRATOR

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 costs; 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) 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 aid 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.
Appendix C: Cooperative Agreements 265

Cuibcrsor? County Hospital District

P.O. Box 609 Van Horn, Texas 79855 915 283-2760

R. Edwin Norrls

ADMINISTRATOR

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 not 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 nny 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

KlgUt ^_ Da te ;<2-S^-1<*

Guadalupe Mountains National Park

by_y 7\<r^£^4_ Mrt^-x^

.Superintendent

Date 3/-2^/&y

APPENDIX D: Collecting and Research Permits

267
268 Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK HC 60, BOX 400 SALT FLAT, TEXAS 79847-MOO March 17, 1988

A90(GUM0)

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

STANDARDS AND PREREQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF COLLECTING

PERMITS . Collecting Permits aire 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 . impac t analysis

7. interpretive and/or resource management programs

8. museum displays

9. facilitating acquisition of final reports

10 . group s tudy

11. providing a vehicle for imposition of other management

constraints on the conduct of activities

In park areas where enabling legislation does not expressively prohibit the collecting of plants, fish,

wildlife, rocks, minerals, and archaeoloeica 1

/

paleonto logical

remains, permits may be issued when, at his/her discretion,

the Superintendent determines:

1. collections will not result in derogation of values
Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits 269

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.

Data/Field Notes - Researchers will be re appropriate collection data (including Un Agency accession and catalog numbers) to cataloging of specimens (researchers may

to complete all or portions of the NPS Na cards). If the researcher is required to National Catalog Cards (with catalog numb

and appropriate instructions will be prov

park's curator. Field notes or copies t required of each researcher. The requir

for all or portions of the field notes) w on a case-by-case basis.

quired to provide

iversity or facilitate the

also be required

tional Catalog

complete the

e rs )

, the cards

ided by the

hereof may be

ement leve 1 (e.g.

ill be determined

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 ( acces s ion/ catalog number will be

assigned to each collector by the park curator prior to initiation of collecting) . If NPS museum labels are not
270 Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits

available at the start of the collection period, the NPS

will provide labels during the project or require the use

of some 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 archaeo logical / pa leon to logical 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 a collecting permit and

will be governed by the provisions of that collecting
Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits 271

permit . ****** Viola t ion of the terms and conditions of a park permit

issued in accordance with Federal regulations is

prohibited and will result in suspension or revoca t ion

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 p ro tec t ion

/

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.

E. 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 / paleonto logical 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
272 Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits

Appendix A RESEARCH/COLLECTING PERMIT CERTIFICATION REQUEST FORM

1. Name(s), address(es), telephone #(s), of inve s t iga to r ( s )

2. Affiliation of inve s t iga tor ( s ) : Institution:

Address :

Telephone t (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 (s) you will be

in the park as well as approximate date of study or research

cone lus ion ) :

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?
Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits 273

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 (s) 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
274 Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits

d . preparation/ preservation me thods

/

techniques :

e. disposition of specimens:

11. An Annual Investigator's Report is required and due Dec. 31

of each year of your s t udy / r e s e

rch 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:

S igna ture Title Date
Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits 275

Appendix B CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR COLLECTING PERMIT APPLICANTS

NOTE: Correct answers are 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 . Permittee is member in good standing of reputable

scientific /educational institution, or state/federal agency? (36 CFR 2.5b)

Collecting necessary to stated s c ient i f ic / reource management goals of requesting ins t i tut ion

/

agency ? Permit in question is to be issued for 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 lifeformsj

b. documentation of research or management activities;

c. baseline inventories;

d

mon i t o r ing

e. impact analysis;

f. interpretive and/or resource management programs

g. avoiding unnecessary duplication in future

efforts ; h. museum displays;

i. facilitating acquisition of final reports;

j. group study;

k. providing a vehicle for imposition of other man- agement constraints on the conduct of activities.

Collecting will result in derogation of values,

purposes, and resources for which the park was estabished? (36 CFR 2. 5e)

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Collecting/manipulation has real potential for con - serving and perpetuating a species and/or those

values, purposes and resources. YES NO

Collecting will result in adverse impacts upon en- vironmental or scenic values of the park7 YES NO. Collecting will result in damage to other park re- sources? (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.
276 Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits

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 bearing 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 s tudy / re search 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 endangered 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
Appendix D: Collecting and Research Permits 277

Have all applicable f ede ral / s t at e permits been

acquired? (36 CFR 2.5 b) YES NO

c. Is the express purpose of collecting c rue ia 1 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

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.

21

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

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

NO

Approved, Disapproved. Date

By = _

Resource Management Specialist

PUBLISHED REPORTS

OF THE

SOUTHWEST CULTURAL RESOURCES CENTER

1. Larry Murphy, James Baker, David Buller, James Delgado, Roger Kelly, Daniel Lenihan, David McCulloch, David Pugh:

Diana Skiles; Brigid Sullivan. Submerged Cultural Resources Survey : Portions of Point Reyes National Seashore and Point Reyes- Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1984.

2. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resources Inventory: Portions of Point Reyes National Seashore and Point Reves-Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary . Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1984

3. Edwin C. Bearss. Resource Study: Lyndon B. Johnson and the Hill Country. 1937-1963 . Division of Conservation,

1984.

4. Edwin C. Bearss. Historic Structures Report: Texas White House. Division of Conservation, 1986.

5. Barbara Holmes. Historic Resource Study of the Barataria Unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Division of History, 1986.

6. Steven M. Burke and Marlys Bush Thurber. Southwest Region Headquarters Building. Santa Fe. New Mexico: A

Historic Structure Report . Division of Conservation, 1985.

7. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resources Site Report: NOQUEBAY. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Submerged

Cultural Resources Unit, 1985.

8. Daniel J. Lenihan, Toni Carrell, Thorn Holden, C. Patrick Labadie, Larry Murphy. Ken Vrana. Submerged Cultural Resources Study: Isle Royale National Park. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1987.

9. J. Richard Ambler. Archeological Assessment: Navajo National Monument. Division of Anthropology, 1985.

10. John S. Speaker, Joanna Chase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, R. Christopher Goodwin. Archeological Assessment:

Barataria Unit . Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Division of Anthropology, 1986.

11. James E. Ivey, Marlys Bush Thurber, James T. Escobedo, Jr., Tom Ireland. The Missions of San Antonio: A Historic Structures Report and Administrative History . Divisions of Conservation and History, 1987.

12. Roger E. Coleman. The Arkansas Post Story . Division of History, 1987.

13. Toni Carrell, James E. Bradford, W. L. Rusho. Submerged Cultural Resources Site Report: Charles H. Spencer

Mining Operation and Paddle Wheel Steamboat. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area . Submerged Cultural Resources

Unit, 1987.

14. Hal Rothman. The Bandelier National Monument: An Administrative History . Division of History, 1988.

15. James E. Ivey. In the Midst of a Loneliness: The Architectural History of the Salinas Missions . Salinas Pueblo

Missions National Monument Historic Structure Report. Division of History, 1988.

16. Richard W. Sellars and Melody Webb. An Interview with Robert M. Utlev on The History of Historic Preservation

in the National Park Service- - 1947- 198Q. Santa Fe, 1988.

17. Laura S. Harrison and Beverley Spears. Historic Structures Report. Chinle Trading Post, Thunderbird Ranch and

Custodian's Residence . Division of History, 1988

18. James P. Delgado and Stephen A. Haller. Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and Point Reyes National Seashore . 1989

19. Judith K. Fabry. Guadalupe Mountains National Park: An Administrative History. Division of History , 1988.

20. Peter J. McKenna and Scott E. Travis. Archeological Investigations at Thunderbird Lodge, Division of Anthropology.

1989.

21. Peter J. McKenna and James E. Bradford. The T. J. Ruin. Gila Cliff Dwellings. Division of Anthropology, 1989.

22. C. Patrick Labadie. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1989.

23. Daniel J. Lenihan. USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark. Submerged Cultural

Resources, Unit, 1989.

24. Robert H. and Florence P. Liser. Aztec Ruins National Monument: Administrative History of An Archeological

Preserve, 1990.
25. Jill- Karen Yakubik. Archeological Investigations of Six Spanish Colonial Period Sites: Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. Division of Anthropology, 1989.

26. Herschel A. Franks and Jill-Karen Ykubik. Archaeological Survey on 65 Acres of Land Adjacent to Bayou des

Families : Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. Division of Anthropology, 1989.

27. Walter K. Wait and Peter J. Mckenna. Quarai Parking Lot Rehabilitation: Archeological Testing Program , Salinas National Monument, 1990.

ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990—774-729/25,061 REGION NO. 8



;y *;

-i

. 4

.... * £ «V

'J »-v