!

The Heart of the Gabilans

An Administrative History of

Pinnacles National Monument 

Timothy Babalis

Historian

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Pacific West Region: History Program

Administrative History

The Heart of the Gabilans:

An Administrative History of Pinnacles National Monument
Late spring on the west side of Pinnacles. [photo by Timothy Babalis]
The Heart of the Gabilans

An Administrative History of Pinnacles

National Monument

Timothy Babalis

Historian

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

2009
Production Project Manager Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Copyeditor Richard Camp

Composition Windfall Software

Photographs Credit given with each caption

Printer Government Printing Office

The cover photo depicts Pinnacles National Monument from the west side in 1911, when the monument

was managed by the General Land Office. It was taken by GLO Field Inspector A.J. Potter [NARA II].

Monogram to left of title is a National Park Service logo from the 1930s. It was used on a certificate of award

given to Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees who successfully completed service at a National Park Service

camp such as Pinnacles. [Reproduced from Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps.]

Published by the United States National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Seattle, Washington.

Printed on acid-free paper.

Printed in the United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting

our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural

values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life

through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources

and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship

and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian

reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.
Contents

Acknowledgments .......................... xiii

Introduction ............................. 1

One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920 . . .7

The Beginning of the Story ...................7

The Campaign for a Public Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Establishment of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1906) . . . . . . 14

The Antiquities Act of 1906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The Establishment of Pinnacles National Monument (1908) . . . . . 17

The Elimination of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1910) . . . . . . . 18

The West Side Road (1910) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

East Side Road Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Struggle for Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A Second-Class Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925 . . . . 37

The Arrival of Herman Hermansen (1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The Pinnacles Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company . 44

The First Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1924) . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Early Development at Bear Gulch (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The Pinnacles National Park Association (1925) . . . . . . . . . . 61

The PNPA’s Grand Picnic (May 1, 1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932 . . . 73

The Transition from Hermansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Hawkins’ First Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

The Beginning of Master Planning at Pinnacles (1928) . . . . . . . 81

Buildings and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Acquisition of New Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

The Great Fire of 1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932) . . . . . . . . . . 101

Native American Artifacts Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Melville and His Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Contents

Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941 . . . . 115

The Federal Government’s Response to the Great Depression . . . . . 116

The Civilian Conservation Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

The CCC at Pinnacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

The 1933–34 Winter Season: The Second Enrollment Period . . . . . 124

The Public Works Administration (PWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

The Civil Works Administration (CWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Spring of 1934: The Second Enrollment Period (continued) . . . . . 128

The 1934 Summer Season: The Third Enrollment Period . . . . . . 130

The 1934–35 Winter Season: The Fourth Enrollment Period . . . . . 131

The 1935 Summer Season: The Fifth Enrollment Period . . . . . . . 133

The 1935–36 Winter Season: The Sixth Enrollment Period . . . . . . 135

The 1936 Summer Season: The Seventh Enrollment Period . . . . . . 135

The 1936–37 Winter Season: The Eighth Enrollment Period . . . . . 137

The 1937–38 Winter Season: The Tenth Enrollment Period . . . . . 138

The 1938–39 Winter Season: The Twelfth Enrollment Period . . . . . 141

The 1939–40 Winter Season: The Fourteenth Enrollment Period . . . 142

The 1940–41 Winter Season: The Sixteenth Enrollment Period . . . . 142

The 1941–42 Winter Season: The Eighteenth Enrollment Period . . . 143

The Legacy of the CCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

World War II (1942–1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

The End of Hawkins’ Long Reign at Pinnacles . . . . . . . . . . . 155

The End of the Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Postwar Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Developments in Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Changing Priorities (1954–1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Mining Interlude (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Mission 66 (1956–1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Mission 66 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Interpretation under Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Mission 66 and Acquisition of Private Inholdings . . . . . . . . . 171

The Root Homestead is Finally Acquired (1958) . . . . . . . . . . 174

The Bacon Ranch Resort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

West Side Enthusiasm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Initial Construction under Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

The Accelerated Public Works Program (1963–1964) . . . . . . . . 180

Developing the Chaparral Area (1964–1966) . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Another Cross-Monument Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

vi
Contents

Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

A Final Note: Visitor and Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

The 1965 Plan Unravels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

The 1976 Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

The Development Concept Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Development and Growth after Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

1998: A Dramatic and Decisive Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

App. A List of Custodians and Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . 263

App. B Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

vii

List of Figures

Map 1. Pinnacles National Monument. xiv

Map 2. Detail of principal park features. xv

Figure 1. Bacon boys posed in front of the Bear Gulch Caves in 1888. 10

Figure 2. Bacon family members and other local homesteaders picknicking on the east side

of the Pinnacles, ca. 1890. 12

Figure 3. View of Pinnacles from the west side in 1911 showing homestead of Harrison

Lyons. 22

Figure 4. Looking up Bear Gulch from Sandy Creek in 1910, from the approximate location

of present Peaks View Lookout. 23

Figure 5. Photo of Henry Melville’s tour bus, early 1920s. 29

Figure 6. Henry Melville’s cabin on the west side of Pinnacles, where Ernest Bauman and

later Olive Rivers resided. 30

Figure 7. View looking up Bear Gulch toward the Monolith from the Moses Spring Trail,

1922. 48

Figure 8. View of Pinnacles from the west side showing relative position of Henry Melville’s

claim. 48

Figure 9. The turnoff to Pinnacles National Monument from the unpaved county road in

the 1920s. 56

Figure 10. Photo of Park Service Director Stephen Mather with the Pinnacles Boys in

1924. 57

Figure 11. View looking east down original Bear Gulch Entrance Road, ca. 1930. 59

Figure 12. Ranger Marcott leaping the “Chasm of Death” during one of his guided walks,

ca. 1926. 75

Figure 13. Auto camping at Pinnacles during the 1920s. 77

Figure 14. View of Lodge from above, looking east from top of Bear Gulch Caves. 79

Figure 15. View to the east of the original Bear Gulch lodge in 1934. 80

Figure 16. Lodge operators’ cabins, looking east from lodge porch. 81

Figure 17. Moses Spring in 1929. 87

Figure 18. Stairs on surviving segment of original Hermansen trail in upper Bear Gulch. 88

Figure 19. Local men working on High Peaks Trail, ca. 1932, with recently completed tunnel

in background. 93

Figure 20. View looking north across Chalone Creek six months after the 1931 fire. 101
List of Figures

Figure 21. View looking west up Bear Gulch toward the High Peaks in 1929. 103

Figure 22. The men principally responsible for the new entrance road, posing on

groundbreaking day, October 20, 1932. 107

Figure 23. Formal ceremonies on groundbreaking day for the new entrance road, October

20, 1932. 108

Figure 24. Laborers village in Bear Gulch, 1933. 109

Figure 25. View from above looking east down Bear Gulch in early 1933. 109

Figure 26. Local laborers working on the new Bear Gulch entrance road in 1932. 110

Figure 27. Construction of Bear Gulch entrance road in 1932. 111

Figure 28. Portable mortars in the Butts’ family collection. 113

Figure 29. Photograph of Henry Melville, date unknown (probably sometime after

1920). 114

Figure 30. View looking southwest over Camp Pinnacles in 1935. 122

Figure 31. Blacksmith and CCC assistant. 123

Figure 32. Lining up for chow at Camp Pinnacles. 124

Figure 33. CWA laborers working on road cut at Chalone Wye (intersection at the bottom of

Bear Gulch), 1934. 125

Figure 34. CCC enrollees operating pneumatic drill to break rock on the High Peaks

trail. 133

Figure 35. CCC enrollees positioning large boulders at switchback on High Peaks

trail. 134

Figure 36. CCC enrollees taking a break on the Chalone Peak Trail. 134

Figure 37. Chalone Peak Fire Lookout, nearing completion in 1935. 136

Figure 38. CCC enrollees in process of constructing rustic vault toilet at Scout Peak on the

High Peaks trail. 137

Figure 39. Construction of original Chalone Creek Bridge in spring of 1936. 139

Figure 40. Old Pinnacles Road being constructed above the CCC camp. 140

Figure 41. Clara (Ann) Lausten, on-duty at Pinnacles during WWII. 148

Figure 42. Erosion into Chalone Creek from Bear Gulch Entrance Road a few years after its

completion. 150

Figure 43. Drawing of proposed “Information Station” from 1940 Master Plan. 154

Figure 44. Interior view of Bear Gulch lodge during an unidentified dinner event, probably

in the 1930s. 156

Figure 45. Among the numerous challenges to maintaining the lodge was that posed by

woodpeckers, which used the walls of the building as a granary for storing acorns. 158

Figure 46. Photo of Equipment Shed (Building #201) at Condor Gulch Utility Area taken

shortly after completion in 1934. 160

Figure 47. Architect’s rendering of proposed visitor center from 1966. 171

x
List of Figures

Figure 48. View looking northeast up Merrin Canyon in 1910. 175

Figure 49. Plan of Chalone Campground from 1961. 181

Figure 50. Chalone Group Campground in 1965, looking east. 182

Figure 51. Balconies Trail opening ceremony, April 26, 1964. 184

Figure 52. Chaparral Area in 1966, before construction (left), and after (right). 185

Figure 53. West entrance road approaching Chaparral Area in 1966, before construction

(left) and after (right). 185

Figure 54. BZM Drilling Co. at Test Well No. 2 in the Chaparral Area in 1965. 186

Figure 55. Sandstone formation described by George Vancouver in 1794 and later mistaken

for the Pinnacles. 218

Figure 56. The original Chalone Creek Bridge on February 3, 1998, after floodwaters

undermined the abutments. 247

xi

Acknowledgments

Like all histories, this work could never have been written without the assistance of many people.

In particular, I am indebted to the support and encouragement given to me by the staff of

Pinnacles National Monument (now a National Park). Park superintendent Eric Brunnemann,

Chief of Resources Denise Louie, Facilities Manager Debbie Simmons, Administrative Officer

Leticia Ruiz, and Trails Supervisor Lisa Smith were especially helpful in making sure that this

study reached a successful conclusion, but all of the staff have contributed, and I want to thank

everyone at Pinnacles, past and present, for their efforts.

Many people in the Pacific West Regional Office, where I work, have also contributed. In

particular, I would like to thank Greg Gress in the Lands Division; Martha Crusius, Jean

Boscacci, and Brad Phillips in Planning; Nelson Siefkin in Fire; Vida Germano, Erica Owens,

and Jason Biscombe in Cultural Landscapes; and Gordon Chappell in History. Special thanks

goes to David Louter, who was History Program Manager, and my supervisor, when I wrote

this.

As I hope this study makes clear, Pinnacles does not exist in a vacuum. The history of the park

and that of the surrounding community cannot be separated, and I am indebted to countless

residents of San Benito and Monterey Counties for their contributions as well. This history

is as much their story as it is the Park Service’s. I wish I could thank everyone who helped

me along the way, but their names are too numerous. I am especially grateful to Deborah

Melendy Norman, Kathy and Joe Spencer, Stan Schmidt (and all of the Schmidt family), Clara

Lou Melendy, Janie Lausten, Sara May DeRosa, Leland Melville (and other members of the

Melville family), and Chuck Striplen, Val Lopez, and Paul Mondragon of the Amah Mutsun

Tribal Band.

And finally, no historian can fail to acknowledge the indispensible contribution made by

the archivists, curators, and librarians who preserve the collections upon which our work

depends. Special thanks to Carola DeRoy and Kirsten Kvam at Point Reyes National Seashore;

Diane Nicholson (now deceased) at the Pacific West Regional Office; and all of the staff at

the following archives and libraries: the California Historical Society, North Baker Research

Library, in San Francisco, CA; the San Benito County Historical Society in Hollister, CA;

the San Benito County Recorders Office in Hollister, CA; the Monterey County Historical

Society in Salinas, CA; the Soledad Historical Society in Soledad, CA; the Bancroft Library

in Berkeley, CA; the libraries of the University of California at Berkeley, CA; the National

Archives in College Park, MD; and the National Archives at San Francisco in San Bruno, CA.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank Karen Beppler-Dorn, who succeeded Eric Brunnemann

as superintendent of Pinnacles after this work was completed. She has helped shepherd it to

final publication, but her contribution to the ongoing story will have to await the sequel.
Map 1. Pinnacles National Monument.
Map 2. Detail of principal park features.

Introduction

Pinnacles National Monument was established in 1908, principally as the result of local

initiative. Its creation reflected the pride of its surrounding residents and their appreciation for

the unusual land in which they lived, but it also represented their aspiration to grow beyond

a remote agricultural community into a place of national importance and a destination for

visitors from around the country, if not the world. At first, these dreams greatly exceeded the

opinion of the federal officials who would be responsible for implementing and managing the

monument. These pragmatic individuals recognized that the place had value and was worth

protecting but did not think that it possessed national significance. After the Park Service was

created in 1916, and inherited Pinnacles, this opinion would persist among the new agency’s

leadership and lead to both misunderstanding and frustration between federal representatives

and local supporters of the monument. The former had to be convinced, contrary to their

initial opinion, that Pinnacles merited inclusion within the national park system, and for

several years they considered transferring the monument to the state park system. Pinnacles

not only survived this period of ambiguity but also eventually grew to become more than ten

times its original size. This legacy testifies to the energy and commitment of the monument’s

local supporters. While they did not at first succeed in creating the national park they originally

wanted, they did succeed in making Pinnacles a world-class monument whose place in the

national park system will never again be questioned.

But local initiative is only part of the story. Pinnacles National Monument was not created

without precedent or in historical isolation. It was established under the authority of the

Antiquities Act of 1906 and expressed the nation’s growing concern for preservation of its

natural and cultural resources.1 Pinnacles was the thirteenth monument to be established under

this act, following both Muir Woods and the Grand Canyon, which were both set aside during

the same week in January of 1908. The initial purpose of the Antiquities Act was to protect

archeological sites and associated artifacts from pillage, but as the momentum for its passage

grew, the language of the proposed act gradually evolved to include other threatened resources

as well. In its final version, the Antiquities Act would allow the president to reserve “historic

landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific

interest.” The intentional vagueness of this language, particularly the final phrase, permitted

considerable latitude for interpretation and would result in nearly as many monuments being

established for natural and scenic purposes as for strictly archeological value. Pinnacles was

one of these. Its local supporters were chiefly interested in the scenic value of the place, which

they hoped would attract tourism, while its official patrons—men like David Starr Jordan and

William Russell Dudley, both of Stanford University—called attention to its unique natural

values, which they believed merited protection from development or economic exploitation.

1. This analysis is based upon Hal Rothman, America’s National Monuments: The Politics of Preservation (Lawrence:

University Press of Kansas, 1989); and Richard West Sellars, “A Very Large Array: Early Federal Historic Preservation—The Antiquities Act, Mesa Verde, and the National Park Service Act,” George Wright Forum 25.1 (2008):

65–120.
Introduction

In the end, the proclamation that enabled Pinnacles cited the scientific value of its distinctive

geology (without yet truly appreciating what made it distinctive). For the Park Service who

inherited the monument eight years later, this language seemed disingenuous, a verbal feint to

mask what it believed to have been the true intent of the proclamation—scenic tourism. This

assessment was accurate up to a point. While it did describe the interests of the businessmen

who promoted Pinnacles, it largely failed to grasp the less opportunistic motives of the scientists

and scholars who were also responsible for its establishment.

The Park Service’s leadership in those early days was strongly biased toward the dramatic

spectacle of large national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite, which it had been established

to manage. Its initial hesitation at accepting Pinnacles was the result of comparing Pinnacles

on strictly aesthetic grounds with those more spectacular places. Pinnacles had scenery, but

nothing so extensive or dramatic as the other national parks, and therefore the Park Service

believed that it was only second class. This prejudice also extended to many of the other

national monuments during the early decades of the twentieth century, and it persisted so

long as size and aesthetics remained the most important criteria for assessing parks. But this

bias missed one of the most important and unique implications of the Antiquities Act itself,

an incipient mandate to preserve the resource for its own sake and not just for the pleasure of

the spectator. The claim that Pinnacles should be protected for its scientific value may initially

have been a tool to preserve its scenery, but at the same time it also meant exactly what it said.

One of the great contributions of the national monuments to the Park Service was that they

helped to insinuate this broader idea of resource preservation into the new agency. Of course,

preservation was an integral part of the Park Service’s Organic Act, but it would take time for

this principle to balance the other half of the agency’s mandate, the promotion of pleasure

in the national playgrounds. Monuments established specifically for their natural values, like

Pinnacles, would eventually become important nature preserves as well as pleasuring grounds,

where visitors would not only enjoy beautiful scenery, but the natural elements of which it

was constituted, and even those which did not make any visible or obvious contribution to

it would be managed for their own sake and be preserved for the educational and scientific

values they inherently possessed. As various scholars have noted, the Antiquities Act was an

important precedent for the National Park Service’s Organic Act and embodied some of the

most radical ideas implicit in it.2 As these ideas matured, monuments like Pinnacles would no

longer be considered simply second class parks on the basis of less-than-spectacular scenery,

but would increasingly be valued for the resources they were originally set aside to protect. This

maturation has been a two-way process. Pinnacles has benefited from the growth of the Park

Service’s own mission and no longer risks being excluded from the national park system, but

the Park Service has grown in direct response to the challenges and opportunities presented by

managing Pinnacles and other monuments like it.

The Pinnacles Rocks, from which the monument takes its name, are a geologic formation

rising in the midst of the Gabilan Mountains between the Salinas Valley to the west and Bear

Valley to the east. The Gabilans are a relatively small chain of mountains within the California

Coastal Range. They rise more than three thousand feet from the floor of the San Juan Valley

at their northern end with Fremont Peak—named for John Charles Fremont, who challenged  ́

the Mexican military commander General Jose Castro in 1846 to an unsuccessful showdown  ́

on the slopes of this summit. The range extends south from Fremont Peak approximately

thirty miles, culminating in the isolated summit of South Chalone Peak before descending

2. This point is made by Sellars in “A Very Large Array,” p. 74.

2
Introduction

into the Topo Valley, which bisects the Gabilan Mountains in an east-to-west direction and

defines their southern boundary. The western-facing slope of the Gabilans, which rises steeply

above the fertile Salinas Valley, is extremely dry, lying within the rain shadow of the much

loftier Santa Lucia Mountains to the west and possessing scant soil to hold what little moisture

does come this way. The vegetation here consists mostly of chaparral and thinly bedded grasses

(now mostly comprised of exotic annuals like bromes and oats). However, small pockets of oak

woodland occur in scattered locations where a little more water can be found within shallow

draws that furrow the rugged slopes of the range.

All in all, the west slope is an inhospitable place. The Chalon and Salinan Indians, who

occupied this part of California for many thousands of years before Europeans reached North

America, wisely refrained from living here—if archeological evidence can be trusted—though

they frequently passed through this landscape and may have utilized it in ways we have yet

to understand. During the late nineteenth century, the western Gabilans tempted many

American settlers, perhaps because the view over the verdant Salinas plain was so tantalizing,

though it is more likely these newcomers were simply pushed here to the edges of life by their

luckier predecessors who had arrived early enough to claim land on the rich valley bottoms.

Homesteaders like Harrison Lyons struggled against the odds for a generation and a half before

finally accepting nature on its own terms and walking away. The ruins of the Lyons Homestead

still remain on the west side of the monument and represent a good example of the very

marginal existence associated with subsistence farming in this environment. The Nobel Prize–

winning author John Steinbeck portrayed a memorable image of life on the western slope of

the Gabilan Mountains in his novel East of Eden, in which he describes his own ancestors, the

Hamiltons, who settled just a little south of the Lyons.

The most enthusiastic settlers on the west slope were miners, and they were also the earliest

during the historic period. Beginning in 1851, only three years after the discovery of gold

in the Sierra foothills, the first mining district was established in these mountains on the

southwest shoulder of Fremont Peak at Alisal. By 1862, more prospectors drifting back from

the Sierran mines had begun to fan out across the hills just west of the Pinnacles and established

the Chalone Mining District that year. By the early 1870s, the ephemeral town of Rootville

briefly coalesced just outside the present monument boundary. It reached its peak by 1874,

then dwindled to non-existence by the end of the following year as the miners realized that

these barren slopes were barren even of minerals. A few of the more patient and persistent

prospectors held out in spite of reason, and their activities would continue in fits and starts

all the way through the turn of the next century, but little ever came of their efforts and

nothing remains except a few tunnels and overgrown tailings which an intrepid hiker might

still discover in the most unlikely and remote locations.

The east side of the Gabilans are also marginal from an agriculturalist’s point of view but far

more fertile and better-watered than the west slope. The Chalon, the southernmost group of

the numerous Ohlone Indians, had their principal villages here on the upper reaches of the San

Benito River watershed before Europeans forced them into missions during the late eighteenth

century. Paralleling the Salinas River, the San Benito River cuts a narrow path through its own,

much smaller valley on the east side of the mountains as it slowly trickles north. It joins the

Pajaro River in the midst of the broad Hollister plains and then flows westward to the sea,

spilling into Monterey Bay just north of the mouth of the Salinas.

At the south end of what is now San Benito County, not far from its headwaters in the Panoche

Mountains of the Diablo Range, the San Benito River makes a broad eastward-curving arc

around the San Andreas Fault, which has thrown up a low and ever-shifting wall of sandy hills.

3
Introduction

These “Slide Hills” define the eastern border of a long, narrow valley suspended between them

and the main ridge of the Gabilans. Known as Bear Valley, its deep, alluvial floor averages

1,250 feet above sea level, much higher than the elevation of the San Benito River, a fact

that renders the place impractical for irrigation. At its northern end, Bear Valley begins at

the top of the Bear Valley Grade and extends south in a westerly curving arc for a distance of

approximately ten miles. It slopes gently downward in this direction at a grade of ten to fifty

feet to the mile. At its broadest point, the valley is little more than a mile across, from toe to

toe of its bordering hills. Sandy Creek—known to some residents as Bear Creek—rises in the

Gabilan Mountains west of Bear Valley, and reaches the valley floor about a quarter mile south

of the Bear Valley Grade—the head of the valley—through at least two separate watercourses.

From here it meanders south across the sandy bottomlands until it flows into Chalone Creek

within the present monument boundaries. With the exception of a single tributary, Chalone

Creek rises within Pinnacles National Monument and flows south through a narrow, winding

chasm at the foot of Chalone Peak, finally turning west and cutting directly through the

Gabilan Mountains to the Salinas Valley, where it joins the Salinas River at the small town

of Greenfield. Though it seems to defy reason, Chalone Creek—and its principal tributary,

Sandy Creek—is part of the Salinas River watershed, not the San Benito watershed.

Though far from being an agricultural paradise, Bear Valley has enough perennial water and

deep soil that it attracted—and held—many homesteaders during the early years of California’s

American period. The descendents of the more successful of these homesteaders remain to

the present day. The southern two miles of Bear Valley, where the valley curves furthest to

the west, now lies within the boundaries of Pinnacles National Monument. At this point,

Sandy Creek begins to meander in braided channels across a broad, sandy wash (hence the

creek’s name). This part of the valley is known informally as the bottomlands and was settled

by one of the original homesteading families—the Bacons—in 1866. By 1937, it had been

consolidated into a single ranch by Ben Bacon, who represented the second generation of his

family here. Thereafter, the property remained more or less intact up to its recent acquisition

by the National Park Service in 2006. The Ben Bacon Ranch is bordered on its northern

edge by Highway 25, which still follows the alignment of the earliest county road, established

in 1890. To the south, the ranch is bordered by the Chalone Bench, a triangular deposit of

alluvial soil lying between Sandy Creek and Chalone Creek just north of the point where the

two streams converge. Overlooking this convergence are the steep slopes of Mount Defiance

and Chalone Peak, and beyond these to the west are the High Peaks, the principal geologic

formation constituting the Pinnacles. Of all the homesteading families, the Bacons lived closest

to the features that would later define Pinnacles National Monument.

The Pinnacles are a formation of exposed and deeply eroded volcanic rhyolite that parallels

Bear Valley and extends, north to south, for approximately the same distance. The rock is a

remnant of an ancient volcanic field that originated in Southern California within the present

Tehachapi Mountains. It has been conveyed north approximately 195 miles to its present

location by the lateral movement of the San Andreas Fault, which clove the original site in two.

(The other half of the formation is located near the town of Lancaster.) The largest and most

dramatic features within the Pinnacles are the Balconies and Machete Ridge at its northern end.

Between these two rocky buttresses lies a narrow chasm known as the Palisades Gorge or, more

commonly, the Old Pinnacles Gorge. Large talus boulders have slipped into it, roofing the

chasm and forming the Balconies Caves, through which the present Old Pinnacles/Balconies

Trail passes. The west fork of Chalone Creek, which rises in the Chaparral Area on the west

side of the Pinnacles, also runs through this chasm, flowing beneath the talus boulders beneath

the floor of the caves. Because this portion of the Pinnacles could be reached relatively easily

4
Introduction

by following the sandy bottom of Chalone Creek, the Balconies and Machete Ridge became

popular long before the rest of the extensive Pinnacles formation. For this reason, it is called the

Old Pinnacles. Early tourism promoters also called it the Palisades and Vancouver’s Palisades.

(The latter name will be explained in Chapter 6.) The High Peaks and Little Pinnacles, which

lie further south, were not easily accessible from the east until the early 1920s, when a trail was

constructed up Bear Gulch. This is a narrow canyon that rises at a right angle from Chalone

Creek just north of the Chalone Bench. In 1925, a road was built to a wide, oak-shaded terrace

about halfway up it, and this area subsequently became the developed core of the monument.

The park headquarters is still located here. In the upper reaches of Bear Gulch there is another

series of talus caves, more extensive than those in the Balconies. These are known as the Bear

Gulch Caves. The High Peaks, the core of the Pinnacles formation, can be readily accessed

from the terrace on which the monument headquarters is located through a side canyon known

as Condor Gulch. The rocky spires of the High Peaks that overlook Bear Gulch are sometimes

called the Condor Crags after the eponymous bird that makes its home here.

5

Chapter One

Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument,

1891–1920

Pinnacles National Monument began with a simple idea among the early residents of rural

south San Benito County (“South County”) who wanted to protect the spectacular Pinnacles

formation from private interests and potential degradation and to preserve it as a public park.

The most enthusiastic and vigorous promoter of this novel idea was Bear Valley rancher

Schuyler Hain, who would later be remembered as the “Father of the Pinnacles.” Once Hain

realized just how unusual and significant the Pinnacles were, he proposed that the place be

designated as a national park. He had many supporters among the local community, who saw

this as an opportunity to bring greater attention, and possibly business, to their isolated region.

These conservation efforts began in the late 1890s, long before the National Park Service itself

existed, though by this time Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Sequoia had all been established and

served as models for the national park idea. Although Schuyler Hain would not succeed in

establishing a national park on the order of these precedents, he did manage to protect the

Pinnacles, first as a national forest reserve in 1906, and later as a national monument in 1908.

But this was only the beginning of the struggle for Pinnacles, for the reserved area proved

to be far too small (the original monument did not even include the Bear Gulch Caves); it

lay beyond the reach of any good road and so was largely inaccessible to the average tourist;

it was threatened by private ownership of key resources, including principal access routes;

and it lacked any on-site staff to provide management and to develop visitor facilities. These

challenges would define much of the early history of Pinnacles. Schuyler Hain, who had already

accomplished so much by simply establishing the monument, would attempt to resolve some

of these additional problems during the later years of his life, but the ultimate solutions would

have to wait for another generation of park supporters.

The Beginning of the Story

The Pinnacles lie within the traditional territory of the Chalon Indians, a subgroup or tribelet

of the Penutian-speaking Ohloneans. These people first migrated into California’s central

coastal region from the interior about four thousand years ago and eventually populated most

of the present San Francisco Bay Area from the Carquinez Straits south to present-day Carmel.

Their territory extended inland as far as the Diablo Range, which separates the coastal littoral

from California’s broad Central Valley, and included southern San Benito County, where the

Pinnacles are now located. The Chalon were the most southerly of the Ohlonean peoples,

close cousins of the more populous (and better known) Mutsun, who occupied the broad San

Juan Valley between Watsonville and Hollister. At the time Spanish Franciscans established

nearby Missions Soledad and San Juan Bautista during the last decade of the eighteenth

century, the Chalon were estimated to have numbered about nine hundred individuals.1 Their

territory straddled the Gabilan Mountains in the vicinity of Pinnacles National Monument and

1. Sherbourne F. Cook, The Population of the California Indians, 1769–1976 (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1976)
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

included portions of both the upper Salinas Valley and the Upper San Benito River Valley, with

Bear Valley nearly at the center. Although the Chalon did not practice such intensive activities

as agriculture, they did significantly modify their environment. Both archeological evidence

and early historical accounts testify to a variety of techniques they used to manage the natural

resources on which they depended. Their most effective tool was fire. Like Indians throughout

pre-European California, the Chalon used fire to increase the abundance of seed-producing

grasses and forbs, to improve the quality of vegetative fiber sources, and to prevent valuable

grassland from type-converting to less valuable scrub. But the Chalon also manipulated their

environment in less dramatic, if not less significant, ways through hunting of game animals,

harvesting of plants, and the physical manipulation of selected species to improve certain

desirable qualities (for example, hand-tilling the soil to straighten and increase the length of

sedge rhizomes used in woven basketry).

In all likelihood, these activities shaped the landscape around Pinnacles National Monument—

especially Bear Valley—in profound and lasting ways. But by the time Anglo-American settlers

arrived during the middle of the nineteenth century, the Chalon and their traditional lifeways

had largely disappeared. Between 1791 and about 1810, most, if not all, of the Chalon had been

confined to Spanish missions or had died of European diseases.2 Following the secularization

of these missions after 1833, the surviving Indian neophytes (baptized Christians) were largely

absorbed into the laboring class of the Mexican ranchero economy. If any Chalon were among

these survivors, they may have returned to their ancestral lands to work in places like Rafael

Garcia’s Rancho San Lorenzo—located just south of Bear Valley—or in the New Idria mercury

mines, which were developed during the 1850s in the Panoche Hills about fifty miles east of

Bear Valley. Both operations are known to have employed California Indians.3

Between 1810, when the last of the Chalon are believed to have disappeared from the area

around Pinnacles, and 1865, when permanent Anglo-American settlers first arrived, this

landscape was largely turned over to wilderness, probably for the first time in millennia. The

Hispanic settlement of California, which dated from 1769 to the American conquest of 1846–

48, had little direct impact on Pinnacles and the surrounding region, since no missions or

ranchos were established here. The greatest environmental impact during these years was the

removal of the Chalon and the resultant cessation of their land management activities. After

more than fifty years of abandonment, however, Bear Valley on the east side of the Pinnacles was

discovered again and reinhabited when Anglo-American homesteaders began migrating south

from the San Francisco Bay Area. The landscape they encountered seemed ideal for farming

and grazing, since it was characterized by well-watered grassland and possessed abundant

groves of oak. The latter was a critical asset for a culture lacking any other source of fuel for

cooking, preserving meat, or heating in the winter. To these early immigrants, Bear Valley

seemed like a natural paradise (and the Pinnacles, a curious but picturesque anomaly). None

of the original homesteaders suspected that its natural advantages may have been the result of

at least three thousand years of careful and deliberate human management.4

2. See, for example, Randy Milliken, A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco

Bay Area, 1769–1810 (Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press, 1995).

3. John Breen, “Diary, 1853–1855,” California Historical Society, North Baker Research Library, San Francisco, CA.

4. This summary and interpretation is taken from Timothy Babalis, Fire and Water: An Environmental History of the

Upper Chalone Creek Watershed—Draft (Oakland, CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2009).

See also Gary S. Breschini, Trudy Haversat, and R. Paul Hampson, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and

Coast-Valley Study Areas (Salinas, CA: Archeological Consulting, 1983); Randall Milliken, A Time of Little Choice:

The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769–1810 (Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press, 1995);

8
The Beginning of the Story

Given this long and rich legacy of human connections with the place, the history of the

Pinnacles could begin many thousands of years ago, but the history of Pinnacles National

Monument starts only in the last half of the nineteenth century with the American immigrants

who settled in the area. California became part of the United States in 1848 with the conclusion

of the Mexican-American War, and it was not long after this that Americans began arriving in

large numbers. The first of these newcomers to discover the Pinnacles were probably miners,

prospecting in the hills above Soledad. They established the Chalone Mining District in

1862 and soon afterward the small community of Rootville, located a few miles south of the

Balconies, probably in Miners Gulch. For a brief period, miners were scattered all over the

western slopes of the southern Gabilan Mountains. Some of these men worked eastward and

explored the Pinnacles, prospecting for gold and other precious minerals. They never found

what they were looking for, but a few remained in the area long enough to be remembered—

George W. Root and Henry Melville are the most prominent names associated with this early

chapter in the history of the area. Although Root moved on after the turn of the century,

Melville would remain active in the Pinnacles until his death in 1933.5

Even as these miners were working the hills west of the Pinnacles, homesteaders were beginning

to settle in the valleys on the east side of the future monument. It was with these people that

the history of Pinnacles National Monument really begins, since they were the ones who first

conceived the idea of protecting the place as a public park.

The earliest of the homesteaders to visit the Pinnacles on a regular basis were members of the

Bacon family, who settled on Sandy Creek at the south end of Bear Valley in 1866. Of all the

homesteaders, their ranch lay closest to the rocky formation and enjoyed ready access to several

of its most prominent and scenic features—Bear Gulch, for instance, whose mouth began

not far from the northern edge of the Bacon Ranch. The Bacon children grew up playing in

the Pinnacles, while the family sometimes picnicked on the Chalone Bench, from where they

could just glimpse the distant peaks of Condor Crags. Another popular picnicking spot lay

beneath the eastern wall of the Balconies, at the end of a primitive wagon road that continued

several miles up Chalone Creek from the Bacon Ranch. This site was later improved with the

construction of tables and concrete fire pits and would become an informal campground—

the earliest in the monument’s history—once outsiders began visiting the place a few decades

later.6

It was not the Bacons, however, but another homesteader, a friend and neighbor of the Bacons,

who would play the leading role in creating the national monument. This was Schuyler Hain,

an immigrant from Michigan who arrived in 1891 with his young wife, Ida Cook Hain.

Schuyler was the oldest of seven children born to John and Mary Hain, who had already

moved to Bear Valley in 1886. The Hain family was actively involved in the community, and

members made many valuable contributions to the development of the area. In 1889, for

and M. Kat Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural

Resources (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

5. Anita Mason, research historian for the Monterey County Historical Society, unpublished notes.

6. These simple improvements were apparently made by county officials sometime around 1920, when they were

trying to promote tourism to the new monument—indirect reference was made to them when the first custodian,

Herman Hermansen, was trying to attract county support for the first road up Bear Gulch ten years later. Herman

Hermansen moved the original wooden picnic tables to Bear Gulch in 1923 after Henry Melville fenced the Balconies

Campground off behind his eastern property boundary. See, Herman Hermansen to Director, June 17, 1923; and

Hermansen to Arno Cammerer, January 28, 1924, Pinnacles Collection, RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, National Archives

and Records Administration II, College Park, MD [NARA II].

9
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

Figure 1. Bacon boys posed in front of the Bear Gulch Caves in 1888. Seated

in the middle of the group is Ben Bacon. To his right is Ben’s cousin Devere

Bacon, and to his left are his brothers Horace and Oliver. [Photo courtesy of

Deborah Melendy Norman.]

example, John Hain organized a petition to have a county road established. At that time, Bear

Valley was only a detour off the main stage road, which lay further east along the San Benito

River. Travelers passing through Bear Valley itself had to follow private lanes and open as many

as sixteen gates, one at the boundary of each new ranch. By 1890, John Hain had succeeded

in getting an easement forty-five feet in width for the length of the valley. The new road was

also straightened and built closer to the valley floor rather than skirting the foot of the hills.

It did not replace the original stage road along the San Benito River, which remained the

principal highway through the South County until much later, but it was the first public road

to serve Bear Valley, and it brought travelers relatively close to the eastern entrance of the future

monument. Several years later, the Hains would also be instrumental in getting the first Bear

Valley post office established. It was operated by Schuyler Hain out of the back of his brother

Arthur’s house and named Cook P.O. after Schuyler’s wife.7 Schuyler Hain became acquainted

7. Stanley F. Schmidt, “The Horace G. Bacon Family,” 1995; Edith Bacon Schmidt, “The History of Bear Valley

and Residents,” 1963; Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Co., Hollister, CA.

10
The Beginning of the Story

with the Pinnacles soon after arriving in California through the Bacon brothers—Horace,

Ben, and Oliver. Horace Bacon, the local schoolteacher, was Schuyler’s immediate neighbor

and close friend. The two were nearly the same age, and both were also recently married. It

was through Horace that Schuyler got to know Ben and Oliver Bacon, who still lived on the

family home ranch at the southern end of Bear Valley next to the Pinnacles. These young men

would act as guides for the occasional visitors who came to see the unusual formations, and

Schuyler began joining them. He eventually got to know the place as well as they did.8

At first, neither Schuyler Hain nor the Bacon brothers considered the Pinnacles more than

a local curiosity. Bear Valley ranchers appreciated the beauty and novelty of the place, and

were happy to show it off to any visitor who happened by, but they did not think it would

ever attract more than passing notice from the outside world. This opinion began to change,

however, in the spring of 1892, when a reporter from Hollister’s principal newspaper traveled

to the South County specifically to visit the Pinnacles, about which he had heard rumors. His

article gave a glowing account of the natural spectacle and attracted the attention of other

residents of Hollister, who decided to plan a large picnic for later that summer. A number

of prominent businessmen and county leaders came down for that event and were joined by

an even greater number of South County ranchers. This was the first time that the Pinnacles

had ever received widespread attention from outside the immediate community. It was an

impressive affair and got people thinking, but nobody was inclined to do anything more than

that just yet.9

Then in 1893, a cousin of Schuyler Hain who was attending school at Leland Stanford, Jr.

College—later to become Stanford University—invited his professor, Dr. Gilbert, to stay

with him in Bear Valley over the Easter holiday and visit the Pinnacles. The exuberance of

this erudite and well-traveled man surprised everyone. Schuyler recalled him saying, “I have

travelled in South America and Alaska, visited Yosemite and climbed the Matterhorn. But

for the variety of scenery and beauty of coloring I have never seen the equal to this on the

same area.” Schuyler later acknowledged that this event was the turning point in his own

relationship to the Pinnacles, and he began to consider the place something more than just a

local curiosity. He realized now that the Pinnacles were unusual enough to draw people from

outside South County, and he speculated that this might benefit the local economy. Over the

next few years, Hain began to actively promote the Pinnacles and conceived the idea of having

it designated a public or even national park. This would help draw attention to the place

and attract more people, but it would also preserve the Pinnacles against private exploitation.

Hain had little success in these efforts at first, until he managed to interest his congressman,

U.S. Representative James C. Needham, sometime around 1902. After visiting the Pinnacles

himself, Needham also became convinced that the place was worth protecting as a scenic park

and advised Hain on how to proceed. Hain never revealed exactly what advice Needham gave

him, but it may have included seeking a well-connected patron to support his idea. At any

rate, that is what he eventually did.10

8. Debbie Melendy Norman, “The Hain Family of Bear Valley,” 2005.

9. Hollister Evening Free Lance, April 1, 1892; Reta Oberg, The Administrative History of Pinnacles National

Monument (Paicines, CA: Pinnacles National Monument, 1979): 77–79.

10. Schuyler Hain, “Historical Sketch of Pinnacles National Monument,” n.d., Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42,

f. 20, Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA. The cousin who studied with Dr. Gilbert was a young man

named A.W. White.

11
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

Figure 2. Bacon family members and other local homesteaders picknicking on the east side of the Pinnacles,

ca. 1890. Pinnacles was a popular attraction among local residents even before the monument was established.

[Photo courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman.]

The Campaign for a Public Park

Schuyler Hain quickly developed a broad and well-organized base of support for his idea.

Sometime between 1902 and 1903, he attended a meeting of the Central Coast Counties

Association in Hollister. This booster organization included representatives from Santa Clara,

San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and San Benito counties. At the Hollister

meeting, Hain described his proposal for a Pinnacles National Park and proposed that the

association help introduce a bill in the state legislature to petition the federal government to

have it established. Hain got the endorsement of the county leaders, and with Representative

Needham’s assistance, the bill was eventually submitted. A joint resolution of the state assembly

formally endorsing the idea of a Pinnacles National Park passed on February 11, 1905.11

Even as Hain was promoting this idea among local politicians, he was also seeking the support

of individuals with national influence. In January of 1903, Hain wrote a letter to David Starr

Jordan, president of Stanford University, inviting him to visit the Pinnacles and endorse his

proposal if it met with his approval. Jordan was a highly respected scholar and university

administrator and had many influential friends in Washington DC, including President

11. Hain, Historical Sketch. It was at this same meeting that Hain met an amateur historian and executive from

the Southern Pacific Railroad Company named Paul Shoup. Shoup had become intrigued with an account in the

English explorer George Vancouver’s journals describing an unusual, castle-like mountain, which he had visited

while his ship was stopped over in Monterey during the winter of 1794. Shoup was convinced this mountain was

the Pinnacles, and Hain was only too happy to agree with him. This association with the famous English captain

lent further romance to the Pinnacles and helped Hain’s promotional efforts. For many years after, the association

between the Pinnacles and George Vancouver was taken for granted, and the name “Vancouver’s Pinnacles” was

frequently used. Only in 1955 did a more careful observer draw attention to inconsistencies in the attribution and

demonstrate that Vancouver had been describing a different place altogether. The captain’s name was subsequently

struck from all future references to the Pinnacles.

12
The Campaign for a Public Park

Theodore Roosevelt. Even without such important connections, Jordan’s position as president

of the prestigious university would have given his recommendations weight. Hain already had

an introduction to President Jordan through Dr. Gilbert, who had been Hain’s guest at the

Pinnacles ten years earlier. He reminded President Jordan of this connection and asked him to

consult Professor Gilbert for his opinion both of himself and of the Pinnacles but hoped he

would come see the place for himself.12

Jordan delayed for nearly a year and then finally offered to send Professor William Russell

Dudley in his place. This was a fortuitous decision. Dudley was head of systematic botany at

Stanford, a position he had occupied since 1892, when Jordan had recruited him. The two

men were old friends and professional colleagues. They had roomed together back at Cornell

in the early 1870s when Dudley had been one of Jordan’s students. Dudley replaced Jordan as

professor of botany when Jordan left Cornell in 1872, but the men had remained close over

the years. If Schuyler Hain was disappointed when Jordan failed to visit, he might have taken

heart knowing that Jordan was sending one of his most trusted professors and closest friends.13

Dudley was an appropriate candidate to investigate the Pinnacles for other reasons as well.

He was especially interested in native California flora, which at that time was still far from

adequately catalogued. The diversity of plant life around the Pinnacles would have appealed

strongly to him, perhaps even more than its spectacular geology. Dudley was also an ardent

preservationist and was active in efforts to save California’s coastal redwoods from logging, and

he was a member of the Sierra Club, which was founded the same year he arrived in California.

If the Pinnacles was to be preserved as a park or reservation on the basis of its natural and

scientific resources, few people were better qualified to promote this idea than William Russell

Dudley.

Professor Dudley was indeed impressed by his visit to the Pinnacles. Shortly after returning,

he wrote to Representative Needham—using President Jordan’s signature by permission—and

presented Schuyler Hain’s request to have the Pinnacles and surrounding area withdrawn from

entry. This was a necessary first step that would prevent any of the land from being transferred

into private hands before a national park or reservation could be established.14 Rather than

describe the Pinnacles in his own words, Dudley included a copy of the account written by

George Vancouver more than a century earlier—rather ironically, given that Vancouver was

describing a different place altogether, but this was not known at the time.15 Dudley also

included photographs supplied by Hain.

Shortly after hearing the favorable report of his friend, President Jordan began planning a visit

of his own. On May 7, 1904, he arrived in Bear Valley with his wife and another member of

the Stanford faculty. The 7th was a Saturday, and the group stayed the entire weekend with

12. Reta Oberg noted that Hain had already met President Jordan once before, in January of 1902, when Jordan

had given a public lecture in Hollister. Hain had introduced himself at that event and asked Jordan for his support,

but Jordan had been too busy to do anything then. Nevertheless, the experience appears to have left Hain with a

favorable impression of the man and emboldened him to pursue the matter. [Oberg, Administrative History]

13. Sara Timby, “The Dudley Herbarium” Sandstone & Tile 22.4 (Fall, 1998): 3–15; David Starr Jordan, “William

Russell Dudley” Science 34.866 (August 4, 1911): 142–145.

14. The GLO had been in the practice since the 1890s of withdrawing from entry lands that it felt merited special

attention and should not be developed. Prior to 1906, it could make “temporary withdrawals.” The Antiquities Act

allowed these withdrawals to become permanent. See Hal Rothman, America’s National Monuments: The Politics of

Preservation (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994).

15. Dudley [under Jordan’s signature] to Needham, April 23, 1904, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13.

13
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

the Hains. Schuyler guided them through the caves and rock formations and showed President

Jordan specimens of fossilized fish, a special interest of his. By the time Jordan returned

to Stanford, Representative Needham had already acted on Dudley’s request to contact the

General Land Office and have the Pinnacles withdrawn from entry. Jordan wrote to Hain the

following week, informing him of this fact and reassuring him that the place was now safe

from private interest and would soon receive permanent protection.16

The Establishment of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1906)

About the same time, Representative Needham contacted Gifford Pinchot, chief forester and

head of the U.S. Forest Service (then the Bureau of Forestry).17 He conveyed to Pinchot

Hain’s petition for the establishment of a national park. Since there was no Park Service yet,

some confusion existed as to which government agency was most appropriate to administer

such a park. At that time, the Army managed the largest parks—Yellowstone, Yosemite, and

Sequoia. But the Army was not interested in expanding its role in park management. The

Forest Service was the only alternative, so the Pinnacles petition was referred to it. This was a

little ironic, given the near absence of trees at the Pinnacles, but was not entirely inappropriate,

since the Forest Service was charged with protecting any commercially important watershed

by managing the vegetation on it. This could include brush land as well as forest, so the

chaparral-covered Gabilans were not necessarily inconsistent with the Forest Service mission.18

The greater problem was that Chalone Creek did not represent an important watershed. As

several Forest Service inspectors noted, much of the creek flows only seasonally. By 1910,

the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture—the two landowning departments of the

federal government—had agreed that brush land which was not needed for the protection

of important watersheds should not be retained in national forests. Prior to this agreement,

however, brush land remained an ambiguous area in federal land management, and Pinchot

took advantage of this ambiguity when he agreed to consider establishing a forest reserve at

the Pinnacles.19

A member of Pinchot’s staff had already made an inspection of the Pinnacles some time before

Congressman Needham’s request and had reported favorably on its value.20 Pinchot’s chief

concern was the approach that Hain and his associates were taking. They were arguing that

the value of the Pinnacles lay in its scenery, which was understandable, since they were hoping

to establish it as a park “for the enjoyment of the people, free from private ownership or

16. Jordan to Hain, May 23, 1904, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13.

17. The Bureau of Forestry was established within the Department of Agriculture in 1901. It replaced the Division

of Forestry, which dated back to 1881. The president was first authorized to establish forest reserves in 1891, but

no provision was made for their administration until 1897, when the Pettigrew Amendment to the Sundry Civil

Appropriations Act was passed. This, however, placed the forest reserves within the responsibility of the Department

of the Interior rather than the Division of Forestry (later the Bureau of Forestry) in the Department of Agriculture.

The reserves were finally transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1905, at which point the Bureau of Forestry

became the U.S. Forest Service. On the history of the forest reserves and the Forest Service, see Harold K. Steen,

The U.S. Forest Service: A History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004 [originally published in 1974]).

18. The only tree that grows with any frequency in the Pinnacles is the gray pine (Pinus sabiniana), but its occurrence

is so sporadic that it hardly constitutes a forest.

19. F.E. Olmsted to Jordan, July 13, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, Pinnacles National Monument,

Paicines, CA [PNW].

20. Gifford Pinchot to Jordan, February 9, 1905, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

14
The Establishment of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1906)

exploitation.”21 But the Forest Service was not interested in managing scenic parks. Its mission

was devoted to the efficient exploitation of natural resources, not tourism. If Pinchot was going

to go out on a limb to protect Pinnacles, he needed a stronger justification, and he needed

someone with more authority than Hain to stand behind it. He therefore wrote to President

Jordan, about whose involvement he had already learned from Representative Needham:

An agent of the Bureau [of Forestry] examined the tract last October, and reports that it

should be permanently reserved, but that its picturesque qualities alone would not warrant

the Government in spending money to protect and administer it. It is of scientific interest,

however, as well, and it has occurred to me that you would best be able to judge of its value

to geological science, and that if, in your opinion, the Government would be justified in

spending money on the protection and administration of it, from this point of view, you

would be willing to go on record as recommending it.22

As this letter suggests, Pinchot was also worried about committing money for a reservation

that appeared to have no commercial value, at least not from a Forest Service perspective.

Since 1897, the Bureau of Forestry had been required to actively manage every reservation it

established. This stipulation made the Bureau hesitant to establish new reserves, since it had

only limited funds to carry out its responsibility.

Jordan wrote back promptly, but his response was disappointing. While he endorsed Hain’s

proposal for a national park, he seemed to agree with Pinchot’s suspicion that the Pinnacles

did not warrant any substantial government expenditure. “Referring to the Pinnacles of San

Benito County,” he wrote, “permit me to say that the tract of land has no value for other than

scenic purposes; that it contains a great many very striking things, although none of it ranks

with the scenery of the high Sierras.”23 Nonetheless, Jordan went on to say that the Pinnacles

possessed a variety of rare plants which might be endangered by private ownership or the

intrusion of livestock. (These comments may have reflected the opinion of Professor Dudley.)

As far as the scenery went, Jordan did not believe it could be damaged by being left open to

private interests, since the scenery consisted primarily of rock, but he did acknowledge that

the public might be shut out and prevented from enjoying the Pinnacles if the place was not

given federal protection. Given this lukewarm endorsement, it is surprising that Pinchot did

finally approve the establishment of a federal reserve here, but it does explain why he would

always remain ambivalent about the Pinnacles and seek to end the Forest Service’s involvement

as soon as other protection became available.

On July 18, 1906, the Pinnacles Forest Reserve was established under the terms of the 1891

General Revision Act.24 It comprised approximately twelve thousand acres of the central

Gabilan Range, completely encompassing the Pinnacles geologic formation. The Pinnacles

Forest Reserve was a noncontiguous addition to the Monterey Forest Reserve, which had been

21. From Professor Dudley’s recounting of Hain’s petition, in Dudley [under Jordan’s signature] to Needham, April

23, 1904, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

22. Pinchot to Jordan, February 9, 1905, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

23. Jordan to Pinchot, February 22, 1905, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

24. This law allowed the president to withdraw land from entry in order to protect forest resources. It was first

proposed in 1889 by the American Forestry Association and represented an important early step in the development

of forest conservation practices. Almost forty million acres of forest reserves were quickly created over the next

six years, eliciting an angry response from western politicians, who passed legislation in 1897 making the federal

government responsible for managing the reserves. This meant that the reserves now required a budget and slowed

the creation of new ones. See, Rothman, America’s National Monuments, 10; Steen, U.S. Forest Service, 26ff.

15
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

created less than a month earlier on June 25th. The latter was a much larger unit comprising

almost the entire Santa Lucia Range of the coastal mountains from Big Sur to a point just

south of Cape San Martin.25 This later became part of Los Padres National Forest.

The Antiquities Act of 1906

Almost at the same time as the establishment of the Monterey Forest Reserve, the Antiquities

Act was passed by Congress on June 8, 1906. This long-anticipated legislation gave the

president the authority to reserve tracts of federal land as national monuments by a simple

proclamation. The same authority had been granted with the General Revision Act to create

forest reserves, but forest reserves were not parks. They were designed to support the managed

exploitation of natural resources—primarily timber—not to exclude exploitation. National

monuments, on the other hand, were meant to preserve the resources for which they had been

established by preventing any use that might impair them.

The original intent of the Antiquities Act was the protection of archeological resources. It

had been promoted by scholars working in the American Southwest who wanted to protect

potentially important sites from the depredations of amateur pothunters. By the time the

legislation was passed, however, it had been modified to include not only antiquities but

objects of scientific or historic interest as well. This language was sufficiently vague that it

could be applied to almost anything, including objects whose principal value was scenic, since

most scenery possesses distinctive natural characteristics of some sort or another, making it

attractive to the scientist as well as the sightseer.26 This ambiguity in the language of the

Antiquities Act would be used to create many essentially scenic parks when it was thought

expedient to circumvent the full Congressional process, either because of an imminent threat

that necessitated prompt action (as at Muir Woods or the Grand Canyon), or because the

scenic resource was not sufficiently noteworthy to be assured Congressional approval as a

national park (as at Pinnacles).27

As the implications of the Antiquities Act became clear, Gifford Pinchot must have realized

that this legislation provided a more appropriate mechanism for protecting the Pinnacles.

Reflecting on this a few years later, one of Pinchot’s staff explained how the Forest Service

understood the matter:

The Pinnacles Forest was created before the act authorizing the creation of national

monuments. The arguments advanced for the creation of the forest were almost entirely

such as would now be used to justify the creation of a national monument, viz, the necessity

for protecting the national features included within the area now under withdrawal known

as the Pinnacles.28

As far as the Forest Service was concerned, once the Antiquities Act was passed, the Pinnacles

Forest Reserve became an anachronism. Pinchot believed it should be converted to a monument

as soon as possible.

25. Proclamations, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 24, PNM.

26. The first national monument to be established under the Antiquities Act, for instance, was Devil’s Tower in

Wyoming. Few people doubted that this spectacular formation was preserved primarily because of its dramatic

appearance, though the proclamation that enabled it cited scientific value as the formal justification for the

monument’s creation

27. Rothman, America’s National Monuments, p. 34–49.

28. Clyde Leavitt, assistant forester, to F.E. Olmsted, Jul. 20, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 26, PNM.

16
The Establishment of Pinnacles National Monument (1908)

The Establishment of Pinnacles National Monument (1908)

The following summer, Forest Inspector George W. Peavy was sent to the Pinnacles to judge

the advisability of establishing a national monument here. In his report—dated September 9,

1907—Peavy described in some detail the principal geologic features of the reserve, purposely

emphasizing their scenic rather than scientific value.29 He also acknowledged that the distinctive

beauty of the place justified its preservation but noted that the Pinnacles did not possess the

high qualities of a national park:

If the objects described in this report were located in Yellowstone National Park they would

excite but little comment, but by virtue of their position, remote from other natural objects

of interest, they are peculiarly striking and should be preserved from private control, for the

benefit of the people.30

Peavy concluded that a national monument was the most appropriate designation for the

Pinnacles. As his assessment suggests, national monuments had already come to be seen as a

kind of second-tier park system, where the resources were “peculiarly striking” but did not

compare with the truly spectacular wonders of a Yellowstone or Yosemite.31

The Forest Service also had a practical interest in wanting to see the Pinnacles converted from

a forest reserve to a national monument. Although the Forest Service would remain the agency

responsible for the monument, it would no longer have to spend any substantial amount

of money on its administration or management. The General Revision Act (as amended in

1897) required the Forest Service to obligate money for the management of forest reserves,

but the Antiquities Act included no such stipulation, so monuments represented much

less of a financial burden for the agency than forests. Peavy’s report confirmed these fiscal

motivations. Because of the remoteness of the location and the durability of its principal

resource—rocks—Peavy believed there would

. . . be but little expense connected with the preservation of the Monument. The area

should be properly posted with the notices usually displayed in National Parks. Aside from

an occasional visit from some government official, to let it be known that the area is under

supervision no other control will be needed.32

If the Pinnacles remained a forest reserve, however, the Forest Service would have no choice

but to invest additional funds for its operations and management.

On January 16, 1908, Pinnacles National Monument was established by proclamation of

President Theodore Roosevelt. It comprised approximately 2,080 acres and lay in the midst

of the still extant Pinnacles Forest Reserve. The monument was supposed to contain all of the

most interesting geologic and scenic features of the original reserve—the caves and spires of

the Pinnacles themselves. In fact, it was later discovered that the boundaries drawn up in 1908

excluded significant portions of these features. Much of Bear Gulch, for instance, was not

included. But as long as the Pinnacles Forest Reserve remained intact, all of the Pinnacles and

29. George W. Peavy, Forest Inspector, “A Favorable Report on the Creation of a National Monument on the Site

of the Pinnacles Rocks, California,” September 9, 1907, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

30. Peavy, “A Favorable Report.”

31. The notion that monuments were “second-class sites” is discussed at length by Rothman in America’s National

Monuments, p. 89ff .

32. Peavy, “A Favorable Report.”

17
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

much of the surrounding area received some amount of federal protection, but this was not

to continue. As soon as the Pinnacles National Monument was established, Gifford Pinchot

immediately began to take steps to eliminate the Pinnacles Forest Reserve, which he now

considered unnecessary and had always believed to be inappropriate.

Pinchot made no secret of his intentions, openly informing Representative Needham, who

in turn communicated Pinchot’s plans to all concerned in California, including President

Jordan and Schuyler Hain. Hain was probably the only one of these men who understood

the inadequacy of the existing monument’s boundaries, and he was deeply alarmed. He wrote

immediately to the Forest Service protesting the proposed abandonment of the reserve. But

Hain also took measures to prepare for the worst. He successfully petitioned the state legislature

to have hunting prohibited within the area comprising the still-extant reserve. This protection

was in place by the following year.33 (Hain thought this action would reduce the number of

fires as well as protecting wildlife, since he believed that many of the fires in the region were

set by hunters.34)

The Elimination of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1910)

Despite Pinchot’s impatience, little happened to affect the status of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve

for more than a year. Then in the fall of 1909, Forest Supervisor Raymond Tyler visited the

reserve to assess its value. His report was submitted to District Forester F.E. Olmsted in San

Francisco on October 22nd and strongly urged its elimination from the Monterey National

Forest. As Tyler noted:

Climate, soil, lack of rainfall, elevation and other factors prohibit successful establishment

of a forest of commercial timber. The same factors in the occurrence of dense brush and

bare exposures of rock limit the possible extension of grazing ranges. Take it all in all,

I am convinced that the Pinnacles region is not a proposition for the Forest Service to

administer.35

Tyler’s report eventually became the principal evidence used to justify dissolving the forest

reserve. The matter was taken up by the district office in San Francisco, which was responsible

for the region in which the Pinnacles lay.

F.E. Olmsted, head of the district office, had already indicated to Washington that he was

in favor of elimination. But Olmsted wrote to both Jordan and Hain summarizing Tyler’s

report and asking for their opinions.36 Hain responded directly to each of the arguments in

Olmsted’s letter, but above all he emphasized the inadequacy of the existing monument to fully

protect the resources of the Pinnacles themselves. The 2,080 acres that comprised the original

monument, he explained, did not encompass all of the “rock scenery.” If the forest reserve were

eliminated, much of this scenery would be left without any protection at all. Furthermore, the

hunting restrictions that Hain had successfully implemented two years earlier would also be

33. From Hain’s recollection of events, in Hain to Stephen Mather, October 25, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry

6, Box 336, NARA II.

34. Hain to F.E. Olmsted, July 26, 1910, PINN Coll., Entry 6, RG 79, Box 336, NARA II.

35. F.E. Olmsted to Jordan, Jul. 13, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

36. Ibid. Schuyler Hain was sent a copy of the same letter. Tyler had already written to Hain a few months previously,

and Hain was already aware of his views.

18
The Elimination of the Pinnacles Forest Reserve (1910)

lost, since they were legislatively linked to the existence of the forest reserve itself.37 Hain tried

to counter the Forest Service’s principal objection—that the Pinnacles were not a legitimate

forest reserve—by exaggerating the commercial importance of Chalone Creek for agriculture

in the Salinas Valley. Hain correctly understood that the Forest Service could legally manage

the brush land of the Pinnacles as a forest reserve in order to protect an economically valuable

watershed. But Chalone Creek was only a minor tributary of the Salinas River, and only its

upper reaches lay within the Pinnacles. As the district foresters already knew, this part of

Chalone Creek is dry much of the year.38

In the end, the district office simply ignored Hain’s objections. In a prompt reply to Olmsted’s

letter, the Forest Service reiterated its original position:

Since the preservation of the natural wonders is secured by the existence of the pinnacles

national monument withdrawal, the administration of the area as a part of the national forest

cannot be said to be necessary on that account. The pinnacles national monument would

still continue under the administration of the Department of the Interior and possession

and exploitation by private interests would not be possible.39

President Jordan agreed with the Forest Service’s position. He was on his way to Europe when

Olmsted’s letter arrived at Stanford, but the academic secretary managed to get in touch with

him while he waited in New York City for his ship’s departure. When the secretary conveyed

the substance of Olmsted’s query, Jordan responded curtly: “The Pinnacles have scenic value

alone and no forests. Perhaps the Bureau ought to cut them out.”40 In a separate letter written

shortly after to Olmsted, Jordan explained more carefully:

There is no timber, no water, at the pinnacles. The natural features can not be changed.

There are some rare flowers that sheep would eat, and private ownership might shut out the

public. But these are all matters of secondary moment, and I should be content to see the

Forestry Bureau carry out its general policy, whatever it may be, in regard to such cases.41

This was consistent with the view Jordan had always held.42 Jordan was not opposed to the

preservation of the Pinnacles; he simply believed that its scenery was more appropriately

protected as a national monument. Like the Forest Service, Jordan ignored Hain’s warning

that the existing monument was too small and did not afford adequate protection.

District Forester Olmsted also was convinced that the reserve should be eliminated. In

early August 1910, he gathered together all of this correspondence and sent it back to

Washington with his recommendations.43 Within a week, the Washington office of the Forest

Service signaled its agreement with Olmsted, and on December 12, 1910, the boundaries

of the Monterey National Forest were changed by presidential proclamation to exclude the

37. The only record of this game restriction is Hain’s own recollection from many years later. See Hain to Stephen

Mather, October 25, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

38. Raymond Tyler to Hain, February 28, 1910; and Hain to F.E. Olmsted, July 26, 1910, PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

39. Roy Headley, acting district forester, to Hain, July 28, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f 26, PNM.

40. W.A. Clark, academic secretary at Stanford University, to Olmsted, July 26, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box

42, f. 13, PNM.

41. Jordan to Olmsted, July 21, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13.

42. See, for example, Jordan to Pinchot, February 22, 1905, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.

43. Olmsted to the Forester, August 13, 1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 26, PNM.

19
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

Pinnacles.44 The forest reserve lands that had once surrounded the monument now reverted

to the public domain under the jurisdiction of the General Land Office, which now took over

the administration of Pinnacles National Monument.45 Since the General Land Office was

in the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture was able to relinquish all

responsibility for the Pinnacles and ceased to be actively associated with the monument or the

surrounding area from this date forward.

Schuyler Hain responded to this development by trying to restore some of the protection that

had been lost with the elimination of the forest reserve. He hoped at least to have hunting

prohibited from the adjacent areas. Turning to the state as his next best recourse, he succeeded

in having a state game preserve established within a few years comprising roughly the same

area as the old forest reserve.46

The West Side Road (1910)

Imperfect as it was, Pinnacles National Monument was finally established, and those who

hoped to benefit from the attraction now began seeking ways to develop it. The most important

problem for many was to improve the roads into the new monument so that tourists would

have an easier time reaching it, especially auto tourists. By 1909, automobiles were already

becoming a popular means of touring for the wealthy, and within another five years Henry

Ford would make them widely available to all classes. During the same period, a national “good

roads” campaign was undertaken, at least in part due to enthusiasm for the new technology.

Major road improvement projects were started in California as early as 1910.47

That same year, the first improved road was constructed to Pinnacles from Soledad on the west

side. A rudimentary wagon road had been in existence here since the early 1870s, built by a

group of miners who settled in the vicinity of Miner’s Gulch a few miles west of the Pinnacles.

This early road was too steep for automobiles and followed a difficult, circuitous route up

Shirttail Gulch to its destination. It was extended all the way to the present Chaparral day-use

area at the western foot of the Pinnacles by one of the miners, Henry Melville, who had staked

several mineral claims here. Melville maintained this road even after the original mining camp

was abandoned in 1877 in order to reach his own mines. It appears on the earliest land survey

of the area made in 1882 and follows nearly the same route as the present Highway 146 (the

west side entrance road).48

Toward the end of 1909, a group of Soledad businessmen organized to form the Soledad

Improvement Association for the purpose of promoting development beneficial to their

44. A.F. Potter to Olmsted, August 24, 1910; and Secretary of Agriculture to Secretary of Interior, December 16,

1910, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 26, PNM.

45. A.F. Potter, associate forester, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, February 18, 1911, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 26, PNM.

46. Hain to Stephen Mather, October 25, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

47. Charles L. Dearing and Adah L. Lee, “The Good Roads Movement,” in Charles L. Dearing, American Highway

Policy (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1941), pp. 219–265; Scott L. Bottles, Los Angeles and the

Automobile: The Making of the Modern City (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 57–58; “They Eat

Dinner in Shirt-Sleeves,” Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1911, p. VIII.1.

48. Charles Herrmann, “Map of Township No. 17 South of Range No. 7 East of Mount Diablo Meridian,

California,” U.S. Surveyor General’s Office, San Francisco, CA, 1882 [Bureau of Land Management, California

State Office, Sacramento, CA].

20
The West Side Road (1910)

interests.49 One of the first projects they discussed was the construction of an improved road

to replace the old miners’ road up Shirttail Gulch. This proposal was only partly stimulated by

the recent creation of the Pinnacles National Monument; it would also benefit ranchers in the

Palisades District, that section of mountainous country between Soledad and the Pinnacles

which had been settled by a handful of bold (or desperate) homesteaders beginning in the

1870s. One of these homesteaders was Harrison Lyons, whose family ranch site is now part

of the national monument. Lyons was a member of the California Promotion Committee

(CPC), a statewide organization that had been established in 1902 to promote development

throughout California. He strongly supported the proposal of the Soledad Improvement

Association, because he knew that a better road to the Palisades District would greatly improve

the productivity of the ranches in this area—including his own—by providing a more efficient

means of getting their products to market and needed supplies back to the ranch.

Lyons’ connections through the CPC helped the Soledad businessmen broaden their base

of support for the proposed road. By early 1910, they had the endorsement not only of

local business interests but also the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the California State

Automobile Association, the Automobile Dealers Association of San Francisco, the Sierra Club,

and the Camera Club.50 This list represented all of the major tourism advocates in that part

of the state at that time. Although the CPC and the Soledad Improvement Association were

probably thinking primarily of improving the economic situation of the local Palisades District

ranchers, the rest of their supporters were thinking of the tourism opportunities presented

by the recently created national monument. The substantial number of automobile-oriented

organizations further supports the importance of an improved road for auto-related tourism.

The miner Henry Melville was also an active supporter of the road project, perhaps thinking

of the lucrative possibilities suggested by an increase in tourism to a place where he already

controlled access. By November of 1909, Henry Melville and one of his sons were guiding

tourists through the Old Pinnacles and speaking enthusiastically about the proposed road.51

By March of 1910, Soledad had obtained the money needed to build the new road. In early

April a contract was let to local rancher Bey Westcott at $2,500 to construct a ten-foot-wide

grade from Soledad up Stonewall Canyon and then through Lopez Canyon to the Monterey

County line. Westcott had completed this job by the beginning of July. His road, which was

simply graded dirt, terminated at a point known as “The Chimneys.” From there, an additional

two miles would be needed to reach the western side of the Pinnacles, but this distance lay

across San Benito County, and Soledad did not have the authority to continue the project. For

the time being, the improved road simply stopped here, although Henry Melville would later

develop the remaining distance to encourage tourists to visit his property at the north end of

the monument.52

By 1912, frequent articles and announcements began appearing in the local Soledad newspaper

describing weekend picnics at the Pinnacles. Presumably, this was a reflection of the influence

of the new road on local leisure habits, but it also reflected the growing popularity of the

automobile, which made such excursions possible.53 A few years later, Leo J. Foley, a timber

cruiser for the General Land Office, visited Pinnacles to prepare an annual report on conditions

49. Soledad Bee, December 10, 1909.

50. Soledad Bee, January 21, 1910.

51. Soledad Bee, November 26, 1909.

52. Soledad Bee, April 8 and July 8, 1910.

53. Soledad Bee, various numbers, 1912.

21
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

Figure 3. View of Pinnacles from the west side in 1911 showing homestead of Harrison Lyons. [Photo included

in report of A.J. Potter to Commissioner of GLO, February 18, 1911, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336,

NARA II.]

there. Unlike most GLO inspectors, Foley came to the west rather than the east side and spoke

with local residents and businessmen around Soledad. One of these, a homesteader named

C.W. Bates who owned a ranch along the new Soledad Road about three miles west of the

monument, told Foley that he estimated approximately three hundred tourists visited the

Pinnacles from that side every year. This contrasted sharply with nearly a thousand annual

visitors estimated for the east side over the same year, but this was still a dramatic increase from

only a few years earlier, when practically no tourists visited the west side.54

East Side Road Development

By 1912, San Benito County had decided that it, too, wanted to improve access to the

Pinnacles in order to enhance tourism (which was already becoming a significant business).

That year, Schuyler Hain’s younger brother Arthur was elected to the San Benito County

Board of Supervisors.55 He used this position to promote the Pinnacles, and at his instigation a

committee was formed to investigate building a new entrance road. Members of the committee

visited the Pinnacles in 1913 and tentatively selected an alignment for the proposed road. They

considered two alternatives. The first left the main county road at Nelson Page’s ranch and

continued through George Butterfield’s and Ben Bacon’s ranches along the southeast side of

Sandy Creek. The second alternative left the county road at J.T. Prewett’s ranch and followed

the route of an old Spanish trail, over the ridge by Vasquez Cave, and down Merrin Canyon to

Chalone Creek just north of Willow Spring.56 Both routes were in use at that time, but neither

54. Leo J. Foley to Commissioner of GLO, August 10, 1914, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. Now

that the GLO administered Pinnacles, this agency was required to submit an annual report on the monument. This

responsibility would continue until 1916, when the newly formed National Park Service took over the management

of Pinnacles.

55. Oberg, Administrative History, p. 120ff.

56. The surveyors referred to the route as “the old Spanish trail,” but it should not be confused with the more famous

Old Spanish Trail between Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Los Angeles, now a National Historic Trail. According to

local ranchers, this route through Merrin Canyon had been passable for wagons up until 1911, when floodwaters

22
East Side Road Development

Figure 4. Looking up Bear Gulch from Sandy Creek in 1910, from the approximate location

of present Peaks View Lookout. In foreground is the original road through the Bacon Ranch,

which later became Hwy. 146. This is a rare view of Bear Gulch before any road has been cut

into its side. [The Russell Bourke Album, Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

was reliable, and only the Sandy Creek route could be traveled by automobile and then only

during the dry season.

Not surprisingly, the county surveyors chose the former route on Sandy Creek to be the new

entrance road. It was the only route that was feasible for automobiles. The alignment they

proposed, however, was not the same as the present entrance road (Highway 146), which lies

on the northwest side of Sandy Creek. Their route ran along the toe of the hill on the southeast

side of the valley through the old Butterfield Ranch. Parts of this road are still extant.

At the same time that the county was considering alternate routes for a new entrance to the

Pinnacles, the idea of building a scenic highway entirely through the monument was broached

for the first time when Congressman E.A. Hayes promised to obtain federal funding for such

a project if the county were able to build its proposed entrance road up to the monument’s

eastern boundary. As bold and seemingly impractical as this proposal might seem, it would

prove to be a very persistent idea and was considered seriously up until the early 1970s.

Despite the efforts of Arthur Hain’s committee, little was done to implement its proposals.

The real problem, at that time, was not access to the monument from Bear Valley but access

to Bear Valley itself. The main road south from Hollister followed the San Benito River and

never entered Bear Valley, which lay perched on a high plateau well above the river. To reach

Bear Valley from the main road, one had to climb the Bear Valley Grade at Willow Creek or

cross the hills above the town of San Benito. The latter had been the traditional route used by

cut deep channels through the canyon bottoms. [See correspondence and affidavits relating to Ray Hawkins, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 20, PNM.] This may have been one of the reasons the surveyors rejected the route in

1913, just two years later.

23
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

local residents since the 1860s, but the former was the most practical alignment for an auto

road, despite the challenges of the grade itself. A precarious wagon track had climbed the grade

as early as 1889, when John Hain established the first county road through Bear Valley. (A

saddle trail had existed before that.)

Between 1912 and 1914, the San Benito supervisors committed themselves to improving roads

throughout the county. Among their priorities was the main road through the South County

(now Highway 25). This still circumvented Bear Valley, but in 1914 local ranchers also began

improving the existing (1889) Bear Valley Road.57 Although the result was poorly drained

and remained nearly impassable during the winter months, it represented a vast improvement

over its predecessor and greatly facilitated tourism to the area. It was now possible—if not

actually convenient—to drive from the Southern Pacific railhead at Tres Pinos, six miles south

of Hollister, to the east side of Pinnacles National Monument.

The success of these efforts was evidenced through a letter written by a wealthy tourist in 1915

to the Secretary of the Interior, describing his motor excursion into the monument earlier

that year.58 The author mentioned that the county road from Tres Pinos to Bear Valley had

just been finished and that the entrance road to the monument, on which no formal work

had yet been done, was nonetheless negotiable by automobile. The writer drove through the

Bacon Ranch along Chalone Creek as far as the mouth of Bear Gulch, where he camped for

the night.59 The following morning, he continued up Chalone Creek another two-and-a-half

miles—presumably on foot—on the remains of an old wagon road that was no longer possible

to negotiate by automobile, owing to the depth of the sand deposited on it. At the end of this

journey, the author found himself at the foot of the Old Pinnacles, which he believed to be the

heart of the monument (though he must have seen the High Peaks from his evening campsite).

The author of the letter wrote exuberantly about his experience but asked that the government

develop the access road all the way to the center of the monument, so that he and other motor

tourists might drive the entire distance. The government would eventually respond to this

request, which was reiterated by numerous subsequent visitors, but the entrance road it finally

developed would purposely avoid the Old Pinnacles at the head of Chalone Creek, for reasons

that the letter writer of 1915 could not yet appreciate.

Having made these important improvements, the county now began trying to attract more

visitors to the monument (hoping to increase local business). Early in 1915, the Chamber

of Commerce prepared informational booklets to promote both the county and the national

monument. These booklets were to be distributed at the Panama-Pacific International

Exposition, which opened later that year in San Francisco.60

Schuyler Hain was notably absent from these developments around Pinnacles during this

period. This silence was the result of his move in 1914 from Bear Valley to Tres Pinos, where

57. Oberg, Administrative History, p. 124ff

58. Edward K. Taylor to Franklin Lane, Sec. of Interior, June 8, 1915, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 19.

59. “Since the completion of the San Benito roads, I last week motored over a splendid level road, then had about

five miles of fair mountain road, to a camping site about two and a half miles from The Pinnacles. The road is

so excellent that the entire distance can be negotiated at a thirty-mile clip, and I know of no wonderful mountain

scenery so easy of access.” [Taylor to Lane, June 8, 1915, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 19, PNM.]

60. Hollister Evening Free Lance, March 9, 1915, in Oberg, Administrative History, 129. Since none of these booklets

have been found, it is not certain whether they were actually printed.

24
East Side Road Development

he settled in to raise English walnuts.61 But by the middle of 1914, Hain had once more turned

his attention to the monument. In a letter to GLO timber cruiser Leo Foley that year, Hain

described how he had renewed his efforts to enlarge the monument and also noted that he had

recently obtained an option at $5,000 from Ben Bacon for approximately three hundred acres

of land on Chalone Creek and the Chalone Bench at the southern end of Sandy Creek, where

he proposed establishing a hotel and recreation grounds. Hain also hoped to purchase the Root

homestead, which comprised much of the Balconies and had been put up for sale by the heirs

of George Root after his death. Hain had recently obtained an option on this property.62

All of Hain’s efforts presumed a reciprocal response from the federal government. He expected

the government to implement the enlargement he recommended—and even convert the

monument to a national park—if he were to take care of the various local barriers; namely,

acquiring the private property which was most vital to the integrity of the proposed park. But

the GLO’s inspector for that year, A.O. White, disagreed with Hain.63 Inspector White seemed

most concerned about the potential for fire at Pinnacles and the agency’s responsibility were

any conflagration to break out. This was a legitimate concern, given that no personnel were

actually stationed at the monument, and brush fires are a serious threat in this country. During

his brief visit, however, White observed that the vegetation was so short and widely dispersed

that there was little risk of any such disaster occurring: “The few trees and the chemisal brush

which constitutes the forestry of the monument, are so scattered and the soil is so unproductive

of grass that the fire risk is reduced to a minimum.”64 From this, he concluded that there was

no reason to augment the management of Pinnacles, much less to increase its area (which

would require a greater management commitment). In conclusion, he advised the government

to ignore Schuyler Hain’s proposal:

In view of the fact that if the area of the monument is enlarged as suggested [by Schuyler

Hain], it would include about fourteen thousand acres of mountain brush land, and would

necessitate the construction of several miles of road by the government, that under present

conditions will have to be constructed by the local communities, and would increase the

cost of administration of the monument later on, without adding anything to the attractive

features of the monument, I do not consider the enlargement of the area of the monument

advisable, from either an economical or practical point of view.”65

Inspector White’s observation would prejudice federal administration of the monument for

the next decade, though Schuyler Hain would struggle hard to refute it.

Almost in spite of the federal government’s lack of interest, local rumors were circulating that

the Pinnacles might become a national park.66 This idea had received a substantial boost in

1916 with the creation of the National Park Service, but it had been around since at least the

61. Sadie Parker, interviewed by Ro Wauer, August 8, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11, PNM; and Ethel

Hain Wilkinson, interviewed by Reta Oberg, May 4, 1977, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 18, f. 16, PNM. The gap

in Hain’s history is also due to a house fire, which destroyed all of his paper correspondence and personal records

from before 1919. What remains is preserved only in the letters received by his correspondents and in the memoirs

he recorded after that date. [Hain to Jordan, January 21, 1921, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 13, PNM.]

62. Foley to Commissioner of GLO, August 10, 1914, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. Hain’s

letter was appended to Foley’s report.

63. A.O. White to Commissioner GLO, August 5, 1915, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., pp. 5–6.

66. Hollister Morning Daily Advance, September 17, 1920.

25
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

time of the county board of supervisor’s visit in 1913. During that visit, many of the supervisors

expressed a desire to see the monument expanded in size and converted to a national park. A

few adjoining landowners had even offered to sell their property.67 In September of 1920, the

local Hollister newspaper reported that federal agents were visiting the monument in order

to investigate this possibility. The agents referred to were National Park Service photographer

Herbert W. Gleason and his wife. Schuyler Hain had originally hoped that Director Mather

would make this visit, but Mather had been unable to do so and had sent the Gleasons in

his place. They stayed with the Hains and were guided by Schuyler through the Pinnacles as

they took photographs. The Hollister Daily Advance optimistically predicted, “If Mr. Gleason

gives in a favorable report, it is the intention to see what can be done toward making the

Pinnacles a National Park.”68 But it is questionable whether this was Mather’s intention or

simply Schuyler Hain’s. Gleason never shared his conclusions directly with Hain, and when

Hain finally received a copy of Gleason’s report early in 1921, he discovered that Gleason had

advised against trying to acquire the old forest reserve, since he believed that too much of this

land was already in private hands.69

Despite Gleason’s conclusions, Hain remained undeterred in his efforts to enlarge the

monument. His confidence was due at least partly to his belief that Gleason had been in

error and that the majority of the reserve lands was still open or easily acquired. As Hain had

indicated several years earlier in his response to GLO Inspector Foley, he intended to acquire

some of this private land himself.70 But Hain failed to purchase the piece of private land

that was most crucial for the realization of his scheme. This was the quarter section that lay

inside the monument boundaries, straddling the Old Pinnacles and the Balconies Caves. It

had been patented by George W. Root in 1894 and was included as a legal inholding within

the monument in 1908.71 Early in 1920, though Hain held a rival option on the parcel, it was

purchased by the miner Henry Melville.72

Later that year, Hain discovered what the consequences of Melville’s purchase were to be.

While guiding a group of about ninety hikers from the Sierra Club, he encountered a fence

on Old Pinnacles Gorge, guarded by an unnamed person. A sign had also been erected, on

which was written “50¢ Admission. Children under 12 not Included.” Hain and his party

refused to pay and passed through the barrier, arguing that they had a legal right to do so,

67. Evening Free Lance, Novemeber 3, 1913 in Oberg, Administrative History, pp. 121–122.

68. “Federal Agents Make Trip to Pinnacles to Get Data; May Become National Park,” Hollister Morning Daily

Advance, September 17, 1920.

69. Acting Director Cammerer sent Hain a copy of Gleason’s report on January 29, 1921. The report itself has been

lost, but Hain responded to each of Gleason’s assertions in a letter to the Director of the Park Service, and the main

points of the report can be inferred from this. [Hain to NPS Director, February 6, 1921, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 42, f. 11, PNM.]

70. Foley to Commissioner of GLO, August 10, 1914, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

71. George W. Root had filed a cash-entry claim on the land in 1892 and received patent on June 12, 1894. In 1893,

Root sold all but a quarter interest in his parcel to three men, whom Hain identified as residents of San Francisco:

Thomas LeHuguet, Harry D. Nienhaus, and George M. Lawton. Two years later, he sold the remaining quarter

interest to these men. In 1904, Lawton sold his interest to W.C. Crowley, though Crowley sold his interest back to

Lawton in 1909. I mention this last detail only because the gorge that runs north from Chalone Creek along the

eastern foot of the Balconies is labeled Crowley Canyon on some maps, and this brief owner may be the source of

that name. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Co., Hollister, CA.]

72. Henry Melville purchased the land on January 5, 1920. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Co., Hollister, CA.]

26
Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy

since the trail had been used for so long that it constituted a public highway. Hain describes

some improvements that already existed here, including tables and benches, a cemented spring

box, and firepits. These improvements lay at the eastern entrance of the Old Pinnacles Gorge

and had been constructed by local ranchers. The road had obviously been improved to this

point as well, since the picnic area included parking for autos. The picnic area lay just inside

Melville’s eastern fence line.73

Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy

According to local records (which, for the most part, rely on Melville’s own testimony), Henry

F. Melville was born of English immigrant parents in 1849 in Hawkins Valley, Ohio. (Given

his later troubles with a family by the same name, his place-of-birth was an ironic coincidence.)

After traveling and prospecting around the world for several years, Henry Melville eventually

came to California and settled in Soledad sometime shortly before 1870.74 He filed two mineral

claims on the west side of the Old Pinnacles that year—Melville Mines #1 and #2, both copper

mines. Four years later, he also filed for two mill sites and two dump sites in the same section.75

Melville is also reputed to have opened a hotel, which he operated for a number of years, and

to have served as fire chief of Soledad for fourteen years.

Coming from a mining background, Henry Melville was undoubtedly drawn to Soledad by the

promise of rich prospects. The mountains around Monterey were believed to contain gold, and

rumors were then circulating about more than one “Lost Spanish Mine,” reputedly worked

by neophyte Indians for the Spanish soldiers who garrisoned the Alta California colony.

In 1833, the Scottish botanist David Douglas had recorded finding flakes of gold among

the roots of a redwood tree while on a scientific exploration of the Santa Lucia Mountains

just south of Monterey.76 Not long after the American conquest of California, entrepreneur

Samuel Brannan—not to be confused with the more famous California Mormon of the same

name—financed a gold mine in the Gabilan Mountains a little northeast of Soledad.77 The

Chelon Mining District was soon established here, at the center of which was the small town of

Rootville, named after one of its pioneers, George W. Root. The town was situated not far from

the present western boundary of the monument, probably at the head of aptly named Miner’s

Gulch, and was inhabited by approximately thirty residents at the peak of development.78

Henry Melville was one of this group of early miners who prospected in the mountains around

73. Hain to Mather, October 25, 1920, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11, PNM.

74. “Obituary,” Salinas Index-Journal, December 11, 1933; and Rolin G. Watkins and M.F. Hoyle, eds. History of

Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties (Chicago: S.J. Clarke Pub. Co., 1925), pp. 376–377.

75. Deed Books, San Benito County Recorder’s Office, Hollister, CA. The filings were located in the SE 1/4 of the

SE 1/4 of Sec. 33, Township 16 South, Range 7 East.

76. Randall A. Reinstedt, Monterey’s Mother Lode (Carmel, CA: Ghost Town Publications, 1977).

77. MaryEllen Ryan and Gary S. Breschini, Overview of Post-Hispanic Monterey County History, Monterey County

Historical Society (http://www.mchsmuseum.com/mcoverview.html), 2000; from, G.S. Breschini, T. Haversat and

R.P. Hampson, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast-Valley Study Areas (Salinas, CA: Coyote Press,

1983).

78. Ibid. See also, Luther L. Paulson, Handbook and Directory of Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterey and

San Mateo Counties.. (San Francisco: L.L. Paulson, 1875), which identifies the residents of Rootville and describes

the town as a neighborhood of Soledad.

27
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

the little settlement. County records indicate that Melville’s first mining claim dates back to

1870, although his first recorded claim dates to 1874.79

It was at this time that George Root also staked a quarter-section homesteading claim in

the middle of the Balconies just east of Rootville. He also claimed Willow Spring, for

understandable reasons, since this was the most substantial and reliable source of water in the

entire district. Although Root’s Balconies claim was eventually patented, he never developed

the site, nor is it clear how he would have developed it, given the rugged terrain of the area,

which did not lend itself to homesteading. The Willow Spring claim was never patented and

eventually expired.

By 1877, drought had forced the small group of miners to abandon Rootville. (Water was

necessary not only for the miners’ sustenance but to process the ore they excavated.) George

W. Root and the other members of his family abandoned this part of California altogether

(though one member of the family would stay and later establish the small town of Mulberry,

a little north of Bear Valley).80 But Henry Melville and another Rootville resident named

Abraham Manchester went south to one of the most remote corners of Monterey County—

and of California, for that matter—in the Santa Lucia Mountains just north of Cape San

Martin. Here they joined a group of miners who had recently established the Los Burros

Mining District.81 Manchester lent his name to the small town that eventually grew up at the

center of this community (reputedly after a vicious fight in which Manchester, a blacksmith by

trade, slew his assailant with a single blow of his well-muscled arm). Unlike the Chelon Mining

District, Los Burros proved uncommonly rich in gold. Its chief liability was the ruggedness

of its terrain and excessive distance from major transportation routes. These factors made

the Los Burros gold too costly to mine on a large-scale basis, but a small number of very

determined, independent miners proved capable of earning a meager living off the lode, and

the district remained active well into the twentieth century. One of Henry Melville’s sons, in

fact, continued to live in Manchester and worked the family gold mine up until his death in

1996 at age 98.82

Although Henry Melville devoted most of his attention to the more-lucrative Los Burros mines

after 1877, he never quite forgot his Rootville claims and continued to believe that profitable

quantities of mineral might be taken from the mines in this district. He realized by now,

however, that the area around Rootville (Pinnacles) was not gold bearing, since its geology was

unaccountably different from the surrounding region. But Melville had observed copper and

79. The Monterey County Historical Society has an original claim notice dated August 15, 1874, locating the Couret

Ledge for the Couret Gold and Silver Mining Company. The claim lay in the Chelon Mining District, Monterey

Co. and the claimants were H. Hart, H.F. Melville, G.W. Root, and F.F. Porter. The exact location of the ledge is

not given.

80. According to Paulson, Handbook and Directory, the residents of Rootville were Henry Melville, George W. Root

Jr., Jacob Roberts and his wife Ann, Spencer Root, and Abraham Manchester. Spencer and Ann were siblings, the

children of George W. Root Sr. (and cousins of George W. Root Jr.).

81. The Los Burros Mining District was established on February 5, 1875, with H.C. Dodge chairman, A.C. Frazier

secretary, and W.T. Cruikshank recorder of claims. Cruikshank would become one of the most renowned miners

associated with the district. See, Sharron Lee Hale, A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big

Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros (Santa Cruz, CA: Valley Publishers, 1980), p. 174.

82. This was Kenneth Melville, commonly known as “Blanco Diablo” (the White Devil). Henry Melville had

fourteen children. Concerning Kenneth and his Los Burros endgame with the U.S. Forest Service, see, Anita Alan,

“Blanco Diablo: Big Sur Miner” Monterey County Magazine 1.3 (Summer/Fall 2005): 10–12.

28
Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy

Figure 5. Photo of Henry Melville’s tour bus, early 1920s. Grandson Leland Melville recognized the

younger woman on right as his “Aunt Peachy.” The other woman may also be one of Henry Melville’s

daughters. [Courtesy of Leland Melville.]

manganese stains on the rocks of the district and believed that profitable quantities of these

ores might lie beneath the surface. As a result, he held on to the claims he had made in 1870

on the west side of the Pinnacles. Melville’s faith ultimately resulted in the establishment of

the Copper Mountain Mining Company, but it was a more intimate event that actually made

this company possible. In 1881, Henry Melville married the young daughter of a prominent

Salinas Valley farmer named James Pugh. (Pugh is reputed to have planted the first vineyard

and orchard south of the town of Salinas.83) Far more important than Mary Belle Pugh’s

reputation in local agricultural circles, however, was her international connections. Mary’s

brother had remained in England and was established in the London financial community. At

that time, London businessmen were still exuberant about the prospect of California minerals,

although the recent collapse of the Comstock speculations, in which the British had been

heavily involved, had introduced a degree of sobriety to the market. But Pugh’s good name

went far to securing Melville’s fortune, at least for the short term.

In 1914, Melville incorporated the Titanic Copper Mountain Mining Company, valued at

$1 million. (In 1919, the name was changed to Copper Mountain Mining Company.84)

Using the money he raised from the sale of the company’s shares in England, he proceeded to

develop his putative copper mines, which he designated the Melville Mining District (the old

Chalone Mining District having become defunct by this time). An inspector from the State

Mining Bureau visited the site in 1915 and noted that there were twenty-one lode claims,

three mill sites, two dump sites, a town site and one water right associated with the company.85

The mining inspector observed six redwood leaching tanks, a mine car, and some drills and

described the work already undertaken as follows:

83. Watkins and Hoyle, History, p. 377.

84. Image of Stock certificate to left is courtesy of Leland Melville.

85. According to the inspector (and county land records), the operation lay within Section 33 of Township 16 South,

Range 7 East.

29
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

Figure 6. Henry Melville’s cabin on the west side of Pinnacles, where Ernest Bauman and later Olive Rivers resided. This photo was

taken in the late thirties or early forties, not long before the sructures were torn down. They had been abandoned for at least five

years by then. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

A 40 ft. open cut, 12 ft. wide on a lense of dark rock which shows malachite and traces of

bornite stains. This lense 18” by 6 ft. has been cut thru. Strikes NW dips NE 45°. Three or

four tons of “ore”. Above on same hill to north are 2 - 10 ft. tunnels, showing cu. [copper]

stains at portals, and 30 ft. open cut. Twenty feet higher is one more tunnel on cu. stains.

Country is granite (weathered).86

The quotation marks that the inspector inserted around the word “ore” were strongly suggestive

of his skepticism concerning the operation’s productivity or even legitimacy. In fact, the mines

never produced any profitable quantities of metal, and most of the Copper Mountain Mining

Company’s assets came from the sale of stocks to its overseas (British) investors. Henry Melville

himself must have realized that his copper mines were not worth exploiting, but by this time

he was making a substantial profit on speculation alone and so continued the charade. In the

meantime, he was drawing enough actual gold from his Los Burros mines to keep himself

solvent.87

By 1920, Melville’s contacts in London were becoming impatient with the newly renamed

Copper Mountain Mining Company, which had failed to report any measurable production

since its formation.88 As a result, the value of the company’s shares began to fall. It may

86. Malachite is a native basic copper carbonate (CuCO3 . Cu[OH]2), while Bornite is a copper iron sulfide

(Cu5FeS4) [C.A. Logan, State Mining Bureau Field Report, December 7, 1915, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f.

17].

87. Regarding the Los Burros mines, Melville’s son Kenneth later reminisced: “I don’t know how much Dad got,

but whenever he needed money he was able to dig out two or three hundred dollars’ worth.” Reinstedt, Monterey’s

Mother Lode, p. 24.

88. L.K. Henri to Henry Melville, August 27, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

30
Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy

not have been wholly coincidental, then, that early the same year Melville purchased the

George Root homestead in the Balconies and erected a gate across the west entrance to the

Old Pinnacles Gorge. Charging admission to this increasingly popular site became a lucrative

source of revenue that compensated for the declining value of the Copper Mountain Mining

Company’s stocks. Melville even bought a small bus and began conducting motor tours up to

the Pinnacles.

Melville’s actions are precisely what Schuyler Hain had feared ever since the abolishment of

the forest reserve left much of the Pinnacles and all of the major access routes into it in the

public domain. In October of that year (1920), Hain wrote a passionate letter to Director

Mather—“I am in sore straits. I have labored years, I am much afraid, in vain, to save one of

the wonderlands of the world from commercialism.” He went on from here to describe the

fence that Henry Melville had erected and his recent encounter with Melville’s hired hand

while guiding the Sierra Club group. Hain seemed to realize that there was nothing that

could be done about Melville’s fence, short of buying him out. He also realized that Melville

now controlled access to all the northern half of the monument—the region known as the

Old Pinnacles—since he owned both east and west entrances to the Old Pinnacles Gorge.

Hain knew, however, that the monument could also be entered further south through Bear

Gulch, which provides access to the equally spectacular High Peaks and Little Pinnacles. No

road or trail had yet been developed here, but Hain was familiar with the area through his

explorations with the Bacon brothers, whose ranch lay just a little below the mouth of Bear

Gulch. Unfortunately, only the upper half of Bear Gulch actually lay within the monument

boundaries at that time. The lower half and Chalone Creek itself down to the border of Ben

Bacon’s ranch remained in the public domain and had recently been filed on by a local man

named Viggo Petersen. Hain warned Mather that, if Petersen’s claim was successfully patented,

the only other access into the monument would be in private hands as well and could be closed

in the same way that Melville had closed off the Old Pinnacles. To prevent this, Hain asked that

Mather have Petersen’s claim invalidated by the General Land Office. He also repeated his old

request that the monument’s boundaries be enlarged to the extent of the original forest reserve.

But now he added a novel twist to this idea—he proposed that the enlarged monument be

made into a national park. Rumors that the Park Service was considering such a move had been

circulating around San Benito County since NPS photographer Herbert Gleason had visited

earlier that year, but it is likely that Hain himself, rather than Gleason, was responsible for the

rumors, since nothing to this effect was mentioned in official Park Service correspondence.

Simply enlarging the monument could be done relatively easily, since it only required a

presidential proclamation to modify the existing boundaries, but to create a national park

required an act of Congress, and the only advantage to this time-consuming alternative

was the symbolic prestige associated with the designation. Why, then, did Schuyler Hain

start promoting this daunting idea? The timing is the most revealing clue. Hain only began

advocating for a national park after realizing that he was going to need much broader support

and a greater financial commitment just to protect the existing monument. At this late date, it

was no longer possible for the government to simply withdraw land from the public domain,

since many of the most vital parcels needed for the preservation and future development of the

monument were already in private hands. Henry Melville’s acquisition of the Root homestead

was the sharpest reminder of this fact, as was Viggo Petersen’s recent claim in Bear Gulch, but

other private claims were quickly accumulating just outside the eastern and northern borders

of the monument. Hain knew that the government could do nothing about these lands once

they had been legally claimed and patented except to buy them back. This would almost

31
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

certainly require financial support from the local business communities, which Hain believed

he could raise if the Park Service agreed to elevate the status of the Pinnacles by designating it

a national park. “I am sure if the people were assured of a National Park of all the public land

surrounding the Monument,” Hain wrote to Mather, “I could secure enough to buy all valid

claims inside that would be at all necessary for its preservation.” This had not been necessary

five years earlier when few such claims existed and the Root homestead had not yet been sold

to Melville. Its previous owners had even been willing to sell to Hain at a reasonable price. But

this situation had changed dramatically by 1920. Once Melville had acquired the Root parcel,

he quickly made it clear that he would not part with it except for an exorbitant price.

A few months after Hain’s letter imploring Director Mather for his support of a Pinnacles

National Park, William E. Parker, a director of the prestigious Bethlehem Shipbuilding

Corporation in San Francisco, also wrote to the Park Service director, supporting Hain’s

request.89 The Bethlehem letterhead must have carried weight with Mather, who had himself

once been a prominent California businessman. Parker’s support of Hain suggested to

Washington that Hain was building a coalition of California businessmen on behalf of the

Pinnacles. This was essentially true, if exaggerated. What Mather could not have known is that

William Parker was Schuyler Hain’s brother-in-law.90 When the Director’s office responded to

Hain’s proposal, it carefully ignored any mention of a national park and instead focused on the

issue of Henry Melville, which it said it was investigating.91 The Washington office also wrote

that it had received information from members of the county government that San Benito

County was considering purchasing the old Root homestead from Melville and intended to

convey it to the National Park Service. As far as the Park Service was concerned, the only

significant challenge facing the monument at that time was Henry Melville’s monopoly over

access to the Old Pinnacles Gorge, and the most expedient way to solve this problem seemed

to be cooperation with local interests to buy Melville out. (The Park Service’s budget began to

grow at the beginning of the 1921 fiscal year, although very little of this money went to the

national monuments, which were funded through a separate account.) Hain realized that the

challenges facing the Pinnacles were far more complicated and could not be solved as easily as

Mather and his colleagues imagined, but the understanding that the Washington office had

settled upon by the fall of 1921 would dominate its policy with respect to Pinnacles for the

next decade (if not longer), and Schuyler Hain’s recommendations were largely ignored.

Although Schuyler Hain may have been driven by necessity to promote the conversion of

Pinnacles National Monument to a national park, he was also inspired by a certain idealism

when it came to imagining what this park should be. By the fall of 1920, Hain already had

a coherent vision for the proposed park, and over the ensuing months he would refine his

concept as he corresponded with potential supporters. In the spring of 1921, he wrote to his

local Congressman describing in some detail what he hoped to achieve:

As I told you in our talk at Gilroy that if this region could be withdrawn from entry and we

were assured of its being created a national park with the name American Legion National

Park, a number of us would undertake the financing of the matter. Would purchase the 160

acres now within the Nat. Mon. [Melville’s parcel] and acquire the entire Bacon holdings.

89. Parker to Mather, December 14, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

90. Parker had married Schuyler Hain’s younger sister Sadie. [Ro Wauer “Notes on talk with Mrs. Sadie Parker,

brother of Schuyler Hain” August 8, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11, PNM.]

91. Cammerer to Hain, Novemeber 8, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

32
Henry Melville and the Rootville Legacy

There is no finer climate and no prettier or more suitable location for a convalescent home

for our boys and land to irrigate to give work to those able to act in that capacity. The

Bacon property just before entering the reserve boundaries is the only feasible hotel site and

naturally the equal of any in Cal.92

In essence, this idea was much the same as what Hain had conceived back in 1914 when he

wrote to Inspector Foley describing his plans to acquire the Bacon Ranch and build a resort just

outside the borders of an enlarged national monument. Over the intervening years, however,

World War I had inspired Hain to adopt a plan with greater civic and patriotic value than the

simple tourist hotel he had proposed earlier.

The idea for a veterans’ hospital appealed to the general feeling of many of Hain’s contemporaries

and elicited a widespread and generally favorable response. By November of 1920, Hain

had already discussed his idea with the Hollister Chamber of Commerce and received its

endorsement.93 A few months later, he wrote to David Starr Jordan outlining his plan and

appealing to the president of Stanford University to once again support him, as he had nearly

fifteen years earlier when the Pinnacles were first reserved.94 Most importantly, by June of

1921, Hain had received the endorsement of the American Legion and was assured that they

were in the process of raising money to help him.95

At the same time that Hain informed the Park Service of his support from the American

Legion, he also conveyed to the Washington office a substantial collection of signed petitions

from visitors to the Pinnacles, including members of the Sierra Club and the California Alpine

Club. Although the exact phrasing of these petitions varied, the substance was the same. The

one distributed to Sierra Club members was the most carefully written: “We hereby petition

for a withdrawal of all public land from sale or entry within the boundaries of the original

Pinnacles Forest Reserve upon which no filings are made, and to cancel the recent entry of

Viggo Petersen, and give him time allowance on any entry subsequently located.”96 This was

the other half of Hain’s two-pronged campaign, aimed at getting the National Park Service’s

legal support to make the proposed national park possible. His campaign among the private

businessmen of California was directed at raising money to purchase lands already patented

within the proposed park boundaries and to build a fund for future infrastructure development

once the park was created. (His chief concern was the construction or improvement of access

roads.) But Hain’s fund-raising campaign would have been in vain if the majority of the desired

lands that still lay in the public domain was not withdrawn from private entry by the General

Land Office, and Viggo Petersen’s claim, which lay on the most strategic of all parcels at the

mouth of Bear Gulch, was not invalidated.

Only a few months before sending this petition to Washington, Hain had finally received a

copy of Herbert Gleason’s discouraging report on Pinnacles from the photographer’s visit in

1919. In response, Hain wrote immediately to the Washington office giving precise details of

92. Hain to U.S. Congressman Hersman, February 11, 1921, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

93. Hain to Cammerer, November 16, 1920, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

94. Hain to Jordan, January 21, 1921, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11. President Jordan never responded to

Hain’s proposal.

95. Hain to NPS Director, June 4, 1921, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. It seems very unlikely

that Hain had not been in contact with the American Legion before this date. He probably had the support of the

American Legion from the very beginning, but this letter to the Director of the Park Service represents the earliest

surviving evidence of the Legion’s involvement in his plan.

96. Enclosure in Hain to NPS Director, June 4, 1921, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

33
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

the configuration of private and public lands within the old Pinnacles Forest Reserve.97 He

observed that only 720 acres of the original 14,000 acres had been filed on, and not all of this

had yet been patented. Melville held an additional 160 acres in the monument, plus 40 acres

at Willow Spring just outside the monument on the east side. These were the lands that had

been legitimately patented by George Root and purchased by Melville in January of 1920.

Melville also possessed a mineral claim just outside the western boundary of the monument,

but Hain observed that this claim had been cancelled by the General Land Office some years

earlier.98 (This proved to be correct but would become a matter of intense litigation a few years

later.) In concluding, Hain insisted that the Pinnacles could still be preserved in its entirety

but only if action were taken quickly. He repeated his request that the Park Service have the

remaining public lands within the old forest reserve withdrawn from private entry and Viggo

Petersen’s claim invalidated. He reassured the Washington office that this was all he needed as

a precondition to enlarging the monument and establishing a national park. He himself would

see to the financing of associated infrastructure once these initial steps had been taken. Hain

also informed the Park Service that he had given an outline of his proposal to his congressional

representative so that the legislative process for creating a national park could begin.99

The Struggle for Access

By the summer of 1921, Arno Cammerer, acting director of the National Park Service at

that time, finally responded to Schuyler Hain’s petitions and initiated an investigation into

his various requests for the enlargement of the monument, the invalidation of private claims

adjacent to the monument and a right-of-way through the Old Pinnacles Gorge, which Henry

Melville had denied. (Cammerer simply ignored Hain’s proposal for a national park, and the

Park Service never did address this issue.100) After consulting with representatives from both

the General Land Office and the Department of Justice, Cammerer concluded that Melville’s

claims in the Old Pinnacles were valid and that the NPS could do nothing to assert its right to

pass through Melville’s property unless a public right-of-way predating George Root’s patent

already existed here—a matter that would have to be determined by the local authorities, not

the federal government. In essence, Cammerer was telling Hain that he had been wrong to

challenge Melville’s closure of the Old Pinnacles Gorge back in 1920. As for enlarging the

monument, Cammerer informed Hain that too many private claims had already been filed

on the surrounding lands to allow this to be done feasibly. He did, however, acknowledge the

prudence of establishing easements across these lands before they were patented so that the

public would be assured access to the monument. (What he specifically had in mind was the

97. Hain to Director, February 6, 1921, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

98. Melville’s mineral claim lay on the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 26, Township 16 South, Range 7 East and

dated back to 1870. Hain does not say where he got his information—presumably it was from the GLO—but writes

that the claim was cancelled by the GLO on December 5, 1908 and later by the surveyor general on January 22,

1915. These facts were essentially correct and would come to light once more a couple of years later, with greater

consequences, during the litigation between Melville and Herman Hermansen, discussed in the next chapter.

99. Hain had already approached Congressman Hersman with his proposal a month earlier, as he mentioned to

President Jordan, “I have taken up the matter with Mr. Hersman, our member of congress, and told him that if it

could be set aside and named the American Legion National Park, we would finance the project only asking the

government to take the necessary action and give it its protection.” [Hain to Jordan, January 21, 1921, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11, PNM.]

100. Cammerer to Hain, June 24, 1921, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

34
The Struggle for Access

road along Chalone Creek, which passed through several parcels that had recently been filed

on.) Cammerer said nothing about access to the west side.

At the same time that Acting Director Cammerer was considering Hain’s various proposals, he

was also puzzling over a stack of complaints that had been forwarded to him by the GLO’s San

Francisco Field Office. The GLO had been receiving these letters from visitors outraged by

Henry Melville’s admission charge for more than a year now. As the letters made clear, Melville

had gated both sides of his property in the Old Pinnacles and was charging any tourist who

came up the Soledad Road for the right to pass in and visit the monument.101 After confirming

the legitimacy of Melville’s land claims with the commissioner of the GLO, Cammerer decided

to send somebody from his own bureau to investigate the situation on the ground. He chose

W.B. (Dusty) Lewis, superintendent of Yosemite, who visited the monument from the west

side in April of 1922.

The majority of Lewis’ report described the difficulty of simply getting to the Pinnacles—

perhaps he wanted to make a point about the remoteness of the monument and the inadequacy

of its development. After taking the train to Soledad, Lewis was met by friends and attempted

to drive up the treacherous road through Stonewall Canyon. The car became mired somewhere

near the top of the grade, so Lewis and his friends walked the remaining few miles to the west

boundary of the monument, where they enlisted the help of a burly miner who worked for

Melville and was living in a small shack near the foot of the Balconies. The miner—a man

named Ernest Bauman—got the party’s vehicle out of the mud, and Lewis was able to finish

his reconnaissance of the Pinnacles.102

Dusty Lewis was impressed with what he saw, but his observations were confined entirely to

the Old Pinnacles Gorge, which was in the possession of Henry Melville. Like most visitors,

he was unaware that there was anything more to the monument than this formation, which

lay at the terminus of the only access road from the west. (At that time, the sole east side road

also terminated at the Old Pinnacles, though on the other side of the gorge.) Since Melville

possessed a legitimate claim that allowed him to control both entrances to this gorge, Lewis

could see no way for the government to effectively manage the monument in the public’s

interest, and he recommended its abandonment:

The retention of the Palisades Gorge (Copper Mountain Mining Company holding), which

is the key to the monument, in private ownership strangles any possible development of

the reservation by the Government. The Gorge is the only thing in the monument that

101. Cammerer to Spry, Commissioner of GLO, September 21, 1921, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 19, PNM.

102. Ernest Bauman is a rather infamous figure in Monterey County history. Of Russian background, he was

generally known as the “Mad Russian” on account of his quarrelsome character. Bauman had joined Henry Melville

and the rest of the small community of miners in the Los Burros Mining District at the south end of Monterey

County in 1913, staking his own claim in the area. His bad temper eventually got the better of him in 1937,

when he shot his neighbor, James Krenkel Jr. Apparently, Bauman had become irritated by the growing number of

motorists who were now coming through the once remote area and leaving his gates open. In retaliation, he scattered

bent nails across the road in front of his cabin, puncturing the tires of the next passerby. The distraught motorist

got help from Krenkel, whose cabin also stood nearby, but when Krenkel called to Bauman to come out as well,

Bauman fired a well-aimed shot from his window, killing his neighbor. Although acquitted by the courts, Bauman

was forced to flee Los Burros for fear of retaliation from Krenkel’s many friends. Had Dusty Lewis been aware of

this Mad Russian’s temper, or his dislike for motorists, he might have thought twice about asking his assistance, but

fortunately for Lewis, Bauman was in an agreeable mood that day. (Many years later—in 1954—Bauman himself

was found murdered, allegedly shot by an escaped mental patient in Butte County.) [Sharron Hale, A Tribute to

Yesterday, pp. 176–177.]

35
Chapter One Schuyler Hain and the Creation of the Monument, 1891–1920

could possibly require protection and there is practically no game that could be benefitted

by Governmental protection in so small an area. This it seems to me leaves the Government

with no real interest and unless there is early possibility of acquisition in some way of

these holdings by the Government my recommendation would be that the monument be

abandoned.103

Lewis added that the area surrounding the rest of the monument had also been taken up

in private claims and therefore could no longer be considered for withdrawal by the Park

Service. Cammerer conveyed the substance of this report to Hain with his own assessment

of the situation. He concluded that the only hope for the survival of the monument—much

less its enlargement—was the acquisition of Melville’s land. But unless Melville was willing

to donate it, this would have to be purchased by local interests, since Congress would not be

able to allocate the necessary funds.104 This news appears to have dashed Hain’s hopes and

effectively ended his involvement with Pinnacles, but soon other local advocates would emerge

and continue Hain’s efforts.105

A Second-Class Park

Superintendent Lewis’ appraisal of Pinnacles supports the notion, put forward by some

historians, that the early national monuments were established to protect resources that were

not valued as highly as those in the national parks.106 This estimation of Pinnacles’ relative

significance was shared by other early visitors, like David Starr Jordan of Stanford University

and George W. Peavy of the Forest Service, neither of whom thought Pinnacles could compare

with the much grander scenic parks like Yosemite or Yellowstone. They were willing to see

the place protected but only under the less-prestigious designation of a monument. Pinnacles

suffered further in that it was almost entirely the product of local initiative and still had no

official representation and little recognition or support in Washington. The Forest Service had

agreed only grudgingly to include it in its Monterey National Forest when no other means of

protection was available. When the Department of the Interior inherited the monument from

the Forest Service a few years later, it committed scarcely any resources to its management—

the General Land Office had an inspector visit Pinnacles once a year but kept no staff on site.

The Park Service was able to do even less. Superintendent Lewis was the first representative

from the new agency to even see Pinnacles. This neglect was not necessarily from lack of

interest but because the Park Service had far too many other responsibilities and not enough

staff to manage this small, out-of-the-way unit more actively. Lewis’ recommendation that

Pinnacles National Monument be abandoned, therefore, represented a pragmatic weighing

of the monument’s needs against the agency’s severely limited resources. The Park Service

could not commit any funds or personnel to Pinnacles without drawing them from other,

more valuable units, which it was not willing to do. It was only the persistent efforts of local

advocates like Schuyler Hain that kept the monument intact and eventually attracted enough

attention from Washington to raise the priority of Pinnacles and have more federal resources

committed to its management and development.

103. W.B. Lewis to NPS Director, April 5, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

104. Cammerer to Hain, May 1, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

105. Though Schuyler Hain was less active after this date, he did remain involved with the monument, later sitting

on the board of the Pinnacles National Park Association in 1924 and continuing to give public talks and slide

presentations to promote the monument.

106. See especially Rothman, America’s National Monuments.

36
Chapter Two

The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

For more than a decade after its establishment in 1908, Pinnacles National Monument had

no on-site staff and was visited only rarely by representatives of the different federal agencies

that claimed nominal responsibility for it. This included the National Park Service after 1916.

This unfortunate situation would change unexpectedly after 1921 when a group of young

war veterans settled on public lands adjacent to the monument and adopted Pinnacles as their

personal charge. The most energetic and outspoken of these men—Herman Hermansen—

would become the monument’s first official custodian (superintendent). Another member

of the group—Zotic Marcott—would become its first chief ranger. The Pinnacles Boys, as

the group came to be known locally, would construct the earliest public infrastructure to

be developed at the monument, building trails through Bear Gulch and the High Peaks,

establishing campgrounds and a tourist lodge, and even putting in the first Bear Gulch

entrance road, which made it possible for visitors to drive almost to the very foot of the

Pinnacles formation.

Just as important as these physical contributions, but less tangible, were the connections

that Custodian Hermansen began to make with federal agencies, local county leaders, and

the broader business community throughout the state. These relationships would assist

Hermansen with some of his most significant accomplishments—the invalidation of Henry

Melville’s mining claims, which monopolized access to the west side of Pinnacles (and for

a brief time threatened the very existence of the monument itself ); and the construction of

the Bear Gulch entrance road. But the greater visibility that resulted from his successes also

increased competition for control of the lucrative tourism resource which Pinnacles promised

to become. Herman Hermansen would not do very well in this competitive environment,

impaired by inexperience and the relative poverty of his social background. These liabilities

would contribute to his dismissal as custodian in 1925, less than two years after he had been

appointed to the position. As unfortunate as this was for Hermansen, the event ironically

signaled the growing maturation of Pinnacles itself. No longer would it be possible to manage

the monument with enthusiasm and hard work alone. Social status and the ability to establish

and maintain working relationships with politically powerful partners had become even more

necessary. Hermansen’s successor, local Hollister businessman W.I. Hawkins, was chosen

precisely because he possessed these capacities. His appointment would inaugurate an entirely

new stage in the evolution of Pinnacles National Monument.

The Arrival of Herman Hermansen (1921)

During the week of May 2, 1922, a notice appeared in the Hollister Free Lance announcing that

the entrance to the Old Pinnacles Gorge from the east side would be closed as of June 2nd. This

was to occur during the height of the tourist season, so when a copy of the announcement was

sent to the National Park Service’s Washington office, it immediately caught the attention of

the staff there. The Park Service was already feeling dubious about the value of Pinnacles, and

this new threat seemed to justify the very concerns it had over the remote monument. Acting

Director B.L. Vipond wrote to the author of the notice—Mrs. Olive Rivers—asking her very
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

pointedly to explain her intentions. Vipond had never been to Pinnacles, and his knowledge

of the place was based solely on the report of Yosemite Superintendent Dusty Lewis, which

his office had received only a month earlier. According to Lewis, the only practical means of

getting into the monument was through the private inholding owned by miner Henry Melville

and leased to Robert and Olive Rivers. Thus, as far as Vipond knew, Olive Rivers’ closure of the

east entrance to her property would effectively close the monument on the San Benito County

side of the mountains. This seemed an intolerable affront to the authority of the Park Service

and to the right of the public to enjoy the resources it managed. Rather than accept Rivers’

actions, Vipond preferred to rid the Park Service of the source of this embarrassment. He

warned Rivers that, if visitors could not be assured free access to the monument, the Pinnacles

would have to be abandoned

Vipond had been forwarded Rivers’ announcement by a local resident writing on behalf of

the San Benito County Chamber of Commerce.1 The reason for this organization’s concern

was obvious—Olive Rivers’ actions would result in a significant loss of tourism and associated

business for the county. An article printed a few days later in the Soledad Bee (in Monterey

County) asserted that this was Rivers’ intent, and the editor praised the “energetic woman” for

boosting the economies of Soledad and the Salinas Valley by diverting tourism toward them

and away from San Benito County.2

Olive Rivers’ actions galvanized San Benito County business leaders to do something about

the situation on their side of the monument.3 Shortly after her announcement, the secretary of

the San Benito County Chamber of Commerce, R.L. Townsend, wrote to Washington asking

for information to clarify the relationship of Henry Melville and his tenant Olive Rivers to

the national monument and to put right their abuses, if that was possible. Acting Director

Cammerer wrote back explaining what he knew of the situation based on Superintendent

Lewis’ limited observations and advised Townsend, rather soberly, that there was little the

National Park Service could do about it. He quoted Superintendent Lewis’ report at length,

including Lewis’ recommendation that the monument be abandoned if the property which

Melville owned in the Old Pinnacles could not be acquired. Cammerer added that this could

not be done by the federal government with its limited budget and advised the county that it

would have to undertake the task on its own.

There is but one solution to the problem of affective administration and development of the

Pinnacles Monument as such, namely, that some means be found to extinguish the private

holding of the Copper Mountain Mining Company in the gorge which now prevents any

possibility of development of the monument by the Government. Whether this private

holding can be acquired by gift through the generosity of the present owner or by purchase

1. Jasper Blackie to Stephen Mather, May 18, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. Judging

from his return address, Blackie was a neighbor of Olive Rivers. Olive Rivers’ family home was in Hollister, though

she currently resided in Soledad with her husband.

2. Soledad Bee, May 5, 1922. According to the editor, Olive Rivers’ decision followed the San Benito County Board

of Supervisors’ refusal to “deed the roads on the Monterey county side of the national monuments as the San Benito

solons first agreed upon.” More precise details of this arrangement were never given, but the roads in question must

refer to the remaining two-mile section from the end of the Monterey County road up Stonewall Canyon to the

western boundary of the monument. This distance lay within San Benito County.

3. No further mention was made of the east side closure, suggesting either that it never occurred or that it was not

enforced. The Park Service’s threats of abandoning the monument may have influenced Rivers, since her business

would have suffered as a result.

38
The Arrival of Herman Hermansen (1921)

through contributions by locally interested persons, and thence by gift to the Government,

as has been done in the Sequoia National Park, would appear to be a local problem.4

The Copper Mountain Mining Company to which Cammerer referred was for all intent and

purposes just another name for Henry Melville. He had filed its articles of corporation, served

as its president, and owned the majority of the company’s stock. (The company also included a

secretary and treasurer, who worked part-time out of an office in Soledad.) Cammerer already

knew from Superintendent Lewis that Melville was unlikely to sell his property—and even

less likely to donate it—so he must have held little hope for the future of Pinnacles at that

time. But he was not ready to abandon the monument just yet, and he did not share his

gloomiest thoughts about Henry Melville with Secretary Townsend, preferring to leave open

the possibility that the county might find a way to negotiate with this stubborn man where

Superintendent Lewis had seen no chance. Cammerer also urged Townsend to acquire rightsof-way across the private lands along Sandy Creek. If a tradition of usage already existed, he

observed, this would need to be determined legally and the process initiated by state or county

authorities.5 (In the end, the county never tried to determine whether such a tradition existed,

but it did seek an easement across the Bacon and Petersen lands, which was finally granted in

1924, as discussed below.)

Early that fall, the Washington office received a surprising letter from a young man named

Herman A. Hermansen. The writer identified himself as a veteran of the recent war who was

deeply interested in affairs at the Pinnacles and went on to explain that he and two other

veterans had taken up homestead claims just outside the monument and had spent the last few

years building trails and acting as guides. Secretary Townsend was aware of Hermansen’s work

and so had shown the young man his recent correspondence with the Director of the Park

Service, which included Superintendent Lewis’ report from April 5th. Hermansen was incensed

by Lewis’ cursory appraisal of Pinnacles (and equally cursory dismissal of the monument).

“[Superintendent Lewis] is wrong,” he wrote, “so far wrong that [he] sounds like a tourist.

He evidently did not ask many questions or did not use his eyes. As the part he visited took

but forty-five minutes to see and was the end of the road at the extreme northern line of the

Pinnacles National Monument.” Hermansen went on to explain that the Old Pinnacles Gorge

was not the only point of access into Pinnacles, but that Bear Gulch could also be used to enter

the monument in the vicinity of the High Peaks and Little Pinnacles. Schuyler Hain had also

noted the importance of Bear Gulch and warned that the government should obtain this land

before any private claims could be made on it. But the Washington office had failed to regard

Hain’s warning, and the lower half of the gulch and much of Chalone Creek below it had

already been patented by private homesteaders earlier that year.6 Hermansen now informed

the Director that these private claims belonged to himself and his friends. (The homestead

that actually encompassed Bear Gulch belonged to Viggo Petersen; Hermansen’s homestead

was further upstream along the northern and northwestern boundaries of the monument.)

Rather than locking up the only remaining access to Pinnacles, as Hain had feared, these

homesteaders were endeavoring to do just the opposite. Viggo Petersen encouraged visitors

to camp on his land on Chalone Creek—free of charge, according to Hermansen—and then

to explore the monument through Bear Gulch with himself or Hermansen as guide. He and

4. Cammerer to R.L. Townsend, August 10, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

5. Ibid.

6. Hain to Director, April 17, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

39
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

the other homesteaders had constructed a rudimentary trail up the gulch to the monument’s

eastern boundary, which at that time lay near the upper end of Bear Gulch.7

Hermansen insisted that Bear Gulch was the key to the monument and that a road could be

built up it, providing access for automobiles from Chalone Creek. This would allow visitors to

avoid Henry Melville’s monopoly of the Old Pinnacles (though only if they arrived from the

east side through San Benito County). Hermansen promised that Viggo Petersen would grant

an easement through his homestead for this purpose.

The Pinnacles Boys

There were ultimately five men in this group of veterans who came to be known as the

“Pinnacles Boys,” though they arrived at slightly different times. Not all of them played as

substantial a role in the history of Pinnacles as Hermansen, their energetic spokesman, but

they all contributed in one way or another to the early development of the monument. The

earliest to arrive in the area was Viggo Petersen, who had no prior acquaintance with the other

men. Viggo and his brother Otto Petersen had first come to south San Benito County from

Denmark in the mid-teens and settled along Chalone Creek, just upstream of Ben Bacon, with

another Scandinavian named Carl Olsen (unrelated to the Petersens). According to Schuyler

Hain, who knew the men, the Petersens and Olsen had all filed claims on Chalone Creek but

had been denied patents by the General Land Office, which believed it would not be possible

to make a living on such dry land.8 Otto eventually returned to Denmark, and Viggo left to

fight in the European war.

After the war ended, Viggo returned to Bear Valley and worked as a farmhand on local ranches.

He decided to try filing once more for land on Chalone Creek and took over a relinquished

homestead at the foot of Bear Gulch. This now forgotten homesteader—named Berry or

Barry—had left a cabin that Petersen occupied. The small building stood on the flood plain

not far from the present Chalone Creek Bridge until it was destroyed by fire in 1931. Viggo

Petersen’s second application was approved by the General Land Office, and he was awarded

patent for 640 acres in 1924. According to an acquaintance who remembers him from these

years, Viggo originally had no intention of developing the land any further but only wanted

a place to live. Apparently he continued to support himself working for other ranchers—a

practice not uncommon among the smaller homesteaders in the area.9

7. The eastern boundary cut north to south through the middle of the valley that the Bear Gulch reservoir now fills.

It included none of Bear Gulch itself, the caves or Condor Gulch. These features were added to the monument the

following year, at the recommendation of Hermansen and J.H. Favorite, moving the boundary of the monument

just east of the present Moses Spring picnic area. The original trail that Petersen and Hermansen cut followed the

contour of the hill along the north side of the canyon, a little above the present road. It was obliterated when the

first road was constructed in 1924.

8. Schuyler Hain to Director, February 6, 1921, PINN Coll., Entry 6, RG 79, Box 336, NARA II. Carl Olsen filed

an entry on Chalone Creek at the same time and was also denied patent. Olsen later married Bessie Hain, Arthur

Hain’s daughter, and the couple lived on the family Hain Ranch in Bear Valley. This helps explain how Schuyler

Hain came to learn such detailed information—Carl Olsen was his nephew by marriage. According to Bessie, the

Petersens also lived for awhile on the Hain ranch when they first came to Bear Valley before the war. [Bessie Webb,

interviewed by Reta Oberg, February. 15, 1978.]

9. Lois Bourke, The Bourke Engine Documentary (Sun Valley, CA: E. Coutant, 1968), p. 19. Lois’ older sister Bessie

married Carl Olsen.

40
The Pinnacles Boys

The other Pinnacles Boys came to the area a few years later in 1921. At that time, Herman

Hermansen and Alonzo Bourke were both working in San Francisco and sharing an apartment.

They were old friends from Petaluma—a small agricultural town just north of San Francisco—

where they had gone to school together before the war. Another old friend of theirs from

Petaluma, Zotic Marcott, had been working summers in the logging camps up north since

leaving the military and was staying with Hermansen and Bourke in San Francisco for the

winter. Marcott had tried homesteading in Canada before the war and suggested to the

group that they all look for land together in California. The others agreed. Alonzo’s older

brother, Russell Bourke, soon joined the project as well. Hermansen was chosen to look for

an appropriate place for the group to file claims and went south to Monterey County during

the summer of 1921. Here he stumbled by accident on the Pinnacles, which he first saw from

a distance across the Salinas Valley. On investigating the intriguing place, he was surprised

to learn that much of the Gabilan Mountains surrounding the monument was still in the

public domain. Hermansen also encountered Olive Rivers and the Copper Mountain Mining

Company’s tourist operation on his first excursion up the Soledad Road and was appalled.

According to his own account, Hermansen determined right then to do whatever he could to

break this unscrupulous monopoly. But he had also decided by then that Pinnacles would be an

ideal location for himself and his friends to establish their homesteads. After visiting the place

themselves, the others agreed, and all had filed claims for 640 acres under the Stock-Raising

Homestead Act by the end of that year.

Viggo Petersen soon became a friend of this group of young veterans from Petaluma. That

was fortunate, since his own homestead was surrounded on three sides by their claims. Alonzo

Bourke was Viggo’s immediate neighbor. His claim lay along Chalone Creek upstream of the

mouth of Bear Gulch to a point just below Willow Spring. (It was centered around the present

Chalone Creek maintenance yard and residential area—Alonzo probably built his homestead

cabin here, or possibly west of the creek in the old Chalone Creek Annex.) Alonzo’s original

claim also comprised a narrow strip that ran along the east side of the monument to the top of

Bear Gulch. (At that time, the monument boundary lay just west of the present Bear Gulch

Dam.) This part of Alonzo Bourke’s claim included all of the Bear Gulch Caves and met the

border of Viggo Petersen’s land at the upper edge of the present Bear Gulch parking lot. When

the group inspected Alonzo’s claim and realized what it comprised, they persuaded him to

adjust his application, substituting a few hundred acres further north for the land at the top

of Bear Gulch. Hermansen subsequently persuaded the federal government to withdraw this

portion of Alonzo’s original homestead and add it to the monument, since everyone agreed

that its scenic values ought to be preserved inside the park boundaries.

Of all the Pinnacles Boys, Alonzo was probably the least concerned with the land he received,

since he had no intention of making a living off of it. Alonzo was trained in the medical

profession—he had been a medical corpsman with the U.S. Navy during the war—and was

working at Lane Hospital in San Francisco when the group first conceived their idea for the

homesteading venture.10 He left Pinnacles as soon as he received his patent in 1926, working

for a while for Schuyler Hain in Tres Pinos, then moving to Los Angeles, where he got a job as

a sales representative. He remained in Southern California until his retirement in the 1950s.11

10. Lane Hospital is now part of California Pacific Medical Center.

11. “Alonzo Bourke” [Obituary], Santa Rosa Press Democrat, December 22, 1974. Alonzo spent the last twenty years

of his life living in retirement in Petaluma. He was buried with military honors at the Presidio of San Francisco.

41
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Just north of Alonzo Bourke’s homestead, on the north fork of Chalone Creek, was Zotic

Marcott’s claim. Marcott’s homestead included Willow Spring, which subsequently became

known as Marcott’s Spring. Of all the Petaluma homesteaders, Marcott probably possessed

the greatest practical experience. He had already homesteaded before and was accustomed to

hard work out-of-doors from his years in the lumber camps. He also knew animals and was

considered a skilled teamster. This would prove invaluable when it came to grading the road that

was eventually built up to Bear Gulch a few years later. Marcott also became one of the more

popular and adventuresome guides leading tourists through the Pinnacles, a fact that helped

him secure a job as first chief ranger of the monument in 1925. Like Alonzo Bourke, Zotic

Marcott had little interest in obtaining agriculturally valuable land, since he did not intend

to support himself off his homestead and does not appear to have cultivated the parcel—the

surviving ruins of his homestead show scant evidence of agricultural development.12 Instead,

Marcott contracted his labor, working not only as a guide but also with government surveying

crews. He originally intended to develop his land for a boyscout campground, taking advantage

of its proximity to the national monument and its scenic resources, but nothing ever came of

this short-lived proposal.13 Marcott’s land was later acquired by the National Park Service in

1938 in order to secure rights to the valuable water resources at Willow Spring.14

Russell Bourke was the only member of the Pinnacles Boys who ever developed his homestead

on an agricultural basis. He claimed 640 acres along the north fork of Chalone Creek just

upstream of Zotic Marcott. Although very little cultivable land lay within the homestead—

most of the claim comprises steep slopes covered in chaparral—Bourke used his mechanical

skills to adapt the rudimentary tractors of the day to the task of clearing brush. Evidence

still survives of extensive clearing along the tops of ridges and other level areas within his

homestead. Russell Bourke remained at Pinnacles only until 1926, when he married Schuyler

Hain’s niece, Lois Hain, and moved back to his family home in Petaluma. Russell Bourke

later became known for his invention of a new type of internal combustion engine. Shortly

after returning to Petaluma, he developed the first working prototype of this engine for the

Army Air Corps, but World War II eventually interrupted development of his design, and the

Bourke Engine was abandoned by all except a cult following of independent engineers (some

of whom continue to promote the idea even today.15

Russell Bourke’s homestead was abandoned in 1926 when he left the county, and most of his

improvements were destroyed by the fire of 1931.16 The land itself remained in his ownership,

however, until 1944, when he sold it to his older brother Leo, and it became part of the Must

Hatch Incubator Company, at that time the largest chicken hatchery in the world. Must Hatch

had been founded by A.E. Bourke Sr. in 1898, shortly after the family moved to Petaluma from

Los Angeles. Alonzo, Russell, and Leo were all children and heirs of A.E. Bourke, though it was

Leo who would take over the family business. In 1944, the Bourke Company asked permission

from the National Park Service to use Russell Bourke’s old homestead, which was now a private

inholding within the monument, as a poultry farm. This was only one year after Russell had

12. This has been documented as historic archeological site CA-SBn-121H. [Trudy Haversat, Gary S. Breschini

and R. Paul Hampson, Cultural Resources Inventory of Newly Acquired Lands at the Pinnacles National Monument

(Salinas, CA: Archeological Consulting, 1981)].

13. See, for example, Herman Hermansen to Director, January 3, 1924, PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337,

NARA II.

14. The name was changed to Willow Spring at this time.

15. Lois Bourke, Bourke Engine Documentary.

16. The site has been documented as CA-SBn-122H. [Haversat et al., Cultural Resources Inventory.]

42
The Pinnacles Boys

sold the land to his brother’s company. Given the scale of Leo Bourke’s operation in Petaluma,

the Park Service was understandably concerned by this proposal and first recognized the need

to acquire the Bourke property—and all other inholdings for that matter—as the only security

against the introduction of adverse development within the wilderness areas of the monument.

(The company willingly sold the land to the Park Service in 1959.) Russell Bourke himself

never had any further association with the monument after selling his property to his brother,

though he did return to Bear Valley in 1961 to live on his wife’s family property—the Arthur

Hain Ranch—for a brief period before retiring to Penngrove, a small suburb of Petaluma. He

died there in 1968.

The last parcel to be filed on belonged to Herman Hermansen. He claimed a narrow corridor of

land that began on the east side just outside the Balconies Caves (which Henry Melville owned)

and continued around the north side of the Balconies to the broad valley of oak savannah just

north of the present Chaparral Picnic Area. The North Wilderness Trail now descends through

Hermansen’s old homestead claim in this area. Hermansen clearly never intended to develop

his property on an agricultural basis, although its western side would have been ideal for this

purpose. As he later explained to the Director of the Park Service, he chose this property

specifically to challenge the claims of Melville’s Copper Mountain Mining Company and to

prevent any further claims of similar nature along the north boundary of the monument.17

Hermansen’s non-agricultural intentions were demonstrated by his choice of location for his

residence, which he placed along the west fork of Chalone Creek, just east of the Balconies

Caves. This narrow valley has no practical utility for a subsistence farmer but is vital for anyone

desiring to control the tourist traffic into the Old Pinnacles, since it lies along the only passable

route into the Old Pinnacles Gorge from the east side. Hermansen’s homestead claim was a

mirror image of Melville’s mineral claim on the west side—both controlled routes into the Old

Pinnacles, which at that time was the only portion of the monument generally accessible to

tourists. Although Hermansen claimed to be entirely altruistic in his choice of land when he

filed his land claim application in 1921, he may have chosen this parcel because of Melville’s

example, not in spite of it. It is impossible now to know whether Hermansen was honestly

trying to thwart further attempts to monopolize access to the monument, as Melville had

done, or whether he himself was attempting a similar sort of monopolization. If Hermansen’s

intentions were the latter, he could not have chosen his location more appropriately. On the

other hand, if he did want to challenge Melville, he had also chosen well, since the General

Land Office would be forced to investigate Melville’s dubious mineral claims in order to patent

Hermansen’s homestead claim, as the two partially overlapped. Hermansen would always claim

that this was his only motive.18

Almost immediately after receiving Hermansen’s introductory letter, Acting Director Vipond

wrote back requesting further information. He enclosed a map and asked Hermansen to mark

on it the claims that he and his friends had entered as well as Bear Gulch and the new entrance

which Hermansen was proposing. It was clear that the Washington office had failed to fully

appreciate the complicated geography of Pinnacles, and Vipond appeared to acknowledge

this. For the first time since Superintendent Lewis’ report warning that the monument might

have to be abandoned, there seemed hope for an alternative resolution. Vipond readily agreed

17. See, for example, Hermansen to Director, August 27, 1925, PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

18. J.H. Favorite, chief of the GLO’s San Francisco division, believed Hermansen’s motives were honorable and

always presented him in a positive light. See J.H. Favorite, “Report on Pinnacles,” December 11, 1922 [transmitted

to the Director of the National Park Service December 22, 1922], PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

43
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

that a road should be put in up Bear Gulch, but he cautioned Hermansen that it would be

impossible for the Park Service to build it, because the Park Service could not spend funds

on projects outside the monument’s boundaries. This threw responsibility for the ambitious

proposal back on the local residents. As reserved as Vipond’s answer seemed, it nonetheless

represents the first time that a road up Bear Gulch was formally considered. The idea would

have a lasting effect on the future development of the monument.19

Hermansen quickly supplied the information Acting Director Vipond requested. He also

identified an area of land still within the public domain that he strongly recommended the

Park Service add to the monument. This was the land that Alonzo Bourke had originally

claimed but abandoned once the Pinnacles Boys realized that it included the Bear Gulch

Caves. Hermansen worried that if it were not withdrawn soon, Melville’s example in the Old

Pinnacles might be repeated by somebody else. If that were to happen, the opportunity to get

a road up Bear Gulch would be lost.20

Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

Henry Melville’s monopoly over the north end of the monument was a source of ongoing

frustration for visitors, especially those who left from Soledad and motored laboriously up the

long and treacherous dirt road through Stonewall Canyon, only to be greeted by a toll gate

at the monument boundary. This situation became increasingly galling to the Park Service

after Melville hired Robert and Olive Rivers, whose energetic but unorthodox methods often

provoked a strong reaction. Although one west side newspaper praised Olive as “a good

booster” for both Soledad and Pinnacles, the Oakland Tribune complained about her uncivil

habit of collecting fees at gunpoint.21 Custodian Hermansen had nothing but contempt for

Rivers, calling Olive a “prostitute” and her husband a “roustabout” (strong terms for the day).

In addition to collecting admission from visitors, Hermansen alleged that the couple also stole

livestock from local ranchers to support themselves. In his monthly report to the director,

Hermansen described in detail how one visitor had been ill treated by the couple:

On the 12th of this month [July 1923] Reverend Charles T. Patchell visited the National

Monument via the Soledad road. He made camp [in Juniper Canyon near Oak Tree Spring]

within the National Monument boundary, claimed by H.F. Melville as a townsite whereon

he has some old dilapidated leaching tanks. Reverend Patchell was comfortably located in

his camp, when on the following morning about 5 AM Mrs. Rivers and her consort entered

the camp and ordered an immediate removal. Rev. Patchell had come for his health and

intended to remain several weeks, therefor did not care to move, on offering to pay for the

privilege of remaining was met with a refusal. Due to the hour of the morning he made no

effort to move, so guns were flashed on him with profane orders to get out immediately. Of

course he had no alternative but to move.22

Many visitors had already written letters of complaint to the Washington office of the National

Park Service or to the General Land Office in San Francisco, but nothing could be done

19. Vipond to Hermansen, October 21, 1922, PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

20. Hermansen to Director, November 19, 1922, PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

21. The Soledad Bee [May 5, 1922] wrote, “Mrs. Rivers is an energetic woman and a good booster for Soledad and

the Salinas valley. She has been at the head of a movement to advertise the Pinnacles and Palisades to the outside

world and has been very successful. She is also after good roads to the resort.” The article in the Oakland Tribune

appeared in May 1923.

22. Herman Hermansen to Director, July 29, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

44
Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

without first proving that Melville and the Rivers were in violation of the law. Hermansen

finally forced this issue when he filed a homestead entry on September 1, 1921, on a 640-

acre parcel of land that overlapped Melville’s mining claim. Hermansen knew that Melville

already occupied this land and was purposely testing the legal validity of his mineral claim. He

was confident that Melville’s mining operations would be proved fraudulent if all the evidence

could be examined before a judge, and Melville would be forced to relinquish the land to

Hermansen. Once that happened, Hermansen intended to grant a public easement to provide

access to the monument, just as Viggo Petersen had promised to do on the east side.

Melville quickly responded to Hermansen’s threat by renewing all of his mineral locations with

the county recorder and hiring a laborer—Ernest Bauman—to resume work on his mines.

(It was later learned that he had not done any mineral work prior to that since 1909.) On

November 23, 1922, one day before Hermansen submitted final proof on his homestead claim,

Melville filed a legal protest against him with the General Land Office. A hearing was scheduled

with the field division of the General Land Office in San Francisco for February 8, 1923,

but Melville failed to appear. This allowed the Land Office to rule in favor of Hermansen,

but the Copper Mountain Mining Company shortly afterward appealed this decision to the

commissioner of the General Land Office. This would prolong the investigation—possibly

Melville’s intention—but it also created an opportunity to resolve the matter for good, or at

least that is what the Park Service hoped.

Hermansen was aided in his defense by Chief J.H. Favorite of the Land Office’s field division

in San Francisco. Favorite had become interested in the case after receiving numerous letters

of complaint from visitors who were surprised and outraged by Melville’s entrance fee. In

investigating the matter, Favorite had become acquainted with Hermansen and offered to help

him in his pending trial with Melville. (Favorite eventually acted as U.S. intervener in the case.)

Like Hermansen, Favorite was convinced that Melville’s mineral claims were fraudulent and

could be legally invalidated. Favorite also seems to have been impressed by Hermansen himself,

as the two men later became close friends.23 Early in December, in anticipation of the coming

hearings, Favorite submitted an extensive report to the commissioner of the General Land

Office describing the situation and as much of the history of the Copper Mountain Mining

Company as he could discover. This report remains one of the most complete and reliable

sources on Henry Melville and the Copper Mountain Mining Company. The commissioner

later transferred a copy of it to the National Park Service.24

Favorite explained in his report that Henry Melville had originally settled on a small parcel

of land just inside the western boundary of the monument nearly fifty years ago, prior to the

monument’s establishment, and had lived there intermittently ever since. A cabin and two

outbuildings had been constructed on the site in 1921.25 Melville never patented this land

under any of the homesteading acts—for reasons that are not clear—but instead claimed the

23. Favorite later acted as best man at Hermansen’s wedding to Aldah Fowles in 1925. [Hermansen to Cammerer,

June 25, 1925, PINN Coll. RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.]

24. William Spry, Commissioner of the General Land Office, to Stephen Mather, December 22, 1922, PINN Coll.

RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. Favorite’s report was dated December 11, 1922.

25. The parcel is the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 33 Township 16 South, Range 7 East and now includes the

development within the Chaparral Area. According to the testimony later given during the hearings, Ernest Bauman,

a laborer hired by Melville, must have been living here at the time Favorite visited the site, though Favorite never

mentions Bauman. [“Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs. Herman A. Hermansen, Protest Dismissed,” August 29,

1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 33, NARA II.]

45
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

land under the Mining Act of 1872.26 This gave him only a conditional title to the land, since

the Mining Act required that Melville submit annual proof of profitable labor or forfeit his

claim. Melville had also filed on land just outside the monument boundaries under the same

terms. In all, he had made more than thirty mineral claims in the immediate area by 1921.

These included mines, mill sites, dump sites, and even a town site.27 The latter he had staked

out and named “Palisades” but had not developed any further. Melville incorporated all of

these assets in 1914, forming an early version of the Copper Mountain Mining Company. (The

company was reorganized in 1919 into its final form.) Since Melville was president and chief

shareholder of the company, he and the Copper Mountain Mining Company were effectively

synonymous.

In 1921, Melville purchased a 160-acre parcel inside the monument boundaries and a 40-

acre parcel just outside the eastern boundary of the monument at Willow Spring on the

north fork of Chalone Creek.28 These two parcels had been filed in 1892—both as cash-entry

homesteads rather than mineral claims—by George W. Root Jr., Melville’s old friend from

Rootville. George Root had since moved to Nevada County, where he became manager of a

mine in Grass Valley after selling his share of his Pinnacles claims to business partners.29 Root’s

quarter section homestead comprised most of the Old Pinnacles, including Machete Ridge,

the Balconies, and the Old Pinnacles Gorge.30 Since the parcel had been patented before the

establishment of the national monument, it remained a legal inholding at the time Melville

bought it. Melville never developed this property beyond erecting fences and maintaining the

trail through the middle of it.31 He claimed he had made the purchase to protect his mines

just west of this parcel from encroachment or trespass.

The trail through Old Pinnacles Gorge and the Root homestead was at that time the only

established route across Pinnacles. The road leading up from Bear Valley terminated at one

end of this trail, while the Soledad road terminated at the other. On the east side of the gorge,

a picnic area had been established many years earlier by local ranchers, who occasionally rode

26. Had Melville filed a homestead claim, he would have been able to retain the land in spite of Hermansen’s challenge

and would even have possessed priority over the monument, a fact that was later demonstrated byMelville’s ownership

of the Root homestead, which became a legal inholding within the monument and had to be condemned before it

could revert to federal ownership.

27. A mineral survey made that year recorded 26 mines. This is reproduced in “Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs.

Herman A. Hermansen, Protest Dismissed,” August 29, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

28. The 160-acre parcel comprises the NE 1/4 and the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4, and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4

of Sec. 34, Township 16 South, Range 7 East. The forty-acre parcel at Willow Spring comprises the SE 1/4 of the

SW 1/4 of Sec. 26, Township 16 South, Range 7 East. The former claim was filed by George W. Root in 1894 and

patented in 1909, while the latter was never patented, though Root had apparently claimed it. (He filed a transfer of

title in 1893). Melville bought both parcels in April of 1920, though of course his deed to the latter was not valid,

since Root had never perfected his title. It would subsequently be claimed by Alonzo Bourke and patented to him

in 1926. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Co., Hollister, CA; Deed Books, San Benito County Recorder’s Office,

Hollister, CA.]

29. Anita Mason, researcher for the Monterey County Historical Society, in telephone conversation with author,

September 20, 2007. The names listed in the transfer of title are Thomas Huguet, Harry and Hermann Nienhaus,

George Lawton, and W.C. Crowley.

30. At that time, this chasm was often called the Palisades Gorge.

31. This trail is reputed to have existed long prior to Anglo-American settlement and was known among some local

residents as an old Spanish trail. [See Chapter 1, “East Side Road Development.”] By the 1920s, it had largely been

abandoned. Herman Hermansen described it as “just an old cattle trail” [Hermansen to Director, October 9, 1922,

PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II].

46
Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

up here for holiday gatherings. As tourists began visiting the monument in the early twentieth

century, the site was used by them as a dining area and a campground. It had been improved

over time and by 1921 included several wooden tables, masonry barbeque pits and a masonrylined spring box for drinking water. Melville closed off this campground that year with a

gated fence.32 On the west side, Melville also erected a gate across the entrance road, so that

motorists arriving from Soledad were compelled to pay an admission fee before they could

even approach the monument. The duty of patrolling this gate and collecting the fee was given

to the Rivers after Ernest Bauman left in 1922.

Since the only good campground and reliable source of water on the west side lay within the

Copper Mountain Mining Company’s claims, there seemed to be no way around Melville’s

monopoly of the monument on this side.33 It was this observation that led Superintendent

Lewis to recommend abandoning Pinnacles. When Favorite visited the site in 1922, however,

he noticed that the mineral claims had not been worked for many years, and he could see

no evidence of any vein or lode of mineral-bearing rock. He was accompanied by a mineral

examiner (Mr. Fibush), who later corroborated these observations during the hearings over

Hermansen’s homesteading claim. Based on this evidence, Favorite concluded that Melville’s

claims were invalid and that he could legally be evicted. This would make at least the camping

area on the west side—if not the Old Pinnacles themselves—accessible to the public.

Favorite noted that the opportunity for circumventing Melville’s monopoly was even better

on the east side, where Bear Gulch provided both excellent camping and an alternative point

of access into the monument. Favorite also noted that the canyon was more than just another

way in; it was an attraction in its own right:

Bear Gulch, extending into the monument from the eastern or Hollister side, is a beautiful

canyon containing a very good stream of water and possessing many scenic attractions. In

this canyon there are two sets of so-called caves which are said to be even more pretentious

than those to be found on the patented land [that is, the Old Pinnacles].

To emphasize his point, Favorite included photographs of Bear Gulch and the landscape above

it (see Fig. 7).

Favorite explained how Viggo Petersen and Herman Hermansen had constructed trails into

this canyon from the road on Chalone Creek, so that it was already possible to get into

the monument from this point, though only on foot or horseback. If Bear Gulch could be

adequately protected through the withdrawal of the remaining public land at the top of the

canyon and a satisfactory road built up it, the monument could be made fully accessible to

the public from the east side, and there would no longer be any reason to abandon it. If the

Copper Mountain Mining Company’s claims on the west side could also be invalidated, then

access from Soledad would be assured and that side developed as well. Favorite concluded by

recommending all of these measures and by suggesting that the Park Service appoint a caretaker

or custodian to oversee the monument and develop its trails. He considered Viggo Petersen

“a very good man for this work” and “thoroughly dependable,” though he also suggested that

Herman Hermansen would be a good candidate.

32. Schuyler Hain to Stephen Mather, October 25, 1920; Herman Hermansen to Director, June 17, 1923; and

Hermansen to Arno Cammerer, January 28, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II. Hermansen

transferred the wooden tables to Viggo Petersen’s campground after Melville fenced this site off.

33. The only exception was a small canyon on the east side of Section 4, just south of Juniper Canyon, where an

intermittent spring and a long, shaded bench make a suitable campsite for at least part of the year, but Melville

erected a fence along the Soledad Road at the canyon’s mouth to prevent visitors from entering here.

47
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Figure 7. View looking up Bear Gulch toward the Monolith from the Moses Spring Trail, 1922. [Included in

report of J.H. Favorite to Commissioner of the GLO, Dec. 11, 1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336,

NARA II.]

Figure 8. View of Pinnacles from the west side showing relative position of Henry Melville’s claim. His cabin is

circled in the middle of the picture. [Included in report of J.H. Favorite to Commissioner of the GLO, Dec. 11,

1922, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.]

Given his position in the General Land Office, Favorite spoke with as much authority as

Superintendent Lewis, but his report was far more thorough and accurate than the latter’s

cursory observations had been. As a result, Favorite’s report now became Washington’s

principal source of information about Pinnacles, replacing Lewis’ report. All of Favorite’s

recommendations were taken seriously and many were eventually implemented. The easiest

48
Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

of these was the withdrawal of the remaining public lands along the eastern border of the

monument, and this was done immediately. Within a few months, a proclamation for the

addition of this land to the monument was prepared and presented to President Harding for

his signature, which he duly gave on May 7, 1923. This was the second proclamation affecting

the boundaries of Pinnacles, and it increased the size of the monument by just over 562 acres.

The added lands included the upper half of Bear Gulch with the Bear Gulch Caves. This

brought the monument’s eastern boundary to the edge of Viggo Petersen’s homestead, which

encompassed the lower half of Bear Gulch and Chalone Creek down to the western side of

Ben Bacon’s ranch.

Another of Favorite’s recommendations that the Park Service quickly acted upon was the

appointment of a custodian. Since Hermansen had already made himself known to the

Washington office even before the receipt of Favorite’s report, he was offered the job rather

than Petersen. Acting Director Cammerer wrote to Hermansen on May 8th, one day after

the presidential proclamation enlarging the monument, and asked if he would be willing to

accept the job at the nominal salary of $12 per year. (This was standard at that time for most

custodians of the national monuments.) Hermansen immediately accepted and entered on

duty at the beginning of June 1923. Cammerer also informed Hermansen of the efforts that

were being taken to eject Henry Melville from the unpatented land he occupied within the

monument.34 In reality, this amounted to little more than an interdepartmental request for

the General Land Office to investigate the validity of Melville’s claims. Hermansen’s own case

would have far greater effect, but Cammerer’s actions nonetheless illustrate how quickly his

office moved to support Pinnacles after only recently considering its abandonment. Favorite’s

report had been decisive in convincing the Washington office that it was possible to preserve the

monument. Hermansen and the other Pinnacles Boys would be equally decisive in determining

how the monument would subsequently be developed.

The long-delayed hearings in Hermansen’s homesteading case were finally held beginning on

October 25, 1923, before the commissioner of the General Land Office.35 They continued

through February 14, 1924. Through the course of these proceedings, many further details

were revealed that added to the account already provided by J.H. Favorite’s report. Henry

Melville’s testimony corroborated Favorite’s assertion that the first mineral locations had been

made in 1870. Although Melville had worked actively on these mines during the remainder

of that decade, he acknowledged that no ore had been shipped after 1876. His millsites were

not developed, and the wooden leaching tanks, which he had installed near Oak Tree Spring

in 1909, had never been used.36

William D. McPhie, a rancher from Soledad and secretary of the Copper Mountain Mining

Company, provided a brief account of the history and nature of the company. He said it had

been organized in 1919 and capitalized at $1 million with the issuing of one million shares

at $1 each. Some fifty thousand of these shares had been sold in England at sub-par value,

34. Cammerer to Hermansen, May 8, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

35. Henry Melville had filed an initial protest in his own name on November 23, 1922, one day before Hermansen

submitted the final proof for his homestead entry. A hearing was scheduled for February 8, 1923, but Melville

failed to show up, and the following day his protest was dismissed. On March 14th of the same year, a new protest

comprising essentially the same substance was filed on behalf of the Copper Mountain Mining Company. Although

the GLO initially dismissed this protest, when appeals were filed, the GLO was forced to schedule formal hearings.

[PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.]

36. An announcement describing the installation of six leaching tanks was made in the Soledad Bee November 9,

1909.

49
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

realizing $28,600. This money was used to pay the executive staff of the company, which

consisted of only three individuals: a secretary (W.D. McPhie), a treasurer (P.H. Smith), and

Henry Melville, who held the title of president and general manager. Melville received $50

per month for this position. The only work toward which this money was applied was in

improving and maintaining the road from Soledad.37

In 1920, Melville used $15,000 dollars from this sum to purchase the Root homestead on

behalf of the Copper Mountain Mining Company. He assured the company’s shareholders

that this was done to protect their investment in the mining operation, which, he insisted,

would have been threatened if the property had gone to someone unsympathetic to their

interests. (Melville was probably thinking of Schuyler Hain, who had taken out an option on

this parcel.) According to Melville, one of the conditions for purchasing the Root homestead

placed on him by the shareholders was that he charge an admission for visitors wanting to

enter the land, thereby helping defray the cost of the purchase.38 Melville accordingly leased

the property to Robert and Olive Rivers, who were legally identified as caretakers and required

to charge fifty-cents admission for any member of the public desiring access to the property.

Fifty percent of this sum—after taxes—was to be remitted to the Copper Mountain Mining

Company, from which Melville drew his own salary. McPhie testified that this was the only

revenue ever produced by the company.39

About the same time Herman Hermansen arrived in the country and began taking an interest

in the monument, Melville became actively concerned with the legitimacy of his mineral

claims. On July 10, 1921, he amended all twenty-six of these claims in the recorder’s office

and had them surveyed, with assays made, the following month. Only a week after this was

completed, Hermansen filed his homestead entry on the same land, claiming that he could see

no evidence of any recent work having been done. The existing tunnels and cuts, Hermansen

testified, were eroded and overgrown with weeds.

As the court soon discovered, no work had been done on them since 1909 or 1910, when

the U.S. Forest Service, which then administered the land as part of the Pinnacles Forest

Reserve, had filed a protest with the General Land Office, alleging that Melville had ceased to

do any meaningful work and that the claims themselves were non-mineral in character.40 The

General Land Office sustained this protest, with an amendment that three of Melville’s claims

37. There were at least three roads leading up to the Pinnacles from the west side. La Gloria Road is reputedly the

oldest. It ran from Gonzales up to the agricultural lands in the La Gloria Valley, and from there one could continue

south to the Pinnacles. The Rootville miners built another early road up Shirttail Gulch, probably in or about

1870. In 1912, the county built its road—the present road—up Stonewall Canyon. [Anita Mason, researcher for

the Monterey County Historical Society, unpublished notes.]

38. Soledad Bee, April 8, 1921.

39. Hermansen to director, monthly report. According to Hermansen, who met separately with the officials of the

Copper Mountain Mining Company, Treasurer P.H. Smith was convinced by this time that there was no copper

in the mines and was planning to withdraw from the company. Secretary W. McPhie believed that the mines did

possess copper, but he did not like Melville’s practice of charging admission to the Old Pinnacles. Both men resented

leasing to the Rivers and noted, apparently with some bitterness or suspicion, that Melville held most of the stock

and so controlled the company. [Hermansen to Director, July 29, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336,

NARA II.]

40. “In comparing the testimony given in March 1910 at the contest proceedings brought at the instance of the

Forest Service against this group of claims as to the mining development work that had been done on them at that

time, with the testimony given in this hearing as to the condition of the development work in 1921, it appears

that very little, if any, work, was done except to repair the road.” [“Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs. Herman

50
Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

be excepted from the verdict for lack of evidence. The final decision was recorded on February

1, 1911, only a month after the Forest Service abandoned its Pinnacles Forest Reserve and the

land reverted once more to the public domain. Probably emboldened by the Forest Service’s

loss of interest in the land, Melville had simply ignored the court’s decision and maintained

possession of all his mineral claims, although he did no work beyond maintaining the road and

taking a few samples to send to his shareholders once he had organized the Copper Mountain

Mining Company—or its predecessor—in 1914. Melville probably filed amendments in 1921

in order to reassert his legal right to these mineral claims, reasoning that these would operate

as new locations. This, at least, was how the court interpreted his actions.41

Only a few months after Hermansen filed his homestead entry, Melville hired Ernest Bauman,

an experienced miner, to resume work on the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s claims.

Bauman lived in a cabin on site from the beginning of February 1922 until the summer of

1924, when his contract expired. During this time, Bauman maintained the road and worked

on the mines, driving one of the tunnels about two hundred feet further into the hill. He

also helped collect the admission fee from visitors. According to his testimony at the hearings,

Bauman had seen no evidence of ore within any of the tunnels or cuts on which he worked,

and he worried that Melville would not be able to pay him.42 It appears that the only reason

Bauman was hired was in order to validate Melville’s mineral claims by demonstrating work

being done as required by the conditions of the 1872 Mining Act. The fact that Melville took

these actions so soon after Hermansen’s arrival seems hardly coincidental, as J.H. Favorite,

now acting as intervener for the United States, pointed out:

After it became known that this land was entered as a homestead by Mr. Hermansen,

preparations were made for active development work, and a contract was entered into with

Mr. Bauman, as described by Mr. Melville and Mr. Bauman in their testimony. Therefore,

when we consider the failure to mine and ship any ore from these claims during the past

fifty years, or since their location; the failure to do any considerable amount of development

work from 1910 until the spring 1922, after the filing of the homestead entry; the paying

of $15,000 for 160 acres of non-mineral land adjoining the claims on which is situated a

natural wonder; the collecting of admission fees from persons viewing the Pinnacles, or this

natural wonder; the constant repairs to the road leading beyond the claims to the natural

wonder for the use and convenience of the sight-seers who would pay these admission fees,

one is led to conclude that possession of these claims is desired not for any mineral or

prospects of mineral which they may contain, but in order that through their possession the

road leading to the National Monument may be controlled for revenue derived from the

exploitation of the scenery. These facts bear strongly against the good faith of the mineral

claimants.43

By the beginning of 1921, Henry Melville knew that he could not sell any more stock in

the Copper Mountain Mining Company without first demonstrating that he could produce

Hermansen, Argument for the Intervener,” January, 1924, p. 30. (Enclosure in Favorite to Cammerer, January 23,

1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II).]

41. “Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs. Herman Hermansen, Protest Dismissed,” August 29, 1924; and Hermansen

to Director, May 25, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

42. Ibid.

43. “Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs. Herman Hermansen, Argument for the Intervener,” pp. 30–31, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

51
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

profitable quantities of mineral from his claims, which he could not.44 But by now he had

discovered a new source of revenue as Pinnacles became an increasingly popular tourist

destination. Although Melville always insisted that his mines were legitimate and contained

potentially valuable quantities of ore, it seems hard to believe that he maintained them for any

other purpose after 1921 than to control access to Pinnacles.45

Although most of the hearings subsequently focused on whether Melville’s mining claims

were legitimate or not, the court acknowledged that the validity of Hermansen’s homestead

claim, not Melville’s mineral claims, was the ultimate purpose of its inquiry. In order to reach

this conclusion, however, the court first had to determine which of the contested claims—

Melville’s or Hermansen’s—had legal priority. The Stock-Raising Homestead Act, under which

Hermansen had made his claim, stipulated that the claimant’s land must be legally unoccupied

at the time of filing.46 Melville’s occupation of this land was justified on the basis of his mineral

claims, filed under the Mining Act of 1872, and could be considered legal only if his claims

remained active and valid under the terms of that act. In other words, if Melville and the

Copper Mountain Mining Company were in violation of the conditions of their claims, then

they were not legally occupants of the land at the time Hermansen entered his homesteading

claim in 1921, and Hermansen’s claim would therefore be determined legitimate. If, however,

the mining company’s claims were in good order at that time, then Hermansen was not in his

rights when he filed his entry, and his claim would be determined illegitimate.

Everything hinged on the court’s evaluation of the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s

mineral claims. Among other things, the Mining Act required that a claim be substantially

mineral in character—in other words, that it possess marketable quantities of mineral—and

that work be ongoing.47 Both these conditions were found to be lacking in this case. So far

as the court could determine, no work had occurred on the company’s mines between 1910

and 1922. Work resumed in 1922, but only after Hermansen had entered his homesteading

claim. More importantly, numerous witnesses testified that the claims in question possessed

no significant quantities of mineral and never had. One mining engineer who inspected the

site, made the following observation:

An alleged manganese deposit on the Black Warrior claim was found to be only a vegetable

stain. Wherever any deposits of copper carbonate have been found they were found along

joint planes or along surfaces where the rock was fractured and a small channel had been

opened for the circulation of mineral solutions. The rocks were not impregnated with the

44. Melville’s agent in London, L.K. Henri (apparently a relative of Melville’s by marriage), was under increasing

pressure from the company’s British shareholders by the end of 1920 to demonstrate positive results from the mines,

and he himself was beginning to express skepticism. See, L.K. Henri to Henry Melville, August 27, 1920. This letter

is part of a package of private correspondence belonging to Henry Melville that Hermansen seems to have stolen.

He sent these letters as an enclosure in, Hermansen to the Director, April 3, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6,

Box 337, NARA II.

45. According to his grandson, Henry Melville never waivered in his belief that these mines contained ore. [Leland

Melville, interviewed by author, May 14, 2007.]

46. The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 was one of several modifications of the original Homestead Act of

1862. Among other things, it increased the amount of land that could be claimed by a single individual from 160 to

640 acres. It also exempted the mineral rights from the claim. This made it possible for a prospector to file a mineral

claim on a stock-raising homestead even after the latter was patented.

47. The Mining Act of 1872, as amended in 1893, required a miner to have his ore evaluated by a certified assayer

to determine its value and to record an affidavit—a “Proof of Labor”—attesting to work done each year.

52
Custodian Hermansen versus the Copper Mountain Mining Company

minerals, and the proportion of the total copper mineral to the entire mass of rock was so

exceedingly small that even the unpracticed eye could discern the fact that the deposits were

exceedingly low in grade.48

This and other testimonies from expert witnesses finally convinced the commissioner that

all of Melville’s mineral claims were invalid, and Hermansen’s homestead entry was sustained

on August 29, 1924. In his final verdict, the commissioner upheld the decision rendered on

behalf of the U.S. Forest Service in 1911, which had invalidated all but three of Melville’s

original claims. Melville’s amendment of these claims in 1921 was determined to have had no

effect on their legitimacy. The three mines excepted from the 1911 decision, as well as several

more claims that Melville had located subsequent to 1911, were also declared null and void.

This decision eliminated all of the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s assets on the west

side of Pinnacles and effectively shut its operations down, though the company would not be

dissolved until after Melville’s death in 1933. Melville subsequently filed another appeal and

a motion for rehearing, but these were denied, and the commissioner’s original decision was

made final on March 14, 1925.

From this date forward, Melville lost all legal right to occupy or use any of the lands he had once

claimed on the west side. Although most of these mineral claims now belonged to Herman

Hermansen, about eighty acres lay within the boundaries of Pinnacles National Monument

in the area now comprising the Chaparral Picnic Area and Ranger Station.49 Melville had

constructed a cabin and two outbuildings here as well as a corral and miscellaneous fencing.50

His continued use and occupation of these structures now constituted trespass on federal lands,

but knowing how stubborn Henry Melville could be, the government correctly acknowledged

that further legal action would be required to evict him and eventually filed suit with the

attorney general’s office.51 This case dragged on through several postponements and was

not finally resolved until July of 1931, with Melville—or his tenants Robert and Olive

Rivers—occupying the property for the duration.52

The Copper Mountain Mining Company’s possession of the Root homestead in Old Pinnacles

Gorge was wholly unaffected by the 1925 court decision, since that land was already patented

when Melville bought it on behalf of the company in 1920. He had turned down repeated

offers to sell this parcel over the years, and it would remain the property of the Copper

Mountain Mining Company until finally condemned by San Benito County in August of

1935 (almost two years after Melville’s death).53

George Root’s homestead included forty acres at Willow Spring, which Henry Melville had

also purchased in 1920. Unlike his 160-acre claim in the Old Pinnacles, however, George

48. “Copper Mountain Mining Co. vs. Herman Hermansen, Argument for the Intervener,” pp. 19–20.

49. This small parcel lay in the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 33, Township 16 South, Range 7 East.

50. This development lay in the approximate location of the present Chaparral Area.

51. J.H. Favorite had foreseen this in 1923 and predicted that they would eventually have to involve the Justice

Department. [Favorite to Director, June 7, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.]

52. Despite appearances to the contrary, Melville denied that he was in occupation, so the suit actually brought against

him was for damages to government property in order to allow the Park Service to remove his improvements. [W.I.

Hawkins to the Director, July 31, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

53. In 1921, Universal Pictures spent three weeks filming The Fire Cat in the Old Pinnacles. Afterward, the studio

offered Melville $65,000 to buy the property. Melville refused. [W.B. Lewis to Director, April 5, 1922, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.]

53
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Root apparently never made final proof on the latter entry, and it remained unpatented at the

time Melville bought it.54 Shortly after the sale, one of Herman Hermansen’s friends, Alonzo

Bourke, filed a homestead entry on the same land. When Melville complained to the General

Land Office a few years later, his protest was dismissed and the Root title was invalidated.55

Bourke was awarded patent to the land in 1926.

The First Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1924)

Invalidation of the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s claims on the west side was not

Hermansen’s only preoccupation during these years. He also worked hard to develop improved

access to the east side of the monument, primarily by raising support for an entrance road up

Bear Gulch to the foot of the High Peaks. During November of 1923, Assistant Director Arno

Cammerer was out in California and visited Pinnacles for the first time. Although he missed

seeing Hermansen, Cammerer was able to inspect the monument and came to appreciate the

importance of an east side entrance road. He also got a good sense of the problems facing

it. Noting that it was impossible to reach the monument from any side without first passing

over private land, Cammerer wrote to Hermansen after returning to Washington and strongly

recommended that he obtain easements through all of the private ranches that lay between

the main road in Bear Valley and the eastern boundary of the monument.56 The existing

entrance road along Sandy Creek passed through three separate private parcels after leaving

the county road. These belonged to Benjamin Bacon, his brother Oliver Bacon, and Viggo

Petersen, respectively. Viggo, of course, had already agreed to donate an easement over his

land, but the Bacon brothers were less enthusiastic about the idea. Hermansen observed that

the county had approached Ben Bacon several times in the past, beginning in 1913 when

the initial county road survey was made. Ben Bacon had remained noncommittal on each

of these occasions. According to Hermansen, he was not strongly opposed to the idea of a

public easement but claimed he was concerned about his cattle getting out if visitors left the

gates opened. (Hermansen offered to build cattle guards.) He also said that he was worried

visitors would use the easement to poach wild animals—Ben described himself as a strict

preservationist and refused to allow any hunting on his land.57 Hermansen noted that Oliver

Bacon was of the same opinion as his brother (though probably not on the matter of shooting

wild game, since Oliver was widely known to be an avid hunter).58

Hermansen was having far better success raising support for the Bear Gulch road with the

San Benito County business community, represented by the Farm Bureau, the Merchants

Association and the Chamber of Commerce. He had first approached members of these

54. Abstract, Fidelity Title Insurance Company, Hollister, CA.

55. This occurred on December 18, 1923. There was some confusion over exactly who claimed what land. According

to one local newspaper, Melville addressed his protest against Zotic Marcott, who claimed the land directly north

of Alonzo Bourke, though it was Bourke whose entry actually encompassed the original Root claim. [Soledad Bee,

December 28, 1923.]

56. Cammerer to Hermansen, December 14, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

57. Ernest Sevenman later obtained a permanent hunting easement over the entire ranch from Ray Marcus in 1942

after Marcus bought the ranch from the estate of Ben and Orea Bacon. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Company,

Hollister, CA; Tim Regan, interviewed by author, March 19, 2007.]

58. Hermansen to Director, January 3, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Box 336, NARA II.

54
The First Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1924)

groups in June of 1923.59 Initially, the businessmen had been reluctant to offer any support.

They were still frustrated by Melville’s closure of the Old Pinnacles Campground, which they

had helped improve several years earlier by grading the road up the north fork of Chalone

Creek and installing a spring box for drinking water. They were also skeptical of the Park

Service’s commitment to the Pinnacles, which is not surprising considering that the Service

had recommended abandoning the monument only a year earlier.60 But this skepticism was

substantially eased after Hermansen described a recent allotment of $600 for trail work as well

as Cammerer’s promise of further money from the separate roads budget—still pending in

Congress—which would be used to extend the Bear Gulch Entrance Road a short ways into the

monument if the county would build the road up to its boundary and ensure unimpeded access

across the intervening private lands.61 This unexpected news was greeted with enthusiasm, and

resulted in both the Hollister Merchants Association and the San Benito County Farm Bureau

proposing to raise a public subscription to fund the project.62

In July, Hermansen also spoke to members of the Soledad Chamber of Commerce, warning

them about Henry Melville’s control of the west entrance to the monument and proposing to

donate a right-of-way through his own land, which bordered the monument along the north,

if Monterey County officials would build a road along this route to connect with the east

side at Bear Gulch. This cross-monument road would circumvent Melville and the Copper

Mountain Mining Company’s lands altogether, but it would also compliment Hermansen’s

proposed Bear Gulch Entrance Road by providing an additional connection from Monterey

County, thereby giving access to the same point of entry into the Pinnacles from both east and

west. The Soledad businessmen expressed interest in this proposal, but no action was taken at

that time.63

On January 25th, a delegation representing all of the major San Benito County business

organizations visited Pinnacles in order to consider the proposed Bear Gulch Entrance Road

and tour the new trails that the Pinnacles Boys had recently constructed.64 The following

month, the county engineer came down to locate a route for the new road. Seeing these

developments and perceiving the road to now be all but inevitable, Ben and Oliver Bacon

finally agreed to provide an easement across their ranches, but only for $1,600 each plus the

cost of cattle guards. This was a setback for the county, but only a minor one. Far greater

was the outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth disease.65 In the midst of this discouraging epidemic,

59. Hermansen to the Director, June 28, 1923 [mistakenly dated July 28], PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336,

NARA II.

60. A copy of Yosemite Superintendent Lewis’ report making this recommendation had been forwarded to the San

Benito County Chamber of Commerce and was even excerpted in the local newspaper.

61. Cammerer to Hermansen, December 14, 1923; and Mather to Hermansen, February 13, 1924, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 6, Boxes 336 & 337, NARA II. Congress had not yet approved this budget—and would not until

the following year—so it is possible that Hermansen exaggerated the Park Service’s very cautious offer in order to

reassure the businessmen.

62. Hermansen to the Director, September 11, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II. W.I.

Hawkins was the president of the Farm Bureau, and this date seems to represent the beginning of his involvement

with the monument.

63. Hermansen to the Director, July 29, 1923, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA II.

64. Hermansen to Cammerer, January 28, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

65. Kendrick A. Clements, “Managing a National Crisis: The 1924 Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in California” California History 84.3 (Spring, 2007): 23–42.

55
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Figure 9. The turnoff to Pinnacles National Monument from the unpaved county road in the 1920s.

As the sign indicates, the monument still lay six miles distant across several private ranches (each

separated by closed gates). The first ranch belonged to Gustav Lange, whose house is just visible under

the large oak in the right-hand side of the photo. This is now the eastern boundary of the monument.

[Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

which resulted in severe travel restrictions throughout the state for much of that summer,

Pinnacles received some much-needed encouragement when Park Service Director Stephen

Mather visited on March 28th. He was introduced to the Pinnacles Boys, inspected their trail

work, and met with local business leaders and politicians. While in Hollister, Mather became

acquainted with Washington Irving Hawkins, president of the San Benito County Farm

Bureau and member of a prominent local family. W.I. Hawkins’ father, T.S. Hawkins, was

one of the original founders of the town of Hollister.66 The friendship that resulted between

Mather and Hawkins would soon have important consequences for Pinnacles, as Hawkins

would later become the second custodian of the monument.

After much delay resulting from concern over the Foot-and-Mouth epidemic, the county

board of supervisors finally voted on an appropriation for the road project at Pinnacles on

April 7, 1924. The supervisors unanimously agreed to allot $3,500 from the county budget

to purchase easements through the two Bacon ranches and to build cattleguards. But they

refused to allot any further money for construction of the road up Bear Gulch, because of

66. Thomas S. Hawkins, Some Recollections of a Busy Life (San Francisco: P. Elder & Co., 1913); and George H.

Tinkham, “The Story of San Benito County” in J.M. Guinn, ed. History of the State of California and Biographical

Record of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties... (Chicago: The Chapman Publishing

Co., 1903). Mather may have stayed with the Hawkins while he was in Hollister, since he seems to have gotten to

know the family.

56
The First Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1924)

Figure 10. Photo of Park Service Director Stephen Mather with the Pinnacles Boys in 1924. This must

have been taken during Mather’s visit on March 28th. Herman Hermansen is third from left (wearing

a badge on his shirt pocket), Mather is to the right of Hermansen, and the older man with his hands

resting on a wooden staff is Schuyler Hain, the “Father of the Pinnacles.” To the right of Hain is Zotic

Marcott, who would become the monument’s first chief ranger. On the far left of the group is Viggo

Petersen, and to the right of him is Russell Bourke. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

the economic difficulties caused by the livestock epidemic that year.67 However, the Farm

Bureau, led by its president W.I. Hawkins and treasurer Waldo Rohnert, quickly stepped in

and assumed responsibility. They began raising funds through public subscription to finance

this part of the project, and by May of that year were able to start construction on the new

road.68 Russell Bourke—of the Pinnacles Boys—received the contract for grading. He attached

a blade to the front of his Fordson tractor so that it could be used as a bulldozer and, with the

assistance of Howard and Ralph Hain and Joe Netto of Hollister, began cutting the first road

into the steep hillside.69

On April 12th, the monument was closed to all visitation as part of the state-wide quarantine

for the Foot-and-Mouth disease. This was a discouraging blow for business leaders who were

trying to promote tourism. Even Olive Rivers was troubled, as she depended heavily on the

fees she got from visitors to the Old Pinnacles. In frustration, she began collecting signatures

on a petition to have the quarantine lifted, but to no effect. Construction on the Bear Gulch

road was also forced to stop. In June, the county received more discouraging news when it

was notified that Congress had failed to pass the proposed federal roads budget, and the Park

67. Hermansen to Cammerer, April 8, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

68. Hawkins to Mather, April 10, 1924; and Hermansen to Director, May 25, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Box 336,

NARA II.

69. Lois Bourke, Bourke Engine Documentary.

57
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Service would not be able to allot any money toward construction of the Bear Gulch road

extension into the monument, at least not during the present fiscal year. However, a meager

$225 was allotted from the national monument’s budget for the construction of toilets.70 This

string of bad news was mitigated only by the lifting of the Foot-and-Mouth quarantine on

June 16th.

On August 22, 1924, the San Benito County Chamber of Commerce hosted a benefit

picnic on Viggo Petersen’s ranch to reinvigorate the stalled road-building effort. With the

quarantine lifted and tourists finally beginning to return to the monument, the prospects for

renewed activity seemed auspicious. Among those attending this picnic were Congressional

representative Arthur Free and Chief of the California Highway Commission Harvey Toy. Also

present were delegates from the Soledad Chamber of Commerce, who were escorted through

the Old Pinnacles Gorge to Petersen’s ranch by no less than Henry Melville and Olive Rivers.

The presence of the Monterey County delegates was a surprise, given that the completion of

the Bear Gulch road would greatly prejudice competition for tourism in San Benito County’s

favor. This had already proven to be a source of tension between the two counties. The sudden

willingness to cooperate suggests that the counties may have already begun to discuss a joint

effort to build a cross-monument road, as would soon be revealed, allowing both sides to

benefit from tourism to the monument. Such a proposal would also explain Harvey Toy’s

presence that day, since a cross-monument road would be administered as a state highway and

would qualify for state highway funds.

Only a few months earlier, Hermansen had publically invited Monterey County officials to

discuss the possibility of an alternative west side road that circumvented the Copper Mountain

Mining Company lands in the Old Pinnacles. Hermansen imagined this road continuing all

the way to the east side along the north fork of Chalone Creek, connecting the two sides of the

monument. Whether he ever sat down with Monterey County officials remains unknown—

Hermansen never mentioned it in his letters—but this represents the earliest recorded proposal

for such a project and may have been the origins of the present spirit of cooperation between

the two counties.71

The August picnic seems to have been a success, and work resumed on the east side road

shortly afterward. By the middle of September, the last of the easements across Petersen’s land

and the two Bacon ranches had been obtained and all of the gates replaced with cattleguards.

Automobiles had free access up the Chalone Creek Road—present Highway 146—as far as Bear

Gulch for the first time. Meanwhile, the county board of supervisors took over responsibility

from the Farm Bureau for the unfinished Bear Gulch road and began advertising bids for

contract. In a little over a month—on December 15th—the road was finished as far as the

monument boundary at the top of the Bear Gulch Grade.72 Although this road was drivable

and represented a considerable achievement, it was still a rudimentary affair. It followed the

original foot trail built by Viggo Petersen and Herman Hermansen up the north side of the

canyon and represented little or no improvement over the trail’s rugged alignment. For much

of its length, the new road was too narrow to allow more than one car to pass at a time. Owing

to the inconvenience and possible danger of two cars meeting head-on, two time clocks were

installed, one at the top and another at the bottom of the steep grade. Drivers were instructed

70. Cammerer to Hermansen, June 12, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

71. As noted above, the old Spanish trail already crossed the Pinnacles, but it was passable only on foot or horseback.

72. Actual work lasted from October 20 to December 15 [Hermansen to Director, October 17, 1924; and

Hermansen to Director, January 5, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II].

58
Early Development at Bear Gulch (1925)

Figure 11. View looking east down original Bear Gulch Entrance Road, ca. 1930. Motorists could only travel

one-way during designated time periods within each hour. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

to proceed in alternate half-hour periods. (Later, a telephone line was also installed, allowing a

driver to call up before proceeding to see if anyone else had started down.)

Approximately fifteen hundred feet of road still had to be built to enable automobiles to reach

all of the campsites on the level terrace at the top of Bear Gulch, but this remaining section lay

within the national monument and could only be constructed under government authority.

The failure of the Congressional roads bill earlier that year seemed to extinguish the chances

of this happening, but when Congress reconvened for its second session in December, the bill

was resubmitted and this time passed. The appropriation allowed the Park Service to finally

allot the funds it had promised for the completion of the road. In January, Director Stephen

Mather wrote to Hermansen announcing that $3,000 was now available for him to use toward

this purpose.73

Early Development at Bear Gulch (1925)

The rapid developments at Pinnacles by the end of 1924 left Custodian Hermansen feeling

enthusiastic about the monument’s future. He now had the support of leading citizens in

both San Benito and Monterey County and was even attracting attention in San Francisco,

where he periodically traveled in order to promote the monument. In January of 1925, he

visited the offices of the San Francisco Examiner, the Oakland Tribune, and Sunset Magazine,

three of the leading publications in the Bay Area, and got their commitment to write features

about Pinnacles. The last of these—Sunset Magazine—was owned by the Southern Pacific

Railroad Company and advertised tourist destinations accessible by rail. Hermansen also

approached the leading automobile clubs—the California State Automobile Association, the

Automobile Club of Southern California and the recently formed National Automobile Club.

73. Mather to Hermansen, January 17, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II. On the same day,

Mather also wrote letters to Harvey Toy, chief of the California Highway Commission, and W.I. Hawkins, president

of the San Benito County Farm Bureau, informing both these men of the allotment as well.

59
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

With the rapidly growing popularity of the automobile, these clubs were becoming powerful

lobbies in California and were already important partners with the National Park Service.

Hermansen also contacted Bay Area tour companies, like Peck-Judah, which operated a line of

tourist buses. He hoped to have bus routes connecting the monument to the major passenger

railheads at Hollister and King City. In all this promotional activity, Hermansen consciously

drew attention to the east side rather than the west, even though he himself now owned one

of the most scenic and readily developed parcels on the west side. This decision to neglect the

west side—despite his own interests here—was probably the most important of Hermansen’s

brief career as Custodian of Pinnacles and would have profound and lasting consequences for

the future of the monument. Hermansen was motivated largely by Henry Melville, who had

stubbornly refused to relinquish his property in the Chaparral Area, despite the recent decision

of the General Land Office, and continued to control visitor access on the Soledad Road. As

a result of Melville’s obstinacy, Hermansen had committed himself and the attention of the

monument’s supporters to Bear Gulch, and this would remain the center of development at

Pinnacles for nearly a century afterward.

Hermansen’s friend Viggo Petersen had already established a popular campground on the

east side of the monument. At this time, the campground was on Chalone Creek at the foot

of Bear Gulch, but as the county road to the top of the canyon neared completion, he and

Hermansen began to think of how they might expand this primitive operation once the more

desirable terrace at the top of the grade was made accessible to automobiles. Hermansen got the

financial support of a photographer from Berkeley named Harrison Ryker, and the three men

initiated a partnership sometime during the first half of 1924. When Stephen Mather visited

the monument in March of that year, Hermansen vaguely alluded to these plans and got what

he assumed was the consent of the Director (at any rate, he was not explicitly forbidden from

the undertaking). In June, Hermansen wrote to Mather to remind him of their conversation

and to tell him that he had formed a partnership with Petersen and Ryker and wanted advice

on how they might establish a recreational business inside the monument at the top of Bear

Gulch—they proposed building a lodge and restaurant. The letter was referred to Acting

Director Cammerer, who explained that Hermansen might obtain a concession license on a

year-to-year basis in accordance with standard Park Service policy, but that he would have to

give up his position as custodian in order to avoid a conflict of interest.74 Since he was not

willing to do this, Hermansen agreed to withdraw from the partnership but submitted an

application in Petersen’s name for the concession.75 After considering this application at greater

length, Both Mather and Cammerer agreed that the proposed development would be excessive

for Pinnacles and chose not to endorse it. Mather wrote back to Hermansen shortly afterward

with the denial of Petersen’s application and explained that the Park Service preferred that a

development of this magnitude be built outside the monument rather than in it. He noted

that there appeared to be sufficient private land of suitable character for such of business not

far from the monument, obviously referring to Petersen’s own property at the foot of Bear

Gulch. Mather made it clear, however, that the proposal was not undesirable in principle and

offered the services of a Park Service landscape engineer to assist in developing the design.

Viggo readily agreed to these conditions, and the matter seemed settled at this point.76

74. Cammerer to Hermansen, June 28, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

75. Hermansen to Director, October 4, 1924; and Petersen to Director, October 4, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

76. Hermansen to Director, January 5, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

60
The Pinnacles National Park Association (1925)

The Pinnacles National Park Association (1925)

The new year saw the beginning of even bolder plans for Pinnacles. On January 29, 1925,

representatives of business organizations from several of the cities and counties south of San

Francisco met in San Jose to discuss the future of the monument and how they might promote

its development. They designated this date “Pinnacles Day” to emphasize the common theme

of their discussion. All members were interested in the economic potential represented by

a popular national monument in their backyard, especially the delegates from Soledad and

Hollister, which were gateway communities on either side of Pinnacles. The meeting was

also attended by Harvey Toy, the current chief of the state highway commission. Both Toy

and W.I. Hawkins seem to have played a leading role in organizing the event. One week

earlier, Hawkins had visited Soledad to raise support for the development of good roads into

the monument and had encouraged members of the business community in that small but

strategically located town to attend the San Jose conference. Indeed, road development was the

principal theme of the evening, as promotion of Pinnacles was seen to be largely dependent on

the ability of the promoters to make the monument accessible to motor tourists. This explains

why Harvey Toy’s presence was so important. Before the night was over, a new organization

had been established—the Pinnacles National Park Association (PNPA)—dedicated to the

development and public promotion of the monument.77 Harvey Toy was elected president

and Hawkins secretary-treasurer. Interestingly, Schuyler Hain, who had been so instrumental

in the establishment of the monument and its early promotion, was also present and served

on the board of the new organization, though he never took a leading role in its affairs. Hain

was treated as an honored guest and gave an inspirational presentation that highlighted the

scenic and spiritual values of Pinnacles. He exhibited the magic lantern slides that he had used

so effectively some twenty years earlier to stimulate interest in the monument. Following this

presentation, he recited a poem of his own authorship:

Ode to the Pinnacles

Thou great majestic rocks,

Thy weird fantastic forms

And breasted winter’s storms

That beat in vain.

Thy massive canyon walls

The echoes multiply,

And from Thy caverns cool

The rocks shut out the sky

Where night birds reign.

Thou great stupendous whole

Art gift from God to man;

Thy beauties teach of Him

77. The name may have been a misunderstanding of the Pinnacle’s legal status or it may have represented an earnest

hope that the Pinnacles would be converted from a monument to a park. Schuyler Hain, who was one of the

directors of this new association, had, after all, promoted such a conversion a decade earlier and helped sponsor a

state legislative act that petitioned the federal government to effect this change. It is important to remember that, at

this time, parks enjoyed far greater status in American culture than monuments, so an organization devoted to the

promotion of the Pinnacles and associated tourism would naturally prefer the designation of a national park. Even

if it was not part of the association’s formal agenda to have this designation made, the name itself, though used in

error, would have carried more emotional weight than the more strictly accurate “Pinnacles National Monument

Association.”

61
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

And glimpse a mighty span

Of years we find.

Here, nature’s wond’rous book

With pages all unfold

And graven on the stone

Is thy creation told

To studious mind.

Thou art a temple grand

With mossy cushioned pews

And wooded aisles that lead

To vast entrancing views

To while each hour.

Baptismal fonts are found

In caverns’ dark retreats;

The incense wafted here

Is exhaled from the sweets

Of herb and flower.

The music of the pines

When awakened by the breeze

Their fitting choir.

Here God, with nature’s brush

Hath covered all thy walls

With primal pigments, spread

In beauty that enthralls

And minds inspire.

Here I have worshipped oft

Amid Thy lovely scenes

And pondered much on life

And what to us death means

When hearts grow cold;

God gives the lily bloom,

He marks the sparrow’s fall;

Then why should man need fear,

Will He not gather all

Within His fold?

Were I alone to choose

The final resting place

For my poor form, ’twould be

In cosy niche, in face

Of rugged wall.

Here Thy vast monuments

Would sepulcher adorn,

And in this spot I love

I would on final morn

List to His call.78

Hain’s poem echoed themes that had been common in late nineteenth century nature writing—

the analogy of nature to scripture, for instance, and the idea that spiritual truths were revealed

78. Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 42, f. 11, PNM.

62
The Pinnacles National Park Association (1925)

through the beauty of the physical world.79 Although it is unlikely these values were the

principal motivation of the pragmatic businessmen who organized that night to promote the

economic development of the monument, they represented an additional justification for their

efforts.

In Monterey County, the press reported with enthusiasm that the event had given new hope

to the idea of building a good road into the monument from Soledad, an effort that had

languished since its abortive beginnings back in 1912.80 Only a few days before its delegates

attended the San Jose meeting, the Soledad Chamber of Commerce had proposed the idea

of a cross-monument road. “It was the unanimous opinion of those present that a movement

should be started to boost such a road to the Pinnacle National Monument with the idea

in mind of connecting the road through the Little Pinnacles with the road on the Hollister

side.”81 The following day, a committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce visited

the proposed route, which circumvented the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s land to

the south and crossed the Little Pinnacles through the low saddle between Scout and North

Chalone Peaks, continuing from there down the Bear Gulch drainage until it met the new San

Benito County road on the east side of the monument. Despite the challenges posed by this

alignment—the road would have to be blasted through the narrow chasm of the Bear Gulch

Caves—this would remain the preferred alternative for west side boosters for some years,

primarily because it was the only alternative within the monument that avoided the Copper

Mountain Mining Company’s inholding. Rancher Fred Fabry, who owned the adjacent land

west of the monument, supported the plan and was willing to provide an easement across his

property.82

On February 2, 1925, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors met to discuss the matter

of a road to Pinnacles. Their meeting was attended by members of all the local chambers of

commerce as well as by delegates from Hollister and the newly formed Pinnacles National Park

Association. The supervisors voted unanimously to endorse the idea of a cross-monument

road, and a team of engineers from the California Highway Commission, headed by Division

Engineer J.H. Skeggs, was assembled to survey potential alignments for it. In his final report,

Skeggs proposed two alternatives through the monument. One was the route that had already

been selected by the county promoters, running through the Little Pinnacles at Bear Gulch.

The other followed the existing hiking path through the Old Pinnacles Gorge. Although the

Balconies alternative would require purchasing the Copper Mountain Mining Company’s

land, Skeggs preferred this route, since he believed it would be considerably less expensive

than the one through Bear Gulch. (The latter he estimated would cost about $50,000 per

mile—oddly, Skeggs and his team never considered the possibility of running their road

around the monument, as Hermansen had proposed doing.) Skeggs’ proposed alignment

through the Old Pinnacles would go through the Balconies Caves, widening this narrow

chasm to accommodate two-way automobile traffic. The Skeggs report also considered various

alternatives for an improved road from Soledad to the San Benito County line just west of the

monument. The survey team’s preferred alignment here would climb up Stonewall Canyon

79. Much has been written concerning the influence of such ideas on the preservation of scenic nature in America,

but see, for example, Mark Stoll, “Milton in Yosemite: Paradise Lost and the National Parks Idea,” Environmental

History 13.2 (April, 2008): 237–274; and this author, “The Cross in the Wilderness: An Aesthetic History of the

American Park Idea” doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 2004.

80. “Good News, Pinnacles Association is Formed at San Jose” Soledad Bee, January 30, 1925.

81. “Pinnacle Road Discussed by C.of C.” Soledad Bee, January 30, 1925.

82. “Local People Visit Little Pinnacles” Soledad Bee, January 30, 1925.

63
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

north of the existing road, then through Lopez Canyon to the county line at the top of the

grade.83 This followed an existing dirt grade that had been constructed in 1910. Another

alternative followed the present alignment of Highway 146 up Shirttail Gulch a few miles

south of Stonewall Canyon. (This was also the route of the original Rootville mining road

from the 1870s.)

Custodian Hermansen, who had been present at the San Jose meeting on January 29, responded

with far less enthusiasm to the proposed plan than the other delegates. He detailed his objections

a few days later in a lengthy report to Washington. Hermansen thought that the PNPA wanted

to run the road through the monument, rather than around it, in order to save the local counties

money, for if this alignment were adopted, then the federal government would have to build

the most difficult and costly segment. But Hermansen was most concerned with the extent of

the roadwork planned and the detrimental effect it would have on the scenic resources of the

monument. The association’s alignment would pass through what he believed was some of the

most valuable scenery in the Pinnacles. This is precisely what made the alignment attractive

for many of its chief supporters, who wanted to make this scenery available to auto tourists,

but Hermansen believed that doing so would destroy the landscape’s essential qualities:

Such a road [he wrote] would leave an ugly scar along the face of those fine magestic rocks.

Would also rob this Monument of Its one great attraction, the mystery of what is around

the next rock or in the next canyon. Those who love nature in quietness and solitude would

not be able to find such sanctuary with such a road in the Monument, as Mr. Hawkins

proposed.84

Hermansen’s objections seemed naive to the county developers, and a special meeting was

convened at which Hermansen’s membership on the board of the PNPA was rescinded.

There is no record of Schuyler Hain’s opinion in this matter, though as author of the “Ode

to the Pinnacles,” he might have had reason to agree with Hermansen. At least a few in

Washington did, for Arno Cammerer penciled the observation “He’s dead right” in the

margins of Hermansen’s letter before passing it on to Director Mather.

Hermansen had other reasons for objecting to the PNPA’s proposed plan of development.

He wished to avoid making any investment on the west side until Henry Melville could be

removed. The only suitable campgrounds, in his opinion, lay on or adjacent to the lands

Melville still controlled. Until these lands could be acquired, he saw no reason to attempt

developing the area, because any development would either be confined to inappropriate

locations or would be situated so as to benefit Melville. But the PNPA was obliged to support

Monterey County interests because of Monterey’s large representation in the association. As its

founding charter suggested, the PNPA was a regional organization.85 Its purpose in developing

Pinnacles was to promote the economy of the entire region, not just that of a single county.

From this larger point of view, Monterey’s interests were at least equal to those of San Benito,

if not greater, because its population was larger and its location more accessible to the state’s

major metropolitan centers. (The principal transportation arterials connecting Los Angeles

and San Francisco passed through Monterey County but not San Benito County.) At the same

time, San Benito County had done far more to develop Pinnacles by this date and had a betterorganized and more influential lobby (led by Hawkins). For the PNPA to remain effective,

83. Skeggs to Toy, April 28, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

84. Hermansen to Director, January 31, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

85. This had been made clear on January 29 at the meeting of the Downtown Association of San Francisco when

the association was first established.

64
The Pinnacles National Park Association (1925)

the interests of both counties had to be satisfied, and the best way to do this was to propose a

cross-monument highway, which would bring tourist business to communities on both sides

of the county line.

As head of the California Highway Commission, Harvey Toy was well positioned to obtain

state support for the construction of such a road. Why he should want to do this, however,

is another question. Hermansen later suspected that he was trying to build popular support

to back a run for the governorship, but there is no evidence to corroborate this idea.86 For

their part, the leaders of the PNPA—particularly Toy and Hawkins—suspected Hermansen

of trying to stymie competition with his own project on the east side. While this allegation

seems dubious, it was widely believed and became a source of growing resentment against

Hermansen by a large part of the business community of both counties. The idea had begun

to take root sometime early that year, after Hermansen partnered with Viggo Petersen and

Berkeley photographer Harrison Ryker to found the Pinnacles Company, Inc., which operated

the east side campground and proposed resort in Bear Gulch. Petersen’s campground was now

the only such facility open to visitors on this side, since Hermansen had closed the road to the

Old Pinnacles Campground on the Root Homestead.87

This seemed to some people like a monopoly—Melville and Rivers certainly saw the matter in

this light. It was to avoid giving this impression that Acting Director Cammerer had warned

Hermansen back in January that he could not operate a concession and serve as custodian at

the same time. Whether or not Hermansen’s intentions were innocent did not matter, for even

the appearance of a conflict of interest was sufficient to embarrass the Park Service and would

not be allowed. In response, Hermansen had agreed to withdraw his request, and Petersen

had agreed to build his resort outside the monument on his own land. What Washington did

not know, however, is that once Petersen no longer sought a concession to operate inside the

monument, Hermansen believed he was free once more to enter into partnership with him.

Legally he was, but since the proposed resort lay in the path of the principal entrance to the

monument, Hermansen’s involvement remained ethically dubious. Many people now believed

he was abusing his position as custodian and using his authority to channel public resources

to the benefit of his own interests. Hawkins and Toy both ascribed Hermansen’s opposition to

the PNPA’s plans to this motive. But their allegations were disingenuous, for Hawkins at least

knew that Hermansen was not opposed to building a road between Monterey and San Benito

Counties; Hermansen objected only to building a road through the monument.

All of these suspicions and cross-accusations lay in the background as Hermansen began work

on January 30, 1925, on the last fifteen hundred feet of road at the top of Bear Gulch with the

$3,000 allotment he finally received from the federal roads budget. He was assisted by Viggo

Petersen, Zotic Marcott and Russell Bourke, whom he hired at $4 per day. Bourke provided his

Fordson tractor with its grading attachment, the same that he had used to cut the road grade in

bulldozer fashion, but now he used it to clear brush.88 According to Hermansen, this was the

86. Since Toy was also manager and owner of the Hotel Manx on Powell Street in San Francisco, he had a personal

interest in promoting tourism. He later played a prominent role in the San Francisco hotel strike of 1937 as an

anti-union man.

87. Hermansen’s cabin lay along the Old Pinnacles Road just below the eastern border of Melville’s land. He had

closed the road to prevent visitors from mistakenly entering Melville’s property when they were searching for the

national monument.

88. Hermansen to Director, January 31, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

65
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

first instance of using a tractor in this manner, at least in South County.89 The implications

of this novel experiment concerned the San Benito County Farm Bureau less, however, than

the fact that all of the government appropriation was going to the east side. Worse, it was

going to develop that part of Bear Gulch where the Pinnacles Company proposed to relocate

its campground. As far as W.I. Hawkins was concerned, this apparent coincidence simply

corroborated his suspicion that Hermansen was abusing government funds. He responded

with outrage to Hermansen’s actions and skillfully used the appearance of abuse to undermine

Hermansen’s reputation among local business leaders and eventually the Park Service as well.

During the early stages of this controversy, Washington staff remained supportive of

Hermansen. In response to his request to be given more responsibility—he asked for

superintendency of Lassen—Mather decided to offer him the superintendency of Platt

National Park (now Chickasaw National Recreation Area) in Oklahoma.90 Aware that he

needed to earn more money, especially with his recent plans to be married, the Washington

office also prepared to give Hermansen a pay-grade increase to $240 per year from his present

$12.

In a letter to Stephen Mather dated February 24, 1925, W.I. Hawkins described in detail

the work of the Pinnacles National Park Association from his perspective. According to

Hawkins, the association had retained a publicity agent (Charles Jacobs) to promote Pinnacles

nationally, it was preparing further legal action against Melville’s Copper Mountain Mining

Company to prevent its closure of roads leading up to the monument, and it had sponsored

an appropriations bill in the state legislature that would make funds available for a state survey

of a cross-monument road. This would be the first tangible step toward actually building the

road. Hawkins also noted that the association had successfully turned the opinion of Monterey

County officials against the Copper Mountain Mining Company. This last was an important

piece of information, because it indicates that Henry Melville was still respected by at least

some members of the Monterey County business community and explains why business

leaders from Soledad resisted efforts to circumvent Melville’s possessions in the Old Pinnacles

or to avoid making any developments adjacent to them—they did not yet consider Melville

a threat. This view contrasted sharply with the general opinion in San Benito County, not to

mention that of Herman Hermansen and the National Park Service, all of whom perceived

Melville as an opportunist.

The legal action that the PNPA was preparing to bring against the Copper Mountain Mining

Company was distinct from Herman Hermansen’s suit, which was still in appeal at this time.

The PNPA was arguing that the Soledad Road from Lopez Canyon through the Old Pinnacles

Gorge and continuing—as a trail—all the way to the east side of the monument was a public

highway established by traditional use. (This route was thought to have been used since Spanish

times and possibly earlier.) The association brought a condemnation suit on behalf of the state

89. The success of the experiment would have a profound effect on the agriculture of the region, as area ranchers

began utilizing the new technology to expand their agricultural and pastoral operations onto the surrounding hillsides

for the first time. [Stanley F. Schmidt, “The Frederick T. Schmidt Family, from 1889 to 1955,” pdf manuscript,

1995.]

90. Platt National Park had been created in 1906 from land donated to the government by Native Americans in

1902. In 1976, the park was combined with Arbuckle National Recreation Area to create the Chickasaw National

Recreation Area.

66
The PNPA’s Grand Picnic (May 1, 1925)

the following month and was granted the desired easement on April 29, 1925.91 This is the

argument that Schuyler Hain had proposed back in 1920 when Melville first closed the route

and began charging a toll, and it is entirely possible that Hain, as a director of the PNPA, was

responsible for the idea.

The final effort of the PNPA described by Hawkins was the most critical. This was the

appropriations bill in the state legislature for surveying the proposed road. Since the crossmonument road was the single most important issue that united all members of the PNPA and

their bi-county coalition, the appropriation that would pay for the first stage of the project was

the item on which success or failure hinged. Hawkins chose not to elaborate on the matter,

perhaps because of its importance, but at that time prospects seemed very positive, since the bill

had broad support in the legislature. By the end of the month, it had passed unanimously in

the state senate, and on April 2nd the Downtown Association hosted a celebration at the posh

St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. The following day, Harvey Toy rushed down to Soledad to

make a presentation before the town’s Chamber of Commerce. He announced enthusiastically

that the cross-monument road would be built.

The PNPA’s Grand Picnic (May 1, 1925)

It was around this time, as the first road up the Bear Gulch grade neared completion, that plans

began to be laid for a grand celebration by the PNPA on May 1st. This would be the largest

event yet organized by the association, and thousands were expected to attend. The governor

of California, Friend W. Richardson, was invited, as were congressional representatives and

all the important leaders from the regional business community. The event was intended to

bring Pinnacles to the attention of the state and national public. It was also intended to raise

support for the proposed cross-monument road that the PNPA hoped would represent the

next stage of development after the Bear Gulch Entrance Road was finished. Unknown to

the directors of the PNPA, however, Hermansen was planning a separate ceremony on April

19th to officially open the monument to automobiles, expecting to have the road inside the

monument finished by that date. In a report to Washington dated March 31th, Hermansen

described both the PNPA picnic and the road-opening ceremony, clearly acknowledging that

they were distinct events. The first was designed to be only a small affair, held in honor of the

Pinnacles Boys (Russell Bourke, Zotic Marcott, and Viggo Petersen) and the newspapermen

and automobile clubs in San Francisco who had helped Hermansen raise support for the

monument over the previous few years.92 During this ceremony, a ribbon was to be cut from

the new road and the first car would drive up it, with two young women—Miss California and

91. This was a separate suit from that brought by San Benito County against the Copper Mountain Mining Company

to condemn the Root Homestead. The latter was originally filed in February of 1930 and not resolved until August

27, 1935. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Company, Hollister, CA.] The federal government planned to file its

own case against Melville in April of 1929 to remove his improvements from the eighty acres he still occupied in

the Chaparral Area. This was delayed until April of 1931 and finally resolved in the government’s favor on July 31

of that year. [Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior, to Attorney General, April 30, 1931; and Custodian

Hawkins to Director Horace Albright, July 31, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II]

92. Hermansen had the support of the San Francisco Examiner, the Oakland Tribune, and the National Automobile

Club (NAC). The latter’s support would become problematic for Hermansen, since the NAC had only recently been

formed and was resented by the older automobile clubs—the California State Automobile Association (CSAA) in

Northern California, and the Southern California Automobile Association (SCAA) in Southern California. These

two clubs had divided California between themselves and enjoyed a virtual monopoly of influence in their respective

67
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

Miss Pinnacles—riding inside.93 (Miss Pinnacles was represented by Alda Fowles, the daughter

of a local rancher; Hermansen would marry her shortly afterward.) Hermansen thought this

preliminary ceremony would also help draw attention to the more general celebration planned

by the PNPA for May 1st, but when the directors of the PNPA learned of Hermansen’s plans,

they were enraged, thinking that he was trying to snub them by holding a rival celebration

to preempt their own.94 The whole affair illustrates how thoroughly communication between

Hermansen and the PNPA had deteriorated by this time. Hermansen claimed that he had

not been in touch with the association since its founding meeting on January 29th (when

Hermansen had been thrown off the association’s board of directors). The misunderstanding

that resulted further exacerbated the bad feelings which had developed between the two parties.

Two weeks later, the PNPA’s grand picnic was held as scheduled. In preparation for the event,

Hermansen and Viggo Petersen had constructed a wooden lodge at the top of Bear Gulch, just

outside the monument’s boundaries, to serve as a dance pavilion and dinner kiosk. (This was

also to be the cornerstone of their future resort.95) Somewhere between five and six thousand

people showed up, so the principal festivities had to occur outside the monument where there

was more space. Ben Bacon volunteered his ranch for the occasion, and large pits were dug

along Sandy Creek for cooking the vast quantities of beef and salmon that were served.96

Apart from Hermansen, the only representative from the Park Service to attend the event

was Yosemite superintendent W.B. Lewis, who came at Assistant Director Albright’s request.

This was the first time that Lewis had visited Pinnacles since writing his initial report on

the monument back in April of 1922. Lewis spent most of the morning with Custodian

Hermansen, inspecting the improvements that had been made in Bear Gulch and discussing

Hermansen’s difficulties with the PNPA. In the afternoon, Lewis attended the barbecue down

on the Bacon Ranch and met with various local business leaders and the directors of the PNPA,

including Harvey Toy and W.I. Hawkins. He formed a strong impression of Hawkins based

on this first meeting, as he later wrote in his report to Albright:

Mr. W.I. Hawkins, of Hollister, evidently is a man of high standing in the community and

apparently has the full confidence of everyone in San Benito County as on all sides I was

told of his great public spirit and his unselfish interest in the betterment of the community,

not only from the standpoint of physical and mental effort, but in the matter of outright

contributions to public work.97

As mentioned above, many of the local businessmen had grown frustrated with Hermansen

by this time and wanted the Park Service to replace him with someone whose interests were

closer to their own. Hawkins was their natural choice, and much of the enthusiastic praise that

Lewis heard that day was directed toward bringing this change about.

regions. The National Automobile Club challenged that monopoly, and Hermansen, by supporting the NAC, risked

damaging the important relationship that had developed between the older clubs and the National Park Service.

93. Hermansen to Director, March 31, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

94. Hermansen to Harvey Toy, April 20, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

95. They had also erected tent cabins and barbecue pits for their future campground. [Hollister Evening Free Lance,

April 20, 1925.]

96. Ernie Prewett, a local Bear Valley rancher, remembers helping tend these pits as a young boy. [Ernie Prewett,

interviewed by author, March 19, 2007.]

97. W.B. Lewis to Albright, May 5, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

68
The PNPA’s Grand Picnic (May 1, 1925)

Lewis was much more guarded in his assessment of Hermansen. He acknowledged the merit

in Hermansen’s criticism of the cross-monument road and agreed that the proposed road

should be aligned north of the monument boundaries so as not to impair the scenic resources

of the Old Pinnacles. (Lewis made no mention of a road through the Little Pinnacles.) But

Lewis also noted that Hermansen had compromised his professional position through his

partnership with Viggo Petersen and Harrison Ryker in the Pinnacles Company. This last

piece of information must have come as a surprise to the Washington office, which had not

been informed of Hermansen’s continuing involvement in the partnership and must have

thought he had lied to them when he stated, back in the fall of 1924, that he was giving up

this involvement so as to retain his position as custodian.98 Throughout the course of the

afternoon, Lewis heard repeatedly how Hermansen’s compromising situation had brought

suspicion and resentment upon him:

There is a strong feeling [Lewis recounted] on the part of all of the men to whom I talked,

that in view of this partnership Mr. Hermansen is either maliciously or inadvertently making

every move in his Monument work in such a way as to redound primarily to the interest

of the partnership, and thereby to his own personal interest. The charge is even made that

in the expenditure of Government funds entrusted to him for the building of a short piece

of road in the Monument and the development of a campground therein that Government

funds have been wasted or possibly diverted to the development of the camp layout at the

Monument boundary.99

Lewis did not believe that Hermansen was intentionally abusing his position—he charitably

noted that “Hermansen is apparently a straightforward sort of a chap and I doubt if there is

very much in this charge.” Nevertheless, he noted that the situation undermined Hermansen’s

respect among local business leaders and made it impossible for him to communicate effectively

with them. Reading this correspondence a little later, Acting Director Cammerer, who had

always been Hermansen’s most consistent supporter in Washington, commented sadly,

“Hermansen now is working at cross purposes with people that we will have to work with in

the future.”100 He had become a liability to the Park Service’s interests, and Cammerer would

reluctantly concur with Lewis in recommending that he be replaced.

By June, the Park Service was resolved to dismiss Hermansen and notified Hawkins of its desire

to appoint him in Hermansen’s place. Hermansen’s pay increase was immediately suspended

and his pending appointment as superintendent to Platt National Park withheld. (Hermansen

never even learned that he had received this appointment.) Hermansen tried to defend himself

against the accusations that now came not only from his foes in the county but from his

superiors in Washington. When he finally became aware of the gravity of his situation, he

moved to absolve himself of his ties with the Pinnacles Company. On July 1, 1925, he wrote

to the director:

After a long deliberation I have come to the decision of giving up all interest in the Pinnacles

Company . . . I have therefore started arrangements for the disposal of my interest in the

company, and am therefore looking forward to continuing on with my duties as Custodian

of the Pinnacles National Monument. It was a rather hard decision to make as I am cutting

98. Hermansen to the Director, October 4, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

99. W.B. Lewis to Albright, May 5, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

100. Cammerer to Albright, June 3, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

69
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

off a livelihood. But feel that I can hold out until such a time that this Monument will be

able to get an appropriation allowing a full time salary.101

Unfortunately for Hermansen, there was no longer any chance of his continuing as custodian

of Pinnacles; Washington had already made its decision. He was at first given the opportunity

to resign in order to preserve his reputation, but when he failed to respond in a timely fashion—

he later explained that the blow rendered him unfit to write—the Washington office ordered

his separation “without prejudice” effective September 15, 1925.102 W.I. Hawkins officially

entered on duty as the second custodian of Pinnacles the following day, September 16, 1925,

at the nominal salary of $12 per year.

Hermansen made no response to Washington after receiving this news. According to the

county records, he quickly reversed his decision to sell his shares in the Pinnacles Company,

obviously hoping now to make a go of it.103 But he and Petersen were heavily mortgaged, and

the business was suffering financially. It survived into the following year, but by the end of

1926, the two men had been forced to shut down the resort. (Custodian Hawkins wrote in

June of 1927 that the resort had been abandoned for nearly a year and was deteriorating into

an unsightly mess.104) Hermansen and Petersen lost possession of the Pinnacles Company in

May of 1927, when their creditor, Frank Sparling, seized the property.105 This included all of

the land that Petersen and Hermansen had originally homesteaded, totaling some 1,280 acres,

plus the improvements they had made on the resort itself. Sparling gave the men until January

1928 to redeem their mortgage before he foreclosed, and amazingly Hermansen was able to

do so by October, though apparently with borrowed money, since he immediately deeded the

property over to Thomas A. Work and J.D. Mathoit.106 Work and Mathoit leased the property

to a businessman named H.G. Coffee, who reopened the resort and operated it successfully for

a few years longer under the name “Camp Pinnacles.” But Coffee was killed shortly afterward

in an automobile accident, and the venture was abandoned. In 1931, the land was finally

condemned by the county and transferred to the national monument. Hermansen by this time

was living in Hollister, where he worked for an automobile tire business.107

Hermansen’s fall was sudden and probably unwarranted. It was certainly unnecessary.

Superintendent Lewis had made a very pragmatic assessment of the problems surrounding the

Pinnacles when he visited on May 1st and based his recommendations on what he considered

to be the best interests of the National Park Service. By all accounts, Lewis was a stern but

101. Hermansen to the Director, July 1, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

102. Hermansen to the Director, August 27, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II. Hermansen

was officially informed of his separation on September 10. (See Cammerer to Hermansen, September 10, 1925,

PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II).

103. Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Company, Hollister, CA; and Deed Books, San Benito County Recorder’s

Office, Hollister, CA.

104. Hawkins to Demaray, June 14, 1927, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

105. Frank Sparling was a close relative of W.I. Hawkins, and Hawkins hoped to use this family connection to

acquire the property for himself and have it added to the monument. [Hawkins to Demaray, June 14, 1927, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

106. Both actions were recorded on the same day. [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Company, Hollister, CA.]

107. Hawkins to Albright, October 21, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. Hermansen would

remain in Hollister until 1942, when he moved back to Petaluma. [“Herman Hermansen” [Obituary], Petaluma

Argus-Courier, July 7, 1971.]

70
The PNPA’s Grand Picnic (May 1, 1925)

reasonable man. He concluded that Hermansen should be dismissed because he had become a

liability for the Service, and it is difficult to argue with him on this point. But there was more

to his conclusion than Hermansen’s conflict of interest. This became clear in Assistant Director

Albright’s response to Lewis’ report. Almost immediately after receiving it, Albright, who

resided in Berkeley only a few hours north of Pinnacles, commenced a detailed investigation

of the matter. Being so near at the time, Albright was able to meet personally with all of

the individuals directly involved, including Hermansen, whom he invited to his office for

an interview on March 18. Albright acknowledged Hermansen’s honest enthusiasm and

intelligence, noting even that Hermansen had versed himself on the Park Service’s principles of

landscape design, which informed his criticism of the PNPA’s proposed cross-monument road.

But Albright also noted Hermansen’s narrow-minded and paranoiac distrust of authority. He

is “essentially a product of main street,” Albright wrote. This was more than just a character

judgment; Albright meant that Hermansen was poor. Though presumably he received some

sort of a veteran’s pension, he did not have enough personal wealth to manage a national

monument on a volunteer basis without another source of income. Since his homestead could

not sustain him—most of his land was steep and unproductive—Hermansen was forced to

engage in some sort of business. This need for a supplemental income had become even more

acute by 1925, when Hermansen married Alda Fowles.108 Though he might have worked as

a hired laborer on one of the nearby ranches, the depression in the agricultural economy after

1921 may have limited such opportunities. The only reasonable prospect that would allow

him to remain near Pinnacles was the tourist business. Partnering with Viggo Petersen in the

Pinnacles Company was therefore a matter of necessity rather than choice for Hermansen,

though it might not have been so had the Park Service been able to provide him with an

adequate salary for his position as custodian.

W.I. Hawkins was not subject to the same financial limitations as Herman Hermansen. As a

prominent businessman and member of one of the most established families in San Benito

County, Hawkins was financially independent and able to serve as custodian without salary.109

Though he was often complimented for his energy—his nickname was “Tireless Irv”—it was

his social connections that really mattered. His easy acquaintance with leading businessmen

and politicians, facilitated by the prominence of his family name, made it possible for Hawkins

to raise money and organize campaigns for the benefit of the monument in ways that simply

eluded Hermansen. What is truly amazing is not how successful Hawkins proved to be, who

had numerous resources at his disposal, but how successful Hermansen had been, who had

comparatively few. Though Hermansen was an outsider to the area and lacked any substantial

wealth, he had managed through sheer enthusiasm to build a base of support for Pinnacles

that included several of the most important newspapers in California, the Southern Pacific

Railroad Company, a leading tour-bus company, and the National Automobile Club.110 This

108. They were married on June 15, 1925, in San Francisco. [Hermansen to Cammerer, June 25, 1925, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.]

109. The importance of independent wealth to fill what was essentially a volunteer position was openly acknowledged

by Hawkins and the Park Service Directorate. [Hawkins to Mather, March 24, 1926, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry

7, Box 607, NARA II.] W.I. Hawkins was manager of a large haberdashery based in San Francisco. He also had an

interest in the Pacheco Cattle Company, of which his elder brother Charles was manager and the largest owner. His

father, Thomas Hawkins, was one of the original founders of the town of Hollister.

110. Among these newspapers were the San Francisco Examiner and the Oakland Tribune. The tour-bus company

was the Peck-Judah, no longer in existence. The National Automobile Club reflected a poor decision on Hermansen’s

part, but it is interesting to note that the club still exists and has contributed significantly to California’s economic

development.

71
Chapter Two The Pinnacles Boys and Early Development, 1921–1925

is to say nothing of the physical labor he and the other Pinnacles Boys contributed to the

exploration of the area and the construction of the monument’s earliest roads and trails, feats

that the more urbane Hawkins could not have accomplished by himself.

In a separate irony, the PNPA’s campaign for the cross-monument highway died in the weeks

following the May 1st celebration. The appropriations bill, on which everything depended,

had passed unopposed through the legislature only to be vetoed by Governor Richardson. Also

vetoed was a bill that would have assessed a one-cent gasoline tax to pay for state highway

construction. As subsequent events would prove, Hawkins remained committed to the idea of

a cross-monument highway and would continue working toward its realization for many years

to come, but Harvey Toy and the coalition that had grown up around him ceased to play any

further role in the monument. The Pinnacles National Park Association also disappeared at

this time. Despite its grandiose claims, it had been organized for only one purpose and could

not survive once that purpose had evaporated.

72
Chapter Three

Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Washington I. Hawkins’ appointment as second custodian of Pinnacles in 1925 brought greater

professionalism in the management of the monument and improved relations with the

surrounding business community. But Hawkins’ custodianship also corresponded to a period

of growing professionalism (and an expanding budget) within the National Park Service itself.

With more resources at its disposal, the Park Service began to make a solid commitment to the

monument’s future. It had finally accepted that Pinnacles would remain within the national

park system and was now willing to invest substantially in its development. Among the signs

of this commitment was a growing number of official visits by technical specialists from the

regional field office. These inspections resulted in a series of reports and planning documents

that would guide the development of the monument over the next few decades. By 1928,

work had begun on Pinnacles’ core trail system through the High Peaks and Bear Gulch Caves

and on some of its earliest permanent architecture, all done in the so-called “park rustic” style

characteristic of the period. In 1932, construction began on one of the most ambitious projects

ever undertaken at Pinnacles—the present Bear Gulch entrance road. It was built using local

labor supported by federal unemployment relief funds, which President Hoover made available

as the country slipped deeper into the economic travail of the Great Depression. This highstandard road replaced the original single-lane track that had been built by the Pinnacles Boys

seven years earlier.

The Transition from Hermansen

At the time W. I. “Irv” Hawkins entered on duty on September 16, 1925, he was the only

paid staff at the monument (though at $1 a month, his pay was only nominal). Hermansen

had also been the sole employee during his custodianship. He had hired friends and neighbors

to help him with the various construction projects he undertook during his tenure. He had

also issued at least one permit (to his friend Russell Bourke) to manage a guide service for

visitors, but for the most part this service was provided in a traditional manner by the children

of local ranchers, who earned summer pocket money in tips. Lois Hain, for example, was one

of many Bear Valley residents who worked at the monument on weekends and holidays when

she was home from school. Lois was one of Arthur Hain’s daughters—Schuyler Hain’s niece—

and lived close to the monument on the other side of the Bacon Ranch. She got to know the

Pinnacles Boys during the years she helped out as a guide and in 1926 married Russell Bourke,

whose homestead lay on the north fork of Chalone Creek directly above Zotic Marcott’s.

After the controversy over Hermansen’s alleged conflict of interest, Hawkins had strong

incentive to formalize labor relations at Pinnacles, and it appears he did just this. It was

considerably easier for him than Hermansen to avoid the appearance of favoritism while

still hiring local residents—Bear Valley ranchers and their children were the only laborers

available—because Hawkins lived in Hollister and had few close friends in the immediate

vicinity of the monument. He continued to use local ranchers on a contract basis for individual

jobs. He also hired Zotic Marcott as the first chief ranger of the monument in October of that
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

year.1 Given that Hawkins’ own employment was largely honorary, Marcott was really the first

full-time paid employee of the monument. He remained in this position until 1932, when he

and Hawkins had a falling out that resulted in Marcott being fired. The details of this incident

are not available, but the official records strongly suggest that the nature of the disagreement

was personal and probably resulted from the profound differences of personality and social

background that divided the two men.2 Their mutual antipathy would last for many years and

surfaced once again in 1938, when Hawkins pressured the Marcott family into selling their

640-acre homestead to the government in order to provide access to Willow Spring, at that

time the most reliable source of water in the monument.3

In addition to hiring Zotic Marcott, Hawkins also hired Ellis Walton Hedges Jr. as assistant

custodian on April 20, 1926.4 This position had no precedent in the Park Service and at first

raised a few eyebrows in Washington when Hawkins proposed it, but Hedge’s duties would

essentially be those of a clerk. The advantage of Hawkins’ proposal, as Washington soon

realized, was that Hedges also came from a privileged background and would not need to be

paid except on a nominal basis to satisfy legal requirements. Most custodians and just about all

superintendents had administrative clerks to manage the ever-growing burden of paperwork

associated with their duties. Hermansen had satisfied these bureaucratic needs through his

own rather idiosyncratic talent for writing—he recorded everything and was especially adept,

and eloquent, at writing the sort of narrative report that the Service was just then starting to

require—but Hawkins had too many other responsibilities to devote so much attention to

Pinnacles alone (though he was an adequate writer). Moreover, he continued to live in Hollister

at his family home and remained more detached from the monument than Hermansen had

been. This made it necessary for him to rely on an assistant to keep up with daily events at

the monument and to fulfill the onerous reporting required by Washington while Hawkins

managed his other responsibilities in town. Eventually, the assistant would move on, and his

responsibilities were absorbed by a paid administrative clerk.5

Hawkins’ First Year

Following his appointment in 1925, Hawkins discovered that he had inherited a number

of problems from Hermansen and would spend the first several months at Pinnacles trying

1. Zotic Marcott entered on duty on October 17, 1925, at a salary of $100 per month. [Hawkins to Cammerer,

September 16, 1925; and October 17, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.]

2. Zotic Marcott was officially separated (fired) on February 29, 1932, and replaced by Hugh Schilling in June.

Schilling was originally hired as a temporary ranger at the GS-7 grade. In August, he was converted to permanency

at the GS-8 grade. [NPS Chief Clerk to Hawkins, June 11, 1932; and Hawkins to Albright, July 20, 1932, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.] According to the official record, Marcott was initially suspended for

“insubordination and abusive language.” He was later separated from the service without disciplinary action “because

his lack seems to be a matter of temperament rather than turpitude.” [Hawkins to Marcott, March 10, 1932; and

Director Albright, Memo, March 11, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

3. The fact that the site is now called Willow Spring, rather than Marcott Springs, as they were popularly known

since the early twenties, is another vestige of this feud between Hawkins and Marcott; once the property was acquired

for the monument, Hawkins wanted no memory of Marcott to remain and seems to have expunged the older name

from the record. [Custodian’s Narrative Reports, November, 1938, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 17, PNM; and

Mrs. Marcott, interviewed by Ro Wauer, August 12, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 3, PNM.]

4. Hawkins to Mather, March 24, 1926, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

5. Ellis Walton Hedges Jr. entered on duty April 20, 1926, as assistant custodian. How long he remained is not

recorded. [Hawkins to Mather, March 24, 1926, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

74
Hawkins’ First Year

Figure 12. Ranger Marcott leaping the “Chasm of Death” during one of his guided walks, ca. 1926.

Lois Bourke described this piece of showmanship in The Bourke Engine Documentary [Mus. Coll.

PINN 4372, PNM.]

to clean them up. The first was simply a matter of setting the record straight. After reading

Hermansen’s final report, dated September 3rd, Hawkins discovered that his predecessor had

been inflating the visitation figures, possibly by as much as a factor of ten. Hermansen had

reported that sixty-three thousand visitors had come to Pinnacles during the previous season.

Hawkins knew that the figure was closer to six thousand at most. Hawkins also believed that

visitation had been decreasing—rather than increasing, as Hermansen claimed—over the last

few years, and he blamed this trend on Hermansen’s poor management. He wrote an angry

letter to the Director of the Park Service describing this alleged deceit so as not to be held

responsible for what would appear to be a ten-fold decrease in visitation when he reported the

75
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

statistics accurately.6 This revelation further eroded Hermansen’s reputation in the minds of

the Washington staff.

Another problem that Hawkins inherited from his predecessor concerned signage. Through

an arrangement with Hermansen, the National Automobile Club (NAC) had fabricated trail

signs for the monument at its own expense. These had been delivered but not yet installed at

the time Hawkins took over the custodianship, and the NAC was asking why. Dusty Lewis,

superintendent of Yosemite, had investigated the matter and wrote a lengthy explanatory letter

to the Director.7 According to Lewis, the signs included NAC’s logo and so functioned as

advertisement for the club. (This is why the NAC was willing to provide them free of cost.) But

the Park Service had long since developed relationships with the older state automobile clubs—

the California State Automobile Association (CSAA) and the Southern California Automobile

Association (SCAA)—and had reached an agreement that no individual club would be allowed

to display its symbol on federal property within a national park. This was to avoid giving the

appearance that the National Park Service was preferring one club over another. Since the

NAC was a new club, it had not participated in these arrangements and was suspected—or

altogether resented—by the established clubs. Hermansen had become acquainted with the

staff at the NAC during his many trips to San Francisco and had disregarded the Park Service’s

traditional understanding with the older clubs, probably out of ignorance. His courting of

the new National Automobile Club appeared to snub the CSAA and SCAA. His actions—

however unwitting—embarrassed the Park Service and compromised its relationship with

these older automobile clubs. He had infuriated Superintendent Lewis in particular, because

Yosemite owed a great deal to the other clubs, which had already done much to encourage

and facilitate visitation to his park. Nevertheless, Hermansen was not acting entirely on his

own. In February of 1925, he had consulted then-Acting Director Arno Cammerer about this

issue, and Cammerer had supported his negotiations with the NAC. Cammerer had written,

“Regarding the possibility of securing the cooperation of the National Automobile Club in

putting in trail signs in the Pinnacles National Monument, such cooperation would be greatly

appreciated and there would be no objection to the Club having their emblem on any of the

signs which they would furnish for erection on the monument.”8 Thus, Hermansen had acted

with the explicit consent of the Washington office. The subsequent turmoil reflected poor

communication among the Washington staff rather than any impropriety on Hermansen’s

part. But Hermansen ultimately took the blame for this mistake. Since he was already under

suspicion with the Washington directorate, he became a natural scapegoat to hide their errors.

Unwilling to admit his role in the affair, Cammerer wrote to Hawkins instructing him to

return the signs to the National Automobile Club rather than install them.9 Hawkins did so

and explained to the club that his predecessor had been at fault when he originally negotiated

the deal, and he summarized existing NPS policy for dealing with the automobile clubs.10

The NAC later disputed this policy, sending the director some well-chosen photographs of

6. Hawkins to the Director, October 17, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

7. Lewis to the Director, October 23, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

8. Hermansen to the Director, February 27, 1925; and Cammerer to Hermansen, March 25, 1925, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

9. Cammerer to Hawkins, November 4, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

10. Hawkins to the National Automobile Club, November 12, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337,

NARA II.

76
Hawkins’ First Year

Figure 13. Auto camping at Pinnacles during the 1920s. Rapid innovations in automobile technology made this

sort of luxury available to growing numbers of Americans during this decade. Parks like Pinnacles, which had

once seemed remote and relatively inaccessible, began to see more and more visitors and became increasingly

important as a result. [The Russell Bourke Album, Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

CSAA signs with the club’s logo that currently hung in Yosemite.11 (Lewis rather lamely tried

to explain that these signs were displayed on concessionaire facilities rather than on federal

property, even though they were within the national park.12) But despite the merits of the

NAC criticism, the Park Service could not afford to risk injuring its relationships with the

more powerful automobile clubs and refused to bend.

The whole episode is noteworthy for two reasons in particular. First, it provides further

illustration of Hermansen’s character and his tragic weakness. He was full of enthusiasm

and deeply committed to the monument, but he was also naive and did not know how to

work with established interests. In fact, given his decidedly working-class biases, Hermansen

was naturally disposed to mistrust established interests and to favor the underdog wherever

possible, a tendency that comes across in several of Hermansen’s paranoid rants in his official

correspondence. Second, it shows how the Park Service purposely sought out and cultivated

relations with privileged private interests in order to realize its own objectives. This strategy—

or institutional predilection—was reflected in the Park Service’s decision to support Hawkins

and other established businessmen within the county against outsiders and upstarts like

Hermansen when the latter presented a challenge or threat to their economic interests. In the

end, the Park Service proved to be more pragmatic than principled. It sacrificed one of its most

11. The National Automobile Club to Cammerer, November 30, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337,

NARA II.

12. Lewis to the National Automobile Club, December 10, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

77
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

ardent supporters, but did so in order to accomplish its long-term goals for the monument

itself.13

The final issue that Hawkins had to deal with after taking over from Hermansen was the

improvement of sanitary conditions at Bear Gulch. At this time, the only infrastructure

existing at the monument was here, and much of it was privately operated and poorly

maintained. The recently completed entrance road made it possible for visitors to drive to

the top of the Bear Gulch grade and park more or less where they do today. Viggo Petersen

and Herman Hermansen, anticipating the completion of the road, had relocated Petersen’s

campground from Chalone Creek to Bear Gulch and constructed the lodge nearby. Their

private campground extended from the terrace where the superintendent’s residence (Building

#19) now stands up to the lower edge of the present visitors’ parking lot. The lodge stood in

the middle of this area, which at that time was graded level and lined with boulders around

the edges. At least four operators’ cabins stood just below the lodge along the side of the creek.

Water was pumped out of a shallow well that had been dug near the edge of a small swale

in front of the cabins. This provided water for both drinking and bathing. The latter was

provided in bathhouses located somewhere between the operators’ cabins and the lodge (or

approximately where the flagpole is today). Sanitary facilities consisted of wooden pit toilets,

which were burned out periodically with creosote.14

The national monument at that time began just above the lodge, about where the road to

the Moses Spring picnic area now begins. Hermansen was in the process of establishing a

government campground here, the first such to be constructed within the monument. For

years, this area would be called the upper campground, while Petersen’s private operation was

called the lower campground. As at Petersen’s, sanitary facilities consisted only of wooden pit

toilets, and water was drawn directly from the creek or from open springs—there were several

in the immediate vicinity. The only other improvement that existed was a rudimentary trail

system, consisting of one trail leading from the upper campground to the Bear Gulch Caves,

and another from the lodge up Condor Gulch.

In March of 1926, sanitary engineer H.B. Hommon visited Pinnacles to inspect these facilities

and make recommendations for the most urgently needed improvements.15 A few weeks later,

Chief Landscape Architect Daniel Hull from the Field Headquarters in San Francisco also

arrived to inspect the upper campgrounds and make similar, stop-gap recommendations.16

These visits represented the earliest formal interest that the Park Service showed in the

monument and would soon inaugurate the first period of federally sponsored development

at Pinnacles. The time of local leadership in building the monument was nearly at an end,

13. As the controversy over trail signage illustrates, Hermansen was not capable of representing the best interests

of the monument now that Pinnacles had become more than just a local concern. While Hawkins may not have

possessed the same ardor as Hermansen, he had far greater social skills, and this is what the Park Service needed

most at that time.

14. H.B. Hommon, “Report on Sanitation,” March, 1926; Albright to Mather, May 27, 1927; and Hawkins to

Demaray, June 14, 1927, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

15. H.B. Hommon was an engineer with the U.S. Public Health Service, whose services the NPS frequently

contracted. He was responsible for doing similar surveys in Yosemite, for example, at about the same time as he

was active at Pinnacles.

16. Hommon, “Report on Sanitation” March, 1926; and Hawkins to Mather, March 24, 1926, PINN Coll., RG

79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

78
Hawkins’ First Year

Figure 14. View of Lodge from above, looking east from top of Bear Gulch Caves. The original 1925

entrance road is just visible in distance. [Included in report of Dunn to Hommon, August 10, 1929,

PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

though Hawkins would continue to utilize his many local connections and personal wealth to

ensure that the Park Service’s plans were ultimately carried out.

By early fall of that year, the recommendations of both Hommon and Hull had all been

implemented. Hawkins had obtained $1,000 in private donations, which he had used to

improve the water supply according to engineer Hommon’s advice. A concrete spring box

was constructed at Split Rock Spring, not far from Moses Spring. The water was conveyed

from here through a 3/4-inch steel pipe to two 6,000-gallon above-surface storage tanks. These

had also been donated by Hawkins’ private benefactors. The tanks were placed just above the

Bear Gulch Caves Trail, and water was drawn from them down to the upper campground as

needed. The campground area was also reconfigured according to landscape engineer Hull’s

suggestions, and Hawkins claimed it could now accommodate five hundred cars, though this

figure must have been an exaggeration.17

These improvements were made to address the most immediate sanitary needs of the monument

that could not be ignored, but they were not meant to be permanent solutions. Even as he was

seeing them implemented, Hawkins was considering plans for the long-term development of

the Bear Gulch area. In the summer of 1927, he requested plans for two permanent comfort

stations and a ranger cabin. With Washington’s approval to go ahead with these projects, the

plans were sent to Hawkins from the San Francisco Field Headquarters at the end of July, and

17. Hawkins to Mather, March 24, 1926; and Hawkins to Director, September 3, 1926, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry

7, Box 607, NARA II.

79
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Figure 15. View to the east of the original Bear Gulch lodge in 1934. Operators’ cabins are just visible in the

background to the right. [Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

work had begun by late September.18 The plans were all standard, off-the-shelf variety, and

the buildings would be nearly identical to others being constructed around the same time in

other national parks throughout the west. The cabin had become necessary after Pinnacles

hired its first, full-time ranger—Zotic Marcott—two years earlier. Marcott’s duties required

him to reside in the park so that he would be available in the event of an emergency even

when he was off-duty. Superintendent Dusty Lewis had recommended building this ranger’s

residence as early as November of 1925, not long after Marcott entered on duty.19 At the time,

Marcott was living in his own small cabin on the north fork of Chalone Creek, just outside

the monument. He would remain here several years longer, as the proposed residence in Bear

Gulch was delayed for lack of sufficient funds.

The comfort stations that Hawkins requested promised a more lasting and effective solution

than pit toilets to the problem of disposing human waste. Providing a sanitary comfort station

for campers allowed waste to be flushed out of the immediate campground area and reduced

the risk of contaminating the water supply, one of the chief concerns expressed by engineer

Hommon when he made his inspection in 1926. The upper comfort station (Building #18) was

completed by December 1927 but was not actually serviceable for at least another year, until

the plumbing and septic system could be installed. This utility work required an additional

allotment of $500, which had to be borrowed from Boss Frank Pinckley, superintendent of the

southwest region monuments.20 With Pinckley’s money in hand, Hawkins probably had the

upper comfort station finished and operational within a month. This would have been August

18. Vint to Director, June 3, 1927; and Cammerer to Hawkins, July 22, 1927, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box

607, NARA II.

19. Lewis to Director, November 28, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 337, NARA II.

20. Demaray to Pinckley, July 7, 1928; and Pinckley to Demaray, July 26, 1928, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box

607, NARA II. Pinckley’s response is worth quoting, not only for its color, but to illustrate how thinly spread the

monuments’ resources were at that time: “I can spare $500 just about as nicely as I could spare an arm or a leg. In

80
The Beginning of Master Planning at Pinnacles (1928)

Figure 16. Lodge operators’ cabins, looking east from lodge porch. Well is visible in shallow depression to left.

These cabins are in approximate location of the present headquarters buildings. [Included in report of Dunn to

Hommon, August 10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

or September of 1928 at the latest. The original comfort station did not have the rustic stone

facing it currently possesses, however. This was planned but not implemented until later.

The Beginning of Master Planning at Pinnacles (1928)

With Pinnacles’ most immediate needs taken care of, thought could now be given to planning

for the future. The Park Service was just then beginning to implement a program of master

planning for the entire park system. The antecedents of this program date to 1925, when

Daniel Hull, chief landscape engineer for the National Park Service, first proposed the idea.

Hull was frustrated at having to implement large, multi-year projects on a budget that was

planned only one year at a time. He reasoned that it would be more efficient to lay out all

of the larger projects proposed for a park in a single comprehensive outline of development

so that the park’s full budgetary needs could be anticipated several years in advance. Such a

development plan would also make it easier to coordinate the various projects being undertaken

and integrate the needs of a park more harmoniously. Hull’s idea was brought up at the annual

superintendents’ conference that year and appealed to Director Stephen Mather. As a result,

he directed all of the superintendents present to draw up five-year development plans for their

the 17 monuments under my charge we need about 20 comfort stations, some of which we have not yet been able

to build for lack of funds and none of those we have built have cost to exceed $25, also because of lack of funds. If

we had $500 lying around loose we would build a custodian’s residence with it. The only way to get $500 out of my

funds is to go right in with a wrecking bar and pry it loose, setting the work back for another year . . . ” He then

goes on to authorize the requested transfer of funds.

81
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

respective parks. Park superintendents would initiate the plans, but they were instructed to

work closely with Daniel Hull and his assistant Thomas Vint in order to actually develop

them. The first plan was completed for Mt. Rainier and submitted to the director for approval

in 1926.21

Hawkins had not entered on duty at Pinnacles until five months after the 1925 superintendents’

conference and would not have taken part in it. Moreover, his preoccupation with the

immediate needs of the monument would have precluded any interest in long term planning

for the time being. But in January of 1928, Thomas Vint, who by then had replaced Daniel

Hull as chief landscape engineer, visited Pinnacles to propose a development outline for

the monument. This outline was very rudimentary—only one typed page—and lacked any

details, maps or plans, but it represents the earliest comprehensive or Master Plan proposed

for Pinnacles.22 In it, Vint identified only one development area—Bear Gulch—and listed

the facilities that he anticipated being constructed here over the next five years. In addition

to the ranger’s residence and two comfort stations, which were then nearing completion, his

proposals included an information building, a utility building, and a four-room employee

cottage. He also proposed completion of the auto camp started by Hermansen in the present

Moses Spring picnic area. In addition to these developments, Vint recommended that a High

Peaks loop trail should be constructed, which would constitute the backbone of the future

trail system. Approximately two miles of spur trails would connect with this central loop. The

only addition to the existing system of roads that Vint recommended was improvement of the

Bear Gulch Entrance Road to accommodate two-way traffic. In his cursory inspection of the

monument, Vint obviously failed to appreciate what an extensive and challenging undertaking

this would be, but his outline was not meant to examine the practical logistics of each item;

it was only meant to identify what needed to be done and assumed that the details would be

worked out later.

In 1929, Stephen Mather issued a directive to the effect that development plans would be

mandatory for all parks. At this time, the plans were expanded into a standard, three-part

format. The first part was a narrative outline, like the brief sketch that Vint had prepared the

previous year for Pinnacles. Outlines were usually made in consultation with the superintendent

and the superintendent’s staff. The second part was a general development plan, which was

graphic and produced by the Landscape Division staff incorporating and synthesizing the park’s

development needs as outlined in the first part. The third part was a six-year plan, which laid

out in detail all proposed projects according to cost and anticipated date of implementation.

In the new format, projects were divided into categories—for example, roads and trails,

development areas, entrance units, etc.

In 1931, Congress passed the Employment Stabilization Act, which required that all

government bureaus produce six-year development plans in order to be ready to implement

public works programs should the present economic crisis make these necessary. This was a

strong incentive to the Park Service’s planning program, which had anticipated this measure by

at least two years. When President Hoover began releasing funds for public works in 1932 in

response to the worsening Depression, the Park Service was better prepared than most federal

agencies to take advantage of the opportunity. At that time, its development plans began to

21. Linda Flint McClelland, Presenting Nature: The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service: 1916 to

1942 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1993), pp. 173–193.

22. Thomas Vint, “Development Outline, Pinnacles National Monument,” January 15, 1928, PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

82
Buildings and Utilities

be called Master Plans. The first of these to be prepared for Pinnacles was not submitted until

1933, but it built upon the rudimentary proposals already recommended by Thomas Vint in

1928. By this time, most of the items outlined by Vint had been supported by extensive field

investigations, and detailed plans had already been prepared.

Buildings and Utilities

The Dunn Report, 1929

The first field investigation to examine buildings and utilities at Pinnacles following Vint’s

development outline occurred more than a year after Vint’s visit. In the summer of 1929,

Assistant Engineer Allison van V. Dunn of the San Francisco Field Headquarters came down

to Pinnacles and prepared a comprehensive report on existing conditions and future needs.

Although he focused principally on buildings and utilities, the purpose of his visit, as Dunn

later clarified, was to establish a broad conception of all permanent improvements that should

be developed in the future. He expected that the details would be filled in later by each of the

various discipline specialists, but Dunn’s report was still considerably more detailed than Vint’s

original outline.23 In addition to expanding on the proposals recommended by Vint, Dunn

also provided a valuable description of conditions as they had developed up to this time after

the first flurry of activity following Custodian Hawkins’ entry on duty. Dunn confirmed that

the ranger cabin and the Moses Spring comfort station had both been completed, though the

plumbing and septic system had been installed only on the latter building. Neither structure

had yet received the rustic stone facing that the original plans called for.

Dunn also observed that the principal water supply remained the same as that implemented in

response to Hommon’s recommendations, though the lodge and lower campground continued

to draw their water from the shallow well in the swale adjacent to the original complex. Dunn

believed that this source should be condemned at once, since it lay downstream of the upper

campground and was in danger of being contaminated by sewage from the new comfort

station. He recommended that, as a temporary measure, all drinking water should be taken

from the springs upstream of the government campground and that all sewage should be

conveyed through waste lines to a point below the intersection of Bear Gulch and Chalone

Creek. He warned that deep wells would eventually be needed to provide adequate supplies of

clean water for the expected increase in visitation to the monument. Relying on local opinion,

he believed that a reliable source of water could be developed through deep wells bored at

least a hundred feet below the surface of Chalone Creek at the foot of Bear Gulch. Dunn

believed that a shallow layer of impermeable clay protected these underground supplies from

surface contaminants but acknowledged that at least a year would be required to investigate

and develop these sources.

The Second Hommon Report, 1931

In May of 1931, H.B. Hommon returned to Pinnacles to follow up on the general

recommendations made by Dunn nearly two years earlier. Hommon observed that the

septic systems for both the ranger cabin and the Moses Spring comfort station were now in

place and functioning as designed. These systems comprised a relatively short waste line that

conveyed sewage to a masonry-reinforced filter trench. This structure was a loosely enclosed

excavation with unlined floor where solid wastes were allowed to settle and slowly disperse

23. Dunn to Hommon, August 10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

83
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

through the soil while liquids evaporated through the permeable roof. The design was a

temporary measure but widely used throughout the parks in lieu of a more effective and

permanent sewage treatment system. Hommon had designed a nearly identical system for

Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite that same year.24 He was well aware of the shortcomings

of this design as it was applied at Bear Gulch, where the filter trenches lay upstream of the

lower campground; this had just been acquired by the Park Service a little over a month before

Hommon’s visit. One of Hommon’s most urgent requests was that the two campgrounds be

united under a single comprehensive system. As the situation currently stood, waste from the

upper campground could potentially filter downstream into the drinking supply of the lower

campground. But now that the lower campground was part of the national monument, a

second comfort station—one that Hawkins had intended to build ever since requesting plans

from Thomas Vint in 1927—could be located there. An allotment of $1,900 had been made at

the beginning of fiscal year 1931 for building this structure. (The money was held in abeyance

until the title was formally transferred.) Work was preparing to get under way even as Hommon

inspected the site. He recommended that a sewer line be installed connecting the ranger cabin

and the Moses Spring comfort station with the proposed new comfort station. From there, it

should continue down the canyon to an outflow situated below the lower campground, where

the sewage could be allowed to drain off without detriment to human health. Eventually, a

more permanent extension could be built to convey the sewage out of Bear Gulch altogether.

Hommon noted that a new supply line had already been installed to convey drinking water

from the spring utilized by the upper campground down to the lodge and lower campground,

following Dunn’s recommendations. This answered the immediate threat of contamination to

the water supply at the lodge and lower campground, but it did not address the larger problem

of insufficient volume once the new comfort station was built and visitation had increased as

expected. Hommon recommended that additional springs further upstream be utilized and

storage tanks installed to conserve the meager supply of water they provided, but he knew

that these measures would never ultimately resolve the problem. There simply was not enough

water in the Bear Gulch watershed to meet the monument’s projected needs over the longterm. Like Dunn before him, Hommon knew that future needs could only be met by drawing

water from outside Bear Gulch and recommended sinking a deep well on Chalone Creek with

the water to be pumped up to the campground area.

Over the following year, nearly all of Hommon’s recommendations were realized, excepting

only the deep well on Chalone Creek. Work began on the new comfort station (Building # 17)

almost immediately after his visit. The building was sited at the mouth of Condor Gulch just

opposite the lodge. A single sewer line connecting all of the sanitary facilities in Bear Gulch was

also installed, but rather than allow waste to drain freely down Bear Gulch—which Hommon

believed was a necessary, if undesirable, expedient—a filter trench was installed somewhere

below the lower campground. The exact location is unknown, but it probably lay toward the

lower edge of the terrace where the present superintendent’s residence (Building #19) now

stands. Finally, a new water source was located in Bear Gulch above the Bear Gulch Caves, and

plans were proposed to capture this water and convey it through the caves to the developed area

below. This was eventually done. (The new spring lay near the head of the present reservoir

and is now inundated during much of the year.) One of the principal tasks that had long

been proposed but remained unfinished was the application of stone facing on the three new

buildings in Bear Gulch. All of these buildings are essentially wood-frame structures to which

24. Gretchen Stromberg, Timothy Babalis, and Daniel Schaible, Tuolumne Meadows Historic District, Yosemite

National Park: Cultural Landscape Inventory (Oakland, CA: National Park Service, 2007).

84
Trails

a rubble masonry exterior has been applied as an aesthetic, rather than structural, effect. This

detail would not be implemented until sometime after 1929 (probably by 1930).25

Trails

Early Trail Work Under Hermansen’s Custodianship (1923–1925)

In a report dated January 5, 1925, Custodian Herman Hermansen described the trails he had

completed up to that time. The most important of these was the Bear Gulch Caves Trail. He

started this improvement during the winter of 1923 after receiving the monument’s first fiscal

allotment for infrastructure development of $600. These funds were used to pay Hermansen’s

friends Viggo Petersen and Zotic Marcott $4 a day to work on trail construction. The three

men extended an existing trail that climbed lower Bear Gulch from Petersen’s campground on

Chalone Creek up to and through the Bear Gulch Caves. They were able to make only minor

improvements in the caves themselves, however, and were not able to connect the lower caverns

with the upper ones, so the trail remained discontinuous. They also cut an alternate route that

crossed to the north side of the canyon just below the entrance to the lower caves, following

the alignment of the present Discovery Wall Trail north and then looping back south to follow

the alignment of the present Rim Trail to the top of the canyon. How far Hermansen actually

took this trail beyond that is not clear, though he later proposed bringing it over the saddle

below Scout Peak and down to the west side of the monument. It was while constructing this

trail that Hermansen and Zotic Marcott first discovered Moses Spring and dug out the pool at

its base.26 According to Hermansen:

While laying out this new route, a wonderful spring was uncovered, heretofore undiscovered,

as it was hidden high up on a shelf in the cliffs, and covered by a dense growth of vines

and large ferns. It was the presence of these ferns that led to its discovery. It appeared as a

small seep, coming out of a seam in the solid rock wall. Upon picking into this seam, a large

stream was uncovered. Also there is a natural bowl of solid rock, that catches this water and

has a depth of about 3 ft with a length of about 15 ft and 6 ft wide. With the clearing of a

large amount of growth in this bowl a fine drinking place will be had.27

This was the first trail system to be constructed inside the monument. Hermansen described

it as ranging from one-and-a-half to four feet in width. Hermansen also cut an improved trail

up Condor Gulch a short ways, but again, how far is not clear. He intended to bring this trail

to the top of the ridge and then back south in a loop that would follow approximately the

same alignment as the present High Peaks Trail. Though he was never able to fully develop

this ambitious proposal, he did brush it in and would guide visitors along the route.28

Most of the early trails Hermansen constructed have been obliterated by subsequent

development, which has generally followed the same alignments, a testimony to the wisdom

25. Hawkins to Director, May 7, 1929; and Kittredge to Director, August 9, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7,

Box 607, NARA II.

26. Mrs. Marcott, interviewed by Ro Wauer, August 12, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 3, PNM.

27. Hermansen to Director, January 3, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Box 336, NARA II. Marcott’s assistance was later

confirmed by his widow, recalled that “on one occasion [Zotic Marcott] and another fellow [Hermansen] found

what today is called Moses Spring.” [Mrs. Marcott, interviewed by Ro Wauer, August 12, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 19, f. 3, PNM.]

28. Hermansen to Director, April 17, 1924; and Hermansen to Director, January 5, 1925. PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

85
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

of their placement and of Hermansen’s intimate knowledge of the local terrain. The only

known exception is a short segment of Hermansen’s original 1923–24 trail that was recently

discovered on the south slope of Bear Gulch between the headquarters area and the Bear Gulch

Dam. This short loop leaves the current Bear Gulch Caves Trail a little above its junction with

the High Peaks Trail and climbs the steep grade of the north-facing slope to an intermediate

terrace, which it then follows west before descending again to Bear Creek. At this point the

historic trail rejoins the present alignment and is lost. This historic trail segment contains

several impressive examples of masonry stairs, demonstrating both the skill and hard work

employed by Hermansen and his friends as they developed the original infrastructure of

Pinnacles National Monument.

Apart from this exception, the trails originally established by Hermansen are still followed,

more or less, by several of the most popular trails in the present monument. These include the

Bear Gulch Caves Trail, the lower half of the Moses Spring Trail, the Rim Trail, and a portion

of the Condor Gulch Trail. Much of the present High Peaks Trail also follows an alignment first

brushed in by Hermansen. The Bear Gulch Trail, which was constructed in 1972 to connect

the Bench Trail on Chalone Creek with the Bear Gulch developed area, loosely follows the

route of the earliest trail built by Hermansen. This led from Viggo Petersen’s auto campground

on Chalone Creek to the top of Bear Gulch and was completed in 1922. At that time, the

route lay outside the boundaries of the monument.

Principal Trail Work Under Hawkins’ Custodianship (1928–1933)

Between 1925 and 1928, no trail construction and little other work of any kind was done

at Pinnacles. This lack of activity is perplexing, given that the NPS budget was growing

substantially during the period, and major infrastructure projects—including roads and

trails—were being initiated in parks throughout the west. After a favorable response to

Director Stephen Mather’s testimony before the House Committee on Public Lands, Congress

passed the Roads and Trails Act in 1924, appropriating approximately $7.5 million in park

construction funds over the next three years.29 But Pinnacles was largely overlooked during

this period of growth, because the Park Service remained unconvinced that Pinnacles met the

criteria of a national park unit and was considering transferring the monument to the state

park system.30 Much of this uncertainty was owing to the continued monopoly of the Old

Pinnacles by Henry Melville and the Copper Mountain Mining Company, as well as Dusty

Lewis’ discouraging report from 1922, which had never quite been forgotten.

At first, Washington seemed willing to commit no more than was necessary to bring existing

facilities up to acceptable standards—like the sanitary improvements that engineer Hommon

had recommended in 1926—but not to expand the monument’s infrastructure beyond its

current extent. Custodian Hawkins wrote to Washington in early 1928, a few months after

Thomas Vint’s visit, and requested funds to implement the development outline Vint had

proposed. He noted that the most urgent need of the Pinnacles at that time was the High Peaks

Trail, which he estimated would cost approximately $5,000 to put in. Still uncertain about the

fate of Pinnacles, Washington demurred for the remainder of the summer, but finally agreed

29. McClelland, Presenting Nature, p. 108. A small allotment from this fund was made to Pinnacles in 1925 for

the extension of the Bear Gulch Road a short distance into the monument, but that appears to have been the only

benefit Pinnacles derived from the roads and trails budget until fiscal year 1929. [Stephen Mather to Hermansen,

January 17, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.]

30. Frank Kittredge to Director, May 3, 1928; and Horace Albright to Director, December 16, 1928, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

86
Trails

Figure 17. Moses Spring in 1929. Standing figure appears to be Custodian Hawkins. Arrow indicates source

of water. [Dunn to Hommon, August 10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

87
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Figure 18. Stairs on surviving segment of original Hermansen trail in upper Bear Gulch. This trail

was only recently discovered during a routine maintenance operation. [PINN trails, 2010, PNM.]

to increase the roads and trails allotment for the 1929 fiscal year. Washington’s decision was

soon justified when the state announced a few months later that it would have no funds to

spare from its limited parks budget to acquire Pinnacles. This meant that, unless the National

Park Service managed Pinnacles, nobody would. The question of abandoning the monument

never again came up, and Washington’s commitment to retain Pinnacles within the national

park system would remain solid from this time forward.31

31. Custodian Hawkins to Director, April 19, 1928; and Horace Albright to Arthur Demaray, June 29, 1928, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

88
Trails

In preparation for the anticipated trail work, Associate Engineer A.B. Lewellen of the San

Francisco Field Headquarters visited Pinnacles during the fall of 1928 to develop a trail

construction outline. Following Vint’s recommendation that a High Peaks loop should

constitute the backbone of the monument’s trail system, Lewellen proposed an eight-mile

trail that would begin in the Bear Gulch headquarters area and follow the route that Herman

Hermansen had brushed up Condor Gulch to the summit at Hawkins’ Peak. From here, the

trail would descend the west side of the ridge to the Chaparral Picnic Area, then continue

south past Oak Tree Spring and up Juniper Canyon to the upper reaches of Bear Gulch Creek,

just over a low saddle at the top of Juniper Canyon. Then it would turn east and follow Bear

Gulch Creek back to the park headquarters, skirting the Bear Gulch Caves along the south

and east sides of the canyon.32

Construction began almost immediately on the Condor Gulch end of the proposed loop under

the supervision of Fred Prewett, a local rancher from nearby Bear Valley. (Prewett continued

to work as a trail foreman at Pinnacles for several years and became highly respected for his

skills.)33 In January of 1929, Associate Engineer Charles E. Randels visited Pinnacles to inspect

the ongoing work and observed that Prewett’s crew was doing a high quality job. He noted that

the trail had been designed for horses and was being cut from forty-eight to sixty inches wide

on a level prism. Randels told Prewett it need only be forty-two inches wide and suggested

dropping the prism six inches on the bank slope to create a guttering effect to channel water

down the inside of the trail. He also offered a few suggestions to help speed the flow of work,

which Prewett immediately implemented. Randels was concerned that only $2,000 had been

allotted for this job, which was enough to keep the trail crew working six 8-hour days per week

for about another month but not enough to finish the job. By the end of the season, work had

not even reached the top of the ridge.34

Later that year, Assistant Engineer Allison van V. Dunn visited Pinnacles to prepare a

comprehensive report on the condition of the monument’s existing facilities and its future

needs.35 During his visit, Dunn inspected the ongoing trail work and recommended changing

the route originally proposed by Associate Engineer Lewellen. While acknowledging that

Lewellen’s proposal would cover the largest area of land then encompassed by the monument,

Dunn noted that this alignment failed to take advantage of the landscape’s most scenic

opportunities. He suggested that the trail not descend to the west side from Hawkins’ Peak

but instead continue south along the top of the ridge as far as Scout Peak and then descend

back into Bear Gulch, avoiding Juniper Canyon altogether. This suggestion was adopted and

represents the alignment that was ultimately constructed. Dunn also recommended improving

the trail through the Bear Gulch Caves. This would require installing concrete steps and a

handrail so that visitors could safely hike the entire cave system without resorting to the use of

a rope.36

32. A.B. Lewellen, “Reconnaissance Survey and Study for the Location of Roads and Trails in the Pinnacles National

Monument, San Benito County, California, December 1928” January 10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box

607, NARA II.

33. Fred Prewett’s son, Ernie Prewett, worked on the trail crew with his father. Ernie is still alive at the time of

writing and is living on the family’s original homestead a short distance from the monument in Bear Valley.

34. Associate Engineer Charles E. Randels, “Report on Trip to Pinnacles National Monument” February 4, 1929,

PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

35. Assistant Engineer Allison van V. Dunn, “Needs of the Pinnacles National Monument” July 1, 1929, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

36. Chief Ranger Zotic Marcott would occasionally use a rope to hoist visitors up the precipice between the caverns

[Marcott to Holmes, NPS Chief Clerk, August 31, 1926, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II]. Dunn

89
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Work continued in fits and starts as money became available. Further complicating matters

and delaying progress was the lack of adequate equipment. Up until 1930, Pinnacles had had

to borrow an air compressor to run the pneumatic drills needed for cutting and breaking rock.

Since the compressor had to be returned, it could not be left on the job site between work

periods, and much valuable time was spent moving this heavy equipment back and forth. This

problem was finally solved when Pinnacles acquired its own air compressor later that year. The

absence of local accommodations for the work crews was another time-consuming problem,

since the men had to stay on ranches at least five miles distant and ride back and forth each day

between the job site and their evening residence. This situation had also improved by 1930,

when the monument acquired Viggo Petersen’s homestead in Bear Gulch, and the men were

able to stay in the lodge he and Hermansen had built.

With the pace of work gradually improving, the High Peaks Trail up Condor Gulch was

finally completed to Hawkins’ Peak by the summer of 1930.37 By early 1931, Construction

Supervisor John H. Diehl reported that the concrete steps on the Bear Gulch Caves Trail were

also largely done and a steel-pole handrail had been installed. He also reported that work had

been started on a Cave Loop Trail, which would run along the west side of Bear Gulch by

Moses Spring and allow hikers to return from the top of the caves back to the lower end of

the Caves Trail without retracing their steps through the caves themselves. (This trail, or at

least the upper half of it, is now called the Moses Spring Trail.) The Cave Loop Trail and the

remainder of the High Peaks loop had both been staked out when Diehl made his report, but

construction had not yet commenced on either. (At this time, the High Peaks Trail had only

been completed from Condor Gulch to a point just south of Hawkins Peak along the ridge of

the Pinnacles.38)

In September of that year (1931), Director Albright increased Pinnacles’ allotment by $8,000

in order to finally complete the High Peaks Trail. Work now proceeded at both ends with two

crews building toward each other. By May of 1932, however, the money had run out and the

two ends had still not been connected. Hawkins wrote to Washington and requested more

money. To his surprise, he received notice within only a couple of days that Pinnacles’ trail

allotment had been increased by another $5,000. Hawkins was ecstatic. The amount was less

than the engineers at San Francisco estimated would be needed, but Hawkins was by now so

confident in his trails foreman, Fred Prewett, that he believed they would not only be able to

finish the job within budget but do so to the highest possible standard.39

Unfortunately, the High Peaks connection proved more difficult than Hawkins had anticipated.

One of the chief obstacles between the two unfinished ends of the trail was the Fingers, a

single peak with multiple spires and sheer sides that offered no ledge or easy gradient along

which a trail could be cut. Even as Hawkins was bragging about his trail crew’s ability to move

mountains, the engineers at San Francisco were beginning to realize that they might have to

do just that. A.J. Burney, acting chief engineer for Frank Kittredge of the San Francisco Field

prepared the initial plan for the cave improvements [Allison van V. Dunn, “Preliminary Report on Stairway to

Connect Upper and Lower Caves,” January, 1930, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 9, f. 18, PNM].

37. Col. John White, superintendent of Sequoia National Park, visited Pinnacles on August 31 of that year and

described riding by horse to the top of the new trail with Custodian Hawkins [White to NPS Director, September

2, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II].

38. Construction Supervisor John H. Diehl to Chief Engineer Frank Kittredge, March 10, 1931, PINN Coll., RG

79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. The trail up Condor Gulch was originally part of the High Peaks Trail and did not

acquire its present name until after 1934.

39. Hawkins to Albright, May 7, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

90
Trails

Headquarters, prepared plans for a 120-foot tunnel that he proposed to bore through this

stubborn obstacle. His justification for this costly expedient is illuminating:

This proposed tunnel was decided upon by Mr. Kittredge and Mr. Hawkins, and approved

by the landscape architects to carry the [High Peaks] trail through a very abrupt peak in

the high portion of the area through which this trail will pass . . . The construction of this

tunnel will eliminate what would otherwise be a very noticeable scar on the mountainside,

as it would be necessary to carry the trail around this abrupt peak by benching in and using

the half tunnel method of construction for a considerable distance.40

The principle purpose of the tunnel was to preserve the scenic integrity of the landscape by

avoiding any measures that would draw undue attention to the trail. This was consistent with

the rustic ideal of blending construction into the surrounding environment (or disguising its

presence). As Burney indicated, Hawkins was aware of the tunnel proposal and agreed that it

was necessary, but he obviously did not appreciate the time and expense it would add to the

project. The tunnel and associated concrete bridge that spanned the chasm at one side were

completed by the end of the 1932 calendar year. But the added time required to build these

structures prevented the full completion of the High Peaks Trail by the end of the work season

as Hawkins had desired. Approximately one-quarter mile of steep switchbacks just west of

Hawkins Peak and north of the new tunnel remained unfinished, though a rudimentary path

had been roughed in, and the trail was passable.41

At the same time that work began on the High Peaks tunnel early in 1932, an alternate

route around the Fingers was also selected, and work had commenced on both projects

simultaneously. The main trail, which would pass through the tunnel on the east side of the

peak, was designed to accommodate horses (as was the rest of the High Peaks Loop Trail).

But the alternate route, which would run along the west side of the Fingers, was designed to

accommodate only hikers on foot. (It was originally called the “Fingers Foot Trail” and is now

known as the “Steep and Narrow” by the monument’s trail crew.) The engineers decided to

construct the trail because of the spectacular scenery it made available and because the route

was already being used by adventuresome hikers equipped with ropes. Much of the finished

trail consisted of shallow steps carved into solid rock. Metal handrails were installed to make

the route safer.42

By the spring of 1933, Pinnacles’ core system of trails was essentially in place, except for the

quarter-mile segment west of Hawkins Peak. In a little over four years, three important trails

had been constructed—the Cave Loop Trail, the High Peaks Loop Trail, and the Fingers Foot

Trail. This completed the system proposed by Thomas Vint in his 1928 development outline.

Visitors accessed either loop from a single trailhead just south of the lodge in Bear Gulch near

the present picnic area. This represented one end of the High Peaks Trail (the other was in

Condor Gulch about a quarter mile north of the lodge). The Cave Loop Trail was a separate

spur off the High Peaks Trail that left the latter shortly after it crossed Bear Creek to the

west side of the canyon. Hikers would proceed from this junction directly to the entrance of

the lower caverns. From here, they could now walk through the entire cave system, climbing

concrete steps to negotiate the more difficult parts of the subterranean passage. After emerging

40. A.J. Burney, “Plan of Proposed Trail Tunnel, Pinnacles National Monument, PIN-4933,” May 2, 1932, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

41. Hawkins, “Activities of the Pinnacles National Monument for the Year 1932,” December 31, 1932, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

42. John H. Diehl, “Final Report on Trail Construction,” May 10, 1933, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 5, f. 4, PNM.

91
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

from the top of the upper cavern, hikers would return along the east side of Bear Gulch, then

cross over the top of their original path through the caves, climbing to the west side of the

canyon, and return—passing Moses Spring—to the High Peaks Trail at a second junction

a little ways above the point where they began. The entire loop was actually a figure eight,

allowing hikers to experience not only the caves but also the dramatic scenery of Bear Gulch

from the alternating perspectives of both walls.

Visitors who wanted a much longer hike with even more dramatic scenery would continue up

the High Peaks Trail beyond the Cave Loops detour and climb steep switchbacks to the top

of the ridge at Junction Saddle just north of Scout Peak. Here they could either turn right to

follow the narrow Fingers Foot Trail cut into the rock on the east face of the formation, or turn

left to follow the bridle path along the west side of the High Peaks, passing through the long

tunnel and bridge that brought them to the back of Hawkins Peak just north of the Fingers.

Here the two trails rejoined and, skirting Hawkins Peak to the north, doubled back to descend

Condor Gulch and return to the lodge area a short distance from where the trail began. Except

for a few local modifications, these alignments remain essentially the same today and are still

in use, although in several instances the name of a trail or trail segment has changed, making it

difficult to recognize the correlation between the historic and the present trail system. The only

significant realignment to occur after 1933 was made on the lower portion of the High Peaks

Trail in Bear Gulch when a short tunnel was cut through a pilaster of solid rock protruding

from the east side of the canyon. Prior to the construction of this tunnel, the trail had to cross

Bear Creek over a small bridge and climb a little ways up the west side of the canyon to the

first junction of the Cave Loop Trail. The new tunnel made it possible for the trail to continue

along the east side of the canyon and reach the Cave Loop junction in a more direct fashion.

This change was made early in 1942 by African American enrollees during the final period of

the Civilian Conservation Corps program.43

Acquisition of New Lands

As mentioned above, the Park Service was still uncertain whether Pinnacles should remain in

the national park system as late as 1928 and was unwilling to make any substantial commitment

of resources prior to that time. Though no longer suggesting that the monument be abandoned

as it had in 1922, the Washington office now considered transferring the monument to the

state park system, believing that this might be a more appropriate place for Pinnacles, given

that most interest in the monument appeared to be local rather than national. But a number

of things happened toward the end of that year that turned opinions around and convinced

Washington that the Park Service should retain Pinnacles. First came the California State Park

Commission’s announcement of its spending priorities, which did not include acquisition of

Pinnacles. The decisive event for the monument’s fate, however, was Director Albright’s visit

on December 9, 1928.

One week later, Albright wrote back to Acting Director Arthur Demaray describing the

strong impression his visit had made on him. Albright was now convinced that Pinnacles was

worth preserving as a national monument, but he regretted that the Park Service had not

acted sooner and obtained the lands that Herman Hermansen and the Pinnacles Boys had

43. Records of the actual construction have been lost—or were never made—but surviving correspondence refers to

a realignment of the trail occurring that spring. Though the tunnel is not mentioned, this was the only substantial

realignment to be made on this trail. [Asst. Reg. Dir. B.F. Manbey to Director, August 10, 1942, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 5, f. 7, PNM.]

92
Acquisition of New Lands

Figure 19. Local men working on High Peaks Trail, ca. 1932, with recently completed tunnel in

background. The man standing in the middle of the group is probably crew boss Fred Prewett. [Mus.

Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

93
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

homesteaded while these were still in the public domain. His first-hand inspection convinced

him of the importance of these lands for the future of the monument, a fact that he had not

fully appreciated before coming to understand the local geography better. These homesteads

comprised much of Bear Gulch, including the broad, level area where the lodge and private

campground had been built. But they also included the Chalone Creek Valley from the Ben

Bacon Ranch up to Melville’s inholding (the Root homestead) in the Old Pinnacles. Together,

this represented nearly all of the most desirable land needed for the future development of

park infrastructure. The Chalone Creek Valley was an integral part of the existing monument’s

geography, and Albright observed that, without it, “I do not see how the monument could

otherwise have a boundary that could be regarded as a natural one.”44

In the same correspondence, Albright mentioned a survey made by Chief Engineer Kittredge

earlier that month to locate a cross-monument highway. The proposed route lay along the

Old Pinnacles Road, continuing through the Balconies Caves and Henry Melville’s inholding

to the existing entrance road on the west side. This was the same highway that Hawkins and

other county leaders had been trying to get built since 1924. Hermansen had strongly opposed

the idea, and at that time Acting Director Arno Cammerer had agreed with him.45 But the

subsequent collapse of Hermansen’s reputation within the Washington office had helped

change the Park Service’s position on the matter of the cross-monument road. Hawkins had

always been a strong supporter of the idea, and it appears that Washington was now willing to

back him, even though, as Hermansen had correctly pointed out, the proposed road violated

fundamental principles of park planning.

One important reason for acquiring the homestead lands was to facilitate construction of

the cross-monument highway on the alignment that Kittredge had located. It would have

been possible to obtain an easement from the landowners, as the county had already done

across the Bacon ranches, but Hawkins was not content with the construction of the road

alone. He wanted the project to be accompanied by further improvement of the monument

as well. His objective was to create a stronger attraction for visitors in order to bring more

people onto the road and into San Benito and Monterey Counties. These improvements

could not occur, however, unless the Park Service controlled the lands on which the proposed

visitor facilities were situated. Albright supported Hawkins’ strategy, and while he was in

California met with the San Benito County Board of Supervisors. He promised them that, if

they purchased the homestead lands for the monument, the Park Service would undertake the

desired improvements and bring the facilities on them up to National Park Service standards.46

The county had good reason to be interested in Albright’s proposal at this moment, since

the appropriations bill for the state survey of the cross-monument highway had just been

resubmitted to the legislature, and many people hoped that the enthusiasm that the Pinnacles

National Park Association had orchestrated only a few years earlier might be rekindled. Such

hope was brief, however, for the bill went nowhere. But the event did help galvanize local

support for the Park Service’s own growing interest in the monument.47

44. Albright to Coffee, December 16, 1928, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

45. See Cammerer’s penciled comments on letter from Hermansen. [Hermansen to Mather, January 31, 1925,

PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II].]

46. Albright’s promise is recalled by Hawkins in a letter to the Director, dated July 10, 1929. [PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

47. Oberg, Administrative History, p. 171. Oberg provides no reference.

94
Acquisition of New Lands

The facilities that Director Albright and Custodian Hawkins specifically had in mind when

they spoke of making the monument more attractive to visitors were the lodge and campground

in Bear Gulch. These had become derelict as a result of the poor management (or economic

misfortune) of Hermansen and Petersen, who had originally built the facilities and established

the Pinnacles Company to run them. The Pinnacles Company had drifted into receivership

about a year earlier, and the campground and lodge had been closed ever since and were now

falling into disrepair. H.G. Coffee had reopened the facilities by the fall of 1928 and was trying

to make a go of the old business under the new name of Camp Pinnacles. Whether he could

have succeeded or not will never be known, for the Park Service had chosen by this time to

withdraw its support from the private venture and was now committed to acquiring the land

that Coffee leased for the monument. In December of that year, Director Albright wrote to

Coffee informing him of the Park Service’s intentions. Coffee and his business partner, a Mrs.

Hittinger who ran the lodge, filed suit against the Park Service to retain their business, but their

effort was in vain. The land on which the campground and lodge were situated belonged, not

to Coffee and Mrs. Hittinger, but to T.A. Work and K.D. Mathoit, who had received title to

the property when Viggo Petersen and Herman Hermansen had foreclosed on their mortgage

the previous year. Since Work and Mathoit were friends of Hawkins, they were sympathetic to

the Park Service’s interest in developing the lands for the monument and supported the county

when it filed suit to evict Camp Pinnacles. This was done in anticipation of the county’s plan

to condemn the lands and convey them to the National Park Service.

A little over one week after Director Albright’s visit, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors

sponsored a bill in the state legislature that would allow California counties to convey lands to

the federal government for the purpose of creating or expanding national parks. This would

legally enable the county to transfer lands that it had condemned to the National Park Service.

In fact, the county already possessed the right to do this, as Albright assured Hawkins a few

days later, but Hawkins preferred to enact the special legislation in order to avoid giving

the impression that the federal government was abusing local interests.48 This approach was

typical of Hawkins’ preference for building a broad coalition of support before acting on any

significant matter (and contrasted sharply with Hermansen’s tendency to act unilaterally or

from within a narrow clique of close friends). At about the same time, the San Benito County

Board of Supervisors prepared a resolution expressing their willingness to purchase these lands

through condemnation and deed them over to the national monument.49 Albright took a copy

of this resolution back with him to Washington.50

By January of 1929, San Benito County had commenced its condemnation suit against all

of the private landholders within the Chalone Creek Valley.51 This included 1,280 acres

belonging to Work and Mathoit, 640 acres belonging to Alonzo Bourke, and 160 acres in the

Old Pinnacles belonging to Henry Melville. Not all of the homestead lands adjacent to the

monument were condemned at this time. Russell Bourke and Zotic Marcott—both members

48. Hawkins to Albright, January 7, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. Albright’s letter to

Hawkins is lost but its contents are inferred from Hawkins’ response.

49. This resolution is mentioned by Kittredge in a letter to the Director dated January 4, 1929. [PINN Coll., RG

79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.] The date of the resolution was December 27, 1928.

50. Kittredge to Director, January 4, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. There is no mention

of Albright coming down to Hollister to meet the supervisors. He may have done so, but he may just as likely have

received a copy sent to him through the mail.

51. Kittredge to Director, January 24, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

95
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

of the original group of Pinnacles Boys—still kept their lands along the north fork of Chalone

Creek.

Neither Alonzo Bourke nor Work and Mathoit challenged the condemnations, and they may

all have been willing participants.52 Bourke agreed to a compensation of $3,500, while Work

and Mathoit were promised $10,450 for their land. The county had obtained options on all of

these properties by May of 1929 but was not able to raise the money to actually purchase them

for over a year, possibly on account of the national banking crisis. The deal was not finalized

until December of 1930, when the county finally received title to just over 1,920 acres.53

Melville’s parcel in the Old Pinnacles, however, was not part of this total, since he refused to

cooperate.

Herman Hermansen also objected to the acquisitions, believing that they were being driven by

motives detrimental to the welfare of the monument. By now, of course, Hermansen was no

longer directly associated with Pinnacles, but he remained deeply interested in its fate. When

he learned of the proposed county action, he wrote an impassioned letter to Robert Sterling

Yard, president of the private National Parks Association (now the National Parks Conservation

Association), in which he accused Hawkins of brokering this land deal in order to facilitate

his old dream of a cross-monument highway. Oddly, Hawkins denied the allegation, though

Hermansen’s interpretation was most likely correct. Moreover, since the Washington office

now supported the road, Hawkins had no need to disguise his motives. A short while later, he

wrote to the Director describing an unfortunate encounter he had with Hermansen over the

issue.54 Hermansen at this time was working in Hollister, washing cars for a local business.

When Hawkins visited him one day, the two men argued loudly, and Hawkins stormed out.

This was the last mention of Hermansen in the Park Service’s official records—a rather sad

denouement for someone who had contributed so much to both Pinnacles and the Service

itself.55

In January 1931, shortly after the county had acquired the other homestead lands, Albright

wrote to Hawkins reminding him that the land could not be transferred to Pinnacles until

a presidential proclamation had enlarged the monument, but Albright did not want to do

this until the Melville lands had also been condemned.56 He believed—incorrectly—that

Melville’s 160 acres lay outside the monument like the rest of the new lands, when in fact

this parcel was an inholding inside the original 1908 legislative boundaries. Albright’s error

was understandable given the inherent complexity of Pinnacles’ geography but was also

an indication of the poor grasp that Washington had on the important issues relating to the

monument. It also helps explain how a single trip to Pinnacles could so radically alter Albright’s

policy toward the monument after he saw first hand how matters actually lay.

52. Work and Mathoit almost certainly were. Alonzo’s position is less certain. He was a friend of Hermansen and

might understandably have resented the condemnation. Unfortunately, no record survives to preserve his opinion,

and we are left to our imaginations.

53. The final compensation amounted to $16,608.14.

54. Hermansen to Yard, August 22, 1930; Hawkins to Albright, October 21, 1930; and Albright to Yard, October

14, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

55. Hermansen and his wife Alda settled in Hollister, where Hermansen opened a tire business. This may have been

where Hawkins found him washing cars the day they argued. Hermansen later retired to his hometown of Petaluma

in Northern California, where he and Alda are now buried in the veterans’ lawn at Cypress Hill Memorial Park.

56. Albright to Hawkins, January 30, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

96
Acquisition of New Lands

Albright was also mistaken in expecting the Melville case to be resolved quickly. Hawkins

knew better, and a few weeks after receiving Albright’s letter advising him to wait, he visited

Chief Engineer Kittredge in San Francisco to discuss the matter. Hawkins was concerned

because the appropriations for fiscal year 1931 included $1,900 for the proposed Condor

Gulch comfort station, which was designed to serve the lower campground in Bear Gulch.

The appropriation had to be applied within the monument boundaries, but until this land

was formally transferred, the Bear Gulch campground was still in private hands. Only four

months remained for the money to be obligated before it was lost, and Hawkins could

not be sure when he would receive another appropriation for this project. The engineers at

the Field Headquarters were also interested in gaining use of the lodge—also on the newly

condemned lands—so that the crews who were then working on the High Peaks Trail would

have a more convenient place to stay at night. Hawkins and Kittredge therefore agreed that

the land conveyance should go forward at once. Accordingly, Kittredge wrote to Director

Albright that very day and informed him of the urgency of the situation. A proclamation was

immediately drafted, and President Hoover signed it on April 13, 1931. This officially enlarged

the monument by 1,926.35 acres.57 Meanwhile, the condemnation of Melville’s parcel in the

Old Pinnacles was moving forward, with hearings scheduled for early the next year.

Efforts to obtain the old Root Homestead from Henry Melville had started shortly after the

litigation between Melville and Herman Hermansen was resolved in 1925. By January of the

following year, Custodian Hawkins announced that he had raised enough money through

county sources to purchase Melville’s property. This was assuming that Melville would be

willing to sell it for its originally appraised value of $15,000. Melville, however, insisted the

parcel was now worth $1 million, though he had made no improvements or located any

minerals on it.58 Since he refused to part with the property for anything less, Hawkins realized

that the county would have to implement a hostile condemnation, and began making plans to

do so at that time, just as preparations were getting underway to condemn the other homestead

properties on Chalone Creek. The federal government was also bringing suit against Melville

at this time in order to evict him from the eighty acres he still occupied in the Chaparral Area.

As described already, Melville denied being in possession of this land, and the suit reverted

from trespassing to a claim for damages so that the Park Service could remove the cabins

and other improvements that Melville had constructed there. This trial was ready to go to

court by February of 1928, but Hawkins advised Washington to hold off until the county

condemnations could be finalized. He was worried that local sentiments might turn against the

county if attention was drawn to Melville, who would inevitably portray himself as a victim

57. This was Presidential Proclamation #1948. The deed of conveyance was dated March 10, 1931, and the land was

officially accepted by the Department of the Interior on March 23th, actually predating the presidential proclamation

by nearly a month, but nobody complained. A press release was issued on April 24, 1931, announcing the expansion

of the monument. It was unremarkable except for the following sentence: “The newly-added area was donated to

the Government by the County of San Benito, California, and is of value from an administrative standpoint and

also scientifically and educationally.” The administrative value was, in fact, the principal justification for the new

acquisition, since the lands included Bear Gulch, where the park would later establish its administrative facilities.

They also included the campgrounds, which were desperately in need of proper management. It is surprising that

the Park Service now appeared so willing to accept this responsibility when Cammerer had commented only a few

years earlier, in response to a request for a license to operate a hotel in Bear Gulch: “Demaray, my personal opinion

is that there should be no hotel or camping installations in the monument. There is plenty of room just outside.”

[Penciled notation on Albright to Director, May 7, 1927, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

58. Hawkins to Mather, January 2, 1926; and Albright to Director., April 25, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7,

Box 607, NARA II.

97
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

of government strong-arming.59 With the county condemnations repeatedly delayed by the

growing financial crisis, the federal government was not able to prosecute its own case for

damages until early 1931, winning a decision in its favor that July.60

With that, only the condemnation of Melville’s property in the Old Pinnacles remained to be

done. (This was also the only remaining obstacle to the proposed cross-monument highway.)

By the latter half of 1931, however, unemployment suddenly became very severe throughout

the county as the effects of the Depression began to be felt. This caused considerable concern

among county officials, who asked the Park Service to appropriate funds to assist in the county’s

condemnation case, if only to boost local confidence. (Washington was unable to oblige.)

This situation, as well as Henry Melville’s declining health caused the trial to be delayed for

several years. Only after the immediate unemployment crisis had passed and federal assistance

had restored some confidence in the local economy, did the condemnation go forward. By

this time, Henry Melville had already died. On May 24, 1935, the appellate court decided in

the county’s favor and forced the Copper Mountain Mining Company to relinquish title to

the Root Homestead for a compensation of $12,000.61 The deed was conveyed to San Benito

County on August 13th. This effectively ended all connection between the Melville family

and Pinnacles.62

The Great Fire of 1931

Although Pinnacles’ chief concerns during the latter years of the 1920s were the development

of adequate utilities, the construction of a core system of trails, and the acquisition of private

lands needed for future development, fire was also becoming a priority. In subsequent decades,

this would be one of the leading issues in resource management at the monument. One of

the reasons for the importance of fire at Pinnacles is its prevalence in the chaparral-dominated

ecosystem. While the ecological role and natural frequency of fire in the Gabilan Mountains

is still debated, the fact that it has a role, and an important one, is beyond dispute. This

was appreciated in the 1920s just as well as it is now, though vastly different conclusions

were drawn. During the twenties, fire was generally seen by the National Park Service as a

hostile force that had to be suppressed as effectively as possible in order to preserve valued

resources.63 This management philosophy existed at Pinnacles as much as anywhere else in

the Service but with several important qualifications. First, Pinnacles lacked the resources to

implement a policy of complete suppression. And, second, Pinnacles was surrounded by private

agricultural lands on which a very different philosophy about fire dominated. The ranchers

59. Hatfield to Secretary of the Interior, February 27, 1929; and NPS Director to Attorney General, March 16,

1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

60. Hawkins to Director, July 31, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

61. Kittredge to Director, May 24, 1935, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Box [Landscape Architects’ Reports], PNM.

62. Hawkins received a temporary fright when he discovered a mining notice with proof of labor posted on the west

side the following year. It was signed by Kenneth Melville, one of Henry Melville’s numerous children. Fortunately

for Hawkins, this was more a gesture of defiance than a serious attempt at resuming Henry Melville’s business, and

nothing came of it. Kenneth would, however, continue to work his father’s mines at Los Burros in the Santa Lucia

Mountains, remaining there until his death only a couple of years ago. At Los Burros, which now lies in the Los

Padres National Forest, Kenneth would make at least as much trouble for the U.S. Forest Service as his father had

made for the National Park Service at Pinnacles. [Hawkins to NPS Branch of Engineering, August 4, 1936, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Box (Landscape Architects’ Reports), PNM; and Anita Alan, Blanco Diablo.]

63. Bruce M. Kilgore, “Origin and History of Wildland Fire Use in the U.S. National Park System,” The George

Wright Forum 24.3 (2007): 92–122.

98
The Great Fire of 1931

around Pinnacles believed that fire was a useful—perhaps even necessary—management tool

that helped preserve the environment they valued. Local residents regularly ignited fires and

allowed them to burn over both the stubble fields in agricultural bottomlands as well as the

chaparral on the uncultivated hillsides. Some current residents even believe that this practice

was learned by early ranchers from the Native American laborers they employed. Whatever the

origin of these practices, there can be little doubt that both agriculturalists and hunters during

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries made a habit of burning their lands. With

Park Service philosophy strongly opposed to this tradition, the monument had become an

ecological island by the end of the 1920s, comprising an area of dense vegetation surrounded

by relatively open land, which was maintained in that condition by the frequent application

of intentional burning.64

This state of affairs was described in snapshot by Park Service Forester Ansel Hall in 1929,

after a visit to the monument for the purposes of assessing its fire preparedness.65 Hall noted

the disparity between the unburned monument lands and the surrounding lands that had been

burned:

While most of the area within the monument has been relatively free from fires within recent

years, fires immediately adjacent on the outside have disfigured some of the surrounding

region and have even made some inroads into the area included within the monument.

It is worth recalling that one of Schuyler Hain’s principal motives for establishing the game

preserve on the old Pinnacles Forest Reserve was to prevent the fires that hunters frequently

set to improve habitat conditions for game animals. Hall’s report was directed primarily to

the practical measures needed to implement an effective fire suppression policy. He noted that

the relative absence of fire at Pinnacles up to the present time was largely due to luck and

predicted that soon a major conflagration would burn through the monument if appropriate

management policies were not implemented. He recommended creating a fire cache with

sufficient tools to supply a twelve-man crew, establishing a protocol for hiring such a crew on

short notice, and the construction of fire trails and firebreaks throughout the monument. He

also proposed implementing a no-smoking policy during critical fire danger periods. All of

these measures were designed to prevent or suppress fire—Hall never considered the idea of

using fire as a management tool, despite the example of surrounding ranchers.

In the end, all of these measures proved futile. On August 25, 1931, a major fire was accidentally

ignited on the George Melendy Ranch about four miles north of the monument.66 Prevailing

winds drove the fire south as far as the Topo Valley, burning along a twelve-mile front through

dense chaparral. Approximately twenty thousand acres were consumed. The fire burned

through the heart of Pinnacles National Monument, though headquarters and the lodge in

Bear Gulch escaped damage, because the winds carried the fire over the canyon from one ridge

to the next. Chalone Valley and the lower half of Bear Gulch, however, did burn. The Park

Service organized a fire crew under the direction of local rancher (and trails supervisor) Fred

Prewett, who mounted a direct assault on the conflagration as it entered Chalone Valley. Fred’s

son, Ernie Prewett, recalls the futility of their efforts, as the intense flames forced the crew to

64. Sue Husari, conversation with author, February 29, 2008; Timothy Babalis, Fire and Water: An Environmental

History of the Upper Chalone Creek Watershed—Draft (Oakland, CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional

Office, 2009).

65. Chief Forester Ansel Hall to Custodian W.I. Hawkins, July 12, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607,

NARA II.

66. “Fire Report Summary,” Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 39, f. 12, PNM.

99
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

bury themselves in the sands of Chalone Creek. They survived as the fire passed over them and

continued on its devastating course south, not to be stopped until it reached the Topo Valley.

An NPS fire engine, parked along the monument’s entrance road at the foot of Bear Gulch,

was destroyed. Its driver, Roy Bengard, was happy to be alive after leaping from the burning

vehicle to join his colleagues in the creek bed.

At least three—and probably four—homesteads were also consumed in this fire. Viggo

Petersen’s cabin, which stood at the bottom of Bear Gulch on the Chalone Creek wash, was

destroyed (though by this time it was probably abandoned). Also destroyed were the homesteads

of Zotic Marcott and Russell Bourke. Both of these sites lie on the north fork of Chalone Creek

above Willow Spring and have escaped disturbance from subsequent development. As a result,

the archeological deposits left in the aftermath of the 1931 fire remain in good condition.

The southernmost homestead belonged to Zotic Marcott, who settled here sometime around

1921. But because he had been employed as chief ranger for the monument since 1925 and

was living in the ranger’s residence (Building #2) at the time of the fire, his original homestead

was probably uninhabited—and possibly abandoned—by that time. The other homestead

burned in the 1931 fire is more interesting. This site belonged to Russell Bourke, who lived

here up until a few years before the fire. Unlike Marcott, Bourke developed his homestead, as

archeological evidence shows. The site includes the ruins of a Fordson tractor, other farming

implements, and evidence of clearing and cultivation.67 The footprint of the house itself is

considerably larger than the minimal homestead shack, comprising about twenty-three feet

by twenty-seven feet, with evidence of a root cellar in the midst. Substantial outbuildings

were also constructed nearby. The fourth homestead that may have been destroyed by this

fire belonged to Alonzo Bourke, Russell Bourke’s younger brother. But Alonzo had built

his homestead on Chalone Creek at the site of the Chalone Annex Group Campground.

Subsequent development in the area almost certainly obliterated any evidence of his activities

here.68

Ernie Prewett remembers the efforts his crew made to save these homesteads. Believing they

had succeeded, the firefighters drifted wearily into sleep after the first day of the fire. When

they woke the following morning, they discovered that the homesteads they thought were safe

had all burned to the ground during the night. It took awhile to discover what had happened,

but Ernie explained that pinecones from the ubiquitous Grey Pines (Pinus sabiniana) had

held smoldering embers that the firefighters failed to notice. The cones had rolled down the

hillsides and come to rest against the walls of the homestead cabins. During the night, a wind

had picked up and fanned the embers, which ignited the cones into flames. By morning, the

homesteads were gone.

The aftermath of the 1931 fire revealed to park managers their vulnerability to future

conflagrations of similar nature. In response, they attempted to build an effective suppression

team. With the establishment of the CCC camp two years later, this objective seemed to have

been met—one of the primary tasks of the enrollees was fire prevention and fire suppression.

Whether the CCC was effective or just lucky, no major fires broke out during their tenure

at Pinnacles. Some fire historians later attributed this “luck” to the fact that fire had already

burned through Pinnacles prior to this period of suppression, so that insufficient fuel loading

existed to support a major fire. In other words, the apparent success of the suppression policy

67. This may be the same tractor used to grade the original 1924 entrance road.

68. See inventory records CA-SBn-121H and CA-SBn-122H in Haversat et al., Cultural Resources Inventory for

further description of existing sites.

100
The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

Figure 20. View looking north across Chalone Creek six months after the 1931 fire. East entrance road is

visible at foot of hills. Note the photographer’s parked vehicle. Photo was taken on March 22, 1932. [Wieslander

Vegetation Type Mapping (VTM) Collection, courtesy of the Marian Koshland Bioscience and Natural Resources

Library, University of California, Berkeley, www.lib.berkeley.edu/BIOS/vtm.]

of the 1930s was made possible only by the lack of successful suppression during the preceding

decades.69 Following the dissolution of the CCC in 1942, the California Division of Forestry

(CDF) utilized the camp as a base for its own fire suppression crews. Every year during the

fire season, a six-man crew was stationed at the Chalone Creek camp and would man the

lookout on Chalone Peak. This arrangement would continue until 1949, when the CDF built

its present station at the north end of Bear Valley.

The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

When Thomas Vint prepared Pinnacles’ first Development Outline after his brief visit in

January of 1928, he included a recommendation to widen the current entrance road and

make it two-way. This was the first time that this proposal was formally brought up.70 More

than a year later, Assistant Engineer Dunn brought up the subject once more, though with

considerably greater detail, in his report “Needs of the Pinnacles National Monument.” This

report included photographs of the existing alignment with penned annotations suggesting

his preferred alternative. Dunn estimated the cost of a new road at $99,000.71 Interestingly,

69. Jason Greenlee and Andrew Moldenke, The History of Wildfires in the Region of the Gabilan Mountains of Central

Coastal California (Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1981).

70. Thomas Vint, “Development Outline, Pinnacles National Monument,” January 15, 1928, PINN Coll., RG 79,

Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

71. A. van V. Dunn, “Needs of the Pinnacles National Monument” July 1, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box

607, NARA II.

101
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

he made no mention of the pending condemnation suits or the fact that this land was still

privately held, perhaps because he assumed that the conveyance of title was already a fait

accompli. It is clear from the existence of both these documents that an improvement of the

Bear Gulch Entrance Road was being discussed among park engineers and planning staff from

at least the end of 1928. This was the same year that the Park Service finally accepted that

Pinnacles would remain part of the national park system and assumed responsibility for its

future development, so it is no surprise that discussion of such a significant but resourceintensive project would come up now but not earlier. But other, more political, considerations

also lay behind this discussion.

On December 5th, Custodian Hawkins visited the Field Headquarters in San Francisco and

spoke with A.J. Burney, acting chief engineer in Kittredge’s absence. Hawkins implored Burney

to have the Park Service build a new entrance road immediately, explaining that a substantial

show of commitment like this from the NPS, especially one that would provide valuable

employment in a perennially poor agricultural county, would help favorably influence the

opinion of the jury in the pending condemnation suits. Hawkins had in mind, of course, the

litigation against Henry Melville, who held the last and most crucial piece of land needed before

Hawkins’ cherished cross-monument highway could be built. It is interesting that Hawkins

was so careful to avoid antagonizing local opinions. His concern suggests how suspicious

people in the county were about any federal intrusion into local affairs. But it also suggests

that Melville was not completely isolated or without sympathizers, as the Washington office

seemed to believe. Hawkins considered it a real danger that local opinion might swing behind

Melville and against the Park Service, and he hoped that the NPS could demonstrate its benign

intentions and win local support before undertaking this controversial lawsuit.

Burney wrote immediately to Kittredge describing his meeting with Hawkins and reminded

Kittredge of Dunn’s report from the previous winter, which had strongly recommended

the same project.72 About two weeks later, Kittredge wrote to Director Albright conveying

Hawkins’ request—with his endorsement—that work begin on the new entrance road.

Kittredge estimated the cost at $100,000 and wondered if the money would be made available

through the regular Pinnacles appropriation. If not, he asked if it could be funded through

Hoover’s emergency unemployment relief fund, the first of which had just been announced

that year. Kittredge thought that work could begin in a matter of weeks if the funds were

released, since Dunn had already surveyed the proposed alignment.73

Nothing more was then said about the entrance road for nearly a year, and the proposal seemed

to be languishing for lack of money. The Park Service could not afford such a major allocation

in its monuments budget. It had already committed $13,000 for trailwork and nearly $2,000

for construction that year (1931), the largest single appropriation Pinnacles had ever received.

The proposed road improvement would cost nearly seven times this much, and the best hope

anybody had was for a Congressional relief appropriation, but so far this had not materialized.

By the end of the year, however, the effects of the Depression were being felt with increased

severity in San Benito County. Hawkins was growing impatient as the date of the Melville trial

approached and people around him were becoming frustrated with the government’s failure to

provide any relief for the employment crisis. In November, as rumors began circulating about

the possibility of a new unemployment relief bill, Hawkins wrote to Director Albright asking

72. Burney to Kittredge, December 6, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

73. Kittredge to Director, December 17, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

102
The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

Figure 21. View looking west up Bear Gulch toward the High Peaks in 1929. Existing road visible in distance to

upper right; proposed new alignment marked with black line and arrow. [Included in Dunn to Hommon, August

10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.]

if he should petition his congressman to lobby for a share of this aid to be distributed to the

National Park Service should such a bill be passed. Albright advised him to wait.

A few days later, County Clerk Elmer Dowdy, also wrote to Albright, stressing the same points

Hawkins had just made:

We had hoped that the unemployment situation would not become serious here but our

hopes have not been realized and the condition is now one of a grave problem. The Board

just a few days ago passed a resolution requesting all of the county officials and all of the

regular employees to donate at least one day’s wages or salary to a fund to be used for relief.

The Board is of the opinion and if an appropriation can be made available at once to be

used for the improvement of the monument, it would not only relieve the unemployment

condition but would also set well with the taxpayers of the county.74

Dowdy also pointed out that the jury trial scheduled against Melville would be a considerable

financial burden not only for the county but also for the jurists who would have to travel

to Hollister and maintain themselves there for the duration of the proceedings. This trial

would likely seem frivolous to the jurors, but any resentment against the Park Service that

might result could be offset with a substantial work project that provided employment for

the community. On the same note, Col. John White, superintendent of Sequoia National

Park, wrote to Albright after seeing Hawkins at a party in San Diego (Hawkins’ daughter had

married a navy man, and they were attending the celebration at the base on Coronado Island):

74. Elmer Dowdy to Albright, December 22, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

103
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

He is very anxious about Pinnacles road construction, feeling that at this time it would

favorably influence opinion in the matter of acquiring that 160 acre private holding.

Hawkins says that the unemployment problem is even worse in San Benito Co. than

elsewhere, tho that seems impossible.75

A few weeks later, Hawkins wrote once more to Albright, stressing his concern over the current

economic trouble. Scarcely masked behind his words was his growing irritation at the federal

government’s failure to do anything to ameliorate the crisis.76

Early in 1932, Director Albright finally responded to Hawkins’ numerous requests, not with

money or a work project, but with a letter expressing the Park Service’s commitment to

undertake further development at the Pinnacles if or when funds became available. Albright

regretted that there currently was no such funding in the Park Service budget, but he alluded

hopefully to a new unemployment relief act that President Hoover had just presented to

Congress. This letter was addressed to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors and was

meant to reassure them of the Park Service’s commitment to the monument’s development. At

the time, it was all that the director could do.

In July, Congress passed Hoover’s emergency appropriations bill, and everybody was waiting

hopefully to see how this money would be distributed. In the meantime, however, Hawkins had

been negotiating with Jake Leonard, president of the Hollister Chamber of Commerce, about

the possibility of establishing a state highway from Hollister to Soledad through the Pinnacles.

The California State Automobile Association (CSAA) already supported this proposal, and

an official endorsement from the Automobile Club of Southern California was imminent.

Together, these groups had drafted a bill to reallocate a portion of the state budget to make this

proposal possible. The bill would be introduced in the next session of the legislature in 1933.

In a letter to Director Albright, Hawkins quoted verbatim a speech given by C.C. Cottrell of

the CSAA, summarizing the contents of the proposed bill.

According to Cottrell, the bill would amend the Breed Allocation Act of 1927, which had

introduced the existing system of primary and secondary roads and established a prioritized

protocol for dividing budgetary allocations between them. Seventy-five percent of all new

allocations went to primary roads first, and the remainder was used for designated secondary

roads. The new bill would modify the Breed Act so that over sixty-six hundred miles of county

and city roads could be brought into the state system and funded by state money. To accomplish

this, the proposed legislation would temporarily reduce the 75 percent rule for primary road

funding to 50 percent and use the difference to fund secondary county roads. The Depression

75. John White to Albright, December 29, 1931, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

76. Hawkins to Albright, January 14, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. Hawkins’ growing

desperation with the financial crisis was beginning to have a personal dimension. In March, he wrote again to the

director requesting a mileage allotment for his travel. Hawkins had always lived at his home residence in Hollister

and commuted to the monument—approximately thirty miles each way—in his personal vehicle. In addition to

this commute were frequent trips to San Francisco and the East Bay to visit the Park Service’s Field Headquarters

and associated offices. Up until 1932, this travel had not constituted a financial burden for Hawkins, who was

independently wealthy, and he had always paid these expenses out-of-pocket. But the collapse of the stock market

and subsequent banking crisis had taken its toll on Hawkins’ private resources. In this same letter to Director Albright,

Hawkins confessed, “I, like many others, financially have my back to the wall, making the fight of my life.” [Hawkins

to Albright, May 16, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.] For technical reasons, Albright was

not able to provide him with a travel allotment, but he did offset Hawkins’ expenses by increasing his salary from a

nominal $12 a year to $540.

104
The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

was a strong incentive for this reallocation, since the county projects promised to provide a

more widely distributed base of employment in more labor-intensive jobs.77 Hawkins hoped

to use this act to convert the county road from Hollister to Pinnacles into a state highway and

then push the road through to Soledad. Prior to passage of the proposed legislation, the State

Department of Public Works would be asked to recommend which roads should be included

in the contemplated additions, and Hawkins was at that time busy lobbying to get his road on

that list.78

Much of Hawkins’ optimism over the cross-monument state highway hinged on his belief that

money would soon be available to undertake the new Bear Gulch Entrance Road. Hawkins

considered these respective projects integral to one another. As he indicated in a letter to

Albright, “Our control road is our big handicap, and with money allocated for that we believe

we can get on the State highway system this year.”79 Hawkins believed that having good

access to the Bear Gulch campground and trailheads was necessary to make a cross-monument

highway through the Old Pinnacles attractive to motor tourists. The Bear Gulch road would

be a detour along the main highway, but it would lead to the principal destination for most of

the motorists who were expected to use the highway. Director Albright seemed to share this

understanding of the matter and had indicated as much in his letter to the San Benito County

Board of Supervisors earlier that year when he spoke of the cross-monument highway and the

Bear Gulch Entrance Road as both being part of the anticipated future development of the

monument.80

On October 4, 1932, Director Albright sent a telegram to Chief Engineer Kittredge in San

Francisco announcing that $50,000 had been allotted for the Bear Gulch road from President

Hoover’s Relief and Reconstruction Act, a precursor of President Franklin Roosevelt’s more

famous unemployment relief programs (such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, discussed in

the next chapter). Kittredge was in Yosemite at the time but rushed back to San Francisco and

began immediately preparing a surveyor party under the direction of Assistant Engineer C.O.

Roberts. Preliminary work began on October 14th, though one of the most immediate tasks

was the preparation for groundbreaking ceremonies, which were scheduled for the following

week. On Thursday morning, October 20th, some three hundred representatives of federal,

state, county, and local city governments, among others, gathered on a hillside in Bear Gulch

about fifteen hundred feet below the lodge. Custodian Hawkins dug the first shovelful of earth,

symbolically initiating the project, while Chief Engineer Kittredge prepared a demonstration

of the various techniques that would be used on the job, including a detonation of explosive

77. C.C. Cotrell, “Explanation of a Highway and Street Improvement Plan Advocated Jointly by the California

State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California...”September 2, 1932, PINN

Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

78. Hawkins was lobbying to have the road from Hollister to King City included in the state highway system as

early as 1924. [Hawkins to Mather, September 20, 1924, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.] This

predates the Breed Allocation Act.

79. Hawkins to Albright, September 12, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

80. Although the cross-monument highway was never built, the legacy of this idea is still evident in the enigmatic

State Highway 146, which travels westward from Highway 25 only as far as the 1931 boundary of the monument,

then resumes on the other side of the Pinnacles from the western boundary of the monument down to Soledad

without connecting in between. Hawkins and all those with him who promoted the state highway in 1932, believed

that the middle section would eventually be constructed by the Park Service. Their expectation helped get the new

Bear Gulch entrance road started.

105
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

charges. A movietone (sound) camera recorded the event, and copies of the newsreel were

distributed to theaters throughout California.81

The proposed road was 1.16 miles long and would be twenty-four feet wide along most of

its length. A maximum grade of 6 percent was allowed and a minimum curve radius of two

hundred feet (except where the road crossed Chalone Creek). These standards made it necessary

to deviate from the original alignment for a considerable portion of the way. Generally, the

new road lay below the old one. Much of the new road’s width had to be cut into the steep

hillside, while the remaining width was extended out on a fill embankment composed of the

waste removed from the inside slope. The inside slopes were cut at a gradient ranging from 1 to

1 in loose material to 1/4 to 1 (or nearly vertical) in rock, while all of the embankment slopes

were graded at a more gentle 1-1/2 to 1 gradient. Galvanized corrugated steel culverts were

laid within the embankment fill at approximately five-hundred-foot intervals to drain water

underneath the new roadway. These emerged well above the toe of the embankment, a design

flaw that would have serious consequences in the near future, causing substantial erosion below

the outflow at their tail ends. Terra cotta drain tiles were also placed along the inside of the

road at the toe of the cut slope in order to collect and divert water into the culverts.82

The most extensive excavation on the project occurred at the “big cut.” This was an ancient

landslide that blocks Bear Gulch, creating a waterfall when the creek is flowing. The sediment

trapped by this natural obstruction on its upper side forms the level terrace where the

groundbreaking ceremony was held. The original road had climbed up and over this slide

at an unacceptably steep angle, but the new road would cut directly through it in order to

maintain its standard 6 percent grade. Many of the large boulders from the slide were broken

up and retained for masonry work—the guardrails and culvert headwalls, for instance, and the

dry-laid revetment along the toe of the embankment slopes.

The labor required to move the estimated 47,700 cubic yards of excavated rock and soil was

prodigious. Only manual techniques were allowed in order to create work for as many men as

possible (though a steam shovel was later brought in to complete the job when time became

short). During the first four months, approximately two hundred men were employed. They

were divided equally between two shifts of three 8-hour days each. The first shift ran from

Monday to Wednesday; the second, from Thursday to Saturday. The standard wage was $3.12

per day, with as much as $5.60 per day for skilled craftsmen and sub-foremen. Where the

ground was loose, waste was removed by pick and shovel. Otherwise, it was broken up with

dynamite and then shoveled out. A temporary railway was assembled along the road alignment

so that ore cars could be used to transport the waste from the excavation to the fill site. Much

of this waste was used to fill the embankment slopes along the road grade, but the majority

of it was transported to the foot of Bear Gulch and used to construct a raised viaduct across

Chalone Creek. A narrow aperture was left in the middle of the viaduct for the creek to pass

through and a temporary wooden trestle built to span it. A permanent masonry bridge was

planned for a later date but was not included under the current job appropriation.

Many of the men employed were either local ranchers or boarded with ranchers and commuted

daily from nearby Bear Valley. Others lived on the job site, and accommodations had to be

81. Ralph Phelps to E.H. Sanders, October 21, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. For a

partial list of VIPs invited, see press release from October 16 and Kittredge to Director, October 18, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. Note that Kittredge sent a copy of this newsreel to NPS offices in Washington,

but there is no record of it at the National Archives.

82. This and following based primarily on Roberts and Cowell, “Final Report on Construction of Entrance Road.”

106
The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

Figure 22. The men principally responsible for the new entrance road, posing on groundbreaking day, October

20, 1932. From left to right: NPS Chief Engineer Kittredge, Col. Goff Thompson, and Custodian W.I. Hawkins.

[Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

provided for them.83 A labor camp was constructed in Bear Gulch just below the lodge.

Ten permanent wooden cabins were built—five measuring sixteen by eighteen feet, and five

measuring twelve by fourteen feet—all comprising a single, unfinished room with multiple

bunks. These were expected to become tourist cabins once the present task was completed,

and most are still extant, though substantially altered. (They are currently being used as

administrative offices by park staff.) In addition, five tent platforms, each measuring sixteen

by twenty feet, were also constructed to accommodate tents borrowed from Yosemite National

Park. The cabins were arranged in two straight rows along Bear Gulch Creek with a dirt lane

running down the middle. A communal bathhouse was also constructed in the same vicinity.

The lodge was slightly expanded, with additional storage and a larger kitchen added. This was

used as the project mess hall, a nominal fee being deducted from the men’s wages for their

meals.

Just below this impromptu village, a work area was established on the broad terrace above the

Bear Gulch falls (where the groundbreaking ceremonies had been held). An equipment shed

with blacksmith shop, a powder house, and a refuse pit were all eventually constructed here.

On Chalone Creek, below the mouth of Bear Gulch, a primitive camp was also set up. Only

water and sanitary facilities were provided here, while the men brought their own tents. The

cost was considerably less than staying at the Bear Gulch accommodations and appealed to the

more frugal spirits.84

By March, the majority of the heaviest labor was completed, and the work force was gradually

diminished to approximately forty men per shift. Much of this final stage of the project

83. Kittredge to Director, October 21, 1932, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

84. C.O. Roberts and A.E. Cowell, “Final Report on Construction of Entrance Road,” April 15, 1933, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 46, PNM.

107
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Figure 23. Formal ceremonies on groundbreaking day for the new entrance road, October 20, 1932.

The pavillion was located on the lower end of the natural terrace just below the present superintendent’s

residence (Building #19). [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

consisted of cleaning up and landscaping or naturalizing the scars left by construction.

The tops of the cut slopes were rounded to create a more natural transition to the existing

topography, and the original road cut was filled in and carefully obliterated. Efforts were made

to revegetate all of the denuded areas. Loam was placed on the embankment slopes and seeded

with local toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and buckeye (Aesculus californica).85 Custodian

Hawkins later reported that these efforts were largely successful, with many seedlings emerging

by the following season. Efforts to revegetate the cut slopes, however, would not do as well,

and it was not until 1942 that a successful strategy for naturalization was discovered in the

simple expedient of irrigation to stimulate the existing natural seed bank.86

By April of 1932, all work was done. The entire road had been cut and graded, and the job

site largely cleaned up. The road had not been paved, although a short, one-hundred-foot

segment had been surfaced with a variety of treatments as a demonstration. The guardrail

still needed to be constructed, as did the bridge over Chalone Creek. But these items had

never been included in the existing appropriation and would be dealt with later. For the time

being, the road was finished and open for use. It was a considerable improvement over the old

one-way control road. The project had met, if not exceeded, expectations, with all essential

construction completed to a high standard on time and within budget and no reported injuries

85. Roberts and Cowell, “Final Report on the Construction of Entrance Road,” p. 19.

86. Custodian’s Narrative Reports, January, 1944, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 22. See further discussion in

Chapter 5.

108
The Second Bear Gulch Entrance Road (1932)

Figure 24. Laborers village in Bear Gulch, 1933. Many of the hardwalled buildings to left are

still extant and being used for administrative purposes by Park staff. Most of these were faced

up to the windowsills with stone by the Civilian Conservation Corps a few years later. The

tent cabins to the right were removed shortly after the road project was completed. [Included

in F.A. Kittredge, “Final Report on Construction of Entrance Road,” April 15, 1933, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, PNM.]

Figure 25. View from above looking east down Bear Gulch in early 1933. Original 1925 road is

still extant to left. New road in progress below it. The buildings to the right are the blacksmith’s

shop and powder room. They were removed shortly after the project was completed. [Included

in F.A. Kittredge, “Final Report on Construction of Entrance Road,” April 15, 1933, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, PNM.]

109
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Figure 26. Local laborers working on the new Bear Gulch entrance road in 1932. Ore cars were borrowed from

the nearby New Idria mercury mines to convey waste rock off the cut slope. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

more serious than a fractured wrist, although a few individuals still remember the deleterious

effects of the water delivered daily by a tanker truck.87

Native American Artifacts Collection

During the early 1930s, the Park Service began negotiating with two local ranchers to acquire

collections of Native American artifacts. The ranchers had collected these artifacts over the

previous half-century from the surrounding area and throughout the west. At least one of the

collections was extremely large. An ethnologist from the Smithsonian Institute, John Peabody

Harrington, had been working in the region for several years, and it may have been his interest

that alerted the ranchers to the value of what they had and inspired them to step forward and

offer to donate their collections to the Park Service. According to several sources, collecting

Indian artifacts was a local hobby and not taken very seriously before now. In the early years

of American settlement around Bear Valley, it was common to turn up artifacts of all kinds—

especially projectile points and portable mortars—while cultivating the valley bottomlands.

Most local residents had at least a few Indian artifacts lying around their ranches.

John Harrington had been in the central coastal region of California since 1921, studying

Ohlonean ethnography and had begun compiling information on the Mutsun, an Ohlonean

people of northern San Benito County, since early 1922. (Prior to European contact, the

closely related Chalon occupied southern San Benito County, including the region around

Pinnacles, but their language and customs were very similar to those of the Mutsun.) As

87. Jack O’Donnell, interviewed by author, March 23, 2007.

110
Native American Artifacts Collection

Figure 27. Construction of Bear Gulch entrance road in 1932. Waste rock from cut slopes being deposited in

Chalone Creek to establish abutments for future bridge. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

Hawkins noted, “Mr. Harrington of the Smithsonian Institute . . . has a complete record of

the Pinnacles Indian language, customs, legends. Their dance, songs have also been caught

on phonographs.”88 Specifically, Harrington had been working with Mutsun elder Ascencion

Solorsano, who was then living in Gilroy but had also lived at various times on traditional

lands within or near the boundaries of the present monument. With Solorsano’s assistance,

Harrington assembled a Mutsun “Dictionary” as well as a monograph on the survival of

traditional language and customs among the missionized Indians of San Juan Bautista (who

were primarily Mutsun).89 Schuyler Hain also helped Harrington in this project, serving as a

local “nonlinguistic informant.” Harrington came back to California again in 1929 and visited

Solorsano once more before she died early the following year.90 It was on this visit, that he

was invited to inspect a large collection of artifacts on the Butts Ranch, just east of Bear Valley

near Pine Rock. Mrs. Butts had recently offered to donate her collection to the monument,

and Custodian Hawkins wanted Harrington, as a specialist, to assess its value.

Harrington also visited the ranch of Dan Madeiros on the west side near Soledad to assess a

similar collection that Madeiros was also offering to donate. Harrington later visited Director

88. Hawkins to Horace Albright, February 28, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

89. This monograph, called the “San Juan Report,” and the Mutsun “Dictionary” are part of the John P. Harrington

Papers in the National Anthropological Archives of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. They are

published in microfilm. See Elaine L. Mills, ed., The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution,

1907–1957; Volume Two, A Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language, and Culture of Northern

and Central California (White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 2007).

90. Hawkins to Director, January 31, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

111
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Albright directly in Washington, D.C. and vouched for the high quality of both collections,

recommending that the Park Service do everything it could to acquire them. By this time,

Albright had already reached this conclusion and instructed Hawkins to pursue negotiations

with the ranchers as aggressively as possible. (In September of 1930, Sequoia Superintendent

John White attended a picnic at the Butts Ranch and saw the artifact collection himself. He

was just as impressed as Harrington had been and informed the director of his opinion. The

photograph below was probably taken by White at the Butts Ranch that year.)

Mrs. Butts seemed only too willing to donate her collection to the Park Service and started

formal negotiations immediately. Dan Madeiros was also a willing donor but decided to use

the Park Service’s interest to help realize other objectives that he had for the monument. In July

of 1930, he wrote to Director Albright saying that he would donate his collection of Indian

artifacts contingent on receiving two commitments from the Park Service. The first was that

the Park Service agree to build the cross-monument highway through the Balconies; and the

second was that it agree to build a museum to house his collection (and any other collection

Pinnacles might receive).91 Since at this time, the Park Service already planned to implement

both these proposals, Madeiros’ conditions did not pose any obstacles, and Albright readily

agreed to continue negotiations on these terms.

By December of 1932, Hawkins reported to Washington that negotiations were currently

underway with Dan Madeiros and Mrs. Butts, and that both collections would soon be

acquired. But rather mysteriously, this was the last time anything was ever said about the

Indian artifact collections. The Park Service never built its museum, and the collection it

does maintain clearly lacks the promised donations. The stone mortars pictured in the 1930

photograph from the Butts Ranch are reportedly still on the property but have been used to

construct a small masonry outbuilding. What became of the Madeiros collection is not yet

known.92

Melville and His Consequences

In 1933, Pinnacles would enter a dramatically new period in the history of its development.

By the end of that year, the Civilian Conservation Corps, a federal unemployment assistance

program enacted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would take up residence at the

monument and make available an unprecedented workforce. As many as two hundred young

men would pool their resources to help implement many of Pinnacles’ most desired and

needed projects. The first period of the monument’s development ended with the arrival of

the CCC. Also ended was the long monopoly over the west side by the Copper Mountain

Mining Company and its cantankerous president, Henry Melville, who died on December

10, 1933. The consequences of Melville’s actions would persist, however, and still influence

the design and management of the monument to this day. Though it may not have been

Melville’s original intention, his actions prevented the construction of the cross-monument

highway through the Old Pinnacles during the 1920s when enthusiasm for this proposal was

at its height. By the time his property in the Balconies was finally condemned in 1935, the San

91. D.A. Madeira [sic] to Albright, July 23, 1930, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II. Given the

importance of the cross-monument highway at that time, and the numerous alternative proposals being discussed,

it is worth noting that Madeiros believed the Park Service would construct a tunnel through the Balconies formation

rather than widening the existing chasm to accommodate automobiles (unless he misunderstood the latter proposal

to mean the tunnel he described).

92. Lisa Smith, pers. comm., 2009.

112
Melville and His Consequences

Figure 28. Portable mortars in the Butts’ family collection. Photo taken on the Butts Ranch, ca. 1930. [Mus.

Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

Benito County Board of Supervisors had already begun to question the idea, fearing that the

road would draw tourism away from the east side and benefit Monterey County instead. This

concern explains why San Benito County held on to the condemned parcel until 1958, rather

than conveying it to the Park Service immediately as the county had once intended.

Another consequence of Melville’s activities was the Park Service’s decision not to develop the

west side until after he was gone.93 This kept the Park Service from initiating any projects until

well into the 1930s, by which time most of the development in Bear Gulch on the east side had

already been constructed, and this area was established as the focal point of the monument.

By the time Park planners were finally able to consider the west side, the energy of the CCC

period was beginning to wind down, and the outbreak of World War II would soon bring

all development programs to an abrupt halt. Not until the postwar Mission 66 initiative did

attention return to the west side, and temporary facilities were finally built there in 1966.

93. Mather to Hawkins, February 9, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

113
Chapter Three Custodian Hawkins and Planned Development, 1925–1932

Figure 29. Photograph of Henry Melville, date unknown (probably sometime after

1920). [Courtesy of Leland Melville.]

114
Chapter Four

Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

The 1930s were a period of dramatic change and growth for the National Park Service. One

of the earliest events of this decade to affect the agency was the Reorganization of 1933.

Implemented on June 10th of that year by Executive Order 6166, this act transferred all of

the national monuments—as well as many of the nation’s cemeteries, memorials and public

buildings—to the National Park Service. This more than doubled the number of units within

the national park system from 67 to 137. Even more significantly, it nearly quadrupled the

number of historical units from twenty to seventy-seven, broadening the agency’s focus from its

prior emphasis on natural scenic areas to include substantial cultural resources as well. Before

the Reorganization, Pinnacles was one of only a handful of monuments administered by the

National Park Service. It was now joined by a variety of other types of monuments that were

transferred from the Department of War and the Forest Service. While this had no immediate

effect on Pinnacles, the growth of the Park Service as a whole and the expansion of its mission

with these additions would have consequences that were eventually felt throughout the entire

system.1

More immediately significant for Pinnacles was the dramatic and rapid expansion of the

National Park Service with President Roosevelt’s New Deal appropriations. The annual budget

for the agency increased from about $10.8 million in fiscal year 1933 to just under $27

million in 1939. While this money had to be distributed among many more units after the

Reorganization, it was augmented by some $218 million in emergency conservation projects

over the same period.2 The combined effect of these federal appropriations was felt by virtually

every park in the nation, no matter how small, and Pinnacles was no exception. In order to

manage this growth, many structural changes were also implemented that would affect the

relationship between parks and monuments like Pinnacles and the agency as a whole, changing

the way resources and information were distributed. The Field Headquarters in San Francisco,

which had existed since 1928 and provided professional support for many of the western parks,

was greatly expanded in 1933 in response to the growth that had begun that year. Its staff and

their responsibilities were now formally organized into a Branch of Engineering and a Branch

of Plans and Design.3 In 1937, San Francisco became the headquarters for Region Four when

the entire Park Service was regionally organized following the Army’s model. The need for

this had been recognized as early as 1934 as a means of dealing with the greatly expanded and

more diverse system that the Park Service now managed. Individual parks and monuments

now turned first to their regional office for support and guidance rather than to Washington.4

Although Pinnacles had always relied heavily on the support of the Field Headquarters or

1. Harlan Unrau and G. Frank Williss, Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s

(Washington, DC: National Park Service, n.d.), pp. 43–75.

2. Ibid., p. 75.

3. Vernon L. Hammons, A Brief Organizational History of the Office of Design and Construction, National Park

Service, 1917–1962 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1963).

4. Unrau and Williss, Expansion, pp. 247–265.
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

technical staff at large nearby parks like Yosemite or Sequoia, after 1937 the role played by

Washington in the daily affairs of the monument was greatly diminished while the regional

directorate’s role increased.

Even while these structural changes were going on throughout the agency, Pinnacles was

experiencing the most substantial and extensive physical development in its history, unmatched

to the present day. Its core High Peaks trail system, begun by park staff in 1928 following

Herman Hermansen’s original 1924 design, was improved and finally completed; most of the

monument’s permanent buildings and structures were built (or started); and all of the principal

access roads on the east side were developed to the present high standard. This work was made

possible by the President’s New Deal relief programs, such as the Public Works Administration

(PWA) and especially the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which maintained a camp

at Pinnacles from the fall of 1933 to the spring of 1942. During their nine-year tenure at

Pinnacles, the CCC made a lasting contribution to the history of monument, establishing

much of the physical infrastructure and development patterns that are still apparent today.

The Federal Government’s Response to the Great Depression

President Herbert Hoover’s Relief and Reconstruction Act, which had financed the Bear Gulch

Entrance Road, was a harbinger of much greater things to come for Pinnacles. Although Hoover

was defeated in the November elections, this early example became an important precedent

for federal subsidization of public works as a means to address the crisis of unemployment. It

would be followed—and greatly expanded—by his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By

the time Roosevelt took office in 1933, unemployment had risen in excess of 25 percent. In the

rural west, it was even higher. These statistics, and the psychological desperation that lay behind

them, all but forced the new president to instigate dramatic measures if only to reassure an

anxious nation that he would not tolerate the status quo. To fulfill this expectation, Roosevelt

immediately called Congress into a hundred-day special session. During this period, much of

the now-famous New Deal was hammered out, with bills often passed by a supportive Congress

only hours after their submittal. The federal government’s role was fundamentally redefined as

it became significantly involved in domestic welfare assistance. This was largely unprecedented

in the nation’s history, but the collapse of the private sector had left Americans feeling skeptical

of laissez-faire economics and willing to accept a far greater degree of government involvement

in their lives than they had ever considered tolerable before. Many of the federal assistance

programs that Roosevelt introduced had a direct and substantial impact on Pinnacles National

Monument, resulting in a decade of nearly continuous physical improvement. Between the

end of 1932 and the outbreak of war in 1942, much of the monument’s present infrastructure

was built.5

President Hoover had been convinced that the Depression was an international problem and

could not be resolved through domestic policies. Only toward the end of his presidency did

he accept the need for the federal government to intervene directly in domestic affairs with

subsidies to banks, public works and unemployment assistance. His Relief and Reconstruction

Act, which had helped build the Bear Gulch Entrance Road, was one example of this belated

change in philosophy.6 By contrast, Roosevelt largely ignored the international dimension of

5. A good overview of the Depression era and federal response to the financial crisis is given in David Kennedy,

Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press,

1999).

6. Ibid., p. 91.

116
The Civilian Conservation Corps

the Depression and concentrated on domestic policy. One of the first problems Roosevelt

addressed as president was the banking crisis, which had followed the collapse of the stock

market in 1929. To restore confidence and prevent further mishap, he quickly enacted the

Emergency Banking Act, which expanded the federal government’s ability to regulate the

private financial system. But unemployment and the impoverishment of the rural agricultural

districts were also pressing challenges confronting the new administration, and Roosevelt

began discussing possible remedies with his staff on the very day that the banking act was

signed into law. These subjects would fully occupy the president and Congress for much of the

rest of the year (if not the remainder of the President’s first term in office). Both agricultural

price adjustment and unemployment were subjects of intense concern in San Benito and

Monterey Counties, but only the latter would have a direct impact on the monument.7 To

address unemployment, Roosevelt’s staff settled on three principal proposals. The first was to

make money directly available to the states for welfare relief. This measure was intended to

meet the immediate crisis and provide support for the unemployed until they could support

themselves once more. The second proposal was to create employment for skilled laborers

by subsidizing local public works. And the third was to put youth to work in a nationally

organized conservation program.8

The Civilian Conservation Corps

On March 21st, Roosevelt presented Congress with a bill that incorporated all but the public

works component of his unemployment strategy. The Federal Unemployment Relief Act created

the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and the Emergency Conservation Work

(ECW), or the Civilian Conservation Corps as it was more commonly known. The former

disbursed federal unemployment relief to the states, while the latter created a jobs program

for underemployed youth. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) quickly became one of

the most popular of Roosevelt’s New Deal plans.9 The program recruited young men between

the ages of 18 and 25 and organized them in camps to work on a variety of conservationoriented projects throughout the country. It was not a new idea. Many variations had already

been proposed during the first few years of the Depression, and several state programs had

even been implemented. Most of these had enjoyed only marginal success, mainly due to the

limited financial capacity of state governments. Roosevelt himself had experimented with a

7. The agricultural crisis had actually begun as early as 1921 when a collapsing market for agricultural goods followed

a brief period of overproduction stimulated by World War I. But Roosevelt’s team of advisors believed that agriculture

would remain in permanent crisis as a result of fundamental inconsistencies between agrarian and industrial economic

systems, and they set about devising a way to insulate the former from the latter through a system of regulated price

adjustments. These measures were introduced with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which was sent to

Congress on March 16th. As a further stimulus to the rural sector, Roosevelt also took the country off the gold

standard, allowing inflation to increase the value of agricultural commodities relative to the value of agricultural

debt. [See, Kennedy, Freedom From Fear, pp. 17–18, 200–213; Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order,

1919–1933 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1957), pp. 105–116; and The Coming of the New Deal (1958), pp.

27–84. See also Cletus Daniel, Bitter Harvest: A History of California Farmworkers, 1870–1941 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press, 1981), pp. 15–39.]

8. John C. Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933–1942: An Administrative

History (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1985), p. 7.

9. Although the program was always popularly known as the Civilian Conservation Corps, it was officially called

the Emergency Conservation Work until it was reauthorized in 1937. After reauthorization, the official name was

changed to Civilian Conservation Corps. To avoid confusion, this history will use the latter name throughout the

entire period of the program.

117
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

civilian conservation program in 1931 while governor of New York. Called the Temporary

Emergency Relief Administration, New York’s plan had recruited the unemployed to work

on forest restoration projects. The mostly positive reaction to this experiment and the lessons

learned from it contributed strongly to Roosevelt’s desire to implement a more comprehensive

national version two years later when he became president.

The Civilian Conservation Corps was more than simply a make-work program. It was also

designed to provide a moral education for its participants by inculcating habits of hard

work, self-discipline and social cooperation. Roosevelt believed that these values needed to be

reinforced or relearned if the country was to make a truly effective response to the Depression.

He made this clear in his first inaugural address, observing that the current economic system

was not only fiscally but morally bankrupt. He believed that the crisis demanded a radical new

social vision. “The measure of the restoration,” Roosevelt declared, “lies in the extent to which

we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.” The Civilian Conservation

Corps was to be a tangible step toward realizing these social values. Roosevelt did not refer to

the plan by name just yet, but it is clear from the proposal he sketched in this address that he

already had something like the CCC in mind:

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we

face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the

Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the

same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate

and reorganize the use of our natural resources.10

Many of the essential elements of the Civilian Conservation Corps were apparent in this brief

statement: the direct recruitment of enrollees by the government, the ordering of the program

according to a military model, and the selection of jobs based on the conservation of natural

resources.

In creating the CCC, Roosevelt sought to combine the conservation benefits of supervised

forestry with the social benefits of providing labor relief for the unemployed. But his primary

goal, as some historians have noted, was to expose urban youth to the morally invigorating

lessons of hard work in natural or primitive conditions. This would have the dual benefit

of completing locally needed jobs while, at the same time, preparing a new generation of

young men for citizenship in a nation that Roosevelt hoped would be more mature than the

irresponsible society that had produced the present crisis.11

When Executive Order 6101 was issued on April 5, 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps

was officially inaugurated. The program was jointly administered by the Departments of

War, Labor, Interior, and Agriculture with each department assigned a different responsibility.

The Department of Labor would recruit enrollees, while the Army would provide them with

rudimentary training and transportation to the camps. (This role was eventually expanded

to include supervision of the camps themselves.) The National Park Service and the U.S.

Forest Service would each host camps on their units and would develop and supervise work

assignments. The CCC was directed by Robert Fechner until his death in 1939. James McEntee

replaced Fechner and saw the program through to its conclusion in 1942.

10. In Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States: From George Washington, 1789, to George Bush, 1989

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

11. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, p. 126.

118
The Civilian Conservation Corps

The initial enrollment goal was two hundred and fifty thousand men, which was achieved

within a few months of the program’s start. With the exception of World War I veterans, all of

the enrollees were single boys between the ages of 18 and 24. Each boy enrolled for a period of

six months at a time but could re-enroll for a maximum tour of duty lasting two years, provided

he did not remain in the program past his 24th birthday.12 The enrollees received room, board,

and $30 a month (of which they had to remit $25 to their families). Enrollees lived in camps of

approximately two hundred boys each for six months at a time—the duration of one enrollment

period. These camps were organized and constructed after the military model, with the boys

living in barracks-style dormitories and eating in a common mess hall. Over 150 major types

of work were done by the CCC, but all of the work could be classified under the following

categories: forest protection and conservation, soil conservation, recreational developments,

aid to grazing and to wildlife, flood control, reclamation drainage, and assistance in natural

disasters. In addition, fire suppression became one of the leading activities carried out by the

CCC. This included ongoing prevention through fuel load reduction, construction of fire

trails and firebreaks and the construction and manning of observation towers.13 But the CCC

are probably best remembered today for the trails and various small buildings and structures

they built. Much of this work was artfully done in a rustic style that remains a distinctive

hallmark of the CCC. Since the purpose of the program was to provide employment, manual

labor was given priority over mechanized techniques in order to put as many hands to work

as possible. Manual labor was also considered more appropriate for the tasks in which the

CCC was generally engaged, because it had less impact on natural and scenic resources. In

addition to their regular fieldwork, the enrollees were also offered educational opportunities.

Most camps were supplied with an educational advisor, who coordinated evening classes in

a variety of subjects. By 1937, enrollees were required to receive ten hours of educational or

vocational training every week.

Since the Park Service provided technical supervision for CCC projects, its own staff of

supervisory personnel had to grow in proportion to the size of the CCC itself. Congress

allowed the NPS to hire technical positions—also known as forestry personnel—using CCC

funds. By 1935, staff had grown Service-wide by seventy-five hundred as a result, and many of

these positions eventually became permanent.

The initial act establishing the CCC was an emergency measure and was only effective

for six months, but the president was permitted to reauthorize the program in six-month

increments for a total of two years. The program proved successful enough to justify its

continuing reauthorization and even to allow expansion in the enrollment size, eventually

up to six hundred thousand young men. In 1935, Congress renewed the program along

existing terms for another two years. By that time, Roosevelt had begun to believe that the

CCC should become a permanent institution. In keeping with this idea, he implemented a

gradual reduction in enrollment from six hundred thousand back to the original three hundred

thousand, a number he thought would be more sustainable, especially now that the initial

crisis of the Depression was beginning to moderate. When the reauthorization bill came before

Congress again in 1937, Roosevelt asked the legislators to make the CCC a permanent civil

12. Enrollees could, however, apply for a staff position at the end of their eligible enrollment period, if they possessed

the necessary job skills. Two enrollees who served at Pinnacles did this—Robert Oliver and Aulton Hoover. Both

went on to have careers in the National Park Service. Aulton Hoover would become the senior ranger at Pinnacles

in the late 1940s after serving overseas in the European theater.

13. Wright Lynn and Herbert Holmgren, “A Better Understanding of the CCC,” typed manuscript, January 19,

1940, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658 Box 4, f. 10, PNM.

119
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

service. Responding to business lobbies, who feared that the federally subsidized program

would keep wages high by absorbing surplus labor, Congress refused, though it did reauthorize

the program on a temporary basis, and continued to do so until the American entry into

World War II. Two weeks after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Joint Appropriations

Committee of Congress recommended that the CCC program be terminated, and Roosevelt

reluctantly agreed. This order went into effect on July 1, 1942.

By the time the CCC was dissolved, a total of two million enrollees had participated in the

program. This represented 5 percent of the male population in the United States. During the

eight years of its existence, 895 camps had been established throughout the country, 198 of

these in national parks and 697 in state parks. The Civilian Conservation Corps proved to

be one of the most popular social programs implemented by the Roosevelt administration.

After the war there was renewed interest in establishing the CCC as a permanent agency, but

with the postwar economy booming, little came of these efforts. In the late 1970s, however,

the idea enjoyed a limited revival with the establishment of the Young Adult Conservation

Corps (YACC) and the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), which were modeled directly upon

Roosevelt’s earlier program. Fittingly, Pinnacles was among the parks chosen to host a YACC

program. Though the YACC did not last more than a few years, county and state-based

programs were later established on a similar model around the country, and many of these are

still in existence.14

The CCC at Pinnacles

Construction began on the CCC camp at Pinnacles—generally known as “Camp Pinnacles”—

on October 7, 1933, during the second enrollment period of the CCC program.15 Camp

Pinnacles was laid out as a quadrangle in typical military fashion at the site of the present NPS

maintenance yard and residential area on Chalone Creek. This natural bench was once part of

Alonzo Bourke’s homestead but had been acquired by the Park Service two years earlier. The

original camp comprised seven major structures—an administration building, a mess hall, four

barracks, and a washroom. It also included pit toilets for the enrollees. Electricity for lights

was provided by two gasoline-powered generators, and water was supplied from a shallow well

located a little below the camp.16 Camp Pinnacles was completed by November 3rd and fully

occupied on November 6 by a complement of just over two hundred enrollees.

The CCC occupied Camp Pinnacles for all or part of thirteen seasons from the second to the

eighteenth enrollment periods of the national program. These enrollments and their dates are

listed in the following table:

14. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps.

15. The camp was officially designated NM-4 and later redesignated NP-25 after 1938. But it was commonly referred

to as Camp Pinnacles, and that convention will be used here.

16. The well was a wood-lined box four feet square and dug to a depth of just under thirty feet into the gravel flood

plain. It filled with groundwater percolating from beneath the bed of Chalone Creek. This water was pumped uphill

approximately ninety feet to two six-thousand-gallon wooden tanks housed in a long, gable-roofed shed. It was then

supplied by gravity to the camp. The location of the well proved to be a mistake, as it later became contaminated

by effluent leeching downslope from the pit latrines. [A.W. Stockman, special investigator, to J.J. McEntee, Acting

Director, Civilian Conservation Corps, December 9, 1939, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22 (Inspection Reports),

NARA II.]

120
The CCC at Pinnacles

1 Second Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1933, to Mar. 31, 1934

2 Third Enrollment Period Apr. 1 to Sept. 30, 1934

3 Fourth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1934, to Mar. 31, 1935

4 Fifth Enrollment Period Apr. 1 to Sept. 30, 1935

5 Sixth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1935, to Mar. 31, 1936

6 Seventh Enrollment Period Apr. 1 to Sept. 30, 1936

7 Eighth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1936, to Mar. 31, 1937

8 Tenth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1937, to Mar. 31, 1938

9 Twelfth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1938, to Mar. 31, 1939

10 Fourteenth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1939, to Mar. 31, 1940

11 Sixteenth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1940, to Mar. 31, 1941

12 Eighteenth Enrollment Period Oct. 1, 1941, to Mar. 3, 1942

Camp Pinnacles was occupied more-or-less continuously from the fall of 1933 through the

spring of 1937. By the end of 1936, however, the program directors had decided that summers

at the monument were too hot for working, and thereafter Camp Pinnacles was left vacant

during the summer enrollment periods. The substantial reduction in the size of the program

after its re-authorization in 1937 may have also contributed to this decision. Beginning that

year, Pinnacles’ CCC crew alternated seasonally with General Grant National Park—now part

of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park—in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, where

snow made work impossible during the winter months.17

With the arrival of the CCC at Pinnacles, the responsibilities of the monument’s staff changed

substantially (as did their numbers). W.I. Hawkins remained custodian and was still in charge

of all regular staff and the normal functioning of the monument, but he now became camp

superintendent for the CCC program as well. Since very little else was happening at Pinnacles

except the CCC program once it started, the camp superintendency became Hawkins’ principal

job during these years, and he moved his office into the administrative building on the camp

compound in order to better fulfill his new role. C.A. Failing, who had been hired as assistant

custodian a few years prior to the arrival of the CCC, continued to help Hawkins with his

administrative duties, but now as assistant camp superintendent. Pinnacles also hired from

five to as many as ten additional employees to manage the numerous CCC work projects. By

1935, these supervisory personnel—or technical advisors—included two resident engineers, a

landscape architect, three project foremen, two mechanics, a carpenter, and a clerk, in addition

to Custodian Hawkins and his assistant. The only monument personnel who was not at least

partially assigned to the CCC program, was the chief ranger.

The engineers and landscape architects assigned to the CCC program at Pinnacles were

responsible for designing projects and overseeing their implementation in the field. Because of

the large number of ongoing projects, it was necessary to have these professional staff resident at

the monument rather than in the regional field office where they had previously been stationed.

Project foremen, who were responsible for supervising work crews, fluctuated in number from

season to season depending on the size of the CCC enrollment, but there were usually at least

three at Pinnacles. Each foreman was in charge of a single work detail, numbering between

17. This decision frustrated Custodian Hawkins, who had come to depend on having CCC labor year round,

particularly during the summer fire season, when he needed to have a fire-ready crew near at hand in the event of

an emergency. [Custodian’s Narrative Reports, October, 1937, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 16, PNM.]

121
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Figure 30. View looking southwest over Camp Pinnacles in 1935. [1954th CCC Co., 1935, (donated private

album), Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

forty and fifty enrollees. Many of these men were hired locally. For example, Fred Prewett,

a young rancher from nearby Bear Valley, served throughout much of the CCC program

and became highly respected for his skill in managing a trail crew. (Prewett had already been

working as trail foreman at the monument for several years before the CCC arrived.) Because

of the large amount of stonework involved in many of the jobs undertaken at Pinnacles, at least

one of the foremen was usually a professional stonemason. The camp also regularly employed

a blacksmith and assistant, who were kept busy keeping the tools sharp and in good repair.18

While the work program was managed by the NPS supervisory personnel, the camp itself was

managed by the Army. The Army staff consisted of a camp commander, a supply sergeant,

mess sergeant, and a cook. By the second year of the program, the commander’s support staff

were replaced with civilian employees, but their duties remained the same. The Army was

also responsible for providing a doctor, who would visit each camp a few times every week.

An educational advisor was also assigned to the camp, but Pinnacles did not receive one until

1935.

A few months after the arrival of the first enrollees at Pinnacles, a special investigator for the

CCC made a routine inspection of the camp. This was done as a matter of course at all of the

CCC camps at least once every enrollment period. His report gives some idea of what life here

was like. The inspector noted that Camp Pinnacles was “an exceedingly well kept camp, not

only from a sanitary point but morals etc.” He reported that the general feeling and spirit of

the enrollees was “excellent” and that relations with the local community were very friendly.

The camp included a library with books, magazines and newspapers, and plans were being

made to provide evening classes in basic subjects like history and algebra. Weekly religious

services were provided in the camp, while transportation was made available for those who

18. J. Haslett Bell and Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . Covering all Emergency Work Inclusive

of E.C.W., Public Works and C.W.A., November 1, 1933 to April 16, 1934,” May 15, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

122
The CCC at Pinnacles

Figure 31. Blacksmith and CCC assistant. Skilled local men often assisted the young CCC enrollees

and acted as their mentors. [1954th CCC Co., 1935, (donated private album), Mus. Coll. PINN 4372,

PNM.]

wanted to attend a church in Hollister. The enrollees generally worked eight-hour days and

had ample time for study or recreation after hours and on the weekend, though Saturdays

were spent doing cleaning and maintenance around camp. The investigator wrote that “Base

Ball and Volley Ball [are the] principal out door games, while radio, music instruments of men

provide other entertainments. Very friendly feeling exists between local citizens and company

and many dances attended.”19

The investigator reported that the meals were “excellent” and that supplies were “satisfactory

and adequate.” Judging from the sample menus he included for one week in January, the latter

was an understatement. A typical day might begin with fresh fruit, French toast with butter

and hot syrup, fried bacon, dried cereal with fresh milk, and coffee with sugar. For lunch, the

enrollees were served roast beef with boiled potatoes and boiled onions, doughnuts with butter

and jam, and lemonade with sugar. The day ended with a dinner of vegetable soup, chili con

carne, Spanish rice, and a string beans salad with bread and butter on the side, followed with

tapioca pudding for desert and hot cocoa with sugar.20

Under Army supervision, the daily routine for the enrollees closely resembled that of any

soldier. A typical day began with reveille at 6:30, when the boys turned out of their bunks

for roll call and then filed off to the mess hall for breakfast. At 7:45, they reported for work

and were transported to their respective job sites. Work continued until late afternoon, with a

break for lunch, and by about 4:00 the boys were back in camp. Dinner was at 5:00. Evening

activities—vocational classes, organized recreation, or just relaxation, depending on each boy’s

preference—began at 6:00. By 9:00, all of the enrollees were in bed and lights were out by

19. Special Investigator’s Report, January 25, 1934, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.

20. This was the menu for January 22, 1934. The details varied slightly from day to day, but every meal always

included meat, a starch, and canned vegetables, though fresh fruit or vegetables were served when available. Sweets

were served at every meal, and dairy products were often listed as fresh, probably obtained from the local ranches.

[Ibid.]

123
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Figure 32. Lining up for chow at Camp Pinnacles. [1954th CCC Co., 1935, (donated private album), Mus.

Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

9:30. Every stage of this very regimented day commenced or ended with a bugle call. The

enrollees followed this routine Monday through Friday. Saturdays were usually spent in the

camp either cleaning or repairing equipment. Sundays were free—unless there was a fire—and

trucks were often made available to take the enrollees to the swimming pool at Bolado Park or

to Hollister for religious services, a movie or a dance.21

The 1933–34 Winter Season: The Second Enrollment Period

Soon after their arrival at Camp Pinnacles in early November, the CCC enrollees were divided

into details and lined out on a variety of jobs. One detail began cutting and removing dead

brush and snags from the area burned in the 1931 fire. Another began working on trails.

Although the majority of the monument’s trail system had already been installed during

the previous few years by Park Service staff, some of the most difficult sections remained

unfinished, while others had been hastily built and needed widening or revetment. A fifteenhundred-foot segment of the High Peaks Trail between the head of Juniper Canyon and Scout

Peak had yet to be connected when funding had run out the previous spring. The CCC began

working on this job first. One air compressor had been left on site by the last work crew, but

the enrollees hauled a second compressor up Condor Gulch so that two crews could work

from both ends of the unfinished segment and meet in the middle. Work was completed and

the trail open by December.22

21. William E. Parker and Rudy McGinnis, “A Typical Day at Camp Pinnacles” typescript of radio broadcast, 1940,

Mus. Coll. PINN 3658 Box 4, f. 10.

22. Sources for this period include: “Final Report, Emergency Conservation Work...Second Enrollment Period

October 7, 1933 to May 10, 1934,” CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II; Thomas E. Carpenter, Landscape

Architect, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” October 30, 1933, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM;

J. Haslett Bell, Asst. Landscape Architect, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” December 18, 1933, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

124
The 1933–34 Winter Season: The Second Enrollment Period

Figure 33. CWA laborers working on road cut at Chalone Wye (intersection at the bottom of Bear Gulch), 1934.

[Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

The CCC also began laying out a new utility area at the bottom of Condor Gulch during

the winter of 1933. A landscape architect from the Branch of Plans and Design had discussed

the possibility of developing this site with Custodian Hawkins in October, and plans had

already been prepared for an equipment shed. On November 15th, twenty CCC enrollees

began grading a new road up Condor Gulch under the supervision of foreman Fred Prewett.

At the time, a rudimentary single-lane road already existed, probably constructed by Herman

Hermansen and Viggo Petersen. It extended about a quarter mile up the canyon to the original

High Peaks Trailhead. The CCC regraded this road, adjusting its alignment in places, and

surfaced it with gravel. At the far end, where the canyon broadened slightly into a level plateau,

they graded a circular building court for the proposed utility area. The trailhead was moved

to its present site opposite the Condor Gulch Comfort Station, and a new trail segment was

constructed paralleling the utility area road along the northeast hillside. These improvements

were mostly finished by the end of the calendar year.

While these projects were underway, park staff were preparing plans for future work. As yet,

no Master Plan had been developed for Pinnacles, an omission that the advisory staff at the

Branch of Plans and Design strongly recommended addressing as soon as possible. With the

CCC already at hand, something immediate needed to be done in order to put them to work,

so park advisory staff sketched out a preliminary development outline in the field. This was

sufficient to put together a work plan for the coming spring. Attention was given principally to

the area around the lodge, including the newly proposed utility area. Work was also proposed

for the Moses Spring Picnic Area, which had only recently replaced Herman Hermansen’s

upper campground following the park’s acquisition of the old Viggo Petersen homestead in

1931.23

23. J. Haslett Bell, Asst. Landscape Architect, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . November 5 to December 15,

1933,” December 18, 1933, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

125
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

The Public Works Administration (PWA)

Not long after the CCC program was implemented with the Federal Unemployment Recovery

Act in March, Roosevelt introduced a public works program that fulfilled the third and final

goal of his administration’s strategy for dealing with the national crisis. On June 16th, the

final day of Roosevelt’s special Congressional session, the National Industrial Recovery Act

(NIRA) was submitted to Congress and immediately passed. This legislation created both

the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA).

The former was designed to regulate prices and wages throughout private industry. The latter

was essentially a lending agency, charged with disbursing $3.3 billion in federal funds to

local governments for jobs on which eligible but unemployed laborers could be put to work.

Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes was responsible for managing it. In principle,

the NRA and the PWA were supposed to work in tandem—like two lungs—to re-invigorate

the ailing economy. On the one hand, the NRA would correct structural imbalances in the

system by means of regulation, thus creating an environment where wages could be distributed

equitably in order to benefit the entire spectrum of the working population. The PWA, on the

other hand, would create the actual jobs and provide the wages that the NRA was supposed to

regulate.24

In practice, Harold Ickes proved far too conservative with the disbursement of funds for the

PWA to provide the desired stimulus on the national economy. Nonetheless, the program had

a profound impact on local economies and on popular sentiments wherever it was applied.

In San Benito County, the PWA was first introduced in order to complete the Bear Gulch

Entrance Road. Work had proceeded on this project with funds allocated through President

Hoover’s Relief and Reconstruction Act until about April of 1933, when that money ran out.

Enough of the new road had been completed to be usable, but it was far from finished. Much

of it was only one lane wide, and approximately eight thousand cubic yards of earth still had

to be moved to bring the road up to a standard width for its entire length. In addition to this

basic construction, the road bed still had to be paved, and a masonry guardrail and masonry

headwalls on the drainage culverts all had to be constructed. Considerable cleanup needed to

be done as well, including the obliteration of the original one-lane road, which still cut across

the hillside above the new road. Most importantly, a permanent bridge had to be built across

Chalone Creek at the foot of Bear Gulch. At the time, there was only a temporary wooden

trestle here.

Fifty men hired through the PWA began working on this project early in November 1933.

As before, most of the work was done by hand with picks and shovels, since the program

sought to maximize labor in order to spread the benefits of employment among as many men

as possible. The most sophisticated equipment utilized on the job were pneumatic rock drills.

These were powered by gasoline air compressors and were used to drill the boreholes to place

explosive charges in the rock. The excavated material was moved in ore cars along temporary

tracks laid down the side of the road. All of this equipment was borrowed from local sources.25

The PWA program would remain active at Pinnacles for the remainder of the decade. The

Park Service quickly learned that it could combine the CCC and PWA programs to take

24. Kennedy, Freedom From Fear, pp. 178–179.

25. During the initial phase of road construction, the tracks and ore carts were borrowed from the nearby New

Idria Mines. The compressors and pneumatic drills were borrowed from Yosemite NP, where they were standard

equipment for constructing trails through granite mountains. The same techniques and equipment were utilized on

most of the Pinnacles’ trail system as well.

126
The Civil Works Administration (CWA)

advantage of the benefits of each and circumvent their respective limitations. The CCC was

essentially a work force and provided subsidized labor but little funding—projects were capped

at $1,500 per structure.26 The PWA, on the other hand, was a funding source. Money was

made available in the form of a federal grant and was used to hire local labor at standard

rates. There were theoretically no limits on the amount of a PWA allocation (though once

the allocation was made, the project had to be kept within this limit). But a PWA allocation

could be stretched much further if CCC labor was used for at least part of the work. The CCC

could rarely be used for all of a PWA job, since the enrollees usually lacked the necessary skills,

but they could be combined with skilled PWA laborers. Many of the larger or more complex

construction projects at Pinnacles were done in this fashion. For example, the equipment

shed in the utility area was a PWA-funded project, and the core building was constructed by

locally hired skilled laborers. But the CCC assisted by clearing and grading the pad and by

constructing the masonry facade under the supervision of a skilled stone mason. The only

significant exception to this pattern of collaboration was the Bear Gulch Dam, which was

constructed almost entirely with CCC labor, though the design and supervision of the project

were carried out by Park Service personnel.

The Civil Works Administration (CWA)

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), which was created at the same time

as the CCC with Roosevelt’s Federal Unemployment Relief Act, was harshly criticized. Even

Harry Hopkins, the man whom Roosevelt appointed as his federal relief administrator and

assigned the responsibility of disbursing FERA’s $500 million budget, was skeptical of the

program. The problem began in philosophy and ended in practice. The idea of simply giving

money to indigent Americans, no matter how desperately needed, was repugnant in principal

to most Americans at that time. The practice of screening for eligibility at the local intake

centers, where the money was actually disbursed, was considered humiliating, and many

people avoided these intake centers even when they could have benefitted from the assistance

provided. Hopkins realized that a more sensitive alternative needed to be implemented quickly

in order to get the country through the approaching winter, and he conceived of the Civil

Works Administration (CWA) as a temporary measure to address these concerns. Rather than

disbursing monetary aid directly to the unemployed, the CWA allocated funds for specific

projects on which they could be put to work. The CWA remained in essence a federal welfare

program, but its method of assistance was not so humiliating, because the poor were aided

through employment rather than a handout and were thus given the opportunity to earn their

assistance in a socially respectable manner. Need remained a principal criterion in the screening

of applicants for the jobs, but this was a more familiar and acceptable process than the welfare

screening at the FERA intake centers and nowhere near as painful. Much valuable work was

also accomplished through the CWA, which added further to the popularity and success of

the program.27

The Civil Works Administration was launched on November 9, 1933. Although most of the

New Deal programs were conceived as temporary measures to address what was thought to

be an emergency, rather than a permanent, situation, the CWA was ephemeral even by these

standards. Hopkins introduced the program as a means to get the country through that winter

and did not intend to continue it much further, nor did he. Money came from the budget

26. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, p. 39.

27. Kennedy, Freedom From Fear, pp. 171–176.

127
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

of the Public Works Administration and was disbursed by the Veterans Administration. By

January of 1934, the CWA was responsible for employing over four million men and women

in a variety of light construction and maintenance projects. But despite its apparent success—

or perhaps because of it—the program was terminated at the end of March, when the president

and his staff believed that the immediate crisis of the winter had been successfully averted.28

The sole project carried out by the CWA at Pinnacles was the improvement of the old truck

road from the Chalone Wye, where the new Bear Gulch Entrance Road crossed Chalone

Creek, north to the CCC camp. The new road was designed to be eighteen feet wide with

three-foot shoulders on either side, giving it a total width of twenty-four feet, which brought

it up to existing state highway standards. The project administrators still assumed that a crossmonument state highway would eventually be built along this alignment, and the proposed

CWA road was to be a segment of it. Work began on December 11, 1933, with about 120

local laborers. (The work force was eventually increased to 150.) Most of the labor was done

by hand, as on the PWA and CCC projects, though the county eventually loaned a steam

shovel to expedite progress. Skilled masons were brought in to construct culvert headwalls and

revetments. Work on the project continued into the following spring, but the CWA program

was terminated in March of 1934. By then, the Chalone Creek truck road was complete up to

Camp Pinnacles but no further. The original unimproved road still continued past the camp

up to the Old Pinnacles Campground on the eastern side of the Balconies.29

Spring of 1934: The Second Enrollment Period (continued)

The first group of CCC enrollees remained at Pinnacles through the end of March 1934 for

the duration of the second enrollment period. During the spring of this year, they continued

doing landscape maintenance and trail construction. Enrollees constructed a 2.2-mile trail

from a new trailhead along Chalone Creek just opposite the CCC camp to the Condor Gulch

Trail. (This was then redesignated the High Peaks Trail, while the original High Peaks Trail,

which began opposite the old lodge in Bear Gulch, was renamed the Condor Gulch Trail.) A

further extension of the High Peaks Trail, which would bring the westernmost end to the top

of the Bear Gulch Caves Trail, was also proposed at this time, but work would not begin until

the following enrollment period.30

The majority of the CCC work undertaken during the spring of 1934 occurred in or around

Bear Gulch. Development plans that were hastily drawn up the previous fall were implemented,

and the enrollees began working on landscaping around the lodge and in the picnic area near

the Bear Gulch Caves trailhead. Several terraces from the old campground were obliterated in

order to create a more natural environment, and minor utilities including a drinking fountain

and barbeque pits were constructed here. The enrollees also improved the parking area around

the lodge. This work required the construction of a two-hundred-foot-long dry masonry

28. Ibid.

29. J. Haslett Bell, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . November 5 to December 15, 1933,” December 18, 1933;

J. Haslett Bell to W.G. Carnes, December 5, 1933; J. Haslett Bell to W.G. Carnes, January 11, 1934; J. Haslett Bell

to W.G. Carnes, February 20, 1934; J. Haslett Bell to W.G. Carnes, February 28, 1934; and J. Haslett Bell to T.C.

Vint, April 5, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

30. Sources for this period include: J. Haslett Bell, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . Covering all Emergency Work

inclusive of E.C.W., Public Works and C.W.A., November 1, 1933 to April 16, 1934,” May 11, 1934; Thomas E.

Carpenter, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” April 24, 1934; and Thomas E. Carpenter, “Report to the Chief

Architect . . . ,” May 22, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

128
Spring of 1934: The Second Enrollment Period (continued)

retaining wall along Bear Gulch Creek on the west side of the lodge. Gravel and dirt topping

material was hauled in to surface the enlarged area. The landscaping around the existing

Condor Gulch Comfort Station was also improved, with stone steps installed leading up to

the structure from the newly graded parking area.

The CCC also assisted with two PWA projects during the spring of 1934. One was the

construction of the Equipment Shed (Building #201) in the Condor Gulch Utility Area.31

This was a large, gable-roofed structure measuring twenty-six by thirty-seven feet overall. The

underlying structure was built of wood, but the designs called for stone to be applied over

the entire exterior in order to create the appearance of rustic masonry construction. PWA

carpenters completed the framing of the building at the end of February. The CCC enrollees

then applied the stone facing under the supervision of a skilled stonemason.32 The facing

was constructed of wet-laid stone rubble, battered out slightly in typical rustic style. It was

completed by the end of April. The other PWA project was a new garage for the ranger’s

residence—a simple wood-frame, end-gable structure with large side-hinged doors measuring

twelve by eighteen feet. The CCC enrollees helped excavate and prepare the building pad,

while PWA carpenters did the actual construction. The garage was also finished by the end of

April.

At the conclusion of the CCC’s first season at Pinnacles, Assistant Landscape Architect J.

Haslett Bell visited the monument to report on the year’s progress and discuss ideas for the

following year with resident Landscape Foreman Francis Lange. Bell’s report was, in fact, a

summary of the Master Plan that was then being developed by his office at the Branch of Plans

and Design in San Francisco. This was Pinnacles’ first comprehensive Master Plan and would

be ready later that year (1934). Bell’s report, and the plan on which it was based, proposed

further improvement of Bear Gulch, which would constitute the principal development area

and administrative center of the monument. Bell proposed adding several new buildings here,

including a combined museum and administrative building, a gas and oil house, and a horse

barn. The latter two structures would be situated in the Condor Gulch Utility Area. Bell

observed that the old Pinnacles Company lodge was in poor condition and suggested that an

entirely new building be constructed to replace it, and he noted that existing utilities would

have to be expanded to accommodate this growth. Among the possibilities he recommended

for improving the water supply in Bear Gulch was construction of a dam above the Bear Gulch

Caves.33

31. This structure was destroyed by fire in 1955.

32. This was CCC project foreman H.J. McAdams.

33. This had originally been proposed by Custodian Hawkins for principally aesthetic reasons, as described by

Thomas Carpenter, the landscape architect from the Field Headquarters in San Francisco: “I accompanied Messrs.

Hawkins, Kittredge and Roberts on a trip thru the cave [Bear Gulch Caves] to examine a site that Mr. Hawkins

proposes for water storage by damming the stream above the cave. Mr. Hawkins sees three purposes for this storage:

one for extra water storage for use in the buildings; second, to hold back the water in times of high water,—when Mr.

Hawkins says trips thru the cave are held up for about two weeks; third, to extend the period of time during which

the stream thru the cave would serve for display. From an esthetic consideration, the waterfalls in the cave are very

enjoyable, but for economic reasons I think we would not be justified in recommending storage for this purpose.

The engineers plan to study the water storage possibilities and needs.” [Thomas E. Carpenter, “Report to the Chief

Landscape Architect . . . ,” February 4, 1933, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.] The engineering staff

did finally accept the proposal, but not for the reasons Hawkins initially proposed, as Assistant Landscape Architect

Bell later commented: “The construction of this proposed dam seems too great an undertaking for purely esthetic

purposes, but if it will stabilize and equalize the source of water supply in this area and thus obviate the necessity of

pumping water up from the C.C.C. camp site at some later date, it will be an economical and worthwhile project.” [J.

129
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Bell also recommended extending the existing trail system with construction of a bridle path

to Chalone Peak, where a fire lookout was already being planned. Work on these jobs could be

made simpler, he noted, if the CCC established a spike camp in the High Peaks or somewhere

near Chalone Peak. The wearisome experience of trudging up and down the ridge during the

fall of 1933 when the High Peaks Trail was being completed had no doubt recommended

this idea to project foremen. Bell also considered building a trail from the High Peaks down

Juniper Canyon but proposed no other development on the west side until litigation with the

Copper Mountain Mining Company had been fully resolved and the Park Service had gained

access to the Old Pinnacles. Once this happened, Bell and his colleagues expected that the

road which had been started earlier that season under the CWA would be extended through

the Old Pinnacles Gorge, making the west side more easily accessible to development.

The 1934 Summer Season: The Third Enrollment Period

On August 8th, at the height of Pinnacles’ hot season, the second complement of CCC

enrollees arrived. In the brief two months that this crew was here, comparatively little got

accomplished. It is difficult to determine whether this was due to the short duration of the

assignment, to the heat of the season, or, as Custodian Hawkins insisted, to the lack of an

established workplan. The last explanation seems the least likely, since Bell’s report from April

makes it clear that the Park Service had already prepared a detailed agenda for Pinnacles and

would have a Master Plan completed later that year. Hawkins always claimed the heat at

Pinnacles was not that bad—he never had to work outside in it—but this was probably the

principal reason that the summer enrollment periods proved less effective and would eventually

be discontinued.34

Most of the work done during this enrollment was landscape maintenance. Over a thousand

acres of the monument were thinned and cleared of dead vegetation to reduce fuel loading

and improve appearances. The majority of this work was done in the area burned by the 1931

fire. The enrollees also cleaned up the remaining traces of the CWA and PWA crews who had

recently finished working on the entrance road. A CWA labor camp on Chalone Creek was

removed and the original road through the Bacon Ranch obliterated. (The new road follows a

slightly different alignment.) Some of the tent cabins used by the PWA laborers were salvaged

and used by the CCC boys in creative ways. One of the tent cabin platforms, for instance, was

converted to a ring for boxing and wrestling. The PWA blacksmith shop and equipment shed

were also removed and the area around them restored. These structures had stood on the flat

where Building #19 was later constructed. The only other improvement carried out by the

CCC during this period was to restring the primitive telephone line on poles.35

Haslett Bell, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . Covering all Emergency Work inclusive of E.C.W., Public Works

and C.W.A., November 1, 1933 to April 16, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

34. Sources for this period include: “Emergency Conservation Work...Final Narrative Report, Third Enrollment

Period Ending September 30, 1934,” September 30, 1934, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II; R.L. Mills,

Landscape Foreman, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” October 3, 1934; R.L. Mills, “Report to the Chief

Architect . . . ,” September 7, 1934; R.L. Mills, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” August 3, 1934; and Thomas

E. Carpenter, Landscape Architect, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” July 22–23, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Misc. Boxes, PNM.

35. A twelve-mile line had been installed in 1923 to connect Building #2, where Ranger Marcott was then living,

with the nearest ranch in Bear Valley. The line was strung most of the way on trees or dead snags. In 1933, the CCC

added a second line to connect their camp on Chalone Creek into this system.

130
The 1934–35 Winter Season: The Fourth Enrollment Period

One of the few structures actually built during this assignment was a swimming hole for

the recreational use of the CCC boys themselves. This pool was located on Chalone Creek

about four hundred feet north of the Chalone Creek Bridge—then under construction—and

consisted of an excavation about six feet deep, one hundred and fifty feet long, and thirty feet

wide. It never proved very successful, because the sandy soil could not be made to hold water

very long. The pool eventually washed out during the winter floods and was not rebuilt.

The 1934–35 Winter Season: The Fourth Enrollment Period

This season saw the initiation of several large projects. First was construction of the entrance

pylons, which marked the eastern boundary of the monument at that time. (Looking east,

this is where Ben Bacon’s ranch began.) The distinctive light green rock which was used for

these structures was taken from a quarry on Chalone Creek a short distance above the CCC

camp. In later years, this rock came to be closely associated with the monument and would

be desired for signature projects, like Building #1 in Bear Gulch.36 But at that time, the Park

Service engineers considered it substandard, and some thought its greenish color was garish.

(They believed—erroneously—that the color would eventually fade after being exposed to

the elements.) The engineers used this green rock at first only for less important structures as

an alternative to the more desirable granite, which occurs rarely in this part of the Gabilan

Mountains. The granite was reserved for more important structures that required its greater

structural integrity. It was used, for instance, on the abutments of the Chalone Creek Bridge,

which had been started earlier that year.37

Granite was also being reserved for the Gas and Oil House in the Condor Gulch Utility Area

(Building #200). This building was started at the beginning of this work period and was all

but completed by spring. It was the first solid masonry building to be erected at Pinnacles.

Consistent with other rustic masonry architecture in the Park Service, the Gas and Oil House

was constructed of unformed native stone laid around a concrete core, while the roof was

built over wooden trusses suspended on the bearing masonry. The building was relatively

small, measuring only fifteen by seventeen feet with a six- by six-foot addition on one side for

storing fire tools. It replaced a much more primitive wooden structure, built by the Pinnacles

Company near the lodge, which was subsequently demolished. A final structure still planned

36. The rock is a type of lapilli-tuff and is probably associated with a volcanic vent. [Philip Andrews, “The Geology

of the Pinnacles National Monument” University of California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological

Sciences 24.1 (1936): pp. 20ff.]

37. Sources for this period include: “Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument: Quarterly

Report, Fourth Enrollment Period, October 1, 1934 to December 31, 1934,” n.d.; and “Emergency Conservation

Work, Pinnacles National Monument: Final Narrative Report, Fourth Enrollment Period, October 1, 1934 to March

31, 1935,” n.d., CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II; Francis Lange, Asst. Landscape Architect, “Final Report to the

Chief Architect...October 1, 1934 to March 31, 1935,” May 13, 1935; A.L. Ellis, E.C.W. Landscape Foreman,

“Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” April 1, 1935; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip:

March 10–12, 1935,” March 22, 1935; R.L. Mills, E.C.W. Landscape Foreman, “Report to the Chief Architect...

,” March 4, 1935; Francis Lange, “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect...Field Trip: February 10–11, 1935,”

n.d.; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip: January 6, 7, 1935,” January 31, 1935; R.L.

Mills, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” February 4, 1935; R.L. Mills, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,”

January 4, 1935; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief, Western Division...Field Trip of November 17–20, 1934;

Francis Lange, “Report to the Deputy Chief Architect...Field Trip of December 11 and 12, 1934,” December

27, 1934; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip: Novemeber 6–7, 1934,” November 20,

1934; and R.L. Mills, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . ,” November 2, 1934, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc.

Boxes, PNM.

131
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

for the utility area but not yet built was a permanent barn and corral to accommodate livestock

used for backcountry construction. For the time being, temporary structures had been erected.

Two of the largest projects initiated during this period were the Bear Gulch Dam and the

Chalone Peak Fire Lookout. The dam had been proposed the previous year—J. Haslett Bell

had mentioned it in his final report for that season.38 Its principal purpose was to store water for

use in the Bear Gulch Development Area. Work began in the spring of 1935, probably as early

as January, with the final concrete poured by the end of February. By the first week of March,

heavy rains had already filled the reservoir and water was flowing over the spillway.39 As initially

constructed, the Bear Gulch Dam was an unadorned reinforced concrete barrier twenty-four

feet high. Even before construction had begun, however, engineers from the Branch of Plans

and Design were already reconsidering the proposed height. At twenty-four feet, the parapet of

the dam was significantly lower than the natural abutments on either side of the chasm, where

work was already underway to connect the Bear Gulch Caves Trail with the new Chalone Peak

Trail. This trail could skirt the upper end of the reservoir and continue from there up Chalone

Peak, but a more desirable solution, in the opinion of the engineers reviewing the project, was

to bring the trail across the top of the dam itself.40 At its present height, this would necessitate a

bridge, but if the height of the dam were increased another ten feet or so, the trail could utilize

the parapet of the dam itself and provide a more aesthetically pleasing experience for hikers.

This proposal was not immediately implemented, but anticipating that it would ultimately be

done, the trail was routed to the dam and a temporary bridge constructed over it.

The other large building project started by the CCC during this period was the Fire Lookout

(Building #402) on North Chalone Peak. This was built according to a standard Forest Service

design. The two-story wood-framed building measured fourteen feet square, and had windows

on all four sides of the upper floor and a continuous exterior balcony. The lower story was faced

in unshaped native stone. Landscaping was avoided in order to maintain the natural character

of the site. The location of the Fire Lookout had been determined by February, and a dozer

road was graded up the south side of the mountain to convey materials to the construction

site. Following Bell’s recommendation, a spike camp was established on Chalone Peak for the

CCC detail that was to work on the project. The building was finished in July during the

following enrollment period.

The CCC also did several small-scale construction projects this season. Chief among these were

three drinking fountains in the Bear Gulch area. One of these was particularly noteworthy, as

it consisted of a single large boulder with a hole drilled through it for the water supply line

and a basin carved in the top where a bubbler was inserted. This fountain was located near the

lodge, while the others, built according to a more conventional design, were constructed in

the picnic area. (These are no longer extant.)

While the balance of work done by the CCC during this enrollment period involved

construction of buildings and structures, some significant trail work was also undertaken. Two

important new trails were started. The first of these was the Chalone Peak Trail, a bridle path

that ran from the Bear Gulch Dam to the summit of North Chalone Peak. It was about 40

percent finished by the end of the season. The other important project started this season was

the Rim Trail, which connects the Chalone Peak Trail at the west abutment of the dam to the

38. J. Haslett Bell, “Report . . . ,” May 11, op. cit.

39. Francis Lange, March 10–12, 1935, op.cit.

40. Francis Lange, February 10–12, 1935, p. 1, op. cit.; and Lange, March 10–12, 1935, p. 1, op. cit.

132
The 1935 Summer Season: The Fifth Enrollment Period

Figure 34. CCC enrollees operating pneumatic drill to break rock on the High

Peaks trail. [Narrative Reports, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.]

foot of the High Peaks Trail above Moses Spring. This trail was about 50 percent completed

by the end of the season. Both trails were completed by the end of the following season.

The 1935 Summer Season: The Fifth Enrollment Period

As with most summer seasons, this work period was relatively short, and no large projects were

initiated. The most important accomplishment was the completion of the Chalone Peak Fire

Lookout, which had been started the previous winter. This was finished by the end of July,

133
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Figure 35. CCC enrollees positioning large boulders at switchback on High Peaks trail. [Narrative

Reports, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.]

Figure 36. CCC enrollees taking a break on the Chalone Peak Trail. [Narrative Reports, CCC Coll.,

RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.]

just in time to be of service during the latter part of the fire season. Most of the remaining

work undertaken by the CCC this season was also related to fire prevention. The enrollees

cut firebreaks and cleared dead and dying wood throughout the monument to reduce fuel

loads. Vegetation management of this sort, both for fire prevention and aesthetic purposes,

was a fundamental CCC responsibility and was carried out regularly during most enrollment

periods.41

41. Sources for this period include: “Final Narrative Report, Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National

Monument: Fifth Enrollment Period, April 1, 1935 to September 30, 1935,” October 11, 1935, CCC Coll., RG

134
The 1936 Summer Season: The Seventh Enrollment Period

The 1935–36 Winter Season: The Sixth Enrollment Period

Shortly after arriving for this season, the enrollees began working on the last major element of

the Condor Gulch Utility Area, the Horse Barn (Building #202). Like its companions, this was

a rustic masonry structure built of native granite. As with the Gas and Oil House (Building

#200), the stone was applied to a core of poured concrete for greater strength and durability.

Except for a few details, the building was finished by March. Also in November, work began

on raising the height of the Bear Gulch Dam by fourteen feet, a decision that had been made

the previous year even before the initial construction was complete. The enrollees poured

120 cubic yards of concrete, creating a finished dam forty-five feet high and eighty feet wide

along its parapet. When the reservoir had filled by February 1, 1937, it held approximately

forty acre-feet of water, nearly treble its original size.42 It was also decided at this time that the

exposed concrete surface of the dam should be faced with native stone quarried from adjacent

outcroppings in order to harmonize the structure with its surrounding environment in rustic

fashion.43

In December, work resumed once more on the Chalone Creek Bridge after a delay of more than

a year. With the enrollees assisting skilled stonemasons, the granite abutments were finished

by the end of the season, and preparations began for construction of the deck by the start of

following enrollment period.44 Also in December, construction began on Building #1 in Bear

Gulch. This was originally a duplex residence designed to provide temporary accommodations

for visiting staff. (It was called the “Dwelling for Official Visitors.”) This would be the first—

and only—building constructed of the green tuff that had been used on the entrance pylons

in 1934. By this time, it seems that opinion had changed regarding the aesthetic value of this

stone, for now it was chosen specifically for its distinctive appearance. The stone’s structural

integrity remained suspect, however, and it was only applied as a decorative veneer over a

wood frame structure, as with all of the early buildings at Pinnacles. (The only load-bearing

masonry buildings in the monument are Buildings #200 and #202 in Condor Gulch.) Work

on Building #1 would continue through the following year, and it would not be ready for use

until early 1937. Plans also began to be made this season for landscaping the area around the

lodge and generally improving the appearance of the entire Bear Gulch development. Except

for the addition of new development—principally in Condor Gulch—little had changed here

since the construction of the road-laborers camp in 1932.

The 1936 Summer Season: The Seventh Enrollment Period

This would be the last time the CCC occupied Pinnacles during a summer enrollment period,

much to the consternation of Custodian Hawkins, who depended on the enrollees to provide

35, Box 22, NARA II; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip: April 46, 1935,” April 30,

1935, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.

42. Custodian’s Narr. Reports, March, 1936 and February, 1937, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, ff. 14 & 16.

43. Sources for this period include: Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect . . . Covering Field Trip,

November 21 and 22, 1935,” n.d., Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes. Sources for this period also include:

Francis Lange, Asst. Landscape Architect, “Report to Deputy Chief Architect...Field Trip: January 17 and 18,

1936,” January 31, 1936; Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip: March 3–4, 1936,” March

18, 1936; Francis Lange, “Final Report to the Chief Architect...Sixth Enrollment Period,” May 1, 1936; and

Francis Lange, “Report to the Chief Architect...Field Trip: March 3–4, 1936,” March 11, 1936, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM; and Custodian’s Narrative Reports, 1936, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 14, PNM.

44. Lange, “Final Report . . . ,” May 1, 1936, p. 9, op. cit.

135
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Figure 37. Chalone Peak Fire Lookout, nearing completion in 1935. This building was destroyed by

fire in 1951 and replaced by another structure the following year. [Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN

Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

support during the fire season. As it is, the CCC spent most of this season away from Pinnacles

fighting fires in other parts of California, and little work was actually done at the monument.

Progress continued on Building #1, and some of the proposed landscaping around Bear Gulch

was started. Work was also started on a new sewer line in Bear Gulch. But the most important

achievement during this period was the final completion of the Chalone Creek Bridge in July.

This event coincided with important improvements being made to the state roads leading to

the monument through San Benito County.45

Up to that time, the principal route through southern San Benito County circumvented

Bear Valley and the monument entrance, turning east at the foot of the Bear Valley Grade

and following the San Benito River through the town of San Benito—no longer present—

then returning to its present alignment on the San Benito Lateral near Dry Lake. Access to

the monument was along a secondary county road that ran through the ranch lands of Bear

Valley. (This was the road established by Schuyler Hain’s father in 1889 and improved by

local laborers in 1914.) During the summer of 1936, the state realigned its main highway to

run up the Bear Valley Grade and follow the old county road, passing much closer, now, to

45. Sources for this period include: R.L. McKown, Resident Landscape Architect, “Monthly Narrative Report...

Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument, Period August 26 to September 25, 1936,”

September 30, 1936, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM; and Custodian’s Narr. Reports, 1936, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 14, PNM.

136
The 1936–37 Winter Season: The Eighth Enrollment Period

Figure 38. CCC enrollees in process of constructing rustic vault toilet at Scout Peak on the High Peaks trail.

[Narrative Reports, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.]

the monument entrance. With this realignment, the old county road was brought up to state

highway standards. (Construction was completed by October of that year.) At the same time,

the state also improved Highway 146 through the Ben Bacon Ranch to the eastern border of

Pinnacles, where it connected with the recently improved park road. With the Chalone Creek

Bridge finished, it was now possible for motor tourists to drive from Hollister to Bear Gulch

on high-standard roads the entire way.

The 1936–37 Winter Season: The Eighth Enrollment Period

In the fall of 1936, the small spike camp on Chalone Peak was re-established in anticipation

of several new projects that were planned for this enrollment period. The camp had first been

established in 1934 when the Fire Lookout and Chalone Peak Trail were under construction.

About two-dozen enrollees worked from here on three separate projects during this season.

First was the construction of a three-thousand-gallon cistern built into the foundation of the

Fire Lookout (Building #402) to provide its occupants with water. Rainwater was collected

from the roof gutters and directed into the cistern through pipes. The second project was

construction of a pit toilet (Building #403) adjacent to the Lookout. This was a simple wood

frame structure done in a rustic style with slightly battered, rubble stone veneer. The third

project undertaken from the spike camp was the extension of the Chalone Peak Trail another

1.6 miles to South Chalone Peak. This project was only partially completed, with the trail

brushed the entire distance but graded only half way. Work was never resumed after this season,

and the trail remains unfinished.46

46. Sources for this period include: R.L. McKown, Resident Landscape Architect, “Monthly Narrative Report...

Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument, Period September 26 to October 25, 1936,”

October 29, 1936; R.L. McKown, “Monthly Narrative Report...Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles

National Monument, Period October 26 to November 25, 1936,” November 28, 1936; R.L. McKown, “Seasonal

Report, October 1, 1936 to Novemeber 31, 1936,” n.d; R.L. McKown, “Monthly Narrative Report...Emergency

137
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

The most significant accomplishment of this enrollment period was the completion of several

ongoing projects in the Bear Gulch area. The “Dwelling for Official Visitors” (Building #1)

was finally ready for use by the beginning of 1937. The completed structure had two separate

living quarters, each with its own fireplace and private bathroom placed in the space between

the rooms. Both quarters opened out onto a recessed front porch. Also completed this period

were the improvements to the Bear Gulch cabins and adjacent landscaping. This had been

proposed in the spring, and work had begun that summer. All ten cabins were moved slightly

off line and reoriented to fit in better with the natural topography of the site. This broke up

the rigid symmetry of the original layout and created a more picturesque appearance. The

broad, straight lane that had once run the length of the row of cabins was replaced with a

meandering path, and native vegetation was planted to help restore disturbed areas and to

disguise the visual impact of the remaining development. Each cabin was placed on a masonry

foundation and native stone veneer was applied to the exterior walls up to the window sills.

The five larger cabins had toilets and showers installed inside, while the five smaller cabins had

small exterior additions to accommodate the same facilities. A new sewer system and water

supply was also completed, and a twenty-four-inch culvert was installed to carry water from

Condor Gulch into Bear Gulch Creek underneath the developed area. (The treatment of this

work is noteworthy because of the rustic headwalls, which are still extant.) With this work

done, the only major proposal from the 1934 Master Plan that had yet to be implemented in

Bear Gulch was the construction of a new lodge to replace the original Pinnacles Company

structure. Plans had not yet been drawn up, but the project was expected to occur within the

next few years.

Following their departure at the end of March, the CCC was not expected back until fall, now

that the summer work season at Pinnacles had been cancelled. This would leave the monument

understaffed during the summer months for the first time since 1932, impacting operations in

a number of ways. Hired guides would once more be needed to lead visitors through the caves,

a task that the CCC enrollees had regularly undertaken. But more worrisome to Custodian

Hawkins was the loss of firefighting capability during the worst months of the fire season.

To compensate, an arrangement was made with the California Division of Forestry (CDF)

to place six state firefighters at the vacant CCC camp for several months every year.47 This

arrangement would continue until 1949, when the CDF built its own station at the north end

of Bear Valley.

The 1937–38 Winter Season: The Tenth Enrollment Period

The only new structure initiated during this season by the CCC was an addition to the Ranger

Residence (Building #2). The original building, constructed by Park Service staff in 1929,

had only one bedroom in addition to a kitchen, dinette, and living room. The improvements

Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument, Period November 26 to December 25, 1936,” December

28, 1936; R.L. McKown, “Monthly Narrative Report...Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National

Monument, Period December 26, 1936 to January 25, 1937,” January 28, 1937; R.L. McKown, “Emergency

Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument,” April 25, 1937; and R.L. McKown, “Field Trip May 12–

13, 1937,” n.d., Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM; and Custodian’s Narr. Reports, 1936–37, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 3, ff. 14 & 16, PNM.

47. These “standby crews” of seasonal firefighters were a relatively new innovation for the CDF, having been

introduced only in 1931. Since they possessed few facilities of their own at this early date, use of the CCC camp was a

welcome opportunity. [Mark V. Thornton, “History of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,”

http://www.fire.ca.gov/about_cdf-history.php, accessed April 21, 2007.]

138
The 1937–38 Winter Season: The Tenth Enrollment Period

Figure 39. Construction of original Chalone Creek Bridge in spring of 1936. The stone abutments have been

completed and the forms are being put in place to lay the deck. [Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN Coll. 3658,

Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

nearly doubled the size of the building with the addition of two more bedrooms and a new

bathroom.48 All work was completed by spring of the following year. The enrollees also began

quarrying large boulders of native stone from outcroppings near the Bear Gulch Reservoir.

These were to be used to face the exposed concrete surface of the dam. Although work

continued on this project for the next few years, the job would never be entirely finished by

the CCC. (The final stones were not applied until 1976 by Park Service staff.49)

One of the largest jobs undertaken this period was the continuation of the Old Pinnacles

Road above the CCC camp. An old dirt road already existed here, dating from long before

the acquisition of the land by the Park Service. It had originally been used by local ranchers

to reach the small picnic area on the east side of the Balconies. In 1921, with the arrival of

the Pinnacles Boys, it became the access road for the homesteads of Herman Hermansen and

Alonzo Bourke. (Although most of Hermansen’s land lay on the west side, his cabin stood

along the creek just east of the Balconies, while Alonzo Bourke’s cabin stood just below the

confluence of the north fork of Chalone Creek.) These men kept the road maintained for their

own use but never substantially improved its quality.

In 1934, just a few years after acquiring the land from the homesteaders, the Park Service

approved plans to upgrade the old road to state highway standards. This proposal was made

on the assumption that the road would eventually be extended all the way through the Old

Pinnacles Gorge and connect with the Soledad Road on the west side, completing the crossmonument highway that had been proposed since 1925. Up to this time, an improved road

48. History and Archeology Records H3015: Architects’ Files, Box 5, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA.

49. Sources for this period include: R.L. McKown, “April 25 to May 25, 1938,” n.d.; R.D. Waterhouse, Regional

Engineer, and Ernest A. Davidson, Regional Landscape Architect, to Regional Director, January 24, 1938, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM; and Custodian’s Narr. Reports, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, ff. 16–17, PNM.

139
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Figure 40. Old Pinnacles Road being constructed above the CCC camp. Exposed rock in background is the

quarry, where material for many other projects throughout the monument was taken. [Landscape Architects’

Reports, PINN Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

had only been brought as far as the CCC camp—by the CWA laborers in 1933—but not

above it. The CCC enrollees now resumed work on this road and carried these improvements

to the confluence of the north fork of Chalone Creek by the end of the season.50 Progress

was slow because of the complexity of the task. The roadbed had to be elevated on a raised

berm where it followed the broad channel of Chalone Creek just north of the camp, and in

at least two places cuts had to be blasted through solid rock to improve the alignment of the

original road.

In January, as the road improvement work neared the Balconies, Custodian Hawkins suddenly

announced that he had changed his mind about the cross-monument highway. According to

a memo for the Regional Director, this unexpected decision came after long consideration

of the detrimental effects that would be caused by construction of the road through the Old

Pinnacles Gorge. Hawkins also claimed that the road would not be used by enough people to

justify its impact. Neither of these arguments seems entirely sufficient to explain his abrupt

about-face, especially since Hawkins had countered similar criticisms many times in the past.

His real reason seems to have been growing resistance to the idea within the San Benito

County Chamber of Commerce, some of whose members feared that the road would draw

tourism away from San Benito County and undermine local business. Without the chamber’s

support, the county would not be able to convey the property it now possessed in the Old

Pinnacles to the Park Service, and work would have to cease once it reached the Balconies.

Hawkins’ announcement appears to have been a calculated ploy to put these fears to rest and

to convince the county to go ahead with its land transfer to the Park Service, after which

50. This creek was at that time known as Marcott’s Creek, because it passed through Zotic Marcott’s homestead.

For the same reason, Willow Spring was called Marcott’s Spring.

140
The 1938–39 Winter Season: The Twelfth Enrollment Period

the Park Service could complete the road without opposition.51 Park Service engineers at the

Branch of Plans and Design concurred with Hawkins’ decision, perhaps in order to support his

charade, but they must have also realized that the proposed highway could not be completed

in the immediate future even if Hawkins’ plan worked, since it would take at least a year to

transfer ownership of the land, if not much longer. In the meantime, it made sense to halt

construction. The engineers recommended that the work already underway be finished, but

that the road past this point be improved only to the standard of a secondary dirt road to

provide continued access to the Old Pinnacles Campground (which would be retained and

slightly improved by the Park Service). This apparent change in policy brought a temporary

end to the cross-monument road proposal and an immediate cessation of work on the project.

But the idea was far from dead and would be taken up again.

Although the CCC was not scheduled to work any longer at Pinnacles during the summer

season, the present enrollment remained through the end of May, two months into the

following enrollment period. During this brief extension, one additional job of considerable

importance was accomplished. Electric lights and an eight-hundred-watt gasoline generating

plant were installed in the Bear Gulch Caves. Prior to this innovation, one of the CCC’s regular

responsibilities had been to assist park staff in maintaining kerosene lanterns distributed

throughout the caves. The new electrical system made it possible to keep the caves lighted

with fewer staff, a decided advantage now that the CCC was no longer working at Pinnacles

through the summer season. The generator plant was located in a separate chamber outside

the main passage, so that visitors would not be disturbed by its noise.

The 1938–39 Winter Season: The Twelfth Enrollment Period

The principle work done during this period was improvement of the water supply in Bear

Gulch. Two systems were developed. The first provided non-potable water that was drawn

from the surface of Bear Gulch Creek a little ways below the caves. A concrete check dam was

constructed here, creating a small reservoir capable of holding fifty thousand gallons of water.

This dam was concealed by placing large native boulders around it. Four thousand feet of

four-inch pipe carried the impounded creek water down to the developed area. Since the water

was not considered safe from contamination, it was only used to supply the comfort station

toilets and fire hydrants. The second system provided water for drinking and was already in

place but needed to be improved. This system collected water from Split Rock Spring, not

far from Moses Spring, and stored it in two small tanks located above the Bear Gulch Caves

Trail. During the present season, the CCC increased the capacity of this system by replacing

the old tanks with a twenty-thousand-gallon concrete reservoir partially dug into the ground

and covered with a concrete lid. Two-inch pipe brought the spring water to the tank and then

from the tank down to the developed area, where it was distributed to the cabins and drinking

fountains.52

Other sources of clean water were also being considered at this time in order to ensure a

sufficient supply to accommodate future development. One of the most desirable of these

alternatives was Willow Spring (then known as Marcott’s Spring). This artesian bubbles out

51. Hawkins’ unwavering support for the road would become obvious a few years later when the county remained

intransigent during negotiations with the Park Service over transferring the Old Pinnacles land.

52. Sources for this period include: R.L. McKown, Resident Landscape Architect, “Pinnacles National Monument,

December 26, 1938 to January 25, 1939,” n.d., Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM; and Custodian’s Narr.

Reports, 1938, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 17 [1939 missing], PNM.

141
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

of a small side canyon along the north fork of Chalone Creek about a mile and a half up from

the CCC camp. At that time, Willow Spring still lay on private land owned by Zotic Marcott,

the monument’s first ranger. Marcott was no longer living here; according to an acquaintance,

he had obtained work with a government surveying party after being separated from the Park

Service in 1932.53 The Park Service began negotiating to purchase Marcott’s land earlier this

year in order to gain access to the springs, and in October of 1938, Marcott finally sold his

640 acres for $6,000.54 The parcel was not formally made part of the monument, however,

until December 5, 1941, when it was included in a Presidential Proclamation that enlarged

Pinnacles by approximately forty-three hundred acres.

Ironically, the CCC camp’s water supply became contaminated shortly after the Marcott land

was acquired, illustrating the importance of developing a more reliable source. When a number

of the enrollees were stricken with dysentery toward the end of this season, the original shallow

well from 1933 was abandoned and rationing introduced while a new well was dug. In the

meantime, Custodian Hawkins tried to get the Army to lay a temporary water line from

Willow Spring to the camp, but nothing had been accomplished by the time the enrollees left

in April.

The 1939–40 Winter Season: The Fourteenth Enrollment Period

When Camp Pinnacles was reactivated the following October, the staff discovered that the

new well did not produce enough water to supply the camp’s needs. Lacking any alternative,

the original contaminated well was reopened and its water heavily chlorinated. This situation,

combined with poor management by the camp commander, severely depressed the morale of

the incoming enrollees. One enrollee wrote an angry letter to the director of the CCC program

in Washington, prompting a special investigator to come out to Pinnacles in December to

look into the matter. Through his intervention, the Army was finally persuaded to provide

materials to construct a delivery system from Willow Spring, as Hawkins had desired. The

duration of the season was spent constructing the system, which was not finished until April.55

Little other work was accomplished by the CCC this season as a result of these problems and

epidemic illness among the enrollees.

The 1940–41 Winter Season: The Sixteenth Enrollment Period

The size of CCC enrollment nationwide had been falling consistently since the program’s

reauthorization in 1937. After war broke out in Europe in 1939, budget appropriations for

non-military programs were drastically cut. (The National Park Service budget was reduced

by half.56) Military enlistment also increased, drawing young men away from the CCC and

making it increasingly difficult to find enough enrollees to fill all of the camps. By 1941, many

53. Lois Bourke, Bourke Engine Documentary.

54. “Land: Marcott Property,” 1938, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box.22, f.19. Years later, Marcott’s widow was still

bitter about this transaction, claiming that Hawkins and Chief Engineer Kittredge had “forced my husband out.”

[Ro Wauer, transcript of interview with Mrs. Marcott, August 12, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box.19, f.3, PNM.]

55. The water from Willow Spring was directed through tile pipes into a covered concrete catch basin. From there, it

was conveyed one-and-a-half miles to the camp storage tanks through a two-inch diameter steel pipe. When finished,

it delivered water to the camp at a rate of fifty gallons per minute. [Custodian’s Narr. Reports, April, 1940, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 18, PNM.]

56. Unrau and Williss, Expansion, p. 75.

142
The 1941–42 Winter Season: The Eighteenth Enrollment Period

camps were being closed and the enrollees consolidated.57 Camp Pinnacles would remain

open but would never again have as many occupants as it did prior to 1937, when the number

frequently exceeded two hundred. By the end of the decade, the number was typically closer to

a hundred. This gradual diminishment of personnel and resources explains why fewer projects

were being completed at Pinnacles during these final years. During the present season, most

of the enrollees’ time was spent working on jobs that were already in progress. These included

the improvement of the Chalone Creek Road up to the Old Pinnacles Campground, facing

of the Bear Gulch Dam, and small improvements to the existing road from the lodge to the

picnic area in Bear Gulch. (This included the construction of masonry headwalls and a box

culvert.) The lodge was also refurbished at this time. The most significant new construction

occurred outside the monument at the foot of the east entrance road (Highway 146), where

the original eight-foot-wide cattleguard was replaced with a thirty-foot cattleguard. This

road was state property at that time, but the Park Service received permission to make the

improvement in order to allow larger tour buses to negotiate the turn into the monument.

Small decorative pylons of green lapilli tuff from Chalone Creek were erected on either side of

the new cattleguard, echoing the larger structures at the monument’s actual boundary a few

miles further up the road.58

The 1941–42 Winter Season: The Eighteenth Enrollment Period

This was the first season in which African American enrollees were assigned to Pinnacles. Blacks

had participated from the very beginning in the CCC program, the enabling legislation for

which stipulated that recruitment be nondiscriminatory. There was a great deal of resistance to

this policy, however, both within and outside of the CCC. Fearing trouble, program director

Robert Fechner would not allow black recruitment to exceed 10 percent of the total enrollment,

and initially all black enrollees were segregated to their own camps where they were supervised

by white officers. Later, local custom was followed, and many northern camps were integrated

while southern camps remained segregated. Only one camp—Gettysburg National Military

Park—ever received black supervisors and foremen. Since many communities objected to

blacks being stationed near their towns, most of the camps to which black enrollees were

assigned lay in remote areas to avoid conflict. Pinnacles represents a good example of this

policy, given the isolation of the camp, though there is no record of any hostility or resentment

toward the black enrollees among residents of the area.59

During this season, the new enrollees mostly worked on jobs still in progress—facing the Bear

Gulch Dam, for instance, and minor improvements on the road to the Bear Gulch Picnic

Area. The only new project undertaken was construction of the Superintendent’s Residence

(Building #19). By the end of the season, the basement had been excavated, the foundation

poured, and some of the framing erected, but further work was delayed by the war, and the

building would remain unfinished until 1949. (The rustic stone veneer that the original plans

called for has never been applied.) Probably the most notable new feature contributed by the

CCC during this enrollment period was the tunnel on the lower High Peaks Trail in Bear

Gulch. This was made in order to accommodate a realignment of the trail to the east side of

the canyon. Prior to construction of this tunnel, which cut through a pilaster of solid rock

57. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, pp. 29–32.

58. The only extant source for this period are the Custodian’s Narr. Reports, 1940–41, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box

3, ff. 18–19, PNM.

59. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, pp. 93–97. The only extant source for this period are the Custodian’s Narr.

Reports, 1941–42, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, ff. 19–20, PNM.

143
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

blocking passage along the east side of canyon, the trail crossed the Bear Gulch Creek over a

small bridge and climbed a little ways up the west side of the canyon to the first junction of

the Cave Loop Trail. The new tunnel made it possible for the trail to continue along the east

side of the canyon and reach the Cave Loop junction in a more direct fashion.

Custodian Hawkins was extremely pleased with the black enrollees and wrote enthusiastically

about their good morale and hard work. Anticipating low re-enrollment with the recent

outbreak of war, he proposed actively recruiting more black enrollees from East Bay cities like

Oakland, where a large African-American community already resided. Unfortunately, nothing

ever came of these plans. When the last enrollees left the monument on April 25th and Camp

Pinnacles closed for the summer, it would never reopen. The CCC program was terminated

two months later at the end of June.

The Legacy of the CCC

President Roosevelt’s unemployment relief programs had a profound impact on Pinnacles. The

majority of the monument’s infrastructure as well as the basic pattern of its development were

established through the combined efforts of the Public Work Administration and the Civilian

Conservation Corps, with the short-lived Civil Works Administration making a small but

important contribution as well. Seven substantial buildings and a variety of smaller structures

were built during this period. These included the Equipment Shed (Building #201), Gas and

Oil House (Building #200), and the Horse Barn (Building #202) in the Condor Gulch Utility

Area; the Dwelling for Official Visitors (Building #1) in Bear Gulch; two rustic masonry pit

toilets in the backcountry—one on the High Peaks Trail (Building #400) and the other on

the summit of Chalone Peak (Building #403); and the Fire Lookout (Building #402), also

on Chalone Peak. An eighth building—the Superintendent’s Residence (Building #19) was

started but only partially finished by the end of the CCC program. Small structures included

picnic benches, fire pits and drinking fountains, and miscellaneous storage sheds. The Ranger

Residence (Building #2) was also improved with a large addition to the rear and a new frame

garage and woodshed constructed. And finally, the ten cabins in Bear Gulch, built for the road

crew in 1932, were realigned and significantly improved with the addition of interior walls

and ceilings, rustic stone veneer on the exterior, and bath and toilet fixtures.

Several utility projects were also undertaken. Probably the most important of these was

the expansion and improvement of the water supply system in Bear Gulch. This included

construction of the Bear Gulch Dam—the largest construction project undertaken by the

CCC—as well as a small dam below the caves. Nearly three-and-a-half miles of steel pipe were

laid, and a twenty-thousand-gallon concrete storage tank constructed near the Bear Gulch

Caves Trail. The CCC also assisted with the installation of a new six-inch sewer line in Bear

Gulch. Other utility projects during this period included installation of electric lights in the

Bear Gulch Caves and expansion of the telephone system. Approximately seven-and-a-half

miles of telephone line were strung, connecting all of the developed areas in the monument,

including the fire lookout on Chalone Peak.

The extensive system of roads and trails throughout the monument was dramatically improved.

Road work included the completion and surfacing of the entrance road from the eastern

boundary of the monument as far as the old lodge in Bear Gulch. This work was done

primarily by PWA-funded local laborers. The Chalone Creek Bridge was also built as a PWA

project with the assistance of the CCC. The CCC extended these improvements to the Bear

Gulch Entrance Road past the lodge to the Bear Gulch Picnic Area. They also improved the

road to the Condor Gulch Utility Area. The Chalone Creek Road was improved under the

CWA up to the CCC camp, while the CCC continued these improvements all the way up to

144
The Legacy of the CCC

the Balconies Caves. Trail work was done exclusively by CCC enrollees, with three miles of

two-foot-wide hiking trails constructed or improved and twelve miles of four-foot wide bridle

paths constructed or improved. The CCC cut approximately nine-and-a-half miles of fiftyfoot wide firebreak through backcountry brush and strung eight-and-a-half miles of boundary

fence. Five miles of this fence consisted of steel posts laid in concrete with four strands of wire.

Much of this is still intact though overgrown and no longer maintained.

The social impact of these relief programs was equally profound though much harder to

measure. The PWA and the CWA employed many impoverished local laborers and helped

restore some hope during the lowest ebb of the Depression. They inadvertently helped reinforce

the relationship between the monument and the outside community by involving local workers

in the construction of much of the monument’s infrastructure. The CCC also contributed

to local employment but in a less direct manner. The CCC required skilled mechanics and

foremen to supervise its enrollees and manage their projects. Many of the men whom the

National Park Service hired to fill these positions were local residents. Bear Valley rancher Fred

Prewett, for example, served as a trail foreman and fire boss for many years.

The additional jobs helped the local economy, but so did the influx of enrollees. The two

hundred or so young men who inhabited Camp Pinnacles were only paid about $30 each

month, and most of that was remitted to their families. But the rest was often spent on weekend

trips to town. More importantly were the supplies and provisions needed to support the camp

and its projects. Much of the food the boys ate, especially fresh vegetables and dairy products,

was obtained locally, as were parts and services for machinery used on CCC jobs. All of this

had a positive effect on the economy of the surrounding communities. Just as significant as

the economics, however, was the impression created by the program and the young men who

participated in it. The enrollees frequently interacted with residents outside the monument,

attending local social events and in turn hosting open houses at the CCC camp. Custodian

Hawkins quoted enthusiastically from an editorial in the local newspaper that described the

positive opinion people had developed for the program:

We wonder how many have noted the improved demeanor of the C.C.C. boys, the

lack of youths trudging along the highways, hungry, discouraged, hitch-hiking their way

somewhere from somewhere and that somewhere offering no better opportunities than that

somewhere from whence they came. Has it been noticed that these fine young men come

into town, attend to their chores, go to the dances, the theatre, roam the streets, patronize

the restaurants and candy shops without being conspicuous for hoodlumism, but showing

decided attributes of politeness and courtesy? Contrast that with the first year of the C.C.C.

Take a look at the splendid, purposeful work they are accomplishing; fire suppression;

landscaping the Pinnacles Monument, building trails and rest rooms; fire-lookout-stations,

dams, and many other valuable services. But above all material things, is the fine spirit

developed. These youngsters are finding inspiration in the beauties of Nature and in having

their part in making things convenient for their fellowmen. The influence of the CCC

Camp will last through their entire lives.60

Vaguely hinted at is the trepidation that was felt when the program was first introduced. Many

people throughout the nation were at first reluctant to host such large camps of destitute young

men, fearing the enrollees would run riot through their communities.61 But events proved

their fears to be unfounded.

60. “Final Narrative Report, Emergency Conservation Work, Pinnacles National Monument: Fifth Enrollment

Period, April 1, 1935 to September 30, 1935,” October 11, 1935, CCC Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II.

61. Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, pp. 89–93.

145
Chapter Four Development During the Great Depression, 1933–1941

Although the CCC is better remembered now for the trails and rustic buildings it constructed,

the most significant accomplishment of the CCC program, as the editorialist from the Hollister

Free Lance concluded, was its influence on the character and education of the enrollees

themselves. This was an express part of the CCC’s design from the beginning. In an interview

from 1940, one of Pinnacles’ educational advisers described the vocational opportunities

available to the young men, explaining that local schools offered correspondence courses and

the camp itself provided teachers who offered a variety of classes during the evening. But the

most important training came through the job itself. The discipline and cooperation learned

through the daily routine of work was expected to help prepare all the enrollees for careers

after they left the CCC. This had been one of President Roosevelt’s chief intentions when

he established the program. Approximately 20 percent of the enrollees were also given more

advanced training to prepare them for a specific profession.62

One enrollee, Aulton Hoover, described how he had benefitted from this training in a talk he

gave for station KQW in San Jose, California, in 1940. Hoover had grown up on a corn and

cotton farm in Arkansas. He had enrolled with the CCC in 1934 out of financial desperation,

because the Depression had caused the market value of his family’s crop to plummet, and his

family was becoming destitute. Hoover remained in Arkansas for the next two years with his

CCC company, which was principally engaged in fire suppression activities. During this time,

Hoover took advantage of the vocational training offered by his camp’s educational department

and began to learn clerical skills. This enabled him to get a job with the camp’s technical service,

helping to prepare reports and carry out routine bookkeeping. Hoover continued in this role

after his company was transferred to California in 1936, where they alternated seasonally

between Pinnacles and General Grant National Park in the southern Sierra. Hoover remained

in the CCC for another year, until he reached the maximum age allowable for an enrollee and

was forced to muster out. The training Hoover had received, however, and the connections

he had made during more than three years as a CCC enrollee made him eligible for a servicegrade job. In October of 1938, Aulton Hoover was hired by the National Park Service as a

project assistant and returned to Pinnacles to work as a member of the staff. After serving

overseas in World War II, Hoover would return to become chief ranger of the monument.63

Aulton Hoover’s story was not typical, however. He represented, at best, only 20 percent of

the enrollees. A significant number of the CCC never even made it through a single six-month

enrollment period—the average desertion rate for this district was three enrollees per month

by the end of the 1930s.64 But all of the boys who stuck it out and remained for the duration

of their enrollment benefitted from learning practical habits of self-discipline, hard work, and

cooperation. One CCC alumnus, reflecting on his experience many years later, observed that

a large proportion of the military’s NCO corps—the corporals and field sergeants—who held

the line during the nation’s first year of fighting in World War II had been prepared for service

through their training in the CCC.65

62. “Educational and Training Activities in the Civilian Conservation Corps,” radio transcript, 1940, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 4, f. 13, PNM.

63. Aulton Hoover, “My CCC History and Advantages I Have Had from CCC Training,” radio transcript, 1940,

Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 4, f. 19, PNM.

64. C.J. Barry Jr., CCC District Adjutant, to Company Commander, Camp Pinnacles, December 5, 1939, CCC

Coll., RG 35, Box 22, NARA II. Nationwide, the average desertion rate for the CCC was eight percent during the

first year of the program, rising to 20 percent by 1939. [Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, p. 88.]

65. Curtis Miller, oral history, San Benito County Historical Society, Hollister, CA.

146
Chapter Five

War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Following the intense activity at Pinnacles during the Great Depression, the relative quiet

of the war years represented a profound change. Custodian Hawkins kept the monument

operating with only a handful of staff (some of whom were women, a first in the history of

the monument). The only bold or ambitious gesture that was made during this otherwise

uneventful period was the renewed effort to introduce a cross-monument road, which Hawkins

tried to force upon the now-unwilling officials of San Benito County. Although the road itself

was never built, Hawkins’ unexpected proposal, coming long after most people thought the

idea was dead, had lasting and largely negative consequences for the relationship between the

National Park Service and the local county government.

With the end of war-time austerity in 1945, visitation to Pinnacles increased rapidly, as

it did at all national parks and monuments. In spite of this evident popularity, however,

the Park Service’s budget remained relatively flat over the next decade, leaving the agency

unable to provide sufficient staff and facilities to meet the growing demand, or even to

maintain infrastructure that was rapidly deteriorating from the added stress. Responding to

these challenges, NPS Director Conrad Wirth proposed Mission 66, a massive spending

program that President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law in 1956. Mission 66 would fund

staff increases and substantial new construction throughout the entire park system. It would

also introduce significant changes in the way parks were managed, with greater emphasis

on improving the visitor experience through better and more effective interpretation, often

by utilizing innovative technologies. At first it appeared that Pinnacles would experience a

new period of development to rival the contributions of the PWA and the CCC during the

Depression years, but early expectations for Mission 66 went largely unfulfilled as the nation

soon became distracted by the escalating Cold War, and Director Wirth’s ambitious program

was never fully funded. Its most important legacy at Pinnacles may have been the establishment

of a full-time naturalist position, inaugurating the monument’s earliest interpretive program

and even presaging the later development of a resource management division. A significant

indirect consequence of Mission 66, however, was the long-awaited development of the west

side, with a connecting trail constructed through the Balconies and rudimentary campground

facilities in the Chaparral Area.

World War II (1942–1945)

Once the United States formally entered World War II at the end of 1941, the frenetic activity

that had dominated life at Pinnacles for nearly a decade quickly came to an end. With the

closure of the CCC camp in April of 1942, the work force at the monument was reduced to

the existing NPS staff. This now consisted of Custodian Hawkins, a clerk, the chief ranger,

a seasonal ranger, and at least one maintenance man or caretaker.1 Additional laborers were

1. Caretaker was a part-time employee who functioned as an assistant to the maintenanceman—the position no

longer exists in the Park Service.
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 41. Clara (Ann) Lausten, on-duty at Pinnacles during

WWII. Ann Lausten was the first woman to be employed by

the NPS at Pinnacles. [Photo courtesy of the Lausten family.]

hired on a temporary basis whenever needed or available. Chief Ranger Aulton Hoover left to

fight with the Army in Europe. (He later resumed his duties as chief ranger in 1946.) John

M. Offel served as chief ranger during Hoover’s absence. Local women filled many of the

traditionally male positions in the Park Service during the war. At Pinnacles, for example,

Clara Ann Lausten was hired as administrative clerk, and Drucilla Isaacson became the first

seasonal ranger. She remained until just after the conclusion of the war, resigning in September

of 1945.

With wartime gas rationing, visitation fell dramatically. In 1941, there had been 27,131

recorded visitors. By the following year, this had fallen to 10,311 and would continue to fall

to a low of 3,845 in 1944. Many of the visitors who came to the monument during the war

were servicemen from newly established military bases in the surrounding area. By the second

year of the war, there were three Army bases in Monterey County and one Naval airbase in

San Benito County not far from Hollister.2

The decline in visitation reduced stress on the monument’s resources and made it possible for

its diminished staff to more-or-less maintain the status quo, but little new development could

be accomplished, and many ongoing projects had to be postponed or abandoned altogether.

Work stopped, for instance, on the Superintendent’s Residence (Building #19), and the

2. The Naval airbase was under construction by April of 1943.

148
World War II (1942–1945)

building would not be completed until 1950. Another major project planned during the CCC

era never even got started. This was the new lodge that was to replace the original structure

built by Hermansen and Petersen in 1925. The proposal appeared in Master Planning sheets

up through 1942, but sufficient resources would not be available to implement the project

until after the war. By that time, the Park Service had changed its philosophy about having

concessions inside the monument and wanted to avoid this sort of development. This new

attitude resulted in the abandonment of the proposal by the early 1950s. Up to the time of

that decision, however, monument staff continued to maintain the existing lodge in order to

keep it serviceable. In May of 1944, for example, the kitchen was fully remodeled.

Although the war could not dampen Hawkins’ enthusiasm, it did limit his ability to implement

his most ambitious ideas for Pinnacles. During these years, he confined himself principally

to three projects over and above the day-to-day management of the monument: landscape

improvement, land acquisition, and the cross-monument road.

Landscape Improvement (Reforestation)

Under the supervision of Regional Landscape Architect Ernest A. Davidson, Hawkins and his

staff undertook an ambitious revegetation project in 1943 aimed at mitigating scars left by

the previous decade of construction. Davidson reported that Hawkins had already collected

seeds from the gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) and had grown some two thousand seedlings up to

that date in order to replace the woodlands lost in the 1931 east side fire. Hawkins had also

planted several hundred “candles of the lord” (Yucca whipplei), but Davidson believed these

were not native to the area and discouraged further planting of this species.3 He and Hawkins

also discussed the possibility of planting grey pines on the west side in order to provide shade.

There was little development here and no staff presence, though a small picnic area existed at

the time. The only water available for visitor use and irrigation of the proposed shade trees

came from Oak Tree Spring at the mouth of Juniper Canyon, but the meager flow measured

at scarcely one gallon every two minutes. It proved to be insufficient to keep the trees alive

through the summer months, when the spring sometimes dried up altogether, and the west

side revegetation project was eventually abandoned. Hawkins reported in June of 1945 that

the few trees that had been planted there were all dying.4

The most visible construction scar remaining in the monument was along the Bear Gulch

Entrance Road, and this site became the principal emphasis of the two men’s restoration efforts

for the duration of the forties. On the uphill (cut) side of the road, some native plants were

already present though sparsely distributed. Rather than introduce new plants to fill in the gaps

and create a denser cover, Davidson and Hawkins decided that they could simply encourage

the existing vegetation and allow it to spread. To accomplish this, they devised a simple but

ingenious system of irrigation, bringing water in two-inch pipes from the CCC camp down to

the Chalone Creek Bridge. From there an additional eighteen hundred feet of one-inch pipe

conveyed the water uphill along the top of the cut slope of the road to the top of the grade.

(There was enough pressure on the camp system to raise the water this far.) Fifteen hose bibs

were cut into the one-inch line at regular intervals, and water was allowed to drip slowly down

3. Ernest A. Davidson, regional landscape architect, “Field Notes for Regional Director,” Novemeber 15, 1943.

Comments made following trip to the Pinnacles Novemeber 11–14. Although three or four of these yucca had been

present in the monument before Hawkins began his project, Davidson suspected that these had been introduced.

Although Yucca whipplei is not believed to be native to the monument, it does grow naturally along the San Benito

River only thirty miles to the east.

4. Custodian’s Narrative Reports, June 1945, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 23, PNM.

149
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 42. Erosion into Chalone Creek from Bear Gulch Entrance Road a few years after its completion.

[Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

the face of the excavation, allowing the exposed rock and soil to remain damp.5 This system

was in place and operating by the end of 1942, and within a couple of years Hawkins was

reporting good results.6

On the downhill (fill) side of the road excavation, native woody plants like toyon and buckeye

had already been planted shortly after the initial period of construction. (In the summer of

1934, a native plant nursery had been set up on Chalone Creek by CCC landscape architect

Francis Lange and outplanting had begun shortly afterward.) By now these plants had grown

to substantial size, but Hawkins and Davidson began supplementing this vegetation with grey

pines. These fast-growing trees eventually helped break up the harsh linear appearance of the

road, especially when seen from a distance.

Although revegetation helped stabilize the slope and softened the aesthetic impact of the

construction scars, erosion would remain a serious problem with the Bear Gulch Entrance

Road for many years, especially on the fill slope, where improperly placed drainage culverts left

deep incisions in the side of the hill and washed heavy loads of sediment into Chalone Creek

below.

Land Acquisition (Pinnacles Ranch)

Early in 1941, the large Ben Bacon Ranch on the east side of the monument came up for

sale. Ben had died a few years earlier in 1939, and now in January of this year his widow,

Orea Bacon, also passed away, leaving more than twenty heirs.7 The Bank of America, which

5. “The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument,” 1942, Map Collection (uncatalogued), Pinnacles National

Monument, Paicines, CA.

6. Custodian’s Narrative Reports, January, 1944, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 22, PNM.

7. Martha Bacon Miller et al., The Bacon Family, 1771–2005, compiled by Debbie Melendy Norman, pdf manuscript, 2005.

150
World War II (1942–1945)

held a mortgage on the ranch, planned to dispose of the property through public auction.

Hearing of this, Custodian Hawkins notified the regional director and reminded him that

about six hundred acres of Ben Bacon’s ranch—essentially all of the property that lay along

Chalone Creek south of the confluence of Sandy Creek—had already been identified in the

Master Plan as desirable for addition to the monument.8 The Park Service wanted this land

because of its appropriateness for recreational development, either as a campground or picnic

area or even a small resort. The Chalone Bench was probably the most natural candidate for

such development and had been used as a seasonal picnic area by local residents for decades.

Hawkins believed that the parcel could be acquired for between $3,000 and $5,000, which

even at that time was quite a bargain.9 Such an opportunity would not be available again.10

Immediately after receiving Hawkins’ letter, the Regional Director forwarded his recommendation to Washington. He agreed with Hawkins’ assessment of the value of the potential

addition but also noted the importance of the old Root Homestead in the Balconies, which

was still owned by San Benito County. The Regional Director insisted that both parcels be

acquired in the same transaction, even though he acknowledged that negotiations with the

county were not going well at this time, and the county was refusing to give up the parcel to

the Park Service as it had originally promised. While the Park Service waited for a resolution to

this impasse, the entire Bacon Ranch—not just the six hundred acres on Chalone Creek—was

sold to Ray Marcus, a wealthy man from out-of-town who wanted to build a retirement home

on the property.11 (Marcus never built his home but instead used the land for cattle grazing.)

As Ray Marcus had no interest in negotiating with the National Park Service, Pinnacles lost

its opportunity to expand in this direction and would not have another chance for more than

fifty years.12

The Cross-Monument Road

The third project with which Hawkins concerned himself during the war years was the crossmonument road. This remained a cherished ambition, something he had been trying to put

through from the beginning of his involvement with the Pinnacles in 1924. By 1940, the only

alignment still considered practicable followed the Old Pinnacles Road through the Balconies.

Construction therefore depended on the Park Service either acquiring the Root Homestead

from the county or cooperating with the county on the project. Through an ironic turn of

events, however, San Benito County was no longer willing to build the road, even though it

had once been the principal author and leading advocate for the project. San Benito County

business leaders had gradually turned against the idea when they began to suspect that its

implementation would actually benefit Monterey County more than themselves. There was

some justification in this fear, since Monterey, through which the major transportation arterials

connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles passed, had grown much faster than San Benito

during the preceding few decades. With more people traveling through the Salinas Valley than

ever before, any development that promised to improve access to the west side threatened also

to divert tourism from the east, at least that is what local businessmen had come to believe.

This concern was being voiced by the president of the San Benito Chamber of Commerce,

8. “The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument,” 1940, Map Coll., PNM.

9. This translated to between five and eight dollars an acre. Given that the land possessed abundant water and tillable

soil, these were extraordinary rates, and Hawkins may have been mistaken or overly optimistic in estimating them.

10. Hawkins to Reg. Dir., February 21, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

11. Marcus bought the entire property for $20,000, still a bargain at less than ten dollars an acre.

12. Regional Director to Director, February 26, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

151
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Jacob Leonard, and was the chief reason why the county also refused to transfer ownership of

the land to the Park Service. The situation was further complicated by an unrelated business

rivalry between Hawkins and Leonard, as a result of which Leonard was inclined to oppose

Hawkins’ interests out of shear pique. His influence among county businessmen and political

leaders was considerable, and relations between the county and the monument would remain

problematic until this entire generation began to retire in the 1950s.13

By October 1940, after months of trying unsuccessfully to acquire the Root Homestead, the

Park Service decided to settle for an easement that would allow it to construct necessary trails

and associated amenities across the parcel. County leaders tentatively agreed, but proposed a

contract that contained a stipulation explicitly forbidding the construction of any roads—“This

easement is not intended for and does not grant a right of way across said real property for road

purposes.”14 As a matter of principle, the Park Service preferred to have no restrictions, but

NPS Director Cammerer was willing to accept the no-road stipulation if the county insisted.

At that time, the Pinnacles Master Plan did not include a cross-monument road through the

Balconies, so the county’s prohibition did not immediately affect any of the Park Service’s

formal development plans. But the Master Plan did recommend developing the west side, and

therefore an adequate trail—at the very least—would be needed to connect it with existing

development on the east.15 The only route then extant through the Balconies was unimproved,

and the Park Service could do nothing to upgrade this trail without the county’s permission.

Cammerer was concerned that the broad language of the county-proposed easement might

be construed as limiting the government’s ability to construct any trails, paths, utility roads

and other improvements on the land in addition to prohibiting a cross-monument road, so

he proposed an alternative that retained the county’s prohibition against the road but made it

clear that all other development would be allowed. Cammerer then forwarded this version to

the regional office and to Pinnacles with the recommendation that Hawkins first try to get the

county supervisors to agree to an easement with no restrictions, but if that failed, he should

insist on using Cammerer’s own, more precisely worded document rather than the county’s

original contract.16

Taking his instructions, Hawkins went before the San Benito County Board of Supervisors

on January 11, 1941, but it appears that he largely ignored the director’s recommendation to

negotiate diplomatically and to consider options for compromise. Instead, Hawkins presented

the one alternative mentioned by Cammerer that supported his own desire for a crossmonument road and argued that this was the Park Service’s official—and only—position.

Jacob Leonard was present at that meeting and described his surprised reaction to Hawkins’

ultimatum in a letter to the director:

Appearing before the Board of Supervisors last Saturday, January 11th, Custodian Hawkins

declared that the program of development on the East side of the present Pinnacles would

be terminated in June 1941 unless a deed to the 160 acres was immediately forthcoming

and that no further development could or would be undertaken on the East Side until this

property was so deeded. He also stated that unless the 160 acres was deeded at once, it was

13. Both Hawkins and Leonard were competing for control of a business concession at Bolado Park, a county park

just north of Pinnacles. This was noted by the Regional Director.

14. Memorandum for the Acting Regional Director, November 22, 1940, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5.

The easement was formally granted on October 7, 1940.

15. “The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument,” 1933–1942, Map Coll., PNM.

16. Memorandum for the Acting Regional Director, November. 22, 1940; and Assoc. Reg. Dir. to Hawkins,

December 10, 1940, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

152
World War II (1942–1945)

the intention of the National Park Service to begin construction of a new roadway from

the artificial lake at the head of the caves to the present road from Soledad with the idea in

mind of “opening up” the Pinnacles from the Monterey County side. This ultimatum by

Custodian Hawkins, on behalf of the National Park Service, came as a complete surprise to

many of us and we are indeed at a loss to account for this sudden change in attitude after

years of what we believed to be, most harmonious relations.17

Of course, Leonard was biased against Hawkins, so the tenor of his account should be taken

with caution, but there seems little reason to doubt its substance. Leonard went on to write

that San Benito County hoped the east side development would be completed as proposed

under the existing Master Plan. This included a new lodge, a Visitor Center, and additional

staff facilities.18

Leonard also described ongoing highway development in San Benito County, which county

leaders had linked closely with the development of the monument. He reminded the director

that the county board of supervisors had successfully gotten the road from Hollister designated

a state highway in 1933 and had improved the road all the way to Bear Valley just north of

Pinnacles. The supervisors now hoped to extend these improvements south to King City, but

they were relying on the Park Service’s own plans to develop Bear Gulch in order to justify

their arguments to the state legislature for better transportation on the east side.19

Hawkins knew the local political scene well and was aware that the Park Service, by proposing

to improve development on the west side, had inadvertently exacerbated the chief anxiety

worrying San Benito County leaders at that time—their fear of losing business to Monterey

County. His counter-proposal to the board of supervisors on January 11 was therefore deeply

alarming to them (and calculated to be so). If the Park Service halted all further east side

development—as Hawkins threatened—and built a new entrance road from Soledad to the

Bear Gulch Reservoir, San Benito County would quickly lose a large share of its tourism

business. This prospect was far worse than a cross-monument road, which might potentially

benefit both counties even if it eliminated San Benito’s monopoly over Pinnacles. The crossmonument road might also appeal favorably to the State Highway Commission (as it had

when Harvey Toy was chairman back in 1924) and would not undermine efforts to improve

the state highway through San Benito County, whereas Hawkins’ new proposal would almost

certainly threaten these efforts.

Hawkins’ original objective in threatening the county supervisors with this alternative west

side road was to manipulate them into donating the Balconies parcel free of restrictions so

that the cross-monument road could be built through it. But once Hawkins presented this

new proposal, he appears to have warmed to the idea quickly. In a memorandum sent to

Washington that summer, he described the proposal with enough detail to suggest that he and

his staff considered it a serious possibility.20 In the end, Hawkins may have been content with

either a cross-monument road or the alternative west side road through Bear Gulch—this is

impossible to say from the surviving evidence—but he clearly wanted some road development.

17. Jacob Leonard to Newton Drury, January 15, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

18. The term “Visitor Center” was not introduced until the Mission 66 period almost twenty years later. The

proposed facility was actually called an “Information Station,”, though it would function much like a Visitor Center.

No design was ever drawn up for the new lodge, though the proposal remained part of the Pinnacles Master Plan

through the end of the war years. “The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument,” 1940, Map Coll., PNM.

19. Jacob Leonard to Newton Drury, January 15, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

20. Hawkins to Director, July 2, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

153
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 43. Drawing of proposed “Information Station” from 1940 Master Plan. Plot

plan also shows proposed new lodge opposite this building. Neither was ever built.

[Map Coll., Pinnacles National Monument.]

Both proposals would have improved access to Pinnacles and probably increased visitation,

and both would have also helped connect east and west sides of the monument, facilitating

management. But instead of bringing about one or the other of these alternatives, Hawkins’

aggressive attitude produced the opposite effect, damaging relations between the Park Service

and county leaders and effectively stalling all further progress toward the development of the

monument for at least several years. Rather than goading the county into action, Hawkins’

ultimatum caused Jacob Leonard and the board of supervisors to dig in their heels and insist

that no cross-monument road would ever be permitted through the Balconies and that the

Root Homestead would never be conveyed to the Park Service unless the Park Service agreed

to their conditions.21 This terse response temporarily ended all negotiations.

Further frustrating Hawkins was Washington’s refusal to support his alternative west side road.

He might have expected the county’s response to the proposed land transfer, knowing that

Jacob Leonard would never cooperate with him, but the Park Service’s lack of interest was a

surprise and a bitter disappointment. Relatively little construction would have been needed to

implement this idea, since the route connecting the Bear Gulch Reservoir with the Soledad

Road followed an easy grade across a low saddle in the ridge, and part of this route had already

been graded for the access road to the Chalone Peak Fire Lookout by the CCC. The road would

have allowed future development of the west side to balance existing development on the east,

but more importantly it would have made it possible to connect east and west side operations,

especially if the proposal included a truck road through Frog Canyon, as Hawkins wanted.

Hawkins had become increasingly aware of the need to build some such connection between

the east and west sides in order to manage the monument effectively, especially as visitation

from Monterey County continued to increase. In a memorandum to the director, Hawkins

pointed out that Pinnacles was, in effect, two monuments, since the ridge that defined it also

divided it, making it impossible to manage the monument as a single unit.22 Unless west side

21. March 10, 1942, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 1, f. 4, PNM.

22. Hawkins to the Director, February 4, 1941, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5.

154
The End of the Lodge

development was abandoned, some sort of road would be needed to connect it to the east,

where most of the park’s administrative resources were located.

The directorate may have appreciated these concerns, but at that time there simply was no

budget for further road building. Even the comparatively easy route from the west side to the

Bear Gulch Reservoir was out of the question during the war, and that may partly explain

the directorate’s silence on the matter. (The fact that this proposal represented a significant

departure from Pinnacles’ Master Plan may also have been a factor.) The solution Hawkins

most desired—the cross-monument road through the Old Pinnacles—was both fiscally and

politically impossible, and it now seemed increasingly unlikely that this situation would ever

change. The most practical alternative that remained for connecting east and west sides of

the monument was the construction of an improved trail through the Balconies, but the

Hawkins–Leonard rivalry had placed even this option temporarily out of reach. In 1944,

the tense relationship between county and Park Service eased somewhat with the retirement

of Jacob Leonard, and Hawkins tried to resume negotiations over an easement through the

county parcel. Although the supervisors were more open to discussion now, they agreed only

to the issuance of a right-of-use permit, which allowed access to the land but not development

of it. Further progress would have to wait until a new generation of county leaders and park

administrators had replaced the present incumbents.

The End of Hawkins’ Long Reign at Pinnacles

On June 30, 1945, W.I. Hawkins retired from the Park Service after serving twenty years as

custodian of Pinnacles. His announcement came less than two months before the surrender

of Japan that August. Hawkins had seen the monument through its most intense period of

development from the late 1920s through the CCC period of the 1930s. He had then kept

the monument operating with practically no resources for the duration of World War II. With

the war nearing its conclusion and the prospect of better times soon to come, this must have

seemed an opportune moment for him to finally throw in the towel. He was then 78 years

old. Hawkins retired to his family home up in Hollister, where he died seven years later on

February 3, 1952.

Hawkins’ successor, Custodian Frank R. Givens, entered on duty July 4, 1945. Despite the

optimism attending the war’s end, matters at Pinnacles did not improve very much at first,

and Givens began his duty faced with an apparently serious crisis in staffing. His chief ranger,

John Offel, had transferred to Lava Beds, leaving only two seasonal rangers—Drucilla Isaacson

and a single fire control aide. After Isaacson resigned in September, Givens was left with

only his clerk, the maintenance staff, and a budget that remained essentially stagnant. By

March of the following year, Aulton Hoover had mustered out of the Army and resumed his

duties as chief ranger, somewhat relieving the crisis, but visitation also grew that year by more

than 300 percent from war-time levels. This acute disparity between services and demand

would characterize life at Pinnacles—and throughout most of the national parks—for the next

two decades, making it a constant challenge just to maintain existing resources and nearly

impossible to add to them. Very little new development occurred during this period, although

a few minor changes and improvements were made.

The End of the Lodge

One of the most significant changes to occur at Pinnacles in the postwar years was the closing

of the lodge. During the war, Hazel James had stubbornly kept the facility open, despite

155
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 44. Interior view of Bear Gulch lodge during an unidentified dinner event, probably in the 1930s. Note

the NPS uniforms with original badge (the arrowhead design was not introduced until 1952). [Mus. Coll. PINN

4372, PNM.]

drastically reduced visitation. Servicemen from nearby bases helped keep her business afloat,

but profits must have been meager. By the end of the war, the Jameses were worn out and

ready to sell, despite their increasing business. In the spring of 1946, while the Jameses looked

for a suitable replacement, the Park Service made numerous improvements to the facility. The

interior was refurbished and several run-down shacks behind it were demolished. These had

been used by lodge staff for housing and storage and may have dated back to the 1920s.23 One

cabin, at least, was retained and still used by the concessionaire as a residence. It was known

affectionately as “Green Gables.”24 By November, the Jameses had turned the concession over

to Lillian Anderson and her husband, who took over just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The weekend brought an enormous crowd of revelers, who were entertained by a string quartet

and a vocalist every evening.25

This event seemed to represent a propitious start for the Andersons, but eventually they

too were not able to keep up with the onerous demands of the business. Two years later,

Lillian’s husband joined the Army, and she was left to run the lodge on her own. The new

23. The kitchen had already been remodeled in May 1944. [Custodian’s Narrative Reports, March, 1946, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 24, PNM.]

24. Bessie Webb, transcript of oral interview by Reta Oberg, April 27, 1977, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 18, f. 16.

According to Bessie Webb, the Andersons, like the James before them, lived in quarters within the lodge itself while

Green Gables was used by the operator’s assistant. Hazel James’ children also lived in Green Gables.

25. Custodian’s Narrative Reports, March, 1946, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 24, PNM.

156
Postwar Development

superintendent, William Gibbs, and Chief Ranger Aulton Hoover personally helped out to

keep the operation running through the end of the 1948 season, but it was clear that Lillian

could not continue.26 She relinquished her concession that December, and on January 1,

1949, the lodge closed. Nobody knew it at the time, but its doors would never again open for

business.27

Following the Andersons’ departure, the Park Service continued for several years to search for

an appropriate candidate to replace them. In the meantime, the building was maintained and

kept serviceable. Although many people expressed interest in running the lodge, all of them

withdrew their application after inspecting the facilities. By this time, the lodge had become

too antiquated to suit modern tastes—it still did not have electricity, for example. The Park

Service intended to replace the old building with a larger and more up-to-date structure, but

for the time being no money was available for such a major project.28 In May of 1954, the Park

Service finally gave up, and local rancher Art Smith was hired to demolish the old building.

Green Gables, however, was saved when Smith and his friend Lou Webb loaded the small cabin

onto a trailer and moved it down to the old John Hain Ranch in Bear Valley where Lou and

his wife Bessie were then living.29 With the old lodge finally gone, the proposal for a modern

replacement was also stricken from the Master Plan.30 This decision was only partly due to

the Park Service’s failure to find an operator for the concession; it also reflected the growing

opinion that Pinnacles should be managed as a day use only park and not have amenities that

catered to overnight visitors.

Postwar Development

No new construction occurred during this period, although work continued on some existing

projects. The most significant of these was the Superintendent’s Residence (Building #19),

which was finally completed in June of 1950. Superintendent Gibbs and his family became

the first to live here. The building had been started during one of the last CCC enrollments

in 1941, but the CCC had only managed to pour the foundation and raise the frame. The

rest of the work was carried on in fits and starts over the following years by park staff as time

and money allowed.31 Parts of the CCC camp were also refurbished after the war—and other

parts demolished—once it became clear that the CCC program would not be renewed any

time soon, as many people had hoped. The old infirmary (Building #302) was rehabilitated

as residential quarters to house two seasonal rangers. One of these was the fire control aide, a

new position that was created in 1945.

In 1946, park headquarters was finally wired for electricity. The power was provided by two

surplus diesel generators that Superintendent Gibbs obtained from Muir Woods National

Monument, but Coast Counties Electric Company had already begun making surveys to

26. The custodianship was upgraded to a superintendency in 1947.

27. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, December 1948, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 26, PNM.

28. A new lodge had been part of the Master Plan since 1934. [“The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument,”

1933–1942, Map Coll., PNM.]

29. Bessie Webb, transcript of oral interview by Reta Oberg, April 27, 1977, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 18, f.

16, PNM. The cabin was still standing in 1977 when Bessie gave this interview and may be extant even now. John

Hain was the father of Schuyler and Arthur Hain.

30. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, May 1954, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

31. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, January 1948, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 26; and ibid., June 1950,

Box 4, f. 2, PNM.

157
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 45. Among the numerous challenges to maintaining the lodge was that posed

by woodpeckers, which used the walls of the building as a granary for storing acorns.

The pile on the floor at left was taken from the wall cavity after the interior paneling

was removed. This photo taken in 1950, one year after the lodge had ceased operations.

[Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

158
Postwar Development

bring power lines into the region.32 By 1948, the company had brought electrical power to

the nearby ranches in Bear Valley and began stringing lines up Bear Gulch toward the end of

the year. (The eighteen laborers working on this project were the last individuals to stay at the

lodge before it closed.) For some reason, however, this work was delayed for almost ten years

and electrical power was not activated until October 29, 1957. Writing in his annual report,

Superintendent Everett Bright commented, “thus the ‘horse and buggy’ days for another area

passed into history.”33 The following year, the Bear Gulch cabins were rehabilitated for use as

staff residences and offices. Up to this time, they had continued to be used as tourist cabins.

Some of the buildings were also moved or combined. For instance, Building #11 was joined

with Building #6, and Building #12 with Building #7, to create two full-sized family residential

units.34 In 1960, power was also extended to the maintenance facilities at the old CCC camp

and to the new pumphouse on Chalone Creek (where a well for the Bear Gulch water supply

had been drilled the previous year).

By 1946, a succession of drought years had dried up most of the springs in the monument,

causing concern among park staff that the monument’s water supply was in jeopardy. Proposals

were discussed for developing alternative sources. As it happened, the principal source from

which the monument headquarters took its drinking water at that time—Split Rock Spring,

just below the Bear Gulch Caves—remained unaffected throughout the entire drought, which

did not break until December of 1948.35 Nevertheless, Engineer Hommon came down from

the San Francisco Regional Office in September of 1947 to investigate the possibility of piping

water from Willow Spring, which also remained unaffected. He determined that this was a

feasible proposal and prepared plans, which were submitted the following month.36 With

the flow continuing unabated from Split Rock Spring, however, nothing was ever done to

implement this plan. One problem that did affect the monument as a probable result of the

drought was an algal bloom in the Bear Gulch Reservoir. This was first noticed in November

of 1947 and produced an offensive odor that lingered inside the caves. One hundred pounds

of powdered copper sulphate were applied to the reservoir the following month to kill the

algae, a treatment that apparently worked, as no further mention was made of the problem.37

In March of 1953, a temporary checking station or entrance kiosk was installed along Highway

146 at the eastern border of the monument. This small building had to be constructed at

Yosemite and driven down to Pinnacles, a fact that underlines how lean Pinnacles’ resources

were during these years.38 The only other developments of note that occurred during this

period were all related to the destruction of infrastructure. In July 1951, a small quarteracre fire burned at the top of Chalone Peak and completely destroyed the original CCC Fire

Lookout (Building #402). The present structure was built as a replacement the following year

32. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, January and September 1946, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 26, PNM.

33. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

34. Sketch plan of proposed modifications, 1957, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 5, f. 22, PNM. In 1974, Building

#9 was moved to the maintenance area on Chalone Creek and used as an office. It is still extant in that location as

of this writing.

35. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, December 1946, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 24, PNM. This suggested

that the water here derived from a deep, non-seasonal aquifer.

36. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, September 1947, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 25, PNM.

37. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, November 1947, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 27, PNM. The causal

relationship between the drought and the algal bloom was never proven but appears likely.

38. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, March 1953, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 4, f. 5, PNM.

159
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 46. Photo of Equipment Shed (Building #201) at Condor Gulch Utility Area taken shortly

after completion in 1934. It was destroyed by fire in 1955. [Landscape Architects’ Reports, PINN

Coll. 3658, Misc. Boxes, PNM.]

by laborers from the California Division of Forestry.39 And on March 2, 1955, the Equipment

Shed (Building #201) in Condor Gulch was also destroyed by fire. A 1937-model fire truck

that was kept inside was destroyed with it. This fire raised suspicions as soon as investigators

discovered that several items had also been stolen from the building. A man who had once

worked as the monument’s fire control aide later confessed to the thefts, and staff believed

that he had ignited the fire in order to cover his tracks.40 The crime was especially tragic given

the historic and aesthetic significance of the Equipment Shed, which had been built by PWA

and CCC laborers in 1934 and was a good example of rustic architecture at the monument.

The building was never replaced, and only the concrete foundation pad remains to mark its

location.

Developments in Fire Management

Although no major wild fires occurred during this postwar decade, several important

developments relating to fire management did. Chief responsibility for fire suppression

in the monument had passed from the Park Service to the California Division of Forestry

(CDF) in 1938, with the CCC no longer occupying Pinnacles during the summer fire season.

From that year until 1949, when the state built its own station on the Melendy Ranch at the

north end of Bear Valley, a six-man CDF crew occupied the CCC camp for a few months

every year. One member of this crew regularly manned the Fire Lookout on Chalone Peak.

In 1945, the NPS began hiring a seasonal fire control aide to assist the CDF crew and act as

liaison between the two agencies. The aide generally lived in quarters on the CCC camp to

be close to the fire crews. (The old infirmary [Building #302] was rehabilitated for his use.)

39. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, July 1951 and June 1952, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 4, ff. 3–4, PNM.

40. Monthly Narrative Reports (Fire), March 1955, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 39, f.12, PNM. The man’s name

was Ronald Coleman, but the records do not indicate what ultimately happened to him.

160
Changing Priorities (1954–1955)

This arrangement continued through 1958, when the position was discontinued, probably

for lack of funds rather than lack of need.41 By this time, the CDF was actively involved in a

program of fuel load reduction through controlled burns and mechanical brush clearing using

bulldozers and chains. The first such action had occurred in 1951, when over two thousand

acres were control-burned just north of the monument.42 An even larger burn, comprising

more than seven thousand acres, was ignited on the Melendy Ranch the following year.43

These events inaugurated the Rangeland Improvement Association, an organization of local

ranchers working in cooperation with the CDF and the County Farm Advisor. The Rangeland

Improvement Association would continue clearing and burning on a regular basis on private

ranches around the monument until its activities were superseded by the more scientific

approach of the Chaparral Management Program, which was introduced by the U.S. Forest

Service in the 1970s. During all this time, the National Park Service could do little to reduce

fuels on its lands, as it was prevented from burning by a Service-wide policy of complete

fire suppression until 1968.44 (Many ecologists today believe that dense stands of mature

vegetation are a natural component of chaparral ecosystems, where relatively infrequent but

intense, stand-replacing fires occur at intervals ranging from forty to a hundred years, and

occasionally longer.45)

Changing Priorities (1954–1955)

In 1954, Director Conrad Wirth reorganized the Park Service administrative structure to better

reflect the priorities he had brought into the directorate with his appointment three years earlier.

Among numerous other changes, Wirth gave much greater authority to construction engineers

and landscape architects, who now worked out of a newly established Division of Design

and Construction with semi-autonomous western and eastern offices—the Western Office

of Design and Construction (WODC) and the Eastern Office of Design and Construction

(EODC). Wirth also increased the status of interpretation by making this its own division

parallel with the Division of Design and Construction in the administrative hierarchy. This

would effectively diminish the role of professional research and resources management by

subordinating these disciplines to branches within the Division of Interpretation. The new

hierarchy was designed to help realize two of the principal objectives ofWirth’s administration—

capital improvements and effective visitor services. These organizational changes represented a

41. Annual Forestry Report, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 39, f. 12, PNM.

42. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 1951, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 4, f.3, PNM; and California, Range

Improvement: Annual Report for 1951 (Sacramento: California Deparment of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry,

1952).

43. State of California, Range Improvement: Annual Report for 1952; and Clara Lou Melendy, interview with author,

March 21, 2007.

44. Bruce M. Kilgore, “Origin and History of Wildland Fire Use in the U.S. National Park System,” The George

Wright Forum 24.3 (2007): 92–122; Dean Clark, pers. comm., March 30, 2008.

45. F.W. Davis and D.A. Burrow, “Spatial Simulation of Fire Regime in Mediterranean-Climate Landscapes,” in The

Role of Fire in Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems, eds. J.M. Moreno andW.C. Oechel (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994);

and Jon E. Keeley and C.J. Fotheringham, “Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands,” Conservation

Biology 15.6 (2001): 1536–1548.

161
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

first step toward the introduction two years later of Wirth’s Mission 66 program, which would

provide the necessary funding to implement his objectives.46

Pinnacles soon began to feel the effects of Wirth’s energetic administration and its new

priorities. Earl Jackson, who replaced Superintendent William Gibbs in July of 1953,

was largely responsible for bringing the new mood into the monument, though Russell

Mahan would be responsible for implementing the most important policies of the Wirth

administration. In his Annual Report for fiscal year 1954, Jackson identified “improvement of

public services” as his highest priority.47 Though this had always been a priority for the Park

Service, up until the present administration public services had generally been understood

as infrastructure development to provide for the purely physical needs of the visitor. What

Jackson meant had as much to do with meeting the visitor’s intellectual and emotional needs as

it did his material ones. Consequently, he focused on increasing opportunities for meaningful

interaction between staff and visitors and providing more information about the monument’s

resources.

Jackson addressed the first of these priorities in several ways. The most direct was through

greater emphasis on the orientation talk, which was prepared ahead of time and given primarily

to organized groups. The orientation talk was also recognized as a means to address the growing

problem of vandalism, as it was thought that an inspiring introduction to the monument’s

resources might demonstrate their value and encourage visitors to show greater respect for

them. Unfortunately, the talks had little effect on the growing number of youth groups

who were coming to the monument—especially the Boy Scouts—and vandalism became an

increasingly serious problem over the next decade.

Jackson also began formalizing the tradition of the campfire talk. This had been a part of

the campground experience in Bear Gulch for years, but, under Jackson, the event became

a regular occurrence happening most Saturday nights. Campers would gather in a makeshift

circle in the open area near the lodge while a ranger presented talks on the history or geology

of the Pinnacles area. A more substantial campfire circle was constructed in Bear Gulch in

April of 1956. (It no longer exists and was probably demolished for the present parking lot.)

Jackson also instructed his staff to assemble a comprehensive file of important and interesting

facts about the monument. This information was mostly culled from the monument’s central

files. Brief summaries were written on index cards and organized alphabetically by subject. The

file was designed to be used as a reference for park rangers to help them prepare interpretive

talks or to answer questions from visitors. The file was also dynamic, with new information

always being added.

During Earl Jackson’s first year as superintendent, Building #1 in Bear Gulch ceased to be

used as a residence and began functioning as a visitor contact station and museum in order to

support the growing emphasis on interpretation. The following year (1955), it was substantially

rehabilitated to better serve its new purpose. The building had originally been designed as

a “dwelling for important visitors” and comprised two bedrooms with bathrooms sharing a

common entry vestibule. In 1955, however, the bathrooms were removed, and the space they

46. Russ Olsen, Administrative History: Organizational Structures of the National Park Service, 1917 to 1985 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1985), pp. 76–77; Ethan Carr et al., “The Mission 66 Era of National Park

Development, 1945–1972,” (Draft), National Register of Historic Places, Multiple Property Documentation Form,

2006, pp. 38–42; and Barry MacKintosh, Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1986).

47. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, May 1954, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

162
Mining Interlude (1955)

had once occupied was opened up into a hall that now connected both sides of the building. A

semi-wall was installed in the western-most room and an office established behind it. Visitors

could expect to find a ranger on duty here who provided them with assistance. The rest of the

building, including the hallway, was converted to a museum, and interpretive displays were

designed for the walls. The plaster relief map, which had been constructed during the 1930s,

was refurbished by the Western Museum Laboratory and installed in the museum as well.48

These passive displays complemented the more active interpretation provided by the orientation

talks and campfire presentations. But the museum displays also served a practical function

by making it possible to reach greater numbers of visitors without increasing staff. A similar

strategy was employed with the self-guiding interpretive trail. Twenty-nine numbered signs

were installed between 1955 and 1956 along the Moses Spring Trail, and a brochure was

prepared that provided a brief interpretation of each site. Copies of this free brochure were

made available at the trailhead. The self-guiding interpretive trail did not replace the guided

walks traditionally led by the park ranger or naturalist, but, like the museum displays, it

allowed the park to provide some form of interpretation for everyone. Many national parks

had begun utilizing audio-visual presentations at about this time. This worked best where an

indoor auditorium was available. Pinnacles never had a facility like this, though narrated slide

shows were eventually given at the evening campfire events on an outdoor projection screen.

Mining Interlude (1955)

In the winter of 1955, Superintendent Russell Mahan was contacted by a geologist from the

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and notified that two prospectors had located a uranium

mine on monument land. This turned out to be the Buzzard’s Roost Mine, situated in Crowley

Canyon on the northeast side of the Balconies.49 Within the middle of their claim was a drift,

or tunnel, which had been cut about one hundred feet into the base of a stony outcropping,

but this was probably a relic from the old Rootville miners of the last century.50 It is unlikely

that the two uranium miners ever conducted any work of their own beyond prospecting, given

the short duration of their activities. But they did find autunite, a low-grade uranium ore.

The quantities were not profitable, and their claim was illegal since it lay within monument

boundaries. When the men were notified of this, they apparently abandoned the whole venture,

since nothing further was heard from them. This peculiar event was precipitated by the rising

value of uranium, which had created a major mining boom throughout the American West

during this decade. The principal demand for the ore at this time was in weapons production,

a grim reminder that the Cold War with its nuclear arms race was just beginning to warm up.

48. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, June 1962, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 2, PNM. This was removed

in 2007 and replaced with an entirely new map.

49. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 1956, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM. The locators were Bobby

L. Davis and Joe D. Minton from Pittsburgh, CA (near Oakland). They had filed four contiguous claims that were

recorded in San Benito County on April 15 and April 18, 1955—Buzzard’s Roost #1, #2, #3, and #4. The claims

straddled Sections 27 and 34 in T16S, R7E, lying partially in the San Benito County parcel in the Old Pinnacles

and partially in the national monument.

50. It lies very near the land homesteaded by George W. Root in 1893. The ruins of a cabin lie nearby. Lois Hain

Bourke recalled seeing both this mine and the cabin—abandoned but still standing then—when she was a young

woman working as a guide at the monument in the early 1920s. [Lois Bourke, Bourke Engine Documentary.]

163
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Mission 66 (1956–1966)

In his annual report for 1956, Superintendent Mahan first mentioned a proposed servicewide program called Mission 66, which was beginning to attract a great deal of attention

among local business leaders.51 Mission 66 was an ambitious plan to modernize Park Service

infrastructure and services, which had been steadily deteriorating since the outbreak of World

War II.52 Although the conclusion of the war brought an immediate and dramatic surge in

the national economy, the Park Service budget had remained stagnant for the next decade.

Increased wealth and more leisure time allowed unprecedented numbers of Americans to

visit their national parks, placing greater stress on park resources precisely when park staff

were least able to absorb the impact. By 1954, there were fifty-four million visitors a year,

compared to fifteen million before the war when the parks had last received full funding for

maintenance and development. The situation was exacerbated by changing styles of tourism,

as postwar Americans made greater use of the automobile, placing a new type of burden on

parks with demand for better roads and more automobile-related services. Most existing park

infrastructure remained frozen in a largely prewar, pre-automotive state of development and

would require an enormous expenditure of federal money just to maintain at existing levels,

much less to upgrade to meet postwar expectations.53

This seemingly desperate situation continued into the early 1950s, until the declining condition

of the parks had begun to reach crisis proportions. Growing public attention combined with

the inauguration of a new president in 1953 finally inspired Park Service Director Conrad

Wirth to propose major changes. Wirth assembled special committees to develop a prospectus

of what was needed most by the parks. The result was an ambitious plan of upgrading and

modernization that he called Mission 66, after the target date for the plan’s completion on

the National Park Service’s fiftieth anniversary. Wirth presented the Mission 66 prospectus to

President Eisenhower in January of 1956 and received the president’s personal endorsement.

Congress followed shortly afterward and voted an increase in the Park Service budget that

would ultimately total nearly $1 billion. The funds made it possible to implement the largest

and most comprehensive development program since the creation of the Park Service in 1916.

While the focus of Mission 66 was not exclusively on construction, the official summary

of the program stated clearly that “construction is an important element.”54 In order to

accommodate the expected eighty million visitors to the national parks by 1966, a variety

of new infrastructure would have to be built, and road building headed the top of the list.

Modern roads were essential, park planners believed, in order to move such greatly increased

numbers of people efficiently through the parks and to prevent them from collecting in only

a handful of places, compromising both visitor experience and park resources. Mission 66

planners generally saw road building as a way to mitigate visitor impacts rather than as an

51. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, Supplemental, 1956, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

52. For the most comprehensive history of Mission 66, see Ethan Carr, Mission 66: Modernism and the National

Park Dilemma (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007). A much briefer account, but one that is placed

in the larger context of Park Service history, is given by William Everhart, The National Park Service (Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, 1983). Conrad Wirth gives an invaluable, if understandably biased, insider’s version of the program

in his autobiography, Parks, Politics, and the People (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980).

53. In 1949, it was estimated that the cost of upgrading the parks would exceed $300 million. That same year, only

$14 million was appropriated for the NPS budget. (Everhart, The National Park Service, p. 26).

54. “Mission 66 for Pinnacles National Monument.” This summary was included with every park’s Mission 66

outline.

164
Mission 66 (1956–1966)

impact itself, though this remains one of the most controversial and disputed legacies of the

program.55 The need for road improvement was also a reflection of the changing habits of

postwar park visitors with their preference for automobile tourism. In order to accommodate

these new motorists, all visitor facilities—and not just roads—had to be modified. Parking lots

were installed or enlarged, new service stations were built, and campgrounds were reconfigured

to accommodate greater numbers of auto campers with their large and increasingly elaborate

machinery.

Another hallmark of the Mission 66 program was its distinctive concept of the Visitor Center.

This, too, reflected the growing influence of auto tourism, for the Visitor Center was designed

to bring together as many services as possible in a single facility where they would be more

readily accessible to a visitor just arriving off the highway. With this in mind, the Visitor Center

was usually situated along the main entrance road and almost always included a substantial

parking lot as a principal feature of its design. Mission 66 planners and architects largely

abandoned the rustic design principles of the pre-war years and adopted a modernist idiom

that seemed more appropriate to the new age and was better adapted to the auto tourist.56

But not all Mission 66 planning was devoted to infrastructure improvement. Substantial

attention was also given to improving the visitor experience through better and more effective

interpretation. Increasing the number of staff was the most immediate and obvious way to

achieve this goal, and much of the Mission 66 allotment went toward this end. But Mission

66 planners also sought ways to make existing staff more effective. A great deal of attention

was given to training, and by 1964 the Mather Training Center had opened at Harpers Ferry

in West Virginia specifically to enhance the job skills of park rangers and managers.

The challenge of providing effective interpretation to increasing numbers of visitors was also

addressed through the design principles of Mission 66. One important purpose of the new

Visitor Centers was to concentrate visitors and staff in one central place, making it easier

for rangers to be available to large numbers of people. The greater use of passive interpretive

displays with guided nature trails, road waysides and exhibits within the Visitor Centers

themselves also helped relieve the burden on staff while increasing the opportunities for visitors

to learn about the park and its resources. But probably the most distinctive response to the

challenge of effective interpretation was the introduction of audio-visual programs, which

often played automatically in Visitor Center auditoriums. So important was this technology to

the Mission 66 interpretive program, that the auditorium became one of the most memorable

and characteristic features of the new Visitor Centers (after the bathrooms).

Mission 66 planning did not get under way at Pinnacles for another year, but by the end

of 1957 a finished draft of Pinnacles’ first Mission 66 Prospectus was finally ready to be

sent to Washington for review. It was approved on January 20, 1958.57 The timing of this

news was opportune, since it very nearly coincided with the monument’s 50th anniversary

on January 16th. Chief Ranger Robert Ramstad, who was acting superintendent in Russell

55. For example, the Tioga Road at Yosemite National Park was finally paved and brought up to state highway

standards in the hope that improved access to Tuolumne Meadows would draw some of the crowds away from

Yosemite Valley. The same argument was occasionally used to justify the proposed cross-monument road at Pinnacles

among the die-hards who still supported it.

56. Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type(Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office, 2000).

57. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

165
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Mahan’s absence, took advantage of the coincidence to promote Pinnacles by announcing the

government’s renewed commitment to its development. Although he was not able to go into

details until the Prospectus was finally released a few months later, Ramstad intimated that the

plans were ambitious. But he also expressed some doubt that the government would be able to

fulfill all its promises in light of the “space age economy.”58 This was a reference to the hysteria

following the launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite, which had occurred only a few

months earlier on October 4, 1957. The American satellite, Explorer I, was rushed into space

on January 31, 1958, just two weeks after Pinnacles’ anniversary celebration. It was followed by

major appropriations for the military budget, the establishment of NASA, and the initiation of

a manned space flight program, all in 1958. Given the cut-backs the Park Service had already

suffered as a result of military escalations during the previous decade, Ramstad’s skepticism

was understandable and would be justified by subsequent events as the initial enthusiasm

for Mission 66 began to wane. Unfortunately, Pinnacles had not benefited from the earliest

stage of the program when money was still flush, and by the time its plans were ready for

implementation, the Mission 66 appropriations were already in decline. Some of the most

urgent needs of the monument were eventually met under the program, but the larger projects

proposed in Pinnacles’ Mission 66 Master Plan were never completed.59 These included a new

Visitor Center and administrative complex on the east side. Soon after introducing Mission 66

at Pinnacles, Superintendent Russell Mahan was transferred to another park, and his successor,

Everett W. Bright, would assume responsibility for carrying the program out.60

The Mission 66 Prospectus for Pinnacles identified three general elements needed for the

maximum development of the monument. The first two both addressed the need for improving

the monument’s physical infrastructure. First, an adequate road and trail system was needed

so that visitors could have access to all of the important features in the monument; and

second, adequate facilities would have to be built to accommodate visitors. The third element

addressed the need for effective interpretation of Pinnacles’ resources. A fourth element—

protection of life and property—was identified in a later revision. The Prospectus noted that

the east side road and trail system was already in good shape and little would have to be done

to improve it, but the west side would need extensive work. Proposed was improvement of

the access road within the monument boundaries and construction of at least one new trail

which would connect the west side with the existing High Peaks Trail system through Juniper

Canyon. Visitor accommodations, the second element of the Prospectus, would require the

most extensive work. Not only were improvements to the campground facilities needed, but

the utilities which supported these campgrounds would have to be extended and upgraded

as well. This was compounded by the third element of the Prospectus, the need for effective

interpretation, which included an increase in staffing and would require more housing. But

improved interpretation would also require the construction of new public facilities, the most

significant of which was a proposed visitor center on Chalone Creek, and a smaller visitor

contact station on the west side. All of these facilities would need new utilities or require a

substantial upgrading of the existing systems of water supply, sewage and power. The final

element, protection, would also require permanent staffing on the west side. A single facility

comprising both ranger offices and visitor contact station was proposed here and was considered

58. San Jose Mercury News, January 15, 1958.

59. Pinnacles’ initial Mission 66 allotment, which was announced in March 1958, totaled $804,500. This broke

down to $141,700 for roads and trails; $416,500 for buildings; $200,500 for utilities; and $45,000 for miscellaneous

purposes. [Hollister Evening Free Lance, March 31, 1958.]

60. Press Release, May 11, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 21, f. 11, PNM.

166
Mission 66 Infrastructure

sufficient for present purposes. Not listed in the original Prospectus but an important aspect of

Mission 66 Service-wide was the acquisition of lands—especially private inholdings—needed

to complete a park unit and ensure its effective management. This objective would become a

major concern for Pinnacles staff during the Mission 66 period (and beyond).

Mission 66 Infrastructure

The Mission 66 Master Plan, which was developed from the Prospectus over the next several

years, later included a very sober evaluation of the resource significance and visitor utilization

of Pinnacles National Monument. It was found that the majority of visitors (some 80 percent)

stayed for no more than a few hours or one day at the longest. Only 20 percent stayed overnight.

Given the relatively small area comprised by the monument and the relative accessibility of its

most popular attractions, these percentages were not anticipated to change substantially in the

future. It was possible to see the monument’s most important features—the Bear Gulch Caves

and the Moses Springs nature trail—in three hours or less. This fact, combined with the lack

of any extensive areas appropriate for further development, convinced Park Service planners

to abandon the idea of ever developing elaborate overnight facilities, like a lodge or cabins

and associated amenities like restaurants. They concluded that primitive campgrounds were

sufficient to accommodate the minority of visitors who desired to stay more than an afternoon.

The existing campground areas could be expanded and their utilities improved while a new

campground could be developed on the west side, but the long-cherished idea of renewing the

concession in Bear Gulch, held in abeyance since the retirement of Lillian Anderson in 1949,

was finally abandoned with the Mission 66 Master Plan. The Park Service remained open to

the idea that a private interest might develop recreational facilities outside the monument, but

no effort was made to promote or encourage this possibility.

The abandonment of the lodge was only part of a much larger strategy to remove nearly all

development from Bear Gulch. During the Hermansen years, this area had been the location

of the majority of development in the monument, including the principal campground. But

at that time, the monument’s boundaries had lain just west of Condor Gulch and excluded

the lower half of Bear Gulch and all of Chalone Valley. After 1941, Chalone Valley had been

incorporated into the monument and now provided the most extensive and scenically the

least obtrusive area for campgrounds and other development. Chalone Valley was also more

easily accessible to auto tourists than Bear Gulch, despite the heroic efforts expended on

the construction of the Bear Gulch Grade. Under its Mission 66 plan, the Park Service now

resolved to concentrate the majority of east side development along Chalone Creek, where

expansion was still possible, and relegate Bear Gulch to a trailhead picnic ground. Building

#1 (the old “Dwelling for Official Visitors”) would be retained as an ancillary visitor contact

station, offering interpretive exhibits and serving as a rendezvous point for guided walks with

the park naturalist, but its other roles as administrative office and museum would be transferred

to a modern Visitor Center that would be constructed along Highway 146 on Chalone Creek

near the eastern entrance to the monument.

Most staff housing would be concentrated in a single residential compound located at the south

end of the old CCC camp, adjacent to the proposed new campground. The plan included two

three-bedroom residences, one duplex, and a four-unit apartment.61 The only residences that

61. John J. Hamernik, Landscape Architect, “Master Plan for the Preservation and Use of Pinnacles National

Monument, California: Design Analysis, Pinnacles East Entrance Area,” March 31, 1964, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 17, f. 10, PNM.

167
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

would be retained in Bear Gulch were the Ranger Residence (Building #19) and the recently

completed Superintendent’s Residence (Building #2). The old tourist cabins were judged to

be substandard and most would be demolished, although several had recently been extensively

refurbished and were being used for staff housing and administrative offices. A few of these

would be retained, at least temporarily, until better facilities could be built. The original

Hermansen campground below Moses Spring would be retained but managed as a day use

only picnic area (and is still being used for that purpose today).

The old utility area in Condor Gulch would also be converted to day use picnicking. The

area lacked necessary utilities and was too small to be used as a maintenance yard. Most of the

monument’s maintenance activities had long since moved to the old CCC camp on Chalone

Creek. The destruction of the equipment shed (Building #201) in 1955 had clinched the

matter, and the old utility area had seen little subsequent use. The Mission 66 plan proposed to

rehabilitate the remaining buildings for visitor use. The old Stable (Building #202) would be

converted to a picnic shelter, while the Oil and Gas Building (Building #200) would become

a comfort station. The broad staging area in front of the buildings would be used for parking

and group picnic sites. A new maintenance building with service yard would eventually be

constructed on Chalone Creek adjacent to the proposed residential complex. In the meantime,

existing CCC buildings would continue to be used and upgraded as necessary.

On the west side, the principal need identified by the Mission 66 planners was the improvement

of the entrance road from Monterey County. Only a short segment of this road lay within

monument boundaries, while the remainder was owned by the state, but it was hoped that any

investment by the Park Service on its portion would stimulate a reciprocal effort by the state

on the remaining twelve miles between the monument boundary and Soledad (as it eventually

did). The rest of the Park Service’s efforts focused on developing an adequate campground in

the Chaparral Area, where only a few picnic tables and a single pit toilet existed at that time.

The 1958 Prospectus recommended constructing at least thirty improved campground sites,

additional pit toilets, a ranger station, and residences to accommodate a permanent ranger and

at least two seasonal staff.

Interpretation under Mission 66

Despite the breadth and ambition of these proposals for physical redevelopment of the

monument’s infrastructure, the greater bulk of the Mission 66 Prospectus dealt with less

tangible—if not less consequential—matters concerning how the monument’s resources

would be managed and interpreted. While interpretation clearly occupied a central place

in Director Wirth’s concept of a revitalized National Park Service, its prominence in the

1958 Prospectus for Pinnacles probably owed as much to the energy and intelligence of the

monument’s seasonal naturalist from the previous year, Roland (Ro) Wauer, who had prepared

an extensive interpretive outline. At twenty-three pages, his narrative constituted the most

substantial portion of the entire document.

Ro Wauer’s report described in detail the principal resources of the monument, patterns

of public use, and the existing interpretive program. He also included proposals for future

development and his own recommendations for ways to improve interpretation. Though much

of the latter emphasized construction of new facilities—above all, the proposed Mission 66

Visitor Center—Wauer also insisted on the need for further research into both the natural and

cultural history of the area so that better information could be made available to the public.

At present, he noted that only two publications on the natural resources of the monument

had been produced, one on the geology of the Pinnacles and the other a recent study of the

168
Interpretation under Mission 66

rare yucca night lizard (Xantusia vigilis).62 Several unpublished checklists and internal reports

had also been prepared, and Wauer himself had written “A General Report on the Vertebrates

of Pinnacles National Monument” that summer. These checklists were copied and made

available to visitors at the Bear Gulch museum. No formal study had yet been made into

the monument’s cultural resources, though Wauer had begun to research the history of the

local area.63 Without adequate knowledge of these resources, Wauer insisted, no amount of

interpretation, no matter how effective, could adequately tell the story of Pinnacles.

One of the most significant developments for interpretation under Mission 66 was the creation

of a permanent naturalist’s position. This occurred in 1960, when Dwight Warren was hired.

Prior to this time, the park naturalist had been a seasonal position designed to assist the chief

ranger, who was responsible for both the protection and management of all park resources.

Resource management was not yet distinguished from interpretation, and the chief ranger’s

role remained little different from that of Zotic Marcott, who had guided and entertained

visitors along the monument’s trails back in 1925. The chief ranger still guided visitors

through the monument and provided information about the cultural and natural history

of the area. The former was limited to stories—many apocryphal—of the Mexican outlaw

Tiburcio Vasquez, who was thought to have used the Pinnacles as a hideout during the 1870s.

The latter was largely about the geology of the Pinnacles formation and its volcanic origins.

Talented seasonal rangers like Ro Wauer had introduced greater nuance and depth to this

interpretation, especially concerning the monument’s natural history, but it was not until

the permanent naturalist was hired in 1960 that this role was formalized and could begin to

stand apart from the increasingly complex management responsibilities of the chief ranger.

The establishment of this position signaled the birth of a distinctive resource management

and interpretive program at Pinnacles. (It would be a while longer before these two roles also

became distinct responsibilities.)

Dwight Warren entered on duty on May 7, 1960, as a GS-7. During his first year, he divided

his time between Pinnacles and Death Valley National Monument, where he was assigned

from November through the end of March. Shortly after returning to Pinnacles the following

April, Warren’s position was converted to full-time. A significant part of his duties consisted

of roving the established trails—especially the Bear Gulch Caves and Moses Springs trails—

and making himself available to any visitors he might happen upon, answering their questions

or pointing out interesting features in the landscape. This was done not only as a service to

visitors but to help prevent vandalism on the nature trail and in the Bear Gulch Caves, which

had become a serious problem by then.64 Warren remained at Pinnacles for one more year

before he transferred to Saguaro National Monument in the spring of 1962. A high turnover

rate with the naturalists would remain a problem until 1964, when the position was finally

upgraded to a GS-9.65

62. Philip Andrews, Geology of the Pinnacles National Monument (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1936); and

Robert C. Stebbins, “New Distributional Records for Xantusia vigilis with Observations on Its Habitat,” American

Midland Naturalist 39.1 (January, 1948): 96–101.

63. Among other things, Wauer had begun to conduct oral histories of local ranchers in the surrounding communities. These interviews contain much valuable information pertaining both to the history of the monument and to

its surrounding communities and physical landscape. It is unfortunate that Wauer’s work was not continued after

he left.

64. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, May 1960, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM.

65. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, February 1964, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 4, PNM.

169
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

In addition to roving the trails and providing guided walks (on request), the park naturalist

offered more formal presentations with museum lectures and weekend campfire talks. A simple

campfire circle was constructed near the park headquarters in Bear Gulch in 1956 to provide

an auditorium for this purpose. It seated approximately 140 people, but the campfire talks were

so popular that sometimes more than two hundred people crowded in. By summer of 1964, a

projection screen had been set up, and natural history films were being shown to supplement

the evening events.66 The following year, a carrousel slide projector and sound amplifier were

also purchased. These innovations were consistent with the emphasis that Mission 66 placed

on new technologies to assist rangers in reaching greater numbers of people more effectively.

The Mission 66 planners hoped to develop even further the role of this technology with the

construction of an indoor auditorium where audio-visual presentations could be made on

a regular basis to all visitors, but this required a large visitor center with facilities designed

specifically for the purpose. This auditorium would be one of the principal features of the

proposed visitor center on Chalone Creek. By 1965, a design had already been sketched out

for the new facility.67 The visitor center auditorium, however, was not intended to replace the

popular campfire presentations. The value of these was so well appreciated by this time that a

much larger and more substantial amphitheater was proposed—and eventually built—next to

the Chalone Creek Campground. This had been recommended as early as 1958 by Ro Wauer,

who saw the need for moving the event out of Bear Gulch and staging it closer to where the

majority of campers would eventually be located.

The Pinnacles Natural History Association

In March of 1959, Pinnacles received a further boost for its interpretive program when it

affiliated with the Cabrillo Natural History Association, a cooperating association devoted

to education about all things natural. The association managed the sale of natural history

publications, postcards, and slides. Three books were offered for sale by the association at the

Bear Gulch museum: Wildlife on the Public Lands, California Tree Finder, and National Parks

in Color. With the rapid growth of the interpretive program during the following decade,

however, interest grew among Pinnacles staff and supporters to establish the monument’s own

non-profit association. On February 1, 1966, the Pinnacles Natural History Association was

created to support interpretation and research at the monument.68 As reported by the local

newspapers,

The association will sponsor the sale of books, pamphlets, maps, and photographic slides

at the ranger station, and assist in the publication of new material. It also will assist in the

development and maintenance of the Pinnacles scientific museum and library facilities, and

in furthering the aims of the naturalist program.69

Soledad businessman Percy Dunlap was elected president; Millard Hoyle, publisher of the

Hollister Free Lance, vice-president; Robert Zink, the current park naturalist, executive

secretary; and Mrs. Mildred Smith, wife of park maintenance foreman Arthur Smith, treasurer.

This was the second non-profit association organized to support the monument since the

66. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1956 and July 1964, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16, PNM; and Box

15, f. 5, PNM. The film shown that year was “Let’s Talk About Wildlife” by former regional naturalist Russ Grater.

67. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 6, PNM.

68. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, March 1959 and July 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 16; and

Box 15, f. 6, PNM.

69. Hollister Free Lance, February 3, 1966.

170
Mission 66 and Acquisition of Private Inholdings

Figure 47. Architect’s rendering of proposed visitor center from 1966. This building would have stood

on the northeast side of Chalone Creek a short distance above the Chalone Creek Bridge. It was never

built. [Map Coll., PNM.]

Pinnacles National Park Association of 1925. But the Pinnacles Natural History Association

only survived six years before it became obvious that the ambition of its founders exceeded

their capabilities. In 1970, the association was dissolved and its role absorbed by the Southwest

Parks and Monuments Association, a regional non-profit similar in purpose and function to

the Cabrillo Natural History Association.70

Mission 66 and Acquisition of Private Inholdings

Among its other priorities, Mission 66 made a concerted effort to acquire all private inholdings

within parks and monuments. This was not stated as an explicit goal in the original Prospectus

for Pinnacles, though it was later added as an objective of the Master Plan. The acquisition

of inholdings had been a Service-wide policy since at least 1938, but little money had been

available then to buy property.71 Instead, the Park Service, cooperating with the Government

Land Office, proposed offering federal lands it did not want in exchange for private lands

that it did. The large budget appropriations of Mission 66 later made it possible to pursue

this policy more aggressively with cash purchases. The Mission 66 acquisition budget was

significantly augmented by the Land and Water Conservation Act (P.L. 88-578) of 1964,

which created a fund specifically intended for acquiring new parklands, expanding existing

70. Ralph Webb to Royle Rowe, September, 12, 1970, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 21, f. 2, PNM. The affiliation

with the Southwest Parks and Monuments Association continues today, though the name has changed to Western

National Parks Association. In 2007 the monument’s third non-profit association, the Pinnacles Partnership, was

also established.

71. See Kittredge to Hawkins, October 18, 1938, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 18, PNM.

171
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

units, and acquiring inholdings. With the passage of this act, NPS land acquisition funds went

from a few million dollars each year to more than a hundred million dollars.72

In the postwar era, probably the most important inholding within Pinnacles was the old Root

Homestead, which was still owned by San Benito County. But four other parcels totaling 1,520

acres also lay within the monument. These had all become inholdings when the monument’s

boundaries were extended in 1941 to add Zotic Marcott’s homestead.73 Immediately following

this expansion, the Park Service determined to acquire these parcels through land exchanges if

possible.74 The owners were approached and negotiations carried on intermittently throughout

the war and subsequent decade.

The Bourke parcel, comprising 640 acres on North Chalone Creek, had been homesteaded in

1921 by Russell Bourke, one of the group of five “Pinnacles Boys.” Russell Bourke had not

lived here since 1926, and the original homestead ranch had been destroyed in the 1931 fire

and never rebuilt. In 1944, Russell had sold the property to his brother Leo, who operated

the Must Hatch Incubator Company, an industrial chicken hatchery in Petaluma about fifty

miles north of San Francisco.75 In 1945, Leo Bourke wrote to the Park Service indicating

that he wanted to start a turkey farm on his brother’s old homestead. This unexpected news

alarmed the Park Service, which believed that the operation would have a negative effect on

the surrounding landscape.76 This and the fact that the alternative alignment for the proposed

cross-monument road, still actively being considered at that time, passed through Bourke’s

land, prompted the Park Service to make acquisition of this inholding its highest priority.77

(The San Benito County lands—the old Root homestead—may have been more important

for the immediate interests of the monument, but they were not in any danger of being

developed.)

72. Everhart, The National Park Service, p. 28.

73. Marcott’s 640-acre homestead had been purchased in 1938. The boundary extension, which increased the

monument’s area by 4,300 acres, was legally implemented with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Proclamation #2528,

dated December 5, 1941 (just two days before the attack on Pearl Harbor forced the United States into war).

74. Acting Regional Director Herbert Maier wrote to Director Demaray on January 30, 1942, explaining that, “The

recently extended boundaries of Pinnacles National Monument include two private tracts of land which project into

the Monument. These are the Kelly tract from the west and the Jolly-Hawkins tract from the north. [Maier failed to

mention the Bourke and Juri tracts.] The question has arisen of the advisability of contacting the owners with a view

to exchanging for Government owned lands outside the Monument.” Demaray later responded with his approval.

[Maier to Demaray, January 30, 1942; and Demarary to Regional Director, February 16, 1942, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 22, f. 18, PNM.]

75. At that time, Must Hatch was the largest chicken hatchery in the world, which may explain why the Park Service

was nervous about this company owning an inholding within the monument. Must Hatch had been founded in

by A.E. Bourke Sr. in 1898, shortly after the family moved to Petaluma from Los Angeles. Alonzo, Russell and Leo

were all heirs of A.E. Bourke, though only Leo became involved in the family business. Russell never had any further

association with Pinnacles after selling his property to his brother, though he did return to Bear Valley in 1961 to

live on his wife’s family property—the Arthur Hain Ranch—for a brief period before retiring to Penngrove, a small

suburb of Petaluma. He died there in 1968.

76. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, October 1945, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 23, PNM; Oberg,

Administrative History, p. 253–254.

77. Bourke’s land embraced a short segment of North Chalone Creek along which the North Wilderness Trail now

runs. This was being considered at that time as an alternative to the earlier proposal for building a cross-monument

road through the Balconies. The North Chalone Creek proposal would not appear in the Master Plan, however,

until 1965.

172
Mission 66 and Acquisition of Private Inholdings

The Kelly parcel, which comprised about 320 acres within the boundaries of the monument,

was owned by the children and heirs of Martin P. Kelly and was being run as a cattle ranch

by his daughter Lena DePaquette.78 This land was part of a much larger unit comprising

approximately ten thousand acres centered in the La Gloria Valley just west of the monument.

Martin Kelly had first started this successful ranch as a homestead back in 1872 and was among

the first Americans to settle here. When the Park Service first approached the Kellys in the

1940s with an offer to exchange government land for their parcel, they refused to negotiate,

explaining that the land had abundant running water, and nothing that the government owned

could compare to it in value.79 The matter was left at that for the next twenty years.

The Hawkins parcel, which lay a little north of Russell Bourke’s land, comprised about four

hundred acres inside the monument, with another eighty acres outside. It was owned in

partnership by a group of hunters that included brothers Fred and Ray Hawkins—no relation

to Custodian W.I. Hawkins.80 They had bought it in 1937 from Katherine Mayo, and the

property was commonly known as the Mayo Ranch (except among a few locals with old

memories who still referred to it as the Merrin Homestead, after Edwin Merrin, the original

patentee and namesake of Merrin Canyon). Following Fred Hawkins’ death, Ray became the

principal spokesman for the partnership. The Park Service was especially anxious to acquire

this land, because it also embraced part of North Chalone Creek and would be needed, like

Leo Bourke’s land, for the cross-monument road. But the Park Service was also concerned that

the hunters were using this inholding to gain access onto the surrounding monument. Even

if they were not actually poaching, game animals could pass freely from the sanctuary of the

monument to the private lands, where they were easily shot. This was, in fact, the principal

value of the inholding for the Hawkins and their partners.

The Park Service had already had one dispute with the Hawkins back in 1939, shortly after

they had bought the land. The parcel did not yet lie within the monument boundaries, but

Fred Hawkins insisted that a historic right-of-way led to it up Chalone Creek from the south.

According to Fred Hawkins, a road had been constructed up Chalone Creek in 1892 by Edwin

Merrin, and Fred demanded that the government allow the partners to use this route.81 Not

wanting to acknowledge this alleged right-of-way across monument lands, the Park Service

began investigating the history of the road. After asking around, Custodian Hawkins found

that the Mayo Ranch had generally been accessed from the north rather than the south,

although Chalone Creek had occasionally been used as an alternative route, but nobody

then living could remember an actual road ever having been built there. Custodian Hawkins

summarized the opinion of one of the old ranchers in the area, whose land abutted the Mayo

Ranch:

Today Mr. Fred Prewett told me that there had only been one road to the Mayo Ranch.

That road was from the John Prewett Ranch on the Bear Valley Grade. There was no road

from the Chalone Creek side, though previous to 1911 a team could have been driven in

from that side. In 1911 there were heavy rains and a cloud-burst that washed out the road

between John Prewett Ranch and the Mayo Ranch. These same high waters made such high

78. George Kelly, Martin’s oldest son and Lena’s brother, was listed in some correspondence as the owner of the

ranch and may have helped Lena run it.

79. Asst. Reg. Director (B.F. Manbey) to Reg. Director, May 2, 1942, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 18, PNM.

80. There may have been a distant family relationship to Custodian Hawkins but no immediate connection.

81. Misc. Correspondence, 1939–40, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 20, PNM.

173
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

banks on the Chalone Creek that teams could not pass through there. It has since 1911 been

impossible for machines or teams to go to the Mayo Ranch.82

Based on this and similar statements, the Park Service was able to deny the Hawkins brothers

an easement through the monument. The incident remains of interest, however, since it sheds

further light on the issue of past circulation through the area. Not mentioned by Custodian

Hawkins—probably because he knew nothing about it—was the so-called Spanish Trail that

county surveyors had described back in 1913 when they were investigating alignments for an

entrance road into the monument. This trail had followed the same route that Fred Hawkins

believed to be a historic right-of-way and was probably the basis for his claim. In that case, the

route likely predated Edwin Merrin’s use of it in 1892. But if Fred Prewett’s statement is true,

the route was never formally improved into a road appropriate for wheeled vehicles, at least

not below the Mayo Ranch.

Also of interest is the flood mentioned by Fred Prewett that destroyed the Merrin Road in

1911. The same flood was also mentioned by Lois Hain Bourke, who had grown up in the area:

The flood of 1911 caused many of the slides now seen on the hill sides and brought down

millions of tons of decomposed granite, depositing it on fields and creek beds. Many of the

huge old Valley Oaks which are now fallen, died because of the deposit of sand two or three

feet deep around their base.83

Since the average rainfall in 1911 was not unusual according to county statistics, measuring

only 10.06 inches, the cloudburst that caused such a devastating effect on Chalone Creek must

have been a local event occurring over a relatively short period of time.

Although Ray Hawkins expressed willingness to trade for an equivalent amount of government

land after the monument encompassed his parcel in 1941, the Park Service’s denial of the

Chalone Creek road easement back in 1938 probably left some lingering resentments. This

may explain why nothing came of these negotiations for another two decades.

The final inholding belonged to the Juris, who also failed to commit to any deal at this time.

They owned a small ranch of 240 acres that was split down the middle by the monument’s

west boundary. Although willing to negotiate, they did not want to divide their property and

would only part with their land if the entire acreage were involved. Since the Park Service was

authorized to acquire land inside the legislative boundaries of the monument but not outside

them, the Juri’s conditions could not be met, and negotiations stalled for the time being.

The Root Homestead is Finally Acquired (1958)

The first land to be acquired under the Mission 66 program was the old Root Homestead in the

Balconies—owned by San Benito County since 1935—but not without a few hitches first. The

issue was brought up early in 1958, probably at the park’s instigation, and on February 3rd the

county board of supervisors voted unanimously to complete the long-promised donation. But

before the deal could be finalized, Lester Bisho, the manager of the Chamber of Commerce,

intervened to ask for a postponement of negotiations.84 Like his predecessor Jacob Leonard,

82. W.I. Hawkins to Reg. Dir., April 21, 1939, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 20, PNM.

83. Lois Bourke, “Early History”, typed manuscript, January 1961.

84. February 18, 1958. Superintendent Russell Mahan to Reg. Dir., February 18, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

174
The Root Homestead is Finally Acquired (1958)

Figure 48. View looking northeast up Merrin Canyon in 1910. This road was originally graded by

homesteader Edwin Merrin in 1892. It left the county road (Hwy. 25) at the J.T. Prewett Ranch (later

known as the Jef Schmidt Ranch) and joined the Old Pinnacles Road just south of Willow Spring. It

was abandoned shortly after this photograph was taken. [The Russell Bourke Album, Mus. Coll. PINN

4372, PNM.]

Bisho was concerned that the Park Service would go ahead with its old plans to build a crossmonument road, contrary to San Benito County’s business interests.85 At first, it seemed that

the entire deal would founder for the same reasons it had in 1942. But this time relations

between the Park Service and the county were not troubled by any personal quarrels lurking

behind the scenes. Just as importantly, Superintendent Mahan acted quickly to address Bisho’s

concerns. With the permission of the regional office, he preemptively offered the county a

draft for the proposed donation that specifically forbade the construction of any road (though

it permitted all other forms of development). This was, in fact, the same proposal that Acting

Director Newton Drury had composed back in 1940. The relevant passage was unambiguous:

This grant is made upon condition that no through road or thoroughfare shall be constructed

upon any part of the land, but this restriction shall not be construed to prohibit the building

of trails, paths, and other utilities necessary for the convenience of the general public visiting

the Pinnacles National Monument.86

85. Sounding very much like Leonard, Bisho explained his concerns in a letter to the region’s U.S. Representative:

“The monument is a county feature as you know, and Hollister profits from the traffic in and out of the site. A

road from Soledad, for example, could work to this county’s disadvantage in routing tourists away from San Benito

County.” [Lester Bisho to Charles Gubser, U.S. House of Rep., February 25, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box

22, f. 5, PNM.]

86. Mahan to Reg. Dir. April 8, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM.

175
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

According to the local newspaper, Mahan also addressed county leaders in Hollister and

assured them that the NPS no longer intended to build a cross-monument road anywhere in

the monument, as it believed such a road would have an adverse effect on the landscape. He also

promised that a substantial amount of Mission 66 funds would be spent on the monument,

nearly all of it for further development of the east side with only a small amount earmarked for

a campground on the west.87 Mollified, the board of supervisors voted once more in April of

1958, this time with Bisho’s grudging acquiescence. Again, the vote was unanimously in favor

of making the donation, and a deed incorporating Drury’s language was drawn up shortly

afterward and submitted to the Park Service. Regional office staff made sure that the donation

was accepted quickly before the county could reverse itself.88

Shortly after the acquisition of the Balconies parcel, the Park Service also acquired the Bourke

property. Leo Bourke had been dead some ten years by this time, and the property was

controlled by his company with his sister-in-law Lois acting as representative. The company

had actually had the land on the market since shortly after Bourke’s death, but it was asking

$10,000, far more than was considered reasonable for the area. The company later admitted

that this price was based on an appraisal made by Leo Bourke years earlier and may have

been inflated for other reasons. When the Park Service made its own appraisal in 1958, it

concluded that $6,000 was a more accurate valuation and approached Lois Bourke with its

offer. Apparently not very interested in keeping the land, she readily accepted. The deed was

finally conveyed in February 1960.89

With the purchase of the Bourke property, only three inholdings totaling 880 acres remained.

The Park Service once more approached the owners to resume negotiations in October of

1962. These negotiations were far more successful than in the past, since now the Park Service

was able to offer cash for the out-right purchase of the tracts rather than government land

in exchange for them. The problem with land exchanges, as Lena DePaquette had already

pointed out, was that most remaining government land was undesirable, often comprising

scrubland on steep slopes with no water. This is usually why it had never been claimed. Since

the government was only authorized to exchange equivalent acreage, the recipients could

expect to lose value if they accepted these sub-standard parcels for their inholdings in the

monument. But a cash deal assured them of at least breaking even. Within five years, the first

of the remaining sales was made when Ray Hawkins finally agreed to divide his land and sell

the four hundred acres within the monument for $15,000 on October 30, 1968.90 Most of the

Juri family was also willing to sell by this time, though one brother—Joseph Juri—remained

obstinate and insisted on holding out for $100 an acre, though the land had been appraised

at only $17 an acre.91 Joseph relented the following year after the Park Service met his offer

nearly halfway, agreeing to pay him more than $46 an acre. The quarter-section Juri parcel

was finally purchased on May 21, 1969, for $7,400. Only Lena DePaquette, heir to the Kelly

Ranch, refused to sell her 320-acre inholding. This, she claimed, was because she did not want

to separate the land from the rest of her tract. She was, however, willing to sell the entire ten87. “Annual CC Meet Readied,” Hollister Advance, February 13, 1958. This article also provided a history of the

contentious issue.

88. Mahan to Reg. Dir. April 8, 1958, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 5, PNM. See also, “County Deeds ‘Center’

Land to Pinnacles,” Hollister Evening Free Lance, April 8, 1958.

89. Misc. Correspondence, 1958–59, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 8, PNM.

90. Misc. Correspondence, 1967–69, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 15, PNM.

91. James Sewell, NPS Realty Specialist, to Superintendent Delyle Stevens, January 16, 1968, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 22, f. 9, PNM.

176
The Bacon Ranch Resort

thousand-acre Kelly Ranch in La Gloria Valley, but the Park Service was not interested at that

time. Negotiations once more stalled and would not be taken up again for another ten years.92

The Bacon Ranch Resort

In addition to the inholdings, the Park Service also wanted to acquire at least some land outside

the current boundaries of the monument. The 1958 Prospectus had identified the need for

a new visitor center and administrative facilities on the east side without specifying exactly

where they would be located. Park Service planners already believed that this development

should be moved out of Bear Gulch and placed somewhere along Chalone Creek near the

eastern entrance of the monument, but the only feasible locations in this area all lay on private

land, and therefore the Service proposed extending the monument eastward to include some

eighty acres of oak woodland on the Chalone Bench. This proposal was formally included in

the 1961 revision of the Mission 66 Prospectus.

The Chalone Bench was still part of the old Ben Bacon Ranch, which had been sold to Ray

Marcus in 1941 after Orea Bacon’s death. By 1958, when the monument initiated its Mission

66 planning, the Bacon Ranch was owned by Earl Bradford.93 Bradford had indicated his

willingness to sell part of his land, but the Park Service had been unable to purchase it at

that time, and the matter was dropped. Early the following year, however, an event happened

that left a lasting impression on park staff and would raise the issue of extending the eastern

boundary to a high priority. In February of 1959, Superintendent Everett Bright learned that

Bradford was in negotiations with an outside developer who proposed building a tourist resort

on his land. This idea was hardly new, having been tossed about several times since Schuyler

Hain and the Bacon brothers had first proposed their home for disabled veterans in 1921.

Even W.I. Hawkins had proposed building a resort here.

The Park Service had, for the most part, welcomed these earlier proposals, though it had never

had the resources to actively support them. But this time it was deeply alarmed, since the scale

of the proposed development seemed excessive and potentially detrimental to the interests of

the monument. Even more disturbing was the obnoxious personality of the man behind the

idea, Mr. G.T. Wells of Hollister. In a letter to the Regional Director, Superintendent Bright

described how Mr. Wells strode imperiously into his office one day and began bragging about

his proposed development, which would include “. . . the construction of a lodge, with dining

and bar facilities, 21 cabin units, trailer park, swimming pool, riding stables, and perhaps even

a golf course.”94 Bright explained that “the main concentration of development is tentatively

placed on the Pinnacles access road a short distance off State Highway 25 and approximately

three miles from our east or main entrance.” He was not sure whether this would include the

land desired by the Park Service on the Chalone Bench but suspected it would. Bright then

went on to describe how Wells had demanded assurances that he could use the monument’s

trails for his proposed pack operation. When he did not get the response he wanted, he

became indignant and threatened to take his case to his many close friends in state and federal

government. Bright thought this might be a bluff but was worried nonetheless, for he believed

that Wells was not someone who could be trusted. Although nothing ultimately came of

Wells’ ambitious proposal, the threat alone had driven home the necessity of obtaining some

92. Ibid.

93. Bradford had bought the entire ranch that year from Arthur Corda, who had bought it only two years earlier

(in 1956) from Ray Marcus [Abstracts, Fidelity Title Insurance Co., Hollister, CA].

94. Superintendent Everett W. Bright to Reg. Dir., February 28, 1959, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 8, PNM.

177
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

degree of control over these lands, or at least of acquiring a buffer between the monument’s

eastern boundary and the developable land on the Bacon Ranch. For years afterward, the

Wells incident was recalled whenever the question of land acquisition to the east came up, as

it frequently did until the monument’s boundaries were finally adjusted in that direction in

1976.

Although Wells himself had disappeared from the scene by 1960, his ideas had not. Later that

year, the Bradfords announced that they were planning to construct a small resort themselves.

This would include a restaurant, grocery store, gas station, and swimming pool, with rental

cabins possibly added later.95 Although their ambitions were not as grandiose, the Bradfords’

inspiration was clearly indebted to Wells. But even these simple plans were soon scaled down,

and the only development that the Bradfords ever completed was a short-order restaurant in

a small shack they constructed beside the road. Mrs. Bradford ran the place with the help of

her young daughter, serving hamburgers, hot dogs, and cold beer to visitors on their way to

the monument.96 The operation did not survive more than about a decade—and the small

building was soon torn down—but it may have helped keep Wells’ memory alive among Park

Service staff.

West Side Enthusiasm

When news of Mission 66 first got out, it quickly rekindled enthusiasm among Monterey

County businessmen and community leaders, particularly in Soledad, who once again hoped

that the Park Service might develop the west side of the monument. The following year, the

Soledad Chamber of Commerce organized the first of what would become an annual Pinnacles

Picnic to promote the west side and encourage people to take an interest in its development.

On August 25, 1957, about a hundred people turned out for the event and were treated with

hot dogs, cold beer, and coffee provided by the organizers.97 In subsequent years, the event

would be held earlier in the spring, when the weather was cooler, and often attracted as many

as four hundred people. It would continue through the next decade until development of the

Chaparral Campground and the improvement of Highway 146 fulfilled its original purpose.

In addition to organizing the Pinnacles Picnic to raise popular support for west side

development, the Soledad Chamber of Commerce also led a political campaign aimed at

achieving a variety of related objectives. Its first strategy was to attempt a coalition with San

Benito County and the Park Service to renew efforts to build the cross-monument road.

The last time Monterey County leaders had actively pursued this idea was in 1925 under

the auspices of the Pinnacles National Park Association and W.I. Hawkins. They seemed

unaware of the dramatic changes that had occurred since then and were surprised when their

delegation to San Benito County in 1957 received “a rather cold reception” from both the

Hollister Chamber of Commerce and the Park Service. Abandoning the idea of the crossmonument road, Soledad business leaders then pushed simply for improvements on the west

side of Pinnacles and for a better state road up to the monument.98

95. San Jose Mercury-News, April 17, 1960.

96. Bessie Webb, typed transcript of interview with Reta Oberg, April 27, 1977, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 18,

f. 16, PNM.

97. Percy Dunlap, a prominent Soledad businessman, was the chief organizer of the event. He later became president

of the short-lived Pinnacles Natural History Association.

98. Soledad Bee, March 30, 1961.

178
Initial Construction under Mission 66

The latter of these two objectives seemed at first more essential, since the existing dirt road up

Stonewall Canyon, first graded in 1910 and little-improved since, was the chief impediment

keeping more tourists from visiting the west side.99 The Chamber of Commerce therefore

lobbied its representatives in Sacramento to have the California Highway Commission improve

Highway 146 from Soledad, but the highway commission judged this road a low priority,

because so few people used it. This was circular logic. Soledad business leaders would have to

encourage more people to visit the west side in spite of the poor condition of the road before

the road could be improved. Hoping to do that, the Chamber of Commerce then petitioned

the highway commission to erect signs along Highway 101 at Soledad to direct motorists

to the monument. The highway commission also refused this request, explaining that not

enough people used the road to justify the signs.100 Seemingly the only solution left for west

side advocates was to encourage the federal government to invest more heavily in developing

its own facilities on that side of Pinnacles, and this now became their principal objective.

Initial Construction under Mission 66

Despite ardent lobbying by Monterey County business leaders, all construction during the

first phase of Mission 66 funding occurred on the east side. This was partly due to unavoidable

circumstances, for in 1958 the potable water supply in Bear Gulch became contaminated, and

an emergency project had to be initiated under Mission 66 funding to renovate or replace the

system. This became the first Mission 66 project undertaken at Pinnacles.

The existing potable water supply in Bear Gulch had been constructed by the CCC and

was carried through pipes from a small check dam at Split Rock Spring. Contamination was

virtually inevitable, since the water was drawn from a surface reservoir below the Bear Gulch

Caves, one of the most popular visitor use areas in the monument. The water was chlorinated

for the remainder of the season as a temporary expedient, but Park Service engineers realized

that a permanent solution would require developing an alternative water supply from a source

that was not susceptible to contamination. The following year, a well was drilled in the bed of

Chalone Creek just below the mouth of Bear Gulch.101 Although this site lay downstream of

the monument’s developed areas, the well lay deep enough beneath the stream bed that surface

waters percolating down to it were purified as they passed through the overlying sediments. By

1960, the new system was working. Water was pumped from Chalone Creek up Bear Gulch

to the existing storage tanks along the Bear Gulch Caves Trail. Unfortunately, the water supply

in the new well proved inadequate to meet staff and visitor needs in Bear Gulch and had to be

supplemented by the old Split Rock Spring system using chlorination.102 The following year,

the new system was augmented with a collection trench dug beneath Chalone Creek. Drain

tile in the trench collected water percolating through the bed of the creek and directed it into

the well. This eventually remedied the problem, so that by June of 1963 all potable water

99. In July 1958, the Soledad Chamber of Commerce moved that state Highway 146 be included “in the list of

recommendations for improvements by next year’s valley highway group.” [Soledad Bee, July 17, 1958; See also,

Francis Froelicher “Battle Set for Better Pinnacles Road,” Salinas Californian, May 20, 1963.]

100. “No Pinnacles Directional Signs on Freeway, Says Engineer,” Soledad Bee, July 17, 1958.

101. Water Resources, Chalone Creek Underflow Well #1, 1959–1979, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 32, f. 24, PNM.

102. At best, the well produced fifty gallons per hour. This was pumped at a rate of 12.5 gallons per minute with the

pump running only four minutes every hour. [Superintendents Narrative Reports, 1960, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 15, f. 1, PNM.]

179
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

was taken from the Chalone Creek well, and the Split Rock Spring system was shut down for

good.103

The second project initiated through Mission 66 funds was not an emergency like the water

supply problem but was nevertheless considered one of the highest priorities for Pinnacles at

that time. This was the expansion and upgrading of the Chalone Creek Campground. A small

campground already existed here in the vicinity of the old CCC camp on the east side of the

creek. This was expanded, while a second group campground was established opposite the

first on the west side of the creek. Two cinder block comfort stations were also built, one for

each campground. The Chalone Creek Campground was needed not only to accommodate a

growing number of visitors to the monument, but to concentrate all east side camping in one

place. Limited camping may still have continued in Bear Gulch up to this time in one of the

original campgrounds there, but after the completion of the Chalone Creek improvements by

spring of 1962, this had ceased.104

The Accelerated Public Works Program (1963–1964)

By 1961, the concerns that Chief Ranger Robert Ramstad had expressed only three years earlier

were justified as a national recession began to take the wind out of the initial enthusiasm for

Mission 66 and budgets dwindled. Most of the larger proposals in Pinnacles’ Master Plan—

like the east side visitor center or west side development—remained unfunded and seemed

increasingly unlikely to be implemented any time soon. But in 1963, the monument was

awarded a small amount of money for capital improvements from the Accelerated Public

Works (APW) program. This was a temporary program authorized by Congress in 1962

and administered by the federal Area Redevelopment Administration in response to the

recession. It ultimately released $900 million nationwide for local public works in areas that

had experienced unusually high levels of unemployment. Like President Roosevelt’s Civil

Works Administration of 1933, the APW was meant to provide a temporary inducement to

help local economies recover from the emergency.

The first APW appropriation released $586,000 for California. Of this, $71,000 was earmarked

for Pinnacles.105 Since APW funds were granted to counties according to economic need,

however, the Pinnacles appropriation had to be spent on the east side in San Benito County,

which had been designated eligible to receive federal assistance owing to high levels of

unemployment. More affluent Monterey County did not qualify for the program, and

therefore none of the proposed west side development could be implemented through the

APW. But Soledad business leaders seem not to have appreciated this distinction, and the

promise of more money coming to Pinnacles for capital improvements quickly raised their

hopes that the long-awaited west side facilities would finally be constructed. Chief Ranger

Ramstad noted in an internal memo: “Pressures are again building up to get something

underway on the Westside of the park.”106 Instead, the money was used to renovate and

103. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, July 1961 and June 1963, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, ff. 2–3, PNM.

104. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, September 1961 and April 1962, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f.

2, PNM.

105. Hollister Free Lance, January 22, 1963; and Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, January 1963, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 3, PNM.

106. Note appended to clipping from Soledad Bee, January 23, 1963, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, (Media Files), Box

20, f. 17, PNM.

180
The Accelerated Public Works Program (1963–1964)

Figure 49. Plan of Chalone Campground from 1961. Group campground is upper left, on west side of creek.

Note Buildings #300 and #301. These and the Powder and Cap Houses at the group site are all that remain of

the original CCC camp [Map Coll., PNM.]

extend the Bear Gulch sewer system and to reseal the east side entrance road. Both projects

commenced in June of 1963 and were finished by September.107

The Balconies Cliffs Trail (1964)

At the beginning of June 1963, just as these east side APW projects were getting underway,

Chief Ranger Ramstad, accompanied by Acting Superintendent Delyle Stevens, met with

the Soledad Chamber of Commerce to address their concerns over the failure to get any

development started on the west side. He told them bluntly that they should not expect to see

anything happen soon, since Mission 66 planning was far behind schedule owing to lack of

funds. He did not mention APW funding, since all of this money had already been obligated

on east side projects and no more was expected.108 But only a few months later, a second

APW appropriation was made, allotting Pinnacles $20,000 to construct a new trail around the

Balconies Caves. The project benefited the west side, providing the first developed connection

between the Chaparral Area and the rest of the monument, but it could be built with APW

money, since the proposed trail segment lay within San Benito County. Soledad leaders were

overjoyed.

107. The new sewer in Bear Gulch was completed on September 27, 1963. It replaced a cesspool constructed by

the CCC on the flat just below the Superintendent’s residence (Building #19). The Public Health Service had been

complaining since the early forties that this cesspool was contaminating the lower reach of Bear Gulch Creek and

flowing into Chalone Creek. Now that drinking water was being taken from the well on Chalone Creek, the problem

could not be deferred any longer. [Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, September 1963, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 15, f. 4, PNM.]

108. Soledad Bee, June 19, 1963.

181
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 50. Chalone Group Campground in 1965, looking east. Group Campground is to the right of photo, at

foot of hillside. The Old Pinnacles Road is visible in foreground and to left. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

Work on the mile-and-a-half Balconies Cliffs Trail began in October and was finished by the

end of January 1964, when all APW projects were officially terminated and unused money

had to be returned.109 The official trail opening ceremony was delayed several months to

coincide with the Soledad Chamber of Commerce’s annual Pinnacles Picnic, held that year

on April 26th. Percy Dunlap, president of the Chamber of Commerce, presided over the

ceremony, but also present were Harold Henry, representing the Monterey County Board of

Supervisors, and Ed Waldemar, chairman of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors.

These two men shook hands in front of the new trail sign in a symbolic reconciliation now that

the divisive cross-monument road appeared to have finally been laid to rest. The trail was a

more humble surrogate for the old road and so also represented the physical unification of the

east and west sides of the monument (even if it did little to actually improve park operations).

The Monterey County representatives also saw it as an indication of growing commitment

to the development of the west side and used the occasion to call for further improvements

in the area. Park Service representatives were reminded of the need to develop better visitor

facilities, but the highest priority was something nobody present had any control over—the

improvement of state Highway 146 from Soledad.110

Developing the Chaparral Area (1964–1966)

Soledad business leaders were correct in believing that the Balconies Cliffs Trail was auspicious

of better things to come, and they took advantage of this moment while attention was still

109. The segment was originally called the “Over-the-Caves Trail.” Hollister Free Lance, August 27, 1963.

110. Salinas Californian. April 27, 1964; and Soledad Bee, April 29, 1964.

182
Developing the Chaparral Area (1964–1966)

focused on the west side to press for further development. Although the Park Service had long

intended to improve visitor facilities here, it was in large part through the efforts of the Soledad

businessmen that these plans were made a priority and finally implemented. In May of 1964,

only one month after the opening ceremony for the Balconies Cliffs Trail, Soledad Chamber

of Commerce president Percy Dunlap traveled to Washington DC, where he met with the

Park Service’s chief of planning John Reschoft. Dunlap presented Reschoft with a five-point

plan for the west side. This included (1) improvement of the access road, (2) development of

an adequate water supply system, (3) construction of basic visitor facilities such as a contact

station, (4) construction of camp sites and toilets, and (5) placement of a ranger in the area.

Percy Dunlap’s proposal was consistent with the intentions that the Park Service already had

and probably came directly from conversations with park staff.111

John Reschoft responded positively to Dunlap’s proposals but warned him that no money

was available in the present budget to implement them. He encouraged Dunlap, however,

to continue lobbying the Park Service to allot sufficient funds for the future.112 Dunlap did

just this. By September, he had arranged a formal meeting between Soledad representatives

and Park Service Regional Director Edward Hummel in San Francisco to press the issue. This

was too late to have any influence over the 1965 budget, but it may have encouraged the

regional office to move ahead with its planning efforts and almost certainly helped justify a

growing emphasis in the evolving Mission 66 Master Plan for west side development.113 In

March of the following year, a new sheet had been added to the Master Plan representing

the proposed Chaparral Development Area. This was the first time that a Master Plan had

explicitly designated the west side for development. During the same month, a civil engineer

and landscape architect visited Pinnacles to survey the area and prepare detailed plans for the

proposed work. Funds were still not available to implement these plans, but they were now

anticipated for the following fiscal year (1966).114 Finally, on May 16, 1965, at the ninth

annual Pinnacles Picnic, the Park Service announced that the next fiscal year’s budget would

include over $120,000 for west side development.115 The anticipated work would implement

all of Percy Dunlap’s recommendations from two years earlier. Improvements to the Bear

Gulch water supply system, which continued to give trouble, were also included in the work

order. Bidding opened in January of 1966 with Herman H. Neumann of El Cajon awarded

the contract for all projects. Actual construction began in March. On the east side, a sixtythousand-gallon storage tank was installed in Bear Gulch to increase the storage capacity in the

potable water system. The new tank replaced the twenty-thousand-gallon concrete reservoir

installed by the CCC in 1938. On the west side, the entrance road from the monument

boundary to the Chaparral Area was graded and paved, a distance of just under one mile. A

small parking lot was constructed at the end of the road and a cinder block comfort station

111. Only a few months earlier, regional staff had begun to prepare a final revision of the Mission 66 Master Plan,

which would include a development proposal for the west side. In July, Regional Engineer Ted Rex came out to

Pinnacles to make an initial evaluation of the Chaparral Area and prepared a list of recommendations that was almost

identical to the five-point plan that Dunlap had taken back to Washington.

112. Soledad Bee, May 27, 1964.

113. Soledad Bee, August 26, 1964.

114. Soledad Bee, March 31, 1965.

115. The final figure was $121,600 of which $73,200 went to improvement of the entrance road and $48,400 for

development of the Chaparral Campground. Another $75,900 was allotted for improving the Bear Gulch water

system, making a total of $197,500 for that year. This was the largest single allotment for capital improvements at

Pinnacles during the entire Mission 66 period. [Stratton to Percy Dunlap, September 15, 1965; and Soledad Bee,

May 19, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 20, f. 19.]

183
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 51. Balconies Trail opening ceremony, April 26, 1964. From left to right: Harold

Henry, Percy Dunlap, Superintendent Delyle Stevens, and Edward Waldemar [Mus. Coll.

PINN 4372, PNM.]

erected here. The campground was improved and twenty-five off-road campsites constructed

with fireplaces and picnic tables. A trailer was brought in to accommodate a resident ranger.

Utilities were constructed to service all of these facilities. These included a deep well for potable

water and a septic tank with leach field for waste. Electrical power was supplied by a diesel

generator installed a short distance away in Juniper Canyon. A propane tank provided heat for

the ranger residence.

The only proposal not implemented at this time was a new trail that was to connect the High

Peaks Trail with the Chaparral Area through Juniper Canyon. Funding had not been included

in the present budget, and the trail would remain unrealized for another ten years. All other

construction was complete by July 17, 1966.116

One remarkable stroke of luck greatly assisted the development of the Chaparral Area. This

occurred in the fall of 1965 while final preparations were being made for the following

year’s work. On September 22nd, hydrologists W.L. Bunham and J.P. Akers from the U.S.

Geological Survey arrived to investigate potential water sources on the west side. The existing

plans proposed using Oak Tree Spring at the bottom of Juniper Canyon for drinking water.

Since this spring has a low and sometimes unreliable flow, it would not be used for any other

purpose, and instead of flush toilets, only vault toilets would be installed at the campground.

No other exploitable sources of water were believed to exist in the area. Nevertheless, the

hydrologists decided to drill several exploratory wells to see if any sub-surface water was

available. To their surprise, the first well they sank encountered a strong artesian flow at about a

hundred feet down. Quoting from the hydrologists’ report, Superintendent Stevens described

the discovery:

The test well drilling on the west side has uncovered unsuspected structural conditions

beneath the surface. While rhyolites were expected below the alluvial materials, a lime

formation (probably marble) was encountered and some hundred feet or so deeper a semiconsolidated coarse sand layer was found. Evidence indicates the drilling is being done in

116. Completion Report Narrative, 1966, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 9, f. 15, PNM.

184
Developing the Chaparral Area (1964–1966)

Figure 52. Chaparral Area in 1966, before construction (left), and after (right). [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

Figure 53. West entrance road approaching Chaparral Area in 1966, before construction (left) and after (right).

[Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

a fault zone. Artesian water flow, peaking at 1000 gallons per hour and stabilizing at 200

gallons per hour, originated in the sand belt. By month’s end, the well was down 300 feet

and still in sand.117

This discovery allowed the west side development plans to be modified so that flush toilets

could be installed. The new plans also included a twenty-thousand-gallon storage tank. This

seemingly abundant supply of fresh water would later encourage the Park Service to propose

even more extensive development in the area.

The Soledad Road

Once the Park Service had invested in improving its west side facilities, the state highway

commission was finally willing to consider improving Highway 146 from Soledad. The Catch22 had been broken. In November 1966, District Engineer Robert Datel announced that the

California Highway Commission would soon begin surveying the route in preparation for

construction, but he warned that state funds were not currently available to do anything more,

and he did not expect funds to be allocated for another two years at least. In the meantime,

road signs were finally placed along Highway 101 directing visitors to the monument. Then,

in June of the following year, Datel surprised the Soledad Chamber of Commerce with news

that $75,000 had been released by the state for the Highway 146 improvement project. He

made it clear that the sudden prioritization of this project came in response to the Park Service’s

117. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, September 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 6, PNM.

185
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Figure 54. BZM Drilling Co. at Test Well No. 2 in the Chaparral Area in 1965. This well

produced a strong artesian flow at a depth of one hundred feet. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372.]

recent development of the Chaparral Campground. Work started on April 23, 1968, and was

completed by June. The new road did not follow the original 1910 alignment up Stonewall

and Lopez Canyons but instead climbed Shirttail Gulch. It met the old road at the top of

Lopez Canyon—at the site presently known as “Double Gates”—where it made a sharp righthand turn and continued due east to the monument boundary at the edge of the Chaparral

Area. A rudimentary dirt road already existed on the Shirttail Gulch alignment, originally

constructed by the Rootville miners sometime after 1870. This road was described by a U.S.

land survey in 1882 as the main road to the Melville Mining District.118 Between 1910 and

the present improvements, however, Stonewall Canyon was the principal route from Soledad

to the west side of Pinnacles. (A trace of the original 1910 road can still be seen where it meets

the Double Gates corner of Highway 146 from the north. Another dirt road meets the Double

Gates corner from the west, coming up Lopez Canyon, but this is a recent addition and has

no known historic significance.) The new road was graded to a width varying from twelve to

twenty feet and the surface paved with a chip seal treatment.119

Another Cross-Monument Road

During the 1950s, the Park Service had drifted steadily away from its commitment to build

a cross-monument road, though the proposal remained a nominal policy until the end of

the decade. Superintendent Russell Mahan had publically expressed his opposition to the

road in 1958 during negotiations with the San Benito County Board of Supervisors over the

donation of their land in the Balconies, but it was not until the following administration of

118. Charles Herrmann, “Map of Township No. 17 South of Range No. 7 East of Mount Diablo Meridian,

California,” U.S. Surveyor General’s Office, San Francisco, CA, 1882 [Bureau of Land Management, California

State Office, Sacramento, CA].

119. Soledad Bee, November 23, 1966; June 28, 1967; and June 5, 1968.

186
Another Cross-Monument Road

Superintendent Everett Bright that the road was formally rejected for the first time. In the

1961 revision of its Master Plan, under “Objectives and Policies,” the very first of fourteen

listed objectives was to “Discourage efforts and pressures to construct a trans-park road. Such a

road would destroy some of the features for which Pinnacles was established.”120 The language

of the statement suggests that pressure for this proposal was still active.

This firm rejection appears to have been due largely to the personal opinion of Superintendent

Bright, as little guidance was offered by the regional office. After Bright’s departure in 1963,

the Park Service’s position on the cross-monument road began to change once more. Again,

this seems to have reflected the personal opinion of the park superintendent. DeLyle Stevens

officially replaced Bright in January of 1964 but had actually begun acting in Bright’s absence

by the beginning of June 1963. He first indicated his views on the cross-monument road later

that month, when he appeared with Chief Ranger Ramstad before the Soledad Chamber of

Commerce to give a presentation on the status of the Mission 66 program at Pinnacles. When

asked by the audience why the Park Service was so interested in obtaining the remaining private

inholdings at the north end of the monument—the Juri, Hawkins and Kelly parcels—Ramstad

explained that “this is merely to round out the park boundaries,” but Stevens unexpectedly

added that the parcels were also wanted because they included parts of the only feasible route

for a through road along North Chalone Creek.121

In the following year, a new and final revision of the Mission 66 Master Plan for Pinnacles

was prepared under Superintendent Stevens’ supervision. This version contained plans for the

proposed west side development but also included a road running through North Chalone

Canyon along the present route of the North Wilderness Trail. The proposal called for a oneway interpretive road. This was substantially less than the state highway that road advocates

had once desired, but there could be no doubt that it was the same cross-monument road that

the park had agonized over for so long. Superintendent Bright’s strongly worded rejection of

the road from his 1961 revision of the Master Plan was no longer present in this final Master

Plan, which was released early in 1965 after receiving approval from Washington.122

If there were any doubts that the cross-monument road was alive once more after ten years of

slumber, they were dispelled at the tenth annual Pinnacles Picnic on May 15, 1966. Assistant

Regional Director Raymond Mulvaney came down for the day from San Francisco to offer a

public presentation. Although he was scheduled to present a talk on “Our National Parks,”

Mulvaney instead talked about the new Master Plan and enthusiastically described the Park

Service’s proposals for developing the west side, including the eventual construction of the

cross-monument road:

What the National Park Service has done so far for the Pinnacles National Monument is

not all we’re going to do. We have plans for an even larger campground here on the west

side. And . . . in June 1965 our Washington Headquarters approved the new Master Plan

for Pinnacles National Monument which endorses the building of a Chalone Creek road

that will connect the east and west sides of the Monument.123

120. “The Master Plan for Preservation and Use, Pinnacles National Monument,” Revision 3/13/61, Map

Coll., PNM.

121. Soledad Bee, June 19, 1963.

122. “The Master Plan for Preservation and Use, Pinnacles National Monument,” 1965, Map Coll., Pinnacles

National Monument.

123. “Plans Revealed for Thru Road at Pinnacles” Soledad Bee, May 18, 1966. See also Soledad Bee, May 11, 1966.

187
Chapter Five War and Mission 66, 1942–1966

Mulvaney went on to explain that this road was contingent on the NPS obtaining the private

inholdings through which it would pass. An internal memorandum later noted that “public

reaction to Mr. Mulvany and to his talk were highly favorable.”124 The reaction from San

Benito County was not recorded.

124. Delyle Stevens to Regional Director, May 24, 1966, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 20, f. 20, PNM.

188
Chapter Six

Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

The early years at Pinnacles National Monument were dominated by efforts to develop the

park’s physical infrastructure. Roads and trails had to be constructed to provide access to

monument resources; campgrounds, comfort stations, and other amenities had to be installed

to provide services for the public; and administrative facilities had to be constructed for the

staff who worked there. So long as these basic elements were still lacking, construction would

remain the park’s highest priority. This pattern broadly reflects the history of the Park Service

as a whole, with development the overriding concern at most of the national parks during

the agency’s first fifty years, or, roughly speaking, from the early twenties through the end

of the Mission 66 program. But even as Mission 66 construction was being implemented,

other priorities were beginning to emerge as well. Both scientific and historical research were

receiving greater attention as concern for the professional management of park resources—both

cultural and natural—grew. At the same time, greater emphasis was increasingly being placed

on the preservation of resources, rather than on their development. This change in emphasis

was in part a natural evolution within the Park Service, but it also reflected shifting values in

American society as a whole, as environmentalism, wilderness, and historic preservation all

became important issues by the mid-1960s. Mission 66 would be the last major initiative in

the Park Service to put so much emphasis on development alone, and even before it concluded,

the program was already being criticized. By the end of the decade, engineers and landscape

architects were having to share pride of place in the Park Service with resource management

professionals trained in such disciplines as the biological sciences, history, and archeology.

At Pinnacles these changes first manifested themselves in the growing professionalization of

natural resource management. Guided by a series of resource management plans beginning in

1966, monument staff began implementing strategies to maintain or restore natural processes

to desirable conditions. (What constituted desirable would remain a subject of debate,

however, both at Pinnacles and throughout the larger resource management community.)

Among the chief subjects identified in these early management plans were fire, which was

seen as integral to local vegetation patterns and species composition (though its role remained

poorly understood), and exotic species, especially feral pigs, which first began to appear in the

monument in significant numbers during the early 1970s. The National Park Service would

spend more than a million dollars over the next few decades attempting to eliminate these

destructive pests. Geology, despite its central place in the monument’s enabling legislation, was

not a major priority in Pinnacles’ early resource management plans, primarily because little

management was believed necessary to protect it. Nevertheless, several important geological

studies were conducted by outside researchers during these decades. Their work revealed that

the geological significance of the Pinnacles was even greater than originally thought. Cultural

resources received even less attention, though by 1983 the resource management plan had

been revised to include cultural resources as a distinct category. This represented an important

change for a park that had been established primarily to protect its scenic natural features, and

it portended even more substantial changes in the future as increasing attention was given to

the role humans have played in shaping the Pinnacles landscape over time.
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

Natural Resources

In 1958, the announcement that Pinnacles was to receive more than $800,000 under Mission

66, most of which was slated for physical development, understandably drew attention away

from other less tangible developments that were also occurring. Important among these was

the Natural History Research Program. This had originated in the late 1940s in response to

a series of policy directives issued by Director Newton Drury.1 Though Drury’s actions fell

short of actually rejuvenating Park Service research in the natural sciences, it nevertheless

encouraged parks to identify their most important research needs and seek ways to fulfill them

through cooperative agreements with universities and private professional organizations.2

In 1954, Director Conrad Wirth asked parks to submit annual progress reports on their

research programs.3 Pinnacles listed four—a geology exhibit with mineral collection, an

area administrative history, a comprehensive biological survey, and the establishment of an

herbarium collection. As the regional office later pointed out, these items represented ongoing

research studies rather than discrete projects, but the list is important, because it indicates

the principal directions future research at Pinnacles would take (fire ecology is the only

notable omission). Eventually, each of these programs would be linked with specific resource

management policies as well.

Two of the four research projects identified by Pinnacles were initiated almost immediately—the

geology exhibit and the herbarium. The former was already being planned for the Bear Gulch

Visitor Center early that year. It would eventually feature 12 color drawings of geologic crosssections rendered by Superintendent Earl Jackson and a mineral collection of representative

samples from various locations around the monument. The drawings were finished and on

display by December of 1954, though the mineral collection was still being assembled. By

the beginning of the following year, the herbarium had also been started and included some

250 specimens by year’s end. These were collected and pressed by Pinnacles staff, then sent to

the University of California at Berkeley for identification.4 Though originally expected to be

finished in no more than two years, it soon became clear that the herbarium would remain an

ongoing project as new species continued to be found. The other two projects—the biological

survey and the administrative history—were really long-term goals and were much too big

to initiate without a substantial increase in funding. They would not be fully undertaken for

many years, though small contributions were occasionally made in the interim. The Natural

History Research Program noted, for instance, that several existing studies done by visiting

scientists contributed in a small way toward completing a comprehensive biological survey of

the monument. These studies included research on falcons and a study of the distribution of

the yucca night lizard (Xantusia vigilis) by Robert Stebbins of UC Berkeley in 1948.5 Park

staff would make ongoing contributions to the final research goal—the area administrative

1. Sellars, Preserving Nature, p. 165, n. 51; and Lowell Sumner, “Biological Research and Management in the

National Park Service: A History” George Wright Forum 3.4 (Autumn, 1983):16–18.

2. In 1940, all Park Service wildlife scientists were moved to the Bureau of Biological Survey, effectively ending most

in-house research and marginalizing the role of science in NPS management. [Sellars, Preserving Nature, p. 146.]

3. See, for example, Acting Reg. Dir. to Superintendent, January 7, 1954, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f.

3, PNM.

4. “Project Report, Natural History Research Program,” December 19, 1955, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f.

3, PNM.

5. “Project Report, Natural History Research Program,” December 31, 1956, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f. 3,

PNM; and Robert C. Stebbins, “New Distributional Records for Xantusia vigilis with Observations on its Habitat,”

American Midland Naturalist 39.1 (1948): 96–101.

190
Natural Resources

history—by collecting and filing notes on local history and later by conducting oral interviews

with older residents of the area.

The growing importance of interpretation, research, and resource management at Pinnacles

in the postwar period led to the appointment of the monument’s first trained naturalist in

1956. This was made possible as a result of a Service-wide budget increase under Mission

66, which was inaugurated that year. Though still primarily an interpreter, the naturalist

combined all of these various resource-related functions and took the lead in guiding park

research, both cultural and natural. This allowed the chief ranger to devote more of his time

to visitor protection and law enforcement, tasks that increasingly defined his job. For the first

several years, the naturalist position was seasonal, but in 1960, Dwight Warren was hired on

a permanent but less-than-full-time basis. He spent half of the year at Pinnacles, working the

other six months at Death Valley National Monument. In 1961, Pinnacles was finally able

to fund Warren’s position for the entire year.6 As further proof of the growing importance of

the naturalist, the position was upgraded three years later from a GS-7 paygrade to a GS-9.7

The appointment of a park naturalist helped Pinnacles begin to make progress on its research

and resource management needs. One particularly talented seasonal naturalist, Roland Wauer,

contributed substantially to the Natural History Research Program with his completion of “A

General Report on the Vertebrates of Pinnacles National Monument.” Wauer also revised the

bird checklist and began collecting notes and conducting interviews for the area administrative

history.8 But the most serious and extensive research done at Pinnacles up to this time was, not

surprisingly, related to the monument’s geology.

Geological Resources

Geology is the natural resource most closely identified with Pinnacles National Monument

during its formative decades. It was to protect this resource that the monument was established

in the first place, as the founding proclamation of 1908 stated: “. . . the natural formations,

known as the Pinnacles Rocks, with a series of caves underlying them, . . . are of scientific

interest, and it appears that the public interests would be promoted by reserving these

formations and caves as a National Monument . . . ” The striking and unusual character of

the formation attracted visitors and stimulated their curiosity. At that time, nobody understood

the significance of this geology or how the Pinnacles had formed, but their very distinctiveness

left little doubt as to the value of the place both for scenic wonder and scientific study.

On the other hand, the economic value of the Pinnacles’ geology was negligible—except as an

attraction to tourism—because no marketable ore occurred within the formation. It took some

time, however, before this fact was appreciated. Numerous prospects were made in and around

the Pinnacles during the late nineteenth century, and several mines were actually opened within

the boundaries of the present monument. The attraction was understandable, given that much

of the land surrounding the Pinnacles actually did contain valuable minerals. Only forty miles

to the east in the Diablo Mountains lay the New Idria Mining District, which contained one

of the largest mercury deposits in the world. And to the west, gold was found in the granites

6. United States Department of the Interior, Interpretive Prospective, Pinnacles National Monument (Paicines, CA:

National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1967).

7. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1964, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 5, PNM. Joseph L. Sperber

transferred from Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park in February of that year and was the first Pinnacles naturalist

to be employed at the higher pay grade.

8. “Project Report, Research Program,” January 1, 1959, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f. 3, PNM.

191
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

of the Santa Lucia Mountains. It seemed reasonable to expect that the dramatic outcroppings

of the Pinnacles would also contain minerals, but only trace amounts were ever found. Henry

Melville located his copper mine on the west side of the Balconies in 1870, but made more

money from the fraudulent sale of inflated stocks than he ever did from any ore uncovered. In

1893, Thomas Flint and his partners located a gold mine on Mt. Defiance and even sank a

shaft more than a hundred feet into the mountain, but the ore they found contained so little

gold that it was not even worth milling.9 The mine was abandoned not long afterward.

What these early prospectors did not understand was that the Pinnacles are geologically

unrelated to most of the surrounding country. This explains why the formation appears so

distinctive, but it also explains why precious minerals found in nearby deposits were not also

found in the monument. By 1908, the absence of valuable ores was apparent to most and

made it possible to set the Pinnacles aside as a public reserve, since there were few competing

interests to challenge the proposal.

The significance of this anomalous geology was not understood until well into the twentieth

century, when professional geologists began to study the formation. Its unusual characteristics,

though worthless to the mineral prospector, eventually proved of great value to the scientist.

The first serious research to address the Pinnacles formation was a master’s thesis completed

in 1933 by Philip Andrews and published three years later as The Geology of the Pinnacles

National Monument.

10 It remains the most thorough and comprehensive survey of its kind.

Andrews identified all of the key mineral types that comprise the Pinnacles. He also proposed a

geological history to explain the origins of the formation, beginning with a period of explosive

volcanism that first created the hard rhyolitic deposits more than twenty-three million years

ago, followed by the gradual erosion of surrounding material that exposed and sculpted them

into their present dramatic shapes. Although Andrews failed to grasp the full significance of

Pinnacles’ relationship to the geological faulting that is prevalent in the area, his research laid

the foundation for later studies which did explore this matter.

The mineral specimens that Andrews collected and identified during his master’s research

formed the basis of the original geology exhibit that park staff assembled in 1954. Unfortunately,

the fire that destroyed the equipment shed in Condor Gulch the following year also destroyed

Andrews collection and notes. Over the next four years, park staff slowly replaced it, sending

specimens off to specialists at the California Division of Mines for identification.11 This

project had the happy side effect of building good relations with the Division of Mines, whose

geologists provided informal assistance to Pinnacles staff for many years, answering technical

questions as they came up and even running laboratory analyses of specimens.

Seismology

Another area of geological research at Pinnacles that has received considerable attention is

seismology, the study of earthquakes and related phenomena. This is hardly surprising, given

the number of active faults that are scattered throughout the area. The San Andreas, one

of the longest and most active faults on the west coast of North America, runs a few miles

9. Crawford, J.J., Gold-San Benito County: Twelfth Report of the State Mineralogist (Sacramento: California State

Mining Bureau, 1894): pp. 227–228.

10. Philip Andrews, “The Geology of the Pinnacles National Monument” University of California Publications,

Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences 24.1 (1936).

11. Sup. Russell Mahan to Charles Chesterman, Calif. Div.of Mines, February 4, 1957, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 25, f. 24, PNM.

192
Natural Resources

east of Pinnacles through Bear Valley. Smaller faults pass through the monument itself. With

the San Andreas Fault constantly in motion, earthquakes are frequent around Pinnacles, and

the area has attracted scientists interested in studying them. Formal monitoring of seismic

activity in California began in 1932 with the establishment of the Seismological Field Survey

in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Coast and Geodetic Survey. Its headquarters were

located in San Francisco.12 Local ranchers remember seismographs being placed in Bear

Valley during the early 1950s.13 The Seismological Field Survey was later absorbed into the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which is currently responsible for most earthquake research

and monitoring in the United States. During the summer of 1967, field researchers from

the Geological Survey’s National Center for Earthquake Research stayed in the monument’s

Chalone Creek Campground while they monitored fifteen seismographs located throughout

the region. The first seismograph to be set up permanently inside the monument was a type of

instrument called a “strong-motion accelerograph.” It was installed during the summer of 1972

in the fire cache on Chalone Creek by scientists from the California Institute of Technology

working in cooperation with the federal government. By 1985, the USGS reported that it

had eight strong-motion accelerographs located throughout the area, including the one in

the monument. Most were on local ranches. All of these instruments were self-contained

and transmitted data automatically to a central receiving station by radio signal. Today, only

three of the accelerograph stations in southern San Benito County are still operating. (The

monument’s station is not one of them.)14

In 1965, Pinnacles also became the subject of a type of seismological research entirely

unrelated to earthquakes. In February of that year, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)

requested permission to test instrumentation it was developing to monitor human-generated

seismic waves transmitted through rock. SRI was working under contract for the Department

of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force’s Office

of Scientific Research. These agencies were hoping to develop a practical means of detecting

and evaluating underground nuclear explosions following the atmospheric test ban treaty of

1963. This was thought necessary in order to continue monitoring the Soviet Union’s nuclear

weapons research during this tense period of the Cold War. Superintendent Delyle Stevens

granted permission to the SRI scientists, and a series of tests were conducted in October of the

following year. The tests involved placing about a dozen instruments in holes drilled into the

rhyolitic formations on the west side of the monument. The instruments measured ground

explosions set off about eight miles distant. (The holes were later puttied in and are no longer

evident.) Given the classified nature of the research, these experiments were not publicized and

never became widely known.15

Philip Andrews’ 1933 study had described the geologic composition of the Pinnacles in great

detail but did not explain its relationship to local faulting and seismic activity, though it

12. See the history of the National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) on the Web page of the U.S. Geological Survey:

http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/about_nsmp.html. Accessed January 29, 2008.

13. Clara Lou Melendy, interviewed by author, March 21, 2007.

14. L.C. Pakiser, USGS, National Center for Earthquake Research, to PINN Staff, December 6, 1967, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 25, PNM; Acting Sup. James Langford to Richard Dielman, Cal. Inst. of Tech., August 8,

1972, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 26, f. 2, PNM; and Edwin Etheredge, USGS, to Steve DeBenedetti, March 19,

1985, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 26, f. 2, PNM.

15. Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to Superintendent, February 17, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 25,

PNM. See also Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 5, PNM.

193
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

was suspected by many that this relationship might be significant. In the late 1960s, another

student, Vincent Matthews, directly addressed this question for his doctoral research at the

University of California at Santa Cruz. Matthews recognized that the Pinnacles lay on top of

the Chalone Fault, which divided the formation in two parts. He also hypothesized that this

fault was a fragment of the much larger San Andreas Fault that had become isolated at some

undetermined point in the past. Prior to Matthews’ research, a number of theories had been

proposed to describe how the San Andreas Fault moved and how much it had moved since

its formation. Most geologists agreed that it was a strike-slip fault, with its two sides being

displaced relative to each other in a right lateral movement.16 But they were uncertain how

much displacement had occurred. A few geologists suggested that the fault might have moved

by as much as a hundred miles or more, but their studies were based on large-scale landscape

observations and lacked precision. Vince Matthews was able to confirm these theories when he

discovered a geologic formation on the east side of the San Andreas Fault that almost exactly

matched the configuration of rocks on the west side of the Chalone Fault at Pinnacles. The

Neenach Volcanic Formation lies just east of the Tejon Pass in the Tehachapi Mountains, 195

miles south of Pinnacles. By making detailed comparisons of the rocks at both these sites,

Matthews argued convincingly that the two formations had originated as a single volcanic

cluster that had been split in two by the San Andreas Fault shortly after it had been formed.

The northward movement of the land west of the fault had carried the Pinnacles to their

present location, leaving the Neenach half of the formation behind. Vince Matthews’ thesis

provided the most conclusive evidence of large-scale lateral displacement on the San Andreas

Fault up to that time and contributed substantially to the theory of plate tectonics.17

Matthews’ work was the last serious geological research done at Pinnacles up to the present

time. Combined with Philip Andrews’ seminal work, it provided a fairly comprehensive

understanding of the monument’s geological history and composition, but it still left important

questions unanswered, like the relationship of the Chalone Fault to the San Andreas. The

correlation that Matthews had demonstrated between the Pinnacles and Neenach Formations

had more or less proven that the Chalone Fault was related to the San Andreas, but Matthews

had left the exact nature of this relationship a matter of conjecture. He suggested that a large

mass of sandstone might have become wedged in the main fault in relatively recent times,

causing the San Andreas Fault to move further east, leaving the Chalone Fault as an isolated

fragment to the west. The landscape between the two faults in their present locations represents

the mass that caused this supposed bifurcation. Matthews’ theory was later challenged after

exploratory drilling just east of the Chalone Fault encountered basement granites like those

that underlie the Pinnacles Formation west of the fault—Matthews’ theory suggested that the

basement rock east of the Chalone Fault should resemble the basement rock east of the present

16. This meant that a person standing on one edge would see the other edge moving to the right.

17. Vincent Matthews’ doctoral dissertation was approved in 1976. A summary version of his main argument was

published that same year as “Correlation of the Pinnacles and Neenach Volcanic Formations and their Bearing on

the San Andreas Fault Problem” The American Society of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 60.12 (1976): 2128–2141.

For a comprehensive review of scholarship relating to this question, both before and after Matthews’ contribution,

see J.D. Sims, “Chronology of Displacement on the San Andreas Fault in Central California” in The San Andreas

Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution, eds. R.E. Powell, R.J. Weldon II, and

J.C. Matti (Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, 1993), pp. 231–256. Matthews’ discovery also attracted

considerable attention in the local press. See, for example, Jane Bird, “Pinnacles Formed by Once-Active Volcano,”

King City Rustler, March 9, 1972.

194
Natural Resources

San Andreas Fault.18 This discovery does not invalidate Matthews’ work, but it does suggest

that the geological complexity of the region is far from completely understood, and further

research might still reveal significant new information.

Caves

Another area of study related to the geology of Pinnacles that has received attention—if not

serious research—is geomorphology, the study of landforms and the processes that shape them.

Interest in this subject is due primarily to the monument’s most popular geologic attraction,

its caves. Even the casual observer notes very quickly that Pinnacles’ caves bear no similarity to

the much more extensive features at places like Carlsbad Caverns, where naturally occurring

acids have eroded large cavities in deep limestone deposits. The much smaller features at

Pinnacles are talus caves, formed by large boulders wedged over narrow chasms in the rock.

Philip Andrews described these features and briefly discussed the processes by which they were

created:

Natural caves of rather large size occur along both branches of Chalone Creek where streams

have cut under the massive beds of fragmental volcanic rocks. Stream action has not only

carried away the softer material of these beds to form part of the natural cavities, but, even

more important, it has removed material which supported the overlying rocks and permitted

slumping of huge blocks...Rocks have also rolled downhill into the sharp canyons, thus

assisting in the formation of these caves.19

Further research has corroborated Andrews’ analysis with one exception. Rather than breaking

loose and tumbling into the canyon bottoms in sudden cataclysmic events, many of the

boulders that form the roofs of the caves appear to have slid very gradually into their present

positions along natural joints and bedding planes. This process was described in detail by

Jeffrey Schaffer, a rock climber and amateur naturalist, in an unpublished manuscript written

in 1971.20

While gradual movement may be the prevailing dynamic in the formation of these features,

occasional cataclysms do occur. In 1976, only a few years after Schaffer all-but-dismissed the

possibility, approximately sixty tons of rock collapsed onto the trail near Moses Spring. Jim

Snyder, a trails supervisor and expert in demolitions from Yosemite National Park, was brought

in to clear the debris and remove the rest of the unstable material.21 During the winter of

1982–83, heavy rains caused extensive damage throughout the monument, and floodwaters

rushing through the caves loosened boulders, causing some to fall. The caves were closed out

of concern for visitor safety, and stainless-steel bars with locked gates were installed at the

major entrances to both cave systems. The closure remained in effect for over a year, while

the Park Service arranged to have the caves evaluated by a qualified engineer. Local reaction

was strongly negative. Pinnacles Campground owner Stu Kingman gathered more than five

thousand signatures on a petition requesting the Park Service to reopen the caves, observing

18. This problem was noted, for example, by geologist Clyde Wahrhaftig in “Geologic Note on Pinnacles National

Monument” May 6, 1987 [revd. March 29, 1990]. typed manuscript for San Francisco Hiking Club. [Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 34, f. 21, PNM.]

19. Andrews, “Geology of the Pinnacles National Monument,” pp. 3–4.

20. Jeffrey P. Schaffer, “Geomorphology of the Bear Gulch Caves, Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito

County, California,” typed manuscript, 1971, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 34, f. 16, PNM.

21. Superintendent’s Narr. Reports, 1976, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17, PNM.

195
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

that “no one’s been hurt yet.”22 But Park Service Engineer Jim Ellis, who completed his report

in March of 1984, described the caves as a deathtrap. “To my knowledge,” he commented,

“It’s the only place in the United States where a person can crawl around in a rubble pile.”

Nevertheless, Ellis agreed to reopening the caves in response to public interest, provided

that they be carefully monitored. He recommended establishing reference points to measure

potential movement on key boulders. Ring bolts were affixed to the faces of these boulders,

and the distance between them periodically measured with a tape extensometer, an instrument

that is capable of measuring increments as small as 1/1,000 of an inch. If any movement were

detected, the caves would remain closed.23 After more than a year of careful monitoring, the

caves were finally reopened in October of 1985, but regular measurements continue to be

made with the extensometer to monitor the situation, especially after floods and earthquakes.

Biological Resources

Although Pinnacles was reserved specifically for its geological resources, by the 1950s park staff

were beginning to acknowledge that the monument’s biological resources were at least equally

significant. This was noted in the Mission 66 planning documents being developed between

1958 and 1965. The Natural History Research Program had also acknowledged biological

resources as a growing priority with its proposal for a comprehensive biological survey, but

apart from the occasional work of visiting scholars—Robert Stebbins’ 1948 study of the yucca

night lizard, for example—little progress was actually made in this area. The first scientific

study of biological resources to originate within the park itself occurred in 1963, when Peter

Bennett made a systematic investigation of the native deer population and its relationship to

food abundance and availability.

Though Bennett’s research was a significant landmark in Pinnacles’ resource management

program, his actual project was relatively simple. He set up fifty permanent one-hundredfoot transects within representative vegetative communities around the monument, then

monitored deer utilization of forage material within each transect throughout the year. He

also recorded the health of the deer sampled, inventorying their diseases, ecto-parasites and

other afflictions to develop a generalized characterization of the condition of the overall

deer population at Pinnacles. He determined that the deer were in fair to poor health, with

moderate malnourishment and diseases associated with malnourishment prevalent throughout

the population. Bennett also observed that most of the deer’s preferred food plants were heavily

overbrowsed, which led him to conclude that the total population, which ranged between

450 and 600, exceeded what the vegetation could reasonably support. But he also noted that

only 6 percent or less of the edible chaparral vegetation was actually being utilized by the deer,

since the rest grew in the midst of dense, inaccessible thickets. Bennett believed that these vast

uniform stands of brush were an unnatural pattern that had resulted from years of humaninduced fire suppression. Though he acknowledged that it would not be possible under current

Park Service policies, he recommended reintroducing fire to the chaparral ecosystem as the

most effective means of restoring health to both deer and vegetation. His analysis would have

long-reaching consequences.24

22. Hollister Evening Free Lance, March 30, 1984.

23. Salinas Californian, March 30, 1984. Jim Ellis was based out of the Denver Service Center (DSC).

24. Peter S. Bennett, “A Study of Deer-Deer Browse Relationships at Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito

County, California” typed manuscript, 1963, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 28, f. 6, PNM.

196
Natural Resources

Peter Bennett was a student at San Jose State College and was using this research to complete

his degree, but he was also working at Pinnacles as a seasonal ranger, and his project had begun

with a suggestion from Regional Biologist Richard Prasil, who believed that the monument’s

deer were malnourished. Seemingly excessive numbers of deer and occasional mass die-offs had

been observed by park staff at various times in the recent past, and it was widely acknowledged

that a better understanding of the problem was needed in order to manage the resource better.25

Peter Bennett’s project was specifically designed to serve the park’s resource management goals

by answering these questions and providing guidance for improved management strategies.

This close relationship between research and resource management later became characteristic

of the Park Service’s resource divisions, and it distinguished Bennett’s research from that

of other scholars working independently of Park Service objectives (like Philip Andrews or

Robert Stebbins). Peter Bennett’s project, coincidentally, was completed the same year as the

influential Leopold Report, which strongly encouraged the Park Service to base its natural

resource management policies more firmly in scientific research.26 While there was no direct

relationship between Bennett’s work and the Leopold Report, the appearance of the latter

ensured that the Park Service would continue to favor research with a similarly practical

application.

Resource Management Plan & Wilderness Proposal

In 1963, an independent advisory board chaired by A. Starker Leopold (generally known as

the Leopold Committee) and the National Academy of Sciences both presented reports critical

of NPS management of its natural resources. The following year, the national Wilderness Act

(P.L. 88-577) was passed. Both these events had immediate and profound consequences for

Pinnacles. Of the two studies, the Leopold Report would have the greater influence and is

better known (though the NAS Report was more extensive). The Leopold Committee had

been appointed by Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall in response to pressure from scientists

and resource managers both within and outside the Park Service who were concerned that

the Service had neglected its responsibility for its natural resources during more than three

decades of intense recreation-oriented development.27 Although the Leopold Report focused

primarily on wildlife, the ecological perspective it adopted made it impossible to treat a single

resource or resource type in isolation, and its observations applied broadly to all aspects of

natural resource management in the parks.

The report made two crucial points, which it presented as objectives for future management.

The first was the idea—or assumption—that parks represented vestiges of nature relatively

undisturbed by human intervention. Where this still appeared to be the case, the report

recommended that those primitive conditions be maintained. Where it was not, it

25. Sup. Narr. Report, February 1948, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 3, f. 26; and Everett Bright, “Narrative Wildlife

Report,” May 1, 1962, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f. 1. These documented observations were corroborated by

the recollections of Tim Regan (interviewed by author March 19, 2007) and Clara Lou Melendy (interviewed by

author March 21, 2007).

26. Sellars, Preserving Nature, p. 215; A. Starker Leopold et al., “Wildlife Management in the National Parks,” in

Transactions of the Twenty-eighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, ed. James B. Trerethen

(Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1963).

27. That is, from the beginning of the CCC period in 1932 up to the present Mission 66 program. The immediate

cause of Secretary Udall’s investigation was a report by the chief of the Park Service’s Branch of Natural History,

Howard Stagner, in response to criticism over NPS wildlife policy in Yellowstone. [Carr, “Mission 66 Multiple

Properties Document,” p. 94.]

197
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

recommended that these conditions be the objective toward which management aimed,

even if restoration of primitive conditions represented only an illusion of human absence.28

The other point that the Leopold Report emphasized was the need for sound research as a

prerequisite to proper management. This was integral to the goal of maintaining or restoring

primitive conditions, for it often required serious study to determine what those conditions

were. The report observed that most research currently being done in the parks served

interpretive rather than management purposes and urged that this emphasis be changed

(presumably by replacing naturalists with professional scientists, as eventually happened).29

Secretary Udall immediately endorsed the Leopold Report and instructed the NPS to “take

such steps as are appropriate to incorporate the findings of the [Advisory] Board into the

administration of the National Park System.”30 This gave the Leopold Report the force of

policy and all but required the Park Service to adopt its recommendations.

Implementing the Leopold Report proved difficult however. Specifically, the objective that park

managers preserve vestiges of primitive nature had problematic implications, and eventually

even Leopold was forced to modify this ideal. The report’s recommendations were also more

conceptual than practical, and it was not always apparent how they should be translated into

specific actions. This confusion was partially mitigated the following year when Congress

passed the Wilderness Act, which both clarified and strengthened the broad principles outlined

by the Leopold Committee. One of the more salient achievements of the Wilderness Act was

its concise definition of wilderness itself, which it described as . . . an area where the earth and

its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not

remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean... an area of undeveloped Federal

land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions... [emphasis

added]31

This sounded almost identical to the objective for which the Leopold Committee had

recommended the Park Service aim in its management of natural areas. Even the language was

similar. This correspondence suggested that the Wilderness Act might be used to interpret the

recommendations of the Leopold Report in order to facilitate the Report’s implementation.

Unlike the Report, the Wilderness Act included clear mandates for action and well-defined

goals. It specifically instructed the Department of the Interior to review all roadless areas

within its jurisdiction of five thousand acres or more and to assess their suitability for

wilderness designation. The Department had ten years from the effective date of the act to

complete this survey, or until 1974.

The following year, Director Hartzog’s office finally issued a Service-wide memo providing

detailed guidelines for both the implementation of the Leopold Report and the designation of

wilderness areas. Not surprisingly, these two actions were seen as related. Parks were instructed

28. “As a primary goal, we would recommend that the biotic associations within each park be maintained, or where

necessary recreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white

man. A national park should represent a vignette of primitive America.” [Leopold, “Wildlife Management in the

National Parks.”]

29. “Most of the research now conducted by the National Park Service is oriented largely to interpretive functions

rather than to management. We urge the expansion of the research activity in the Service to prepare for future

management and restoration programs.” [Leopold, “Wildlife Management in the National Parks.”]

30. “Implementation of the Leopold Report . . . ,” October 14, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 4, PNM.

Secretary Udall issued his memorandum endorsing the report on May 2, 1963.

31. Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 3, 1964.

198
Natural Resources

to prepare a Natural Area Resource Management Plan that would adapt the broad principles

outlined in the Leopold Report to their specific situation and needs. At its core, each plan would

include three essential elements: an inventory and description of existing biotic communities,

natural processes, and land use practices; an inventory and description of biotic communities

and natural processes under original conditions (that is, when Europeans first arrived); and

a plan for managing or restoring existing conditions to the original primitive state where it

was possible and desirable to do so. Each of these elements required sophisticated knowledge

of the relevant resources (especially the second element), and so the Director’s guidelines

also proposed establishing an extensive research program to accompany each stage of the

management plan.32 So closely attuned was research to resource management, in fact, that

no research project could be undertaken if it was not first identified in the park’s Resource

Management Plan.33

All parks were instructed to undertake work on their Resource Management Plans “promptly,”

but certain parks possessing natural areas thought to be eligible for wilderness designation were

required to complete a draft by early next year so that a final plan could be approved no later

than February 1967. Pinnacles was one of only eighteen parks nationwide to be included on

this list. The reason for the urgency was the Wilderness Act itself with its stipulation that all

eligible areas on federal lands be formally identified and nominated prior to 1974. According

to the new resources policy being worked out by the Park Service in response to the Leopold

Report (and the urgings of Secretary Udall), a determination that carried such profound

implications for the management of park natural areas could not be made without a Resource

Management Plan already in place. Thus, the new resource management planning process and

the Wilderness Act worked in tandem to support one another in realizing what appeared at

that time to be common goals.

Pinnacles’ first Natural Resource Management Plan was finished early and sent to the Regional

Office on March 30, 1966, where it was subsequently approved. An especially notable feature

of this plan was its emphasis on the chaparral vegetation as one of the most significant

natural resources in the monument. This represented a substantial evolution from the time

when geological features were the principal resource of value identified at Pinnacles. Because

the volcanic rocks and talus caves remained the only resources specifically named in the

monument’s founding proclamation, geology was still listed at the top of the management

plan, but the management needs for these durable features were relatively minor, and the

plan proposed only that measures be taken to prevent excessive erosion. (With growth in

the popularity of rock climbing, this would eventually become a higher priority, but for the

time being it was negligible.) Vegetation, on the other hand, was a more complex matter and

occupied the bulk of the plan’s thirteen pages.

Responding to the Leopold Report’s emphasis on maintaining primitive conditions, Pinnacles’

management plan focused on two questions: What pattern characterized its dominant

vegetative communities prior to European arrival? And how could the park restore these

32. “Guidelines for Resources Management in the Areas in the Natural Category of the National Park System,” in,

“Memo,” Assistant Director to All Field Offices, October 14, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 4, PNM.

33. Although this principle was assumed at the time, it was stated explicitly several years later by Deputy Director

William Briggle, whose comments “No new science/research projects may be undertaken unless identified as a need

in an approved Resource Management Plan” and “Park research should facilitate refinement of the management

programs” became known as “Briggles Law.” These statements originated at a regional directors meeting held at

Harper’s Ferry on May 26, 1976. [Quoted in Reg. Dir. to all superintendents, June 29, 1976, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 25, f. 7, PNM.]

199
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

patterns and maintain them into the future? Fire would play a significant part in the answer

to both questions. It was already known that the relationship between Pinnacles’ dominant

vegetation types and the wildlife that inhabited them had been structured by fire over a long

period of time.34 Although the details of this relationship and the patterns it had established

prior to European intervention were not fully understood, park managers were well aware

that fire had been largely eliminated from the monument for close to half-a-century, and the

present landscape was therefore altered from its primitive condition. The longer fire remained

absent, natural processes would continue to diverge from their pre-European condition. The

resource management plan repeatedly came back to fire as a crucial element in achieving the

park’s management goal. At that time chaparral was thought to be a transitional, pre-climax

community that would be succeeded by woodland in the absence of fire.

After this discussion about restoring natural processes within native vegetation communities,

the management plan also noted the importance of removing exotic species. Although this issue

had been recognized as a serious problem in other parks, and the subject was given substantial

treatment in the Leopold Report, it was still only a minor concern at Pinnacles. The only exotic

species thus far noted was a small herd of goats that had escaped from a nearby ranch more

than a decade earlier and had established itself in the northwest corner of the monument.35

The management plan recommended removing them as a matter of principle, even though

it acknowledged that the goats were not a serious threat to the monument’s resources. (They

were later killed.) Even if park staff did not realize it yet, however, these goats were an early sign

of a growing problem, though it was pigs that would later become Pinnacles’ most persistent

and damaging exotic species.

With its first Natural Resource Management Plan (RMP) completed, Pinnacles now turned

its attention to the question of wilderness. Monument staff, led by Superintendent Delyle

Stevens and Naturalist Robert Zink, considered various options with resource planners from

the Regional Office during the summer of 1966. They settled on a proposal that designated

only 3,720 acres of actual wilderness around Mt. Defiance in the south end of the monument

but included 12,280 acres of roadless area as well. This encompassed all of the monument

within 1/8 mile of the boundaries except areas that were already developed—for example, the

east side corridor along Chalone Creek and the Chaparral Area on the west side. A hearing was

scheduled for February 10, 1967, in Salinas to respond to public comments on these proposals.

Anticipating possible objections to the novel idea of protecting brushland, Superintendent

Stevens carefully explained in the Park Service’s press release that “the proposed wilderness is

not a forest area but that chaparral and desert can be wilderness in every sense of the word,

just as much as areas of dense forest or the treeless mountain tops that most people think of as

wilderness.” Stevens was referring in this statement to assumptions that had popularized the

national parks during their first era of existence, when traditional scenic qualities had defined

their value. The spectacular volcanic formations that constituted the heart of Pinnacles moreor-less fit these traditional categories of rustic beauty, but the chaparral-covered slopes of Mt.

Defiance did not. The chaparral was valued more for ecological than aesthetic reasons, as

34. Peter Bennett had drawn attention to this fact in his 1963 study.

35. A herd of about sixteen goats had been discovered within the monument by the chief ranger in January, 1952.

They had escaped from the homestead of F.W. Silvear sometime earlier and become feral. Superintendent Jackson

tried to eliminate them at that time, but his efforts obviously failed. They were not finally exterminated until

sometime in the early 1970s. “Getting the Goats that have been Getting Our Goat,” Superintendent Earl Jackson

to Regional Director, October 1, 1953, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 24, f. 19, PNM.

200
Natural Resources

the recent RMP had suggested, and Stevens was right to suspect that the local community

would be surprised to learn that the Park Service thought brushland deserved special attention.

These practical ranchers, who measured the value of land according to its economic utility,

considered brush largely worthless, and spent considerable effort trying to remove it in order

to create more grassland and to increase streamflow in valley bottoms.

The emerging environmental community saw the matter quite differently. All natural areas,

whatever the vegetation type or terrain, had come to be valued for other reasons, often in direct

proportion to their lack of utility and the resulting absence of human activity or disturbance.

This absence is largely what defined the new idea of wilderness. Ironically, this idea was

increasingly understood as essential to human life and spiritual or psychological health, a

subject that was taken up the following year at the Sierra Club’s tenth biennial Wilderness

Conference in San Francisco.36 Far from questioning the value of Mt. Defiance, the local

Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club responded to the Park Service’s announcement by telling

its members that the proposed area was too small.37 The Sierra Club was taking a similar

position on the proposed Ventana Wilderness in the U.S. Forest Service’s Los Padres National

Forest (the former Monterey National Forest that had once included Pinnacles). The Forest

Service wanted to designate fifty-four thousand acres of this land under the new Wilderness

Act, but the Sierra Club was arguing for nearly twice as much.38 Other environmental

organizations—most notably the Wilderness Society—joined the Sierra Club in advocating

for the maximum acreage allowable to be designated wilderness in the areas under study. At

Pinnacles, the environmental organizations wanted the entire roadless area, comprising 12,280

acres, to receive wilderness designation.

The vast majority of formal comments submitted to the Park Service in response to its Mt.

Defiance Wilderness proposal seemed to agree with the environmentalists’ position and wanted

a much larger area to be designated (if not the entire 12,280 acres, then something close).39

During the public hearings in Salinas, however, a number of local residents and organizations

voiced opposition to this idea. Practically no one objected to the original Mt. Defiance proposal,

since it would have little or no impact on local interests. But if the wilderness designation

were extended to the north end of the monument, as the environmentalists wanted, it would

prevent any further development occurring here. At stake was the cross-monument road, which

the Park Service had recently revived and Monterey County business interests—represented

by the Soledad Chamber of Commerce—enthusiastically supported.40 Ranching interests in

San Benito County also opposed the larger alternative, because they feared this would set a

36. “Wilderness and the Quality of American Life,” Tenth Biennial Wilderness Conference, San Francisco, April

7–9, 1967, Sierra Club Records, Carton 22, f. 40, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA.

37. “Pinnacles National Monument Wilderness Hearing Set For Feb 10,” The Ventana 5.1 (January 15, 1967).

38. The same clause in the 1964 Wilderness Act that required the National Park Service to review its lands for

potential wilderness designation also applied to the U.S. Forest Service and all other federal land management

agencies. Concerning the Sierra Club’s views on the Ventana Wilderness proposal, see Soledad Bee, June 14, 1967.

39. Out of a total 222 responses, 188 wanted a larger wilderness area. Only thirteen respondents supported

the original Park Service proposal, and one opposed wilderness designation altogether (the rest expressed no

specific recommendations or comments). [United States Department of the Interior, Wilderness Recommendations

for Pinnacles National Monument California (Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument,

1967).]

40. Business interests also opposed environmentalists over the proposed Ventana Wilderness for similar reasons,

since an enlarged wilderness area in the Los Padres National Forest would prevent the construction of the Arroyo

Seco Dam. See, “Over-Eager Conservationists Endanger Local Projects,” Soledad Bee, June 21, 1967.

201
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

precedent that might eventually lead to more land being removed from economically useful

purposes. The county board of supervisors formally resolved that

it opposes the taking of additional lands for wilderness area because such action could

eventually involve private land, remove said land from the assessment rolls, deny livestock

operators from participation in the multiple use of public lands and make it more difficult

for the average visitor to traverse and enjoy the Pinnacles National Monument.41

It is hard to see how these actions could ever come about, since wilderness designation did not

apply to private lands, but in 1967 the Wilderness Act was still new and its legal implications

were poorly understood. San Benito County did support the original proposal of 3,720 acres

around Mt. Defiance, since it believed wilderness was an appropriate designation for these

otherwise unproductive lands.42

Pinnacles modified its original recommendations in response to these comments and prepared a

revised proposal in September of 1967. Although this included the environmentalists’ wish for

a 12,280-acre wilderness as one alternative, the Park Service’s preferred alternative comprised a

designated area totaling only 5,330 acres. This included the original Mt. Defiance area but was

now enlarged to include the principal High Peaks formations as far north as Machete Ridge.

The Park Service would not extend wilderness designation north of the Old Pinnacles, because

this would interfere with existing development plans, which still included the cross-monument

road through North Chalone Canyon. This final compromise proved satisfactory to local

business leaders and ranchers but left wilderness advocates frustrated. Given the large number

who had responded in favor of a much larger wilderness area, the park’s final recommendation

was surprising and may reflect the Park Service’s own ambivalence toward the Wilderness Act.

Superintendent Stevens, who strongly supported further development of the monument, was

understandably tepid about the prospect of permanently locking up any part of it against all

future construction or road building. He also felt that Pinnacles was too small and lay too close

to growing urban centers to be an appropriate place for wilderness, an opinion he candidly

expressed at his retirement party a few months later: “How you can call anything a wilderness,

when you can sit atop a peak and watch 1,000 cars per day on roads below, it is beyond me.”

Stevens may have chosen the right time to retire, since his point-of-view was quickly losing

ground in Park Service management, while support for wilderness would continue to grow.43

Pinnacles had finished the review and recommendation procedures required by the Wilderness

Act seven years before the stipulated deadline in 1974. This left plenty of time for

reconsideration, and a number of changes affecting the park’s original 1967 proposal

would occur over the intervening years. Crucial among these changes was the retirement

of Superintendent Delyle Stevens. His successors—Gordon Patterson in 1968, followed by

Rothwell Broyles in 1973—were both more supportive of the new wilderness idea. Another

41. San Benito County Board of Supervisors, Frank J. Sabbatini, Chairman, “Resolution Re. Proposed Mt. Defiance

Wilderness Area in the Pinnacles National Monument,” February 20, 1967. Reproduced in Department of the

Interior, Wilderness Recommendations for Pinnacles National Monument California (1967).

42. This appears to have been the opinion of farm advisor Rocky Lydon and county clerk Ralph Towle. [See Hollister

Evening Free Lance, April 15, 1968.]

43. On the same evening, in an address before the Soledad Chamber of Commerce, Stevens also observed that the

Park Service was beginning to change its policy toward development in the parks, hoping to reduce visitor facilities

rather than increase them as pressure on natural resources became greater. “They are learning,” he said, “you cannot

preserve natural features and maintain commercial services, cabins, camping grounds and similar services within the

parks . . . There are just too many millions of people pushing into the parks.” [Soledad Bee, February 21, 1968.]

202
Natural Resources

change was the growing influence of the environmental organizations, which naturally

supported wilderness designation over infrastructure development. Stevens’ successors were

more sensitive to these groups and more willing to respond to their interests. A final crucial

factor influencing the wilderness proposal was the cross-monument road. This had been an

important priority during Stevens’ administration but was no longer valued by either Patterson

or Broyles. The road had been the single most important reason for keeping wilderness

designation from the northern third of the monument. Once support for it began to dwindle

within the Park Service, resistance to enlarging the wilderness area to the full extent desired

by the environmentalists also diminished. By 1974, resistance had disappeared altogether. The

revised Resource Management Plan, which appeared for public comment that year, included,

as the Park Service’s new preferred alternative, almost the entire area desired by the wilderness

advocates designated as Class 5 Primitive Area.44 This was based on a classification system used

at that time by the Department of the Interior and would have permitted nomination under

the terms of the Wilderness Act.45 The cross-monument road, and a much-reduced wilderness

area, remained as options in this plan but were not recommended by the Park Service.

Two years later, on October 20, 1976, President Ford signed Public Law 94-567 establishing

12,952 acres within Pinnacles National Monument as wilderness. The bill also established

wilderness areas in other national parks and monuments throughout the United States.46 In

addition to creating the Pinnacles Wilderness, the bill authorized Pinnacles to add 1,717.9 acres

to the monument, most of which lay along Chalone Creek on the east side. It noted that 990

acres of this potential addition would be eligible for wilderness designation as well and could

be so-nominated without further legislative action. This resulted in nearly all of Pinnacles

being designated wilderness, with 672 more acres than the environmentalists had wanted

back in 1967. The only areas not designated were those that had already been developed.

Future development could not expand beyond the existing developed areas, unless new lands

were added to the monument. The cross-monument road was now effectively prohibited by

legislation.

At the same time that the NPS was reviewing its lands for potential designation under the

Wilderness Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was doing the same. This would

later have an important effect on Pinnacles, because the BLM owned a number of large parcels

adjacent to the monument. In December of 1979, the BLM completed its Final Intensive

Inventory Report, which resulted in a recommendation that 5,838 acres of its lands adjoining

the monument be designated Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), with potential designation as

wilderness sometime in the future. After a brief public comment period, formal establishment

of the WSAs was made on February 5, 1980. These lands would soon afterward be proposed

44. “Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument; Draft,” (Released for Public Comment in May, 1974), pp. 37ff ,

Resources Library, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA.

45. This was the system of land classification used by the now-defunct Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR).

As Ethan Carr suggests, the preference within the Park Service to use the BOR category rather than the term

wilderness may have reflected some lasting resentment within the Park Service toward the Wilderness Act, which

many considered unnecessary and an implicit criticism of Park Service management policies. These individuals,

who included the now-retired Mission 66 Director Conrad Wirth, believed that the Park Service already effectively

managed natural areas as wilderness and did so more competently than the restrictive conditions of the Wilderness

Act would allow. [Carr, Mission 66.]

46. Within the western region alone, wilderness areas were established at Haleakala National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, Joshua Tree National Monument, Chiricahua National Monument, Saguaro National Monument,

and Pinnacles National Monument.

203
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

for addition to the monument, but a conflict between local Park Service and BLM managers

over the monument’s proposed perimeter fence—discussed below—stalled the interagency

transfer, and the land was not added to the monument’s wilderness area until 2000.

The 1976 Revised Resources Management Plan

In 1976, the same year that the bill establishing the Pinnacles Wilderness was passed, Pinnacles

revised both its Master Plan and its Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP). The latter

was done according to a new set of guidelines established by the regional coordinator for

the NRMP program. These guidelines were formally adopted in May of 1974 and included

three basic components: planning, environmental compliance, and programming. The first

component was little different from the original RMPs ordered in 1965 (or, for that matter,

from the natural resource component of all Master Plans since the late 1920s). It described

the existing resources of the park and the park’s broad objectives for managing them. The

second component—environmental compliance—was a new addition that responded to

the recently passed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).47 NEPA stipulated that all

proposed management actions that might have an environmental impact were to be assessed

and presented for public review. As a result of NEPA, all Resource Management Plans (and

Master Plans) had to be accompanied by an Environmental Assessment (EA) and possibly an

Environment Impact Statement (EIS), if the EA concluded that a significant environmental

impact would result from a management action. The final component of the revised RMP

format—programming—addressed the practical details of implementing the plan. This

included specific projects and funding allocations.48

Pinnacles’ revised Natural Resources Management Plan remained firmly grounded in the 1963

Leopold Report, whose broad objectives were adapted to the specific needs of the monument.

But the drafters of the plan cautioned that the ideal of restoring the monument’s natural areas

to a primeval state might not be practical or even desirable. Instead, Park staff adopted the more

moderate goal of managing the monument’s resources “in a manner consistent with their unique

character.”49 This softening of the original idealism of the Leopold Report was supported by the

new guidelines, in which a more realistic—but still ambitious—goal of restoring ecosystems to

what they might have become in the absence of human disturbance (rather than restoring them

to an arbitrary point in time) had become accepted resource policy.50 In order to achieve this

objective, the resource management plan recognized that a combined program of research and

management actions would have to be undertaken. Research would be necessary to determine

47. The National Environmental Protection Act went into effect at the beginning of 1970.

48. Mietek Kolipinski developed the new guidelines for the Natural Resource Management Plans by February of

1973. The final proposal, “Instructions for the Preparation of the Natural Resources Management Plan,” was adopted

by Washington in May of 1974. [Assoc. reg. dir. to Assoc. Dir., August 1, 1979, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25,

f. 7, PNM; and personal communication with Mietek Kolipinski, January 23, 2008.]

49. “Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument; Draft,” (Released for Public Comment in May, 1974), p. 19,

Park Files, Resources Library, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA.

50. See James Agee to Jason Greenlee, January 25, 1982, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 16, PNM, in which Agee

conveys his comments about the first draft of a fire history of the Gabilan Mountains. Note his subtle modification

of the Leopold restoration philosophy: “The issue of vegetation management goals is one that continues to confuse

those involved in National Park Management. You are correct in your interpretation of the Leopold Report: bring

the systems back to 1860, etc. However, this interpretation (as later reorganized by Leopold) is neither a proper goal

nor the goal now embraced by the National Park Service. Our goal is to restore ecosystems to what they would have

been today had we not interrupted natural processes some time ago.”

204
Natural Resources

what significant anthropogenic influences had interrupted natural processes in the past and to

determine how these influences might be reversed, while management would be undertaken

in response to the conclusions reached. Another important and related goal of research was to

complete the inventories of the monument’s resources that had been started during the 1950s.

A comprehensive knowledge of what natural resources Pinnacles actually possessed (or had

once possessed) was recognized as an essential starting point for any management action and

was needed to establish a baseline for all future inventories and assessments.

As in the original 1966 management plan, the new plan emphasized the value of the

monument’s plant life. Although the scientific value of Pinnacles’ geological history was

acknowledged, particularly in light of the research then being done by Vince Matthews, much

greater attention was given to the “complete representative sample of coast range chaparral”

that Pinnacles possessed. This attention was at least partly due to the vegetative resource’s

greater vulnerability as compared to volcanic rocks and to the greater need for immediate

action needed to protect it. But it was also due to the growing interest in fire ecology within

the Park Service. The Park Service’s traditional policy of total fire suppression had recently

been modified to include using fire under controlled conditions to manage vegetation types

that were naturally adapted to a fire regime. It was thought that chaparral, Pinnacles’ dominant

vegetation type, had a unique relationship to fire and might require periodic burning to remain

healthy. The 1966 management plan had stated that chaparral was a sub-climax community

which was arrested in an otherwise transitional state through the influence of fire. In the past—

the plan went on to say—periodically recurring fires had maintained the chaparral as the

dominant vegetation, preventing succession to a climax community of vegetative associations

and growth patterns that had not existed prior to active suppression. But the plan had observed

that current fire policy made it impossible to restore the natural fire regime that resource

managers now believed was necessary to maintain the chaparral in its original condition.51

A few years earlier, biologist Peter Bennett had also recognized the importance of fire in the

chaparral. He had observed that periodic, low-intensity burns helped to maintain diversity in

the vegetative cover and maximized the availability of food and habitat for wildlife. Bennett

had concluded that the Park Service’s policy of total fire suppression was detrimental to the

natural ecology of Pinnacles and recommended seeking some alternative, if possible.

Although no formal research had yet been done on the history and ecology of fire in the

Pinnacles area, it was widely believed that local native peoples had ignited fires on a regular

basis to encourage desirable plants and animals, and a seminal study by Henry T. Lewis

documenting these practices was published in 1973.52 Anglo-American ranchers and hunters

had continued this pattern of intentional burning into the historic period, a fact that was noted

51. Understanding of the relationship between chaparral and fire has changed considerably since the 1960s. Most

fire ecologists have rejected the idea that chaparral is a sub-climax community along with the belief that frequent

burning is necessary to maintain healthy stands. Early notions about managing chaparral through fire were often

derived from burning in montane conifer forests, where frequent, low-intensity surface fires have proven beneficial,

but the natural fire regimes of these two vegetation communities are quite different. [See, Jon Keeley, “Chaparral and

Fire,” Fremontia 35.4 (Fall 2007): 16–21; Sheri L. Gutsell et al., “Varied Ecosystems Need Different Fire Protection,”

Nature 409 (22 February, 2001): 977; and further discussion in the Conclusion of this study.]

52. Lewis’ paper, “Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory,” was originally published

as Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 1 in 1973. It has been reprinted in Before the Wilderness: Environmental

Management by Native Californians, ed. Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson (Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press,

1993), pp. 55–116. Another study by the present author examines the subject in greater detail [Timothy Babalis,

Fire and Water: An Environmental History of the Upper Chalone Creek Watershed—Draft (Oakland, CA: National

Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2009)].

205
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

by Schuyler Hain and Herman Hermansen (both of whom were themselves ranchers).53 These

early caretakers of the monument were critical of this practice and wanted to keep fire out of the

Pinnacles. When the National Park Service was established in 1916, it committed itself to fire

suppression, following the example of other federal land management agencies like the U. S.

Forest Service. Lack of adequate resources, however, made it difficult to implement this policy

at first. Pinnacles did not own any fire prevention equipment until 1931 and had to hire local

ranch laborers whenever a fire did break out.54 Fire prevention and suppression became more

effective when the Civilian Conservation Corps arrived in 1933, and no large fires burned

within the monument for more than forty years thereafter. This apparently successful effort to

exclude fire resulted in the dense, relatively uniform thickets of vegetation observed by park

biologists and resource managers in the late sixties and early seventies.

During the same period of time, suppression had not been practiced on the lands surrounding

the monument. Ranchers continued to use fire to burn off agricultural stubble every year, and

these fires often burned into the surrounding chaparral. By the late 1940s, improved tractor

technology made it possible for ranchers to begin cultivating the hillsides as well as the level

bottomlands, and they began clearing chaparral on steeper slopes to increase available range

pastureland. These efforts were greatly intensified in 1951, when the Rangeland Improvement

Association was organized by local ranchers Jef Schmidt and Walter Melendy with the assistance

of the California Division of Forestry and San Benito County Farm Advisor Rocky Lydon. The

principal purpose of the Association was to convert chaparral to grassland for livestock grazing.

This was done through a combination of chaining and bulldozing accompanied by controlled

burns. Between 1951 and 1979, the Rangeland Improvement Association conducted 55 burns

in the general vicinity of Pinnacles.55 By the end of this period, the monument had begun

to appear like an island of dense scrub surrounded by relatively open grasslands of mostly

exotic annual species.56 This contrast is still apparent in many places around the border of the

monument.

The Park Service’s fire policy only gradually began to shift away from complete suppression

during the 1960s. The Leopold Report was the first endorsement of wildland fire use to have

a significant influence.57 When the directorate released its guidelines for the implementation

of the Leopold Report in 1965, it addressed the issue of fire’s potential benefit, though with

some ambivalence:

Resolving the question of using fire beneficially versus the customary impression that all

fires are bad is difficult. Fire is a natural agent, it is likely to be inexpensive [as a tool

for management] and it can be used without mechanical scarring of the landscape. The

thought of deliberately setting fires regardless of the so-called advantages and the fact fires

53. See, for example, Schuyler Hain to F.E. Olmsted, July 26, 1910, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 336, NARA

II; but especially Herman Hermansen to NPS Director, January 5, 1925, PINN Coll, RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337,

NARA II. Hermansen observed that local cattlemen regularly burned their fields at the end of each productive season

and that these fires frequently got out of control, burning into the surrounding chaparral.

54. Superintendent’s Narr. Reports, 1931, PINN Coll, RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

55. U.S. Forest Service, “Vegetation Management Alternatives for Chaparral and Related Ecosystem Research and

Development Program Charter,” January 29, 1976 [Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 12, PNM]; and U.S. Forest

Service, CHAPS Newsletter 1 (July, 1977) [Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 12, PNM]; also Kathy Spencer,

interviewed by author 2007. Kathy is the daughter of Jef Schmidt.

56. Dean Clark (Forestry Technician for PINN during late 1970s), pers. comm., March 30, 2008.

57. Sellars, Preserving Nature, pp. 255–58.

206
Natural Resources

were common in the early history of the land is contrary to well-established customs and

attitudes.58

Nevertheless, the Director’s guidelines concluded that the “National Park Service accepts

prescribed burning as a management tool,” provided that its use was limited within narrowly

defined conditions. It was this very hesitant endorsement that allowed Pinnacles to recommend

prescription burning in its 1966 Resource Management Plan, even though it was still not

possible to actually implement such a program, as the plan regretfully acknowledged. But

in 1968 everything changed. That year the National Park Service adopted a new wildland

fire policy that included both “let-burn” and prescription burning as well as suppression as

management alternatives. The Service’s first prescription burns were ignited later that year in

Sequoia National Park.59

In 1973, as Pinnacles began developing its new Master Plan, Superintendent Rod Broyles

and his staff discussed implementing the prescribed fire program that had been tentatively

proposed five years earlier. Regional Chief Scientist O.L. Wallis supported the idea and

encouraged Pinnacles to adopt such a program as a long-range resource management objective

but cautioned the park not to begin implementation before adequate research was undertaken.60

Wallis’ caution reflected just how little was then known in the Service about fire ecology and

the management of chaparral vegetation. Two years later, on December 4–5, 1975, Pinnacles

hosted a seminar to discuss and formulate a program for chaparral management with fire.

In addition to relevant Pinnacles staff, the seminar included Chief of Resource Management

Bill Orr from the Regional Office in San Francisco; research scientists Peter Bennett from

Grand Canyon National Park, Jan van Wagdendonk from Yosemite National Park, and David

Parsons from Sequoia National Park; San Benito County Farm Advisor Rocky Lydon; rancher

Jef Schmidt from the local Range Improvement Association; several representatives from

the California Division of Forestry (CDF); and Dr. Harold Biswell from the University of

California, Berkeley. The inclusion of Rocky Lydon, Jef Schmidt and the CDF representatives

was an important gesture acknowledging the locally continuous tradition of using fire as a

landscape management tool, but the seminar made clear that the objectives of the Range

Improvement Association and the National Park Service were not the same. Since the purpose

of the Association was to convert scrub to grassland, its methods were designed to actually

kill the chaparral bushes. Plants were chained into dense windrows, which fueled intense

fires hot enough to destroy the surviving roots. By contrast, the Park Service would employ

no mechanical means of removal and would instead ignite many small, relatively cool fires

that burned only the superstructure of the plants, leaving the roots and root crowns intact to

produce healthy regrowth. It was believed that this sort of burning was typical of the pattern

that had existed prior to historical interference in the natural processes. As Superintendent

Broyles observed, “The objectives are to restore the area to the natural state that it would have

been had there not been interference with the natural event of fire.”

Restoration of natural conditions was the Park Service’s primary objective in reintroducing

fire, but the Service also hoped to reduce the threat of dangerous conflagrations. Intense fires

were thought to be increasingly likely with the accumulation of heavy fuel loads after years

58. “Guidelines for Resources Management in the Areas in the Natural Category of the National Park System,”

Assistant Dir. to All Field Offices, October 14, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 4.

59. Bruce M. Kilgore, “Origin and History of Wildland Fire Use in the U.S. National Park System,” The George

Wright Forum 24.3(2007): 102–103.

60. Reg. Chief Scientist (O.L. Wallis) to Broyles, March 16, 1973, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 13, PNM.

207
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

of successful fire suppression. These two objectives were closely related, as Dr. Harold Biswell

and other resource managers noted, because the natural conditions they assumed had existed

prior to historic fire suppression efforts had prevented the over-accumulation of fuel. Thus, the

restoration of natural conditions would simultaneously improve ecosystem health and increase

visitor safety. Resource managers assumed that the primitive (natural) environment included

frequent but relatively cool, non-life-threatening fires.

Not surprisingly, the participants at this seminar were all strongly in favor of introducing

a long-term prescribed burn program at Pinnacles. Peter Bennett had the satisfaction of

hearing the recommendations he had made in his 1963 deer browse study confirmed. Now

his recommendations would actually be implemented. Following up on the seminar, Chief

Scientist Wallis assigned biologist James Agee to coordinate Pinnacles’ incipient fire program

from the Regional Office and recommended that a fire technician be hired at Pinnacles to

provide local coordination. He then asked Dr. Biswell to draft the monument’s first fire

management plan.61 Harold Biswell was at that time considered one of the nation’s leading

experts on the subject of prescribed burning. He had started his career fighting fires with the

U.S. Forest Service back in 1930. After doing research in the pine forests of the Southeast

during the early forties, however, Biswell had become acquainted with the ecological utility of

management through prescribed burning in certain environments and had gone on to study

and teach this subject at the University of California at Berkeley, where he had worked in the

Department of Forestry since 1947.62

Biswell’s Fire Management Plan was completed by March of the following year (1976). It

proposed an initial program of research and experimentation to be followed by full-scale

prescription burning on a periodic rotation beginning in 1979. The details of the operational

phase of the program would be worked out during the initial research and experimentation

phase. Research would result in a vegetation map and a detailed fire history. These would

help resource managers to better understand the patterns and frequency of past fires and the

response of native vegetation to them (or to their suppression). Experimentation would result

in practical knowledge of how fires act in the specific conditions associated with Pinnacles’

unique vegetation communities and topography. Since no extensive prescription burning had

been done in the chaparral before this time, little was actually known about how it would work

or what to expect.63

At a professional conference later that year, Biswell and James Agee presented a paper that

summarized Pinnacles’ recently completed Fire Management Plan and described the purposes

of the program. The abstract (which was used by Superintendent Broyles for his own narrative

report) is worth quoting in full:

Fire has always been an integral part of California’s chaparral and the vegetation is well

adapted to it. Occasional fire in chaparral reduced dead fuels and maintained a vegetation

mosaic by encouraging sprouting of some shrubs and germination of others. At Pinnacles,

where the primary vegetation type is chaparral, the historical management strategy was total

fire suppression. The successful use of this policy has resulted in high volumes of dead fuel

61. Regional chief scientist (O.L. Wallis) to Broyles, December 22, 1975, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 1, PNM.

62. Kilgore, “Origin and History,” p. 98.

63. The controlled burning of the Rangeland Improvement Association could not be used as a model for the

prescribed burn program, because the objectives of the two efforts were so different. A distinct burn methodology

would be needed in order to maintain the relatively small, cool fires desired by the latter.

208
Natural Resources

and a disappearing vegetation mosaic. Wildfire hazards are extremely high during summer

months.

National Park Service fire policy changed in 1968 when prescribed and natural fires,

now called management fires, were allowed in certain areas. The proposed chaparral fire

management plan for Pinnacles begins with a research plan that has evolved from the

park’s Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan. A three year research program

initiated in the 1976 FY will experiment with three kinds of burning techniques under

varying conditions of weather, fuels and topography correlating fire behavior and effects to

the indexes of the National Fire Danger Rating System.

The Pinnacles area will be divided into fire management units, most of which will remain

unburned, during the research phase. In addition to testing and burning techniques, studies

will include sampling existing vegetation and its conditions, fire history, direct impacts of

fire on the site, successional patterns of vegetation after burning and the extent to which

fire restores the appearance and character of the original chaparral cover that evolved with

recurring fires.64

As Biswell and Agee both noted, the Fire Management Plan was related to Pinnacles’ revised

Natural Resources Management Plan and its new Master Plan, both of which were also

completed and approved in 1976. With the designation of nearly thirteen thousand acres of

the monument as wilderness occurring that year as well, 1976 proved to be one of the most

decisive in Pinnacles’ recent history.

In 1976, a similar fire management program was initiated by the U.S.Forest Service. On

September 30th of that year, the Forest Service’s Fire Laboratory in Riverside, California

implemented a five-year interagency research program to study prescribed fire in chaparral

ecosystems as part of an integrated vegetation management plan. Two workshops were

held in Southern California to discuss this proposed Chaparral Management Plan in 1977.

Superintendent Rod Broyles and regional Forest Ecologist Bruce Kilgore attended and were

enthusiastic about the results of the discussions and the ideas being proposed. The Forest

Service began experimental burning on a large demonstration plot in San Diego County later

that year.65 By 1979, the Bureau of Land Management and the California Division of Forestry,

both of which were participants in the Chaparral Management Program, had taken over the

activities of the local Range Improvement Association in San Benito County and were applying

64. Harold Biswell and James Agee, “The Fire Management Plan for Pinnacles National Monument,” Proceedings

of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks ( 1979), pp. 1231–1238.

65. A USFS newsletter described the Chaparral Management Plan, explaining that the “goal of the program is

to develop, test, and demonstrate vegetation management plans, techniques, and systems designed to maintain or

enhance productivity of chaparral and related lands and, at the same time, ensure adequate protection of life, property,

and resources. The overall goal is to achieve an uneven-aged mosaic of chaparral and associated ecosystems . . . The

main objectives of the Program are: design a multiresource data base and classification system, an operational set

of prescribed burning guidelines and planning methods for chaparral, techniques for and demonstrations of an

integrated vegetation management plan, and a set of chaparral management guidelines along with a compendium

of state-of-the-art background analysis and information . . . The Program is headed by Program Manager Jim

Hickman and Assistant Program Manager Bill Dean and has a core Research Work Unit (RWU)...A major

portion of the planned demonstrations and evaluations of the Program will be conducted on the Laguna-Morena

Demonstration Area in San Diego County.” The demonstration area comprised 127,000 acres under both public

and private ownership. [CHAPS Newsletter 1 (July, 1977) in Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 12, PNM.]

209
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

the techniques and knowledge they had developed through the work of the Forest Service’s

program.66

By the end of 1976, Pinnacles was ready to begin implementing Biswell’s Fire Management

Plan. Forest Technician Dean Clark was hired in March—the same month the final plan

was approved—to supervise the prescription burning program and to coordinate research.67

Two permanent fire weather stations were established later that year, one on each side of the

monument, and actual burning was initiated during the week of January 31, 1977, beginning

with a fifty-acre plot near Scout Peak. The plan called for three different types of burning to

occur at different times of the year: upslope strip burning in winter and early spring, broadcast

burning after grasses have dried in the spring, and broadcast burning after the start of fall rains.

This would be carried on for a period of two years—through the end of 1978—with burning

occurring approximately three days a week during each burn season. Research would be carried

on simultaneously during the same period. Full-scale operational burning was expected to

begin by 1979.68

This rigorous schedule was interrupted by drought conditions during the second year, which

forced a temporary moratorium on all fires. As a result, funding had to be programmed for a

third year to finish the experimental program.69 By the end of 1979, the experimental phase

had finally ended, and full-scale prescription burning began in 1980. The research side of the

program was delayed even further. Tree ring data were gathered and analyzed during the initial

few years of the program to determine past fire frequency, but these data were not sufficient

to construct a comprehensive fire history.70 In 1979, a private fire management consultant—

Jason Greenlee—was contracted to research historical sources to supplement the initial field

data. Greenlee’s report was finally completed in 1981.71 It remains the principal source for

understanding Pinnacles’ historic fire return interval.72

Invasive Exotics

Restoration of natural conditions was the clear priority of the 1976 Resources Management

Plan, and nothing was given greater emphasis than the reintroduction of fire as an essential

step toward achieving this objective. But the plan also noted that the elimination or exclusion

of exotic species was another important priority. By this time, the feral goat herd had been

eliminated. Pigs had only recently been observed within the monument but were not yet

perceived to be a threat. (They were not mentioned in the management plan.) The principal

exotic intruders at that time were cattle wandering in from adjacent private lands. To alleviate

this problem, the Resources Management Plan proposed constructing an ordinary three-strand

66. Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 12.

67. Dean Clark entered on duty on March 27, 1976.

68. Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 25, PNM.

69. Reg. Dir. to Broyles, July 13, 1978, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 15, PNM.

70. The only trees available for sampling were gray pines (Pinus sabiniana), which are relatively short-lived and

dispersed unevenly through the monument.

71. Jason Greenlee graduated in 1974 from UC Berkeley’s School of Forestry, where Dr. Harold Biswell taught.

It was Biswell who had proposed the narrative fire history, and he may have recommended Greenlee to do it.

[Hollister Evening Free Lance, March 10, 1980.] The final report, which remained unpublished, is, Jason Greenlee

and Andrew Moldenke, “The History of Wildfires in the Region of the Gabilan Mountains of Central Coastal

California,” Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA, 1981. [Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 39, f. 7, PNM.

72. Personal correspondence, Tom Leatherman to Sharon Franklet, June 15, 2006.

210
Natural Resources

barbed wire fence around the perimeter of the monument. Nobody had any serious objections

to this proposal, which was a common enough undertaking in that part of the county, but the

expense and labor required to enclose such a large area kept the project on hold for the time

being. Within the next few years, however, the feral pig population increased dramatically

and began to have a serious impact on the monument’s natural resources. As this new threat

emerged, the idea of the perimeter fence began to seem increasingly important, although it

would no longer be sufficient to build a traditional cattle fence to keep this destructive new

invader out. A pig fence would be much more expensive, requiring woven wire, buried or fixed

at the base. Such a fence would also require regular monitoring and maintenance to remain

effective, further increasing its long-term cost.

There are many, sometimes conflicting, stories told concerning how the now-prolific feral pigs

arrived in California. Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) are not native to North America. In California,

the earliest were brought by the Spanish explorers and colonists during the eighteenth century

as domestic animals, raised for their meat. American homesteaders arriving in the midnineteenth century also brought domestic pigs with them. These animals were often allowed

to roam freely to forage for mast, and many probably became feral, or semi-feral, as a result.73

The wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) is the animal from which the more familiar domestic pig is

descended. The two belong to the same species, but the former has always remained feral.

Wild boar were first introduced to North America during the early twentieth century as a

game animal for sport hunters. A wealthy capitalist named George Gordon Moore described

importing a small population of these animals from the Ural Mountain region in Eastern

Europe in 1911 to a game preserve he had established at Hooper’s Bald in Graham County,

North Carolina (now part of Great Smokey Mountains National Park). Because of their place

of origin, they were often called Russian boars. In the early 1920s, Moore purchased the

Rancho San Carlos in Carmel Valley northwest of Pinnacles and in 1923 brought several of his

Russian boars here from North Carolina. The boars quickly naturalized and spread throughout

the coastal mountains. In his 1937 poem “Steelhead, Wild Pig, The Fungus,” Robinson Jeffers

was thinking of Gordon Moore and his wild boars when he wrote:

...awealthy amateur up the Carmel Valley brought in wild pigs

From the Urals to stock his hunting-park: they overswarmed it and broke his borders and

roam the coast-range, beautiful

Monsters, full of fecundity, bristled like a hedge at midnight; and the boars with long naked

Knives in their jaws. They lair all day in impenetrable manzanita-thickets of the farther

mountain

And whet their knives at night on the farmer’s apple-trees.74

These boars also bred with domestic pigs from the ranches and farms in the surrounding area,

resulting in the hybrid animals commonly seen today.75

73. J. Hall Cushman, “History and Ecology of Feral Pig Invasions in California Grasslands” in California Grasslands:

Ecology and Management, eds. Mark R. Stromberg, Jeffrey D. Corbin and Carla M. D’Antonio (Berkeley: University

of California, 2007).

74. Robinson Jeffers, “Steelhead, Wild Pig, The Fungus” [1937], in

The Selected Poetry of Robinson Jeffers, ed. by Tim Hunt

(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001).

75. John Waithman, “Guide to Hunting Wild Pigs in California” California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife

Programs Branch, 2001; George Gordon Moore to Stuyvesant Fish, February 12, 1963, reproduced by the Monterey

County Historical Society, www.mchsmuseum.com/boar.html, accessed September 12, 2007; Laura Thompson,

211
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

This was the earliest recorded introduction of wild boars to the area, though it may not be the

only introduction. Bear Valley resident Clara Lou Melendy remembers that Hannes Schroll

introduced wild boars on the 101 Ranch on the San Benito River just north of the Bear Valley

Grade. This was shortly after Schroll bought the ranch in the 1960s. (The place is also known

as the Stone Ranch.) According to Clara Lou, these boars soon escaped and were eventually

seen in Bear Valley as well. Other Bear Valley residents remember first noticing the wild boar

sometime during the 1960s, corroborating Clara Lou’s account. Ernie Prewett, who operates

the ranch just south of the Melendy place, remembers the boar becoming a problem in his

barley fields about that time.76

The first report of wild boars within Pinnacles National Monument itself was made in 1969,

when park staff sighted several animals they described as Russian boars, one of which they shot

and killed.77 Over the next five years, sightings remained sporadic, but after 1975 they began

to become more common. By the end of the decade, feral pigs—as the hybrid species were now

commonly called—had become a permanent presence in the monument, and their impact

on native plants and soils was increasingly evident. The extent of concern over the growing

problem was illustrated in 1982 when feral pigs were ranked second in a list of Pinnacles’

research priorities.

The following year, Pinnacles hired its first natural resources specialist, Steve DeBenedetti.

DeBenedetti also identified the pigs as his leading challenge and committed himself to

determining what might be done about them, if anything. Feral pigs had already proven to

be serious problems in other units of the Park Service—for example, at Hawaii Volcanoes,

where systematic eradication efforts had been underway since 1980—and concern was great

enough to prompt the Regional Office to fund a multi-disciplinary study of the situation at

Pinnacles.78 This was to be done through the Cooperative Parks Studies Units (CPSU) at

UC Davis under the direction of Charles van Riper III. Although the pigs are what drew the

most attention and got this project funded, the entire study was more extensive and included

a vegetation map and comprehensive surveys (or Resource Base Inventories) of all biological

taxa at the monument.79

The CPSU study was not completed until 1987, but DeBenedetti and his staff were already

convinced that the threat posed by pigs was real enough to warrant immediate action.80

DeBenedetti decided to modify the proposed cattle fence so that it would be effective against

pigs as well. Once the fence was complete, the pigs could be removed or eradicated from the

area it enclosed. The cattle fence had already been listed as a high-priority project by the Park

“Rooting from Wild Pig (Sus scrofa) in Chaparral versus Oak Woodland” January 1985. typed manuscript, Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f. 20.

76. Clara Lou Melendy, interviewed by author March 21, 2007; Ernie Prewett, interviewed by author March 19,

2007.

77. Gordon Patterson, “Narrative Wildlife Report,” April 25, 1969, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f. 1, PNM.

78. For an early analysis of Hawaii Volcanoes’ successful program, see Jim Hone and Charles P. Stone, “A Comparison

and Evaluation of Feral Pig Management in Two National Parks” Wildlife Society Bulletin 17.4 (1989): 419–425.

79. The actual list of research needs outlined by Charles van Riper III, in order of priority, included: 1. a vegetation

map; 2. the feral pig study; 3. a mammal survey; 4. a limnological survey; 5. a herpitological survey; 6. an

ornithological survey (focusing on endangered species); 7. an entomological survey; and 8. a soil map. [Charles

van Riper III to Broyles, December 6, 1982, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 11, PNM.

80. William L. Halverson, Vegetation and Floristics of Pinnacles National Monument, Cooperative National Parks

Resources Studies Unit, Technical Report No. 34 (Davis: University of California at Davis, Institute of Ecology,

1989).

212
Natural Resources

Service in 1981, ranking seventh out of thirty-two so-called Significant Resource Problems

(SRPs) identified within the western region, and was authorized to receive $40,000 for

construction.81 DeBenedetti estimated that it could be upgraded to a pig fence at an additional

cost of only 25 percent more. He proposed building as much of this fence as possible under

existing funds while later applying for additional funding to complete the project. In order

to make the fence as effective as possible, DeBenedetti wanted to build it along ridgelines,

following the natural topography of the landscape as much as possible. Since the existing

boundaries of the monument rarely corresponded to these features, he hoped to push the

fence outside the monument to the next ridge or other natural barrier wherever possible.

This seemed at least potentially possible, since at that time much of the land surrounding

Pinnacles—especially the more rugged and remote areas—remained in the public domain and

was managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A total of 5,838 acres of BLM lands

adjoining the monument had been designated Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) a few years

earlier, and the BLM had already expressed its willingness to transfer this land (or at least part

of it) to the National Park Service. By 1984, a bill to authorize the transfer had been submitted

to the legislature and was under consideration by the House Subcommittee on Public Lands

and National Parks.

Local representative Leon Panetta supported this bill, and it looked as though the proposed

land conveyance would soon occur. But later that year, after word got out that the Park Service

planned to build a pig fence around a significant portion of the WSA lands, a coalition of local

sport hunters became concerned. The hunters contacted both Representative Panetta and the

BLM, protesting the fence and urging that the WSA lands not be given to the Park Service.

The reason for their opposition had less to do with the fence itself than with the proposed

land conveyance, to which the fence had drawn attention. So long as the land remained only a

Wilderness Study Area under BLM management, hunting was still permitted, but if it passed

to the Park Service, all hunting would have to stop (fence or no fence). This would affect most

of the remaining public lands in the vicinity of Pinnacles, leaving the hunters only private

lands, where they often had to pay a substantial fee, if they were even allowed to hunt at all.

Many local residents also opposed the land deal, though not because they would be barred from

hunting on the former BLM lands. They were more concerned about losing the opportunity

to graze their cattle here. In response to these concerns, Representative Panetta withdrew his

support for the land conveyance—rather disingenuously claiming that he had not known the

Park Service forbade hunting or grazing on its units. The BLM also expressed its opposition

to the transfer now that it understood how the Park Service planned to manage the land. The

authorization bill was abandoned, and the land remained under BLM jurisdiction for another

two decades. (It was finally transferred to the Park Service in 2000.)

Despite losing the opportunity to obtain the adjacent BLM lands, Pinnacles went ahead with

its proposal to build the pig fence. But faced with growing public concern and criticism from

other government agencies, Steve DeBenedetti prepared a lengthy position paper explaining

the Park Service’s management objectives and its strategy for dealing with the feral pigs.

This paper described in detail the fence that DeBenedetti’s staff hoped to erect around the

monument. Response to the paper was mixed. A number of environmental organizations,

including the California Native Plant Society and the Sierra Club, supported the Park Service’s

efforts to do something about the pigs, though some had questions about the effectiveness of

the proposed fence, while others wondered how the pigs would be removed once the fence was

completed and hoped that lethal means would be used only as a last resort. By contrast, the

81. Reg. Dir. to Assoc. Dir., February 6, 1981, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 25, f. 11, PNM.

213
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

BLM and the California Division of Fish and Game (CDFG) both expressed strong criticism

of the project. Dave Howell, the local area manager for the BLM, thought the Park Service had

no “quantifiable data” to support its assertion that the pigs caused any environmental damage.

He also believed that a fence would not be effective in excluding pigs and might harm local

wildlife, causing mortality among newborn fawns trying to get through it. If the Park Service

wanted to control the feral pig population, Howell recommended that it allow the public to

hunt them, with tags issued through lottery. The California Division of Fish and Game shared

the BLM’s concern over potential fawn mortality and opposed the fence for this reason. But

Fish and Game also had little incentive to support the Park Service in its pig management

program, since it was then actively working to increase the feral pig population to enhance

opportunities for sport hunting.82

The only meaningful criticism came from San Benito County, represented by Supervisor Rocky

Lydon (formerly the county farm advisor). Lydon had no objection to managing the pigs but

was concerned by the cost of the fence. With years of ranching experience, Lydon knew that

DeBenedetti had seriously underestimated the difficulty of the project and requested a more

detailed breakdown of expenditures. The Park Service obliged, and DeBenedetti produced

a second report: “Funding Approaches for Erecting a Cattle Proof/Hog Deterrent Fence at

Pinnacles National Monument.”83 In this report, DeBenedetti considered a number of labor

alternatives ranging from in-house to prison inmates (the Soledad Correctional Facility was

nearby) and estimated that the total cost would range between $343,000 and $414,000 over a

period of five years. Work on the fence began later that year.

As it turned out, Rocky Lydon’s concerns were well founded, but so was the Park Service’s

optimism. The pig fence was ultimately constructed and has proven effective in keeping pigs

out of the monument, but the project took eighteen years to complete and cost more than a

million dollars, or about $40,000 per mile on average. After construction was finished in 2003,

the non-profit Institute for Wildlife Studies was contracted to kill the pigs inside the fence.

In preparation, the contractor conducted extensive studies to assess the relative efficacy of

different treatment methodologies and to establish monitoring transects to evaluate progress.

By June of 2006, the contractor was able to declare with confidence that the monument was

pig-free.

The 1983 Resources Management Plan

In 1983, the Resources Management Plan went through its third revision since the original

RMP of 1966. The most noticeable difference in the new plan was the formal inclusion

of cultural resources as a distinct management category—the plan was officially called the

Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan—but the emphasis still remained natural

82. For a summary of the differences between the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) and the

National Park Service over feral pigs, see Gary Candelaria to Doug Updike, June 26, 1995, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 14, f. 21, PNM. Superintendent Candelaria commented on the CDF&G’s “Wild Pig Management Plan for

California” of 1995, asking, “Is it wise for the State to continue to promote a non-native animal as a game species,

at the price of continuing destruction of native habitat and private property?” Instead of managing pigs at medium

to high populations for good hunting, Candelaria (and the NPS as a whole) recommended getting rid of them:

“We suggest the State take a stronger position regarding those damaging aspects [of maintaining pigs], and assume

a more responsible, proactive role in eradicating wild pigs in protected areas such as state parks, state forests, etc.,

and in helping other landowners and land managers do likewise.”

83. A copy of this was sent to Lydon in April 1985.

214
Natural Resources

resources. As before, subjects were divided into basically two categories: research programs

and management actions. In some instances, the two overlapped, as when a given subject had

both research and management components. Research included the comprehensive biological

inventories proposed in 1966, ongoing fire research and the feral pig study. All but the last

were already underway. Growing concern over the apparent scarcity of young oaks led staff to

propose monitoring oak recruitment as well. Management actions included existing programs

like prescription burning and the control of exotic species. The elimination of feral pigs

was the focus of the latter, with the proposed boundary fence first identified as a potential

means of excluding the animals from the monument. Other management actions included the

construction of trails in the newly designated wilderness area and miscellaneous projects like

reduction of the ground squirrel population around developed areas and the control of dodder

(Cuscuta brachycalyx) and mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) in native vegetation.84

Cultural resource management actions included the identification and protection of significant

historic and archeological sites as well as the collection and preservation of selected artifacts

associated with them. (This last proposed action was not carried out.)

The 1983 management plan included several new proposals as well. The most significant of

these was the establishment of a water resources management program. The elements of this

were described as

the identification of water resources oriented management objectives, the classification of

all surface water sources by present and proposed uses, a detailed plan for monitoring the

quality of the monument’s water, and the identification of water resources research needs.

The water resources program also included a basic hydrologic survey of the monument and

the determination of the one-hundred-year floodplain for Chalone Creek and Bear Gulch.

The latter was needed before the park could implement its future development plans for these

areas.

Also proposed was an air quality monitoring program and a program for assessing and

managing the impact of rock climbers on monument resources. With the designation of the

majority of Pinnacles as a Class I airshed following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,

air quality monitoring became a legal necessity in order to ensure that current conditions

were not degrading. Pinnacles began monitoring air quality in 1986 with the installation of

an automatic camera at the Chalone Peak Fire Lookout to measure visibility. The following

year, a small station was set up near the east entrance of the monument to measure particulate

and ozone levels as well. Climber management was a more complicated issue. With the

increasing popularity of the sport, concern had been growing among park resource managers

that climbers were having a negative impact on cliff-nesting raptors and lithophilic vegetation.

Also of concern was soil erosion caused by the informal paths and staging areas at the base

of climbing routes. After studying these problems through the course of the next decade,

the park would eventually begin drafting a detailed Climbing Management Plan as part of a

comprehensive Wilderness Management Plan. Both were suspended in the late 1990s, however,

pending completion of a new General Management Plan. In the interim, climbing impacts

were mitigated through a variety of solutions, including the establishment of designated trails

84. Dodder is a parasite of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and had first been observed along the east

entrance road in 1974. Mistletoe is a parasite of gray pine (Pinus sabiniana). It had apparently been introduced with

plantation-grown trees during the late 1930s or early 1940s and at this time was still restricted to those populations.

215
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

and climbing routes, temporary closures of sensitive areas during raptor nesting season and

educational outreach.

The idea of wilderness as primitive nature was one of the leading principles driving park

management by the end of the 1960s. This ideal of primitive nature was articulated in the

Leopold Report of 1963 and the Wilderness Act of 1964 and was expressed in the subsequent

resource management plans, which all sought ways of restoring natural processes to a primitive

condition as far as possible. Fire was identified as the leading instrument for achieving this

goal, since fire suppression was believed to be the most significant anthropogenic impact

on the natural environment in historic times. This objective was reiterated a few years later,

appropriately enough, in Pinnacles’ updated Fire Management Plan, which stated that a

“principal objective of the Monument’s Resource Management Plan is to provide a setting

where natural processes are permitted to shape the environment with a minimum of influence

by modern man.”85 It represented a dramatic departure from the attitude that had been

dominant during the first half-century of Park Service management of Pinnacles, when

emphasis was given to developing recreational infrastructure and improving visitor access

through roads and trails.

Cultural Resources

Until very recently, cultural resources have not played a significant role in the management or

administration of Pinnacles National Monument. Although the monument was established

under the Antiquities Act, which was originally intended to protect archeological sites and

associated artifacts, the vagueness of the act’s language allowed it to be applied to places that

had no identifiable or known cultural resources. Pinnacles was one of these. Its founding

proclamation stated that the monument was established to protect specific geological features

for their scientific value. Pinnacles was, in effect, a natural national monument. Nevertheless,

Pinnacles does possess cultural resources, many of which have been recognized informally for

as long as the monument has existed. Pinnacles’ earliest guides and park administrators, for

example, all drew attention to the colorful history associated—or thought to be associated—

with the place. Two of the most common stories told by these early interpreters concerned

the eighteenth century English explorer George Vancouver and the nineteenth century outlaw

Tiburcio Vasquez. Much later, administrative changes in the Park Service itself led to more

systematic efforts to identify and document culturally significant resources in the monument.

By the 1950s, with the introduction of a research program at Pinnacles, park staff became

interested in formally investigating the large collection of stories that they had accumulated

about the area’s past, both to verify them and to learn more, if possible. One of the earliest

results of these efforts was the discrediting of the popular Vancouver story.

The supposed connection between George Vancouver and the Pinnacles was first noted by an

amateur historian named Paul Shoup in 1902 or 1903 and popularized by journalist Donald

MacDonald with an article published in Sunset Magazine.

86 Shoup had come across an excerpt

in Vancouver’s diary that described an excursion he had taken to the interior of California from

Monterey in November of 1794. Vancouver was visiting the Spanish California port during a

85. Fire Management Plan: An Amendment to the Natural Resources Management Plan for Pinnacles National Monument, March, 1986, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 34, f. 15, PNM.

86. Donald MacDonald, “Vancouver’s Pinnacles,” Sunset Magazine 11(August 8, 1903): 345–349.

216
Cultural Resources

break in his five-year mission to explore the Pacific coast north of Alta California for the British

government, which had recently taken control of this vast and relatively unknown area from

Spain. While riding by horseback with his Spanish hosts, Captain Vancouver recounted seeing

“the most extraordinary mountain I ever beheld.” He described the feature in great detail:

On one side it presented the appearance of a sumptuous edifice falling into decay; the

columns, which looked as if raised with much labor and industry, were of great magnitude,

seemed to be of elegant form, and to be composed of the same cream colored stone of which

I have before made mention. Between these magnificent columns were deep excavations,

resembling different passages into the interior parts of the supposed building, whose roof

being the summit of the mountain, appeared to be wholly supported by these columns

rising perpendicularly with the most mathematical exactness. These had a most beautiful

appearance of human ingenuity and labor; but since it is not possible from the rude and

very humble race of beings that are found to be the native inhabitants of this country, to

suppose they could have been capable of raising such a structure, its being the production of

nature cannot be questioned; and it may not be preposterous to infer that it has been from

familiar phenomena that man has received that architectural knowledge by which he has

been able to raise these massy fabricks which have stood for ages in all civilized countries.87

Shoup took this “extraordinary mountain” to be the Pinnacles. Despite some troubling

inconsistencies, his interpretation was quickly accepted by people familiar with the place.

Schuyler Hain was enchanted with Shoup’s interpretation and presented it as truth to Donald

MacDonald when he guided the journalist through the Pinnacles in 1903. Hain continued

to use the alleged connection during his promotional campaign to establish a national park.

He was so successful in these efforts that the name “Vancouver” became inseparable from the

Pinnacles for the next fifty years and was used in all Park Service literature associated with the

monument. It was not until 1955 that somebody finally thought to test Shoup’s theory.

That year, an amateur historian named Hobart Lovett tried to recreate Vancouver’s 1794

outing and discovered that the party would have had to ride more than thirty miles to catch

even a distant glimpse of the tops of the Pinnacles from the Salinas Valley. It seemed unlikely

that Vancouver and his hosts had traveled that far in only one day, especially since Vancouver

had been ill when he made the journey. Lovett also noted that the description in Vancouver’s

diary, and a sketch by artist John Sykes who was accompanying Vancouver, did not seem to

match the actual appearance of the Pinnacles from the west side. But Lovett did find an unusual

formation only a few miles out of Monterey that seemed very similar to the description. This

unnamed “mountain” lies in the hills dividing the Carmel and Salinas Valleys just south of the

old Fort Ord Military Reservation. Lovett took a photograph from a likely vantage point and

found that it matched John Sykes’ sketch almost exactly. Convinced that he had discovered

the true “Vancouver’s Pinnacles,” Lovett sent a report of his findings to Superintendent Russell

Mahan, who was also convinced. From that date forward, all reference to Captain George

Vancouver and his 1794 excursion was expunged from Pinnacles’ interpretive and historical

literature.

By 1965, Pinnacles staff had identified three distinct areas of cultural significance associated

with the monument: the history of Tiburcio Vasquez, Native American prehistory, and the

administrative history of the monument itself. Each of these areas would require formal

87. George Vancouver, A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World... (London: J.

Stockdale, 1801).

217
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

Figure 55. Sandstone formation described by George Vancouver in 1794 and later mistaken for the

Pinnacles. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

research in order to develop a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the subject, so in

November of that year, Superintendent Delyle Stevens submitted Resource Study Proposals

(RSPs) to the regional office to ask for funding to undertake the work.88

The first of these proposals, “Tiburcio Vasquez and his Relationship to the Pinnacles,” has

yet to be undertaken. This is unfortunate, since Vasquez represents an important chapter in

California history that Pinnacles is uniquely placed to interpret. Vasquez was one of early

California’s most notorious Hispanic outlaws, often compared to Joaquin Murieta, who was

active at nearly the same time. Like Murieta, Vasquez’s crimes have been understood to reflect

the social dislocation of Hispanic Californians during the first few decades of American rule

following the Mexican-American War.89

A native Californio rather than a Mexican, Vasquez was born at Monterey in 1835. He moved

throughout the state during a twenty-year career of cattle rustling and other forms of larceny.

In 1870, however, he settled near the quicksilver mines of New Idria, about forty miles east of

Paicines, and was active in and around the Pinnacles for the next four years. Vasquez had many

supporters among the large Hispanic and Native American populations that existed among

the miners, from whom he recruited many accomplices.

Between 1870 and 1873, Vasquez and his companions were occasionally seen among the

homesteaders in Bear Valley and would travel across the mountains into the Salinas Valley

88. Sup. Delyle Stevens to Dir., Novemeber 9, 1965, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 7, PNM.

89. The social significance of Vasquez and other Hispanic outlaws from this period has been studied by a number

of historians. See Douglas Monroy, Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), especially pages 214–219; the classic study by Leonard Pitt, The

Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking Californians, 1846–1890 (Berkeley: University

of California, 1970); and Ernest May, “Tiburcio Vasquez,” Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly 29

(1947), reprinted in Furia y Muerte: Los Bandidos Chicanos, edited by Pedro Castillo and Albert Camarillo (Los

Angeles: Aztlan Pub., 1973).

218
Cultural Resources

from time to time along the old trail through the Pinnacles. The homesteaders at first tolerated

Vasquez, whom they considered more of a nuisance than a genuine threat. The descendents

of the Bacon family still remember an encounter between Vasquez and Susan Shell, one of

Elizabeth Bacon’s daughters, which occurred around this time. The story was recorded by

Susan’s daughter, Juanita Burton Hinman, many years later:

One day Susan Shell was coming from the well with a bucket full of water; and who came

boldly riding in on horseback—none other than the daring Tiburcio Vasquez. He rode right

up to Susan Shell and asked her for a drink of water. She knew him at once and showed no

fear. Susan Shell filled the dipper with the cool water in the bucket.

As she handed the dipper of water up to Tiburcio Vasquez, he reached down without

dismounting. Instead of taking the offered dipper of water, he tickled Susan Shell under

the chin.

Her quick response was to throw that water from the dipper right into Tiburcio Vasquez’s

face. Surprised he was. He smiled at her, wiped his face with the back of his hand, tipped

his hat and rode off.

Susan Shell watched him ride away. Then she went into the house, calmly, at that!

All this time Susan Shell’s brothers were watching Tiburcio Vasquez and Susan Shell from a

window [that is, Oliver, Horace and Ben, who were all still living on the ranch]. They had

their gun sights right on Tiburcio Vasquez. Had he shown one movement of harm to their

sister, the brothers would have shot him.90

This event took place on the Bacon family ranch on Sandy Creek (now within the monument).

Henry Melville also recalled encountering the outlaw. Melville had staked his copper mining

claims on the west side of the Pinnacles about the same time that Vasquez settled at New

Idria. According to his grandson, Leland Melville, the two men had reached an understanding

with one another. Melville’s mining claim lay along the trail through the Old Pinnacles Gorge,

which Vasquez and his men used to escape back and forth across the mountains. In exchange

for Melville’s silence about the little-known route, Vasquez promised not to harm him or steal

any of his property. Melville once complained to Vasquez that the outlaw was not honoring

his side of the arrangement, since one of Vasquez’s men had stolen a horse. When the man

was identified, Vasquez had him whipped in front of Henry Melville to demonstrate his good

faith.91

By 1872, Vasquez had begun to push the ranchers’ patience too far. That year, he robbed

the San Benito Stage at Robber’s Roost just east of the valley, and in response, Bear Valley

homesteader John T. Prewett assembled a posse to hunt him down.92 The local men eventually

captured and hung Vasquez’s partner in the robbery, Jose Castro, but Vasquez himself escaped.  ́

The following year, Vasquez and his men robbed Snyder’s store in Paicines (then known as

Tres Pinos), killing three men. Once again, the ranchers organized a posse. John Shell, one of

Susan Shell’s brothers, was among these vigilantes. Again, the posse failed to capture Vasquez,

but this time his crimes had been so heinous that a determined manhunt was kept up by the

90. Juanita Burton Hinman, “The Trail Back,” typed manuscript, compiled and edited by Juanita B. Joseph,

September, 1979, pp. 61–63.

91. Leland Melville, interviewed by author, May 14, 2007.

92. This narrow chasm got its name from the event. It is on the San Benito River near the Butts Ranch.

219
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

police, and the following year he was captured in Los Angeles. On March 19, 1875, Tiburcio

Vasquez was hung for the murders he had committed at Paicines.93

Unlike George Vancouver, there is no question about Tiburcio Vasquez coming to the

Pinnacles. On the other hand, many of the stories told about him hiding in the rocks and caves

of the monument were probably exaggerated by early guides to add romantic color. Vasquez

certainly visited the Pinnacles, but it is unlikely he ever made it a permanent hideout or base

of operations. Juanita Hinman wrote that her mother, Susan Shell, dismissed this common

rumor, claiming that Vasquez had no need to hide in caves, since nobody in the area dared

challenge him. When he traveled, Vasquez would stay at any convenient ranch house along the

way and simply take whatever provisions he needed. Most of the local homesteaders preferred

to avoid a confrontation, so Vasquez and his men were free to go wherever they wished, at least

until the stage robbery of 1873.94

Although much romantic popularization has obscured or trivialized the significance of Tiburcio

Vasquez, he remains an important figure in the history of California and is intimately associated

with Pinnacles and the surrounding area. Much can be learned from him about the social and

ethnic tensions that existed in his day, and this would be an appropriate subject for further

research and interpretation by the Park Service at Pinnacles National Monument.

Archeological Resources

The second Resource Study Proposal, concerning “California Indian Usage of Pinnacles,”

reflected possibly an even greater need, since very little was known by monument staff about

the Native Americans who had inhabited the region prior to European contact, and virtually

nothing was known about their relationship to the Pinnacles. Descendents of the Ohlone

people who had inhabited the region at the time of European contact still survived, and

many even lived in the area, but most of their traditional culture had long since been lost. In

January 1930, Custodian Hawkins noted that the last native speaker of the Mutsun dialect—

Ascencion Solorsano—had died.95 Prior to her death, ethnographer John P. Harrington of

the Smithsonian Institute had recorded extensive interviews with Solorsano and with other

surviving elders from adjacent tribes, thereby preserving some of the ancient languages and

93. Crimes and Career of Tiburcio Vasquez: The Bandit of San Benito County and Notorious Early California Outlaw

(Hollister, CA: Evening Free Lance, 1927). This is a compilation of contemporary newspaper articles. Other sources

on Tiburcio Vasquez include: Jack Jones, Vasquez: California’s Forgotten Bandit (Carlsbad, CA: Akira Press, 1996);

Eugene T. Sawyer, The Life and Career of Tiburcio Vasquez (San Jose, CA: B.H. Cottle, 1875); George A. Beers,

Vasquez, or, the Hunted Bandits of the San Joaquin (New York: R.M. DeWitt, 1875), later reprinted as The California

Outlaw: Tiburcio Vasquez (New York: Arno Press, 1974). John Boessenecker, has recently completed an excellent

biography of Tiburcio Vasquez. This is the most detailed and comprehensive study to date and contains much useful

information about the history of the local area as well (John Boessenecker, Bandido: The Life and Times of Tiburcio

Vasquez [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010]).

94. According to Susan Shell, Vasquez and his men “rode horseback to the different ranches to obtain what they

needed. It was usually food, sometimes livestock they took, didn’t pay for what they took... there was no fighting

nor shooting at such a time. Tiburcio and his outlaw men were fully armed. The ranches were far from each other

and far from any legal protection. The ranchers knew who the bandits were and avoided actual confrontation with

Tiburcio and his outlaw men.” [Hinman, “The Trail Back,” pp. 64–66.]

95. This was mentioned by Custodian W.I. Hawkins in a letter to Director Albright, January 31, 1930, PINN Coll.,

RG 79, Entry 7, Box 607, NARA II.

220
Cultural Resources

traditions of these peoples.96 More might be learned by studying historical records from

early explorers and Spanish missionaries, but it appeared at that time that the most detailed

knowledge about past Native American life in the immediate vicinity of Pinnacles would

have to come through archeology. Recognizing this, Park Superintendent Delyle Stevens soon

replaced the original proposal, which was historical in method, with an archeological survey.

In 1966, a contract for the monument’s first archeological investigation was awarded to the

Central California Archeological Foundation at Sacramento State College. The report was

written by W.H. Olsen, L.A. Payen and J. L. Beck and completed in May of 1967.97 Although

their survey was not comprehensive enough to support the assertion, Olsen, Payen and Beck

believed that prehistoric occupation of the Pinnacles was at most intermittent. As a result, they

did not expect to find any substantial or otherwise significant archeological sites:

It is clear [the authors wrote] that the Pinnacles National Monument was not an especially

favored area for aboriginal occupation. This is demonstrated by the lack of large midden

sites throughout the park. Smaller sites are not infrequent, but all suggest only intermittent

occupation by small groups of people.

In all, only thirteen sites were recorded by this survey. Of these, two sites located on the west

side were determined to warrant further investigation (PNM-8 and PNM-9), and these later

became part of an archeological district that was listed in the National Register of Historic

Places.98

This assumption that Pinnacles was subject to only intermittent use, and therefore of little

archeological significance, persisted in later studies as well. By 1974, as the new Master Plan

was being prepared, it became necessary to conduct more comprehensive surveys of all cultural

resources in the monument—both historic and archeological.99 To satisfy the latter area of

need, Dr. John M. Fritz of the University of California at Santa Cruz was contracted to write

an archeological overview of the monument. Although Fritz was supposed to finish this study

by early the following year, to coincide with the acceptance of the new Master Plan, he dragged

the project out for another three years and did not submit his final report until the end of 1978

(causing considerable frustration for his contracting representative in the Park Service).100

Fritz agreed with his predecessors about intermittent use of the Pinnacles, interpreting the

archeological sites in the monument as temporary encampments where plants were gathered

or tools made on a seasonal basis. He also proposed a model that suggested that the monument

96. The John Peabody Harrington Papers reside at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. For an index

of the relevant papers and microfilm rolls, see Elaine L. Mills, ed., The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the

Smithsonian Institution, 1907–1957; Volume Two, A Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language,

and Culture of Northern and Central California (White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 2007).

97. W.H. Olsen, L.A. Payen and John L. Beck, An Archeological Survey of Pinnacles National Monument, San

Benito County, California (Sacramento: Central California Archeological Foundation, 1967); and miscellaneous

correspondence, 1965–69, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 7, PNM.

98. “Chalone Creek Archeological Sites,” (NR# 78000365), listed August 31, 1978. This is currently the only

property at Pinnacles on the Register.

99. Because the Master Plan proposed actions that would affect existing architectural resources and would cause

soil disturbance, possibly affecting buried archeological resources, the park was required by the National Historic

Preservation Act (1966) and by Executive Order 11593 “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”

(1971) to document these resources and evaluate their significance before any action was taken.

100. John M. Fritz and Charles Smith, Archeological Overview of Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito County,

California (Western Archeological Center, 1978); and miscellaneous correspondence, 1975–76, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 19, f. 8, PNM.

221
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

area was most likely used by Indians returning inland after the secularization of the missions

in 1834. But Fritz suggested that more permanent occupation sites might be found outside

the existing borders of the monument and believed that a satisfactory understanding of Native

American use and occupation could not be obtained without reference to the larger area

surrounding Pinnacles.101

The final archeological investigation of any significance occurred in the early 1980s, when

Trudy Haversat and Gary Breschini (of Archeological Consulting) surveyed the lands that

had been added to the monument with the implementation of the new Master Plan.102 This

area comprised nearly two thousand acres on both east and west sides. Haversat and Breschini

limited their study exclusively to the added lands but produced probably the most detailed

survey to date. They also referred to the assumption about intermittent use in the earlier reports

with some skepticism, noting that this assertion had been made on the basis of inadequate

knowledge.103 Justifying their skepticism was the discovery of a large, possibly permanent

occupation site (CA-SBn-123) near the mouth of Sandy Creek just outside the scope of earlier

surveys. Haversat and Breschini’s hesitation to draw any premature conclusions about the

potential archeological resources of Pinnacles seems prudent. A review of the status of research

at Pinnacles, made as part of a system-wide archeological review in 1994, noted that only 6%

of the monument had been adequately studied up to that time.104 This included the work

done by Haversat and Breschini in 1981.105

Administrative History

The third project that was identified in the 1965 Resource Studies Proposal was for an

Administrative History of the monument itself. This had actually been suggested as early as

1956, when the Natural History Research Program had identified the need for a comprehensive

area history.106 Park naturalists like Ro Wauer had collected oral histories and compiled notes

in their spare time for this project. A fact file had also been started, with information collated

on three-by-five cards. This proved helpful for interpreters in the Visitor Center, but no written

101. Review of Fritz’s report by Keith Anderson, Chief, Div. of Internal Archeological Studies, to Superintendent,

January 9, 1979, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 8, PNM.

102. Another survey of relatively limited extent might also be mentioned. This was done in 1984 in anticipation of a

proposed widening of the east entrance road (Highway 146) for a new entrance kiosk. See Richard G. Ervin, Report

of Archeological Investigations Associated with Pinnacles East Entrance Station and Parking Lot, PINN 84B (Tucson,

AZ: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1984).

103. Trudy Haversat, Gary S. Breschini and R. Paul Hampson, Cultural Resources Inventory of Newly Acquired Lands

at the Pinnacles National Monument (Salinas, CA: Archeological Consulting, 1981).

104. “NPS Systemwide Archeological Survey Program, Western Region Plan,” 1994, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box

19, f. 15, PNM.

105. Shortly after conducting their archeological survey of the newly acquired lands at Pinnacles, Haversat and

Breschini prepared a survey for the Bureau of Land Management of all cultural resources relating to Native

Californians in the central coast region from prehistory to the 1930s. This includes archeological, ethnographic and

historical sources and is probably the most comprehensive study to date. See Gary S. Breschini, Trudy Haversat, and

R. Paul Hampson, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast-Valley Study Areas (Salinas, CA: Archeological

Consulting, 1983).

106. “Project Report, Natural History Research Program,” December 31, 1956, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14,

f. 3, PNM.

222
Cultural Resources

history was ever formally programmed.107 The 1965 RSP proposed assigning a professional

historian to transform this piece-meal research into a coherent study with a narrative account

of the monument’s past. The Regional Office acknowledged the importance of such a study,

and the importance of such studies for all parks, but noted that few administrative histories

were being funded at that time. Most of those that were being done were the result of staff

working on their spare time. In November of 1968, the Regional Director advised Pinnacles to

preserve its files for future researchers but informed Superintendent Gordon Patterson that the

monument’s proposal for an administrative history was “suspended” until further notice.108

Nothing more was done about Pinnacles’ administrative history proposal for the remainder of

Patterson’s administration, but Rod Broyles, who replaced Patterson in January of 1974,

rejuvenated the project. Broyles was able to get funding for the history through the

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which had been introduced by

President Richard Nixon the previous year.109 This act was loosely modeled after Franklin

Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) from 1933. Both were designed to create

jobs and provide training for the unemployed or underemployed. CETA provided full-time

jobs for up to two years in public agencies like the Park Service with the intent of giving

the participant, or trainee, a marketable skill by the time he or she left. Pinnacles employed

several CETA trainees while the program lasted. (It was discontinued in 1982.) Most of these

worked in jobs associated with the maintenance division, but one trainee—Reta Oberg—was

employed as a historian to research and write the monument’s long-suspended administrative

history. Oberg was then a student at San Jose State University. Her study, which was completed

by the end of 1978, was the first comprehensive history of Pinnacles and surrounding area.110

Historic Structures and Landscapes

When Pinnacles staff identified the monument’s principal areas of cultural significance in

1965, they did not include any of the architectural or landscape features dating from the

historic period. At that time, none of these features were thought to be important enough to

justify special study or management considerations. But over the following years, new laws

and policies made it necessary to formally address these resources. Both the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593 of 1971 (Protection and Enhancement

of the Cultural Environment) required the parks to inventory their cultural properties and

wherever appropriate to prepare determinations of eligibility for listing on the National

Register. These policies were designed to protect potentially significant cultural resources

from careless or uninformed management decisions, and no action could now be taken that

might affect them without prior evaluation. When the new Master Plan proposed removing

16 structures on the east side of the monument, therefore, an evaluation of all structures

was undertaken by the historical architect and historian from the Regional Office in August

107. During the summer of 1960, Seasonal Ranger Ross Miser prepared a manuscript summary of the history

currently known. See, “Project Report, Research Program,” January 1, 1961, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 14, f.

4, PNM.

108. Asst. Reg. Dir. to Superintendent, Novemeber 26, 1968, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 7, PNM.

109. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1977, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17, PNM.

110. Oberg, Administrative History; and miscellaneous notes, drafts and correspondence, 1979, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 18, ff. 7–16; and Box 19, ff. 1–4, PNM.

223
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

of 1974.111 This was the first comprehensive survey of Pinnacles’ architectural resources.

The evaluators determined that none of these structures met the criteria for listing on the

National Register—all were still less than fifty years in age—but made specific management

recommendations for each one based on their professional judgment. Nearly twenty years

later, a similar survey was made by a historian from the Denver Service Center, and this time

eleven individual buildings or structures were recommended for nomination to the National

Register.112 To date, none of these, or any other historic structure at Pinnacles, has been listed.

Museum Collections

Several halting attempts have been made to establish a museum collection at Pinnacles over the

course of the monument’s history, but until recently little has come of these efforts. The first

attempt dates to the early 1930s, when local ranchers offered to donate their private collections

of Native American artifacts to the Park Service for display at the monument. (See Chapter 3.)

Negotiations with these prospective donors were predicated on the construction of a museum

facility, which at that time the Park Service intended to build—the Master Planning sheets

from 1934 show this structure.113 But negotiations with the ranchers were broken off, for

reasons not recorded, and the collections were never acquired. The proposed museum was also

abandoned and does not appear in later Master Planning sheets.

The beginning of the present museum collection dates from 1954, when the Natural History

Research Program identified the creation of an herbarium as one of its four principal objectives.

By 1955, approximately 250 plant specimens had been collected, pressed and identified.

Pinnacles’ staff soon determined that the herbarium would have to remain an ongoing project,

as new specimens continued to be added over the following years. At the time this project

began, no formal location was established for the collection, but in 1969 Building #13 was set

aside for this purpose and became the Museum Archives Building. This was one of the original

twelve-by-fourteen-foot cabins built in 1932 to serve as a bunkhouse for the labor crews

building the Bear Gulch Entrance Road (and later used as a tourist cabin). It was subsequently

improved by the CCC with the addition of rustic stone facing.

A more organized museum program began in the early 1980s at Pinnacles with the

establishment of a resource management program, when Steve DeBenedetti was hired to

become the park’s first resource manager. In 1983, DeBenedetti noted that the museum

collection included, in addition to the herbarium, twenty-six stone artifacts and a small

number of other archeologic and historic items, such as photographic negatives. DeBenedetti

also observed that these materials were improperly stored, especially the negatives.114 The

111. The proposed actions are described in the “Final Environmental Statement: Proposed Master Plan, Pinnacles

National Monument,” 1975, p. 2, Park Files, Resources Library, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA; and

Robert Cox and Gordon Chappell, Evaluation of Structures at Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito County,

California (San Francisco, CA: National Park Service, Western Regional Office, 1974).

112. Harlan Unrau, Historian, to DSC, “Trip Report,” December 1–5, 1992, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f.

6, PNM. Unrau recommended the following structures for nomination: Buildings #1 (the Visitor Center), #2 (the

Ranger Residence), #17 (the Condor Gulch Comfort Station), #18 (the Moses Spring Comfort Station), #200 (the

Oil and Gas House), #202 (the Horse Barn), #400 (the High Peaks Vault Toilet), #403 (the Chalone Peak Vault

Toilet), the Bear Gulch Dam, the Entrance Pylons, and the Chalone Creek Bridge.

113. The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument, 1933 (revised 1934), Map Coll., PNM.

114. United States Department of the Interior, Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan and Environmental

Assessment, Pinnacles National Monument (Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument,

1983).

224
A Final Note: Visitor and Resource Protection

following year, the Park Service’s Western Region developed a program to copy all cellulose

nitrate negatives, and Pinnacles’ collection became the earliest to be completed. The original

negatives were subsequently located at San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in

San Francisco, while Pinnacles retained the inter-positive and duplicate negatives on site.

These materials were later catalogued into the park’s museum collection. In 1991, the park

de-accessioned a large number of materials from multiple accessions.115

A Final Note: Visitor and Resource Protection

As the management of resources has become increasingly specialized in the Park Service, so

have the responsibilities for their protection and the protection of the visitors who enjoy them.

The evolution in the duties and responsibilities of the park ranger at Pinnacles has largely

paralleled changes in the Service as a whole. Over the last forty years, these responsibilities have

become increasingly focused on resource and visitor protection, to the exclusion of other, more

traditional roles. This specialization has resulted from a variety of factors, ranging from the

growing specialization of other resource duties—already discussed—to the increasing demand

of protection-related duties themselves. Interpretation, alone of all non-protection duties,

remained within the purview of the park ranger into the 1970s, but the start of that decade

saw the beginning of dramatic changes in the role of the park ranger that would result in

further differentiation between interpretive and protection rangers, with the latter eventually

becoming specialists in formal law enforcement and safety skills to the exclusion of most other

responsibilities.

The need for professional law enforcement training was dramatically illustrated on July 4, 1970,

when riots broke out in Yosemite National Park. This was the first time that anything like this

had ever occurred within a national park. The responsibility for the event and the subsequent

response to it remain subjects for debate, but that it occurred at all and managed to get so out

of hand was a matter of grave concern to Park Service leadership and resulted in an immediate

reevaluation of ranger operations. Park Service rangers had proven unprepared to deal with an

incident that seemed more typical of a city than a wilderness park, and, in response, rangers

soon began to receive professional law enforcement training. By 1971, all division chiefs in

ranger operations were being sent to the newly organized Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia, where they were trained in a standardized course for

police-like duties.116 In 1978, legislation was passed requiring all federal employees engaged in

law enforcement duties to be commissioned. In addition to the specialized training required,

this meant that most Park Service protection rangers would now carry a weapon, which at least

symbolically represented a significant change in their relationship to the public.117

At Pinnacles, the most persistent law enforcement problem prior to the 1970s was vandalism.

This was first noted in 1959, when the signs on the self-guiding nature trail, completed

the previous year, were destroyed. Over the following decades, incidents of property damage

115. United States Department of the Interior, Pinnacles National Monument Museum Management Plan (Oakland,

CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2005).

116. The Park Service has always possessed park police, who remain distinct from the park rangers, even though

a large proportion of the latter are now trained as law enforcement officers and perform similar duties; see Barry

Mackintosh, The United States Park Police: A History (Washington DC: National Park Service, 1989).

117. Park Ranger Butch Farrabee observes that rangers have always been issued weapons, but prior to 1978, they

usually kept them hidden away in the back of a glove compartment or the bottom of a briefcase. They never identified

with police officers prior to the 1970s. [Charles R. Farrabee Jr., National Park Ranger: An American Icon (Lanham,

MD: Roberts Rinehart, 2003), p. 124.]

225
Chapter Six Managing Resources, 1960s–1980s

became increasingly frequent, with comfort stations wrecked, signs broken and trash receptacles

overturned. One of the most common acts of vandalism was stoning the electric light bulbs

in the Bear Gulch Caves. In 1960, the superintendent estimated that the park went through

about thirty replacement bulbs every month.118 While vandalism of this sort is a comparatively

minor crime, it represented a serious expense and was a considerable frustration for staff. It also

represented a significant change in the attitude of visitors who were coming to Pinnacles. In the

decades prior to World War II, wanton property damage was almost unheard of, and the sort of

crime that rangers usually encountered was the sort typical of rural areas—poaching of wildlife

or trespass livestock. In the postwar years, as growing numbers of non-local visitors came to

the monument, the intensity and frequency of more destructive forms of crime increased. This

placed a greater burden on the rangers, who found themselves having to act more and more

like urban police officers. While the Yosemite riots were a major catalyst in the conversion of

the Park Service ranger to law enforcement officer, these incidents at Pinnacles illustrate how

a gradual transformation had been occurring in most parks and monuments throughout the

Service for at least a decade prior to that event.

At Pinnacles, another important change took place in 1970. That year, the first rock climbing

fatality in the monument’s history occurred. On March 21st, a young Berkeley woman named

Kathy Sasaki was climbing Machete Ridge with her partner Gerald Osborn. As the two were

preparing to rappel down from the peak at the end of the day, Sasaki fell to her death, leaving

Osborn stranded on a ledge. After being notified by hikers of the incident, Chief Ranger James

Langford responded from the west district and eventually rescued Osborn.119 It was later

concluded that nobody was to blame for this tragic incident, and that accidents of this sort

were inevitable with such a dangerous sport. As rock climbing became increasingly popular

at Pinnacles, it placed a new burden on park rangers to become proficient in highly technical

search and rescue (SAR) techniques. Within a few years, the superintendent’s annual report

noted that regular training for park rangers included “Mountain Rescue and Rock Climbing”

(as well as “In-Service Law Enforcement” and “Bomb Search and Explosive Safety”—signs of

the time). Eventually, other members of the Pinnacles staff, even park aids (student seasonal

employees), received rudimentary SAR and first-aid training in order to assist the rangers in

case of emergency.

The circumstances that had necessitated the rangers’ growing specialization in law enforcement

and safety, especially search and rescue techniques, only intensified at Pinnacles over the years.

Incidents requiring technical assistance on the high rocks and cliffs of Pinnacles became regular

events as rock climbing continued to grow in popularity. Over the next couple of decades,

two more climbing-related deaths occurred.120 By 1990, climbers were so numerous that they

were beginning to have a negative impact on the cliffs themselves. Superintendent Jim Sleznick

observed that year that the sport had increased exponentially and was now considered by

the Park Service a “consumptive use of Monument resources.”121 In response, rangers found

themselves having to manage use of the cliffs in order to mitigate some of this damage.

Crime remained a significant concern throughout this period. In 1998, an incident occurred

which illustrated the monument’s growing vulnerability. On the night of May 2nd, several

staff buildings in the Bear Gulch headquarters area were broken into. Among the items stolen

118. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1960, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 1, PNM.

119. Hollister Free Lance, March 27, 1970. Ranger Langford was later commended for his extremely risky but

successful rescue of Osborn. [Soledad Bee, August 12, 1970.]

120. “Accident, Injury and Death Case Files,” Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 8, ff. 17–20, PNM.

121. Sleznick to Dick Doughty of the Hollister Free Lance, August 3, 1990.

226
A Final Note: Visitor and Resource Protection

were weapons and ammunition. Although the suspects were later apprehended, the monument

was closed to the public at night from then on. Superintendent Gary Candelaria explained his

reasoning in a press release later that year:

Traditionally, Pinnacles has always been open to visitors for hiking, picnicking, star-gazing,

and other activities. We have relied upon our isolation from major population centers and

the general good behavior of visitors to protect the plants, animals, and government property

within the Monument when staff were not on duty. Recent events have shown us that we

can no longer maintain around-the-clock availability without serious problems developing.

Ongoing poaching of park wildlife, low-level but repeated vandalism, and a major burglary

within the Monument have shown us that the park is vulnerable to serious and dangerous

problems after dark. We haven’t the staff to provide 24-hour visitor and resource protection

services. Thus, we feel compelled to institute and enforce established opening and closing

hours.122

As Candelaria observed, part of the problem was due to insufficient staffing, which made it

impossible for the rangers to provide adequate service over the entire monument. This was a

particularly serious problem for the more isolated west side, especially after floods earlier that

year destroyed the only ranger residence in the Chaparral Area. Only one full-time ranger had

ever resided here, and then only since 1967.

122. Superintendent Gary Candelaria, undated press release, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 21, f. 9, PNM.

227

Chapter Seven

Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

Comprehensive planning became an integral part of park administration shortly after the

establishment of the National Park Service itself with the introduction of five-year Master Plans

by landscape engineer Daniel Hull in 1925. Pinnacles’ first Master Plan was completed in 1933,

almost simultaneously with the arrival of the Civilian Conservation Corps. This document

identified the fundamental concepts that would guide the monument through its first, and

most significant, period of development during the Great Depression. Director Conrad Wirth’s

ambitious Mission 66 would introduce the next important period of development for the

National Park Service. His program resulted in some of the largest, and most controversial,

projects in the history of the agency, though its impact on Pinnacles would be comparatively

minor. But Mission 66 had also brought a renewed emphasis on planning in its effort to

rationalize the design and organization of visitor facilities. Pinnacles completed its Mission

66 Master Plan in 1965 after the ten-year program had already lost much of its impetus and

was unable to fund most of the development it proposed for the monument. This apparent

failure had its positive implications (depending on one’s perspective). For example, the crossmonument road, which had remained an integral, if ambiguous, component of the Mission 66

plan, would not be built. By this time it had lost most of its popular support, and, with only a

few exceptions, its demise was welcomed by those who were still even aware of the proposal’s

existence.

Changing values—such as the growing interest in resource protection and preservation

described in the previous chapter—combined with the diminished funding of Mission 66

itself, would result in the premature abandonment of Pinnacles’ 1965 Master Plan with

little of it ever being realized. A new plan was initiated to replace it early in the 1970s and

completed by 1976. This planning process would prove to be substantially different from its

predecessors, largely as a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that was

enacted only a few years before the new process got underway. This legislation required any

significant federal undertaking—such as a national park Master Plan—to prepare a detailed

environmental assessment to consider the potential impacts of the proposed action and weigh

its relative merit against possible alternatives (including the possibility of doing nothing at

all). But the most significant innovation that NEPA introduced was to open the decisionmaking process to public scrutiny. This resulted in profound changes to the Park Service’s

planning methodology, as principles that were once informed primarily by internal agency

values now had to reflect the interests and opinions of the local, non-NPS community. Some

unexpected modifications were made to Pinnacles’ 1976 Master Plan as a direct result of

this public process, for example, the preservation of the Bear Gulch Dam and Reservoir, and

the continuation of NPS-managed campground facilities despite the Regional Directorate’s

preference that Pinnacles be administered for day use only.

The 1976 Master Plan would effectively guide the monument for the next few decades, but

during the late nineties several significant events occurred that would render it obsolete. Among

these were a series of natural catastrophes that forcefully demonstrated the impracticality of

many of the earlier plan’s development concepts. But the most decisive event would be the
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

acquisition of the old Ben Bacon Ranch on the east side of the monument. Not only would

this increase the overall size of Pinnacles, it would add important new resources, including

historically significant cultural properties such as the Bacon Ranch itself. It would also create

new opportunities for relocating administrative development and visitor facilities. In response

to the anticipated changes that would result from this acquisition, a new planning effort would

have to be initiated.1

The 1965 Plan Unravels

The 1970s were a turning point for Pinnacles in many ways. Already discussed were the

changes affecting ranger operations with the need for increasingly specialized law enforcement

skills and the growing emphasis on natural resource management and scientific research in the

wake of the Leopold Report and the National Environmental Policy Act. But planning also

saw a new chapter opening—or perhaps an old one finally closing—with the resolution of the

long-debated cross-monument road.

This proposal remained the single most important issue for local planners and businessmen,

but it had finally ceased to be a source of contention dividing Monterey and San Benito County

leaders. The road had always been popular with Monterey County businessmen but was firmly

resisted by their counterparts in San Benito out of fear that it would draw tourism away from

the east side of Pinnacles. The Park Service had contributed to this fear by indicating that it

wanted to encourage development on the west side. For decades, competition and mistrust

between the two counties had succeeded only in stalling development and had imposed a

tense detente that made it nearly impossible for the NPS to implement other important

planning proposals. This inter-county rivalry finally began to subside during the late 1960s,

parly because the older generation was simply retiring. But interest in a newly proposed

state scenic highway, which would loop through both counties, may have also been a factor.2

Business leaders realized that this proposal, which would include a cross-monument road,

would contribute as much to the economy of San Benito as to Monterey, and cooperation

could replace the rivalry of the past.

Superintendent Gordon Patterson, like his predecessor Delyle Stevens, was an enthusiastic

supporter of the cross-monument road (whether it was part of a state scenic highway or not).3

He correctly understood that there was no hope of administering the monument as a single

unit without it. Ever since its establishment, Pinnacles had effectively operated as if it were

two parks, with separate entrances on east and west sides but little connection between the

1. Even if the events of the late nineteen-nineties had not demanded a new planning process for the monument, the

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, Sec. 604) had made it legally necessary. This legislation

required parks to revise their comprehensive plans—now called General Management Plans—in a timely manner,

which was understood to mean every fifteen to twenty years.

2. Soledad Bee, May 26, 1965. Percy Dunlap called on the Monterey Co. Board of Supervisors for a resolution to

have State Route 146 included in a national scenic route system. This would make it eligible for federal funds.

3. Gordon Patterson was superintendent of Pinnacles from April of 1968 to October of 1973. Delyle Stevens had

been superintendent from January of 1964 to March of 1968. Stevens had overseen the production of the final

draft of the Mission 66 Master Plan, which included the proposal for a cross-monument road along the north fork

of Chalone Creek as an essential condition of its plan to unite east and west sides of the monument in a single

administrative entity. Both Stevens and Patterson were staunch advocates of this proposal and saw the road as the

essential condition of its realization. Their willingness to cooperate with local county interests probably had more

to do with their vision of a unitary monument than with any economic considerations.

230
The 1965 Plan Unravels

two. Patterson supported the cross-monument road, because he believed it would resolve this

dilemma. He was also a strong advocate of auto tourism and believed this sort of recreation

deserved a prominent place in the national parks and monuments. But the tide was turning

against Patterson and local business interests alike. Many people both within and outside

the Park Service were beginning to question the value of park roads and wondered, just as

Herman Hermansen had wondered many years before, whether the destructive impact of a

cross-monument road could be justified simply on the basis of convenience to management or

economic benefit.

During the latter half of the 1960s, a politically powerful environmental lobby was emerging

within the state, and representatives from groups like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness

Society openly challenged the pro-development values of county business leaders (and of

many within the Park Service as well).4 When these and similar organizations expressed their

opposition to the cross-monument road, Superintendent Patterson accused them of being

elitist. “Persons opposing the road,” he wrote, “are not thinking of the average American fellow

who sees parks from a car seat.” But sentiments like this were beginning to run against the

popular grain, and the Park Service itself was starting to withdraw its support for the proposal.

It was ironic that, even as business leaders from the two counties were beginning to cooperate

for the first time in recent history and finally making it possible for the Park Service to build its

long-desired road, other forces now appeared that would soon render all of these efforts null.

In April of 1972, the Park Service announced that it was preparing to develop a new Master

Plan for Pinnacles. This would supersede the existing Mission 66-era plan that had last been

approved in 1965. Ten years is considered normal for the lifespan of any plan, so Pinnacles was

due for a revision, but increasing doubts about the proposed cross-monument road, as well as

growing congestion in the developed areas of the monument all contributed to the sense of

urgency driving the new effort. The local press assumed that the new plan would focus on the

old road proposal, and by all accounts this was the subject most discussed during the initial

public scoping sessions. But Park Service planners brought a host of other concerns to the

meetings that they also wanted to address.

Chief among the planners’ concerns was growing congestion in the existing developed areas as

visitation in the monument continued to increase. Park facilities—especially the campgrounds

and picnic areas—were already overwhelmed during peak seasons, and the physical constraints

of the natural geography severely limited new development. One reason for the Park Service’s

long-standing interest in the cross-monument road, in addition to being able to unite east and

west side operations, was to distribute visitors more evenly through the monument. With this

option becoming increasingly less likely, however, Park planners began to consider shutting

down Pinnacles’ campgrounds altogether and converting the monument to day use only. As

the Master Planning process progressed, other responses to the problem of overcrowding were

introduced, but this solution would remain the most prominent. To accommodate overnight

visitors, the planners agreed that property owners with land adjacent to the monument should

be encouraged to develop private campgrounds. The Park Service subsequently worked very

hard to facilitate this idea, even working with Monterey County planning officials during the

late 1970s to amend the county’s general plan so that commercial campground development

would be permitted in lands along the west side of the monument under the existing zoning

4. The Wilderness Society was established during this decade. The Sierra Club was a much older organization but

experienced dramatic changes during the 1960s in response to the new environmentalism. See Michael Cohen, The

History of the Sierra Club, 1892–1970 (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1988).

231
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

classifications.5 One private landowner on the west side did respond to NPS encouragement

and in 1979 began discussing the idea of establishing a campground just north of the Chaparral

Area, but this proposal was soon abandoned.6 No other private owners ever showed any interest

in similar development on the west side.

The only private development to result from Pinnacles’ new planning strategy occurred on

the east side and was undertaken by the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company. This was a

partnership of three businessmen—Frank LaHaye, Robert Katz and Albert Wollenberg—who

had bought the old Bacon Ranch in 1968. Katz was a former chairman of the board of the

Yosemite Park and Curry Company, the principal concessionaire for Yosemite National Park,

and so already had ample experience working with the National Park Service operating visitor

facilities. He apparently wanted to establish a similar business arrangement with the National

Park Service at Pinnacles. Katz and his partners approached the NPS regional office shortly

after they acquired the Bacon Ranch and proposed cooperating with Pinnacles to build a new

headquarters and visitor facilities—including a campground—on the company’s land, either

on Sandy Creek or on the nearby Chalone Bench. Under the terms of this proposal, the Park

Service would lease the land and the buildings from the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company.

Katz already knew that the Park Service wanted to build a new headquarters near the eastern

entrance of the monument and hoped to take advantage of this plan to negotiate a concession.

The proposal for the new headquarters had been an important piece of the Mission 66

Master Plan from 1965 but had never been realized, because the Park Service could not

obtain the lands it needed to build the facility. In 1958, the NPS had tried to acquire eighty

acres on the Chalone Bench from Earl Bradford, who was apparently interested in selling,

but had failed to close the deal for lack of funds. After entrepreneur G.T. Wells proposed

building a resort here the following year, the potential for large-scale adverse development

never ceased to worry Park planners, and they now recognized the urgent need to have some

control over how adjacent private lands were used, or, barring that, to acquire a buffer to keep

development far enough away from the monument’s chief resources to protect them from

serious impacts.7 Katz’s proposal seemed to offer an opportunity to do just that at minimal cost

5. Pinnacles West Dist. Ranger to Sup., March 1, 1980, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 6, PNM. On March

10, 1978, Monterey County announced it was planning to make a zoning reclassification in the Soledad area in

order to bring classifications into compliance with the county master plan. The proposal was to reclassify from

agricultural with ten-acre minimum to agricultural with two-and-a-half- and one-acre minimums, which would

allow tract housing development but would prevent commercial development, including campgrounds. Therefore,

the NPS proposed an amendment to the Central Salinas Valley General Plan (part of the Monterey County General

Plan) that would allow campground facilities of stated characteristics on or near monument boundaries. This was

accepted by the county on October 9, 1979.

6. In January, 1979, Tom Pivetti and Larry Wilson applied for, and received, a conditional use permit to operate

a campground just outside the western boundary of the monument. Apparently, nothing came of this. [“County

of San Benito, Use of Permit Application No. 118–179,” January 12, 1979, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 6,

PNM.] An EIR was required, and perhaps Pivetti and Wilson declined to prepare this study.

7. Concern over neighboring development prompted the Park Service to become actively involved in county

zoning legislation. As Superintendent Rod Broyles observed in response to a proposed rezoning of the area around

Soledad and the monument’s west boundary, “We [Pinnacles National Monument] do not exist in a vacuum. The

characteristics and values of the Monument can be radically changed by external influences such as the zoning of the

Gabilan area. The National Park Service would prefer to have that portion of the Gabilan area, referred to commonly

as the area under the sphere of influence of Soledad, in a zoning category that would not detract from the Park’s scenic

and esthetic values. Because the resource values of the Park are of national significance, we must be concerned with

232
The 1965 Plan Unravels

to the government, and the Regional Director quickly expressed his support.8 Later, however,

a regional planning team, organized to prepare the government’s official response, rejected

the offer. The team’s report, titled “A Planning Directive for Pinnacles National Monument,”

explained that the company’s proposal did not support the monument’s planning priorities,

which should concentrate future development on the west side, rather than the east, and

construct a cross-monument road to tie the two sides of the monument together and disperse

visitor use.9 The planning team acknowledged that west side development was stalled for the

time being, pending a state initiative to improve Highway 146 from Soledad. (This was not

expected to occur for many years.) Additional land might also be needed on the west side to

make development there possible. Once this happened, however, the directive recommended

that the east side, including Bear Gulch, should be managed for only minimal development.

With this in mind, the team insisted that any development more extensive than a campground

should be avoided here and suggested that the status quo in Bear Gulch be maintained until

proposed west side development could replace it.

Apart from the cross-monument road, the directive’s recommendations were unexpected and

had not been part of the Mission 66 Master Plan, which was still the operative framework

guiding the monument. The final version of the Mission 66 plan had called for development

of the west side but only to counterbalance existing development on the east, where the focus

of monument operations was expected to remain (though administrative facilities were to be

moved out of Bear Gulch and down to Chalone Creek).10 Katz and his partners in the Pinnacles

Land and Cattle Company were almost certainly thinking of this plan when they proposed

developing an administrative center and visitor facilities on their property near Sandy Creek.

Sometime between 1965 and 1969, the existing Master Plan had been tacitly abandoned—at

least in the Regional Office—and a new set of priorities adopted. This must have come as a

surprise to Katz and his partners, but they may have taken heart from the conclusion of the

regional directive, which offered them considerable room for negotiating a profitable business

arrangement:

The highest priority should be put on determining the possibility of getting a road connection

through the monument and acquiring more land on the west side so that the phasing out

of Bear Gulch can be started. Meanwhile, we should negotiate with the Pinnacles Land

and Cattle Company to insure the integrity of the eastern approach to the monument is

maintained. This may require acquisition of a portion of their land as a scenic buffer. Also,

we should encourage them to develop public camping facilities on their land with our

standards as a guide.

planning from the standpoint of Regional zoning and not only local influences.” [Broyles to Monterey Co. Board of

Supervisors, December 4, 1978, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 6.] An influential report by the National Parks

Conservation Association the following year identified adverse development as one of the greatest threats facing

parks nationwide. [National Parks and Conservation Association, “NPCA Adjacent Lands Survey: No Park Is an

Island,” National Parks and Conservation Magazine 53 (March 1979)].

8. Reg. Dir. to Dir., May 28, 1969, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 16, f. 33, PNM.

9. “A Planning Directive for Pinnacles National Monument” November 1969, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 16, f.

33, PNM.

10. This balancing of development was expressed in the general objectives of the master plan thus: “To develop such

additional access and circulation roads and trails, and such campgrounds, picnic areas, and related facilities on both

sides of the monument as may be feasible to accommodate visitors in an acceptable manner.” [emphasis added]. “The

Master Plan for Preservation and Use, Pinnacles National Monument,” June 11, 1965, Map Coll., PNM.

233
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

Although the opportunity for establishing a government administrative center on the Pinnacles

Land and Cattle Company’s east side property was apparently lost, the company was still offered

the possibility of a lucrative land sale and the potential to develop a campground concession.11

In responding to the recommendations of this directive, the Associate Director for the Western

Region explained that his office concurred with the directive but noted that acquiring land on

the west side was unlikely to happen any time soon, and therefore Pinnacles should count on

living with the status quo for the foreseeable future. In other words, Pinnacles should expect to

keep its headquarters in Bear Gulch. If operations were eventually to move to the west side, the

Associate Director suggested that Pinnacles consider establishing its headquarters in Soledad

rather than construct a new administrative center from scratch.12 In December of 1969,

representatives from the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company met with National Park Service

employees at the Regional Office in San Francisco and discussed all of these items in detail.

According to Superintendent Patterson, who was present at the meeting, all negotiations with

the company were aborted at that time.13 But Patterson had earlier indicated a strong dislike

for the partners, and his opinion was biased. As events would later prove, these negotiations

were only temporarily postponed and no hard feelings apparently existed between the parties,

contrary to Patterson’s implied meaning.

As preparations for the new Master Plan got underway in 1973, the Pinnacles Land and

Cattle Company once again approached the Regional Office and renewed its proposal for

an east side concession or lease arrangement. The Regional Director reemphasized the Park

Service’s commitment to convert the monument to day use only and further explained that

the agency was not interested in managing a campground, even on private land. However, it

would support any effort by the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company to develop and run such

a facility on company land adjacent to the monument. Furthermore, the Park Service would

be very interested in acquiring land on Chalone Creek just outside the existing boundaries.

The Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company agreed to both these proposals and soon applied

for a special use permit from the county to open a three-hundred-site campground on Sandy

Creek.

Plans for this proposal lagged at first, and actual construction did not begin until June of 1978.

By then, the size of the campground had been substantially diminished. When it was finally

completed at the end of that year, the campground included only a little over one hundred

sites with store, comfort stations and other facilities. The Park Service provided technical

advice for design and construction, and the comfort stations were done according to standard

National Park Service plans typical of the Mission 66 era. Stewart “Stu” Kingman had joined

the partnership a few years earlier and was living with his wife Peggy in a trailer home next

to Ben Bacon’s old house, supervising the construction. Stu would be the only member of

the partnership to ever live on the Pinnacles Ranch (as the company had begun calling its

property).

The second part of the 1973 agreement between the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company

and the National Park Service—the purchase of the company’s land at the east entrance of the

monument—also took several years to realize. This time, however, the delay was necessitated

by legal constraints, for the Park Service could not buy the land until the monument had

first been authorized to expand its boundaries and the money for the purchase appropriated

11. Both possibilities would ultimately materialize.

12. Associate Dir. to Reg. Dir, March 16, 1970, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 16, f. 33, PNM.

13. Gordon Patterson to Reg. Dir., May 19, 1971, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 4, PNM.

234
The 1976 Master Plan

from Congress. Both of these requirements were fulfilled with the Omnibus Wilderness Bill of

October 20, 1976 (P.L. 94-567), which also designated 12,952 acres of wilderness area inside

the monument.14 With authority granted through this legislation, the Park Service was able to

go ahead with the land purchase. By late 1977, the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company had

agreed to sell 607 acres along Chalone Creek and the confluence of Sandy Creek (including

the Chalone Bench) for just under half a million dollars. The Park Service still wanted this

land as a buffer against potential adverse development on the east border of Pinnacles—it had

never quite forgotten the threat posed by G.T. Wells in 1959—but it also hoped to locate a

small administrative center here.

The 1976 Master Plan

By this time, Pinnacles had adopted its new Master Plan. The initial draft had been released for

public comment in May of 1974 and drew considerable attention from the local communities

in both San Benito and Monterey Counties.15 Its key features were the conversion of the

monument to day use and the shifting of emphasis to the west side. The drafters of the

document regretted the lack of adequate planning in the past and sought to rectify this

omission by identifying four strategic objectives: (1) preserve natural resources, (2) offer only

facilities appropriate to these resources, (3) encourage development of visitor services on private

lands outside the monument, and (4) regulate the circulation of visitors through the monument

in order to better disperse use. Both the Master Plan and its associated environmental impact

statement asserted that Pinnacles is “a fragile, compact natural area” and is “particularly

vulnerable to human intrusions.” The resources section of the plan discussed at great length

the significance of Pinnacles’ biological resources, especially its chaparral vegetation, in a

marked change from past emphasis on geologic features but consistent with concurrently

developed resource management plans:16

The pinnacles formations are contained in an area of approximately 1,000 acres—only 1/15

of the entire acreage of the monument. The remaining 11,000 acres encompass an excellent

example of a “coastal broadleaf chaparral” ecosystem. This environment provides a rich

educational and research opportunity for the visitor to study extremely specialized plant and

animal communities of a type not preserved anywhere else in the National Park System. The

14. In addition to authorizing the Park Service to purchase the east side parcel from the Pinnacles Land and Cattle

Company, the bill also authorized the purchase of a twenty-acre corner of Mark Francis’ land at the foot of McCabe

Canyon (on the east side), 160 acres belonging to J. Brosseau and 816 acres belonging to Larry Wilson, both on

the west side. [Robert Katz, Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company, to Superintendent Broyles, Novemeber 9, 1976,

Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 4, PNM.]

15. The format of the proposed plan, as well as the procedure for adopting it, was greatly influenced by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970. In the past, the entire master planning process occurred internally

within the Park Service. The final plan was approved by the directorate with the concurrence of the superintendent

and appropriate division chiefs but without any contribution from the general public. NEPA now required the

Park Service to open the process to public comment and to present alternatives to any proposed action. It also

required an environmental assessment of proposed actions, and if those actions were determined to cause significant

environmental impacts, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needed to be prepared.

16. It is not entirely true that Pinnacles’ vegetative resources were overlooked prior to this time. In 1904, when

Stanford president David Starr Jordan sent his colleague Professor William Russell Dudley to investigate the proposed

Pinnacles Forest Reserve, Dudley noted in particular the unique and diverse array of native plants represented in this

coastal ecosystem and believed that these plants were perhaps the most valuable resource of the area. His opinions

were largely forgotten, however, and the monument was established on the basis of its geological peculiarity with

no mention of its biological resources, vegetative or otherwise.

235
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

preservation and scientific value of this chaparral community is equally as important as that

of the pinnacles formations themselves, which historically have been the primary resource.

Identification and preservation of this chaparral community becomes more and more

important as vast areas of California’s native vegetation vanish under suburban expansion

and the pressures of grazing.17

This shift in emphasis justified the growing concern with visitor impact, for the vegetation of

Pinnacles, unlike its geology, was vulnerable to excessive use and could more easily be impaired.

This concern was the principal reason for the desire to now limit visitor use. The Master Plan

proposed five recommendations for doing this: (1) convert the monument to day use only,

(2) shift focus of visitor use to the west side (which was better able to accommodate large

numbers of people than Bear Gulch), (3) relocate extraneous facilities outside the monument

(the Environmental Impact Statement suggested locating monument headquarters and staff

residences in Soledad), (4) acquire 900 acres of adjacent private land for necessary development

(this included the 607-acre parcel purchased from the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company in

1977), and finally (5) locate visitor staging areas on acquired lands and use shuttles to bring

visitors from here into the monument.

The proposed plan also included a list of resource management objectives. These objectives all

focused on the ecological integrity of the environment and represented a significant departure

from past precedent. Among the objectives listed was removal of the Bear Gulch Dam and

Reservoir. The plan noted that this facility had originally been constructed to provide flood

control and fire protection but now served no useful purpose. Removing it would restore a

seasonal drainage to its natural conditions. Interestingly, this proposal elicited a great deal of

resistance from the public. The dam and reservoir had become popular attractions, though

their value was strictly aesthetic. Responding to these sentiments, the Park Service eventually

retracted its proposal to remove the dam. Another matter that might have gotten far greater

attention in other units of the Park Service was the proposal to reintroduce fire as a tool to

manage environmental conditions in the chaparral ecosystem. This proposal met little or no

resistance, because fire had been used by local ranchers for rangeland management since long

before the Park Service had entered the region.18 The local Rangeland Improvement Association

had been conducting controlled burns with the assistance of the California Department of

Forestry (CDF) since 1955. If the proposal to initiate wildland burning elicited any surprise

at all, it was only because it had taken the Park Service this long to come around to the

practice, and when Pinnacles finally began prescription burning in 1976, the local response

was favorable (even though the objectives of Park Service resource managers were very different

from those of ranchers).

By far the most contentious issues debated in the public review meetings were the Park Service’s

proposal to remove all campgrounds from the monument and its preference to abandon the

cross-monument road. The latter was introduced as a non-preferred alternative in the proposed

plan in deference to its long history and the perceived popularity of the road among local

citizens. It came as something of a surprise, then, when the vast majority of people supported

the Park Service’s own preference to abandon the idea. The few proponents who remained

were powerful and eloquent, but they represented an old guard of business interests whose

time had passed. Percy Dunlap was the chief holdout from Soledad. He had been chair of

17. “Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument; Draft,” May 1974, Park Files, Resources Library, Pacific West

Regional Office, Oakland, CA.

18. Some local ranchers believe that the practice was adopted by the original homesteaders after observing Native

Americans doing the same. [Pers. comm. with Kathy Spencer and Lisa Smith, December 9, 2006.]

236
The Development Concept Plans

the local Chamber of Commerce during the previous decade and had organized many of the

popular picnics that had been held from 1956 to 1968 to raise support for the development of

the west side. But Dunlap was aging now, and most of his constituency had long since retired

from public life. He spoke to deaf ears when he addressed the crowd at the Soledad meeting

in 1974. The majority of people there were more concerned about the environmental impact

of such a road than the economic benefits it would bring to members of the Chamber of

Commerce. Of 138 responses recorded by the Park Service on this question, only 3 supported

construction of the road (including Percy Dunlap himself ). When the new Master Plan was

officially adopted two years later, the road was stricken from its recommendations. This was

the last time the idea was ever seriously considered by the Park Service up to the present day.

The other issue that raised concern with the general public was not so easily resolved. This was

the question of overnight camping. The public was almost unanimously in favor of preserving

the practice within the monument, while the Park Service was firmly committed to ending

it and converting monument operations to day use only. The issue had become moot with

respect to the east side, where the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company was already making

plans to construct its own campground on private lands just outside the monument. But

on the west side, where the Park Service would have liked to see a similar entrepreneur step

forward, there seemed little possibility that a private campground would replace the aging

government facility anytime soon. Camping was popular with local residents and almost a

necessity with visitors who came from far away, since few other accommodations were available

in the area. The retirement of the government campground would therefore probably reduce

visitation from Monterey County. All of these considerations contributed to a strong motion

to retain the government campground in the Chaparral Area, and the Park Service finally

relented. The final version of the new Master Plan, adopted on February 4, 1976, reflected the

Park Service’s preferred alternative with the exception only that the Bear Gulch Dam and the

Chaparral Campground would both be retained. The final plan also included no reference to

a cross-monument road.

The Development Concept Plans

Like all Master Plans, the 1976 plan was only a general framework to guide monument

operations and development. It did not provide details necessary for the actual implementation

of specific programs. Further studies—special topical plans that tiered off the Master Plan

itself—would be needed in order to provide this level of information and guidance. Given

the emphasis placed on the “fragile” natural systems of Pinnacles by the Master Plan and

associated Environmental Impact Statement, it is not surprising that the first and probably

most important of these special studies was the Natural Resources Management Plan, which

was approved in April of 1976. (This is discussed in the previous chapter.) Details relating

to the development or modification of physical infrastructure, however, were to be worked

out in a Development Concept Plan (DCP).19 Two of these specialized documents would be

required, one for each side of the monument. In rejecting the proposal for a cross-monument

road, the 1976 Master Plan had acknowledged that Pinnacles would function, for all practical

purposes, like two parks, and had proposed establishing separate east and west districts, with

19. The relationship of the DCP to the Master Plan is explained in the introduction to the DCP itself: “Because the

master plan is conceptual and goal-oriented, more specific development concept plans are required to implement

many of the features of that plan.” [United States Department of the Interior, Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment, West District, Pinnacles National Monument (Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles

National Monument, 1991), p. 2.]

237
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

each district administered as a quasi-independent unit. Each district would go through a

separate development planning process and would therefore require its own DCP.

The preparation of the DCPs suffered maddeningly long delays as a result of inadequate

staffing in the Regional Office. Research could not begin until 1980, and initial drafts were

not ready until 1985. But then the process lagged once more—again, for lack of sufficient

staff—and would not resume until 1989. In the meantime, little could be done at Pinnacles

to implement any of the development proposed in the Master Plan. Conditions continued to

worsen at the monument as aging or poorly designed facilities deteriorated. A severe storm

in the spring of 1983 damaged roads, campgrounds and other facilities in both districts.

In the Chalone Annex, the concrete ford that crossed the creek bed washed out, isolating

the old group campground and severing utility linkages. Although public camping had

been abandoned at the Chalone Campground ever since the private Pinnacles Campground

opened in 1979, the park continued to use these facilities for staff residence and maintenance

operations. The development on the west side of the creek was abandoned altogether after

the 1983 storm (though the site was not restored to natural conditions until many years

later).20 Superintendent Broyles complained to the Regional Director that the absence of a

development plan had disqualified the monument from claiming federal highway funds to

repair storm damage to the roadway. His complaint reflected the frustration that many small

parks like Pinnacles were feeling toward the Regional Office at this time. As the overall Park

Service budget continued to decline, the Regional Director was diverting much of the money

intended for the Regional Office itself to the larger parks. While this seemed like an appropriate

sacrifice to make during times of budgetary constraints, the smaller parks and monuments like

Pinnacles actually suffered disproportionately, because they relied more heavily on Regional

Office support than the larger parks did.21

On the west side, a similar pattern was repeated. The Chaparral Campground, which had also

been constructed inside the seasonal floodplain, was heavily damaged by the rising waters in

the 1983 storms, and a portion of the original campground had to be abandoned. The comfort

station had already been closed in 1980 when another storm destroyed its septic system.22

(A chemical toilet was being used in place of the fresh water system.) The cumulative lesson

of these events strengthened the monument’s determination to close the Chaparral Area and

relocate west side development outside the floodplain and closer to the western boundary.

Congestion also remained a serious problem at Pinnacles, especially on the east side during

peak visitation periods (spring and fall). Superintendent Broyles observed that, in some years,

there were lines up to eighty cars long waiting for two hours to enter the monument. This

problem had been anticipated by the 1976 Master Plan, and various solutions had been

proposed, but their implementation awaited approval of the Development Concept Plan, and

nothing could be done until the Regional Office took action.23

The West Side DCP (1991)

In 1985, drafts of both DCPs were finally released for public comment. The west side DCP was

the first to be completed and would prove to be the most contentious. It called for moving most

west side development to the park boundaries and eliminating all overnight camping within

20. Landscape Architect David Geissinger, to Reg. Dir., April 4, 1983, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 1, PNM.

21. Pers. comm. with Gordon Chappell, Regional Historian, December 5, 2007.

22. Salinas Californian. September 14, 1985.

23. Broyles to reg. dir., April 1, 1986, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 1, PNM.

238
The Development Concept Plans

the monument. A shuttle bus would be provided to carry visitors from the new development

area to west side trailheads. The only infrastructure that the plan proposed to leave in the

existing Chaparral Area would be the comfort station (with upgraded utilities) and possibly

a small ranger checking station. Minimal parking for no more than fifty cars would also be

provided to accommodate off-season visitation. By far the most hotly debated issue in this

plan was the proposal to close down the campground. The public continued to object to this

idea, but the Park Service remained committed to its earlier decision to convert Pinnacles to

day use only and decided not to budge.

The siting of the proposed new development area was another issue that attracted considerable

attention and occasional disagreement, though this was confined mainly to the Park Service

itself. All of the most suitable locations, judged from a practical point-of-view, proved to

be less-than-suitable from an aesthetic one. Landscape Architect David Greissinger from the

regional planning division was greatly concerned that all development be kept out of view from

hikers on the High Peaks Trail. Not only was this objective nearly impossible to accomplish,

but it was not valued equally by the other planners on the team. Greissinger’s insistence on

pursuing this aesthetics of concealment seems to have become a major source of frustration for

many of Pinnacles’ staff, as Superintendent Sleznick pointedly wrote:

The task will not be an easy one, but I feel we should not bury our developments in less

than suitable locations because of potential viewshed concerns. As I have said to my staff in

the past, “If I have to keep out of the viewshed, I’ll end up with headquarters in Fresno.” I

find nothing wrong with the public seeing a bit of development from the High Peaks. The

public that utilizes this park may just wish to have some reference point in their movement

about the area.24

Judging from the comments received, Sleznick’s sense of public opinion was accurate, since

most respondents who addressed the issue at all expressed greater concern with practical

logistics than viewshed purity.

A final issue drawing some attention was access. This was connected to the Park Service’s

goal of shifting the principal orientation of the monument toward Monterey County, where

the majority of future visitation was expected to originate. Several respondents criticized the

NPS for over-estimating projected use from this direction, given the poor quality of the state

road leading to the monument from Soledad. In response, the NPS retracted its proposal to

concentrate development here and concluded instead that the “quiet character of the Chaparral

area should be maintained.” This was a surprising decision to reach at such a late date, given

that the proposal to emphasize the west side had been a central point of the 1976 Master Plan.

A DCP is meant to outline how the objectives of a Master Plan are to be implemented, not to

challenge or reverse those objectives.25

The final west side DCP was completed and approved at the beginning of 1991. It included

construction of a new administrative area near the west boundary entrance. The proposed

development would consist of a Visitor Center with staff office space, a maintenance building

and fire cache, employee residences (three houses and one duplex), and parking for up to

150 cars with a shuttle turnaround. Drinking water and sewage would be developed and

commercial power brought in from existing lines just outside the monument boundary. The

Chaparral Area would be reduced to day use picnicking with parking for no more than thirty

24. Sleznick to Reg. Dir, December 17, 1987, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 17, f. 7, PNM.

25. Ibid.

239
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

cars. The existing comfort station would be retained and a small ranger station (visitor contact

station) would be added to it. Shuttle service would operate during peak visitation periods.

This plan was to be implemented in three stages: first, utilities would be developed at the west

boundary administrative site; second, the buildings and other structures would be constructed

here; and third, the old Chaparral development would be removed and the area restored.

The East Side DCP (1993)

The east side DCP proved far less contentious even though it included changes that were

just as dramatic as those being considered for the west side. This plan proposed moving

all administrative functions and most development out of Bear Gulch, leaving only a visitor

contact station and trailhead picnic areas with passive interpretive exhibits. The most significant

examples of rustic architecture in the area would be retained. These included the two comfort

stations (Buildings #17 and #18), the Visitor Center (Building #1) and the remaining buildings

in the old Condor Gulch utility area (Buildings #200 and #202). Building #1 would become

the new Visitor Contact Station, while the buildings in Condor Gulch would be adaptively

reused as picnic shelters and exhibits to interpret the Depression-era unemployment relief

programs that had produced them. The comfort stations would remain as they were. All

residences except that of the chief ranger in Building #2 and the superintendent in Building

#19 would also be moved out of the area and consolidated in an NPS residential community

on the site of the old Chalone Creek Campground. All other structures—the old tourist cabins

and a residential trail—would be removed. The area previously utilized for administrative

purposes would be re-landscaped and used for visitor picnicking. These substantial changes

would leave Bear Gulch in a predominantly natural condition and help alleviate crowding,

which had long been a problem in the confined area. Visitors would come here now only to

picnic and to access the principal trailheads.

Park administration would be centered in a large, multi-purpose building that would contain

both offices and a visitor center as well as comfort facilities. This building and an adjacent

parking lot would be built in the meadow at the eastern boundary of the monument. A

small picnic area would be established nearby in the oak grove on the Chalone Bench with a

wheelchair-accessible interpretive trail running between the two. Although the DCP made no

note of it, this had been the traditional site of many family picnics held by local ranchers from

the late 1800s through the first few decades of the twentieth century.

All visitor facilities would be removed from the old Chalone Creek Campground—it was still

being used as a picnic ground—and the area would be converted exclusively to staff residence.

Existing residential trailers would be replaced with permanent structures, totaling ten singlefamily houses and two eight-person dormitories. Remaining maintenance facilities would

also be removed and consolidated in a new location further downstream on the west bank of

Chalone Creek. A new maintenance yard and warehouse had already been constructed here.

This facility—commonly known as the YACC Area after the Young Adult Conservation Corps

who originally occupied it—would become the principal maintenance yard for the entire

monument. Also located at the YACC Area would be a shuttle terminal and parking for 125

vehicles. As on the west side, visitors would be shuttled in to the trailhead areas on crowded

peak-season weekends. (This shuttle program had already been implemented on the east side

as an informal emergency measure beginning in 1988.26)

26. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1988, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 18, PNM; and James Sleznick, interviewed by

author January 18, 2007. Superintendent Sleznick borrowed some buses from the Forest Service and had his staff

240
Development and Growth after Mission 66

Development and Growth after Mission 66

During the interval from the end of Mission 66 to the 1990s, probably the most important

event was the establishment of the new planning framework for the monument, laboriously

worked out in the long process described above. Little physical development could occur

until this was completed and nothing could be done on a large or systematic scale. Most

activity associated with buildings and utilities was confined to cyclic maintenance—keeping

the existing infrastructure in working condition. But a number of small construction projects

were initiated. Probably the most significant new construction occurred on Chalone Creek

with the establishment of the YACC area. The importance of this project was not so much its

size as the fact that it would soon be chosen as the location for all maintenance facilities on the

east side of the monument.

The Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC) was established by President Jimmy Carter

in 1977 to provide employment and job training for young adults and to accomplish needed

conservation work on public lands. It was modeled loosely after Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian

Conservation Corps, making Pinnacles a historically fitting context for the new program.

As many as sixty young men and women were employed at Pinnacles, mostly on trail work

and light construction, during the few years the program lasted. It was largely eliminated as

a result of federal budget cuts by 1981.27 One of the first projects that the YACC enrollees

undertook at Pinnacles was the construction of a maintenance warehouse to serve as program

headquarters in 1978. This was built on a broad shelf excavated into the west bank of Chalone

Creek just opposite the present Peaks View Turnout. (In fact, Peaks View is what remains of

the original access road to the YACC facility.) A concrete, low-water crossing was laid across

the bed of Chalone Creek from the east side entrance road.

With the demise of the YACC program a few years later, the warehouse was used for other

purposes, primarily storage, although the sign shop occupied the front half of the building.

The trails crew also located here, building a separate office and, in 1990, a pole barn and corral

for livestock. The east side DCP, which was being drafted at that time, proposed consolidating

all maintenance operations in this location. In 1991, a native plant nursery was established in

the old YACC area as well. It was used to grow plants for revegetating the now-retired Chalone

Creek Campground and for restoring erosion scars along heavily used trails.28 A large visitor

parking lot was also constructed here to accommodate overflow traffic during peak seasons.

The east side DCP proposed making this a permanent feature and eventually constructing

a shuttle terminal as well. By the mid-nineties, the YACC area had evolved into one of the

principal developed areas in the monument, and further growth was planned.

A number of miscellaneous, small-scale projects were undertaken throughout these years on

both sides of the monument. Little of this work was supported by an implementation plan,

drive them during sixteen of the busiest weekends that year. The experiment worked out so well that it was continued

every year thereafter.

27. David Lah, Youth Corps Profiles: The Young Adult Conservation Corps, the Wisconsin Conservation Corps, the

Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps, the Texas Conservation Corps (Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures,

1986).

28. Plants grown on an experimental basis during the first year of the nursery were chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum),

buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus), wild rose (Rosa californica), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum).

Seeds from other species were also collected. This was the first native plant nursery at Pinnacles since Lange’s

experiments during the 1930s. The project was discontinued after the 1998 floods [“Resource Management

Accomplishments for FY91,” Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 16, f. 31, PNM.]

241
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

but at the same time, none of it departed significantly from the broader objectives of the

Master Plan. On the west side, one of the largest projects was the rehabilitation of water and

sewage systems in 1988. These had been damaged by the 1983 floods, forcing the closure of

the Mission 66 comfort station (Building #518). The comfort station was reopened once the

utilities were restored later that year. In 1993, a garage extension was built onto the Chaparral

Maintenance Warehouse (Building #521) so that the fire truck and associated equipment

could be kept indoors. This was considered important for safety reasons, since occasional

freezing temperatures in the monument could render fire hoses inoperable if they were left

outside.29 The project also provided a valuable training opportunity for maintenance staff.

In 1996, a photovoltaic power system was installed to replace the noisy diesel generators that

had been used since 1966 to supply all electrical power on the west side. The monument had

always intended the generators to be a temporary solution until they could be replaced by an

extension from the county power grid, managed by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. This

idea was abandoned only after it became apparent that there would not be enough users on

the proposed extension to make it cost-effective for the power company to install. The diesel

generators continued to be used until advances in technology made photovoltaic production a

practical alternative.

On the east side, one of the last CCC projects was finally completed in 1977, when the final

pieces of stone facing on the Bear Gulch Dam were installed. The CCC enrollees had quarried

and stockpiled the stone back in 1940, but it had remained unused since their departure the

following year. Other projects on the east side included a new visitor contact station, which was

constructed in 1990 and placed at the east entrance on Highway 146. Plans were also made to

widen the road around the contact station and build a parking area in the adjacent meadow.

Although the latter proposal was never implemented, an archeological investigation of the site

was made, which confirmed the existence of an extensive artifact scatter observed by Haversat

and Breschini several years earlier.30 Another small but important project undertaken on the

east side was the construction of a residential duplex in the Chalone Creek area. Superintendent

Sleznick observed that this was the first park housing project to be constructed at Pinnacles in

nearly fifty years.31 The building housed two seasonal park rangers and represented the first

installment of the proposed Chalone Creek residential compound.

Trails remained an active program during these decades. One of the most important of

Pinnacles’ later trails was constructed between 1974 and 1976 up Juniper Canyon on the west

side of the High Peaks.32 After the Balconies Cliff Trail, this was the only formal connection

29. The maintenance warehouse was built in 1966 and originally located in Juniper Canyon. It was moved to its

present location in 1975 when construction began on the Juniper Canyon Trail. The building also housed the diesel

generators that supplied electrical power for the west side until 1996 a temporary building for the generator and

maintenance shop was constructed in Juniper Canyon in 1966, then moved out of the canyon in 1975 when the

Juniper Canyon Trail was started. [Development and Maintenance Reports, 1967–1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 9, ff. 15-17, PNM; Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1975, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17, PNM;

Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1996, Box 15, ff. 17 & 19, PNM; and Building Files, 1991–93, Mus. Coll.

PINN 3658, Box 10, f. 2, PNM.]

30. Richard G. Ervin, Report of Archeological Investigations Associated with Pinnacles East Entrance Station and Parking

Lot, PINN 84B (Tucson, AZ: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1984). [Mus. Coll. PINN 3658,

Box 19, f.13, PNM]. The earlier observations were made by Haversat and Breschini in 1981. [op. cit.]

31. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1991, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 19, PNM.

32. Ibid.

242
Development and Growth after Mission 66

between the monument’s principal east side development and its neglected west side. The

Juniper Canyon Trail had originally been proposed by Herman Hermansen in his 1925 trail

plan.33 It had been proposed again in 1928 by NPS engineers during their initial reconnaissance

for the High Peaks Trail.34 These men had appreciated the route’s inherent scenic quality but

also recognized its value as a means to connect the east side trail system with the west side

of the monument. The latter had also hoped to take advantage of Oak Tree Spring, which

lies at the mouth of Juniper Canyon near the present Chaparral Ranger Station, but when it

was discovered that the spring frequently dries up in the summer, plans for this extension of

the High Peaks Trail system were temporarily abandoned. When the Park Service was once

more able to initiate new construction after World War II with its Mission 66 program, the

Juniper Canyon Trail was again proposed. Although work did not start for another ten years,

the project was guided by the final Mission 66 Master Plan of 1965 and was probably the last

project at Pinnacles to have any direct relationship to this program.35

Shortly before the Juniper Canyon Trail was constructed, a much smaller—but still

significant—trail project was completed in 1972. This was the Bear Gulch Trail, which

follows lower Bear Gulch Creek from its confluence with Chalone Creek to Park Headquarters

half way up the canyon. The trail was funded through a safety appropriations from the Regional

Office and was justified as a means of getting visitors off the dangerously narrow Bear Gulch

Entrance Road. This had become necessary after visitor facilities began to be moved out of

Bear Gulch. By 1972, all overnight camping on the east side was located on Chalone Creek,

and visitors who chose not to drive were forced to walk up the Bear Gulch Entrance Road to

get from their camp site to the principal monument trailheads. The new trail made it possible

to enjoy a much safer and more pleasant hike without being disturbed by passing cars. This was

actually the second trail to be built up Bear Gulch, but the first one, built by Viggo Petersen

and Herman Hermansen in 1922, had been obliterated in 1925 with the construction of the

improved auto road up the canyon. Petersen’s trail had been cut into the north side of the

canyon about a third of the way up from the toe of the slope. The new trail followed the creek

through the bottom of the canyon for most of its distance, climbing only slightly up the north

wall to get around the falls where Bear Gulch Creek descends over an ancient landslide.36

At the bottom of the canyon, the Bear Gulch Trail joined the Bench Trail, which runs along

Chalone Creek. This trail went north from the mouth of Bear Gulch to the group campground

at the Chalone Annex and was probably constructed sometime around 1962 when the

campground first opened. In 1978, when the private Pinnacles Campground was established

on Sandy Creek, the Bench Trail was extended south from Bear Gulch to provide access to the

new facility. A portion of this trail lying between the present Peaks View parking area and the

fire road on Chalone Bench was later widened and surfaced with decomposed granite to make

it accessible in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. With the

closure of the Chalone Creek Campgrounds in 1979, the northern segment of the Bench Trail

was used far less than before but remained important for hikers as a link between the High

Peaks Trailhead and Bear Gulch or the new Pinnacles Campground.37

33. Hermansen to Director, January 5, 1925, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 6, Box 337, NARA II.

34. A.B. Lewellen, “Reconnaissance Survey and Study . . . ,” January 10, 1929, PINN Coll., RG 79, Entry 7, Box

607, NARA II.

35. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1972–1981, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17, PNM.

36. Sup. Narr. Reports, 1972–1981, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17, PNM.

37. Ibid.; Lisa Smith, Trails Supervisor, Pinnacles National Monument, pers. comm., 2008.

243
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

In 1976, a system of wilderness trails was proposed to bring hikers into some of the more

remote areas of the monument. One of the principal interests driving this proposal was the

hope that the ever-increasing number of visitors might be dispersed more evenly if the leastused parts of the monument were opened up. By this time, the majority of the monument’s

land area lay within designated wilderness and the only development that was permitted here

under the conditions of the Wilderness Act was trail construction. These trails would not

be constructed like other trails in the non-wilderness parts of the monument, however, but

simply brushed in with occasional markers installed to indicate the route. Three such trails

were planned, one through the North Wilderness area, another through the South Wilderness,

and one up Frog Canyon to the saddle between North and South Chalone Peaks, but the last

of these, the Frog Canyon Trail, was soon abandoned owing to the difficulty of the terrain.

The other two trails were both completed. The North Wilderness Trail was put in during the

latter half of the 1980s and remains one of the longest in the monument. It follows the east

fork of Chalone Creek for most of its course, before turning south near the western boundary

of the monument and descending to the Chaparral Ranger Station. This was roughly the

same route that had only recently been considered for the cross-monument road, though the

modern hiker might find it difficult to imagine a car bumping along these rugged canyons.38

The South Wilderness Trail was also put in during the late 1980s.39 It originates on the

Chalone Bench and follows Chalone Creek for a little over three miles to a dead-end just

south of Horse Valley at Little Sycamore Flat. This route was followed by one of the earliest

roads in the area, once used by homesteaders to connect their settlements in Bear Valley with

those in Dry Lake. The original road continued all the way to the Salinas Valley through the

Topo Ranch, but successive floods had all but obliterated it by the 1920s. By the time this

land was added to the monument in 1976, the road had ceased to be maintained and was no

longer passable.40 Little evidence of the road remains today or of the homesteads that once lay

along it.

By the 1980s, habitat protection and restoration were becoming a significant part of the trails

program. In many areas around the most popular trails, the land was being eroded and denuded

of vegetation as a result of hikers cutting switchbacks. The park began installing temporary

fences to protect these damaged areas and in the 1980s initiated a program of revegetation.

The plant nursery established in 1991 near the trails office was used to grow native species for

outplanting in these disturbed areas.41 Another major source of habitat degradation was rock

climbing, which had become very popular by this time. Climbers were cutting random social

paths to their favorite climbing walls and often trampled large areas where they congregated

at the base of these cliffs. In 1988, monument staff began to prepare a management plan

for the cliffs to address these problems. Disturbed areas were targeted for revegetation, but

38. Ibid.

39. It was constructed by laborers from the California Conservation Corps working under a Memorandum of

Agreement with the National Park Service. [Sup. Narr. Reports, 1972–1981, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 17,

PNM.]

40. The exception being the stretch from Highway 146 at the Chalone Bench to the mouth of Horse Valley, which

was still maintained by the Schmidt family as an alternative access to their Horse Valley Ranch. Below the Schmidt

Ranch, however, the road was essentially abandoned.

41. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1991–97, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 19, PNM; Tom Leatherman,

“Pinnacles Nursery,” unpublished field log and manual, Resources Management Division, Pinnacles National

Monument. The plant nursery was destroyed in the 1998 flood.

244
1998: A Dramatic and Decisive Year

to prevent further damage and to confine the impact to as small an area as possible, special

access trails were constructed to the most popular walls, and climbers were asked to utilize only

established routes. One historic trail was also realigned away from a heavily used climbing wall

in order to separate hikers and climbers in the interest of safety. While these measures required

the voluntary cooperation of climbers, they appear to have been largely successful. Periodic

closures of some climbing walls were also introduced at this time to protect cliff-nesting raptors

during their breeding season.42

1998: A Dramatic and Decisive Year

At the end of the 1990s, Pinnacles experienced a turning point in its history every bit

as significant as the early 1970s. Nineteen ninety-eight was a year of unprecedented change

resulting from several major events and management decisions that occurred in close succession.

These would all have important and far-reaching implications for the future of the monument.

The first significant event to occur that year was one of the largest floods in the monument’s

history.43 Over the course of one night—between February 2nd and the early morning of

February 3rd—almost six inches of rain fell, causing Chalone Creek and its tributaries to

overflow their banks. On the west side, the Chaparral Picnic Area and Campground were

almost completely destroyed, buried under three feet of rock and gravel. Nearby building

foundations were also undermined, and underground utilities were exposed and damaged.

On the east side, nearly all utilities were rendered inoperable as pipes and conduits that had

been laid across the stream channel were broken. Most of the buildings in the Bear Gulch

and Chalone Creek development areas were threatened by the flooding waters and saved only

through the diligent efforts of park staff, who built and maintained sand-bag barriers until the

waters subsided three days later. The YACC warehouse and maintenance yard were on high

enough ground to escape damage, but they were completely isolated when the concrete ford

across Chalone Creek washed away. The Trails Office and pole barn were undermined by the

flood waters and severely damaged. The greatest impact, however, was the loss of the 1934

Chalone Creek Bridge, which collapsed when the creek undercut its western abutment early

on the morning of the 3rd. Trails, culverts and footbridges were also damaged or destroyed

throughout the monument.

As staff set about repairing the damage, Pinnacles remained closed to the public for the next

few months. Park headquarters was also closed, because staff could not get up Bear Gulch

with the Chalone Creek Bridge washed out. (The maintenance yard in the YACC area was

also inaccessible.) Superintendent Gary Candelaria was forced to move his base of operations

to temporary quarters at the BLM office in Hollister. Park staff who could not return to their

government housing assignments were put up in motels in nearby communities until utilities

could be restored at the monument. Some semblance of normalcy finally began to return at

the end of March when a temporary Bailey Bridge was erected across Chalone Creek, allowing

vehicles to drive up to Bear Gulch headquarters again. The east side reopened to the public a

week later on April 4th. The west side did not open for another month, on May 5th, after the

heavily damaged entrance road had been repaired.

42. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1986–1990, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 18, PNM; Lisa Smith,

Trails Supervisor, Pinnacles National Monument, pers. comm., 2008.

43. The flood of 1911 may have been larger and more destructive, but there were no staff in residence at that time

to record it.

245
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

In the long term, the 1998 floods had their greatest impact on planning, as the Park Service

began to reconsider past design decisions that had placed so much of the monument’s

infrastructure within vulnerable flood plains. As Superintendent Candelaria eloquently

pointed out:

Chalone Creek Bridge failed because its abutments were in the streambed. The Chaparral

housing and administrative sites were damaged because they are in the streambed. The

Chaparral campground and picnic areas and utilities were destroyed because they are in

the West Fork streambed. The low-water crossing failed because it is in the Chalone Creek

streambed. The Bear Gulch waterline was destroyed because it was in the streambed. The

Chalone Creek housing septic system failed because it is in the streambed. It is time to get

out of the streambeds at Pinnacles.44

It was hard to argue with this conclusion, and Candelaria’s advice was eventually implemented

wherever possible. The west side campground was closed for good, although the rest of the

development in that area could not be removed until an alternative administrative center was

built. East side development on Chalone Creek was also modified. In the old campground

area, the remaining structures on the west bank of the creek (the Chalone Creek Annex) were

removed, and the Old Pinnacles Road was later replaced with a trail and realigned in order

to restore as much of the original channel width as possible, thus reducing the likelihood

of further flooding in the residential area downstream.45 The Chalone Creek Bridge was

eventually replaced, and the abutments of the new structure were placed much further back

than in the original, creating a wider span to accommodate movement of the creek channel

and greater volumes of water. But probably the most significant change on the east side made

in response to the 1998 floods was the complete retirement of the YACC facility. Although

none of the structures themselves had been affected, the destruction of the low-water road

crossing had convinced park planners to avoid locating essential facilities where they could

be accessed only by crossing the streambed. This was an important decision, since the YACC

facility was meant to accommodate all of the monument’s maintenance operations, and no

alternative site had been selected. For lack of a better solution, maintenance remained in the

old CCC camp next to the new residential compound. The YACC facility was demolished—

along with the horse stable and corral, plant nursery, and visitor parking lot—and the entire

area was restored to natural conditions.46

Several other major events occurred in 1998 that affected the administration of the monument.

Already mentioned in the previous chapter was the burglary that occurred on the night of

May 2nd. This incident strongly reinforced the Park Service’s decision to manage Pinnacles

for day use only, and the gates began closing shortly after dusk that year for the first time in

the monument’s history. The other major event of 1998 was the Stonewall Fire, which burned

about 1,650 acres of the park between the 3rd and 12th of August.47 This was one of the

44. Superintendent Gary Candelaria to Regional Director, February 26, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 8, f.

28, PNM.

45. During the 1930s, the CCC had built up and widened the Old Pinnacles Road on a raised berm, narrowing the

bed of Chalone Creek and increasing the intensity of stream flow during flood events. This was a significant factor

contributing to damage further downstream.

46. However, a dump that had been actively used since the 1930s was simply buried and continues to turn up

rubbish with each new erosional event.

47. Janice Rea, Stonewall Incident Fire Narrative BEU2661, National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument,

1998.

246
1998: A Dramatic and Decisive Year

Figure 56. The original Chalone Creek Bridge on February 3, 1998, after floodwaters undermined the

abutments. [Mus. Coll. PINN 4372, PNM.]

largest fires to burn inside the monument since 1931.48 Although the Stonewall Fire could

have been viewed as a natural catastrophe—and probably would have been only thirty years

earlier—Superintendent Candelaria saw its impact as chiefly positive.49 The fire consumed

dense thickets of vegetation that were already scheduled for prescription burning and seemed

to improve natural habitat. At the same time, it revealed new archeological resources without

causing any significant damage to them.50 The only resource destroyed by the fire was about

three miles of recently completed pig fence. This positive estimation of the Stonewall Fire was

itself a truly significant event, representing a profound change in attitude toward fire among

park staff and resource managers since the days of active suppression. While suppression had

ceased to be the unconditional policy of the National Park Service in 1968, the Stonewall Fire

represented the first major test at Pinnacles of the agency’s new philosophy. It also represented

a test of the new wilderness ethic, since it was one of the first large fires to burn in the

recently designated wilderness areas, and care was taken to utilize appropriate fire-fighting

tactics—heavy machinery, for example, was avoided.51

48. Several other large fires (i.e., greater than five hundred acres) had crossed into the monument in recent years,

most notably in 1974 when a controlled burn being conducted by the CDF jumped the fireline and burned part of

South Chalone Peak. But the Stonewall Fire was the most significant wildfire in recent years. [National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, Fire Management Plan, June 2007, p. 32.]

49. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 15, PNM.

50. Lisa Schub, Stonewall Fire Cultural Resources Damage Assessment Project, Pinnacles National Monument, National

Park Service, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, January 1998.

51. Bulldozers were used only on adjacent non-designated BLM lands to protect nearby private property when these

resources appeared threatened.

247
Chapter Seven Planning for the Future, 1966–1998

Another important event associated with this watershed year was the study of a population

of Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) that had been discovered in the Bear

Gulch Caves the previous season. This bat has no legal status but is rare in California and

considered a species of special concern. Between two hundred and four hundred bats were

using the Bear Gulch Caves as a maternal roost. As soon as this was discovered in the summer

of 1997, the caves were closed to the public and remained closed for the duration of 1998 as

a result of the February floods. This initial study led to the preparation of a Bear Gulch Cave

Management Plan, which established seasonal closures of portions of the caves to protect the

bats during their breeding season.52 This policy is still in practice.

Finally, of all the events that occurred in 1998, the one that would have the most profound

effect on the future of the monument was Superintendent Candelaria’s decision to purchase

the Pinnacles Ranch. The Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company had been interested in selling

their two-thousand-acre ranch for several years now. In 1992, the company had cooperated

with the Sierra Club to propose authorization for the Park Service to acquire it. State Senator

Henry Mello had agreed to sponsor this proposal, but at that time the Park Service was not

interested, because Superintendent James Sleznick believed the land was not appropriate for

a national park.53 The most he was willing to consider was a small parcel of a few acres or so

for an administrative center outside the monument’s boundaries.54 Regional Director Stanley

Albright agreed with Sleznick, arguing that the ranch was too large for the Park Service to

purchase and recommended that a private party step in to preserve it instead.55 Fortunately,

the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company did not look for other buyers at that time, and the

matter was temporarily forgotten.

Then in 1998 the proposal was brought up once more when the new superintendent,

Gary Candelaria, who had a very different opinion of the value of the Pinnacles Ranch,

renewed negotiations with the Pinnacles Land and Cattle Company.56 To legally authorize

the acquisition, Superintendent Candelaria requested Presidential approval to expand the

monument’s boundary. The proposed authorization would include some three thousand acres

of private lands—approximately two-thirds of which was represented by Pinnacles Ranch—

and more than eight thousand acres of adjacent BLM lands.57 (These included the same

lands that the BLM had intended to convey to the Park Service back in 1983, until an

interagency dispute over the pig fence had soured the arrangement.) President Clinton signed

the authorization in January of 2000, allowing Pinnacles to add as much as eleven thousand

acres to its existing area. The BLM lands were conveyed that same year, while negotiations

52. Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 15, PNM; and National Park

Service, Pinnacles National Monument, Bear Gulch Caves Management Plan, 2003.

53. Henry Mello, State Senator, to Stanley Albright, Western Regional Director, June 12, 1992, Mus. Coll. PINN

3658, Box 16, f. 31, PNM.

54. James Sleznick, interviewed by author January 18, 2007. Sleznick had expressed an active interest in this idea

since at least 1987. [James Sleznick to Russ Butcher, October 1, 1987, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f. 1, PNM].]

55. Albright to Mello, July 1, 1992, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 22, f.1, PNM.

56. National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, Preproposal: Acquisition of the Pinnacles Ranch, 1998,

Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 35, f. 16, PNM.

57. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 15, PNM.

248
1998: A Dramatic and Decisive Year

proceeded for the purchase of the remaining private lands.58 Eventually, all but about seven

hundred acres of these lands were purchased, with Pinnacles Ranch finally acquired on March

15, 2006.

In 1998, the regional office had just started preparing a new General Management Plan (GMP)

for Pinnacles, but the unexpected decision to acquire the new lands abruptly postponed this

process. Over the next eight years, most of the monument’s attention would be devoted to the

land acquisition, and the GMP would not be taken up again until 2007. By that time, the

monument had changed so dramatically from what it had been in 1976 when the previous

plan was approved that many of the existing management objectives and goals would have

to be seriously reconsidered. In a few instances, this was due to the old objectives becoming

irrelevant, but in most cases it was because new opportunities had been made available. The

addition of Pinnacles Ranch—now referred to as the Bottomlands—would bring large areas

of meadow, riparian, wetland, and oak savannah habitats into the monument. It would also

bring many new cultural and ethnographic resources, as well as a large camping concession. All

of these additions would present park staff with significant challenges as well as opportunities

and require substantially new strategies for management.

58. On December 19, 2002, Public Law 107-370 designated as federal wilderness approximately 2,715 of these

added public lands, bringing the total area of the Pinnacles Wilderness to just under 16,000 acres. About 5,500

acres of the added BLM lands had been listed as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) at the time of their conveyance to

the NPS in 2000.

249

Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

As discussed in the previous chapter, 1998 was a year of both endings and new beginnings.

The dramatic floods caused damage to most of the monument’s infrastructure and washed

some of it entirely away. This raised important and unavoidable questions about the nature of

the extensive building program that had begun all the way back in 1928 with Thomas Vint’s

original development outline. Although little actual construction had occurred in the last few

decades, the pattern of development that had been established in the 1920s still prevailed

and, in some cases, even guided new proposals. For example, the planned consolidation of

maintenance facilities in the old YACC Area on Chalone Creek was consistent with these

early development principles and reflected both the best and worst qualities of traditional Park

Service design. On the one hand, the proposal aimed to bring all related operations together

in a single facility. This would maximize working efficiency but also reduce the overall impact

of the development on surrounding scenery by concentrating it in a single location. The visual

impact would be further lessened by placing the facility on the far side of Chalone Creek, away

from most visitor traffic and largely out-of-sight, though still relatively accessible by park staff.

On the negative side, these design objectives largely ignored natural processes. The YACC site

seemed ideal as far as aesthetics and operational logistics, but from an environmental point-ofview, it was a terrible choice. Not only was the facility vulnerable to flood damage, but it posed

a potentially negative impact to one of the most sensitive habitat types in the monument.1

The same was true of most other development in Pinnacles. The floods that rendered the

YACC facility unusable revealed an essential flaw in traditional Park Service design values, and

demonstrated the need for paying greater attention to natural processes in future development.

Although in theory this had already become a priority with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1970 and the new planning protocols that were introduced in response to it, many

design decisions still reflected earlier values or had already been made many years before. It

would take a dramatic natural event to break the momentum of this tradition. The 1998 floods

closed one chapter on Park Service planning at Pinnacles but opened another. Previously,

aesthetics had been the leading force driving design. In the future, science would play an equal,

if not greater, part.

1. The 1999 Resources Management Plan noted that “Pinnacles National Monument is not a static ‘monument’ to

be improved and neutralized. Natural geomorphic processes must be given the right of way or negative ecological

consequences will result. The mitigation of hazards will test the resolve of management more than any other facet

of resource management.” This includes fluvial geomorphology, and the RMP also noted,“The bed material [of

Chalone Creek] is highly mobile. High turbulent flows over the streambed are likely to drastically change channel

shape and slope, creating greater uncertainty in predicting high water limits and flood zones. Significant channel

geometry changes can be expected with a ten-year flood event or larger.” With respect to the vulnerability of Chalone

Creek to development, the same report noted that “habitat is vital for the survival of amphibian species. The riparian

corridors are constantly being encroached upon by development in the park. This encroachment destroys or degrades

this essential habitat.” [United States Department of the Interior, Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan

(Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1999.]
Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

The Stonewall Fire, which occurred several months later, only reinforced these emerging

reconceptions. It illustrated both the futility of complete suppression and the apparent benefit

provided by allowing fires to burn in a vegetative habitat which was adapted to a fire regime.

Superintendent Candelaria wrote enthusiastically about the ecological role of this natural

event.2 Less positive were the implications of the robberies that also occurred that year.

Prior to this time, Pinnacles had experienced little of the problems associated with big cities,

but now it seemed that these problems would play a part in the future management of the

monument. Pinnacles was no longer an isolated rural park. Projected growth for Monterey

County suggested that these developments were harbingers rather than anomalies, and the

future could be expected to bring both greater crowds and increasing crime.3

Natural Resources

Over the following decade, many substantial changes occurred at Pinnacles. Probably the

most visible was the acquisition of the two-thousand-acre Pinnacles Ranch in 2006. Although

a much larger area of land—eight thousand acres—had been acquired from the BLM in

2000, this went largely unnoticed by the general public and required little in the way of new

management obligations from staff, because the BLM lands were mostly remote, chaparralcovered hills at the far northern and southern edges of the monument. Much of this land

had already been classified as Wilderness Study Areas and would soon be designated part of

an expanded Pinnacles Wilderness in 2002.4 By contrast, Pinnacles Ranch drew considerably

more attention and posed many new challenges for Park staff. For example, it brought with it

the responsibility of managing a large campground. This represented a reversal of the policy

adopted with the 1976 Master Plan, which had proposed that Pinnacles be managed for day

use only and directed the staff to retire or abandon all overnight facilities. But that decision had

been made at least partly in response to the lack of sufficient land area appropriate for overnight

camping. The extensive bottomlands in Pinnacles Ranch now allowed the Park Service to

reconsider this earlier policy, and the decision was made to retain the existing campground.

With this decision, a whole new set of questions and problems was raised. For example, how

would the campground be managed—by the Park Service or by a private concessionaire under

contract to the Park Service? Equally important was the question of maintenance. Many of

the existing utilities had deteriorated and would have to be repaired or upgraded right away to

bring them into compliance with federal standards so that the campground could even remain

open. A larger but less immediate issue was the design of the campground. A substantial part

of it had been built within the channel of Sandy Creek and included sensitive riparian and

wetland habitat around the confluence of McCabe Creek. Simply retiring this poorly sited

development would not be easy, since alternative sites would have to be found and developed

to accommodate the large numbers of visitors who use the campground during peak seasons.

2. Superintendent’s Narrative Reports, 1998, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 15, f. 15, PNM.

3. NPS regional planners expect the current pattern of significant population growth to continue: “Since the 1976

Master Plan was approved, the population of Hollister, San Benito County’s largest community, has grown 248 %

from 18,226 to 63,600. Projected growth by 2020 for this region is estimated at 35% overall and upwards of 50 %

for the small communities such as Soledad that are gateways for Pinnacles.” [“Project Agreement, Pinnacles National

Monument General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Assessment; Draft,”

March 5, 2007, Park Files, Resources Library, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA.]

4. On December 19, 2002, President Clinton signed Public Law 107-370, which among other things increased the

Pinnacles Wilderness Area by the addition of approximately 2,715 acres.

252
Natural Resources

Pigs represented another challenge posed by the acquisition of Pinnacles Ranch. The pig fence

had scarcely been finished and the last pig killed within the original exclusion area when

the new lands were added to the monument. Since Pinnacles Ranch contains much valuable

habitat that is especially vulnerable to pigs—including wetlands in McCabe Canyon, riparian

woodland, and oak savannah—park managers realized that the pig fence would have to be

extended around these areas as well, or some portion of them. The problem was especially

acute here, because Pinnacles Ranch was popular with the pigs themselves, and large numbers

congregated in it, especially at the campground and in McCabe Canyon.

McCabe Canyon was soon recognized to be one of the highest priorities for protection when the

value of its natural (and possibly cultural) resources became apparent. Not only did it contain

one of the few artesian springs in the area—which attracted the pigs—but it also possessed

extensive beds of native deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens) and white-root sedge (Carex barbarae),

both of which are important fiber sources traditionally used by Native Californians. The

unusual abundance of these plants occurring in an area that is naturally suited for seasonal, or

even permanent, residence suggests that the site may have been utilized in prehistoric times by

local tribes. Though this has yet to be demonstrated, the site remains valuable to contemporary

Native Californians who still practice the traditional arts of basketweaving, and Park staff have

approached representatives of the local Amah Mutsun people as well as representatives of the

California Indian Basketweavers Association (CIBA) to discuss options for cooperating in the

management of these resources.

One of these management options includes the reintroduction of fire, which Native

Californians are believed to have used to manage species like deergrass.5A new Fire Management

Plan (FMP) was completed in 2007, which identified as its preferred alternative a prescribed

burn program for oak woodlands and valley grasslands like those in McCabe Canyon.6

The purpose of this treatment would be the restoration of native herbaceous cover. The Fire

Management Plan notes that these areas were probably burned intensively by Native Americans

in pre-contact times in order to manage fiber sources like the deergrass and to improve the

productivity of various food sources. The reintroduction of prescribed fire would therefore

help preserve the ethnographic resources of local Native Americans at the same time as it served

Park Service goals for natural resource management. One of the important natural resource

objectives of burning valley grasslands is the control of invasive exotic species like yellow star

thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), which has become widespread throughout Pinnacles Ranch as

a result of ground disturbance from cultivation, poorly timed mowing, and cattle grazing in

relatively recent times.

The new Fire Management Plan represents a reinvigoration of Pinnacles’ prescribed burn

program after some two decades of neglect. The original program, which was introduced

with much enthusiasm at the end of the seventies, had begun to languish by the mid-eighties.

The last year in which significant acreage was burned was 1982, though a handful of small

prescription burns were conducted in the late eighties (1986 and 1987) and in the late nineties

(1996, 1997, and 1999). All prescription burning was halted Agency-wide in 1999 as a result

5. Henry T. Lewis, “Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory,” in Before the Wilderness:

Environmental Management by Native Californians, ed. by Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson (Menlo Park,

CA: Ballena Press, 1993); Jon Keeley, “Native American Impacts on Fire Regimes of the California Coastal Ranges,”

Journal of Biogeography 29 (2002): 303–320; M. Kat Anderson, Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and

the Management of California’s Natural Resources (Berkeley: University of California, 2005).

6. National Park Service, Fire Management Plan, Pinnacles National Monument, June 2007 (on file at Pinnacles

National Monument).

253
Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

of an escaped burn at Los Alamos (New Mexico), but at Pinnacles the decline of the program

was due in even greater part to questions about the role of fire in chaparral vegetation. The

original program, based on a proposal written by Harold Biswell in 1976, assumed that fire

was necessary to preserve the health of chaparral. Biswell and other fire ecologists at that time

believed that a relatively short fire return interval was normal in this ecosystem but that human

intervention, dating from the early twentieth century, had successfully suppressed the natural

fire regime and produced extensive, impenetrable thickets of senescent brush and excessive

fuel loading. Biswell’s plan had proposed introducing a regime of relatively frequent prescribed

burns to create a more open mosaic of heterogeneously aged plants and to establish buffers

with minimal fuel loading around developed areas. It was thought that this would not only

improve safety by reducing the potential for intense crown fires but would also improve the

overall health of the chaparral ecosystem.7

Later assessments of this program showed that, where it had been implemented, vegetation

was being type-converted from chaparral to grassland, with exotic annual grasses dominating.

At the same time, new research was beginning to challenge the Park Service’s original theories

about the relationship between fire and chaparral.8 Fire is no longer thought to be necessary to

preserve stand vigor, and healthy populations of “old growth” chaparral have been discovered

and found to be crucial habitat for a number of other plant and animal species.9 Chaparral

is believed to be adapted to a fire regime in which intense fires occur, but only relatively

infrequently. The natural fire return interval in California’s coastal hills is now thought to

be forty to one hundred years, and historic suppression activities are no longer believed to

have been successful. In fact, the historic record at Pinnacles suggests that fires have occurred

more frequently during the period of active suppression than before it.10 As a result of this

reassessment, prescribed fire will no longer be applied to the chaparral except where typeconversion of the brushland is actually desired to create safety buffers. Instead, prescribed

burning will largely be restricted to oak savannah and valley grasslands where it is believed

that an intensive fire regime will benefit both ecological and ethnographic objectives. The

possibility of prescribed burns in designated wilderness areas will be re-evaluated at a future

date in a proposed Wilderness Management Plan.

A significant obstacle confronting the reintroduction of fire to the monument, however, will be

the need to balance burn plans with air quality restrictions. Pinnacles was designated a Class I

air quality zone under the Clean Air Act of 1977. This is the highest classification prescribed by

the act and requires the monument to actively prevent impairment of its air quality. Particulate

and ozone pollution from encroaching urbanization, especially within the Salinas Valley to the

west, will make it increasingly difficult to maintain these legislatively mandated standards and

to carry out an active fire management program at the same time. Another obstacle is reflected

in the changing demographics of the region, as more urban-raised people settle in the growing

suburbs near the monument. Unlike the rural population traditionally associated with the

7. Harold Biswell and James Agee, “The Fire Management Plan for Pinnacles National Monument,” Proceedings of

the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks (1979): 1231–1238.

8. Much of this research is being done through the Western Ecological Research Center in Sequoia-Kings Canyon

National Park under the direction of USGS scientist Jon Keeley.

9. Jon Keeley, “Chaparral and Fire” Fremontia 35.4 (2007): 16–21; Jon Keeley, “Fire Management of California

Shrubland Landscapes” Environmental Management 29.3 (2002): 395–408.

10. Jon Keeley, Ibid. This interpretation is supported by the evidence presented in Jason Greenlee and Andrew

Moldenke, The History of Wildfires in the Region of the Gabilan Mountains of Central Coastal California, 1981 (Mus.

Coll. PINN 3658, Box 39, f. 7), which is referenced in the 2007 Fire Management Plan.

254
Natural Resources

area, these newcomers have little understanding or appreciation of the integral place of fire in

the local ecology and often object to burning for aesthetic reasons.

Another important resources program to be implemented during the last decade was the

reintroduction of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). This program already had

considerable precedent in earlier attempts to reintroduce peregrine falcons as well as in ongoing

raptor monitoring and protection efforts. Both the peregrine and condor had been extirpated

from the monument decades earlier. The last condor nest to be documented in the Pinnacles

dates to 1898, when local rancher Ben Bacon recalls taking an egg from the High Peaks.11 By

1987, the California condor had gone extinct in the wild, and the species survived only as

part of a captive breeding program. A tentative reintroduction began five years later when the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released the first captive bred bird at Sespe Condor

Sanctuary in Ventura County, and in 1997 the Ventana Wildlife Society (VWS) released nine

birds at Big Sur on the coast not far from Pinnacles. By 2003, a total of eighty condors had

been returned to the wild. That same year, Pinnacles entered into a cooperative agreement with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ventana Wildlife Society to assist in the recovery

program. A temporary holding pen was constructed at a remote location in the southern

end of the monument, and captive bred condors were brought here for release. The initial

phase of this program proposed releasing between twenty and thirty condors over a period

of fifteen years. During this time, program staff would provide lead-free carcasses to feed the

birds. Another aspect of the program would focus on educating hunters about the danger of

lead to condors—thought to be the chief factor in the decline of their population—and try

to convince them to adopt lead-free ammunition. This public outreach would not begin in

earnest, however, until 2006 after Pinnacles had overcome the more fundamental challenges

of building essential infrastructure and staffing just to get the program going.12

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) suffered a similar fate as the condor, coming close to

extinction by the 1970s as a result of DDT poisoning. After this pesticide was banned in 1972,

a captive breeding program resulted in a dramatic recovery of the species, and the peregrine

falcon was removed from the federal endangered species list in 1999. Prior to the bird’s specieswide collapse, Pinnacles once had a nesting population. These birds were first documented in

the 1930s, and in 1939 a sanctuary was established in the Balconies Cliffs area to protect them

and other resident cliff-nesting raptors like the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), but the effects

of DDT began to show themselves soon afterward and the population went into decline over

the next ten years. The last active nest to be seen inside the monument was documented in

the early 1950s, and by 1962 the peregrine falcon had been extirpated from the region. With

statewide recovery in full swing by the 1980s, however, the National Park Service entered into

a cooperative agreement with the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group (SCPBRG) to

reintroduce peregrines into the monument by cross-fostering peregrine chicks with prairie

falcons, whose population at Pinnacles remained healthy. For each of three years beginning

in 1989, two peregrine chicks were placed in a host prairie falcon nest in the hope that the

11. He reported this to Custodian Hawkins in 1933, who forwarded the information to wildlife biologist George

Wright (Hawkins to Wright, March 22, 1933, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 1, f. 4, PNM).

12. Oakland Museum of California, “Bringing the Condors Home” exhibition presented by the Natural Sciences

Department in cooperation with the Ventana Wilderness Society, December 16, 2006 to April 15, 2007, Oakland,

CA; National Park Service, California Condor Re-establishment in Pinnacles National Monument: Environmental

Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, 2003; Noel F.R. Snyder and Helen A. Snyder, Introduction to the

California Condor (Berkeley: University of California, 2005).

255
Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

mature birds would later return to Pinnacles on their own. At least one of the cross-fostered

males has done so.13

In 1988, Pinnacles staff began conducting annual inventories of cliff-nesting raptors, an effort

that provided valuable information to assist in the reintroduction efforts. The most numerous

species found to nest here is the prairie falcon, but golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and American

kestrels also regularly breed in the monument. Concern over the potential impact on these

birds from human intrusion into their nesting habitat led to the implementation of these

inventories. Particularly worrisome was the growing popularity of rock-climbing, a sport that

brought humans into direct conflict with the nesting raptors. In order to mitigate this impact,

Park staff have conducted outreach to the climbing community to educate climbers about these

birds and to request their voluntary cooperation in avoiding certain areas of the monument

during nesting season. The monument intends to address this issue more formally in a Cliff

Management Plan, which will be part of a comprehensive Wilderness Management Plan. Both

are currently postponed until the completion of the General Management Plan (GMP), now

underway. The Cliff Management Plan will also address impacts to the rock itself (as a result of

bolting and other climbing technologies) as well as erosion and denuding of vegetation around

the base of popular climbing walls. Interim measures have already been taken to mitigate these

impacts by constructing special access trails and by requesting the voluntary cooperation of

climbers to use only designated climbing routes. Restoration of heavily disturbed areas has been

undertaken through construction of erosion barriers and outplanting of native vegetation.

A resource program with relatively high public visibility has been the management of

Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) in the Bear Gulch Caves. As mentioned

earlier, a maternal colony was discovered here in 1997, just prior to the 1998 floods. (Small

numbers of Townsend’s big-eared bats had been noticed in the caves as early as 1963.) A fouryear study determined that the caves provided ideal habitat not only for maternity but also for

hibernation and concluded that the caves were critical for the survival of the bat colony. Since

this is a California species of special concern, the survival of the Bear Gulch Caves colony was

considered to be important for the continued survival of the species as a whole. In response

to this study, a Cave Management Plan was prepared and a management alternative chosen

that would require closure of a portion of the cave system during most of the year. In order to

isolate this section of the caves from the remainder of the system, which would remain open

to visitors, gates were installed and a two-hundred-foot section of new trail constructed to

provide access to an intermediate exit point. This work was completed in 2003.14

Other important resource programs that have continued from before 1998 include refining

the vegetation map with ground truthing of remote imagery made in 1983. However, the

addition of the new lands has created an urgent need for new vegetation mapping. In general,

collection of comprehensive baseline data on nearly all biological resources at Pinnacles remains

a high priority. Although some subjects have been studied more or less adequately, significant

13. R.M. Bond, “Special Report on the Proposed Peregrine Area in the Pinnacles National Monument” (1936)

[internal report]; J.S. Dixon, “Special Report on Falcons Nesting at Pinnacles National Monument, California”

(1940) [internal report]; M. Cymerys and B.J. Walton, “Raptors of the Pinnacles National Monument: Past and

Present Nesting and Possible Impacts of Rock Climbers.” Davis, CA: University of California, Cooperative National

Park Resources Study Unit Technical Report No. 30, 1988).

14. National Park Service, Bear Gulch Cave Management Plan, Pinnacles National Monument: Finding of No

Significant Impact, 2003 (on file at Pinnacles National Monument).

256
Cultural Resources

gaps remain in the knowledge of most of the monument’s natural resources.15 Among those

studies that have been made, one of the most comprehensive is the inventory of vascular plants,

although even this remains an ongoing task with new species identified every year. In 2003, this

knowledge base was significantly expanded into the non-vascular kingdoms with an inventory

of lichens. As a result, the known list of ninety-three lichens was augmented by an additional

two hundred. This new total is estimated to represent 85 percent of the monument’s lichen

resources.16 The larger wildlife species have been recorded from earliest times—formal wildlife

inventories were initiated at Pinnacles during the 1950s—but they have received formal study

in only a few instances (for example, Peter Bennett’s deer browse study from 1963). Many

smaller and less charismatic species—both vertebrate and invertebrate—have gone largely

unnoticed until recent times. Some of the studies that have been done include a frog survey,

a bee and wasp inventory, and an ongoing butterfly inventory. The bee and wasp inventory

identified nearly four hundred individual species, one of the highest concentrations in the

world, suggesting that Pinnacles is an important refugium for this family.

Although Pinnacles was originally set aside to protect the area’s geologic resources, very little

formal attention has been given to geology in recent times. The last serious study of the

monument’s geology was conducted by Vince Matthews in the 1970s, but little new research

has occurred since. A Resource Evaluation is currently underway by the Geologic Resources

Division of the National Park Service, but this does not represent new research. It will simply

consolidate and summarize existing knowledge in one report with an accompanying digital

geologic map.17

In addition to expanding its baseline knowledge of natural resources, the research and resource

management division at Pinnacles also recognizes communication and education to be among

its priorities. This includes in-service learning through sharing of results among different

disciplines, but also includes public outreach, particularly around potentially sensitive issues

where there are differing viewpoints and values, for example, with condor reintroduction

and lead-free ammunition, cave closures to protect the Townsend’s Big-Eared Bats, climbing

closures to protect cliff-nesting raptors, and conflicting views about fire and chaparral

management.18

Cultural Resources

Until very recently, Pinnacle’s principal cultural resources were almost all associated with the

development of the monument itself. These included the rustic architecture and landscape

design carried out by park staff and Depression-era unemployment relief workers during

the 1920s and 1930s. In 1998, a Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) was prepared by the

Pacific West Regional Office to document these resources, which were collectively inventoried

15. The 1999 Resource Management Plan stated, “There is a lack of basic data about many of the park’s natural

resources, its ecosystems and the effects of human activities on these ecosystems. At the same time, there is a wealth

of knowledge available on resources that have been the subjects of research or monitoring.”

16. Shelly Benson, Lichen Inventory of Pinnacles National Monument, unpublished report, December 12, 2003 (on

file at Pinnacles National Monument).

17. Katie KellerLynn, Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Summary, Pinnacles National Monument, California, April

8, 2008.

18. Denise Louie, Chief of Research and Resource Management, Pinnacles National Monument, pers.comm. with

author, April 10, 2008.

257
Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

as the East Entrance Historic District.19 This district was determined eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places with concurrence of the California State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 2002. At the time this CLI was prepared, it was not possible

to document the trails and associated backcountry features, which had been constructed

during the same historic period and possessed similar significance. In 2008, a separate CLI

was therefore undertaken to document these resources as a component of the original 1998

inventory.20 Historic landscapes associated with early homesteading and mining also exist

within the monument on the west side (in or near the Chaparral Area), but these have so far

received only preliminary investigation.21

With the addition of Pinnacles Ranch in the bottomlands, the monument’s historic cultural

resources were increased substantially. Most of these new lands are part of an agricultural

landscape that dates back to the earliest American homesteads in 1865. These resources

provide the monument with an opportunity to manage and interpret the history of the

surrounding region and to strengthen the relationship between Pinnacles and its immediate

neighbors (many of whom are direct descendents of the same families who originally settled

here). The historic homesteads of Pinnacles Ranch were documented through a CLI in 2008,

resulting in designation of the Ben Bacon Ranch Historic District. This district was determined

eligible for listing on the National Register by concurrence of the California SHPO in 2009.

Beginning in 2003, curatorial staff at Point Reyes National Seashore began providing assistance

to improve and upgrade Pinnacles’ museum collection. In 2005, a Museum Management

Plan was developed in order to recommend actions needed to archive, preserve and curate

the monument’s various collections. In accordance with these recommendations, Pinnacles’

central files and photographs were archived and an appropriate facility to permanently house

them is currently being sought. During the interim, these archives have been made available

to a Park Service historian at the Pacific West Regional Office to assist in the preparation of

the present Administrative History, which was initiated at the beginning of 2007. Pinnacles’

Museum Archives Building (Building #13) was also upgraded at this time to provide a safe

and appropriate facility to house those objects that were to remain at the monument. Finally,

a Curator-of-Record was designated, and a Scope of Collections Statement was prepared to

guide future accessions.

Archeology

At present, there are thirty-three recorded archeological sites within Pinnacles National

Monument. Five of these are historic, while the remainder are all associated with pre-contact

Native American activities. One archeological district on the west side has also been listed

on the National Register (and is currently the only listed cultural resource in Pinnacles).

These documented archeological sites represent only a small percentage of the area within

the monument that has been surveyed with any rigor.22 The remainder may contain more

resources, but this has yet to be determined. With the addition of Pinnacles Ranch in 2006,

19. Provencher, Shaun, Kathleen Fitzgerald, and Len Warner. Pinnacles East Entrance District: Cultural Landscape

Inventory, Level II, National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA., 2002.

20. The California SHPO concurred with this amendment in 2009.

21. For example, Lyons Homestead, Pinnacles National Monument, Level 0 Cultural Landscape Inventory, 1998 (on

file at Pacific West Regional Office, Oakland, CA).

22. Only 6 percent before the addition of the new lands (NPS Systemwide Archeological Survey Program, Western

Region Plan, 1994, Mus. Coll. PINN 3658, Box 19, f. 15, PNM).

258
Planning and Development

several new areas known to possess historic archeology were included in the monument, and

the potential for additional prehistoric sites was substantially increased. McCabe Canyon

offers an especially rich opportunity for prehistoric archeology, given that it possesses abundant

water, game species, and extensive stands of various plants known to be important to Native

Americans. The nearly eight thousand acres of BLM lands added to the monument in 2000

also offer potential for new archeological resources, although these lands are less likely to

have been occupied in either prehistoric or historic periods, given their rugged terrain and

predominantly chaparral vegetation. The Park Service currently acknowledges the need for a

more extensive inventory of archeological resources throughout the monument. The addition

of the new lands has only made this need more imperative. Also needed is a new Archeological

Overview and Assessment to replace the study done by John Fritz in 1978. A new overview

should give the park a better appreciation for the comparative utilization of valley bottomlands

and upland chaparral and crags by prehistoric inhabitants now that the monument includes

substantial quantities of both types of landscape.23

Interpretation

In 2004, a new interpretive plan was developed for the monument. Although it acknowledged

some of the dramatic changes that had been occurring around Pinnacles during the recent few

decades—particularly, demographic growth in the gateway communities—this plan was still

contingent upon the existing Master Plan, which dated back to 1976. Among other things, it

assumed that visitor-related infrastructure would be moved to the periphery of the monument

on both east and west sides, with new Visitor Centers built in both locations. On the west side,

this would represent an entirely new level of development (while on the east, it would simply

mean the relocation of existing infrastructure). A new administrative complex, with a Visitor

Center at its core, had been recommended by the 1991 Development Concept Plan for the

west side, and the 2004 Interpretive Plan presupposed the eventual existence of such a facility.

The west side development was assumed to be necessary in order to accommodate the expected

increase in visitation from the Salinas Valley, which was growing much faster than San Benito

County. This proposed development remained an integral part of the planning discussion

among most monument staff up until 2006, when funding was suddenly and unexpectedly

cut from the line-item budget, and construction, which was ready to start at any time, was

indefinitely postponed.

Planning and Development

The 1998 floods, not surprisingly, had a very tangible impact on the facilities and maintenance

division. Not only did the immediate damage have to be repaired but in some cases entirely new

facilities would have to be constructed and others demolished. One of the highest priorities

after the flood was to replace Chalone Creek Bridge. A temporary Bailey Bridge was installed

within a few months of the event to restore access to Bear Gulch, while a permanent bridge

23. Such an expansion of the study area was actually recommended by John Fritz, who believed that the valley

bottomlands would have been more extensively utilized by Native Americans than the more rugged and inaccessible

terrain comprised by the original monument. This relationship was certainly evident among historic Americans,

who occupied and cultivated the former terrain but only visited the latter on special occasions. [John M. Fritz and

Charles Smith, Archeological Overview of Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito County, California (Tucson, AZ:

National Park Service, Western Archeological Center, 1978).]

259
Conclusion: Pinnacles in the Twenty-First Century

was completed within a year. Among those structures demolished were the warehouse and

associated buildings in the old YACC Area.

The storms of that season had shown that siting structures within the floodplain was a bad

idea and convinced park staff to locate future development on higher, more stable ground.

In many instances, however, this would entail modifying existing planning concepts. The

most noticeable example of this was on the east side at Chalone Creek, where the 1993

Development Concept Plan had proposed separating visitor use, staff residence and park

operations by concentrating each type of use in different areas. Up to that time, all three uses

overlapped in the Chalone Developed Area, site of the old CCC camp and later the Chalone

Campground. Although camping had not occurred here since 1979, the site was still being

used as a picnic ground, with visitors lunching practically on the doorsteps of staff residences.

More troublesome, however, was the proximity of the maintenance yard at the north end of

the complex, creating an incompatible juxtaposition with visitor use and staff residential areas.

The development of a new maintenance yard at the old YACC facility would have eliminated

this conflict, while retiring the picnic grounds and reserving the Chalone Area exclusively for

staff residence would have solved the remainder of the problem, but the 1998 floods removed

the option of using the YACC Area for park operations. With no apparent alternative, the

maintenance yard remained in the Chalone Area and even grew in size as other functions that

had previously been dispersed in other locations were now concentrated in a single facility. By

2004, a new fire cache and trails shop were constructed next to the existing buildings at the

north side of the area. The trails shop was built to replace the facility that had been located in

the YACC Area but was demolished in the aftermath of the floods.

Despite the persistence of conflicting or incompatible use, residential development in the

Chalone Creek Area also went forward, more or less in accordance with pre-flood plans.

Even as the new trails shop and fire cache were completed, a residential duplex (Building

#103-4) and an eight-room dormitory (Building #105) were built at the south side of the

developed area. These augmented existing residential capacity provided by a duplex built in

1991 (Building #101-2) and three temporary trailers (Buildings #204-6) from 1984. In 2005,

the picnic grounds were finally removed and the area landscaped to create a natural commons

in the midst of the residential compound. (The 1961 campground comfort station [Building

#309] was retained though is no longer used for its original purpose.)

One of the most dramatic changes to be made in the Chalone Area after the 1998 floods

was the removal of the Old Pinnacles Road. Although not used by vehicles since 1974, the

road was essentially a short highway segment. It had been constructed by CCC enrollees

in 1938 and ran along a raised viaduct that intersected the Chalone Creek floodplain for

approximately three kilometers. Evidence from the flood itself, followed by a four year study

of the area’s fluvial geomorphology confirmed staff suspicions that this structure was having

a detrimental impact on natural processes. This impact included reduction of habitat for

the federally listed California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), whose population was

substantially depressed on Chalone Creek in the aftermath of the 1998 flood. The decision

to remove the road and restore the surrounding riparian habitat to natural conditions was

made in response to these concerns. Work began in 2003 and continued for nearly three years.

More than ten thousand cubic meters of aggregate material was removed. Much of this was

used to fill quarries that had been used as borrow pits during construction of the road in the

1930s. (One of these quarries was also the source of the green lapilli tuff used in construction

of the entrance pylons and Building #1 in Bear Gulch.) Native vegetation was also planted,

and physical modifications were made to the stream channel to hasten recovery of natural

260
Planning and Development

geomorphic processes. By the end of 2006, the Old Pinnacles Road had been replaced by a

hiking trail that followed the natural contour of the floodplain.

Finally, a General Management Plan (GMP) was started in early 2007. Since the National

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 first mandated them, GMPs are normally prepared at

least once every twenty years, and Pinnacles had already initiated a plan in 1998 to replace its

existing 1976 Master Plan. But the acquisition of Pinnacles Ranch that was proposed that same

year temporarily postponed the process, which resumed only after the land transfer had been

completed. The new plan will have to address numerous changes that have occurred within and

around the monument during the last few decades and can be expected to differ substantially

from the previous Master Plan. The acquisition of Pinnacles Ranch (the Bottomlands), the

1998 floods, and evolving ideas about the role of fire in chaparral have all introduced new

challenges to the policies that guided the monument three decades earlier, presenting both

opportunities as well as greater responsibilities. The addition of many new cultural resources

has also challenged the monument to interpret its mission far more broadly than ever before.

As the future of Pinnacles is slowly being worked out in the planning process, important links

to the monument’s past are also being established. In 2006, a non-profit friends group—the

Pinnacles Partnership—was created by a group of local citizens to support the monument

and its programs. The Partnership reflects important elements of Pinnacles’ history and its

relationship to the surrounding community. Its current president is the grandson of Ernest

Sevenman, one of the original homesteaders on Pinnacles Ranch, while members of the board

include descendents of Schuyler Hain and W.I. Hawkins. The Partnership has already done

much to help reinvigorate local interest in the monument and to improve cooperation with

monument staff (many of whom are also members of the local community). This continues an

old and important tradition at Pinnacles, which was originally established, and even managed,

by local residents.

261

Appendix A

List of Custodians and Superintendents

Herman Hermansen (custodian) 1923–1925

Washington I. Hawkins (custodian) 1925–1945

Frank R. Givens (custodian) 1945–1947

William H. Gibbs (superintendent) 1947–1952

Ben C. Miller (superintendent) 1953–1953

L. Earl Jackson (superintendent) 1953–1955

Russell L. Mahan (superintendent) 1955–1958

Everett W. Bright (superintendent) 1958–1964

Delyle R. Stevens (superintendent) 1964–1968

Gordon K. Patterson (superintendent) 1968–1973

Rothwell P. Broyles (superintendent) 1974–1986

James Sleznick, Jr. (superintendent) 1986–1995

Gary Candelaria (superintendent) 1995–1999

Steve Shackelton (superintendent) 1999–2002

Cicely Muldoon (superintendent) 2002–2005

Eric Brunnemann (superintendent) 2005–present

Appendix B

Legislative History

1906

1. Proclamation of July 18, 1906

Established Pinnacles Forest Reserve, comprising 14,080 acres. The reserve was managed by

the U.S. Forest Service. It was later abolished by Presidential Proclamation on December 12,

1910, following the establishment of Pinnacles National Monument.
Appendix B Legislative History

1908

2. Proclamation No. 796, January 16, 1908 (35 Stat. 2177)

Established Pinnacles National Monument, comprising approximately 2,080 acres within

existing Pinnacles Forest Reserve.

3. Pinnacles State Game Refuge, 1911.

Established at the urging of Schuyler Hain after the abolishment of the Pinnacles Forest

Reserve. The game refuge comprised the same boundaries as the forest reserve (and so was

considerably larger than the national monument), but it provided only limited protection,

restricting only the hunting of animals.

4. Organic Act of August 25, 1916, to establish the National Park Service (39 Stat. 535)

Congress assigned to this new agency the administration of all the national parks and most

of the national monuments already in existence. The administration of Pinnacles National

Monument was among these monuments transferred to the National Park Service.

266
Legislative History

1923

5. Proclamation No. 1660, May 7, 1923 (43 Stat. 1911)

Added approximately 562 acres to Pinnacles National Monument. The monument now totals

approximately 2,642 acres.

267
Appendix B Legislative History

1924

6. Proclamation No. 1704, July 1924 (43 Stat. 1961)

Added approximately 326 acres to Pinnacles National Monument. The monument now totals

approximately 2,968 acres.

268
Legislative History

1931

7. Proclamation No. 1948, April 13, 1931 (47 Stat. 2451)

Added approximately 1,926 acres to Pinnacles National Monument. The monument now

totals approximately 4,894 acres.

269
Appendix B Legislative History

1933

8. Proclamation No. 2050, July 11, 1933 (48 Stat. 1701)

Added approximately 5,322 acres to Pinnacles National Monument. The monument now

totals approximately 10,216 acres.

270
Legislative History

1941

9. Proclamation No. 2528, December 5, 1941 (55 Stat. 1709)

Added approximately 4,300 acres to Pinnacles National Monument. The monument now

totals approximately 14,516 acres.

271
Appendix B Legislative History

1958

10. Addition of Root Homestead (approx. 160 ac.)

Donated to the National Park Service by San Benito County, which had acquired the parcel

through condemnation in 1935. This property already lay within the legislative boundaries of

the monument, so no further Congressional action was needed to accept it.

272
Legislative History

1976

11. Public Law 94-567, October 20, 1976 (90 Stat. 2692)

Designated 12,952 acres of land within Pinnacles National Monument as wilderness and 990

acres as potential wilderness. Also added approximately 1,717.9 acres to the monument and

declared that the monument’s total area shall not exceed 16,500 acres. The monument now

totals approximately 16,234 acres.

273
Appendix B Legislative History

1980

12. Public Law 96-344, September 8, 1980 (94 Stat. 1134)

Authorized minor boundary change along southeast edge of monument to adjust fence line

on Chalone Creek. Approximately 3.35 acres were removed from the monument, while

approximately 44.02 acres were added. The monument now totals approximately 16,275

acres.

274
Legislative History

2000

13. Proclamation No. 7266, January 11, 2000 (65 F.R. 2831-32)

Authorized expansion of monument to include approximately 10,939 additional acres (thereby

rendering moot the acreage limitation established by P.L. 94-567 in 1976). Approximately

8,008 acres were federal lands transferred from the Bureau of Land Management, while the

remaining 2,931 acres were privately owned. The legislative boundaries of the monument now

comprise approximately 27,214 acres, with 24,283 acres owned by the National Park Service.

275
Appendix B Legislative History

2006

14. Acquisition of Pinnacles Ranch and Miscellaneous Private Parcels.

Pinnacles Ranch was purchased from Stu and Peggie Kingman by the Nature Conservancy and

subsequently transferred to the National Park Service in 2006. Another private parcel within

the bottomlands was also acquired from heirs of the Bacon family. Total additions to the

monument by the end of this year amounted to approximately 2,251 acres. The monument

now comprises approximately 26,534 acres under direct NPS ownership. An additional 680

acres remain in private ownership.

276
Bibliography

Collections

Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, CA.

Doe Library, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Emergency Conservation Work. Civilian Conservation Corps Coll., RG 35, National Archives and

Records Administration (NARA), College Park, MD.

Fidelity Title Insurance Company, Hollister, CA.

Monterey County Historical Society, Salinas, CA.

National Park Service Pacific West Regional Library and Archives, Oakland, CA.

National Park Service. Pinnacles National Monument Coll., RG 79, National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA), College Park, MD.

National Park Service. Pinnacles National Monument, Map Collection, uncatalogued. Pinnacles National

Monument, Paicines, CA.1

National Park Service. Pinnacles National Monument, Administrative History Records Collection, 1903–

1999, PINN 3658. Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA.

National Park Service. Pinnacles National Monument, Administrative History Photographic Collection,

1927-2002, PINN 4372. Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA.

North Baker Research Library, California Historical Society, San Francisco, CA.

San Benito County Hall of Records, Hollister, CA.

San Benito County Historical Society, Hollister, CA.

Soledad Branch, Monterey County Library, Soledad, CA.

Unpublished Sources and Interviews

Babalis, Timothy. Fire and Water: An Environmental History of the Upper Chalone Creek Watershed—Draft.

Oakland, CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2009.

Bourke, Lois. “Early History,” typescript, January, 1961

Breen, John. “John Breen Diary, 1853–1855.” California Historical Society, North Baker Research

Library, San Francisco, CA.

D’Arcy, Bernice. Interview by author, Sept. 4, 2007.

DeRosa, Sara Mae. Interview by author, Mar. 20, 2007.

Francis, Mark. Interview by author, Apr. 24, 2007.

Franklet, Sharon. Interview by author, Mar. 22, 2007.
Bibliography

Joice, Deborah Melendy. “Beginnings: True Stories Told by Henry and Deborah Melendy,” manuscript,

ca. 1960, transcribed with notes by Deborah Melendy Norman, 2004. [Courtesy of Deborah

Melendy Norman].

Mason, Anita. “Chalone Mining District,” typescript, n.d. [Courtesy of Anita Mason].

———. “Chaparral District,” typescript, n.d. [Courtesy of Anita Mason].

Matthews, J. W. “Joseph Warren Matthews Diary, 1869–1900,” Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA.

Melendy, Clara Lou. Interview by author, Mar. 21, 2007.

Melville, Leland. Interview by author, May 14, 2007.

Norman, Deborah Melendy. “The Shells, Quigleys, and Bacons: From Calhoun County, Illinois, to

California,” typescript, August, 2005. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman].

———. “The Hain Family of Bear Valley,” unpublished typescript compiled from information given

by Janie and Nancy Lausten, November, 2005. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman].

O’Donnell, Jack. Interview by author, Mar. 23, 2007.

Prewett, Ernie. Interview by author, Mar. 19, 2007.

Regan, Tim. Interview by author, Mar. 19, 2007.

Ruiz, Leticia. Interview by author, Mar. 23, 2007.

Robinson, Grace Butterfield. “Butterfield Family Album,” no date. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy

Norman].

Schmidt, Edith Bacon. “The History of Bear Valley and Residents,” typescript of lecture given before

the San Benito County Historical Society in Bear Valley, August 28, 1963, Clippings File, San

Benito County Historical Society, Hollister, CA.

Schmidt, Edith Bacon, and Stanley F. Schmidt. “Jef Nessen Schmidt Family and the Horse Valley

Ranch,” compiled by Mrs. Fred (Edith Bacon) Schmidt, 1967; footnotes, photographs, and italic

inserts by Stanley F. Schmidt, 1995. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman].

———. Interview by author, Sept. 4, 2007.

Schmidt, Stanley F. “The Frederick T. Schmidt Family, from 1889 to 1955,” typescript, 1995. [Courtesy

of Deborah Melendy Norman].

Simmons, Debbie. Interview by author, Dec. 5, 2006.

Sleznick, James, Jr. Interview by author, Jan. 18, 2007.

Smith, Lisa. Interview by author, Jan. 18, 2007.

Spencer, Kathy and Joe. Interview by author, Mar. 20, 2007.

Spencer, Kathy. “History of the Schmidt Ranches,” typescript, 1991. [Courtesy of Kathy Schmidt

Spencer].

———. “The Melendy Family, 1580–2005,” typescript, n.d. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman].

———. “The Horace G. Bacon Family,” typescript, 1995. [Courtesy of Deborah Melendy Norman].

Webb, Bessie. Typed transcript of interview by Reta Oberg, April 27, 1977, National Park Service.

Pinnacles National Monument, Administrative History Records Collection, 1903-1999, PINN 3658.

Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA.

Published Sources

Agee, James K., and Harold H. Biswell. “The Fire Management Plan for Pinnacles National Monument.”

In Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, 1231–1238, 1979.

278
Bibliography

Akers, J.P. The Geohydrology of Pinnacles National Monument, California. Menlo Park, CA: U.S.

Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1967.

Albright, Horace M. The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding Years, 1913–33. Salt Lake

City: Howe Brothers, 1985.

Amah-Mutsun Tribal Band. Amah-Mutsun Tribal History. http://www.icimedia.com/costanoan,

accessed June 12, 2008.

Anderson, M. Kat. “Native American Uses and Management of California’s Grasslands.” In California

Grasslands: Ecology and Management, edited by Jeffrey D. Corbin Mark R. Stromberg, and Carla

M. D’Antonio. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

———. “The Ethnobotany of Deergrass, Muhlenbergia Rigens (Poaceae): Its Uses and Fire Management

by California Indian Tribes.” Economic Botany 50, no. 4 (1996): 409422.

Andrews, Philip. “Geology of the Pinnacles National Monument.” Bulletin of the Department of

Geological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley 24, no. 1 (1936).

Avedisian, Laura. “The Yosemite Riot: Changes in Policy and Management in the National Park

System.” Master’s thesis, San Jose State University, 1998.

Avery, Michael L., and Charles Van Riper, III. An Evaluation of the California Wildlife-Habitat

Relationships Data Base for Predicting Bird Community Composition in Pinnacles National Monument.

Davis, CA: University of California, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU),

1988.

———. Bird Community Survey at Pinnacles National Monument. Davis, CA: University of California,

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU), 1986.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of California, Vols. 1–6. San Francisco, CA: The History Co., 1886.

Barbour, Michael G., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Allan A. Schoenherr. Terrestrial Vegetation of California.

Berkeley: University of California, 2007.

Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties

of Central California. San Francisco: The Lewis Publishing Co., 1893.

Bean, Lowell J., ed. The Ohlone, Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region.

Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press, 1994.

Biswell, Harold H.. A Management Plan for Restoring Fire in Chaparral at the Pinnacles National

Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service, 1976.

Blackburn, Thomas C. and M. Kat Anderson, eds. Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by

Native Californians. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press, 1993.

Boessenecker, John Bandido: The Life and Times of Tiburcio Vasquez. Norman: University of Oklahoma

Press, 2010.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene. “The Mission as a Frontier Institution in the Spanish American Colonies.”

American Historical Review 23 (1917): 42-61.

Bourke, Lois. The Bourke Engine Documentary. Sun Valley, CA: E. Coutant, 1968.

Breschini, Gary S., Trudy Haversat, and R. Paul Hampson. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast

and Coast-Valley Study Areas. Salinas, CA: Archaeological Consulting, 1983.

California. Overview and Impact Analysis of Proposed Redesignation of Non-Wilderness Portions of Pinnacles

National Monument (Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties) from Class II to

Class I. Sacramento, CA: State of California Air Resources Board, 1980.

California. The Range Improvement Program: Annual Report. Sacramento: California Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, 1947–1977.

Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst: University of

Massachusetts Press, 2007.

279
Bibliography

Carstensen, Vernon, ed. The Public Lands: Studies in the History of the Public Domain. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff. The Archaeology of California. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 1984.

Cleland, Robert Glass. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1951.

Cook, Sherburne F. The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1976 . Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1976.

Cooper, William S. The Broad-Sclerophyll Vegetation of California: An Ecological Study of the Chaparral

and Its Related Communities. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1922.

Cox, Robert, and Gordon Chappell. Evaluation of Structures at Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito

County, California. San Francisco, CA: National Park Service, Western Regional Office, 1974.

Cronise, Titus Fey. The Natural Wealth of California. San Francisco: H.H. Bancroft & Co., 1868.

Cutler, Phoebe. The Public Landscape of the New Deal. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Cymerys, Margaret. Raptors of the Pinnacles National Monument: Past and Present Nesting and Possible

Impacts of Rock Climbers. Davis, CA: University of California, Cooperative National Park Resources

Studies Unit (CPSU), 1988.

DeBenedetti, Steve H. Position Paper on the Management of Feral Hogs. Paicines, CA: National Park

Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1985.

DeBenedetti, Steve. Fire Management Plan: An Amendment to the Natural Resources Management Plan

for Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service, 1986.

DeVoto, Bernard. “Let’s Close the National Parks.” Harpers 207, no. 1241 (1953): 49–52.

Drury, Newton B. “The Dilemma of Our Parks.” American Forests 55, no. 6 (1949): 6–11, 38–39.

Elliott & Moore, History of San Benito County, California: With Biographical Sketches of Prominent

Citizens. San Francisco: Elliott & Moore, 1881.

Engelhardt, Zephyrin. Mission Nuestra Se ̃nora De La Soledad . Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Santa Barbara,

1929.

———. Mission San Juan Bautista: A School of Music. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Santa Barbara, 1931.

———. The Missions and Missionaries of California. 4 vols. San Francisco, CA: James H. Barry, 1908–13.

Evening Free Lance. Crimes and career of Tiburcio Vasquez, the bandit of San Benito County and notorious

early California outlaw, compiled from newspaper accounts of the period and first hand information

from some of those who played a part in this story. Hollister, CA: Evening Free Lance, 1927.

Evenson, R.E. Ground-Water Reconnaissance at Pinnacles National Monument. Washington, DC:

National Park Service, 1962.

Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983.

Fellers, Gary M., and Brian W. Arnold. The Small Mammal Community at Pinnacles National Monument.

Davis, CA: University of California, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU),

1988.

Fites-Kauffman, J., et al., eds. Fire Ecology of California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Fritz, John M., and Charles Smith. Archeological Overview and Assessment of Pinnacles National

Monument, San Benito County, California. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Western Archeological

Center, 1978.

Frusetta, Peter. Beyond the Pinnacles: The History and Folklore of Southern San Benito County. Tres Pinos,

CA: Peter Frusetta, 1990.

———. Quicksilver Country: California’s New Idria Mining District. Tres Pinos, CA: Peter Frusetta,

1991.

280
Bibliography

Gagner, Paul G. A Rock Climber’s Guide to Pinnacles National Monument. Ft. Collins, CO: Taylor-Powell

Print Co., 1983.

Gates, Paul Wallace. “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land System.” American Historical Review

41 (1936): 652–681.

———. History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,

1968.

Gates, Paul Wallace, ed. California Ranchos and Farms, 1842-1862. Madison: The State Historical

Society of Wisconsin, 1967.

Genetti, Catherine M., and Patricia G. Zenone. The Effect of Rock Climbers on the Environment at

Pinnacles National Monument, Monterey and San Benito Counties, California. Davis, CA: University

of California, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU), 1987.

Gilbert, Richard, and Jef Schmidt. “Ball and Chain Brush Crushing.” Range Improvement Studies 19

(1970): 1–8.

Gordon, Burton L. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Pacific Grove, CA:

Boxwood Press, 1985.

Greenlee, Jason M. and Andrew Moldenke. The History of Wildfires in the Region of the Gabilan

Mountains of Central Coastal California. Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National

Monument, 1981.

Guinn, J.M., ed. History of the State of California and Biographical Record of Santa Cruz, San Benito,

Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties... Chicago: The Chapman Publishing Co., 1903.

Hackel, Steven W. “Land, Labor, and Production: The Colonial Economy of Spanish and Mexican

California,” California History 76.2–3 (1997): 111–146.

Hale, Sharron Lee. A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos,

Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz: Valley Publishers, 1980.

Halvorson, William L., and Ronilee A. Clark. Vegetation and Floristics of Pinnacles National Monument.

Davis, CA: University of California, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit (CPSU),

1989.

Hamilton, David E. From New Day to New Deal: American Farm Policy from Hoover to Roosevelt,

1928–1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

Hammons, Vernon L. A Brief Organizational History of the Office of Design and Construction, National

Park Service, 1917–1962. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1963.

Hampson and Wilfong, “Site Survey Form,” in Cultural Resources Inventory of Newly Acquired Lands

at the Pinnacles National Monument: Site Record Data. Castroville, CA: Archeological Consulting,

1980.

Hartzog, George B., Jr. “Mission 66 and Parkscape.” Historic Preservation 18, no. 4 (1966): 140–143.

———. Battling for the National Parks. Mount Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell, 1988.

Haversat, Trudy, Gary Breschini, and R. Paul Hampson. Cultural Resources Inventory of Newly Acquired

Lands at the Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: Pinnacles National Monument, 1981.

Hawkins, Thomas S. Some Recollections of a Busy Life. San Francisco: P. Elder & Co., 1913.

Hays, Samuel P. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

———. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,

1961.

281
Bibliography

Johnson, Elvin R., and Richard P. Cordone. Pinnacles Guide: Pinnacles National Monument, San Benito

County, California. Glendale, CA: La Siesta Press, 1986.

Keeley, Jon E. “Chaparral and Fire.” Fremontia 35, no. 4 (2007): 16–21.

———. “Fire History of the San Francisco Bay Region and Implications for Landscape Patterns.”

International Journal of Wildland Fire 14 (2005): 285–296.

———. “Native American Impacts on Fire Regimes of the California Coastal Ranges.” Journal of

Biogeography 29 (2002): 303–320.

Keeley, Jon E., and C.J. Frotheringham. “Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands.”

Conservation Biology 15, no. 6 (2001): 1536–1548.

———. “Impact of Past, Present, and Future Fire Regimes on North American Mediterranean

Shrublands.” In Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas, edited by

Thomas T. Veblen et al. New York: Springer, 2003.

Kennedy, David M. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Kilgore, Bruce M. “Origin and History of Wildland Fire Use in the U.S. National Park System.” The

George Wright Forum 24, no. 3 (2007): 92–122.

Kroeber, Alfred L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution,

1925.

Lathrop, Earl, and Bradford Martin. “Fire Ecology of Deergrass (Muhlenbergia Rigens) in Cuyumaca

Rancho State Park, California.” Crossosoma 8, no. 5 (1982): 1–10.

Leopold, A. Starker. “Wildlife Management in the National Parks.” In Transactions of the TwentyEighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, edited by James B. Trerethen.

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute, 1963.

Levy, Richard. “Costanoan.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by

Robert F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.

Mackintosh, Barry. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Washington, DC: National Park Service,

1991.

———. “Harold L. Ickes and the National Park Service.” Journal of Forest History 29, no. 2 (1985).

Matthews, Vincent. “Correlation of Pinnacles and Neenach Volcanic Formations and Their Bearing on

San Andreas Fault Problems.” AAPG Bulletin 60, no. 12 (1976): 2128–2141.

McCallum, Roy D. Agriculture in San Benito County, California, 1797-1973. Hollister, CA: University

of California, Agricultural Extension, 1974.

McClelland, Linda F. Presenting Nature: The Historic Landscape Design of the National Park Service, 1916

to 1942. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1993.

Melendy, John. John Melendy: Santa Cruz County Farm Advisor. Interviewed by Meri Knaster. Santa

Cruz, CA: Regional History Project, University Library, University of California, 2004.

Meyer, Robert W. Potential Hazards from Flood in Part of the Chalone Creek and Bear Valley Drainage

Basins, Pinnacles National Monument, California. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Geological Survey, 1995.

Milliken, Randall. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay

Area, 1769–1810. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press, 1995.

Mills, Elaine L., ed. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907–1957;

Volume Two, a Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language, and Culture of Northern

and Central California. White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 2007.

Miser, Ross J. The Pinnacles Story: History, Geology, Flora and Fauna, Points of Interest. Campbell, CA:

Gordon Multilith, 1961.

282
Bibliography

Moratto, Michael J. California Archaeology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984.

Norris, Frank. “The Antiquities Act and the Acreage Debate.” The George Wright Forum 23, no. 3

(2006): 6–16.

Oberg, Reta. Administrative History of Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park

Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1979.

Paige, John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933–1942: An

Administrative History. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1985.

Philley, M. Peter and Stephen F. McCool. “Law Enforcement in the National Parks: Perceptions and

Practices.” Leisure Sciences 4 (1981): 355–371.

Pierce, Marjorie. East of the Gabilans: The Ranches, the Towns, the People–Yesterday and Today. Santa

Cruz, CA: Western Tanager Press, 1976.

Pitcaithley, Dwight T. “National Parks and Education: The First Twenty Years.” http://www.nps.gov/

history/history/resedu/education.htm, accessed 2002.

Reinstedt, Randall A. Monterey’s Mother Lode. Carmel, CA: Ghost Town Publications, 1977.

Richards, Chuck. Pinnacles Climber’s Guide: Pinnacles National Monument. Santa Maria, CA: Recreation

and Travel Enterprises, 1974.

Robinson, W.W. Land in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1948.

Roper, Steve. A Climber’s Guide to Pinnacles National Monument. Berkeley, CA: The Ski Hut, 1966.

Rothman, Hal. America’s National Monuments: The Politics of Preservation. Urbana: University of Illinois

Press, 1989.

———. “A Regular Ding-Dong Fight: Agency Culture and Evolution in Nps-Usfs Dispute, 1916–

1937.” Western Historical Quarterly 20 (1989).

Rubine, David. Climber’s Guide to Pinnacles National Monument. Evergreen, CO: Chockstone Press,

1995.

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.

Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933–1942: A New Deal Case Study. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press, 1967.

Saloutos, Theodore. The American Farmer and the New Deal. Ames: The Iowa State University Press,

1982.

Sax, Joseph L. Mountains without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press, 1980.

Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. The Age of Roosevelt, 3 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957–1960.

Sellars, Richard. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press, 1997.

Shankland, Robert. Steve Mather of the National Parks. New York: Knopf, 1951.

St. Clair, David J. “New Almaden and California Quicksilver in the Pacific Rim Economy.” California

History 73, no. 4 (1994-95): 279–294.

Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004.

Stevens, Michelle L. “White Root (Carex Barbarae).” Fremontia 32, no. 4 (2004): 3–6.

Stottlemyer, J. Rob. “Evolution of Management Policy and Research in the National Park Service.”

Journal of Forestry 79, no. 1 (1981).

Sugihara, Neil G., et al., eds. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. Berkeley: University of California Press,

2006.

283
Bibliography

Swain, Donald C. Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1970.

Tinkham, George H. “The Story of San Benito County.” In History of the State of California and

Biographical Record of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties... edited

by J.M. Guinn. Chicago: The Chapman Publishing Co., 1903.

Tweed, William C. National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916–1942. San Francisco, CA: National

Park Service, Western Regional Office, 1977.

Udall, Stewart L. The Quiet Crisis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

United States Department of the Interior. The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument. San Francisco,

CA: National Park Service, Branch of Plans and Design, 1933.

———. The Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument. San Francisco, CA: National Park Service,

Branch of Plans and Design, 1936 (revised 1940, 1941, and 1942).

———. Mission 66 for Pinnacles National Monument. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1957.

———. The Master Plan for Preservation and Use, Pinnacles National Monument. San Francisco, CA:

National Park Service, Western Office, Division of Design and Construction, 1958.

———. The Master Plan for Preservation and Use, Pinnacles National Monument. San Francisco, CA:

Western Office of Design and Construction, 1965.

———. Interpretive Prospectus, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, 1967.

———. Wilderness Recommendations for Pinnacles National Monument, California. Paicines, CA:

National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1967.

———. Master Plan, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles

National Monument, 1976.

———. Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Paicines, CA: National Park

Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1976.

———. Statement for Management, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, 1980.

———. Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Paicines, CA:

National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1983.

———. Interpretive Prospectus, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, 1990.

———. Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment, West District, Pinnacles National

Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1991.

———. Development Concept Plan, East District, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National

Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1993.

———. Replace Chalone Creek Bridge: Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment for the

Threatened California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Paicines, CA: National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, 1998.

———. Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plan, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA:

National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 1999 (revised 2000).

———. Expansion of Pinnacles National Monument, Cooperative Transition Plan. Paicines, CA: National

Park Service; and Hollister, CA: Bureau of Land Management, Hollister Ranger District, 2000.

———. East Entrance District, Pinnacles National Monument: Cultural Landscape Inventory. Oakland,

CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2002.

284
Bibliography

———. Bear Gulch Cave Management Plan: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Paicines, CA:

National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 2003.

———. California Condor Re-Establishment in Pinnacles National Monument: Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI). Paicines, CA: National Park Service, Pinnacles National Monument, 2003.

———. Pinnacles National Monument Museum Management Plan. Oakland, CA: National Park Service,

Pacific West Regional Office, 2005.

———. Fire Management Plan, Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA: National Park Service,

Pinnacles National Monument, 2007.

———. Ben Bacon Ranch Historic District, Pinnacles National Monument: Cultural Landscape Inventory.

Oakland, CA: National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2009.

———. High Peaks Trails, Pinnacles National Monument: Cultural Landscape Inventory. Oakland, CA:

National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, 2009.

Unrau, Harlan D., and G. Frank Willis. Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service

in the 1930s. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1982.

van Wagtendonk, Jan W. “Dr. Biswell’s Influence on the Development of Prescribed Burning in

California.” In The Biswell Symposium: Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland

Ecosystems (PSW-GTR-158), edited by David R. Weise and Robert E. Martin. Albany, CA: USDA,

Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1995.

Vancouver, George. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World... London:

J. Stockdale, 1801.

Versar, Inc. Pre-Acquisition Environmental Site Assessment Survey, Pinnacles Ranch, Versar Inc., Fair Oaks,

CA, 2005

Wahrhaftig, Clyde. Geologic Note on Pinnacles National Monument. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco

Hiking Club, 1990.

Watkins, R.G., and M.F. Hoyle. History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties... Chicago:

S.J. Clarke, 1925.

Wauer, Roland H. “Natural Resources Management—Trend or Fad?” George Wright Forum 4, no. 1

(1984): 24–28.

Webb, Ralph, and Peter S. Bennett. Natural History of the Pinnacles National Monument. Paicines, CA:

Pinnacles Natural History Association, 1969.

White, Richard. It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A History of the American West. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1980.

Work Projects Administration. Inventory of the County Archives of California: No. 36, San Benito County.

San Francisco: The Northern California Historical Records Survey Project, 1940.

Young, Brad. A Climber’s Guide to Pinnacles National Monument. Twaine Harte, CA: Brad Young and

Steve Dawson, 2007.

285

Index

Accelerated Public Works Program (APW),

180–182

Agee, James, 208–209

Akers, J.P. (USGS hydrologist), 184

Albright, Horace (NPS Director), 68, 71, 90,

92–97, 102–105, 111–112

Albright, Stanley (NPS Regional Director), 248

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB), 253

American Legion, 32–33

Anderson, Lillian, 156, 167

Andrews, Philip, 192–195

Antiquities Act (1906), 1–2, 16–17, 216

Archeological Overview and Assessment (AOA),

221, 259

Area Redevelopment Administration, 180

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 163

Automobile Dealers Association of San Francisco,

21

Bacon (family)

Benjamin, 4, 9–12, 25, 31, 40, 54–55, 68,

219, 234, 255

Elizabeth, 219

Historic District, 258

Horace, 11, 219

Oliver, 11, 54–55, 219

Orea, 150, 177

Ranch, 4, 9, 24, 31, 33, 39, 49, 54, 56,

58, 68, 73, 94, 130–131, 137, 150–151,

177–178, 219, 230, 232, 258

Balconies

Campground, See Old Pinnacles Campground

Caves, 4–5, 26, 43, 63, 94, 145, 181

Cliffs, 4–5, 9, 25, 28, 31, 35, 43, 46, 63,

112, 128, 139–140, 147, 151–155, 163,

174–176, 186, 192, 255

Cliffs Trail, 181–182, 242

Bates, C.W., 22

Bauman, Ernest, 35, 45, 47, 51

Bear Gulch

(Place and development area), 5, 9, 17, 23–

24, 31, 37, 39–44, 47–49, 54, 59–60, 63,

65–66, 68, 78–80, 82–84, 94–95, 97,

99–100, 113, 128–129, 131–132, 135–

138, 141, 143–144, 153–155, 159, 162,

167–168, 170, 179–181, 183, 215, 226,

233–234, 236, 240, 243, 245–246, 259

Trail, 86, 243

Campground, 37, 60, 65–66, 69, 78–81,

83–85, 94–95, 97, 105, 125, 128, 162,

167–170, 180

Caves, 5, 7, 10, 41, 44, 49, 63, 73, 78, 84–

86, 141, 144, 167, 169, 195–196, 226,

248, 256

Caves Management Plan, 248

Caves Trail, 79, 85–86, 90–92, 128, 132,

141, 144, 179

Dam (and reservoir), 127, 129, 132, 135,

139, 143–144, 159, 229, 236–237, 242

Entrance Road, 22–24, 37, 54–59, 67–68,

73, 78, 82, 101–110, 116, 126, 128, 144,

149–150, 224, 243, 245

Lodge, 37, 60, 68, 78, 83–84, 90, 94–95, 97,

99, 107, 125, 128–129, 131, 135, 138,

143, 149, 153, 155–157, 159, 167

Picnic Area (Moses Spring), 78–79, 82–85,

91, 125, 128, 132, 143–144, 168

Visitor Center (and museum), 162–163, 190

Bear Valley

(place), 2–4, 7–11, 23–24, 28, 40, 43, 46, 54,

73, 89, 101, 106, 110–111, 136, 138, 145,

153, 157, 159–160, 193, 212, 218–219,

244

Grade, 4, 23, 136, 173, 212

Road, 10, 24

Beck, J.L., 221

Bell, J. Haslett (NPS assistant landscape

architect), 129–130, 132

Bench Trail, 86, 243

Bengard, Roy, 100

Bennett, Peter, 196–197, 205, 207–208, 257

Bisho, Lester, 174–175

Biswell, Harold, 207–210, 254

Bolado Park, 124

Bourke (family)

A.E., 42
Index

Bourke (family) (continued)

Alonzo, 41–42, 44, 54, 95–96, 100, 120, 139

Leo, 42–43, 172–173, 176

Lois Hain, 42, 73, 174, 176

Russell, 41–43, 57, 65, 67, 73, 95, 100, 172

Bradford, Earl, 177–178, 232

Branch of Engineering (NPS), 115

Branch of Plans and Design (NPS), 115, 125,

129, 132, 141

Breed Allocation Act (1927), 104–105

Breschini, Gary (archeologist), 222, 242

Bright, Everett, W. (superintendent), 159, 166,

177, 187

Broyles, Rothwell “Rod” (superintendent),

202–203, 207–210, 223, 238

Bunham, W.L. (USGS hydrologist), 184

Burney, A.J. (NPS engineer), 90–91, 102

Butterfield, George (homesteader), 23

Butterfield Homestead (Ben Bacon Ranch

Historic District), 23, 258

Butts Ranch, 111–112

Buzzard’s Roost Mine, 163

Cabrillo Natural History Association, 170–171

California

Alpine Club, 33

Division of Fish and Game (CDFG), 214

Division of Forestry (CDF), 101, 138,

160–161, 206–207, 209, 236,

Highway Commission, 58, 61, 63, 65, 153,

179, 185

Indian Basketweavers Association (CIBA),

253

Native Plant Society (CNPS), 213

Promotion Committee, 21

State Automobile Association, 21, 59, 76, 104

Camera Club, 21

Cammerer, Arno (NPS Director), 34–36, 38–39,

49, 54, 60, 64–65, 69, 76–77, 94, 152

Camp Pinnacles (Civilian Conservation Corps),

120–123, 128, 142–145

Camp Pinnacles (private campground), 70, 95

Candelaria, Gary (superintendent), 227,

245–248, 252

Carter, James (President), 241

Castro, Jose (general), 2  ́

Castro, Jose (innkeeper), 219  ́

Cave Loop Trail, 90–92, 144

Central California Archeological Foundation,

221

Chalon (Indians): 3, 7–8, 110

Chalone

(development area), 242, 245, 260–261,

Annex, 41, 100, 238, 243, 246

Bench, 4–5, 9, 25, 151, 177, 232, 235, 240,

243–244

Creek, 4–5, 9, 14, 19, 22, 24–25, 31, 35,

39–43, 46–47, 49, 55, 58, 60, 73, 78,

80, 83–86, 94–97, 100, 106–108, 120,

126, 128, 130–131, 139–140, 142–

143, 150–151, 159, 166–168, 172–174,

177, 179–180, 187, 195, 200, 203, 215,

234–235, 240–241, 243–247, 251

Creek Bridge, 40, 131, 135–137, 144, 149,

245–247, 259–260

Creek Campground, 170, 180, 193, 238,

240–241, 243, 260

Creek Road, 143–144

Creek Valley, 94–95, 99, 169

Fault, 194–195

Mining District, 3, 9, 29

Peak(s), 2, 4, 63, 101, 130, 132, 137, 144,

159, 244

Peak Fire Lookout, 130, 132–133, 137,

144–145, 154, 159–160, 215

Peak Trail, 132–133, 137

Visitor Center (proposed), 166–168, 170–

171

Wye, 128

Chaparral

Area (campground and picnic area), 4, 20,

43, 53, 60, 89, 97, 147, 149, 168, 178,

181–186, 227, 232, 237–240, 245–246,

258

Management Program, 161, 209

Ranger Station, 243–244

(vegetation type), 3, 14, 42, 98–99, 161, 196,

199–201, 205–210, 235–236, 252, 254,

259, 261

Civil Works Administration (CWA), 127–128,

130, 140, 144–145, 180

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 92, 105,

112–113, 116–146, 206, 229, 241–242

Clark, Dean (forest technician), 210

Clean Air Act (1963, amended 1977), 215, 254

Climbing Management Plan, 215

Clinton, William (President), 248

Coast Counties Electric Company, 157, 159

Coffee, H.G., 70, 95

Cold War, 147, 163, 193

Comprehensive Employment Training Act

(CETA), 223

288
Index

Condor Gulch

(place), 5, 78, 84–85, 97, 129, 138, 167

Trail, 85–86, 89–92, 125, 128

Utility Area, 125, 129, 131, 135, 144, 160,

168, 192, 240

Condor, California (Gymnogyps californianus),

255, 257

Cooperative Parks Studies Units (CPSU), 212

Copper Mountain Mining Company, 29–

31, 38–39, 43–55, 58, 63, 66, 86, 98,

112–113, 130

Cottrell, C.C., 104

Cross-monument Highway (or road), 23, 55,

58, 63, 65–67, 69, 71–72, 94, 96, 98,

102, 105, 112, 128, 140–141, 147,

149, 151–155, 172–173, 175–176, 178,

182, 186–188, 201–203, 229–231, 233,

236–237, 244

Crowley Canyon, 163

Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI), 257–258

Datel, Robert (California State district engineer),

185

Davidson, Ernest A. (NPS regional landscape

architect), 149–150

DeBenedetti, Steve, 212–214, 224

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA), 193

Demaray, Arthur (NPS Director), 92

DePaquette, Lena, 173, 176

Development Concept Plan, 237–240, 259–260

Diablo Mountains, 3, 7, 191

Diehl, John H. (construction supervisor), 90

Discovery Wall Trail, 85

Double Gates, 186

Douglas, David (botanist), 27

Dowdy, Elmer (county clerk), 103

Downtown Association (San Francisco), 67

Drury, Newton (NPS Director), 175, 190

Dudley, William Russell, 1, 13, 15

Dunlap, Percy, 170, 182–183, 236–237

Dunn, Allison van V. (NPS assistant engineer),

83–85, 89, 101–102

Dwelling for Official Visitors (Bldg. #1), 131,

135–136, 138, 144, 162–163, 167, 240,

260

Eisenhower, Dwight (President), 147, 164

Ellis, Jim, 196

Emergency Banking Act, 117

Emergency Conservation Work (ECW), 117

Employment Stabilization Act, 82

Equipment Shed (Bldg. #201), 127, 129, 144,

160, 168, 192

Explorer I (satellite), 166

Fabry, Fred, 63

Failing, C.A., 121

Favorite, J.H., 45–51

Fechner, Robert, 118, 143

Federal Emergency Relief Administration

(FERA), 117, 127

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

(FLETC), 225

Federal Unemployment Relief Act (1933), 117,

127

Fingers Foot Trail (“Steep and Narrow”), 91–92

Fire Management Plan, 208–210, 216, 253–254

Flint, Thomas, 192

Foley, Leo J. (timber cruiser), 21–22, 25–26, 33

Foot-and-Mouth Disease, 55–58

Ford, Gerald (President), 203

Fowles, Alda, 68, 71

Fremont Peak, 2

Fremont, John Charles, 2  ́

Fritz, John M., 221–222, 259

Gabilan Mountains, 2–4, 9, 15, 27, 41, 98, 131

Gas and Oil House (Bldg. #200), 129, 131, 135,

144

General Grant National Park, 121, 146

General Land Office (GLO), 14, 20–21, 31,

33–34, 36, 40, 43–45, 48–50, 54, 60

General Management Plan, 215, 249, 256, 261

General Revision Act (1891), 15–17

Gibbs, William (superintendent), 157, 162

Gilbert, Dr. (Stanford professor), 11, 13

Givens, Frank R. (custodian), 155

Gleason, Herbert W. (NPS photographer), 26,

31

Great Depression, 73, 82, 98, 102, 104–105,

115–117, 119, 145–147, 229, 240, 257

Green Gables, 156

Greenfield (town), 4

Greenlee, Jason, 210

Greissinger, David (NPS landscape architect),

239

Hain

Arthur, 22–23, 43

Ida Cook, 9

John (and Mary), 9–10, 24, 136, 154

289
Index

Hain (continued)

Lois, See Bourke, Lois Hain

Schuyler, 7, 9–15, 18–20, 24–27, 31–36,

39–41, 50, 61–64, 67, 99, 111, 177, 206,

217, 261

Hall, Ansel (NPS chief forester), 99

Harrington, John Peabody, 110–112, 220

Hartzog, George (NPS Director), 198

Haversat, Trudy, 222, 242

Hawkins

Ray, 173, 176

T.S., 56

Washington Irving (custodian), 37, 56–57,

61, 64–113, 121, 125, 130, 135, 138,

140–142, 144–145, 147, 149–155, 174,

177–178, 220, 261

Hayes, E.A. (Congressman), 23

Hedges, Ellis Walton, Jr., 74

Henry, Harold (Monterey County Board of

Supervisors), 182–183

Hermansen, Herman A. (custodian), 37–45, 47–

78, 85–86, 89–90, 92–97, 116, 125, 139,

149, 167, 206, 231, 243

High Peaks

(place), 4–5, 24, 31, 37, 39, 54, 73, 202, 242,

255

Trail, 82, 85–86, 90–92, 97, 116, 124–125,

128, 130, 133, 143–144, 166, 184, 239,

243

Tunnel, 90–93, 143–144

Highway 146 (California), 20, 23, 58, 64, 137,

139–140, 143, 153, 159, 167, 178–179,

182, 185–186, 233, 242, 260

Highway 25 (California), 4, 10, 24, 104–105,

136–137, 177

Hinman, Juanita, 219–220

Hollister (town), 7, 11–12, 24, 33, 37, 47,

55–57, 60–61, 63, 68, 70, 73–74, 96,

103–105, 123–124, 137, 148, 153, 155,

176–178, 245

Hollister Daily Advance (newspaper), 11, 26

Hollister Free Lance (newspaper), 37, 146, 170

Hommon, H.B. (NPS sanitary engineer), 78–80,

83–84, 86, 159

Hoover, Aulton (chief ranger), 146, 148, 155,

157

Hoover, Herbert (President), 73, 82, 97, 102,

104–105, 116, 126

Hopkins, Harry (Federal Relief Administrator),

127

Hull, Daniel (NPS chief landscape architect),

78–79, 81–82, 229

Hummel, Edward (NPS regional director), 183

Ickes, Harold (Secretary of the Interior), 126

Isaacson, Drucilla, 148, 155

Jackson, Earl (superintendent), 162, 190

James, Hazel, 155–156

Jeffers, Robinson, 211

Jordan, David Starr, 1, 12–15, 18–19, 33, 36

Juniper Canyon, 44, 89, 124, 130, 149, 166, 184

Juniper Canyon Trail, 242–243

Juri Family, 174, 176, 187

Katz, Robert, 232–233

Kelly, Martin P., 173, 176–177, 187

Kilgore, Bruce, 209

King City (Town), 60, 153

Kingman, Stewart “Stu”, 195, 234

Kittredge, Frank (NPS chief engineer), 90–91,

94, 97, 102, 105, 107

La Gloria Valley, 173, 176–177

LaHaye, Frank, 232

Land and Water Conservation Act (1964),

171–172

Lange, Francis (NPS landscape foreman), 129,

150

Langford, James (chief ranger), 226

Lausten, Clara Ann, 148

Leonard, Jacob, 104, 152–155, 174

Leopold Report, 197–200, 204, 206, 216, 230

Lewellen, A.B. (NPS associate engineer), 89

Lewis, Henry T., 205

Lewis, W.B. “Dusty” (Yosemite superintendent),

35–36, 38–39, 43, 47–48, 68–71, 76–77,

80, 86

Little Pinnacles, 5, 31, 39, 63, 69

Lopez Canyon, 21, 64, 66, 186

Los Burros Mining District, 28, 30

Los Padres National Forest, 16, 201

Lovett, Hobart, 217

Lydon, Rocky (San Benito County Farm

Advisor), 206–207, 214

Lyons Homestead, 3

Lyons, Harrison, 3, 21

MacDonald, Donald, 216–217

Machete Ridge, 5, 46, 202, 226

290
Index

Madeiros, Dan, 111–112

Mahan, Russell (superintendent), 162–164, 166,

175–176, 186, 217

Manchester, Abraham, 28

Marcott, Zotic (chief ranger), 37, 41–42, 65, 67,

73–75, 80, 85, 95, 100, 142, 169, 172

Marcott’s Spring (Willow Spring), 42, 141

Marcus, Ray, 151, 177

Master Plan, 81–83, 125, 129–130, 138, 149,

151–157, 166–168, 171, 180, 183,

187, 204, 207, 209, 221–224, 229–240,

242–243, 252, 259, 261

Mather, Stephen (NPS Director), 26, 31–32,

56–57, 59–60, 64, 66, 81–82, 86

Mathoit, J.D., 70

Mathoit, K.D., 95–96

Matthews, Vincent, 194–195, 205, 257

Mayo Ranch, 173–174

Mayo, Katherine, 173

McCabe Canyon, 253, 259

McEntee, James, 118

McPhie, William D., 49–50

Melendy (family)

Clara Lou, 212

George, 99

Ranch, 160–161, 212

Walter, 206

Mello, Henry (State Senator), 248

Melville

Henry, 9, 20–21, 27–36, 38–40, 43–55,

58, 60, 64–67, 86, 94–98, 102–103,

112–114, 192, 219

Leland, 219

Mining District, 29, 186

Merrin Canyon, 22, 173, 175

Merrin Homestead, 173

Merrin, Edwin, 173

Mexican-American War, 9, 218

Miners Gulch, 9

Mining Act (1872), 46, 51–52

Mission San Juan Bautista, 7, 111

Mission Soledad, 7

Monterey

County, 12, 21, 28, 38, 41, 55, 58–59, 63–

66, 94, 113, 117, 148, 151, 153–154,

178–180, 201, 230–231, 235, 237, 239,

252

County Board of Supervisors, 63, 182

Forest Reserve (National Forest), 15–16,

18–19, 36, 201

(town), 27, 216–218

Moore, George Gordon, 211

Moses Spring

(place), 79, 85, 87, 90, 92, 133, 141, 195

Trail, 86, 90, 163, 167, 169

Picnic Area (Bear Gulch), 78, 82–84, 125,

132, 143–144, 167–168, 240

Mount Defiance, 4, 192, 200–202

Muir Woods National Monument, 1, 16, 157

Mulberry (town), 28

Mulvaney, Raymond (NPS Assistant Regional

Director), 187–188

Must Hatch Incubator Company, 42, 172

Mutsun (Indians), 7, 110–111, 220, 253

National Automobile Club (NAC), 59, 71,

76–77

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), 204,

229

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), 223

National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), 126

National Parks Association (National Parks

Conservation Association), 96

National Recovery Administration (NRA), 126

National Register of Historic Places, 221,

223–224, 258

Natural History Research Program, 190–191,

196, 222, 224

Needham, James C. (Congressman), 11–15, 18

Neenach Volcanic Formation, 194

Neumann, Herman H. (general contractor), 183

New Deal, 115–117, 127

New Idria (mercury mine), 8, 110, 191, 218–219

North Wilderness Trail, 43, 187, 244

Oak Tree Spring, 44, 49, 89, 149, 184, 243

Oakland Tribune (newspaper), 44, 59

Oberg, Reta, 223

Offel, John M., 148, 155

Ohlone (Indians), 3, 7, 110, 220

Old Pinnacles

Campground (and Picnic Area), 9, 27, 46–47,

55, 65, 128, 139, 141

Gorge, 4, 26, 31–32, 34–35, 37, 39, 43, 46,

53, 58, 63, 66, 130, 140, 219

Road, 94, 139–140, 151, 175, 182, 246,

260–161

Olmsted, F.E. (District Forester), 18–19

Olsen, Carl, 40

Olsen, W.H., 221

291
Index

Omnibus Wilderness Bill (Oct. 20, 1976), 235

Organic Act, National Park Service (1916), 2

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 242

Page, Nelson (homesteader), 22

Paicines (town), 218–219

Pajaro River, 3

Palisades

District, 21

Gorge, 4, 35

Vancouver’s, 5

Panama-Pacific International Exposition, 24

Panetta, Leon (Congressman), 213

Parker, William E., 32

Patchell, Charles A., Rev., 44

Patterson, Gordon (superintendent), 202–203,

223, 230–231, 234

Payen, L.A., 221

Peaks View, 23, 241, 243

Peavy, George W., 17, 36

Peck-Judah (tour company), 60

Petersen, Otto, 40

Petersen, Viggo, 31, 33–34, 39–41, 45, 47, 49,

54, 57–58, 60, 65, 67–71, 78, 85–86, 90,

95, 100, 125, 149, 243

Pinchot, Gifford, 14–16, 18

Pinckley, Frank “Boss”, 80

Pinnacles

Campground, 195, 238, 243

Forest Reserve, 14–16, 18–20, 33, 51, 99

Land and Cattle Company, 232–237, 248

National Park Association (PNPA), 61–70,

72, 94, 171, 178

Natural History Association, 170–171

Partnership (PIPA), 261

Ranch, 150–151, 234–235, 248–249,

252–253, 258–259, 261

Platt National Park (Chickasaw National

Recreation Area), 66, 69

Prewett

Ernie, 99–100, 212

Fred, 89–90, 93, 99, 122, 125, 145, 174

J.T., 22, 175

Public Works Administration (PWA), 116,

126–130, 145, 147, 160

Pugh, Mary Belle, 29

Ramstad, Robert (chief ranger), 165–166,

180–181, 187

Rancho San Lorenzo (Topo Ranch), 8

Randels, Charles E. (NPS associate engineer), 89

Rangeland Improvement Association, 161, 206,

236

Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), 260

Relief and Reconstruction Act (1932), 105, 116,

126

Reorganization (NPS), 115

Reschoft, John (NPS chief of planning), 183

Resource Management Plan, 189, 197–205, 207,

214–216, 235

Resource Study Proposal, 218, 220

Richardson, Friend W. (California Governor),

67, 72

Rim Trail, 85–86, 132

Rivers, Olive, 30, 37–38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 58,

65

Roads and Trails Act (1924), 86

Robber’s Roost, 219

Roberts, C.O. (NPS assistant engineer), 105

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (President), 105,

112, 115–120, 126–127, 144, 146, 180,

223, 241

Roosevelt, Theodore (President), 13, 17

Root Homestead, 25, 31–32, 34, 46, 50, 53, 65,

97–98, 151–152, 154, 172, 174–176

Root, George W., 9, 25–28, 31, 34, 46, 53–54

Rootville, 3, 9, 27–28, 46, 64, 163, 186

Ryker, Harrison, 60, 65, 69

Salinas

River, 3–4, 19

(town), 29, 200–201

Valley, 2, 3–4, 8, 19, 29, 38, 41, 151,

217–218, 244, 254, 259

San Andreas Fault, 3–4, 192–195

San Benito

County, 3, 7, 15, 21–22, 31–32, 38, 40, 53–

56, 58, 63–66, 68, 71, 95, 98, 102, 104,

110, 113, 117, 126, 136, 140, 147–148,

151, 153, 172, 174–175, 178, 180, 188,

193, 201–202, 209, 214, 230, 259

County Chamber of Commerce, 38, 58, 140

County Board of Supervisors, 22, 94–95,

104–105, 113, 152, 182, 186

County Farm Advisor, 206–207

County Farm Bureau, 55–56, 66

River, 3–4, 8, 10, 23, 136, 149, 212, 219

(town), 23, 136

San Francisco Examiner (newspaper), 59

San Francisco Field Headquarters (NPS), 79, 83,

89, 90–91

San Jose State University, 197, 223

292
Index

San Juan Valley, 2, 7

Sandy Creek, 4, 9, 22–23, 25, 39, 54, 68, 151,

219, 222, 232–235, 243, 252

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group

(SCPBRG), 255

Sasaki, Kathy, 226

Schaffer, Jeffrey, 195

Schmidt, Jef, 206–207

Scout Peak, 85, 89, 92, 124, 137, 210

Seismological Field Survey, 193

Sequoia National Park (Sequoia-Kings Canyon

National Park), 7, 14, 39, 103, 116, 121,

207

Shell, Susan, 219–220

Shirttail Gulch, 20–21, 50, 64, 186

Shoup, Paul, 216–217

Shuttle (bus), 236, 239–241

Sierra Club, 13, 21, 26, 31, 33, 201, 213, 231,

248

Skeggs, J.H. (NPS division engineer), 63

Sleznick, James (superintendent), 226, 239, 242,

248

Smith, Arthur “Art”, 157, 170

Smith, Mildred, 170

Smith, P.H., 50

Smithsonian Institute, 110–111, 220

Snyder, Jim, 195

Soledad

Chamber of Commerce, 55, 58, 63, 67, 178,

181–183, 187, 201, 236–237

Improvement Association, 20–21

Road, 21–22, 35, 41, 44, 46, 60, 63–64,

66–67, 139, 153–154, 168, 185–186, 239

(town), 9, 20–22, 27, 35, 38–39, 44, 47, 50,

55, 61, 63, 66, 104, 111, 170, 178–183,

233–234, 236

Soledad Bee (newspaper), 38

Solorsano, Ascencion, 111, 220

South County, 7, 10–11, 24, 66

South Wilderness Trail, 244

Southern California Automobile Association, 76

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 76

Southwest Parks and Monuments Association,

171, 174

Spanish Trail, 22, 174

Sparling, Frank, 70

Split Rock Spring, 79, 141, 159, 179–180

Sputnik (satellite), 166

Stanford Research Institute (SRI), 193

Stanford University, 1, 11–14, 19, 33, 36

Stebbins, Robert, 190, 196–197

Steinbeck, John (author), 3

Stevens, Delyle (superintendent), 181, 184, 187,

193, 200–203, 218, 221, 230

Stock-Raising Homestead Act, 41, 52

Stonewall Canyon, 21, 35, 44, 64, 179, 186

Stonewall Fire, 246–247, 252

Sunset Magazine, 59, 216

Sykes, John (artist), 217

Temporary Emergency Relief Administration,

118

Topo Ranch, 244

Topo Valley, 3, 99–100

Townsend, R.L., 38–39

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii), 248, 256–257

Toy, Harvey, 58, 61, 65, 67–68, 72, 153

Tres Pinos (town), 24, 41, 219

Tyler, Raymond (forest supervisor), 18

Udall, Stewart (Secretary of the Interior),

197–199

United States

Army, 14, 42, 115, 118, 122–123, 142, 148,

155–156

Bureau of Forestry, 14–15

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 203–

204, 213–214, 245, 248–249, 252,

259

Department of Agriculture, 20

Department of Labor, 118

Department of the Interior, 19–20, 36, 198,

203

Department of War, 115

Fish and Wildlife Service, 255

Forest Service, 14–19, 36, 50–51, 53, 115,

118, 132, 161, 201, 206, 208–209

Geological Survey, 184, 193

University of California

Berkeley, 190, 207–208

Santa Cruz, 194, 221

Vancouver, George, 13, 216–217

Vasquez Cave, 22

Vasquez, Tiburcio, 169, 216–220

Ventana Wilderness, 201

Ventana Wildlife Society, 255

Vint, Thomas, 82–84, 86, 91, 101, 251

Vipond, B.L., 37–38, 43–44

Waldemar, Ed, 182, 184

293
Index

Wallis, O.L. (NPS regional chief scientist),

207–208

Warren, Dwight (naturalist), 169, 191

Wauer, Roland “Ro” (naturalist), 168–169, 191,

222

Webb, Lou & Bessie, 157

Wells, G.T., 177–178, 232, 235

Westcott, Bey, 21

Western Museum Laboratory, 163

Western Office of Design and Construction

(WODC), 161

White, A.O. (GLO Inspector), 25

White, John, Col., 103, 112

Wilderness

Act (1964), and idea of, 197–204, 209,

215–216, 235, 244, 247, 254

Management Plan, 215, 254, 256

Society, 201, 231

Study Areas, 203, 213, 252

Willow Spring, 22, 28, 34, 41–42, 46, 53, 74,

100, 141–142, 159

Wirth, Conrad (NPS Director), 147, 161–162,

164, 168, 190, 229

Wollenberg, Albert, 232

Work, Thomas A., 70

World War I, 33, 119

World War II, 42, 113, 120, 146–149, 155, 164,

226, 243

Yard, Robert Sterling, 96

Yosemite National Park, 2, 7, 11, 14, 17, 35–36,

38, 68, 76–77, 84, 105, 107, 116, 159,

195, 207, 225–226, 232

Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC), and

YACC facility, 120, 240–241, 245–246,

251, 260

Zink, Robert (naturalist), 170, 200

294

National Park Service

Pinnacles National Monument

5000 Hwy 146

Paicines, CA 95043

U.S. Department of the Interior

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

Located in the Gabilan Mountains of California's central coast ranges, the 

Pinnacles are a dramatic and beautiful formation of weathered rhyolitic breccia 

from an extinct cluster of ancient volcanoes. Pinnacles National Monument, 

originally only 2,080 acres, was established in 1908 to preserve this scenic 

wonder that was then becoming popular with day-hikers and picnickers. Over the 

subsequent century, the monument has grown both in size and significance. It 

now comprises more than 26,000 acres, with nearly 13,000 acres of designated 

wilderness, and protects a diverse range of natural communities that include 

chaparral, blue oak woodland, native grasslands, seasonal and perennial wetlands, 

and riparian forest along Chalone Creek and its several tributaries. These provide 

habitat for a rich abundance of wildlife, including more than 400 different species 

of bees, one of the highest concentrations in the world. The endangered California 

condor, driven nearly to extinction in the last century, has been reintroduced here 

and can be seen soaring above the monument's rocky spires. Pinnacles also 

preserves the history of early homesteaders, dry-land farmers, and President 

Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps, which established a camp within 

the monument and constructed many of the buildings and trails that visitors can 

see today. The monument lies within the ancestral homeland of the native Mutsun 

and Chalon peoples, many of whose descendents still reside in the area and value 

the Pinnacles for their spiritual and historical significance. This administrative 

history documents how the monument has grown to encompass such a diverse 

range of resources and how the National Park Service has managed them.

Timothy J. Babalis, Ph.D., is a historian with the National Park Service's Pacific 

West Regional Office. He is duty-stationed at Fort Vancouver National Historic 

Site in Vancouver, Washington.